Right, because casting people never go looking for a particular type that happens to be trendy. Especially for women. Especially for an Old Navy commercial.
Be nice Mike. They would have figured it out sooner except they just got the email last month. Not that it was sent last month, that's just when AP started using email. I hear next month they're planning to get some of those fancy new color monitors.
Re: If these documents aren't publicly available without JSTOR...
And before you start flogging your straw man again, releasing this stuff as a torrent is replacing most of those costs and others have long since been covered. Librarians also shouldn't be paid to do things we don't need them to do. Their jobs are, and should be, supported by a variety of government and private funding, but only up to the point where they do something useful. We don't need them to be the gatekeepers for works completed, catalogued, and indexed a century ago. We need them to help us deal with the works yet to be created.
Re: If these documents aren't publicly available without JSTOR...
then you're just plain saying that librarians don't deserve to be paid. -- Yes, I know and admit the sources and how it's "free" information. But the storing, cataloging, keeping the equipment humming, and lights on so that it's always available ain't free, and while I certainly object to the /high price/, that there /should/ be /some/ fee paid to the librarians for services seems absolutely solid.
No, librarians shouldn't be paid for locking publicly funded research away from the very people who paid for it. They should be thrown in jail for that.
I was interviewing someone just yesterday for an article I'm working on and he made an interesting observation about his experiences in China that I think is relevant to this story. He pointed out that despite every bit of personal communication being monitored and the constant threat of punishment hanging over their heads, the Chinese people continue to use technology the way they want to. In fact they use all that surveillance to let the government know when they are upset. When the Chinese government implements a policy they don't like, the people don't try to hide their opposition to it. Instead they loudly criticize the government in phone conversations, text messages, the internet, or whatever platform they have at their disposal.
The point is, this sort of thing is the natural human reaction to horrific abuse of power. Even if you give the copyright lobbyists all the laws they want, even if the punishment is spending the rest of your life in prison or worse, it won't stop people from doing something if they believe in it strongly enough. Using the government to threaten those who oppose you may scare some into inaction, but it will strengthen the resolve of others. How many people can you threaten or sue or send to jail before the people have had all they can take? That's what those in charge of all these legacy copyright industries should be asking themselves. Because once we reach that point they'll look back fondly on the days when copying was the only thing they worried about.
Perhaps, but it's still different. If you just say the name 312, few people will automatically assume you're talking about beer, even in the Chicago area. On the other hand, if you said 586 to someone familiar with computers in the early 90s, they would assume you were talking about a microprocessor.
Didn't Intel discover that you can't trademark a number?
The use of 286, 386, and 486 as common names for previous generations of CPU architecture meant 586 was already used by the public to describe the original Pentium before it was even designed. Intel trademarked i586 in addition to Pentium, but chose to use the latter for marketing because it would be distinct from similar products like AMD's (trademarked) AM586.
Naming a beer after a zip code has no such problem. If you describe a beer to someone with a three digit number, they're not likely to even guess that it's a reference to where the beer comes from.
They just have to show that the domain names are probably used to commit criminal infringement.
No, probably (a preponderance of the evidence) is the standard for civil cases. Almost certainly (beyond a reasonable doubt) is the standard for criminal prosecution.
What's worse for the newspapers is that the new model benefits not just the consumers and Google, but also the advertisers. Why would an advertiser want to go back to the old "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" model when they can target advertising to a specific consumer?
I forgot the most important point too. If it the intention were to say it is a natural right of the people it makes no sense for it to be granted by Congress. Or in fact to be mentioned in the main body of the Constitution at all since individual rights aren't covered until the Bill Of Rights.
Paine provides us with the semantics of the language in which the Framers understood the clause.
You keep claiming that, but you provide no evidence to back your assertion. The fact that most of the founders generally agreed with Paine does not prove that they agreed with every specific of his beliefs. I agree with Mike Masnick in a general sense. Does that mean I must agree with him on the whether George Clinton has a case against his lawyers? Clearly not since I specifically disagreed with that conclusion above.
But we do not need that knowledge to be sure your interpretation is wrong. If, in fact, the Copyright Clause referred to a natural right it would be nonsensical to qualify it as only applying to a limited time. Nor would it make any sense to say it is intended specifically to promote progress since a natural right is its own end and needs no governmental purpose.
I don't think it is semantics. Increasing the amount of time, effort, and creativity do not automatically lead to more enjoyment, entertainment, education, etc, ... That's the business side of things for me. It's about creating more value without increasing the amount of time and effort. Creativity is why I do it, so putting more of that in is for me.
There is one more thing I would add about art and business. Sometimes putting economic concerns first makes your art better. As they say, everyone needs an editor. Your audience may not directly edit your work, but listening to them will help you do it for yourself.
I agree with pretty much your entire comment except for this:
copies are not what the artist sells, it's his labor that is the good people pay for.
It is certainly a service, but what the consumer pays for is what he gets out of it, not what the creator puts in. They may seem like the same thing, but they aren't. The artist puts in time, effort, and creativity. The consumer gets enjoyment, entertainment, education, and similar things.
Simply suggesting alternate rationale for the quotes I cite does not prove how either man felt about it earlier. Nor does it address my point about how the majority of people who ratified the Constitution interpreted the Copyright Clause. It is their ratification, not Jefferson or Madison's intentions, from which the Constitution derives meaning.
In any case, our disagreement is purely academic since there is no chance interpretation of the Constitution will not be rolled back whether you are right or wrong. It would be more useful for those of us with a like mind about the harm copyright does to concentrate on our common ground. Especially since you and I are exactly the people who are being used as an excuse for all this "protection," which we neither want nor benefit from.
On the post: AP Finally Learns That On The Internet, You Can Link To Other Sites
Re: Re:
On the post: Aaron Swartz Indictment Leading People To... Upload JSTOR Research To File Sharing Sites
Re: Re: Interesting this should come up now
Wait, I am. Never mind.
On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her
On the post: AP Finally Learns That On The Internet, You Can Link To Other Sites
On the post: Aaron Swartz Indictment Leading People To... Upload JSTOR Research To File Sharing Sites
Re: If these documents aren't publicly available without JSTOR...
On the post: Aaron Swartz Indictment Leading People To... Upload JSTOR Research To File Sharing Sites
Re: If these documents aren't publicly available without JSTOR...
On the post: Aaron Swartz Indictment Leading People To... Upload JSTOR Research To File Sharing Sites
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Aaron Swartz Indictment Leading People To... Upload JSTOR Research To File Sharing Sites
Interesting this should come up now
The point is, this sort of thing is the natural human reaction to horrific abuse of power. Even if you give the copyright lobbyists all the laws they want, even if the punishment is spending the rest of your life in prison or worse, it won't stop people from doing something if they believe in it strongly enough. Using the government to threaten those who oppose you may scare some into inaction, but it will strengthen the resolve of others. How many people can you threaten or sue or send to jail before the people have had all they can take? That's what those in charge of all these legacy copyright industries should be asking themselves. Because once we reach that point they'll look back fondly on the days when copying was the only thing they worried about.
On the post: Anheuser-Busch Trying To Trademark Area Codes For Local Beers
Re: Re: It's more complicated than that
On the post: Anheuser-Busch Trying To Trademark Area Codes For Local Beers
Re: It's more complicated than that
On the post: Anheuser-Busch Trying To Trademark Area Codes For Local Beers
It's more complicated than that
Naming a beer after a zip code has no such problem. If you describe a beer to someone with a three digit number, they're not likely to even guess that it's a reference to where the beer comes from.
On the post: Justice Department Practicing Mix-And-Match, Sleight-Of-Hand Law In Seizure Case
Re: Re: Re:
No, probably (a preponderance of the evidence) is the standard for civil cases. Almost certainly (beyond a reasonable doubt) is the standard for criminal prosecution.
On the post: Justice Department Practicing Mix-And-Match, Sleight-Of-Hand Law In Seizure Case
And in other news, water is wet
On the post: Newspapers Win Suit Against Google, Get Their Wish To Be Delisted, Then Complain
Re: Advertising
On the post: Rich Fiscus' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rich Fiscus' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep claiming that, but you provide no evidence to back your assertion. The fact that most of the founders generally agreed with Paine does not prove that they agreed with every specific of his beliefs. I agree with Mike Masnick in a general sense. Does that mean I must agree with him on the whether George Clinton has a case against his lawyers? Clearly not since I specifically disagreed with that conclusion above.
But we do not need that knowledge to be sure your interpretation is wrong. If, in fact, the Copyright Clause referred to a natural right it would be nonsensical to qualify it as only applying to a limited time. Nor would it make any sense to say it is intended specifically to promote progress since a natural right is its own end and needs no governmental purpose.
On the post: Rich Fiscus' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rich Fiscus' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rich Fiscus' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
copies are not what the artist sells, it's his labor that is the good people pay for.
It is certainly a service, but what the consumer pays for is what he gets out of it, not what the creator puts in. They may seem like the same thing, but they aren't. The artist puts in time, effort, and creativity. The consumer gets enjoyment, entertainment, education, and similar things.
On the post: Rich Fiscus' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In any case, our disagreement is purely academic since there is no chance interpretation of the Constitution will not be rolled back whether you are right or wrong. It would be more useful for those of us with a like mind about the harm copyright does to concentrate on our common ground. Especially since you and I are exactly the people who are being used as an excuse for all this "protection," which we neither want nor benefit from.
Next >>