Recently in Law Category
Daniel Wallace is mad. Mad as in crazy, and mad as in angry at open source projects offering their software at an unbeatable price. So what can one such person do? Sue the bastards. He lost, of course, giving 10 points to the human race and America's legislative system. The judge must have found this as ridiculous as I have, mocking Wallace and shutting down his arguments with candor.
This is probably the nerdiest thing I've read today. And that's saying a lot. What's worse? It makes sense...
I was pleasantly surprised to find a decent article on Net-Neutrality in todays Washington Post. The article looks at both sides of the issue, recognizing and calling out the doublespeak and rhetoric. Key points:
°The government is involved either way
°Consumers will end up paying no matter what
°Internet sites already pay for their traffic
°Both sides talk a lot of garbage
Sometimes it's good to be inconclusive in an article.
Rocketboom posted a great segment on Net-Neutrality yesterday. Honestly, I've never liked RB, but the aformentioned piece was evocative, informative, and much needed. The telcos' arguments against net-neutrality are emtpy and misleading, targeted at an uninformed public. They want to eat the sandwich from both ends—getting money from consumers and content providers. The internet is a great thing because it provides a means for any Tom, Dick, and Harry to publish what they want. When access to the delivery of content is regulated by controlling entities concerned only with profit margins... well, something huge is lost.
Check out Google's stand
To extend the previous post on AT&T's new policy on data ownership... I feel as though events and conventions such as these are increasingly archaic - rooted in the paper-based paradigm of yesterday. This [policies such as these] are what should be instantly noticed as 'not good at all' and rejected by an increasingly informed and empowered public. Parallels can be drawn in the [quickly changing] media publishing world—as giants controlling artists—content creators—output. Strict seperation is necessary between the pipelines and what flows through them. Obviously, the pipeline daemons [read: carriers] are a: scared of being sued, b: want more control and power [as gained from a certain ammount of ownership in what goes on in 'their system']. If anything, government access should not be something the carriers and gatekeepers should be able to give—but something inherent, transparent, and dumb.
AT&T's new privacy policy is pretty frightening, stating that AT&T owns their customers' data. This change is, of course directly influenced by the recent events involving the Government. I really hope customers read this issuance carefully and make an informed decision on whether to remain a customer. I know that there's no way in Hell I'll be switching over to AT&T.
Apparently online journalists are protected under the First Amendment. Who would have thought?
