Sorry, but the license text "but you're free to use it" is too vague to be legally enforceable.
Do you mean Mike can use it, or anyone reading your reply?
Do you mean the entire reply or just the part before (or after) you declared the license?
Can I use it for any purpose, commercial, non commercial, in political or religious contexts etc.?
If I incorporate your reply into a derivative work can I distribute it and do I need to do this under equivalent license terms?
So, sorry but unless you are prepared to clarify these points, perhaps by releasing your reply under a CC license or equivalent, then I'm afraid it would probably be better if we refrained from using your work.
> EVERYONE metabolizes alcohol differently and that idealized curve is a really bad joke.
Ah yes, the "jeez, I only had a couple of cans" defence.
It's really very simple - if you're going to be driving, DON'T DRINK. At all.
Personally I don't drink and drive. Not because I don't want to get caught, but because I don't want to hit a kid. But feel free to keep justifying your position.
AFAIK, this is only a requirement in the US. Elsewhere there is nothing in place for registration.
A change this big would almost certainly have to involve international interests and I suspect it would be extremely difficult to "sell" a registration based system internationally.
I don't agree with the idea that people should register to get copyright. That would involve the creation of a massive bureaucracy these days and would be difficult to implement internationally (and treaty shenanigans aside, modern copyright law does need to be international in scope).
I do think one simple idea has merit - if you want copyright add a copyright notice, if you're not bothered don't.
For the internet that means anyone putting together a site or article might decide the add a (c). Most people generally don't consider blog posts or tweets to be under copyright anyway (even though they are under current law) so mostly wouldn't bother with a notice.
The obvious problem with this is what if someone intended to add a notice, but forgot. I'm not generally in favour of dragging PD works back into copyright - but I think a short grace period might be OK in this case, with the proviso that the copyright wouldn't then apply retroactively to anyone who already used it as PD.
A "Web Log" is exactly what it sounds like ... a personal log/diary/journal of someone who is prepared to allow their thoughts, opinions and/or random ramblings to be read by the public.
It seems to be a common mistake for some Journos to assume that bloggers are somehow trying to be amateur Journos but that is hardly ever the intention of any but a tiny minority of bloggers.
> Well, that means any infinite good is a fake scarcity (or potentially so). I'm not sure that's what Mike meant.
In fact that exactly is Mike's position - "infinite good" is the opposite of "scarce good".
> isn't the server software also an infinite good?
Yes and no. Technically it's an infinite good only if it's released, but since these components aren't normally released it could be considered a scarcity of a sort. However since it can be leaked or reverse engineered it might not be a very good scarcity to base a business model on.
> But Blizzard and EA also have to subsidize the cost of the development of the games, which is fixed but very, very substantial
Yes, and you and others are correct in pointing out that these companies would need to charge a higher amount to recoup this cost, than someone else running a look-a-like server might have to. (Assuming they chose not to sell the client as they currently do).
However as Mike points out server access on it's own isn't the only scarcity at work here - the official servers usually offer a better experience because they are usually better supported and maintained and attract a larger community. They also get a head start when the company implements new features. Even with the help of EC2 it is still a significant undertaking to compete successfully with an official server.
Which is not to say it can't be done of course, and in fact if someone does set up and run a server that appeals to a people more than the official servers (like the Ultima example you give) then that's fair enough. They put in the hours to keep the server running and attract a community so they deserve to profit from it as well.
Just because a company writes some software doesn't mean they get a guarantee to be able to recoup the cost, that's a "business risk" and it's up to the company to figure out a way to make a net profit. That's no different than if you're running a shop and you spend a chunk of money buying stock - you don't get a guarantee you will be able to sell the stock and make a profit - it's up to you to figure out how to do this.
There will always be a place in the blogosphere for people who can write good, informative and engaging articles.
Such people stand every chance of attracting a community which they can use to attract advertisers and sponsors. Alternatively, popular and respected reporters should have no trouble getting companies to pay them to write articles.
You might think that would spell the end of impartial reporting, with every reporter toeing the company line of whoever is paying them at that moment, but I suspect too much of that sort of behaviour would quickly drive away the community, which would act as a sort of self-correcting mechanism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will not bring millions
The Tragedy of the Commons is an essay describing the theoretical over-use of a common resource by selfish short-sighted users.
It is not a description of what will always or inevitably happen to a common resource, but rather is a warning of what *can* happen if people only think in the short term and fail to take their long term considerations into account.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will not bring millions
> "Why?" Is obvious question to ask. Without copyright in place, this would be legal. So, why pay?
Yosi, you're right - cinema owners could just get the movie for free, and without copyright it would indeed be legal to do so.
However if by doing this the cinema owner knew he was helping to put the filmmakers out of business - meaning that sooner or later there would be no new films to show to his customers - that would be a fairly short-sighted attitude to take for some who (presumably) wants to stay in business themselves, don't you think?
> If we suddenly cut the copyright term into half as many years I'm absolutely convinced that we would see no decrease in the number of works created
Reminds me of an idea I had a while ago ...
What if a creator had a way of making a legally binding commitment to put a work into the public domain after a specified time?
That way creators could negotiate with their fans, based on what value they place on the work becoming available and the market ends up deciding the length of copyright terms.
Maybe it would just be a stepping stone to copyright-free business models, but it seems to me it can't hurt to throw more options into the pot.
> I wonder how many organizations will choose to enforce their "bloggers aren't journalists" rules and not give him press credentials?
Press credentials in their current form are as much old-school as the rest of the newspaper industry. There's no reason why bloggers who have established a good reputation couldn't negotiate with companies to gain entry to events and press conferences.
"The artists in question have a long history of exploitation. They largely live in extreme poverty in areas with no employment prospects and have nothing to sell but their artwork, which they do so cheaply through lack of choice."
What I'd like to know is why market forces haven't already fixed this problem if it is so severe?
If I were interested in buying art from aborigines (and were not on the other side of the world), and I knew others were buying for a ridiculously low sum - why wouldn't I offer significantly more than the competition and let the artist know when I would next be in the area so he is more likely to sell to me next time? That way I should get all the best pieces, a decent reputation and force my competitors to raise their game.
It seems to me that if there is something stopping this from happening (being threatened or killed while I'm miles away from civilisation springs to mind) then *that* is the problem that needs to solved here.
You should probably mention to Google that an ad revenue model is not a sustainable business!
OTOH you're right about one thing - generic banner ads have a lousy click-through rate. Newspapers need to wise up and make the adverts both relevant to the content and targeted to the demographic of their readers.
For example Guardian.co.uk is running with the German school shooting story as the lead today - and apparently if I stay at a Crown Plaza hotel for three nights I only have to pay for two! Not particularly relevant.
Admittedly this might not be the best example - any relevant ad against this sort of story runs the risk of appearing tactless. But I doubt they have any strategy in place for matching ads to stories.
So "Microsoft Word running on a PC", "Microsoft Excel running on a PC", "Internet Explorer running on a PC" are all separate patents in your view? Well they probably are currently - but I thought we were discussing reform here?
I suggest that the terms "specialised" and "integral component" don't apply to these examples in the same way that they do to my earlier examples.
I accept that it may be difficult to figure out where to draw the line and plenty of grey area for the courts to play in, but there is a potential viable approach here IMO.
On the post: Girl Talk On Remix As An Art Form
Creativity
Why stop there? :
"The music is creative but the chords are not. Truly creative people would make their own chords"
And then :
"The chords are creative but the instruments are not. Truly creative people would make their own instruments!"
Who are you to say where the line should be drawn? And why do you think it's a good idea to place arbitrary limits on creativity?
On the post: Are Cellphone Carriers Like Gas Stations?
Advertising
The one that gets me, and you see this everywhere ...
"No other brand is better/faster/more powerful than ours!"
They're absolutely right - no brand is better, because they're all exactly the same!
On the post: Square Enix Shuts Down Fan Game Effort
Re: Copyright Rules?
On the post: How Long Can You Go Without Infringing On Copyright?
Re: I simply don't get it, honestly.
> © 2009 R. Miles
Sorry, but the license text "but you're free to use it" is too vague to be legally enforceable.
Do you mean Mike can use it, or anyone reading your reply?
Do you mean the entire reply or just the part before (or after) you declared the license?
Can I use it for any purpose, commercial, non commercial, in political or religious contexts etc.?
If I incorporate your reply into a derivative work can I distribute it and do I need to do this under equivalent license terms?
So, sorry but unless you are prepared to clarify these points, perhaps by releasing your reply under a CC license or equivalent, then I'm afraid it would probably be better if we refrained from using your work.
;-)
On the post: Despite MN Supreme Court Ruling, Breathalyzer Manufacturer Refuses to Turn Over Source Code
Re: Re: Put blame where it is due.
Ah yes, the "jeez, I only had a couple of cans" defence.
It's really very simple - if you're going to be driving, DON'T DRINK. At all.
Personally I don't drink and drive. Not because I don't want to get caught, but because I don't want to hit a kid. But feel free to keep justifying your position.
On the post: Elsevier Had A Whole Division Publishing Fake Medical Journals
Open Wide
On the post: Duke Nukem Forever Wins The True Lifetime Achievement Award For Vaporware: Coming Out Never
Ars
On the post: Who Knew Discussing A Long Repealed Copyright Law Could Be So Interesting...
Re: Re: Registration wouldn't be a good idea
A change this big would almost certainly have to involve international interests and I suspect it would be extremely difficult to "sell" a registration based system internationally.
On the post: Who Knew Discussing A Long Repealed Copyright Law Could Be So Interesting...
Registration wouldn't be a good idea
I do think one simple idea has merit - if you want copyright add a copyright notice, if you're not bothered don't.
For the internet that means anyone putting together a site or article might decide the add a (c). Most people generally don't consider blog posts or tweets to be under copyright anyway (even though they are under current law) so mostly wouldn't bother with a notice.
The obvious problem with this is what if someone intended to add a notice, but forgot. I'm not generally in favour of dragging PD works back into copyright - but I think a short grace period might be OK in this case, with the proviso that the copyright wouldn't then apply retroactively to anyone who already used it as PD.
On the post: This Is Ironic: Reporter Cites Bogus WSJ Stats To Claim Bloggers Are Untrustworthy
Re: Re: Blogging
A "Web Log" is exactly what it sounds like ... a personal log/diary/journal of someone who is prepared to allow their thoughts, opinions and/or random ramblings to be read by the public.
It seems to be a common mistake for some Journos to assume that bloggers are somehow trying to be amateur Journos but that is hardly ever the intention of any but a tiny minority of bloggers.
On the post: Demigod, Piracy And Good Business Models...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact that exactly is Mike's position - "infinite good" is the opposite of "scarce good".
> isn't the server software also an infinite good?
Yes and no. Technically it's an infinite good only if it's released, but since these components aren't normally released it could be considered a scarcity of a sort. However since it can be leaked or reverse engineered it might not be a very good scarcity to base a business model on.
> But Blizzard and EA also have to subsidize the cost of the development of the games, which is fixed but very, very substantial
Yes, and you and others are correct in pointing out that these companies would need to charge a higher amount to recoup this cost, than someone else running a look-a-like server might have to. (Assuming they chose not to sell the client as they currently do).
However as Mike points out server access on it's own isn't the only scarcity at work here - the official servers usually offer a better experience because they are usually better supported and maintained and attract a larger community. They also get a head start when the company implements new features. Even with the help of EC2 it is still a significant undertaking to compete successfully with an official server.
Which is not to say it can't be done of course, and in fact if someone does set up and run a server that appeals to a people more than the official servers (like the Ultima example you give) then that's fair enough. They put in the hours to keep the server running and attract a community so they deserve to profit from it as well.
Just because a company writes some software doesn't mean they get a guarantee to be able to recoup the cost, that's a "business risk" and it's up to the company to figure out a way to make a net profit. That's no different than if you're running a shop and you spend a chunk of money buying stock - you don't get a guarantee you will be able to sell the stock and make a profit - it's up to you to figure out how to do this.
On the post: Hyper-local News In The Post-Newspaper Era
Good Journos Always Welcome
Such people stand every chance of attracting a community which they can use to attract advertisers and sponsors. Alternatively, popular and respected reporters should have no trouble getting companies to pay them to write articles.
You might think that would spell the end of impartial reporting, with every reporter toeing the company line of whoever is paying them at that moment, but I suspect too much of that sort of behaviour would quickly drive away the community, which would act as a sort of self-correcting mechanism.
On the post: Filmmaker Releases Film Via All Torrent Sites, Says Pay If You Like It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will not bring millions
It is not a description of what will always or inevitably happen to a common resource, but rather is a warning of what *can* happen if people only think in the short term and fail to take their long term considerations into account.
On the post: Filmmaker Releases Film Via All Torrent Sites, Says Pay If You Like It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Will not bring millions
Yosi, you're right - cinema owners could just get the movie for free, and without copyright it would indeed be legal to do so.
However if by doing this the cinema owner knew he was helping to put the filmmakers out of business - meaning that sooner or later there would be no new films to show to his customers - that would be a fairly short-sighted attitude to take for some who (presumably) wants to stay in business themselves, don't you think?
On the post: Extending Copyright Law Is Like Banning Wikipedia
Re:
Reminds me of an idea I had a while ago ...
What if a creator had a way of making a legally binding commitment to put a work into the public domain after a specified time?
That way creators could negotiate with their fans, based on what value they place on the work becoming available and the market ends up deciding the length of copyright terms.
Maybe it would just be a stepping stone to copyright-free business models, but it seems to me it can't hurt to throw more options into the pot.
On the post: Former Newspaper Journalists Not Missing A Beat
Re: (Press Credentials)
Press credentials in their current form are as much old-school as the rest of the newspaper industry. There's no reason why bloggers who have established a good reputation couldn't negotiate with companies to gain entry to events and press conferences.
On the post: Australia The Latest To Look At Having Artists Paid Multiple Times For The Same Work
Re: Mikes neverland economics
What I'd like to know is why market forces haven't already fixed this problem if it is so severe?
If I were interested in buying art from aborigines (and were not on the other side of the world), and I knew others were buying for a ridiculously low sum - why wouldn't I offer significantly more than the competition and let the artist know when I would next be in the area so he is more likely to sell to me next time? That way I should get all the best pieces, a decent reputation and force my competitors to raise their game.
It seems to me that if there is something stopping this from happening (being threatened or killed while I'm miles away from civilisation springs to mind) then *that* is the problem that needs to solved here.
Or am I way off base?
On the post: The Guardian Follows The NY Times In Making News A Platform
Re: free is nice but not sustainable
OTOH you're right about one thing - generic banner ads have a lousy click-through rate. Newspapers need to wise up and make the adverts both relevant to the content and targeted to the demographic of their readers.
For example Guardian.co.uk is running with the German school shooting story as the lead today - and apparently if I stay at a Crown Plaza hotel for three nights I only have to pay for two! Not particularly relevant.
Admittedly this might not be the best example - any relevant ad against this sort of story runs the risk of appearing tactless. But I doubt they have any strategy in place for matching ads to stories.
On the post: Patent Reform Bill Reintroduced; More Of The Same
Re: Re: Patent the Device not the software
I suggest that the terms "specialised" and "integral component" don't apply to these examples in the same way that they do to my earlier examples.
I accept that it may be difficult to figure out where to draw the line and plenty of grey area for the courts to play in, but there is a potential viable approach here IMO.
On the post: Politician Wants Google To Blur Street View Images Of Buildings; Next Up: Blurring Reality
Re: Thomas Jefferson
Next >>