Andrew Fraser, the CEO of Method who is addressed in the C&D, used to work for Clorox. He took over as President & GM of Clorox Canada (transplanted from Oakland head office) and left after the company performed poorly year after year.
So, there's probably some bad blood here, on the part of Clorox.
But part of the argument was that the reports (which helpfully group related usenet headers together) were the problem, not the indexing of the headers themselves. I assume this is because the header indexing is simply publicly available factual information.
What I don't understand is how the headers are somehow "worse."
Is Google similarly guilty for allowing user to search the listing of several torrent sites at once?
We already have the levy on blank media, and it doesn't do a damned thing to stop complaints from the US to make our copyright laws worse. I strongly doubt a new larger levy would achieve anything different. Except for digging deeper into our pockets up front. And still demanding our government betray us.
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised Angus proposed this. The fair dealing makes sense, but I thought he knew better than the tax.
Why not just propose that good half? If the levy is so ridiculous (as Clement says) let's just do the fair dealing part.
First, I hope the blog and video portions are smart enough to continue the conversation, rather than just dumping the content for the week/whatever period.
On each blog post, allow readers to post comments and questions, and have the authors respond in character. If they suspect somebody or saw something weird, share little tidbits (previews of next piece?) in the comments. Get people engaged. Same goes for video comments.
For RtB, why not sell some bits parts in the video episodes? Let your biggest fans in to be a part of the show.
ThinkGeek is a sibling company to Slashdot. Both (along with several other sites) are owned by Geeknet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geeknet ). Money spent at TG goes into the same pot Slashdot operates from. Good marketing.
It amazes me that other people *aren't* indignant towards other people who believe they can control my browsing experience. It's my browser, I'll display your website how I like. If they want to be compensated directly for easily substituted content, put up a paywall and die already.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insulting is Exactly Right
(We'll leave aside for now the issue of Friday's forced experiment)
Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for them to ask people to whitelist the site. I wish them the best of luck, and the more who convert the better for them. Great.
Now, we still have a large percentage of users who chose to continue to block ads (even if a generous HALF were converted, 20% are still blocking). Do they really want to give up 1 million+ readers? Do they really have no other ideas for offering those readers a reason to buy?
What about a cheaper subscription that ONLY removes ads. None of the other stuff. What about bundling some other good or service with a subscription?
First, I'm not talking about doubling. I'm talking about going from 6 million to 6 million and one. It's free for them to do that.
Now, if we allow discussion of the larger AdBlocking userbase, I would hope any competent business is make sales from the new doubled user base to make up for the additional tech costs. If not, you deserve to fail, frankly.
That's the point here: it's Ars' job to make the business work, not the readers.
If the best they can come up with to improve the bottom line is to cut their userbase by a considerable percentage, then that's just sad. (It must be considerable to have an impact, as a small percentage would have an equally small effect on server/bandwidth expenses).
I really expected better things from Ars. Honestly, the fact that they don't have any better ideas just de-values their content, in my view. I thought they were smart people. Smart people wouldn't actively reject legitimate readership of any kind.
Yes, my readership is valuable. If you work to keep me as an interested reader, I'll likely spend some money down the road.
I've bought from ThinkGeek (supporting Slashdot) and I've subscribed to this blog as well. (I always have and will continue to block ads at both, regardless of my subscription status)
I send links to a lot of people. I have money I'm willing to use to support sites I like if they present an opportunity I value. Ars' ONLY offering is a high price ($50) for minimal value (removing ads, which I can do with AdBlock for free). How about offering something of value?
And, to your ridiculous restaurant analogy: *sigh*
It costs a restaurant real money to prepare and serve an additional meal.
Ars' costs to pay writers are fixed, relative to the number of readers, and the additional cost I present in bandwidth is so close to zero its laughable to consider. It costs Ars nothing _extra_ to deliver their content to me.
I'm insulted that they don't value my readership beyond the pennies I generate as ad impressions. Really - that's all I am? Exactly like you pointed out, Mike, I provide them value by sending others (who may or may not also block ads) to the site.
I'd also like to point out that Ars uses flash ads, which are extremely annoying. They're animated, they have sound ("only with user interaction" but even that is too much) and flash in general does not perform well. Add to that the lack of security with flash-based content, and you can see why I am not even willing to consider white-listing flash ads.
It's sad to see such an unenlightened stance from such a well respected site, and disturbing to see it delivered in such a stubborn, uncompromising manner.
I'll continue reading the odd article at Ars as long as they still display with ABP enabled. Once I technically cannot read their content, I'll consider it a loss on both our parts to end that relationship. But the fault lies entirely with them.
Mike, you're concerned that founders will take VC money they don't need in order to be allowed to build here (USA). What about the opposite problem?
Does this bill address concerns of VCs essentially "buying" visas for faux founders, just to get them into the country? (Or out of their own). Does it include language to verify the startup as a legitimate business? And if so, who makes those decisions on what grounds?
I understand this is likely very early in a long process, but I think they are still important questions.
Comments are not complaints. They are comments, and they mean as close to nothing as words can get.
Sure, the content may be cruel. But Google didn't participate in the cruel behavior.
People upload their drinking videos all the time. Should Google execs be charged with public intoxication? The suggestion is equally ridiculous.
As for "proof of real identity," no thanks. Why?
1) Anonymity is important for free speech, especially when free speech is not guaranteed for the speaker. (Yes, in this we have decided our rules are better than places that do not offer such freedom.)
2) Privacy - if I have to "prove" my identity, all of my online activity can be tracked, even without "speaking." No thanks.
3) It's next to impossible to enforce. There are myriad technical methods to evade or falsify "identifying" information that it would be futile/stupid/unjustified to take action against individuals.
Take your government-approved communication and shove it.
I'm having this exact experience with a TV series I bought on BluRay.
My HD downloads had all the useless warnings and crap stripped of, and were easy browsable. Now that I have teh blurays, I have to sit through warning carp before EVERY EPISODE!!! and its much harder to browse through and skip intros etc.
On the post: Using A Big Company C&D For Marketing
There's more to this case...
So, there's probably some bad blood here, on the part of Clorox.
For reference: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/drew-fraser/a/938/3a7
That said, all the stuff about Method turning this into great publicity for themselves is still true.
On the post: As Murdoch Puts Times Online Behind A Paywall, Competitors Happily Plan To Stay Free
Re: Extra Extra Read All About It ...
*ba-dum, tssh*
On the post: Reporter Matchmaking: New Journalism At Work
Evolution
On the post: No Surprise: If You Actively Promote The Fact That You Lead People To Infringing Content, Courts Will Smack You Down
Making it too easy?
What I don't understand is how the headers are somehow "worse."
Is Google similarly guilty for allowing user to search the listing of several torrent sites at once?
On the post: Judge Tells IsoHunt To Wave Magic Wand; Block All Infringement
NewzBin handed a similar fate
This whole inducement/secondary liability business is such a crock.
On the post: Judge: Gene Patents Are Invalid
Excellent News
On the post: Angus Proposes iPod Tax... Balanced With Greater Fair Dealing Protections
Not Worth the Trade
We already have the levy on blank media, and it doesn't do a damned thing to stop complaints from the US to make our copyright laws worse. I strongly doubt a new larger levy would achieve anything different. Except for digging deeper into our pockets up front. And still demanding our government betray us.
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised Angus proposed this. The fair dealing makes sense, but I thought he knew better than the tax.
Why not just propose that good half? If the levy is so ridiculous (as Clement says) let's just do the fair dealing part.
On the post: Unwilling To Compete, Canadian Booksellers Association Tries To Block Amazon Distribution Center
Re:
Not sure what they call the facility though, and how "distribution center" would be different.
On the post: Transmedia Storytelling... With A CwF+RtB Twist
Connections and RtB
On each blog post, allow readers to post comments and questions, and have the authors respond in character. If they suspect somebody or saw something weird, share little tidbits (previews of next piece?) in the comments. Get people engaged. Same goes for video comments.
For RtB, why not sell some bits parts in the video episodes? Let your biggest fans in to be a part of the show.
That's my two cents at 2am.
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Insulting is Exactly Right
It amazes me that other people *aren't* indignant towards other people who believe they can control my browsing experience. It's my browser, I'll display your website how I like. If they want to be compensated directly for easily substituted content, put up a paywall and die already.
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insulting is Exactly Right
Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for them to ask people to whitelist the site. I wish them the best of luck, and the more who convert the better for them. Great.
Now, we still have a large percentage of users who chose to continue to block ads (even if a generous HALF were converted, 20% are still blocking). Do they really want to give up 1 million+ readers? Do they really have no other ideas for offering those readers a reason to buy?
What about a cheaper subscription that ONLY removes ads. None of the other stuff. What about bundling some other good or service with a subscription?
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Insulting is Exactly Right
Now, if we allow discussion of the larger AdBlocking userbase, I would hope any competent business is make sales from the new doubled user base to make up for the additional tech costs. If not, you deserve to fail, frankly.
That's the point here: it's Ars' job to make the business work, not the readers.
If the best they can come up with to improve the bottom line is to cut their userbase by a considerable percentage, then that's just sad. (It must be considerable to have an impact, as a small percentage would have an equally small effect on server/bandwidth expenses).
I really expected better things from Ars. Honestly, the fact that they don't have any better ideas just de-values their content, in my view. I thought they were smart people. Smart people wouldn't actively reject legitimate readership of any kind.
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Re: Re: Insulting is Exactly Right
I've bought from ThinkGeek (supporting Slashdot) and I've subscribed to this blog as well. (I always have and will continue to block ads at both, regardless of my subscription status)
I send links to a lot of people. I have money I'm willing to use to support sites I like if they present an opportunity I value. Ars' ONLY offering is a high price ($50) for minimal value (removing ads, which I can do with AdBlock for free). How about offering something of value?
And, to your ridiculous restaurant analogy: *sigh*
It costs a restaurant real money to prepare and serve an additional meal.
Ars' costs to pay writers are fixed, relative to the number of readers, and the additional cost I present in bandwidth is so close to zero its laughable to consider. It costs Ars nothing _extra_ to deliver their content to me.
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Re: Quick response from the Editor of Ars Technica
Animation should be avoid as well, except for basic gif image rotation.
On the post: Is Amazon Blocking Reviews Of Assassin's Creed Over DRM Issues? [Update]
Amazon is really stretching consumer faith
On the post: Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites
Insulting is Exactly Right
I'd also like to point out that Ars uses flash ads, which are extremely annoying. They're animated, they have sound ("only with user interaction" but even that is too much) and flash in general does not perform well. Add to that the lack of security with flash-based content, and you can see why I am not even willing to consider white-listing flash ads.
It's sad to see such an unenlightened stance from such a well respected site, and disturbing to see it delivered in such a stubborn, uncompromising manner.
I'll continue reading the odd article at Ars as long as they still display with ABP enabled. Once I technically cannot read their content, I'll consider it a loss on both our parts to end that relationship. But the fault lies entirely with them.
On the post: No, You Don't Have To File Patent Lawsuits
Re: Legal advice
On the post: Startup Visa Act Introduced In The Senate
What about the opposite problem?
Does this bill address concerns of VCs essentially "buying" visas for faux founders, just to get them into the country? (Or out of their own). Does it include language to verify the startup as a legitimate business? And if so, who makes those decisions on what grounds?
I understand this is likely very early in a long process, but I think they are still important questions.
On the post: Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences
Re: Re: Idiots of all sizes
Comments are not complaints. They are comments, and they mean as close to nothing as words can get.
Sure, the content may be cruel. But Google didn't participate in the cruel behavior.
People upload their drinking videos all the time. Should Google execs be charged with public intoxication? The suggestion is equally ridiculous.
As for "proof of real identity," no thanks. Why?
1) Anonymity is important for free speech, especially when free speech is not guaranteed for the speaker. (Yes, in this we have decided our rules are better than places that do not offer such freedom.)
2) Privacy - if I have to "prove" my identity, all of my online activity can be tracked, even without "speaking." No thanks.
3) It's next to impossible to enforce. There are myriad technical methods to evade or falsify "identifying" information that it would be futile/stupid/unjustified to take action against individuals.
Take your government-approved communication and shove it.
On the post: Reminder: You Don't Compete With Piracy By Being Lame, The DVD Edition
Re:
I'm having this exact experience with a TV series I bought on BluRay.
My HD downloads had all the useless warnings and crap stripped of, and were easy browsable. Now that I have teh blurays, I have to sit through warning carp before EVERY EPISODE!!! and its much harder to browse through and skip intros etc.
It's really quite ridiculous.
Next >>