A lot of people find Facebook incredibly valuable. Apart from the overload of Zynga adverts and games, you can connect with a lot of people in a way that hadn't been offered elsewhere.
The article did demonstrate that the students were willing to pay for FB, but the PRICE didn't exceed a single dollar. Plus I'm sure those students are also aware of other services out there like Google+ and Diaspora which can offer the same value for a lower price: Free - if Facebook were to ever charge for it's services. The VALUE in the service is the convenient social aspect that is offered.
And last I checked, when Amazon.com was first offered as an IPO in 1997, their stock stumbled (for example). After 10 years and being worth 5,000% their initial offering...well...you can draw your own conclusions.
The problem with any sort of paywall is that with the news, you can almost always go to another source for information. A lot of outlets simply copy-paste current events from yet another source as it is.
Plus news is fleeting. Unless it's of great historical importance, not too many people will care shortly after they've digested the story. And if some event was of importance, then several sources will carry the details.
Newspapers don't just carry the news, and what's in print is already outdated information in our millisecond world. They continually have to offer other products and services to stay relevant. I wonder how many people just get the Sunday editions for the puzzles, comics and coupons versus buying full subscriptions? Or if people still scrounge up a fresh copy of their local paper to search the employment listings for local businesses.
I don't know if digital subscriptions offer these same services as their print editions. I just know that a Kindle makes a poor substitute for lining a bird cage.
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
But if you tell them what goes into the mystery meat then they won't eat it.
"They say there are two things you shouldn't watch being made: laws and sausage."
That depends on the people. British Chef and TV personality Jamie Oliver did a tour trying to get children to eat healthy foods. One of the demonstrations he'd do is to show kids how chicken nuggets were processed and prepared. In the UK and other parts of Europe, the children were turned off by what they saw and refused to eat the processed chicken.
His surprise came when he tried this demonstration in the U.S.. American children would eat the processed meat - even though they saw the process for themselves.
As for mystery meat and my sausage quotation? Meat processing has a lot more oversight and regulation than Government.
I'm not sure how a published work from 1615 (re: Don Quixote) doesn't count as "commentary."
But since you seem to want a clearer opinion of the people who actually initiated copyright in the United States, I give you the correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In it you can see that Jefferson was opposed to such monopolies while Madison couldn't foresee the the abuses that would come about.
Luckily, others have already done the work for us:
The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.
Here we see a limit on government granted monopolies which was applied to patents to 14 years. This matches what the law had been at the time.
If you read the article I've linked, you can see that Jefferson felt that protection of the people from monopolies was so important, that it be included into the Bill of Rights along with "...freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land..."
Now it's easy for someone to dismiss this argument since it talks about patents and not copyrights. It wasn't until 1790 that Congress passed the first copyright law which gave a limited monopoly to creators. Before that it was considered a legal issue for individual States. Copyright protection in the United States was first championed by a group of authors, including Noah Webster and Joel Barlow. (source - Warning: PDF) http://lsolum.typepad.com/copyfutures/files/nachbar_constructing_copyright.pdf
Legislation conferring exclusive rights upon the author of books not yet printed or published for a period of 14 years and for a further 14 years if the author was still alive at the end of the first period. The legislation also provided the same rights for the authors or owners of books already in print for a single 21 year term.
As with each extension to Copyright Law in the United States, there was discussion for and against it by representatives in congress and those who would benefit from it the most. This includes the 1909 Act which rewrote Copyright law. A response by the then music industry against player pianos of all things. Then there's the Renewal Acts of 1962 and 1974 which continued the posthumous copyright extensions and removed the registration requirements. Congress commissioned multiple studies on a general revision of copyright law, culminating in a published report in 1961. A draft of the bill was introduced in both the House and Senate in 1964, but the original version of the Act was revised multiple times between 1964 and 1976.
To try to suppose that none of these changes and extensions to copyright before 1974 were without debate is absurd.
First of all, why would it ever want a cut of the profits in a Hollywood movie?
Well there's the FBI and ICE working on behalf of the RIAA and MPAA. Also with so many Entertainment Industry people - from actors, to lawyers, to lobbyists, to CEOs - running and influencing the U.S. Government in various departments, why wouldn't they?
On the post: Rolling Stone Highlights FBI's Fascination With Staging Its Own Terrorist Plots... While Ignoring Real Threats
Re: Re: It's not that simple
On the post: Regina Spektor: I'm Lucky That People Can Get All My Music For Free
Re: Re:
I'm Batman.
Sorry, I couldn't resist... >.>
On the post: If People Won't Pay A Monthly Fee For Facebook, Why Would They Pay For Newspapers?
Re:
A lot of people find Facebook incredibly valuable. Apart from the overload of Zynga adverts and games, you can connect with a lot of people in a way that hadn't been offered elsewhere.
The article did demonstrate that the students were willing to pay for FB, but the PRICE didn't exceed a single dollar. Plus I'm sure those students are also aware of other services out there like Google+ and Diaspora which can offer the same value for a lower price: Free - if Facebook were to ever charge for it's services. The VALUE in the service is the convenient social aspect that is offered.
And last I checked, when Amazon.com was first offered as an IPO in 1997, their stock stumbled (for example). After 10 years and being worth 5,000% their initial offering...well...you can draw your own conclusions.
On the post: If People Won't Pay A Monthly Fee For Facebook, Why Would They Pay For Newspapers?
Re:
Plus news is fleeting. Unless it's of great historical importance, not too many people will care shortly after they've digested the story. And if some event was of importance, then several sources will carry the details.
Newspapers don't just carry the news, and what's in print is already outdated information in our millisecond world. They continually have to offer other products and services to stay relevant. I wonder how many people just get the Sunday editions for the puzzles, comics and coupons versus buying full subscriptions? Or if people still scrounge up a fresh copy of their local paper to search the employment listings for local businesses.
I don't know if digital subscriptions offer these same services as their print editions. I just know that a Kindle makes a poor substitute for lining a bird cage.
On the post: Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
Re: Just sayin...
On the post: Generics Drive Down Drug Prices In India, TPP Trying To Stop That
Re:
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.
On the post: Chelsea Clinton: We Must Protect The Children On The Internet
When the simple answer to a headline like that is, "No," then I don't see why the rest of the article should be written.
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
Re: Stages of Grief
On the post: Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA
Re: Re: Give them time to get it right than
"They say there are two things you shouldn't watch being made: laws and sausage."
That depends on the people. British Chef and TV personality Jamie Oliver did a tour trying to get children to eat healthy foods. One of the demonstrations he'd do is to show kids how chicken nuggets were processed and prepared. In the UK and other parts of Europe, the children were turned off by what they saw and refused to eat the processed chicken.
His surprise came when he tried this demonstration in the U.S.. American children would eat the processed meat - even though they saw the process for themselves.
As for mystery meat and my sausage quotation? Meat processing has a lot more oversight and regulation than Government.
On the post: White House Cybersecurity Boss -- Who Argued Against Overhyping Threats -- Resigns
Re: Re:
On the post: US Gov't Thinks Censorship Is Bad, Unless It's Paid For
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But since you seem to want a clearer opinion of the people who actually initiated copyright in the United States, I give you the correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In it you can see that Jefferson was opposed to such monopolies while Madison couldn't foresee the the abuses that would come about.
Luckily, others have already done the work for us:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=1999&post=1999-02-11$2
Thom as Jefferson:
Here we see a limit on government granted monopolies which was applied to patents to 14 years. This matches what the law had been at the time.
If you read the article I've linked, you can see that Jefferson felt that protection of the people from monopolies was so important, that it be included into the Bill of Rights along with "...freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land..."
Now it's easy for someone to dismiss this argument since it talks about patents and not copyrights. It wasn't until 1790 that Congress passed the first copyright law which gave a limited monopoly to creators. Before that it was considered a legal issue for individual States. Copyright protection in the United States was first championed by a group of authors, including Noah Webster and Joel Barlow. (source - Warning: PDF) http://lsolum.typepad.com/copyfutures/files/nachbar_constructing_copyright.pdf
The Copyright Act of 1790 was an altered, rewritten version of England’s 1710 Statute of Anne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
Legislation conferring exclusive rights upon the author of books not yet printed or published for a period of 14 years and for a further 14 years if the author was still alive at the end of the first period. The legislation also provided the same rights for the authors or owners of books already in print for a single 21 year term.
As with each extension to Copyright Law in the United States, there was discussion for and against it by representatives in congress and those who would benefit from it the most. This includes the 1909 Act which rewrote Copyright law. A response by the then music industry against player pianos of all things. Then there's the Renewal Acts of 1962 and 1974 which continued the posthumous copyright extensions and removed the registration requirements. Congress commissioned multiple studies on a general revision of copyright law, culminating in a published report in 1961. A draft of the bill was introduced in both the House and Senate in 1964, but the original version of the Act was revised multiple times between 1964 and 1976.
To try to suppose that none of these changes and extensions to copyright before 1974 were without debate is absurd.
On the post: Canadian Politician Claims That Ripping A CD To Your iPod Is Like Buying Socks & Stealing Shoes To Go With Them
Re:
On the post: Notable: Harvard Didn't Try To Claim Ownership Of Facebook
Re:
On the post: Can You Understand How Technology Works Without Understanding Code?
On the post: Common Sense Wins: Finnish Court Says Open WiFi Owner Not Liable For Infringement By User
Re: Oh No
On the post: Wil Wheaton Reminds Us That Torrents Are Awesome, And Not Just For Pirated Movies
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Government Gets 10% Royalty On 'Passion Of The Christ' Prequel In Plea Deal With Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer
Well there's the FBI and ICE working on behalf of the RIAA and MPAA. Also with so many Entertainment Industry people - from actors, to lawyers, to lobbyists, to CEOs - running and influencing the U.S. Government in various departments, why wouldn't they?
On the post: They're Not 'Orphan Works', They're 'Hostage Works'
On the post: It's Amazing The Lengths 'Music Supporters' Will Go To In Trying To Trash Success Stories
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of cabals...
On the post: Can Congress Work Like A Tech Startup?
Re:
I don't get the analogy.
Next >>