"Hey, why don't you run Techdirt only as a torrent?"
Because:
1. contents of torrents aren't search engine indexed and thus do not get search engine driven traffic.
2. torrent files are best for large downloads that are downloaded in chunks to be assembled and viewed at the end without putting tremendous load on a single server, where as this is a text-based site that downloads pretty fast and doesn't need the benefit of p2p distribution.
3. comments to articles would appear all general to the torrent, and not within the content, so it would create a greater distance between the content and the conversation.
To wrap up, using BitTorrent to distribute TechDirt is just dumb. You obviously don't understand BitTorrent technology, it's benefits and downsides, or how to properly utilize it.
"yeah, i think most open-source apps have pay commercial options, especially the really large ones."
You think incorrectly.
Most open-source projects that get ANY traction and developer support are 100% free for most if not all uses. You aren't paying for a commercial license if you do pay, but you are paying for professional support. So, if you have a problem installing MySQL or PHP or Apache or Red Hat or any number of other open-source software packages, then you have a resource to go to for assistance. THAT's what you're paying for. The software itself is free to install, just you get no help if you have questions or problems.
With most major OSS projects, you are free to install, modify, redistribute however you see fit.
But Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiike, that's not what government schools are spoon feeding people, so it can't possibly work and must be evil and the work of godless commie child-molester terrorist immigrant Craigs.
"but if Public Enemy can't make money there, something's seriously wrong with sellaband's entire premise and motives"
Or Public Enemy's implementation of the idea and toolset. SellABand is a TOOL, the band actually needs to use it to sell themselves ... not sign up and wait for the money to roll in. That's the entitlement problem that has gotten much of the recording industry into the trouble it's in now.
"At $100 a CD (ignoring t-shirt sales), public enemy could only get 700 people to spit up the cash. At $10 a copy for the CD, they likely would sell 100,000 plus copies. Which business model again is working?"
So, they should have had a $10 tier and they could have gotten 100,000 to sign up, gotten a lot closer to their goal. The problem is their pricing tiers, not the overall business model.
If someone wants to pay a shop money for a newspaper that says "FREE" on it, then what's the problem? The person paying for the paper isn't being deceived, they're just stupid or lazy.
You conveniently forget to mention the cost SAVINGS in not charging for the paper, such as significant staff reductions in the accounting, collections, and subscription departments, not to mention distributing and delivery (since free papers frequently distribute through kiosks and not home delivery).
So, you remove a small bit of subscription revenue (which has NEVER even covered pure printing costs) and reduce overhead operation costs by dramatic margins (think of how many more accountants most newspapers have than actual reporters). At that point, the increased ad revenue is almost irrelevant, but only proves the success of the model over the previous subscription based model.
And now we learn that with overhead cost reductions and increased readership, they are not only getting increased ad revenue, but now show owners are paying to stock their wares where before the newspaper had to share their income through commission.
I believe campaign promises should be equivalent to a verbal contract. If a politician does not make good faith efforts to uphold their campaign promises, then they should be liable for class-action lawsuits.
If they wrote the contract regarding the use in a physical product, then it would cover bound printed words on paper.
However, if the contract covered something more ethereal, such the content or general distribution of the story, then the actual physical mechanism isn't relevant.
Newer contracts regarding television shows in the wake of the writer's strike a bit ago now include more general language to attempt to cover current and future technology distribution.
That's if you trust the judge and lawyers to give you the correct information to begin with.
Try asking questions as a juror in a tax trial regarding the legality of mandatory tax requirements, and see how far you'll get in getting information.
Try getting any unbiased information from a judge regarding anything to do with a drug case and the war on drugs or drug laws. You'll get government propaganda approved information.
Jury nullification is a right that is being stripped away by this very requirement.
And what's to say that someone didn't read up on DNA before and came to those conclusions, then landed on a jury with DNA evidence. Is that juror expected to unlearn everything they know on DNA?
How is that person's handling of previous DNA knowledge different then a person handling new information about DNA from an out-of-court source at the time of trial? If it's an honor-system style thing where they may know of DNA beforehand but promise to not be swayed, how is that any different than someone gaining new knowledge promising not be swayed? If juror selection is to take out people with previous knowledge, can not juror selection also take out people who will research, because saying you know nothing about DNA is as reliable as saying you won't research, it's all honor system, and the time of learning and technology used are irrelevant.
This doesn't take into account juror responsibilities such as "jury nullification" where jurors have a right to be able to challenge the validity of the law in general. This cannot be done in our current system since judges and prosecutors make it nearly impossible through threats of contempt of court actions to even let a jury know of their constitutional right of jury nullification - thus, no information will be presented in a case that challenges the very validity of the law in question.
Thus, jurors doing their due diligence and investigating on their own should be protected so that they may properly conduct their rights as jurors.
In addition, should a juror be required to forget all previous knowledge on a topic? As a tech person, if a prosecutor tells me factually incorrect technical information, am I to purposefully believe wrong information because it was presented as truth in a court of law without proper rebuttal? If I am allowed to rely on previous knowledge, how is this any different than me looking up information as a member of the jury? If I am not allowed to use previous knowledge, then why have a jury at all?
A judge is supposed to make an unbiased opinion. That is not what a jury is for: a jury is to make an opinion based on community standards weighed against the evidence. The judge represents the law, the jury represents the community. It's a fundamental right in this country to be judged by a jury of your peers if you wish, and not be judged by the letter of the law. Unfortunately, the judges and lawyers in this country have convinced everyone differently.
On the post: Nine Inch Nails Fans Create Incredible Live DVD From Footage: Encourage Everyone To Share Widely
Re: Re: Re: Change culture
Because:
1. contents of torrents aren't search engine indexed and thus do not get search engine driven traffic.
2. torrent files are best for large downloads that are downloaded in chunks to be assembled and viewed at the end without putting tremendous load on a single server, where as this is a text-based site that downloads pretty fast and doesn't need the benefit of p2p distribution.
3. comments to articles would appear all general to the torrent, and not within the content, so it would create a greater distance between the content and the conversation.
To wrap up, using BitTorrent to distribute TechDirt is just dumb. You obviously don't understand BitTorrent technology, it's benefits and downsides, or how to properly utilize it.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really...
You think incorrectly.
Most open-source projects that get ANY traction and developer support are 100% free for most if not all uses. You aren't paying for a commercial license if you do pay, but you are paying for professional support. So, if you have a problem installing MySQL or PHP or Apache or Red Hat or any number of other open-source software packages, then you have a resource to go to for assistance. THAT's what you're paying for. The software itself is free to install, just you get no help if you have questions or problems.
With most major OSS projects, you are free to install, modify, redistribute however you see fit.
On the post: Sarkozy To Throw Another Billion At Digitizing Books
Re:
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
On the post: Vancouver Olympics Unhappy With 'Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 and 2011 Edition' Slogan
On the post: Public Enemy Not Selling Well Enough On Sellaband: What Went Wrong?
Re: Sellaband is a scam
Or Public Enemy's implementation of the idea and toolset. SellABand is a TOOL, the band actually needs to use it to sell themselves ... not sign up and wait for the money to roll in. That's the entitlement problem that has gotten much of the recording industry into the trouble it's in now.
On the post: Public Enemy Not Selling Well Enough On Sellaband: What Went Wrong?
Re:
So, they should have had a $10 tier and they could have gotten 100,000 to sign up, gotten a lot closer to their goal. The problem is their pricing tiers, not the overall business model.
On the post: Newsagents In London Are Paying To Offer Free London Evening Standard
Re:
On the post: Newsagents In London Are Paying To Offer Free London Evening Standard
Re:
So, you remove a small bit of subscription revenue (which has NEVER even covered pure printing costs) and reduce overhead operation costs by dramatic margins (think of how many more accountants most newspapers have than actual reporters). At that point, the increased ad revenue is almost irrelevant, but only proves the success of the model over the previous subscription based model.
And now we learn that with overhead cost reductions and increased readership, they are not only getting increased ad revenue, but now show owners are paying to stock their wares where before the newspaper had to share their income through commission.
How at all was the old system better?
On the post: Openness? Transparency? Not When Biden Gets To Hang With Entertainment Industry Lobbyists: Press Kicked Out
Re:
On the post: Openness? Transparency? Not When Biden Gets To Hang With Entertainment Industry Lobbyists: Press Kicked Out
Re:
On the post: Openness? Transparency? Not When Biden Gets To Hang With Entertainment Industry Lobbyists: Press Kicked Out
Re: Re: Nope...
On the post: Is An Ebook 'In Book Form'? Question Means Everything For Authors Trying To Get New Ebook Publishers
Re: Contradiction
On the post: Is An Ebook 'In Book Form'? Question Means Everything For Authors Trying To Get New Ebook Publishers
Re: Founding fathers
Now, had they said "the right to bear a musket" then we'd be in trouble.
On the post: Is An Ebook 'In Book Form'? Question Means Everything For Authors Trying To Get New Ebook Publishers
Re: IANAL
If they wrote the contract regarding the use in a physical product, then it would cover bound printed words on paper.
However, if the contract covered something more ethereal, such the content or general distribution of the story, then the actual physical mechanism isn't relevant.
Newer contracts regarding television shows in the wake of the writer's strike a bit ago now include more general language to attempt to cover current and future technology distribution.
On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research
Re: Re:
That's hilarious.
On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research
Re: Re:
Try asking questions as a juror in a tax trial regarding the legality of mandatory tax requirements, and see how far you'll get in getting information.
Try getting any unbiased information from a judge regarding anything to do with a drug case and the war on drugs or drug laws. You'll get government propaganda approved information.
Jury nullification is a right that is being stripped away by this very requirement.
On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research
Re: Re: How about pre-knowledge
How is that person's handling of previous DNA knowledge different then a person handling new information about DNA from an out-of-court source at the time of trial? If it's an honor-system style thing where they may know of DNA beforehand but promise to not be swayed, how is that any different than someone gaining new knowledge promising not be swayed? If juror selection is to take out people with previous knowledge, can not juror selection also take out people who will research, because saying you know nothing about DNA is as reliable as saying you won't research, it's all honor system, and the time of learning and technology used are irrelevant.
On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research
Re: Re: The world has changed ...
On the post: Jurors Cause Trouble By Friending Each Other On Facebook, Using Wikipedia For Research
Re:
Thus, jurors doing their due diligence and investigating on their own should be protected so that they may properly conduct their rights as jurors.
In addition, should a juror be required to forget all previous knowledge on a topic? As a tech person, if a prosecutor tells me factually incorrect technical information, am I to purposefully believe wrong information because it was presented as truth in a court of law without proper rebuttal? If I am allowed to rely on previous knowledge, how is this any different than me looking up information as a member of the jury? If I am not allowed to use previous knowledge, then why have a jury at all?
A judge is supposed to make an unbiased opinion. That is not what a jury is for: a jury is to make an opinion based on community standards weighed against the evidence. The judge represents the law, the jury represents the community. It's a fundamental right in this country to be judged by a jury of your peers if you wish, and not be judged by the letter of the law. Unfortunately, the judges and lawyers in this country have convinced everyone differently.
Next >>