It seems like I've read previously somewhere a case where the record industry had claimed copyright on something they didn't actually own.

I'm starting to wonder if they don't train their watchdogs to send out DMCA notices for any music they see online thinking it's better to risk a simple apology later if they don't own it than it is to leave potentially copyright infringing music online.

I had a plan set up for several thousand text messages but was still getting charged for some of them. I think the ones I was getting charged for may have been international (which you have a to get a separate international plan to cover those apparently) but still. I'm pretty sure if I had an unlimited plan I'd still have the same issue.. its unlimited with certain limitations.

A friend mentioned to me the other day that he's read somewhere that AT&T is planning on forcing data plans on any account that has a SmartPhone/PDA. According to him, if you don't call them and put the data plan on there willingly, supposedly they're just going to add it on themselves.

A quick search on Google seems to back this information up although, according to these sources, it should have started in September:

AT&T to force data plans with all smartphones starting next month

AT&T to Require Data Plan for Smartphone Users

True, I'd say a lot of people that have smartphones probably use data, but I know people who have phones on their account that aren't even in use and are simply there to hold their phone number (they have it forwarded to another phone for instance) and don't use the data. They could probably try to switch the phones over to a simpler one for this functionality, but if they're stuck in the middle of a two year contract that can be problematic as well.

Which is exactly what AT&T and the other wireless providers want you to think. Hell, even the ISPs want you to think that for your cable/DSL.

Admittedly, I don't know the specifics completely nor do I know for sure if it extended to cellular providers, but sometime during the 90s the ISPs were provided money in some form or fashion to build up their infrastructure to support the growing userbase. They took the money but didn't use it the way they were supposed to. I'd be willing to bet most of these companies have the money now but they won't use it to do the upgrading needed.

Why should they? With heavily limited competition, they could give customers horrible service while increasing their rates and most would still use their service because there aren't any viable alternatives. Upgrading infrastructure and capacity does nothing to increase their profits as they've discovered they can simply oversell their existing capacity legally with the magic words "speeds up to". Profits go up with no extra cost to expand which makes their actual customers, the shareholders, happy.

Vista and up use the new control panel while XP still uses IE and the website.

At least not unless it's still being used on the back end somehow:

Windows Update

It seems to me that the people who are running for office now (or, I should say, the people who actually will win) are normally already independently rich. Moreover, campaign contributions are further pushing us into a two party system (although I might argue that we're already a one party system.. everyone has the same basic agenda but takes different routes to get there). When was the last time any political party other than the Democrats and Republicans had a snow ball's chance in Hell of winning? How many commercials do you see a night from one of those other parties versus the 2 or 3 every commercial break by our two leading parties?

Why do we really need all of those commercials in the first place? They don't add anything really to the campaign other than pushing voters around by using fear mongering, mudslinging, and misleading statements.

IMO the political parties all need to start on equal ground. Would it really be that bad to have a tax that went into a fund that got split up and given to all of the candidates at the beginning of the campaign? They'd each have a set amount to work with and they wouldn't be able to spend it frivolously.. once its gone its gone. Who cares if you give a little to an opposing party... they'd just be one of, hopefully, many and maybe we, as a people, could feel a bit better about who won knowing that they may have actually won on the issues and not on money. I think a system like this may actually give other parties a chance to flourish or at least make themselves a little more known to the general populace.

People may feel the same way you do about their money going towards other parties but has our current system really done that much better for us?

Again, the real reason I feel like campaign contributions are a problem is how they're negatively used. Why should a wealthy individual's or a corporation's point of view be more important than any other citizen's just because they can afford to dump a large sum of money into their favorite pocket-politician's war chest?

I thought about this more after I posted and that very point occurred to me since, as you stated, lobbying also serves as a way for citizens to influence government policy.

Honestly I don't have a good answer. Of course citizens should actively influence politics. However, I'd like to find out at least a ballpark figure on how many of the average citizens use this method of political change. From my point of view (which is admittedly probably limited) it seems like the entities that use it the most are corporations and special interest groups which always seem to be using it to push their rather self-serving agendas that aren't always for the public's good.

I suppose when I was talking about "legalized bribes" I was speaking more of things like campaign donations (which definitely need to be gotten rid of) and, in my mind, lobbying is connected because of the way they're both used by big business to inject their agendas into washington.

Just my two cents.

IMO, lobbying just needs to be completely gotten rid of as it has become simply a means to legally bribe publicly elected officials into corporate agendas into law.

Same for campaign donations.. every attempt, that I've seen, to put restrictions on either of these practices has been quickly circumvented.

Somehow, when I read that, it came out all different in my head... something more like:

"but has no plans to change it as the risk of angering the company's customers -- oh yeah, and you little people who buy their software might benefit from it too"

Remember when a company's customers were actually the people buying from them, and not their shareholders... or at least they pretended that was the case?

The truly ironic part is that people like him do far more damage to this country than any cultural phenomena they point their fingers at.

Just imagine if he got his way.. how many of our rights would be trampled and how many would feel oppressed due to someone else's morality being forced upon them?

There, fixed that for ya, at least from my point of view. I consider myself a law abiding citizen but I'm also realizing that many laws these days are not benefiting or protecting the citizens at all and are very unpopular. When you have such laws being passed that seem contrary to public desires, you start to wonder what is going on and who your government is really working for.

Furthermore, I've seen plenty of startups and even some actors and such that have embraced newer business models that don't necessarily depend on charging for content. I think the companies are terrified of this concept because this generally requires the content to actually be good to get the public to consume it. If the public isn't consuming it, you don't get advertisers and such. Most (not all) products and services out there have required the public to pay first. This was fine back in the day when good customer relations was key to keeping up sales. However, we've moved into an era where people are generally apathetic when they receive lackluster products and services and just shrug their shoulders.. the company doesn't care though because it still has their money. Even worse, we have situations where people are actually turning away from the product/services and the companies just find another way of getting the money, either through government intervention or litigation against their one time customers.

Just my two cents.

Just imagine, combined with the technology from the article, Ubuntu 9.10 could conceivably boot before your finger even makes it to the power button!

I don't believe the parent's post was really meant in that way. The parent was speaking more of inalienable rights that belong to humanity as a whole, rights that each of us would have with or without governments as they are completely separate and independent of government. You may argue that it is not on anyone to decide others have these rights, but I really believe living, breathing, eating, enjoying something, communicating with your fellow human beings, love, hope, etc are all rights every living person has. Individual governments can try to convince people otherwise and even say you can't do some of these things, but a government telling people they can't live, love, communicate, etc can't possibly be right can it?

I'm certainly not saying freedom is the only way. The USA isn't even completely free as we're not an anarchy. Heck, there are plenty of people in this country who are practically begging for a dictator to take away all of that very hard and nasty decision making they have to do on a daily basis, and one day one will find them. Different things work for different people but obviously it isn't working for some over there or else there wouldn't be protests and the government wouldn't feel the need to cut off their people from communication.

No, it's not our playground and imposing morality on others, ironically, can often interfere with other people's inalienable rights we were just discussing. I don't really believe morality has anything to do with why we're in the Middle East anyways. I suspect it's far more political and, unfortunately, the politicians and the corporations that sponsor them probably do feel like the Middle East is their playground.

Ultimately I do agree with your philosophy on letting them be. You can't really "give" someone freedom of any kind or any amount (I'm not talking about USA freedoms or anything... more of just the general concept) as they'll not appreciate it and, eventually, they'll just slide back into the system that was running them and owning them before. People have to WANT it and then they have to want it enough to fight for it through politics, protests, and maybe even the battlefield. Developing countries need to develop naturally and not dragged along. The USA has plenty of developing left to do itself and I wouldn't really want our current state of affairs spreading anywhere as I'm starting to feel that we, as a people, have very little say in anything anymore and that the corporations are quickly becoming the true citizens of this country.

I'm actually very curious.. as an IP lawyer, how do you view the current state of copyright law?

I've begun to read up on copyright, in general, in the last few years and it amazes me at how much we, as a civilization, stand to lose and what we've already lost. The more I read about it, the more I realize that the original idea of copyright was an amazing thing... provide protection for a work so that the creator can profit from it for a reasonable amount of time and then release the work into public domain so that the work is never lost and everyone can freely be enriched by it. Since the work moves into public domain, the creator is encouraged to create another work if he/she wishes to continue making money in this way.

Now, instead, we seem to have a system where the creator can create a single work and then he/she and their children can profit off of that work for several human lifespans. Or, potentially worse, the creator creates a work which is then immediately owned by a corporation that then profits and locks the work for several human lifespans, assuming they don't find more ways to extend it even past that time-frame. When does the work pass into public domain in this model?

I would love to find a way to get students (and I don't mean just k-12 students... college and university students as well) as interested and involved in this as many of them even were during this last presidential election. Ultimately, if we don't find a way to get things under control, it will be they who will have to do it or suffer even worse consequences than we are now (imagine having to pay for a song every time you listen to it or, indeed, think about the lyrics in your head... we hope such a thing is a long way off but, when it's possible, we all know they won't hesitate to do it).