To compound the problem even further our "representatives" in Congress and Senate usually have large amounts of money invested in pharma companies. So they don't want to introduce any legislation that may affect their investments.
I AM looking at YouTube and that's why I will always oppose the dystopian "world" you imagine. Quantity does not equal quality, and more is not always better.
He wasn't implying that quantity equals quality, but if you are saying that there is no quality content on youtube then you are completely oblivious.
Besides, 99% of the movies and TV shows out there are complete crap, so locking things up with large corporate conglomerates does not equal quality either.
Since you guys can't seem to connect the dots, let's try this: Is there potential that Universal thought that this guys song was in fact the song they had the rights to (with a strikingly similar name)?
So you are saying that it's okay that they then continued to push their case that they had the rights(when they didn't) and refused to even have a dialog with Edwyn. In what way is that oaky?
Your continued and obvious shilling constantly astounds me.
Every increasing free use of content is what we want (we all want something for nothing) but it isn't what is good for us.
The analogy is damn good, spot on really.
Not quite. Access Copyright isn't arguing to keep fair use fair use protections as they are, they are arguing for further reductions in fair use protections. Taking away rights that people currently have.
And once again you make the "everyone wants everything for free" statement that you are so fond of, yet completely off base on. Paying for products is perfectly sound and is what drives the economy when the product received is worth the price. But when the price is arbitrarily set and is not based on the actual value of the product then the consumer will go elsewhere.
Here a true real life story that happened to me a couple weeks ago:
I was walking through the local grocery store parking lot. I nearly walked into a silent hybrid vehicle that was driving down the lane. Both the driver and I noticed before anything happened. My first thought was not "Those things need to be louder", my first thought was actually "I need to pay better attention".
Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
But the point of my comment was that Mike claimed (as he has in similar posts) that there was "no evidence" that quieter hybrids were any danger. I merely pointed to such evidence.
Ok well let's look at the evidence you presented. The Sun-Sentinel article was based on the Department of Transportation study (and also has a misleading, fear-mongering title). So the Sun-Sentinel is not in itself evidence, but simply a reference to the study done by the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation study is based on 77 incidents involving Hybrid vehicles, vs 3,519 incidents involving Non-Hybrid vehicles. The "double" number referred to in the article's headline is taken from the low speed incident data in which shows incident rates as follows (incidence rate is a measure of percentage of vehicles on the road that will be involved in an incident in the studied time period):
Going Straight: Hybrid 0.9%, Non-Hybrid 0.8%
Making a turn: Hybrid 1.8%, Non-Hybrid 1.0%
Slowing/Stopping: Hybrid 0.5%, Non-Hybrid 0.2%
Backing: Hybrid 5.3%, Non-Hybrid 2.9%
Entering/leaving parking: Hybrid 1.2%, Non-Hybrid 0.9%
Starting in traffic: Hybrid 2.9%, Non-Hybrid 1.2%
Other: Hybrid 0.3%, Non-Hybrid 0.2%
At first glance it appears that the hybrid vehicles are involved in a higher rate of incidents. But the flaw is that due to the small sample size (remember, only 77 incidents involving Hybrids were used in the study) the confidence interval becomes a whopping +/- 3% for the Hybrids. The confidence interval for the non-hybrid incidents is a much more reasonable +/-0.3% due to a much larger sample size of non-hybrid incidents. That means, for example, that the 5.3% number for "backing" may actually be as low as 2.3% or as high as 8.3%. The confidence interval of 3% for the Hybrids is larger than the any of the differences involved, so the differences are not actually statistically significant due to the small sample size. The study does make claims of statistical significance, but the calculations for statistical significance that they used appear to be based on only the total number of vehicles studied, and are therefore flawed. As a result, the Department of Transportation Study cannot actually be viewed as evidence either. A new study would have to be conducted with a much larger sampling of incidents involving Hybrids before any real conclusions could be drawn.
So, no your examples still do not offer any evidence that the lower noise levels in Hybrids cause more pedestrian accidents.
Even if conclusions could be drawn from this study(which they can't), why would that actually warrant a mandatory loudening of Hybrids?
But "no evidence" that hybrid-electric cars cause any more accidents? Two seconds on that Google thing might have helped.
Too bad you didn't actually read those articles after you found them. A couple of good quotes:
"But accident rates with pedestrians and bicyclists were almost the same for both engine styles when the autos were going straight." (Sun-Sentinal article)
"None of the accidents studied were fatal." (Sun-Sentinal article)
"There was no statistically significant difference in incident rate of pedestrian crashes involving HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles when both type of vehicles were going straight." (US Dept of Transportation study)
Also, after looking at the actual data in the US Dept of Transportation study, the difference in accident rates in low-speed and turning collisions (the only category where there was any statistically significant difference) was actually much less than the "double" figure in the headline of the Sun-sentinal article.
There may also be an issue with the sample size in the study, which appears to be quite small. (Only 75 Accidents involving Hybrids were used in the analysis).
Plus, the last time I checked, when a driver is involved with an accident with a Pedestrian or Bicyclist it is assumed that the driver is at fault unless proven otherwise. This means that it is the drivers responsibility not to run into people. I also remember from drivers training class being instructed to be extra careful whenever you see a blind pedestrian (identified by a walking cane or seeing eye dog). There are also lots of silent and near silent vehicles on the roads: ever been to Florida or Palm springs? You can drive Golf Carts on the roads there, which are silent and can go pretty fast, and they don't seem to cause havok. When going downhill or on very smooth streets I will often shift my car into neutral. It becomes nearly silent when I do so, yet no pedestrian (blind or fully sighted) has ever stumbled into my car because of it. It is not the vehicle manufacturers responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are loud.
It is very typically your argument. Tech companies should not have to pay for content, because they are providing valuable advertising for the artist / product / content they are giving away for free. It's the very basis of your arguments and support of all things free.
That is quite a gross gross misconstruing of both what Mike has been talking about, and what the the situation is. He has never said that people should not be paid for their content, and tech companies do not make a business of giving content away for free.
The issue is the fact that the content industry has a history of continually demanding increased protections, and increased compensation. The content industry also has a history of trying to block the progress of any technology that that makes mass distribution easier. A good example is the introduction of the VCR, which was vehemently opposed by the both television and movie industries, but in the end the content industry benefited enormously from the VCR.
The reality is that online companies should pay for the use of copyright material,...
Again, no one is saying that online companies should not have to pay for copyrighted material. The issue is the question of what should qualify as copyrighted material and for how long it should be protected, and what is covered under fair use.
...and they should pay at the going rate.
Again another issue. The "going rate" has been a forced creation of the content industry. The cost of creating and distributing content has gotten cheaper and cheaper. This creates a market force that drives the price down, but the content industry fights this.
A good example is music: The Audio CD came out in the mid 80s (1985 marks the 1st million selling album on CD). At the time the retail cost of audio CDs was between $14 and $16 and usually had between 12 and 16 tracks. The costs associated with this were Recording/mixing/producing the album on high quality equipment, insert layout design and printing, duplication, packaging, and distribution, marketing & promotion. Since then all of these things have become cheaper: The cost of equipment to record/mix/produce at high quality has come down dramatically, tools and equipment to design and print inserts have come down in cost, blank media and duplication tools have become much cheaper, it has even become cheaper to market and promote thanks to the internet, yet the cost of a music CD remains the same as it was in the mid-80s. Now the Music industry has translated that same per-track cost to digital media, which has even lower associated costs. They do this by abusing their granted powers of copyright, and continue to try to extend their copyright protections further and further.
You go on and on about business models, but you always put it on the content producers for having bad business models.
It's not that their business models have always necessarily been bad, the have simply failed to adjust their business models to take advantage of changes in the marketplace over time, and rather that adjust they simply demand more protection.
It is exactly like someone opening a store but not considering the costs of products to put in the store.
Actually it's more like the producer of the goods in the store trying to charge the store owner the same or even higher wholesale price even though his cost to produce has dropped dramatically, while also demanding payment for more and more uses of the product.
No iterations required when there is no competition except yourself.
Okay then lets look at a product that doesn't have any competition: Microsoft Windows. For all intents and purposes they have a monopoly on the PC Operating system market. Yet they are constantly updating their product, adding new features, making improvements.
Your argument is so nonsensical I don't understand how you can actually believe in it. You have hypothetical piled on top of hypothetical, with each hypothetical making less sense than the one before it.
To quote Congressman Barney Frank: "Arguing with you would be like arguing with the kitchen table."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe because it's not "serious art"
Stippling with a Wacom just 'doesn't feel right.' Even on my Intuos. For years I used Staedtler rapidographs before their wonderful disposable, archival-quality liners hit the market. There's something about the "feel" of the nib on bristol that can't be replicated on a tablet. I don't know if it's the feel of the stylus on a plastic board or the sound.
Way to pass off your opinion as some sort of statement of fact. I know of many artists who love thier Wacom tablets. To them the nib on bristol "doesn't feel right".
Maybe I'm dense, inartistic, or didn't RTFA, but it doesn't look like the secondary artist added much content to the original, beyond making it bigger.
Well actually there are quite a few things that Cano contributed, beyond just making it big. Type of canvas, type of paint, framing, and presentation are all artistic inputs.
Exactly, but if there is no pressure to produce the next big product (ie, you would only be bettering your own best selling product) there is little impetus to release the new product any time soon.
Riiiiiiiiight. So what about the iPod? It became a best seller almost immediately after it was released. Did Apple stop innovating on the iPod because they were at the top? Of course not, they kept improving, giving it more storage, giving it more capabilities, making it smaller, adding in a camera and microphone, and doing so very quickly. In the eight years since the first iPod was released we have seen 6 iterations of the regular iPod, 2 iterations of the iPod Mini, 5 iterations of the iPod Nano, 3 iterations of the iPod Shuffle, and 3 iterations of the iPod Touch.
Obviously even when you are at the top there is lots of incentive to keep on innovating.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a problem with Facebook
It's people who are robbing the banks. Therefore the only obvious solution is to ban people. Can we start with Eliot Spitzer?
Good point. It is people who are robbing banks. If is wasn't for oxygen there wouldn't be people around to rob banks though. So we obviously need to ban oxygen.
All that Cano did was use an opaque projector to enlarge someone else's work, without permission, without credit, without adding anything beyond bigness.
Did you read the article with your eyes closed? It states pretty clearly that Cano made PAINTINGS.
How many patents are "overly broad processes which have been used to stop innovators"? Mike goes out of his way to detail every one of them, there are about 50 a year. How many patents are issued a year? Tens of thousands? It is a very, very low failure rate.
It appears as if you just like to make things up. This statement is completely untrue. I'm sure there are much, much more than 50 a year that are overly broad. You just pulled numbers out of thin air. Sorry, completely making things up does not make it true.
Think about how the real world works, not how socialist Mike wishes it worked.
Actually, most of the things that Mike says are quite Capitalist, not socialist. He supports an open market (which is a capitalist idea) and opposes government support of poor business models.
You actually sound a lot like the pundits who toss out the word socialist in order to try to scare people off.
I'm just someone that believes that if someone downloads a music track for free that they do not have express permission to do so for, then they are breaking the law.
Well just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Real life does not agree with you. There are plenty of music tracks that are fully authorized and legal to download for free, without having to get express permission.
Well I think part of it is that they feel that they have so much invested in it that they have to defend it tooth and nail. They also seem to have this adversarial attitude that anyone who doesn't totally agree with them is the enemy. This blinds them: They become so focused on on fighting the sharing of creative content that they don't look to see how they can embrace it to make even more money than they did before.
Fortunately, some people do have the right attitude and are using the available and developing technology to spread their artistic works to more people than ever(and making good money doing it). The dinosaurs will eventually die out, though it may take a while.
Well now you are completely discounting the other side. In my experience having "the other side is lazy and greedy" as your premise is not a very good way to have a meaningful discussion with them. I'm sure there are IP maximalists who are neither lazy nor just trying to make money off of others.
On the post: As The FTC Goes After Bloggers, Doctors Making Millions Promoting Drugs With Little Oversight
Don't forget about the legislators
On the post: So Much For That 'Education' Campaign: Fewer And Fewer Swedes Think File Sharing Is 'Theft'
Re: (learn to use the subject field, AC)
He wasn't implying that quantity equals quality, but if you are saying that there is no quality content on youtube then you are completely oblivious.
Besides, 99% of the movies and TV shows out there are complete crap, so locking things up with large corporate conglomerates does not equal quality either.
On the post: Post Script On Edwyn Collins: Power Of The Press Gets His Music On MySpace For Free
Re: Re: Re:
So you are saying that it's okay that they then continued to push their case that they had the rights(when they didn't) and refused to even have a dialog with Edwyn. In what way is that oaky?
Your continued and obvious shilling constantly astounds me.
On the post: Access Copyright Says That There Should Be Less Fair Use
Re: Re: Re:
The analogy is damn good, spot on really.
Not quite. Access Copyright isn't arguing to keep fair use fair use protections as they are, they are arguing for further reductions in fair use protections. Taking away rights that people currently have.
And once again you make the "everyone wants everything for free" statement that you are so fond of, yet completely off base on. Paying for products is perfectly sound and is what drives the economy when the product received is worth the price. But when the price is arbitrarily set and is not based on the actual value of the product then the consumer will go elsewhere.
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Real life example
I was walking through the local grocery store parking lot. I nearly walked into a silent hybrid vehicle that was driving down the lane. Both the driver and I noticed before anything happened. My first thought was not "Those things need to be louder", my first thought was actually "I need to pay better attention".
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Ok well let's look at the evidence you presented. The Sun-Sentinel article was based on the Department of Transportation study (and also has a misleading, fear-mongering title). So the Sun-Sentinel is not in itself evidence, but simply a reference to the study done by the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation study is based on 77 incidents involving Hybrid vehicles, vs 3,519 incidents involving Non-Hybrid vehicles. The "double" number referred to in the article's headline is taken from the low speed incident data in which shows incident rates as follows (incidence rate is a measure of percentage of vehicles on the road that will be involved in an incident in the studied time period):
Going Straight: Hybrid 0.9%, Non-Hybrid 0.8%
Making a turn: Hybrid 1.8%, Non-Hybrid 1.0%
Slowing/Stopping: Hybrid 0.5%, Non-Hybrid 0.2%
Backing: Hybrid 5.3%, Non-Hybrid 2.9%
Entering/leaving parking: Hybrid 1.2%, Non-Hybrid 0.9%
Starting in traffic: Hybrid 2.9%, Non-Hybrid 1.2%
Other: Hybrid 0.3%, Non-Hybrid 0.2%
At first glance it appears that the hybrid vehicles are involved in a higher rate of incidents. But the flaw is that due to the small sample size (remember, only 77 incidents involving Hybrids were used in the study) the confidence interval becomes a whopping +/- 3% for the Hybrids. The confidence interval for the non-hybrid incidents is a much more reasonable +/-0.3% due to a much larger sample size of non-hybrid incidents. That means, for example, that the 5.3% number for "backing" may actually be as low as 2.3% or as high as 8.3%. The confidence interval of 3% for the Hybrids is larger than the any of the differences involved, so the differences are not actually statistically significant due to the small sample size. The study does make claims of statistical significance, but the calculations for statistical significance that they used appear to be based on only the total number of vehicles studied, and are therefore flawed. As a result, the Department of Transportation Study cannot actually be viewed as evidence either. A new study would have to be conducted with a much larger sampling of incidents involving Hybrids before any real conclusions could be drawn.
So, no your examples still do not offer any evidence that the lower noise levels in Hybrids cause more pedestrian accidents.
Even if conclusions could be drawn from this study(which they can't), why would that actually warrant a mandatory loudening of Hybrids?
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Too bad you didn't actually read those articles after you found them. A couple of good quotes:
"But accident rates with pedestrians and bicyclists were almost the same for both engine styles when the autos were going straight." (Sun-Sentinal article)
"None of the accidents studied were fatal." (Sun-Sentinal article)
"There was no statistically significant difference in incident rate of pedestrian crashes involving HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles when both type of vehicles were going straight." (US Dept of Transportation study)
Also, after looking at the actual data in the US Dept of Transportation study, the difference in accident rates in low-speed and turning collisions (the only category where there was any statistically significant difference) was actually much less than the "double" figure in the headline of the Sun-sentinal article.
There may also be an issue with the sample size in the study, which appears to be quite small. (Only 75 Accidents involving Hybrids were used in the analysis).
Plus, the last time I checked, when a driver is involved with an accident with a Pedestrian or Bicyclist it is assumed that the driver is at fault unless proven otherwise. This means that it is the drivers responsibility not to run into people. I also remember from drivers training class being instructed to be extra careful whenever you see a blind pedestrian (identified by a walking cane or seeing eye dog). There are also lots of silent and near silent vehicles on the roads: ever been to Florida or Palm springs? You can drive Golf Carts on the roads there, which are silent and can go pretty fast, and they don't seem to cause havok. When going downhill or on very smooth streets I will often shift my car into neutral. It becomes nearly silent when I do so, yet no pedestrian (blind or fully sighted) has ever stumbled into my car because of it. It is not the vehicle manufacturers responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are loud.
On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?
Re: Re: Re:
That is quite a gross gross misconstruing of both what Mike has been talking about, and what the the situation is. He has never said that people should not be paid for their content, and tech companies do not make a business of giving content away for free.
The issue is the fact that the content industry has a history of continually demanding increased protections, and increased compensation. The content industry also has a history of trying to block the progress of any technology that that makes mass distribution easier. A good example is the introduction of the VCR, which was vehemently opposed by the both television and movie industries, but in the end the content industry benefited enormously from the VCR.
The reality is that online companies should pay for the use of copyright material,...
Again, no one is saying that online companies should not have to pay for copyrighted material. The issue is the question of what should qualify as copyrighted material and for how long it should be protected, and what is covered under fair use.
...and they should pay at the going rate.
Again another issue. The "going rate" has been a forced creation of the content industry. The cost of creating and distributing content has gotten cheaper and cheaper. This creates a market force that drives the price down, but the content industry fights this.
A good example is music: The Audio CD came out in the mid 80s (1985 marks the 1st million selling album on CD). At the time the retail cost of audio CDs was between $14 and $16 and usually had between 12 and 16 tracks. The costs associated with this were Recording/mixing/producing the album on high quality equipment, insert layout design and printing, duplication, packaging, and distribution, marketing & promotion. Since then all of these things have become cheaper: The cost of equipment to record/mix/produce at high quality has come down dramatically, tools and equipment to design and print inserts have come down in cost, blank media and duplication tools have become much cheaper, it has even become cheaper to market and promote thanks to the internet, yet the cost of a music CD remains the same as it was in the mid-80s. Now the Music industry has translated that same per-track cost to digital media, which has even lower associated costs. They do this by abusing their granted powers of copyright, and continue to try to extend their copyright protections further and further.
You go on and on about business models, but you always put it on the content producers for having bad business models.
It's not that their business models have always necessarily been bad, the have simply failed to adjust their business models to take advantage of changes in the marketplace over time, and rather that adjust they simply demand more protection.
It is exactly like someone opening a store but not considering the costs of products to put in the store.
Actually it's more like the producer of the goods in the store trying to charge the store owner the same or even higher wholesale price even though his cost to produce has dropped dramatically, while also demanding payment for more and more uses of the product.
On the post: Appropriation Artist Makes Paintings Out Of WSJ Stipple Images... Pisses Off Stipple Artist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe because it's not "serious art"
On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay then lets look at a product that doesn't have any competition: Microsoft Windows. For all intents and purposes they have a monopoly on the PC Operating system market. Yet they are constantly updating their product, adding new features, making improvements.
Your argument is so nonsensical I don't understand how you can actually believe in it. You have hypothetical piled on top of hypothetical, with each hypothetical making less sense than the one before it.
To quote Congressman Barney Frank: "Arguing with you would be like arguing with the kitchen table."
On the post: Appropriation Artist Makes Paintings Out Of WSJ Stipple Images... Pisses Off Stipple Artist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe because it's not "serious art"
Way to pass off your opinion as some sort of statement of fact. I know of many artists who love thier Wacom tablets. To them the nib on bristol "doesn't feel right".
On the post: Appropriation Artist Makes Paintings Out Of WSJ Stipple Images... Pisses Off Stipple Artist
Re: Enlargements?
Well actually there are quite a few things that Cano contributed, beyond just making it big. Type of canvas, type of paint, framing, and presentation are all artistic inputs.
On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Riiiiiiiiight. So what about the iPod? It became a best seller almost immediately after it was released. Did Apple stop innovating on the iPod because they were at the top? Of course not, they kept improving, giving it more storage, giving it more capabilities, making it smaller, adding in a camera and microphone, and doing so very quickly. In the eight years since the first iPod was released we have seen 6 iterations of the regular iPod, 2 iterations of the iPod Mini, 5 iterations of the iPod Nano, 3 iterations of the iPod Shuffle, and 3 iterations of the iPod Touch.
Obviously even when you are at the top there is lots of incentive to keep on innovating.
On the post: If You're A Fugitive, You Probably Shouldn't Update Your Facebook Status With Location... Or Friend A Fed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a problem with Facebook
Good point. It is people who are robbing banks. If is wasn't for oxygen there wouldn't be people around to rob banks though. So we obviously need to ban oxygen.
On the post: Appropriation Artist Makes Paintings Out Of WSJ Stipple Images... Pisses Off Stipple Artist
Re: Maybe because it's not "serious art"
Did you read the article with your eyes closed? It states pretty clearly that Cano made PAINTINGS.
On the post: Is There Any New Technology The Copyright Industry Hasn't Tried To Stop?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It appears as if you just like to make things up. This statement is completely untrue. I'm sure there are much, much more than 50 a year that are overly broad. You just pulled numbers out of thin air. Sorry, completely making things up does not make it true.
Think about how the real world works, not how socialist Mike wishes it worked.
Actually, most of the things that Mike says are quite Capitalist, not socialist. He supports an open market (which is a capitalist idea) and opposes government support of poor business models.
You actually sound a lot like the pundits who toss out the word socialist in order to try to scare people off.
On the post: If You're A Fugitive, You Probably Shouldn't Update Your Facebook Status With Location... Or Friend A Fed
Re: Re: Re: This is a problem with Facebook
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah yeah, but...
Well just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Real life does not agree with you. There are plenty of music tracks that are fully authorized and legal to download for free, without having to get express permission.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
Fortunately, some people do have the right attitude and are using the available and developing technology to spread their artistic works to more people than ever(and making good money doing it). The dinosaurs will eventually die out, though it may take a while.
On the post: Extortion Is Profitable Too, Doesn't Mean That It's A Fair Way To Profit Off Piracy
Re: Re: Nic, you did a poor job
Next >>