Music too! Too many people making music spreads the profits too thin for anyone to make a living! We need the government to step in NOW to force people to stop making music! Every guitar should require a $35,000 music license!
But I thought the public domain was just some fairytale those crazy libertarians keep telling us
"Intellectual Property" law is actually a big area of contention in libertarian circles. I happen to be a libertarian who doesn't believe in intellectual property, so don't paint us all with the same brush. :)
The way markets work is through competition. Posting someone else's work isn't competition.
Sure it is. If I can buy from you for $10, or get it next door for free, you are competing for my business.
The best way to compete would be to connect with me, your potential customer, on a personal level, and then give me a good reason to pay $10 to you rather than go for the free version.
Stick around for more examples (or just go through the site history). When people engage their fans rather than sending out the lawyers, then tend to do pretty well.
rightfully deserve
How much does an artist "rightfully deserve"? How would a person calculate such a thing? My parents always told me that something is only worth what someone else will give you for it. You can whine about that fact until you're blue in the face, but it won't make it any less true.
stealing
Copying isn't stealing, it's copying. I'll give you a pass, though, because it's a common enough fallacy.
I'm not sure anyone can really call that "skirting".
Government: "Everyone who offers child-only insurance must cover all of these things in their policy and must accept all pre-existing conditions!" Companies: "That's going to raise the cost of insurance for those policies substantially. We're going to have to increase our principles to compensate." Government: "Well you can't!" Companies: "Err, then I guess we can't offer child-only insurance anymore then." Government: "OMG, the evil insurance companies found a loophole!"
Considering that different countries have different laws and requirements on warranties, and that these laws affect the cost of selling the product in those countries, I can see how honoring warranties from a different country than the country of purchase could be a bad thing for a company.
Example:
I make a a product with an estimated life of 1 year. I can sell this product for $100 dollars in Country A, with a one year warranty.
I want to also sell the product in Country B. However, Country B has a law that says I must have a two year warranty on my product. Therefore, since my product is only expected to last one year, I must charge more for it to make up for the added cost of honoring a two year warranty. So in Country B, I end up charging $200 for the same product.
Now some enterprising individual realizes that the product is $200 in Country B, but only $100 in Country A, so they start buying my product in bulk in Country A and shipping it to Country B where they resell it for $150, making a tidy profit.
Not only are they hurting my sales by undercutting me on my own items, but if I was forced to honor the 2-year warranty on a product I only originally sold with a 1-year warranty, I'd actually be losing money. Not a good situation.
I can imagine there are several scenarios one could come up with to justify this, although it remains to be seen whether or not it will make up for the hit to their reputation.
If the federal government can order that a contractual relationship be put in place, there is nothing the federal government cant meddle in and impose on us. Or am I missing something?
See: Obamacare
The outcome of the cases challenging it are likely to have far-reaching consequences.
Doesn't that fact that he's willing to file a defamation suit against people that think he's too vain in an effort to save face prove the very thing he's contesting? (Much like radical Islamics will kill people for saying Islam is a violent religion, you're not really proving your case here!)
I assume this is a parody of those terrible YouTube commenters who rush to the defense of the police every chance they get ("Don't blame him for shooting that 9-month old with a shotgun! He works very hard to keep you all safe everyday! Think of the pressure he's under!")
But I worry that this attitude is slightly paternalistic to your readership. I mean, maybe some of your readers WOULD pay, so why make that choice for them? And, if they don't want to, I'm sure they're all technologically savvy enough to use search engines and such to hunt for additional news reports, if they are curious enough to follow up.
So people are smart enough to search for the paywall-free version of a news story if he links to the paid one, but not smart enough to search for the paid version of a news story if he links the paywall-free one?
Unless you meant he should provide an exhaustive link of every news outlet who covers a particular story (which would be ridiculous).
What he should do is provide a link that maximizes the number of people who can see it. A non-paywall site can be seen by 100% of his readership, whereas a paywall site can be seen by less than 100% of his readership. The chouce is clear.
On the post: No, Triton Media's Settlement Does Not Mean Anything For Google
Re: Re: Re: A consent decree *is* a judgment of the court.
You mean except for the terms of the settlement agreement contract?
On the post: Homeland Security Giving Extra Political Scrutiny To 'Activist' Groups FOIA Requests, Singles Out EFF
On the post: Lawyer Sues Facebook Claiming Other Users Defamed Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: "sieze the day"
On the post: Judge Orders Limewire To Shut Down; Limewire Pretends It Can Still Exist
Re:
Everybody now:
"Hey, hey, JPJ!
How many lies have you told today?"
On the post: Company Making Cab/Limo Rides More Efficient Ordered To Stop
Re: Supply and demand isn't straight-forward.
On the post: Fallacy Debunking: Successful New Business Model Examples Are The 'Exception'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I once saw someone post:
"Their is no rationalization for illegal behavior."
What are your thoughts on this statement? Confirm/Deny?
On the post: Golan Appealed To The Supreme Court; Important Case About The Extent Of Copyright & The Public Domain
Re:
"Intellectual Property" law is actually a big area of contention in libertarian circles. I happen to be a libertarian who doesn't believe in intellectual property, so don't paint us all with the same brush. :)
On the post: The New Children's Health Plan Is Videogames?
Re: Re: Re: This debate
On the post: The New Children's Health Plan Is Videogames?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Glad to see intellectual debate is alive and well . . .
On the post: The New Children's Health Plan Is Videogames?
Re: This debate
Yes, new government requirements that screw up the private healthcare sector are definitely evidence if why the private sector can't work.
Great logic.
On the post: The New Children's Health Plan Is Videogames?
Re: Re:
You have an interesting view of business . . .
On the post: Comic Book 'Pirated' On 4Chan, Author Joins Discussion... Watches Sales Soar
Re: Re: Re:
Sure it is. If I can buy from you for $10, or get it next door for free, you are competing for my business.
The best way to compete would be to connect with me, your potential customer, on a personal level, and then give me a good reason to pay $10 to you rather than go for the free version.
On the post: Comic Book 'Pirated' On 4Chan, Author Joins Discussion... Watches Sales Soar
Re:
Stick around for more examples (or just go through the site history). When people engage their fans rather than sending out the lawyers, then tend to do pretty well.
rightfully deserve
How much does an artist "rightfully deserve"? How would a person calculate such a thing? My parents always told me that something is only worth what someone else will give you for it. You can whine about that fact until you're blue in the face, but it won't make it any less true.
stealing
Copying isn't stealing, it's copying. I'll give you a pass, though, because it's a common enough fallacy.
On the post: The New Children's Health Plan Is Videogames?
I'm not sure anyone can really call that "skirting".
Government: "Everyone who offers child-only insurance must cover all of these things in their policy and must accept all pre-existing conditions!"
Companies: "That's going to raise the cost of insurance for those policies substantially. We're going to have to increase our principles to compensate."
Government: "Well you can't!"
Companies: "Err, then I guess we can't offer child-only insurance anymore then."
Government: "OMG, the evil insurance companies found a loophole!"
On the post: Broken Monitor Still Under Warranty, But Samsung Won't Fix It, Because You Don't Live In Canada
Considering that different countries have different laws and requirements on warranties, and that these laws affect the cost of selling the product in those countries, I can see how honoring warranties from a different country than the country of purchase could be a bad thing for a company.
Example:
I make a a product with an estimated life of 1 year. I can sell this product for $100 dollars in Country A, with a one year warranty.
I want to also sell the product in Country B. However, Country B has a law that says I must have a two year warranty on my product. Therefore, since my product is only expected to last one year, I must charge more for it to make up for the added cost of honoring a two year warranty. So in Country B, I end up charging $200 for the same product.
Now some enterprising individual realizes that the product is $200 in Country B, but only $100 in Country A, so they start buying my product in bulk in Country A and shipping it to Country B where they resell it for $150, making a tidy profit.
Not only are they hurting my sales by undercutting me on my own items, but if I was forced to honor the 2-year warranty on a product I only originally sold with a 1-year warranty, I'd actually be losing money. Not a good situation.
I can imagine there are several scenarios one could come up with to justify this, although it remains to be seen whether or not it will make up for the hit to their reputation.
On the post: Choruss Goes From Vaporware To Nowhere
Re: Something just occured to me ...
See: Obamacare
The outcome of the cases challenging it are likely to have far-reaching consequences.
On the post: Officer Bubbles Sues To Find Out Identity Of Anonymous YouTubers
On the post: Officer Bubbles Sues To Find Out Identity Of Anonymous YouTubers
Re:
If so, well done sir.
On the post: Fox Gets Tons Of Attention For Banksy Simpsons Video... Then Pulls It Off YouTube
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New York Times Insists It Can Stay Part Of The Conversation With 'First Click Free'
Re:
So people are smart enough to search for the paywall-free version of a news story if he links to the paid one, but not smart enough to search for the paid version of a news story if he links the paywall-free one?
Unless you meant he should provide an exhaustive link of every news outlet who covers a particular story (which would be ridiculous).
What he should do is provide a link that maximizes the number of people who can see it. A non-paywall site can be seen by 100% of his readership, whereas a paywall site can be seen by less than 100% of his readership. The chouce is clear.
Next >>