Shoplifters is an invalid analogy. If I take a candy bar from a 7-11 without paying, that candy bar cannot be sold by the proprietor. If I copy a digital image, the image still remains in the proprietor's possession. Oh, and BTW, that event != loss of revenue since I likely would not have bought it to begin with.
And in response to taking copies of public domain works is still stealing? Then I guess just about every human being in America is a thief for stealing "Jingle Bells" because just about every one of us have sung, copied, and shared that public domain work.
"This is occurring at a time when industries that rely on IP, such as pharmaceuticals, IT, and entertainment, employ 18 million Americans, and are expected to exceed the national average when it comes to future job growth. At the same time, workers in IP-based industries are projected to earn approximately $7,000 more than their counterparts in non-IP lines of work."
Assuming the various jobs are actually even comparable, doesn't the above quote basically say that jobs in IP-based industries impose a $7,000/person cost on those industries?
Saying that would only be useful if you could show (and we know you can't) that the corresponding revenue offset that cost.
In business, if you plan a new initiative, you have metrics and you check to see if you accomplish them, and you monitor negative effects of what you do as well. So why don't politicians ever do this?
In *business* school we *learn* to do this, but is it always or even usually done? I think not--and for many of the same reasons as politicians. Because the "change agent" responsible for the initiative gets paid or rewarded (by the leadership or public) for making the initiative happen, not based on the impact years later. In fact, they often have an incentive to hide the negative effects if general perception is that they made a positive impact. Think "security theater" as a corollary.
Well, I'm not going to take the bait of your first request.
However, your second request is built upon a faulty assumption--that only those sources/information deemed worthy of attention by major news outlets is a legitimate story. You are presuming that major media outlets don't filter what they report on, or that even if they do, they do so with the purest of intentions.
The only way the truth will be free, is if it is free to be unleashed by any single human being, not only by those with corporate and revenue-based interests.
My point is that safety should never be based on one line of defense, and the best systems have multiple layers because while each one is never 100% effective, total failure requires the failure of every layer and its likelihood goes down.
I had a similar experience in Germany where we tried a detour off of the Autobahn and the GPS took us to less and less civilized roads and then finally tried to convince us to drive through a field and use a tractor tunnel to get to the other side of the Autobahn.
We were doing something similar to you--actively questioning the GPS directions, but willing to let it take us a little further in the hopes that it would work itself out. Especially since we otherwise knew nothing about the local roads.
However, I think (I hope) the difference is that most folks would keep a very clear understanding of the possible negative consequences of continuing and weighing that against the use of the GPS. For example, once the trade-off (GPS or our control) involved possible damage to us or the vehicle we bailed. There was a small cost to our time, but no other consequence.
I would hope that if I was driving mountain roads, I'd be very skeptical of odd directions.
See the problem? If you work in the classified arena, authorization to access information is explicit, not tacit (assumed), especially if you encounter the information unexpectedly.
However, I agree that the whole story is not here and he may have had reasonable cause to believe he legitimately had authorization to the material. In which case, he ought to make that case.
Right, that's exactly what I said... oh wait... except for the part about it not being black or white. And noise being helpful, and the part about having no single failure point. and never saying the word "outlaw".
Other than that, you summarized my point beautifully.
I'm not advocating outlawing anything. I'm just saying that noise would be a fantastic additional safety measure.
I guess you didn't really read my post where I said that teaching them this is important. We and the other parents *never* leave the children unsupervised. But anyone that has kids knows that even constant supervision is not 100% effective. It is ignorant and disingenuous to say otherwise.
If you find a key to someone's house in the public street, and then use the key to enter their home, does that mean you're not trespassing?
FAIL.
As others have said, the issue here is "authorization" and unless he had reason to believe he had authorization, he's boned.
Those in the classified realm also know of a similar standard - "need to know". Just because you have a particular clearance level does not mean you get to have access to everything, and if you pursue access or exposure to things not relevant to your work, you risk being accused of a breach.
Well, as a parent of small children on a street that has lots of children and moderate traffic, I can see a benefit in this. All of the parents on the street are on their children about looking both ways, but young children just don't have the discipline yet to do it consistently (it only takes forgetting once).
In addition, the teenagers on the street don't yet have the discipline to make others' safety their highest priority.
So while teaching and monitoring these groups is the most important approach to safety, having an extra cue (noise) is helpful.
There is a driver of a Prius that lives at one end of the street that I can say has snuck up on me at least once.
The best safety systems rely on no single failure point and instead include many cues that help the people involved avoid disaster.
As I stated in my response, they base their success factors on reducing *violations*, not injury. I for one would rather have a higher degree of violations if it means less people die or get injured.
Huh? I don't think any of us disagree whether or not running red lights should be punished--what we disagree about is whether or not the use red light cameras, along with their UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, further in the desired outcomes.
And, the issue can't stop with a desire to punish. Punishments exist to create incentives for people to engage in safe behavior. Why? To reduce crashes and injury. If a method of enforcement increases or does not reduce injury, why would we not look for another solution?
Places of business have very strict policies that their typical (not security staff) employees do not ever pursue or attempt to detain criminals that have stolen their merchandise. These businesses still believe shoplifting and theft should be punished and realize that this policy may make that harder. The reason they do it is that it is likely to result in injury to the employee and liability for the business.
Yosi, are you aware that red light cameras have been shown to *increase* deaths and injuries at intersections? And that lengthening the yellow light timing *decreases* them?
If that is the case, and is widely known, it would be hard to defend the reasoning for using them, wouldn't it? This can be seen in the positive conclusions made from research--which ONLY seem to focus on economic benefit and reduction in violations (which does not necessarily correlate with reductions in injury and death).
Interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure you could argue with basic language, the oral tradition, tribal dances, etc. that reporting predated technology.
The whole point of language is to "tell other people things" isn't it.
I would think it would be more accurate to say that technology revolutionized distribution of reporting, which encouraged modern journalism.
I agree with you, and to take it further, what about a massive library of books that you could *search*, annotate, and modify. Maybe others are better at remembering, but I can think of many instances where I want to remember where a concept/phrase came from--either which book it was or where in a specific book. I *hate* flipping through pages. Google helps, but sporadically.
And how is that different than today with traditional media? Multiple media outlets have biases, even if they are more subtle, and each reporter has a different approach to every story.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Guess What - "The Price of Free' (as Sneeje)
Shoplifters is an invalid analogy. If I take a candy bar from a 7-11 without paying, that candy bar cannot be sold by the proprietor. If I copy a digital image, the image still remains in the proprietor's possession. Oh, and BTW, that event != loss of revenue since I likely would not have bought it to begin with.
And in response to taking copies of public domain works is still stealing? Then I guess just about every human being in America is a thief for stealing "Jingle Bells" because just about every one of us have sung, copied, and shared that public domain work.
Re: (as Sneeje)
Yeah, and no one would make an expensive, sweeping Sci-fi epic like Avatar either... oh, wait...
Doesn't the quote show cost, not benefit? (as Sneeje)
"This is occurring at a time when industries that rely on IP, such as pharmaceuticals, IT, and entertainment, employ 18 million Americans, and are expected to exceed the national average when it comes to future job growth. At the same time, workers in IP-based industries are projected to earn approximately $7,000 more than their counterparts in non-IP lines of work."
Assuming the various jobs are actually even comparable, doesn't the above quote basically say that jobs in IP-based industries impose a $7,000/person cost on those industries?
Saying that would only be useful if you could show (and we know you can't) that the corresponding revenue offset that cost.
(as Sneeje)
In business, if you plan a new initiative, you have metrics and you check to see if you accomplish them, and you monitor negative effects of what you do as well. So why don't politicians ever do this?
In *business* school we *learn* to do this, but is it always or even usually done? I think not--and for many of the same reasons as politicians. Because the "change agent" responsible for the initiative gets paid or rewarded (by the leadership or public) for making the initiative happen, not based on the impact years later. In fact, they often have an incentive to hide the negative effects if general perception is that they made a positive impact. Think "security theater" as a corollary.
Re: Makes sense. (as Sneeje)
Well, I'm not going to take the bait of your first request.
However, your second request is built upon a faulty assumption--that only those sources/information deemed worthy of attention by major news outlets is a legitimate story. You are presuming that major media outlets don't filter what they report on, or that even if they do, they do so with the purest of intentions.
The only way the truth will be free, is if it is free to be unleashed by any single human being, not only by those with corporate and revenue-based interests.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, it doesn't have to be black or white... (as Sneeje)
My point is that safety should never be based on one line of defense, and the best systems have multiple layers because while each one is never 100% effective, total failure requires the failure of every layer and its likelihood goes down.
I.e., silence + pedestrian vigilance + driver vigilance
Re: Re: Trespassing? (as Sneeje)
That's a good point, however, I think we need to adjust it even further...
Someone who may *or may not* have owned the house, gave you the key, showed how the lock worked, and invited a bunch of people over.
We do not know that the person that sent the email had the authority to authorize others to access the information.
Re: (as Sneeje)
I had a similar experience in Germany where we tried a detour off of the Autobahn and the GPS took us to less and less civilized roads and then finally tried to convince us to drive through a field and use a tractor tunnel to get to the other side of the Autobahn.
We were doing something similar to you--actively questioning the GPS directions, but willing to let it take us a little further in the hopes that it would work itself out. Especially since we otherwise knew nothing about the local roads.
However, I think (I hope) the difference is that most folks would keep a very clear understanding of the possible negative consequences of continuing and weighing that against the use of the GPS. For example, once the trade-off (GPS or our control) involved possible damage to us or the vehicle we bailed. There was a small cost to our time, but no other consequence.
I would hope that if I was driving mountain roads, I'd be very skeptical of odd directions.
Re: The Scenario? (as Sneeje)
"[...] so I *assumed* they were for me to use."
See the problem? If you work in the classified arena, authorization to access information is explicit, not tacit (assumed), especially if you encounter the information unexpectedly.
However, I agree that the whole story is not here and he may have had reasonable cause to believe he legitimately had authorization to the material. In which case, he ought to make that case.
Re: Re: Well, it doesn't have to be black or white... (as Sneeje)
Right, that's exactly what I said... oh wait... except for the part about it not being black or white. And noise being helpful, and the part about having no single failure point. and never saying the word "outlaw".
Other than that, you summarized my point beautifully.
Re: Re: Well, it doesn't have to be black or white... (as Sneeje)
I'm not advocating outlawing anything. I'm just saying that noise would be a fantastic additional safety measure.
I guess you didn't really read my post where I said that teaching them this is important. We and the other parents *never* leave the children unsupervised. But anyone that has kids knows that even constant supervision is not 100% effective. It is ignorant and disingenuous to say otherwise.
Trespassing? (as Sneeje)
If you find a key to someone's house in the public street, and then use the key to enter their home, does that mean you're not trespassing?
FAIL.
As others have said, the issue here is "authorization" and unless he had reason to believe he had authorization, he's boned.
Those in the classified realm also know of a similar standard - "need to know". Just because you have a particular clearance level does not mean you get to have access to everything, and if you pursue access or exposure to things not relevant to your work, you risk being accused of a breach.
Well, it doesn't have to be black or white... (as Sneeje)
Well, as a parent of small children on a street that has lots of children and moderate traffic, I can see a benefit in this. All of the parents on the street are on their children about looking both ways, but young children just don't have the discipline yet to do it consistently (it only takes forgetting once).
In addition, the teenagers on the street don't yet have the discipline to make others' safety their highest priority.
So while teaching and monitoring these groups is the most important approach to safety, having an extra cue (noise) is helpful.
There is a driver of a Prius that lives at one end of the street that I can say has snuck up on me at least once.
The best safety systems rely on no single failure point and instead include many cues that help the people involved avoid disaster.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best (as Sneeje)
As I stated in my response, they base their success factors on reducing *violations*, not injury. I for one would rather have a higher degree of violations if it means less people die or get injured.
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best (as Sneeje)
Huh? I don't think any of us disagree whether or not running red lights should be punished--what we disagree about is whether or not the use red light cameras, along with their UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, further in the desired outcomes.
And, the issue can't stop with a desire to punish. Punishments exist to create incentives for people to engage in safe behavior. Why? To reduce crashes and injury. If a method of enforcement increases or does not reduce injury, why would we not look for another solution?
Places of business have very strict policies that their typical (not security staff) employees do not ever pursue or attempt to detain criminals that have stolen their merchandise. These businesses still believe shoplifting and theft should be punished and realize that this policy may make that harder. The reason they do it is that it is likely to result in injury to the employee and liability for the business.
Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best (as Sneeje)
Yosi, are you aware that red light cameras have been shown to *increase* deaths and injuries at intersections? And that lengthening the yellow light timing *decreases* them?
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
If that is the case, and is widely known, it would be hard to defend the reasoning for using them, wouldn't it? This can be seen in the positive conclusions made from research--which ONLY seem to focus on economic benefit and reduction in violations (which does not necessarily correlate with reductions in injury and death).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-14-redlightcameras_x.htm
http://www.tfhrc.go v/safety/pubs/05049/
Re: Since When Did Journalism Exist Without Technology? (as Sneeje)
Interesting thought, but I'm pretty sure you could argue with basic language, the oral tradition, tribal dances, etc. that reporting predated technology.
The whole point of language is to "tell other people things" isn't it.
I would think it would be more accurate to say that technology revolutionized distribution of reporting, which encouraged modern journalism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Won't affect most hardcovers (as Sneeje)
I agree with you, and to take it further, what about a massive library of books that you could *search*, annotate, and modify. Maybe others are better at remembering, but I can think of many instances where I want to remember where a concept/phrase came from--either which book it was or where in a specific book. I *hate* flipping through pages. Google helps, but sporadically.
Re: Re: (as Sneeje)
+1!
Re: Re: Re: (as Sneeje)
And how is that different than today with traditional media? Multiple media outlets have biases, even if they are more subtle, and each reporter has a different approach to every story.