My dad taught high school industrial arts, wood working, metals, drafting, etc. for over 30 years. SO I am a little biased I suppose.
Most of the teachers are pretty good and actually understand what's what. The administrators and school boards often have no clue or are all about "maintaining control". They are also often pretty conservative, compared to most teachers. Especially the elected school boards.
So it's almost always the administrators that end up causing the uproars like this, not the teachers.
I think "give it away and pray" is really just part of a broader set of activities that you do to make a living. It has been this way for most artists for decades. New bands play for free or at their own cost, authors do readings, book signings, etc. for free, artists put their works into shows for free, all to get exposure and build a following.
So in some ways "give it away and pray" has been around and successful for a long time.
The real difference these days is you can get much more and broader exposure more quickly because of the internet. You also don't need a big company to help you get that mass exposure any more. And that is what has the big publishers, record companies, etc. scared.
It doesn't really matter if the suit was filed out of spite or not. It is still something that needs to be done because without it the school will just continue to abuse their students by bullying them and not following their own rules.
I ran into similar crap decades ago in high school, but I couldn't make too many waves because my father taught at the school and pushing things too far would have jeopardized his job.
What really counts are ...for sale for a very reasonable price. and and it is definitely a good value. Without this it doesn't matter how much time and money you invest into your content. It seems too many publishers of all types don't understand that the right quality level at the right price is what makes for success in a true free market.
He definitely does say that you have to produce something that people are willing to pay for if you want a pay wall to work. It doesn't really matter who pays for it, individuals or businesses. What matters is that enough people think there is enough value to pay for it.
As for the balls statement I think he is right here as well. If the people complaining actually believe that pay walls are better then why don't they do it? Because they don't have the balls to believe that the content they are publishing is worth paying for. The real problem is that most of them are not really creating any content. Most of the content is parroted from wire services or re-reporting something that has already been published in a dozen other places.
As for being able to run a top notch newspaper for a quarter or third of the NY Times budget. Yes you probably can, if you focus your coverage instead of trying to be very broad.
Re: Re: Quick response from the Editor of Ars Technica
Chris,
I've been reading ArsTechnica for over a decade and the one thing that has always been a constant is that most of the staff and most of the top posters on their forums are very arrogant. They truly do think that they know the absolute best way of doing things and very seldom apologize in a straight forward manner.
That being said I still visit the site almost daily because of the quality of the main sites articles and the entertainment value and knowledge of the forum posters. I just ignore the garbage that I have no use for. I have also been a subscriber for a long time now.
For those surprised at the way ArsTechnica did this experiment and the reasons they have, it is really nothing new for the site.
I have been active on ArsTechnica for over 10 years and they almost never announce site changes in advance. Be they minor or major. And when they make a change there is almost always an uproar on the forums and the staff brushes off the majority of the comments.
The attitude about ads and ad blockers is also nothing new and has been brought up before on the site. I specifically remember a long forum discussion about it earlier last year.
Now I understand that a sites like ArsTechnica need ad revenue to pay for their bandwidth and hosting. Thus, I do not specifically block ads. If a site has ads that really bother me I will just not visit that site.
I do however indirectly block a bunch of ads because I either do not have Flash installed or I have it disabled. Most stuff that uses Flash is just plan annoying, ads included, I just don't want that crap. Particularly animated ads disrupting my ability to focus on reading the web site itself. If a site really wants my eyes they will not have animated ads.
I guess the real problem is that advertisers believe, wrongly or rightly, that annoying animated ads work. They probably do work well enough, just like email spam, that they are worth doing for a ROI point of view. All I know is they do not work on me and as mentioned by Mike annoying ads make me think poorly of the company who's ad it is. But then I'm an old fart that stuck in my ways.
Looking at the patent, and having a small knowledge of the subject the lawsuits would need to target analog integrated circuits, not the end products they go into. The patent really covers pretty low level circuit design, not something like an entire MRI system.
The problem is that most video game customers don't even know what DRM is, much less which games have what kind of DRM. They just don't care, until of course they can't play the game because of the DRM, but by then it is too late and the publisher has already run off with the money.
If a content creator does not want to work to promote themselves then it is going to be very difficult for them to "hit it big". This has always been the case. The internet hasn't changed this fact, it has only changed the tools available to do the promotion. Social networking systems are just another form of promotion. A modern extension to word of mouth promotion/advertising.
If a content creator is not willing to help promote their own works then they need to accept the fact that they are not going to make much, if any, money from it. Musicians go on tour, authors have book signings and readings, movie stars go on the talk show circuit, etc. If you want to make it big you have to put in the effort, and that will never change.
I work in IT and I do mostly administrative work so I usually don't have to deal with end users.
When you say you work in IT most people think you are a programmer. The reality is that 90%-95% of IT employees never write any code. What they do is install and support third party software and hardware.
As mentioned by others how can you possibly enjoy your job if you spend your entire day replacing toner cartridges and walking people through how to log into their email for the hundredth time.
I've been working a paid job of one sort or another since I was 14 and I have never had a job I actually enjoyed. I just don't understand how anyone could actually enjoy working. It's called a job, not a fun.
I would expect that any case brought by Chrysler would also include copyright infringement and that is were the school would quickly loose the case. While the image is used as a trademark, the actual artwork is also covered by copyright, and the school blatantly ripped off artwork. Most likely by someone too lazy to come up with something new. Possibly an outside graphics consultant that charged a pretty penny.
While this idea sounds cool, and I nominated the town I live in, I doubt Google will even get a real chance to try this out. They will get sued by the incumbent telcos/cable companies and tied up in court for so long even they will have to eventually give up.
If the story is true congratulations to whoever made this. It is kind of interesting and pretty well done.
Even if it is true however the $500 amount is VERY misleading. You can not make a video like this for $500. Given the quality of the video I would expect that the camera(s) used cost more then $500. Plus you have the cost of the PC(s) used to created the CGI and do the editing. And unless he used only open source software there is A LOT more the $500 worth of software used.
Now doing a video like this for a real cost of only a few thousand dollars I can believe, but you don't make this using a $500 laptop and it's built-in webcam.
I've always said that the badly presented defenses in these types of cases are really just a delaying tactic that give the defendant a really good excuse for an appeal, or maybe even a mistrial. Basically the argument is that your lawyer was so horribly bad that you never had a chance to defend yourself.
The delaying tactic part is about hoping someone can come up with a good defense or precedent is set somewhere else for either tossing the case or drastically reducing the penalties.
I think part of the problem with newspapers is that they still think in terms of physical newspapers sold. So they don't actually see traffic going to their web site as a good thing unless it sells more physical papers, and the people that go to their site via aggregators are highly unlikely to then buy a physical paper.
Basically many newspaper folks still don't get the internet at all. They are still stuck on the idea that they must sell a physical item to make money.
I agree that a name your own price isn't a good long term business plan. I do think it is a useful research tool for helping you determine what price level will produce an optimal, and hopefully sustainable, profit level.
One thing that gets skipped in this whole thing is that Danger/Sidekick is not a cloud computing service. It is a plain old client/server system. Unlike a true cloud system there was single place where all the data was stored. The data was not spread over multiple systems in a dynamically scalable manner. If it would have been an actual cloud based system the loss of data would have only effected a small portion of users, if any at all.
On the post: Laptop Spy Scandal Administrator Just "Loved" Violating Students' Fourth Amendment Rights
It's the Administrators, Mostly
Most of the teachers are pretty good and actually understand what's what. The administrators and school boards often have no clue or are all about "maintaining control". They are also often pretty conservative, compared to most teachers. Especially the elected school boards.
So it's almost always the administrators that end up causing the uproars like this, not the teachers.
On the post: Give It Away And Pray: Maybe Not A Business Model, But Still Important For Artists
Not Just One Plan
So in some ways "give it away and pray" has been around and successful for a long time.
The real difference these days is you can get much more and broader exposure more quickly because of the internet. You also don't need a big company to help you get that mass exposure any more. And that is what has the big publishers, record companies, etc. scared.
On the post: Student Punished For Facebook Study Group Files $10 Million Lawsuit
I ran into similar crap decades ago in high school, but I couldn't make too many waves because my father taught at the school and pushing things too far would have jeopardized his job.
On the post: WikiPremed Shows How To Make Money From Free Test Prep
On the post: FT Boss: Positive Thinking And Balls Are The Secrets To A Successful Paywall
He definitely does say that you have to produce something that people are willing to pay for if you want a pay wall to work. It doesn't really matter who pays for it, individuals or businesses. What matters is that enough people think there is enough value to pay for it.
As for the balls statement I think he is right here as well. If the people complaining actually believe that pay walls are better then why don't they do it? Because they don't have the balls to believe that the content they are publishing is worth paying for. The real problem is that most of them are not really creating any content. Most of the content is parroted from wire services or re-reporting something that has already been published in a dozen other places.
As for being able to run a top notch newspaper for a quarter or third of the NY Times budget. Yes you probably can, if you focus your coverage instead of trying to be very broad.
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Re: Re: Quick response from the Editor of Ars Technica
I've been reading ArsTechnica for over a decade and the one thing that has always been a constant is that most of the staff and most of the top posters on their forums are very arrogant. They truly do think that they know the absolute best way of doing things and very seldom apologize in a straight forward manner.
That being said I still visit the site almost daily because of the quality of the main sites articles and the entertainment value and knowledge of the forum posters. I just ignore the garbage that I have no use for. I have also been a subscriber for a long time now.
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Sues E*Trade For $100 Million; Says Baby Was Based On Her
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Nothing New Really
I have been active on ArsTechnica for over 10 years and they almost never announce site changes in advance. Be they minor or major. And when they make a change there is almost always an uproar on the forums and the staff brushes off the majority of the comments.
The attitude about ads and ad blockers is also nothing new and has been brought up before on the site. I specifically remember a long forum discussion about it earlier last year.
Now I understand that a sites like ArsTechnica need ad revenue to pay for their bandwidth and hosting. Thus, I do not specifically block ads. If a site has ads that really bother me I will just not visit that site.
I do however indirectly block a bunch of ads because I either do not have Flash installed or I have it disabled. Most stuff that uses Flash is just plan annoying, ads included, I just don't want that crap. Particularly animated ads disrupting my ability to focus on reading the web site itself. If a site really wants my eyes they will not have animated ads.
I guess the real problem is that advertisers believe, wrongly or rightly, that annoying animated ads work. They probably do work well enough, just like email spam, that they are worth doing for a ROI point of view. All I know is they do not work on me and as mentioned by Mike annoying ads make me think poorly of the company who's ad it is. But then I'm an old fart that stuck in my ways.
On the post: If You're Going To Sue For Patent Infringement, It Helps To Say What Actually Infringes
On the post: Ubisoft's 'You Must Be Connected To This Server' Annoying DRM Servers Go Down
Re:
On the post: Labels Saying They Don't Want To Deal With Artists Who Won't Make The Effort To Connect
Its Just Another Form of Promotion
If a content creator is not willing to help promote their own works then they need to accept the fact that they are not going to make much, if any, money from it. Musicians go on tour, authors have book signings and readings, movie stars go on the talk show circuit, etc. If you want to make it big you have to put in the effort, and that will never change.
On the post: Do IT People Hate Their Jobs?
IT is not software development
When you say you work in IT most people think you are a programmer. The reality is that 90%-95% of IT employees never write any code. What they do is install and support third party software and hardware.
As mentioned by others how can you possibly enjoy your job if you spend your entire day replacing toner cartridges and walking people through how to log into their email for the hundredth time.
I've been working a paid job of one sort or another since I was 14 and I have never had a job I actually enjoyed. I just don't understand how anyone could actually enjoy working. It's called a job, not a fun.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?
Copyright Trademark Confusion Again
On the post: Or Will Broadband Competition Look Like.... Google?
They Won't Be Allowed To Even Try
On the post: ACLU Looking To Challenge Homeland Security On Border Laptop Searches
On the post: $500 YouTube Video Gets Director $30 Million To Play With From Hollywood
$500 Amount is Misleading
Even if it is true however the $500 amount is VERY misleading. You can not make a video like this for $500. Given the quality of the video I would expect that the camera(s) used cost more then $500. Plus you have the cost of the PC(s) used to created the CGI and do the editing. And unless he used only open source software there is A LOT more the $500 worth of software used.
Now doing a video like this for a real cost of only a few thousand dollars I can believe, but you don't make this using a $500 laptop and it's built-in webcam.
On the post: Judge Finalizes Tenenbaum Ruling, Trashes Nesson For Chaotically Bad Defense
Bad Lawyer = Reason For Appeal
The delaying tactic part is about hoping someone can come up with a good defense or precedent is set somewhere else for either tossing the case or drastically reducing the penalties.
But then what do I know. ;-)
On the post: Embracing Traffic From Those Darn Aggregators
It's about the physical paper
Basically many newspaper folks still don't get the internet at all. They are still stuck on the idea that they must sell a physical item to make money.
On the post: World Of Goo Tries A Donation Model, Publishes Results
On the post: How Did Danger Not Backup Its Servers? How Did Microsoft Allow Such A Failure?
NOT Cloud Computing
Next >>