Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 21 Feb 2019 @ 8:09am
Distributor or marketer?
So what does the distributor actually do in this case? Is there some kind of wall at Spotify and Apple Music or others that prevent independents from gaining access? Then what does the distributor have that an independent artist does not? Or is the purpose of a distributor more along the lines of marketing? If a mere distributor can do these things for an independent artist, then what is it that a label offers that differs?
I also wonder how the distributor is compensated? A percentage, a fixed fee, and what do those amount to?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2019 @ 10:30am
Oh it's just a trim, with a little off the top
So near as I can tell, the US Constitution does two things:
A, it tells the government what powers it does have
B. It tells the government what powers it cannot have
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine whether laws passed by Congress violate either of those two basic precepts. It is not to micromanage society.
Justice Thomas wants to micromanage society in avoidance of what the Congress wanted, when what Congress wanted didn't violate either of those two basic precepts.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Feb 2019 @ 6:34am
Bots vote MEP's out of office
I am waiting for the upcoming election. I suspect that MEP's that lose their elections will be blaming 'bots' for voting for the winning person. Then the question becomes, why did the folks running the poles let all those bots in to vote?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Feb 2019 @ 5:33pm
To what end?
The thing that bothers me, outside of sociopaths excising their predilection to assert authority over others, is what do the cops get out of such actions?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Feb 2019 @ 9:24am
Re:
Teflon, which in conjunction with closed ears, closed eyes will compliment the already closed mind. Oh, and don't forget the 'campaign contributions' that the rest of us know as bribes.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Feb 2019 @ 7:44am
Re: Re: Re:
"If these big corporations make money on distribution, the theft of that distribution is the theft of money."
This is where you lose us. In your statement, who lost? The big corporation that was doing distribution. Not creation, distribution. The Internet has made the need for distributors largely irrelevant. I suppose one could like some platforms to be 'distributor like', but the differences are greater than the likenesses.
Distributors chose what to distribute and where to distribute it, and when to distribute it. Platforms tend to let you put whatever you want up without time or place restrictions.
In the end big corporate distributors are going the way of buggy whip and butter churn manufacturers. So?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Feb 2019 @ 7:35am
Looking for humanitarian in the action
"The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency."
I keep reading through that declaration
looking for what action he is taking about the 'humanitarian' part of this supposed crisis. I don't see any. Is leaving people stranded at the border, some of whom might have legitimate asylum claims, Trump's definition of humanitarian?
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Feb 2019 @ 7:08am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of “no more patents&
What makes you think that someone smart enough to reverse engineer your super secret product isn't smart enough to make the same product differently? Oh, and never mind that without a patent they could do it exactly the same way as you did, because...no patent exists!
Oh and just because a product is complex does not mean it cannot be reverse engineered. They will just tear it down into smaller components and reverse engineer each of those. There is no such thing as secret sauce.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Feb 2019 @ 7:03am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of “no more patents”
If you think that raising the quality level of patents granted will encourage inventors to keep their inventions secret, then I suppose those inventors you are referring to have 'inventions' that if they tried to patent them, those patents would be considered junk.
The only reason to keep a product secret is so that one can finish creating the market ready product. Once the product is in the marketplace, it is no longer secret. This is only a benefit if the product originator can keep their design ahead of inevitable competitors (who don't need to infringe on any patent to compete, and will find it easier to compete when no patent exists, and will likely file for a patent because none exists, which will likely cause the originator some big headaches) and maintain their market share and margin by having been first and continually being different and better.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Feb 2019 @ 7:20am
Re: Re: Re: What do you think of “no more patents”
In response to your very narrow question, the loss of patent disclosures, assuming that all patents were quality patents, would have a negative impact on society. That assumption, with regard to the quality of patents, is a big problem, and the proliferation of bad quality patents has a deleterious effect on society.
One also has to consider whether a (let us assume here good quality) patent holder has the ability to bring a product to market effectively. The disclosure would tell a potential competitor how not to do something so that they can do the same thing via a different method. Remember that it is the implementation that gets protected by the patent, not the idea. Again, if that secondary producer has the ability to bring a product to market effectively, society wins, and the patent system works as intended, including the part about disclosure.
Then considering the opposite of above, and (let us assume bad quality) patent holders have the ability to disrupt, rightly or wrongly, any other implementation of the idea by imposing monetary sanctions on any producer that creates a similar product even if they scrupulously avoid infringing on the bad patent. They have to spend money defending their position that could have gone into product improvement, or for that matter new products. In this scenario disclosure does nothing good for society. The lawyers win, the manufacturer loses a lot of money defending their product, and likely the patent gets disqualified so even the patent holder loses. In this
In the end, your question needs to be "do you think the loss of high quality patent disclosures will have a positive or negative impact on society?", and the answer is still, positive, if there are no junk patents. As to disclosure for the junk patents, disclosure means nothing at all as there is rarely a product to go along with that junk patent and society loses all around.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Feb 2019 @ 7:01pm
Do more, don't do good
Past administrations have taken the attitude that more patents approved meant that the economic machine worked harder and faster and better. This led to an increase in the quantity of patents approved regardless of quality. Now we get to feast upon the economic burdens imposed on companies that have done no wrong by this attitude. Costs to these companies that wind up needing to defend themselves when they shouldn't need to. The money they spend on these defenses might actually have helped the economy (other than the lawyers) but is now wasted upon...well lawyers (not that lawyers are always a waste, but they should not have even been needed).
I don't see this position changing with the current administration. I wonder if the misunderstanding of the economic engine known as patent filing will get any better in the future, especially given the number of bad patents approved recently.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Feb 2019 @ 8:09am
Re:
It absolutely is.
We can expect it just as soon as the US confirms that it has jurisdiction over every other sovereignty in the world. Oh, and the MAFFIAA's create that database of all IP materials that can identify and verify every piece of IP they own so that no independent IP gets dinged, ever.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Feb 2019 @ 7:42am
Re: Re: Re: When the site becomes liable for content I upload...
A big problem is regardless of who actually owns the copyright or who created it, or who uploaded it, when some MAFFIAA member comes along and says it's theirs, not yours and not the platforms, the cost of going into court and fighting is untenable.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Feb 2019 @ 10:33am
Re: Hot news isn't hot enough, but was the analysis accurate?
I should add that it is not like in the olden days where someone walks by a news vendor on a city street and sees maybe five different newspapers all screaming similar headlines over the same event. Capital Forums isn't going to sell more 'papers' for one article, but they might get more subscribers if they consistently are timely with their information, and are not only insightful with their analysis, but right.
On the post: Teen Musician Turns Down $3 Million Record Deal: No Need For A Label Thanks To The Internet
Distributor or marketer?
So what does the distributor actually do in this case? Is there some kind of wall at Spotify and Apple Music or others that prevent independents from gaining access? Then what does the distributor have that an independent artist does not? Or is the purpose of a distributor more along the lines of marketing? If a mere distributor can do these things for an independent artist, then what is it that a label offers that differs?
I also wonder how the distributor is compensated? A percentage, a fixed fee, and what do those amount to?
On the post: Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
Oh it's just a trim, with a little off the top
So near as I can tell, the US Constitution does two things:
A, it tells the government what powers it does have
B. It tells the government what powers it cannot have
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine whether laws passed by Congress violate either of those two basic precepts. It is not to micromanage society.
Justice Thomas wants to micromanage society in avoidance of what the Congress wanted, when what Congress wanted didn't violate either of those two basic precepts.
On the post: Sprint, T-Mobile Execs Continue To Hallucinate Competitors In Their Post-Merger Dreamscape
Re:
They just re-characterize it as spin.
By dictum. When it is company policy to obey the boss, the choice the peons have is to go someplace else to work, which isn't always easy.
On the post: As EU Politicians Insist That It's All Just 'Bots' And 'Astroturf' Tons Of People Showing Up In Real Life To Protest
Bots vote MEP's out of office
I am waiting for the upcoming election. I suspect that MEP's that lose their elections will be blaming 'bots' for voting for the winning person. Then the question becomes, why did the folks running the poles let all those bots in to vote?
On the post: Fatal Houston PD Drug Raid Apparently Predicated On Drugs A Cop Had Stashed In His Car
To what end?
The thing that bothers me, outside of sociopaths excising their predilection to assert authority over others, is what do the cops get out of such actions?
On the post: German Politician Thinks Gmail Constituent Messages Are All Faked By Google
Re:
Teflon, which in conjunction with closed ears, closed eyes will compliment the already closed mind. Oh, and don't forget the 'campaign contributions' that the rest of us know as bribes.
On the post: United States Gifted With 33rd National Emergency By President Who Says It's Not Really An Emergency
Re:
What makes you think Mexico would take him?
On the post: United States Gifted With 33rd National Emergency By President Who Says It's Not Really An Emergency
Re: Re: Critical Thinking
Someone seems to fear that an 'invasion' from the north might make the US population more polite. :-)
On the post: EU Commission Decides To Mock The Public; Insists Fears About EU Copyright Directive Are All Myths
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being more emphatic does not make you more right.
On the post: EU Commission Decides To Mock The Public; Insists Fears About EU Copyright Directive Are All Myths
Re: Re: Re:
This is where you lose us. In your statement, who lost? The big corporation that was doing distribution. Not creation, distribution. The Internet has made the need for distributors largely irrelevant. I suppose one could like some platforms to be 'distributor like', but the differences are greater than the likenesses.
Distributors chose what to distribute and where to distribute it, and when to distribute it. Platforms tend to let you put whatever you want up without time or place restrictions.
In the end big corporate distributors are going the way of buggy whip and butter churn manufacturers. So?
On the post: United States Gifted With 33rd National Emergency By President Who Says It's Not Really An Emergency
Looking for humanitarian in the action
I keep reading through that declaration looking for what action he is taking about the 'humanitarian' part of this supposed crisis. I don't see any. Is leaving people stranded at the border, some of whom might have legitimate asylum claims, Trump's definition of humanitarian?
On the post: EU Commission Decides To Mock The Public; Insists Fears About EU Copyright Directive Are All Myths
Dear EU Commission, Blinders don't work on the Internet
The Commissions article on Medium has been removed. Here is an archived copy of that article.
On the post: Appeals Court Takes No Time At All In Rejecting Patent Troll's Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Cloudflare
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of
Then if it has no value, why did IBM buy it for $34 Billion?
On the post: Appeals Court Takes No Time At All In Rejecting Patent Troll's Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Cloudflare
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of “no more patents&
What makes you think that someone smart enough to reverse engineer your super secret product isn't smart enough to make the same product differently? Oh, and never mind that without a patent they could do it exactly the same way as you did, because...no patent exists!
Oh and just because a product is complex does not mean it cannot be reverse engineered. They will just tear it down into smaller components and reverse engineer each of those. There is no such thing as secret sauce.
On the post: Appeals Court Takes No Time At All In Rejecting Patent Troll's Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Cloudflare
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think of “no more patents”
If you think that raising the quality level of patents granted will encourage inventors to keep their inventions secret, then I suppose those inventors you are referring to have 'inventions' that if they tried to patent them, those patents would be considered junk.
The only reason to keep a product secret is so that one can finish creating the market ready product. Once the product is in the marketplace, it is no longer secret. This is only a benefit if the product originator can keep their design ahead of inevitable competitors (who don't need to infringe on any patent to compete, and will find it easier to compete when no patent exists, and will likely file for a patent because none exists, which will likely cause the originator some big headaches) and maintain their market share and margin by having been first and continually being different and better.
On the post: Appeals Court Takes No Time At All In Rejecting Patent Troll's Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Cloudflare
Re: Re: Re: What do you think of “no more patents”
In response to your very narrow question, the loss of patent disclosures, assuming that all patents were quality patents, would have a negative impact on society. That assumption, with regard to the quality of patents, is a big problem, and the proliferation of bad quality patents has a deleterious effect on society.
One also has to consider whether a (let us assume here good quality) patent holder has the ability to bring a product to market effectively. The disclosure would tell a potential competitor how not to do something so that they can do the same thing via a different method. Remember that it is the implementation that gets protected by the patent, not the idea. Again, if that secondary producer has the ability to bring a product to market effectively, society wins, and the patent system works as intended, including the part about disclosure.
Then considering the opposite of above, and (let us assume bad quality) patent holders have the ability to disrupt, rightly or wrongly, any other implementation of the idea by imposing monetary sanctions on any producer that creates a similar product even if they scrupulously avoid infringing on the bad patent. They have to spend money defending their position that could have gone into product improvement, or for that matter new products. In this scenario disclosure does nothing good for society. The lawyers win, the manufacturer loses a lot of money defending their product, and likely the patent gets disqualified so even the patent holder loses. In this
In the end, your question needs to be "do you think the loss of high quality patent disclosures will have a positive or negative impact on society?", and the answer is still, positive, if there are no junk patents. As to disclosure for the junk patents, disclosure means nothing at all as there is rarely a product to go along with that junk patent and society loses all around.
On the post: Appeals Court Takes No Time At All In Rejecting Patent Troll's Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Cloudflare
Do more, don't do good
Past administrations have taken the attitude that more patents approved meant that the economic machine worked harder and faster and better. This led to an increase in the quantity of patents approved regardless of quality. Now we get to feast upon the economic burdens imposed on companies that have done no wrong by this attitude. Costs to these companies that wind up needing to defend themselves when they shouldn't need to. The money they spend on these defenses might actually have helped the economy (other than the lawyers) but is now wasted upon...well lawyers (not that lawyers are always a waste, but they should not have even been needed).
I don't see this position changing with the current administration. I wonder if the misunderstanding of the economic engine known as patent filing will get any better in the future, especially given the number of bad patents approved recently.
On the post: Someone Impersonated New Jersey's Attorney General To Demand Cloudflare Takedown 3d Printed Gun Instructions
Re:
It absolutely is.
We can expect it just as soon as the US confirms that it has jurisdiction over every other sovereignty in the world. Oh, and the MAFFIAA's create that database of all IP materials that can identify and verify every piece of IP they own so that no independent IP gets dinged, ever.
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Re: Re: When the site becomes liable for content I upload...
A big problem is regardless of who actually owns the copyright or who created it, or who uploaded it, when some MAFFIAA member comes along and says it's theirs, not yours and not the platforms, the cost of going into court and fighting is untenable.
On the post: Obsolete Hot News Doctrine Back In The News As Bloomberg Is Sued For Reporting Too Quickly
Re: Hot news isn't hot enough, but was the analysis accurate?
I should add that it is not like in the olden days where someone walks by a news vendor on a city street and sees maybe five different newspapers all screaming similar headlines over the same event. Capital Forums isn't going to sell more 'papers' for one article, but they might get more subscribers if they consistently are timely with their information, and are not only insightful with their analysis, but right.
Next >>