Are you talking about the way things are, or the way they should be?
IP is, according to the law, the same as P. If you are saying that it shouldn't be that way, that's a different discussion.
Interesting, you're actually making my argument for me. The law treats IP differently than physical property, because it is different. That is why we have separate laws protecting physical property and intellectual property (and significantly different criminal and even civil penalties for violations of such law).
Imagine we're talking about a car.
Comparing theft of physical property to intellectual property is an old, tired argument that has never ever worked. Please stop making this comparison. Stealing a Ford off of a lot deprives an entity of a physical asset. Paying for intellectual property under false pretenses due to locality restrictions is completely different. Even copying that IP for no remuneration is different, because it is not depriving an entity of a physical asset. Piracy is not the same as theft and never has been.
Does this justify piracy? No.
Does it justify using the same old tired argument and false analogy? Also no.
How would that, keeping them in check, benefit Google?
That is a good question. How does a fair and open internet benefit Google? Let's not forget that residential ISP's have been forcing content providers (e.g. Netflix) to purchase exclusive internet connectivity to their backbones rather than upgrading their backhauls at intermediary providers...effectively double-dipping with their customers. They're trying to go after YouTube (a Google company) as well, and I assume that if Google Play takes off, they'll go after that too.
Also, due to Verizon and AT&T mobile's metering, Netflix is downgrading video bandwidth for these customers. If Google is able to make end roads into these markets, their competition may force other providers into line, making a better experience for Google customers as well as avoiding nasty double-dipping fees from providers.
At least, that's just my guess if the original hypothesis is correct. Who knows, maybe Google is trying to turn a buck on building regional ISP's. I just find that harder to believe than the idea that I proposed.
Even if you want to do fixed point wireless (which doesn't have a great history) I'm not sure where they could get the spectrum they need to launch a service that would compete with the likes of AT&T and Verizon.
An interesting perspective, but it might just be that competing with the likes of AT&T and Verizon is exactly what Google wants to do. It's been speculated that one of the intended purposes of Google Fiber is "...to keep vendors, distributors and regulators on their feet." Mobile providers sell fairly expensive metered bandwidth, and their many of their policies haven't always been customer-friendly. Introducing unmetered wireless gigabit internet might just be a way to keep the mobile providers in check. Besides, wireless infrastructure would likely be far less expensive than FTTP.
Why do you think it stigmatizes anything?
Because all labeling does is slap a label onto a product that says "GMO". It says nothing about the genes modified (for example, whether if a plant is Roundup Ready or vitamin A enriched). It does not educate consumers, as just being GE does not tell the whole story. GMO labeling for the claimed purpose of informing consumers is as disingenuous as requiring voter ID in order to stop non-existent voter fraud. I feel that it is being used as a tool for several other purposes, including furthering fears generated by junk science (that has been outright fraudulent, in some cases). This is not to say that I don't have problems with the business practices of a certain seed company, but I don't believe that generic GMO labeling laws are an appropriate way to handle what I believe are patent abuses.
Besides, there are already federal rules for organic food labeling, and this already means no GMO ingredients.
This dormant cyber pathogen must be some sort of neo-Asherah virus from the terrorists! They will control our minds! Apple must write a nam-shub so that the FBI can protect us!
Your tax dollars at work, folks. Anyone else want to send this DA some of Stephenson's early work to save him the trouble of having to reinvent the wheel?
Sort of...the FBI didn't do it for publicity
They went public when Apple asked them not to. So yes they did do it for publicity and "trial by media" to be more precise. If it was all about the court case they would have done it in court instead of by press release.
That does make sense. If the courts act reasonably and back down, the DoJ may have been successful in appealing to the public's sense of emotion/outrage and push Congress to pass the legislature that they want.
That turns it into a comedy - the FBI going public and then accusing Apple of doing it for publicity. Did they employ some clowns thrown out of the NSA after Snowden or something? It sounds like something the Star Trek Set guy would do.
Sort of...the FBI didn't do it for publicity. They did it to set precedent, and this case was chosen very carefully by the DoJ in order to achieve this (by tugging at heart strings and a sense of panic in the wake of terrorism). There are plenty of other investigations that they could have made similar demands under. If Apple cooperated with the FBI and it was done under seal, then it could not be used as precedent to use the courts to force Apple to do the same in future cases.
Er what? I thought the Rosa Parks moments was a good thing? Someone has their analogies confused...
I think that you're not looking at the analogy from a relative perspective, rather, it appears that you may be looking at that term from a point of absolute good and bad. The Rosa Parks moment, in historical context, was an inflection point for the civil rights movement. DoJ is trying to use this as an inflection point in their fight against encryption (hence the use of the term "Rosa Parks moment"). It's not necessarily a good thing for all of us, but a good thing for DoJ, as an appeal to emotion/outrage and an inflection point in the encryption/surveillance debate. I can't speak for the GPP, but I believe that this is where he's coming from. Are you with me now?
Luck, that's when preparation and opportunity meet. -- P.E. Trudeau