The soul of media: For Forbes, its editing. Lewis DVorkin writes: "On the Web today, knowledgeable people can publish content for next to nothing. With the tools of social media, those same people can build followings for next to nothing. Both are what Forbes and other traditional players do for way more than nothing. Bottom line: there are lots of editor-curators out there."
So how does Forbes intend to compete? "Our full-time staff of experienced editors and reporters is now both covering the news and recruiting hundreds of qualified contributors in effect, curators to create the content our voracious audience requires."
The Times could have been spent it's $40,000,000 whining and dining those with popular blogs to feed the Times content for next to nothing. Isn't the purpose of media the distribution of information? Free content also means greater retention of advertising dollars. A win win.
This point is another illustration of the cancerous expansion of the so-called "intellectual property" land grab. Since the courts have not cleanly extinguished the concept that so-called "intellectual property" isn't really property we have ever growing innovative thuggery by those asserting that they somehow have a "piece" of the property.
It seems that a "piece" for laying a claim can be virtually anything. Escaped seeds as infringement. The assertion by some music collection societies that animals listening to music requires a license. Mike even noted: "Belgian Collection Society SABAM Caught Taking Cash For Made Up Bands It Didn't Represent". Then there are the bulk broadcast pre-settlement offers that are just mailed out to see what sticks.
Unfortunately, if one becomes a victim of these extortionary actions they could be bankrupted. For the accuser found making a false claim. "Sorry about that. And by the way, no refund on your legal fees for defending yourself against our bullying."
If extortion is considered a legitimate business plan, the "intellectual property" crowd is setting a very bad example should they want people to respect their so-called "Intellectual Property" rights.
Re: Re: Re: Escaped Seeds are Monsanto's Liability
So? Ok - let's accept your premise. If Monsanto should not be liable for wind dispersion, then the organic farmers should not be liable for infringement when seeds naturally fall on their property and sprout.
"Suing farmers who are the recipient of wind blown GMO seed? How the hell did that happen? Farmers should be suing Monsanto for polluting their land."
Exactly. If a company asserts that it is entitled for remuneration due to so-called "infringement", then it logically follow that the company should be liable for any damages caused by their so-called "intellectual property".
If the organic farmers turn out to benefit, call it an unsolicited "gift". After all if Monsanto can't control its so-called "intellectual property" why should the organic farmers be guilty of infringement? It's NOT the responsibility of the Organic Farmers to do genetic testing to verify that they are not infringing.
Lets reverse the "infringement" argument. If you create something, like patented seeds, and they escape the liability belongs to Monsanto!
Think of it this way, if John Doe has a viscous attack dog that jumps the fence and mauls the proverbial poster board child, he would be liable for the injuries that the child suffered. Following through with this logic, if Monsanto's seeds damage someones crop, Monsanto should be held liable.
Several people have commented on the intrusiveness of phone calls including disrupting the person receiving the phone call. Many people, including myself, can passively communicate through email and/or identify their availability to communicate as with Google chat.
My contribution to this thread is the role of voice mail and the answering machine. It used to be that a ringing phone demanded answering. You didn't know who was at the other end or what the call was about.
Today the person receiving a phone call does not feel compelled to answer it for a variety or reasons. There is Caller ID, so you get a sense of who may be calling. As for the proverbial dinner phone call,ignore it. The answering machine is there to take any message.
"can't a store just set a "no photography" policy,". Implementing a "no photography" policy is virtually unenforceable given today's technology. I suppose every store could hire off duty TSA agents to grope each customer for a micro-miniature camera.
Another commenter threw out the "competitive" angle. Again an unenforceable policy. Once something is out on display, it is public knowledge. People do have memories, maybe not as good as a camera, but good enough. I suppose every store could institute a background check before someone enters the store to see if the "customer" is really a corporate spy for a competitor.
The extent to which people toss-out the "law" today as giving them a "right" to intimidate people and deprive them of their civil liberties is absurd.
We live in a society where the a supposed "law' is mindlessly regurgitated by someone for the purpose of oppressive manipulation. We have taken pictures of appliances in our home and in the store for purposes of comparison. Taking pictures, is a lot better than relying on memory.
As to the "private property" issue. The proprietor is making their business OPEN to the public. As such, the proprietor can not assume police powers or punishment over legitimate customers. It is fair use to take pictures.
There is a tremendous logical disconnect when it comes to the concept of protecting stuff held by the government as a trustee for the public.
Copyright is one example. The copyright holders claim ever increasing rights over the content. In fact TechDirt has covered a pending court case that will decide if the copyright privilege can be "restored" to an author. I don't recall theft of the public domain as being mentioned as a highly visible argument.
Another example is the radio spectrum. There have been many assertions of the need to privatize the spectrum. Little acknowledgment given to eliminating this resource as being in the public domain.
What I find particularly irksome with the privatization of the spectrum land-grab is that radio waves do not stop at a property line. So if the spectrum were privatized, how could the spectrum owner possibly transmit across property lines since that would constitute trespass?
I guess the logical deficiencies don't matter to those who would rape the public trust for their own selfish benefits.
"...but all the DMCA letters I've actually seen contain enough "originality" to be protected by copyright. ... "
The assertion that DMCA letter is "protected" by copyright should be immediately dismissed under both "fair use" and the First Amendment. Give me a break, the local bully picks on you and you are prevented from protecting yourself!! That is an absurd proposition.
Not only that, but lets consider the DMCA notice as a "gift". As a gift, the issuer of the DMCA notice gives up all rights to the content. After all, the DMCA notice is not something that you requested. If not requested why should you be bound by its demands?
Internet searching could use improvement. It's very frustrating when doing research, lets say on a court decision, and many of the search results are sales pitches for a non-existent or irrelevant products.
In one real product search attempt, I entered the model number of a battery that I need and I got a lot of links for "battery sales", but it turned out that many of the sites did not even have the battery!
I also have yet to figure out how this happened, but I was looking up a product. As a result of a search, I had two tabs open on what appeared to be the same website, but the product price was different!!!
Given today's ever more onerous and repressive political climate, we may seem more attempts at privatizing public data. Back in 2005 Rick Santorum, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, introduced legislation to prevent the weather service from providing weather information that private companies provide, such as AccuWeather. Senator aiming to nix federal weather forecasts enjoyed AccuWeather money.
Not surprisingly, I didn't see any reference by Turow, Aiken, and Shapiro concerning "balance" in copyright. Recently we had a post concerning that issue on TechDirt. Smashing The Scales: Not Everything Needs 'Balance'. Not much point in entertaining a concept such as "balance" when it seems to be beyond the comprehension of the IP maximalist.
While reading this, I hear a "solemn" Jeep commercial espousing the concept of personal integrity. "What you do says who you are". Commercials aren't noted for their real honesty, but it does point to JC Penney not being very upfront in their marketing.
Yes, there are companies that will sell computers without Windows. However the logical implication of what you are saying is that it is acceptable for companies to lock out a third party because there are alternatives??? This logic begs the question of whether the onerous business practice under evaluation is legitimate or not.
Why take the time and effort to evaluate effectiveness since we need enforcement?
By way of example, Obama appointed a deficit reduction commission. They came out with a report. Obama announced in the State of the Union Address that he didn't like portions of it and he then failed to even mention any recommendations to be implemented. So it appears that the deficit reduction report went directly into the trash. Seems that Obama is simply skipping advise that he would ignore anyway. Now that's efficiency.
My initial reaction is the question of whether there even was a legitimate contract. Anonymous makes a good comment "I would say you could sign away rights on your own copyrights, but not someone elses."
But there is a darker aspect to the bastardization of contracts that really has not received sufficient scrutiny. That is two parties enter into an agreement to "manipulate" a third party. (Essentially depriving the third party of an ability to negotiate.)
For example, go into most computer stores and try to buy computer without the Windows Operating system. You will be told something along the lines that it can't be done because of licensing restrictions or other lame excuse. You should be able to freely negotiate the terms of purchasing a computer.
On the post: Congressman Complains That iPads Are Killing Jobs In The Paper Industry
No Wonder a Balanced Budget Can't be Passed
On the post: How Else Could The NY Times Have Spent $40 Million?
Forbes Seems Proactive
So how does Forbes intend to compete? "Our full-time staff of experienced editors and reporters is now both covering the news and recruiting hundreds of qualified contributors in effect, curators to create the content our voracious audience requires."
The Times could have been spent it's $40,000,000 whining and dining those with popular blogs to feed the Times content for next to nothing. Isn't the purpose of media the distribution of information? Free content also means greater retention of advertising dollars. A win win.
On the post: Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over
Extortion Unleashed
It seems that a "piece" for laying a claim can be virtually anything. Escaped seeds as infringement. The assertion by some music collection societies that animals listening to music requires a license. Mike even noted: "Belgian Collection Society SABAM Caught Taking Cash For Made Up Bands It Didn't Represent". Then there are the bulk broadcast pre-settlement offers that are just mailed out to see what sticks.
Unfortunately, if one becomes a victim of these extortionary actions they could be bankrupted. For the accuser found making a false claim. "Sorry about that. And by the way, no refund on your legal fees for defending yourself against our bullying."
If extortion is considered a legitimate business plan, the "intellectual property" crowd is setting a very bad example should they want people to respect their so-called "Intellectual Property" rights.
On the post: Monsanto Sued By Organic Farmers Who Don't Want To Be Accused Of Patent Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Escaped Seeds are Monsanto's Liability
On the post: Monsanto Sued By Organic Farmers Who Don't Want To Be Accused Of Patent Infringement
Re: Monsanto is Public Enemy #1
Exactly. If a company asserts that it is entitled for remuneration due to so-called "infringement", then it logically follow that the company should be liable for any damages caused by their so-called "intellectual property".
If the organic farmers turn out to benefit, call it an unsolicited "gift". After all if Monsanto can't control its so-called "intellectual property" why should the organic farmers be guilty of infringement? It's NOT the responsibility of the Organic Farmers to do genetic testing to verify that they are not infringing.
On the post: Monsanto Sued By Organic Farmers Who Don't Want To Be Accused Of Patent Infringement
Escaped Seeds are Monsanto's Liability
Think of it this way, if John Doe has a viscous attack dog that jumps the fence and mauls the proverbial poster board child, he would be liable for the injuries that the child suffered. Following through with this logic, if Monsanto's seeds damage someones crop, Monsanto should be held liable.
On the post: Phone Calls Are So Last Century
Phone Intrusiveness
My contribution to this thread is the role of voice mail and the answering machine. It used to be that a ringing phone demanded answering. You didn't know who was at the other end or what the call was about.
Today the person receiving a phone call does not feel compelled to answer it for a variety or reasons. There is Caller ID, so you get a sense of who may be calling. As for the proverbial dinner phone call,ignore it. The answering machine is there to take any message.
On the post: NYTimes Columnists Telling Readers How To Get Around The Paywall
Re:
On the post: Barnes & Noble Forbids Photos & Word Of Mouth Promotion With Bogus Copyright Claim
Re: Why bother with copyright?
Another commenter threw out the "competitive" angle. Again an unenforceable policy. Once something is out on display, it is public knowledge. People do have memories, maybe not as good as a camera, but good enough. I suppose every store could institute a background check before someone enters the store to see if the "customer" is really a corporate spy for a competitor.
The extent to which people toss-out the "law" today as giving them a "right" to intimidate people and deprive them of their civil liberties is absurd.
On the post: Barnes & Noble Forbids Photos & Word Of Mouth Promotion With Bogus Copyright Claim
The "FEAR" Mentality
As to the "private property" issue. The proprietor is making their business OPEN to the public. As such, the proprietor can not assume police powers or punishment over legitimate customers. It is fair use to take pictures.
On the post: If Copyright Is 'Property' Why Aren't People Outraged When The Gov't Seizes Content From The Public?
Public Resources Need to be Protected
Copyright is one example. The copyright holders claim ever increasing rights over the content. In fact TechDirt has covered a pending court case that will decide if the copyright privilege can be "restored" to an author. I don't recall theft of the public domain as being mentioned as a highly visible argument.
Another example is the radio spectrum. There have been many assertions of the need to privatize the spectrum. Little acknowledgment given to eliminating this resource as being in the public domain.
What I find particularly irksome with the privatization of the spectrum land-grab is that radio waves do not stop at a property line. So if the spectrum were privatized, how could the spectrum owner possibly transmit across property lines since that would constitute trespass?
I guess the logical deficiencies don't matter to those who would rape the public trust for their own selfish benefits.
On the post: Fox Sends DMCA Takedown To Google To Remove Link To DMCA Takedown Sent By Fox
Re: Re: DMCA Takedown
The assertion that DMCA letter is "protected" by copyright should be immediately dismissed under both "fair use" and the First Amendment. Give me a break, the local bully picks on you and you are prevented from protecting yourself!! That is an absurd proposition.
Not only that, but lets consider the DMCA notice as a "gift". As a gift, the issuer of the DMCA notice gives up all rights to the content. After all, the DMCA notice is not something that you requested. If not requested why should you be bound by its demands?
On the post: Be Careful What You Wish For: Taiwan Using US Pressured Patent Laws Against US Companies
As predicted
On the post: Is Google's New Anti-Content Farm Algo Actually Better?
Fake Websites and Other Idiocy
Internet searching could use improvement. It's very frustrating when doing research, lets say on a court decision, and many of the search results are sales pitches for a non-existent or irrelevant products.
In one real product search attempt, I entered the model number of a battery that I need and I got a lot of links for "battery sales", but it turned out that many of the sites did not even have the battery!
I also have yet to figure out how this happened, but I was looking up a product. As a result of a search, I had two tabs open on what appeared to be the same website, but the product price was different!!!
On the post: The Privatization Of Public Data Sets A Bad Precedent
Rick Santorum and AccuWeather
Privatization is a bad idea.
On the post: Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?
Where is the "Balance"?
On the post: JC Penney Feels The Wrath Of Google For Using Spammy Techniques To Get To The Top
Congruaece of Events
Interestingly, a very applicable Dilbert Cartoon today.
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Re: Re: Bastardization of Contract Continues
On the post: Why Is President Obama Setting Up IP Enforcement Committees Rather Than IP Effectiveness Committees?
Efficiency
By way of example, Obama appointed a deficit reduction commission. They came out with a report. Obama announced in the State of the Union Address that he didn't like portions of it and he then failed to even mention any recommendations to be implemented. So it appears that the deficit reduction report went directly into the trash. Seems that Obama is simply skipping advise that he would ignore anyway. Now that's efficiency.
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Bastardization of Contract Continues
But there is a darker aspect to the bastardization of contracts that really has not received sufficient scrutiny. That is two parties enter into an agreement to "manipulate" a third party. (Essentially depriving the third party of an ability to negotiate.)
For example, go into most computer stores and try to buy computer without the Windows Operating system. You will be told something along the lines that it can't be done because of licensing restrictions or other lame excuse. You should be able to freely negotiate the terms of purchasing a computer.
Next >>