Hubdog Preview: Techdirt

| register

adult filtering : on

new channels

suggestions

| most popular

| help

| fetch

From the same publisher

Techdirt

Not yet rated

Easily digestible tech news...

Hubdog allows you to consume this channel directly from your Windows Mobile

Techdirt

Easily digestible tech news...

Trying To Figure Out How DTV Conversion Program Could Run Out Of Coupons

There are plenty of reports going around about how the federal government's program to supply coupons for TV digital converter boxes has run out of money while plenty of folks who need them still haven't converted (meaning their TVs won't work next month). Because there's still some confusion about this, it bears repeating: this conversion does not matter in the slightest for anyone who uses cable or satellite TV. It only impacts those who just get over-the-air TV through an antenna. Yet apparently, somewhere around 7% of those people aren't yet prepared for the changeover -- though, assuming they care (i.e., they watch TV) they'll figure out what went wrong pretty soon.

What I'm still trying to figure out, though, is how the program ran out of money. The setup of the program now seems pretty silly. Basically, the feds offered coupons to people to use when buying the boxes, and the feds funded the difference. But why didn't the feds just buy the boxes itself and sell them off at a discount? Part of the problem now is that many of the coupons haven't been redeemed, and no one's sure if they will be redeemed or not -- leaving the amount of money available in question. It seems like there are about 30 different ways that uncertainty could have been averted, such as by just having the sellers report the sales to the Feds and get the "coupon fee" directly. Either way, it seems like yet another program where the FCC didn't do a very good job planning out how this transition would work.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

IBM's I'm-Sorry-Dave-I'm-Afraid-I-Can't-Do-That Patent

theodp writes "Astronaut Dave Bowman may have found the HAL-9000 more believable had the Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer been equipped with the technology described in IBM's new patent for Generating paralinguistic phenomena via markup in text-to-speech synthesis. In the patent, IBM describes how you can dupe others into believing they're dealing with a real, live human being by using markup language to feign sadness, anger, laughter, filled pauses (uh, um), breaths, coughs and hesitations (mmm). Here's an example that shows how to make a more lovable HAL: <prosody style="bad news">I'm cough sorry Dave sigh, I'm afraid I can't do that.<prosody>"

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Is Kids' Openness About Risky Activities Good Or Bad?

There's a moral panic style study being released that claims that many teens "display risky behavior" on MySpace. Of course, when you look at the details, it's not quite so fear-inducing at all. Basically, some kids talk about drinking, drugs and sex online. That's nothing new. But the way this study is being presented, it makes it sound as if the risky behavior is the fact that kids are talking about this stuff. The article doesn't talk about the actual drugs and sex so much as the talking about it, as if that's the problem:

Many young people who use social networking sites such as News Corp's MySpace do not realize how public they are and may be opening themselves to risks

That seems backwards to me. It would seem a lot better to find out that kids are actually talking about this stuff openly, where they can (hopefully) get good advice to keep themselves safe, rather than keeping quiet and experimenting totally in secret. Yes, there definitely are some risks involved in talking about this stuff publicly. For years, we've wondered what will happen when the MySpace generation runs for office, and we've also seen how social networking profiles can be used against an individual in pursuing a career. Of course, there are some who wonder if this widespread openness will lead to a more accepting population. For example the fact that Barack Obama used cocaine at one point in his life was barely mentioned at all during the campaign -- in part because he had openly admitted to it years earlier. It's only the surprise "gotcha" type info that seems to cause real problems.

That isn't to say that kids today shouldn't be at least aware of the potential consequences of over-sharing information, but I worry that a study like the one being discussed here leads to eventual misplaced blame and worries over a problem that might not be nearly as significant as some make it out to be.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Entertainment Protectionism Doesn't Create Jobs, It Destroys Them

Reader Darren sent in a link to an "opinion" piece in the UK's Independent by Stephen Garrett, a managing director of a TV production house that apparently makes some popular UK TV shows (he names Spooks, with which I am personally unfamiliar). The article is basically no different than any of the thousands of poorly thought out and badly argued demands from entertainment industry execs for government protectionism in the face of the giant "internet threat." Garrett goes through all of these mistakes pretty early on: comparing file sharing to the theft of physical property, twisting basic logic around to suggest that ISPs bear the responsibility of stopping file sharing (rather than, say, the entertainment companies learning to adjust their business model in the face of a changing marketplace), and playing the old and easily debunked ripple effects card in discussing the "damages" done.

But rather than going through those same old tired arguments again, this seemed like a good opportunity to take on a later argument he makes, which I've heard from others as well:

At a time of economic downturn, saving jobs and securing economic activity is more important than ever. Investment in new forms of bringing entertainment to the public depends on legitimate sales of material, whilst lost opportunities of innovation is the tab picked up by those who do pay for content for those who refuse to do so.

This, like Garrett's earlier points, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Saving jobs and securing activity is not more important than ever if those jobs and that economic activity are inefficient, unnecessary or hinder other important economic activity from taking place. Historically, almost every example of government protectionism has been to protect exactly those types of jobs and economic activity, and the end result is disastrous. Rather than adapting to changes in the market, the protected industry holds onto the past, while those industries in other countries adapt, evolve and improve. In the end, the "protected" industry simply can't compete, the jobs are lost anyway, and it's much more difficult for the new industry in those countries to grow and catch up to foreign competitors.

Garrett's suggestion of special protectionism in the entertainment industry in the UK is exactly the wrong solution for the industry and would lead to many more problems down the road. I would hope that people in the government in charge of deciding this stuff would understand this -- but so far, the UK's Culture Secretary has shown himself to have difficulty grasping some basic economic realities, so don't be surprised to see him buy into this sort of argument.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oprah Sued For Patent Infringement Over Her Book Club

Joe Mullin is back to let us know about the latest patent insanity, starting with a post about a whole bunch of patent infringement lawsuits based on patents held by Scott Harris. You may recall Harris because he was a lawyer for a big law firm, but was quietly filing patents on the side, and then apparently working out deals whereby other companies licensed those patents to be used in infringement lawsuits against big companies -- including companies represented by the very same firm Harris worked for. Not surprisingly, he lost his job and was sued. A few months back, the lawsuit was settled and Harris's patents have, miraculously, been showing up in a bunch of recent patent lawsuits.

But the real stunner in the latest set of lawsuits is that one of the patents is being used to sue Oprah. Yes, that Oprah. Apparently, Harris is claiming that his patent on enhancing the touch and feel of the internet is violated by Oprah's book club. Yes. Her book club. Violates a patent (according to the patent holder). Now, my critics will be the first to point out that I'm no patent attorney, but reading over the patent, it certainly appears to be a patent on displaying a book online. How is that possibly patentable material? Wouldn't it be great if this got Oprah looking into the ridiculous state of the patent system in the US these days, and how it's often being used in such bogus ways? While it probably won't happen, it certainly could help dispel the old myths of the patent system as promoting innovation and finally get the issue in front of the public in a way that they would realize just how damaging the system has become and how widely it's abused.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Not yet rated

Reviews: