You didn't answer my question, at least I don't think you did: do you believe that what a publishers' organization needs to offer and to be is not dramatically affected by the current technology and social trends?
And Mike's post (and the original article) acknowledges this. I'm surprised you glossed over that.
Maybe the post didn't make this clear (debatable), but fundamentally, new technologies and new methods of social interaction are removing or minimizing any need for a middleman to reach large audiences.
Are you suggesting that doesn't radically change what a publishers' organization needs to offer and to be?
As I said, "arbitrary measure of success." Thankfully, most people of significant intelligence don't see things as rigidly as you, nor have such ridiculous hurdles for analysis.
I didn't need Al to tell me that though. Do you really believe that television shows are the networks' products? No, it's our eyeballs!
Google, facebook, etc. are just doing what television has been trying to do for sixty years--get accurate data on who is watching or using what they give away.
You're focusing too narrowly. The dispute is not entirely, central control versus "people" control. It is, abusive control versus control that is resilient to abuse.
That is a much more nuanced issue and is what we're trying to get at here. If ICANN established (and adhered to) some principles that acknowledged that the internet exists for the benefit (and not just economic) of all not the few and established methods for equitable (and not just equitable for those with money) dispute resolution, there might less of an issue.
If the goal is for governments and MNCs to gain control over the internet, then other options WILL arise because there will exist an unmet need (a need that has existed since forever) to communicate, innovate, and share culture freely.
Completely agree--ICANN is being very foolish here. They will very much rue placing themselves in the middle of the inevitable disputes. And the minute they are perceived as either not handling them timely or not handling them consistently (or both), the power will be yanked from them and likely handed to someone else which will invariably be worse for the rest of us I imagine.
Of course completely ignoring two additional facts: that doesn't prevent illegal behavior and you don't get your privilege revoked without due process.
And if you've ever spent time in a traffic court, you would know that SIGNIFICANT due process (many, many violations) occurs before revocation.
I'm inclined to agree. This is written about a lot on this site and we all see it, but I am continuously amazed by how blind people are to only the perceived benefits of their actions and not the side-effects or unintended consequences.
We've read over and over again about how other countries (China, Italy, France, etc.) have problems (pick one) with many of the major US Internet companies. Do we really believe that the only seizures are going to be of comepiratethis.com?
I think there is a heee-youge gap between "acknowledging" their toys and "collusion". Megablocks and lego (mentioned above) are interchangeable, but no one accuses them of that. Tivo boxes work with many cable companies, etc.
Even if those examples are poor, the point still stands--there is much opportunity for competing companies to make products that work together w/o collusion.
For collusion to exist, there would need to be a major outcome such as keeping prices high, forcing other players out of the market or etc.
Actually that's a great example why it is still possible to compete without IP protection. My son has received both lego and megablocks sets as gifts. He LOVED the megablock sets (Halo, etc.) until he tried to put them together. They don't fit properly and sometimes pieces won't even stay connected.
Now, if given the choice, even if he likes the theme for the megablocks set, he will pass on them.
Well, another part of the reason it is so complicated is that language is inherently vague. Words can have different meanings and scope to different people.
Legalese attempts to minimize that sloppiness by using special legal terms, as well as by using lots and lots of words to cover as many eventualities as possible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "right answer". I don't think Mike or I were saying that there is an "answer" here, just that the behavior of students not being "on-task" is not an indicator of a lack of engagement with the fundamental education.
My read is that there has been a growing perception that students over the last ten years are somehow becoming poorer students and that laptops and electronic devices are degrading the educational experience, and this would dispute that.
This study seems to indicate that attention in class has little to do with class success (see correlation to final class grade above) and that gels with my experience.
Those who need to focus are doing so, and those who do not need to focus, aren't.
Mike, I think you're spot on regarding why those with higher LSATs might be off-task more.
I'm going to freely admit that I am off-task in many, many meetings, and all throughout my MBA. Training too.
I used to feel very guilty about this, until I realized I need a very high density of information transfer per unit of time to remain focused. I'm not saying I'm some brilliant guy, I just cannot stand instruction or meetings that take 60 minutes to deliver 15 minutes (or less) of information. So, the minute I've grasped what's being said, I'm on to other things.
That said, if the meeting is highly interactive, social, etc., my focus will be dedicated.
So, I think the off-task behavior can be both an indicator of student dedication as well as the efficiency and quality of information transfer.
Wait, are you suggesting that the case would have merit, except for the fact that it was about electric cars?
You do understand, that to prove defamation, you have to prove harm and distinguish that harm from other market effects (I see no evidence of that except hurt feelings), prove that the specific facts were blatantly false, and that the party that spoke them knew they were false and would cause harm?
None of those things appear to be valid here. So why again is it valid (or even relevant) to claim bias here?
The problem with this statement is that you can not go on to say that labels act in the best interests of the artist. If they did, they would be making certain a) they weren't being taken advantage of via contractual terms, and b) they were getting paid timely for what they were owed.
Yes, artists need to take responsibility for their agreements, but I think we'd all agree that at the point the agreements are always signed, that the information and power advantage is massively in the label's favor, leading to inequitable results.
On the post: Unfortunate: Appeals Court Revives Misguided Rosetta Stone Lawsuit Against Google
Re:
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Re:
Maybe the post didn't make this clear (debatable), but fundamentally, new technologies and new methods of social interaction are removing or minimizing any need for a middleman to reach large audiences.
Are you suggesting that doesn't radically change what a publishers' organization needs to offer and to be?
On the post: Publishing Isn't A Job Anymore: It's A Button
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ergo, no point in debating empty rhetoric. The AC isn't interested in discussion.
On the post: How Drunk Would You Need To Be To Confuse Jack Daniel's With Cayman Jack?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sneeje's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Google, facebook, etc. are just doing what television has been trying to do for sixty years--get accurate data on who is watching or using what they give away.
On the post: Sneeje's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: How Monopolies Strangle Innovation: Record Label Demands Making Investors Nervous About Spotify
Re: Crafty Devious Plan
On the post: ICANN Confirms That It's Going To Make It Easier For Governments To Seize Domains Around The Globe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICANN Confirms That It's Going To Make It Easier For Governments To Seize Domains Around The Globe
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a much more nuanced issue and is what we're trying to get at here. If ICANN established (and adhered to) some principles that acknowledged that the internet exists for the benefit (and not just economic) of all not the few and established methods for equitable (and not just equitable for those with money) dispute resolution, there might less of an issue.
If the goal is for governments and MNCs to gain control over the internet, then other options WILL arise because there will exist an unmet need (a need that has existed since forever) to communicate, innovate, and share culture freely.
On the post: ICANN Confirms That It's Going To Make It Easier For Governments To Seize Domains Around The Globe
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICANN Confirms That It's Going To Make It Easier For Governments To Seize Domains Around The Globe
Re: Re: Re:
And if you've ever spent time in a traffic court, you would know that SIGNIFICANT due process (many, many violations) occurs before revocation.
On the post: ICANN Confirms That It's Going To Make It Easier For Governments To Seize Domains Around The Globe
Re:
We've read over and over again about how other countries (China, Italy, France, etc.) have problems (pick one) with many of the major US Internet companies. Do we really believe that the only seizures are going to be of comepiratethis.com?
On the post: Free 3D-Printable Kit To Connect Different Toy Construction Sets Released -- But Partially Blocked Due To Patents
Re: Re:
Even if those examples are poor, the point still stands--there is much opportunity for competing companies to make products that work together w/o collusion.
For collusion to exist, there would need to be a major outcome such as keeping prices high, forcing other players out of the market or etc.
On the post: Free 3D-Printable Kit To Connect Different Toy Construction Sets Released -- But Partially Blocked Due To Patents
Re:
Now, if given the choice, even if he likes the theme for the megablocks set, he will pass on them.
On the post: Teaching Style, Not Computers, Appears To Be Biggest Factor In Classroom Distraction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legalese attempts to minimize that sloppiness by using special legal terms, as well as by using lots and lots of words to cover as many eventualities as possible.
All to varying degrees of success, of course.
On the post: Teaching Style, Not Computers, Appears To Be Biggest Factor In Classroom Distraction
Re: Re: Take it for what it's worth...
My read is that there has been a growing perception that students over the last ten years are somehow becoming poorer students and that laptops and electronic devices are degrading the educational experience, and this would dispute that.
This study seems to indicate that attention in class has little to do with class success (see correlation to final class grade above) and that gels with my experience.
Those who need to focus are doing so, and those who do not need to focus, aren't.
On the post: Teaching Style, Not Computers, Appears To Be Biggest Factor In Classroom Distraction
Take it for what it's worth...
I'm going to freely admit that I am off-task in many, many meetings, and all throughout my MBA. Training too.
I used to feel very guilty about this, until I realized I need a very high density of information transfer per unit of time to remain focused. I'm not saying I'm some brilliant guy, I just cannot stand instruction or meetings that take 60 minutes to deliver 15 minutes (or less) of information. So, the minute I've grasped what's being said, I'm on to other things.
That said, if the meeting is highly interactive, social, etc., my focus will be dedicated.
So, I think the off-task behavior can be both an indicator of student dedication as well as the efficiency and quality of information transfer.
On the post: Tesla Fails Again In Suing Top Gear For Mocking Tesla's Range
Re: Re:
You do understand, that to prove defamation, you have to prove harm and distinguish that harm from other market effects (I see no evidence of that except hurt feelings), prove that the specific facts were blatantly false, and that the party that spoke them knew they were false and would cause harm?
None of those things appear to be valid here. So why again is it valid (or even relevant) to claim bias here?
On the post: Band Tells Fans To Boycott Its Albums, Saying Its Label Doesn't Pay
Re:
Yes, artists need to take responsibility for their agreements, but I think we'd all agree that at the point the agreements are always signed, that the information and power advantage is massively in the label's favor, leading to inequitable results.
Next >>