Day: July 14, 2010

Science enters iPhone 4 Aerial debate! Turns out Consumer Reports may not have had the most rigorous science in their testing.

On Reception – The iPhone 4 hysteria – The Real Life/Lab Test Conundrum

Yes, the iPhone 4 is broken / No, the iPhone 4 is not broken

Analyst says ‘Consumer Reports’ test of the iPhone 4 is flawed, ‘barely scientific’

But, of course, rational discourse doesn’t boost page views at websites, so we get the wildly irrational comments from those who just want to take Apple down a peg.

Ultimately I think Techcrunch has the last word after pointing out that the big fuss over Facebook Privacy that was going to cause everyone to leave Facebook just two months ago, and yet Facebook has had their best month ever:

The reality of the situations in these massively-hyped controversies is often quite boring. No one is quitting Facebook over privacy concerns because most people are oblivious or simply don’t give a shit (sometimes for good reason, sometimes not). In fact, Facebook is growing just as fast as before. Maybe faster. And millions of people are going to continue to buy the iPhone 4 because it’s the phone they want. If there’s a problem with the reception, they’ll deal with it by moving their hands a few inches or buying a bumper.

But no one wants to read those stories. Hell, I don’t want to write those stories. They’re boring. No service is dying, no users are getting maimed. But often, that’s the way it is.

BTW, I’m placing my iPhone 4 order today.

Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive http://bit.ly/d7YjrG Fashion industry also benefits from NO copyright.

Simply put, if the arguments of those in the entertainment industries were true, then there would be no innovation in restaurants or fashion because of the lack of copyright. (You can’t copyright a garment design or a food dish.) These industries thrive because of the lack of copyright.

When there is strong copyright protection – as the RIAA and MPAA have fought for over the years – the creators tend to sit on their hands and collect royalties (or those who actually own the copyright, rarely the actual creator) rather than go out and create more. The original intent of Copyright – grudgingly included in the US Constitution by the Founder – was to promote the creation of new works, by providing a limited time of exclusive rights before all creative works would fall into the Public Domain.

BTW, there’s actually a reasonable argument that since the US Constitution specifically:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Music, film and Television are not “Science” and “useful Arts” is correctly interpreted as those that make things –  like Carpentry. Note that our favorite “big copyright” claimers may not even have a Constitutional leg to stand on.

Anyhow, the article on how and why food and fashion thrive outside of copyright, is well worth the read.

Reader Ephraim points us to a recent post at the Freakonomics blog that highlights how the restaurant business absolutely thrives creatively, despite a lack of copyright protection. The main example: the rise of Korean taco trucks in LA. As you may or may not know (and trust me, you’re better off if you are familiar with this trend), a few years back, some enterprising folks set up a Korean taco truck in LA called Kogi. It quickly became a huge sensation, in part because the food is awesome and in part through smart marketing, including being one of the first food establishments to actively embrace Twitter. 

But what happened next is quite interesting. Throughout LA (and now around the country) there’s been an explosion of Korean taco trucks. And, it’s not just limited to trucks. As the article notes, the large chain Baja Fresh is now offering Korean tacos as well. Believers in strong copyright have trouble explaining why this happens. According to them, without copyright as an “incentive to create” people won’t innovate because they can’t be rewarded, but that’s not what’s happening at all:

RIAA paid its lawyers more than $16,000,000 in 2008 to recover only $391,000!!! http://bit.ly/9jR8D8

Rather than actually work on a new business model to replace the one that served the labels well when distribution was by physical (and therefore limited/scarce) goods, but instead of facing the inevitable the RIAA has tried to sue its fans out of existence and lobby for changes to Copyright Legislation to support a business model that has been obsoleted by a market and technology that’s simply moved on.

It’s worth noting that, while the recorded-music-on-physical-media business (the only one the Record Labels are in) is dying, the overall music business has never had it better. Ditto the movie business. More music and movies being made than ever; more people making decent livings off their music or movie making than ever.

But one business model – like the buggy whip, lamplighter, Linotype operator, et. al – is becoming superceded. Unless they adapt dinosaurs like the RIAA and MPAA members will dies. And it cant’ be soon enough for my taste.

The RIAA paid Holmes Roberts & Owen $9,364,901 in 2008, Jenner & Block more than $7,000,000, and Cravath Swain & Moore $1.25 million, to pursue its “copyright infringement” claims, in order to recover a mere $391,000. [ps there were many other law firms feeding at the trough too; these were just the ones listed among the top 5 independent contractors.]