How is that not essentially calorie counting? If a diet says at 8:00am eat 10g Fat, 30g protein 30g carbs that's still a way of saying eat 330 calories
They didn't fail, they were sued out of business. They had a good, innovative product that people wanted, and they got killed by a lawsuit. This is the tradeoff we're making when we grant more exclusive privileges over works: we kill innovations like these, and we get...probably not any more creative works than we would have gotten otherwise.
They had a product that involved giving away other people's stuff. Yes, copyright terms are too long. But I'm pretty sure that a vanishingly small amount of that stuff they were giving away would be out of copyright even with a copyright term of 20 years.
Aereo's business model was almost exactly identical to how the cable industry started - capture an over-the-air signal and deliver it to customers over a landline channel.
If Aereo was in the wrong than the cable industry probably should never have existed.
Yes, in 1976 Congress passed new legislation that forced them to pay up. By that time the cable industry was well-established and could afford it (and they had enough of an audience that the broadcasters had a strong incentive to make rights deals). If the same rules had been in place and enforced in the 50s and 60s, I doubt there ever would have been a cable industry.
The important thing to note is that the cable companies won the lawsuits (with the arguments that are currently being made here, the courts agree with you!) which spurred Congress to amend the Copyright Act so that transmission was a copyright violation and cable companies needed to license.
Well I really take issue with the idea that IP is "other people's stuff". I might say they were giving away copies of data that the government had granted others a monopoly on. I am being intentionally pedantic because copyright is much more harmful than people give it credit for. The internet archive is desperately trying to give people free books and others are trying to stop them.
Nothing is stopping the IA from buying books and giving them to people, or paying authors to write books and then giving them to people. What they are suing is to prevent IA from scanning books and giving those copies to an unlimited number of people, which is, no matter what your moral feelings about the matter, quite different!
Yes. All of the writing on my website is CC0 licensed (public domain). The robot I have been designing for the last 2.5 years is CC0 licensed. I design PCBs for fun and license them CC0. I have been licensing my youtube videos as CC0, and I just started a new youtube channel for my own CC0 licensed 4k videos of nature. Most of the content on my github is already licensed with some kind of permissive open license either CC0 or MIT/BSD licensed, though some of my older work is licensed GPL.
Intellectual property restrictions raise costs and keep people poor. 3D printers were $50,000+ until the patents expired, and now you can get a decent printer for $300. And books of course could be distributed for free. Every person on earth could be born in to great wealth if we simply allowed it.
Of course I do not advocate that we take income from hard working artists. Instead I advocate for a world where we make living so cheap that artists need little in the way of income for survival. Reducing intellectual property restrictions is one important factor in lowering the cost of living for all, and would make it easier for billions to benefit from the technologies people like me in the USA enjoy.
Supporting copyright means supporting the idea that we do not build a comprehensive library of all books accessible to all people. In contrast to the idea that every child born on earth should have access to a complete library of the written word, intellectual property advocates push for the impoverishment of the billions on earth who cannot pay tithing to book publishers and movie studios. It's quite the bold position to take.
I can’t see this working on a large scale. With no IP rights then how can I protect my work? We could outlaw all businesses so nobody can take my work and turn a profit from it but then where’s the incentive to solve complex problems? If I have to give away my solution then there’s really no reason for me to try unless I’m being forced in some way. Why would a dr want to work on a solution for cancer instead of just treating people if the value gain is the same?
Prusa 3D printers are open source. Their main product over the last several years has been the MK2 and MK3 line of printers. Millions of clones have been sold by well-equipped Chinese companies. The clones sell for 1/3 the price, but make some cost cutting measures to achieve low cost. The result is that there is plenty of room in the market for the first party company and the clones.
Your suggestion that we outlaw business is clearly meant to be inflammatory, but it's unnecessary. Businesses like Prusa seem to be just fine without using IP restrictions.
> Why would a dr want to work on a solution for cancer instead of just treating people if the value gain is the same?
I would put it to you that you've misunderstood why people do things that they do. I am making a 3D printable off road robot and associated computer vision stack completely open source because I want to. It feels good to make something I think others will benefit from. I am able to cover my material needs with part time work, and I put a huge amount of effort in to my computer vision research so I can help contribute to solving tough robotics problems. The endeavor has cost me thousands of dollars in supplies and truly hundreds of hours of my own time. But it's worth doing.
You mentioned a desire to "protect your work". Well your work is not under attack when someone observes what you've done and reproduces it. Your work is still there, it's fine. But to advocate for IP restrictions is to say that you think I should collaborate with you to stop anyone else from copying your work. And I think that's a bad idea. Closed source technology is a big unchanging black box that stops up the works. We can make the cost of living dramatically cheaper for all people on Earth, but not with thousands of little black boxes everywhere. Imagine a huge open source software project that relies on a bunch of closed source modules. Developing improvements would be a pain. Why should we tolerate the same for the very means of reproduction of our society?
I actually didn’t mean the outlaw business thing as inflammatory. I challenge you to find a way to make this work when some can still make profit.
I’m aware what you do on your Github, I looked it up. Interestingly I have many more public/oss repos than you.
You have failed to address the point and gave one example of a company based around 3d printers. I challenge you to think about this across all industries and how a company making something of great value can protect this thing so another company cannot just take it and get all the research for free.
Further I put it to you that YOU don’t understand why people do what they do. Most of us enjoy an intelectual challenge but that is not all we enjoy.
Also regarding open source repos: as a robotics engineer not all of my work is software. A major contribution I have made are the complete mechanical designs (including dual stage planetary gearboxes) for my off road rover robot:
https://reboot.love/t/rover-and-skittles-cad-design-files-he...
My actual software contributions are smaller, though I did design an arduino compatible frequency hopping wireless networking library and associated open licensed hardware designs, some of which is under my failed company's github account.
My computer vision stack is under development and I don't have much on github at the moment. But the point was not that I am so great for making a bunch of open source contributions. The question (which someone else asked) was whether I would open source my own code. The answer is yes.
I am also the lead engineer on a farming robot, which has lots of software I wrote myself. I am pushing hard for us to become a non profit and release all of our IP with an unrestricted license. So yes to the other commenter's question, I am very willing to follow my words with actions.
You’ve misunderstood my point. Companies in my opinion should not stop others from reproducing their work. This should not be something people can do any more than you can stop your neighbor from leaving their house.
I gave you a perfectly fine example of a company that works even in the current climate without needing such restrictions on competition. I believe it would work the same with washing machines and automobiles and farming equipment. Can you tell me why it would work for 3D printers and not washing machines?
Of course huge adjustments would need to be made. But we would find a balance.
You mentioned curing cancer. Why did the inventor of human made insulin sell the rights for $1? Because he wanted all to have access. It is only intellectual property that has made the price so high many are dying in America because of it. Is that the world you would prefer?
Insulin is also a natural chemical made by our bodies. The cure for cancer is not. How much people power has gone into looking for its cure? How is this funded? Either by taxes or revenue. If you decrease that then clearly you cannot perform the research. And the reason why all these companies are chasing that cure is the massive payout at the end.
I have published a small book which I licensed CC0 and put a free copy online. I have also been designing a robot for the last two and a half years and I have licensed the entire thing as CC0 so anyone can benefit from it. I also regularly publish youtube videos which I license CC0, and in fact all of the writing on my personal website is also licensed CC0. Even at my workplace I am leading the push to become a non-profit so we can raise money via donations and make our product open source (with a CC0 license).
So no, I would not be annoyed. Intellectual property restrictions increase the cost of everything and stand in the way of providing a better world for all.
They were renting out equipment, and the equipment captured free OTA signals for the renter to view later. If they were offering a datacenter where people put their own DVR boxes, it would be unquestionably legal and ethical. It's stupid that there is a distinction.
By making that platform more accessible to millions of potential users. Their main source of revenue are Ad's so anything to increase a user count would seem like a good direction to go in.
But when an advertiser looks at how many people they can reach that they're actually interested in, it doesn't matter if they have 10 million users somewhere else.
It's specific to Angular running in the browser opposed to Java running on a server. You'll certainly run into different performance bottlenecks especially in long running client side applications. What works on the JVM will be very different than what works on the browser especially across multiple vendor's JS runtimes and versions.
Not a problem that most people will have. If for some reason you do then hopefully you'll be able to monetize that popularity and hire someone who's actually really good it. ORM's are not optimal but they do let you make something quickly if you're not well versed in writing optimized queries, stored procedures, etc. For people like me dropping ORM's seem like a premature optimization.
The thing is the Android market is much bigger. Maybe history will repeat itself?
* Company makes a great innovative product on iOS
* Competitor gets to Android first, embracing the platform
* Company finally releases an half-assed Android port with iOS look and useless back buttons while Competitor is already established on Android
=> After the Android launch failure, Company publishes numbers comparing iOS and Android sales and claim "See, no profit to be done on Android!"
The number of android devices is much bigger but because most of those devices are at the extreme low end, especially in tablets, the market for Android software and accessories is much smaller.
Has this happened? It does make sense to me and seems like a good opportunity for a competitor but I can't think of a case where a very popular iOS app lost out to an android alternative.
Didn't they just raise a $15m series A funding round?
I don't think this is to do with limited resources, I suspect the real reason is around fragmentation and whether / where the market is for Android. Fragmentation is a real issue and most of the things being done to improve it don't feel like they'd help an app like Paper where I suspect that they're doing some fairly low level things to get it to behave the way it does.
That applies doubly for Pencil - do they really want to try and get their hardware to work with every shitty bluetooth stack on every cheap Android tablet? It the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was selling by the bucket you could see why that might be an appealing market, but that's very different to the Android tablet market. They're only supporting five out of the seven iPads that have been made...
There isn't a 'Best'. Getting a language & framework that will work for you is a personal thing. Just look at what's available (Rails/Play/Django/Node/etc) and implement a small but non trivial web app that has some similarities to what you're planning on building and see what you like the most. Ideally you will spend a bit of time researching on how to do something and you'll get an idea of what that language/framework's community is like.
Or just build it in PHP using Cake since if that's what you know the best you'll likely get it done faster. That way you can focus on the product instead of the stack, which in my opinion is more important.
Possibly, but like most technology there's is a set compromises you're willing to make. Rails and Django seem to be focused on getting something up and running ASAP and then dealing with whatever scaling issues you're going to have when you know exactly what they're going to be. Face it, a good amount of webapps out there won't need to be sharded. 37Signals just threw hardware at basecamp for a while (they still do?). Instagram made a few tweaks to django once they started growing rapidly, same with Disqus and i'm going to assume Pinterest did something similar as well. I would focus on the product rather than how to scale it in the early on. Once you hit the point of "How am I going to deliver this product to a group a users an order of magnitude high than I am right now" you'll hopefully have good test coverage and be able to make the right choice among sharding/read-slaves/better caching with the metrics you're able to collect.
How is that not essentially calorie counting? If a diet says at 8:00am eat 10g Fat, 30g protein 30g carbs that's still a way of saying eat 330 calories