Contemplating Freedom

The world still hates us (we tend to piss people off), our economy is spiraling (dwindling? I like the adjective.), our government is conducting illegal electronic searches at the border (data is apparently explosive), discrimination is written into many state constitutions but rest assure (!) the Recording Industry can continue to screw artists and those who listen legally. Because the RIAA, and everything it represents, cannot grasp the ultimatum set forth by the digital world, the RIAA instead will try change the world and the bush (I refuse to capitalize his name) Administration to adhere to the RIAA's obsolete business model.

The Justice Department has increased its investigation and prosecutions of intellectual property violations when it just so happens that the JoD was under direct instruction from the White House to make Intellectual Property cases their first priority. Naturally this means there will be more prosecutions (go figure), so "tout"ing it to the public is quite obscene. Aren't we still at war?

Sadly, what the government is really doing is diminishing our fundamental right to fair use. It may not seem so in plain fact, but what this will do is cause certain rights to fade away from existence because other laws will treat you as a criminal. I disfavor my rights being diminished. You didn't take away the rights, you took away their ability to even be used as a right.

This came from fredmenace at News.com:
Copyright is NOT a property right. (The notion that "ideas" could even be owned has historically been considered odious, and rightly so, I believe.) Hence, no "theft" can occur when dealing with intellectual "property" (really a misnomer from the beginning). Anyone who tells you otherwise is either uninformed or trying to mislead you (the **AAs are notorious for the latter). In addition, even if you did "use without authorization", you are not depriving the "owner" of anything tangible - only some potential (and hypothetical) value from possibly unrealized sales.

He is absolutely right and I too believe that the notion that "ideas" can be owned is very ludicrous. All in all, you really are not depriving the owner of anything except some hypothetical value from an unlimited good that is falsely (and wrongly) distributed as a scarce good.

As copyrights laws become stronger and the patent system becomes worse, I only see a social decline in the middle class. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I think its time to start fighting.

Honestly I didn't read quite into the ruling but it seems Alcatel-Lucent lost a key part in against Microsoft's U.S trade complaint over patents for a system that integrates telephones and computers for voice calls, email and video conferencing. Originally Lucent had filed and won a patent infrigement against Microsoft before and then, Microsoft came back with retort later that a judge overturned. Now, Microsoft's current file against Alcatel-Lucent has succeeded, as a judge at the US International Trade Commission has determined that Alcatel-Lucent has infringed and even made a bolder move:

[Judge Paul] Luckern recommended an exclusion order "barring entry into the United States of infringing unified communication systems, products used with such systems and components," according to an excerpt posted on the ITC's Web site. The judge's reasoning is not yet public, and his determination will be reviewed by the six-member ITC in Washington, D.C.

It seems a bit stringent to completely wipe out a businesses trade of a questionable patent as it is. As we have been seeing lately, the patent system has become more and more of a battleground for big names and even bigger lawyers. And sadly, Microsoft is also using the popular loophole in patent law here explained by TechDirt's Mike Masnick.

Mainly, I am just worried about how out of hand Mr. Jefferson's patent system is becoming. Innovation may come to a stand still even if its moving faster than ever underground.

Maybe I read this wrong, but The Register has an article about Myspace winning the rights to MySpace.co.uk domain... that was registered 6 years before MySpace.com even existed. At the time of registration, it was offered as a subscription base and email service. It's domain owned by TWS (now News Corp) now only has 18 subscribers but has long since changed the face (even before Myspace.com still) of its site to show advertisements for social networking.

Plenty of notes were submitted by TWS about how the analytics of the site during the first appearance of MySpace.com did not have any relevant ads about their site until later when it became steadily popular in 2004. Rupert of Myspace.com claims that it was a retro abusive registration. Maybe I'm a little naive (and I say that a bit), but it seems to me that giving someone the ability to bully smaller businesses just because they are bigger and have popularity for a name does not mean they have rights to something they do not own especially for something that was owned 6 years prior.

By the end of the article, it states the following:
TWS had sought up to £220,000 in return for the domain when contacted by MySpace.

This only tells me they were reluctant in giving up the domain (they've had it for so long) and this is a minor insight: they could make millions off this sell. Obviously this was not an abusive registration. This only makes for a minor chilling effect but could present a problem in the future. If you grab a domain... possibly just for the name itself (whee! iamnaive.com) and email and place some advertisements on there for some relevant searches to go through and pick up some money to pay for the site hosting, watch out for those crafty new startups who may need it in the future when they're more popular than you.

Rulings like this sadden me. In the back of my mind; however, it seems like I'm reading this all wrong. Oh well, Rupert you win this time.

Yet another Masnick article written... this time about Lance Ulanoff and his opinion of the how DRM-Free music will not free music and how we are on the verge of Economic Collapse (insert 1970's pyscho music). Ulanoff and his dirty tongued opinions really piss me off. It's one thing to state your opinion on PC Mag about music but its completely different when you start slinging minor insults at others who think we're heading in the right direction. It's misguided people like him who are suppose to have a degree in some kind of journalism or the basic common sense to research behind things before you post. This coming from the Editor-in-Chief of PC Mag. Go back to Starbucks, you yuppie.

But, I digress. Naturally, he takes a stab at the Radiohead deal stating not everyone can do it that we're not all Hannah Montana which is true (though I wish I was, oh yes). Psst, you know what's another true thing? There's not just one business model for this digital future of ours. And why is he asking how many bands are touring these days? Over 6000 official concerts appear on TicketMaster in the U.S alone at any given time within a 45 day span. That is only one website and not including local junctions. Not to mention, 2007 was the best year ever (thanks Louis Hau!) in terms of concert revenue... it was up to a record $3.9 billion, up 8% over 2006, and it's been on increasing path for nine consecutive years. Oh wait, what happened 9 years ago? Interesting.

The worst part of Ulanoff's article is dramatic conclusion that I will pull from TechDirt's article (because Lance's grammar):

"giving away content free of charge... [flies] in the face of everything we know about a functioning economy. People will become dissatisfied. Artists will stop making content because they're not getting paid. When there is no content, people will stop buying gadgets to consume that content. In short order, one part of our digital economy will collapse, and it could be followed by countless others."

No. Just flat no. This is a wild accusation! Now, my narrative turns direct. First off, you started this article making the consumers feel like the bad guy (or girl). Then, you blame the industry for causing the economic downfall of the digital society...? I'm confused here but nonetheless, I'm fairly sure you get paid sir via some sort of business model based upon using infinite goods (articles) that are free. Obviously, this "free" model works digitally otherwise you wouldn't have a job and the world might have been better if you weren't edited good articles. What you are wanting to do is hold on to traditional (obsolete) business models that (so-call) protect its investors or contributors solely by a plastic coaster and pretty printing. The digital age has changed that and like your online magazine (subscription based in paper format, free with ads in digital) has had to make changes to its business model as well. Scarce goods like a magazine are chargeable. When it becomes digital, it will also become an infinite good and usually in our competitive market it will push that cost to zero.

People are being paid for music more now than ever. Promotions from social sites like MySpace or (even better) Pandora Radio allow people to discover new music (without fear of a bad purchase or the liability of sharing it) and actually fill a void where old business models left empty: the ability to tour as a new band and make money earlier. Not to mention, the cost of production for music has become very minimal at best because most modern computers can process and digitize music with cheaper hardware and save in the end. This digitization of music has revolutionized the way the world listens. FM Radio Station's may soon see their end as well because of the common placement of LCD navigators in cars. With the use of MP3 players and the 700 MHz spectrum, we may see Internet Radio usage grow even more with software in cars that allow you to tune into these streams. But that's just my 'bogus' prediction.

Lance, your view is askew and you need to do a bit more research. In the months to follow, music will become more and more apart of our lives even more so than it already is. Economic collapse? I beg to differ. I see prosperity and musicians actually getting their money's worth for their art. Oh, and I see happy consumers. Enjoy your face.

So over the weekend, events have occurred and more and more people are stepping closer to insanity. I for one invite this inevitability; this provides an escape for reality. I sift through life with a waffle iron and destroy a path in which I can walk. Oh and I make waffles. What doesn't make sense are people who think that value and price are the same thing. If my grandma gave me a prized vase she loved very dearly but was worth a dollar, I would consider it valuable but financially useless.

David Simon, the executive producer of HBO's The Wire, and ... a former newspaper reporter, had his opinion on the Washington Post, and oh how I love the Washington Post, saying:

Reading through an article from Techdirt by Tim Lee involved this readwriteweb.com article. My thoughts are simple: free can turn a profit, learn how to use it. For years, consumers have been lured into deals that offer free products with the purchase a new car, a bedroom set, and whatever other fancy allure that might attract customers. These products are offered at no cost to boost the sale of their major products.

Of course, as we've seen with the RIAA, some industries do not know how to apply this to the Internet world. What some businesses do not understand is that scarce goods like physical objects can still sell while giving infinite goods like music or information the possibility to promote or lure consumers.

In the article, Alex Iskold makes some remarks on how Google offers their word processing and spreadsheet web applications for free thus destroying the market for desktop applications like Microsoft Office. This is completely wrong and a rude accusation. All markets especially software are expanding and having to evolve. The assumption that Microsoft hasn't evolved is false as well. Microsoft adapted to Google's offering of free word processing and spreadsheets by offering Office Live which allows use of their Office suite online though it may be a bit limited but syncs automatically with your desktop content. Another safe mention is that MS Office is very robust in it's processing power even more so than the Google counterpart. Google Docs can be very limiting however very useful in its own way. To say that offering it for free hinders Microsoft Office useless is gravely wrong. Not to mention, Google Docs is not the only online document suite out there. ThinkFree and Zoho have been in the business for a while and are just now being noticed. Zoho does not have piles of cash as Iskold suggest Google does (his reasoning behind the free-ness of Google being evil), and these apps have even more robust document suites than Google as well as more options than even a normal version of Microsoft Office. Once again, to suggest Google is evil for offering free services is wrong. Don't forget that Microsoft has many more "piles of cash" than Google, so I don't know why that's not an obvious thought. Businesses will have to adapt. It's called competition, Iskold!

Another point Iskold makes is of Google publishing free books. Books, no less, from libraries willing to allow digital scanning. If we can eliminate the use of libraries, we will be eliminating the taxes required to maintain these facilities. Of course, we all know this probably will not happen, but understand that digital information is an infinite good therefore you will never have to worry about trying to find a physical copy or even think about whether its checked out or not. The cost of maintaining this database is minimal at best.

Google pushing forward while others lag behind is hardly Google's fault. They understand a good business model on which it uses scarce goods and infinite goods together in happiness.

One more note, "Getting people to click on ads is still a rocket science on the web." Google realized a method behind this... relavent advertisments. People click through because it is relavent to what they are reading. It's obviously NOT rocket science.

Dangerous territory? Monopolistic practices? You're thoughts are deluded sir and further more, you need to research a little more before you start bashing a business model that embraces something that you think is dangerous.

We cannot imagine in our day in age where one person can spark a revolution in innovation. You look at modern day marvels and see Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin and to the left of them are their accomplices and... lawyers. Not many seem to conquer alone.

The largest problem behind innovation is that our Patent System prevents it from happening to well. People use it for purposes that it was not meant for, in fact, quite oppesite. Questionable and broad details on ideas are patented all the time. These obviously broad descriptions keep others from being able to design something even as simple as Check Out. Copyright is also abused in ways that are unimaginable. TechDirt.com is strong supporter of fair use and the open sourced ideas of expanding on current ideas or innovating. They are definitely one of my favorite feeds.

Protections like DRM and DMCA are nullifying their intended purpose. An innocent person can become a criminal in RIAA's eye without even realizing it. That is only a minute example. Corporations all over the world tend to cling to obsolete business models that are not only destroying themselves but causing innovation to hold itself back. You may think that I am rambling or bemusing myself with pretty words from the Wikitionary, but I give these statements as my injecture to society. We need to fight against those who fall hopeless to new technology; those who cannot adapt. It is survival of the fittest in cyberspace and its only getting faster.

I may not be able to establish a genuine idea of my pure creativity, but I can definitely make other stuff better. Call me unoriginal, but...
I innovate. What do you do?