The footage of the wedding isn't necessary where coverage is invovled. I think of it a great template where some of the UK's sharpest male comics can squeeze themselves into a reasonable facsimile of that dress and put on a performance that will make everyone laugh.
Never underestimate the great tradition of British drag.
Ahh, our taxpayer dollars at work. Worst thing is that I feel just about as safe as I did before, which actually was pretty safe.
Now, that jerkface tailgating me on the highway, thinking that I'm a menace for going the speed limit on the right-hand lane, that guy really worries me.
I think that's a good point. It's not like the days of laudinum and cough medicines spiked with enough heroin to string out an whale was some kind of great age of safe medicine.
On the other hand, I think there is room to loosen up the trial process to make it more competative and even a little faster. IMO, the key to that new process would be the most honest disclosures the testers can make. A means would have to be developed to let all the subjects* know the possible risks for taking the drug, and be updated on those risks as time goes by and more knowledge is obtained.
*Yes I know that not everyone may be taking the actual drug, but unless psychology says otherwise, giving everyone the same information ought to make sure that those who are, are informed.
I'm okay with the grant, I think the main point is that they were not afraid to put in the effort to use all of the tools available to them, sometimes is giving an album away for free, sometimes its working 2000 miles from home for beer and pizza, sometimes its writing a grant application to get a sponsor.
Today, there's no magic path to success, but success is still there for those who really want it.
Indeed sir, Spotify is nothing more than a common thief that happened to pay 10s of millions in Euros for the licenses to allow a service where the music could be listened without paying, and a few adverts, IRRC. This doesn't include their paid subscription services, and individual music sales.
Now that Spotify is being hobbled, do you really think that these record guys aren't shooting themselves in the foot? I mean if the above model did absolutely nothing for them, why aren't they looking for ways to sue radio stations out of existence for providing free music to thieving ears such as mine?
And I guess yes, since the music is "theirs" they could limit distribution, but how does the sales equivalent to Picking up the Ball and Going Home making them any money at all? Or do you think that the AC above who said it's about control is right, and that they may very well rather not have anyone listen to their music unless it's presented and purchased according to some 1940s sense of distribution?
Hell, if they're really like that, then let the silence start as soon as possible from these knuckleheads so we can start the process of making music without them!
And, second, we've built a legal system in which all too often it pays for losers to litigate against those who succeed.
That does seem to be the crux of the issue. I can only wonder how our legal system could put a damper on opportunism, while letting legitimate civil complaints though in an efficient way? Consider me stumped.
Actually there's a whole section of this website that collects and discusses TD articles about how to run a business that can make money despite infringment, which counts as a solution if you ask me.
I'd like to put myself out there and say that I understand what you're trying to say, because I've heard the same anecdote before in the different and super niche market of Tabletop Role-Playing Games.
Thanks to technology, it's never been easier for someone to write up and publish their own RPG materials (rules, supplements, zines, etc.). In the example I heard, someone wrote up a set of RPG rules and put the PDF up at first for free, then later for a nominal price (I want to say $1.00). He says that he had far more downloads after he priced it, and gave two reasons he though were behind the change, and why he thought it was a good thing for him:
1. He argued that the price reflected his personal value of the work. If he priced it for free, potential buyers may think it's not worth a look, though they could be wrong, of course.
2. Since the buyer staked their money on the product, they have a greater incentive use the product. People actually playing the game mattered to to the author, and he felt that someone would be more likely to do that if they felt that they had to get some return on the purchase. If you don't pay, you don't feel bad about ignoring it.
If you ask me, these kinds of reactions really aren't that hard to understand and make sense if you take a moment to think about it. This is really Good News that ought to someday be No News.
It is pretty galling that despite the fact that the whole point of representative democracy is to create a leadership accountable to its citizens, that parliamentary procedures were created to actively prevent that accountability from occurring.
Kudos to On the Media for making an effort to create that accountability despite the best efforts of our representatives.
A large corportation fudging the numbers so they can use that as leverage to make more money?
Never!
I love free enterprise quite a bit, but at the same time, I've never been without a healthy dose of skepicism whenever a business pleads poverty, but somehow continues to stay in business and make a profit.
It is a situation that isn't tolerable in the long run, and will likely have to be addressed in congress.
By realizing that media today doesn't play by the same rules they did even 10 years ago, and that copyright may not be needed in its current maximalist state to continue to encourage creation and expression in a high-speed global market?
This particular issue has always made me wonder. With all of the money they have been shoveling into lawsuits trying to make the laws into something they aren't, couldn't they have created their own compliance unit? You know, to perform their own legit investigations, finding evidence on specific suspects and actually providing it to courts?
They may not catch all the little fish, but they would have a resonable shot at finding the worst offenders.
On the post: Match.com Plans To Ask Users If They're Sexual Predators
At least one of you is single and a predator!
On the post: Royal Family Bans Satirical Coverage Of The Big Wedding
Never underestimate the great tradition of British drag.
On the post: We've Trained The TSA To Search For Liquid Instead Of Bombs
Now, that jerkface tailgating me on the highway, thinking that I'm a menace for going the speed limit on the right-hand lane, that guy really worries me.
On the post: Prince Claims When Someone Covers Your Song, The Original No Longer Exists
Re: Prince is an Idiot, but...
On the post: Is The FDA Helping Or Hindering Medical Innovation?
Re: Re: I'll say it!
On the other hand, I think there is room to loosen up the trial process to make it more competative and even a little faster. IMO, the key to that new process would be the most honest disclosures the testers can make. A means would have to be developed to let all the subjects* know the possible risks for taking the drug, and be updated on those risks as time goes by and more knowledge is obtained.
*Yes I know that not everyone may be taking the actual drug, but unless psychology says otherwise, giving everyone the same information ought to make sure that those who are, are informed.
On the post: Being Successful With New Business Models Still Means Hard Work
Re:
Today, there's no magic path to success, but success is still there for those who really want it.
On the post: Record Labels Pressure Spotify Into Being Worse; Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re:
Now that Spotify is being hobbled, do you really think that these record guys aren't shooting themselves in the foot? I mean if the above model did absolutely nothing for them, why aren't they looking for ways to sue radio stations out of existence for providing free music to thieving ears such as mine?
And I guess yes, since the music is "theirs" they could limit distribution, but how does the sales equivalent to Picking up the Ball and Going Home making them any money at all? Or do you think that the AC above who said it's about control is right, and that they may very well rather not have anyone listen to their music unless it's presented and purchased according to some 1940s sense of distribution?
Hell, if they're really like that, then let the silence start as soon as possible from these knuckleheads so we can start the process of making music without them!
On the post: TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
Re: Re: Re: Why is this article even on TechDirt?
On the post: TSA Gropes 6-Year Old Girl: Says It's Okay Since It Followed Standard Operating Procedure
Then again, maybe people will start asking real questions of the ones giving the orders.
Maybe.
Hopefully.
On the post: From Tasini To The Winklevi: Greed, Retroactively Breaking Deals And Feeling Entitled To What's Not Yours
That does seem to be the crux of the issue. I can only wonder how our legal system could put a damper on opportunism, while letting legitimate civil complaints though in an efficient way? Consider me stumped.
On the post: Lionsgate Claims That Reviewing A Fake Script Is Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Wyden: I Will Do Everything In My Power To Block COICA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/#
On the post: Which Would You Rather Have: 100,000 Unauthorized Downloads Of Your Music... Or None?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks to technology, it's never been easier for someone to write up and publish their own RPG materials (rules, supplements, zines, etc.). In the example I heard, someone wrote up a set of RPG rules and put the PDF up at first for free, then later for a nominal price (I want to say $1.00). He says that he had far more downloads after he priced it, and gave two reasons he though were behind the change, and why he thought it was a good thing for him:
1. He argued that the price reflected his personal value of the work. If he priced it for free, potential buyers may think it's not worth a look, though they could be wrong, of course.
2. Since the buyer staked their money on the product, they have a greater incentive use the product. People actually playing the game mattered to to the author, and he felt that someone would be more likely to do that if they felt that they had to get some return on the purchase. If you don't pay, you don't feel bad about ignoring it.
On the post: Which Would You Rather Have: 100,000 Unauthorized Downloads Of Your Music... Or None?
Re: Re: Yes.
On the post: Foo Fighters Album Leaked; Band Relieved
Rad to the max
On the post: In The End, Secret Hold On Whistleblower Protection Narrowed Down To Two Senators
Kudos to On the Media for making an effort to create that accountability despite the best efforts of our representatives.
On the post: Drug Companies Overestimate Cost Of Developing A New Drug By Merely $1.26 Billion
Re: Re: Re: Math
On the post: Drug Companies Overestimate Cost Of Developing A New Drug By Merely $1.26 Billion
Whaaa?
Never!
I love free enterprise quite a bit, but at the same time, I've never been without a healthy dose of skepicism whenever a business pleads poverty, but somehow continues to stay in business and make a profit.
On the post: Another Court Rejects Idea That DMCA Requires Proactive Approach From Service Providers
By realizing that media today doesn't play by the same rules they did even 10 years ago, and that copyright may not be needed in its current maximalist state to continue to encourage creation and expression in a high-speed global market?
When pigs take flight!
On the post: Another Court Rejects Idea That DMCA Requires Proactive Approach From Service Providers
They may not catch all the little fish, but they would have a resonable shot at finding the worst offenders.
Next >>