That's more clear, thanks. I still think it comes down to whether or not there can be a transfer of "harm" which is a nuance that I'm really impressed to see considered here.
It would be fantastic if that was a consideration for patent aggregators as well--can't sue unless you're in the space competing.
I understand--my reading is that the judge is not questioning standing by rights, but questioning economic harm, which would undermine their standing or maybe more accurately their ability to ultimately prevail on the merits of the case.
But I think you're missing the point. AC, I think, gets to the heart of the judge's concern: just because you can sign away the rights such as in the case, you can't sign away the ability to be economically injured.
So, while Righthaven may have all of the appropriate rights, if they are not in the business of selling and producing content, they cannot assert economic harm.
I've got to be honest, reading your comments via the link makes me think you could argue that way for pretty much anything. There are some people that see "gray" in everything--which is both a boon and a curse.
I understand you focus on just the legal arguments, but that is a clinical and ultimately insufficient way to analyze legal disputes. Ethics, congressional intent, etc. are all very much part of the legal system and key elements in determining outcomes.
So effectively, your prior response is, "outcome uncertain" rather than an insightful analysis of the specific issues at hand and that is why you aren't getting any love from the audience here.
You'd think, but after years of watching my kids and my dogs, I am amazed at how even the strategy of "purchasing identical things for everyone" still doesn't eliminate fighting.
Either they fight over which one belongs to each person/dog or fight over the same one because for some odd reason that's the one everyone wants.
I never had siblings, so maybe that's my gap in understanding.
Ya know, I think many analysts thrive on others' cognitive biases. They know they aren't really expected to be able to predict the market, and they know that many people will focus on their "hits" (because they want to believe) and dismiss their predictive failures. So I think they throw stuff out there to see what sticks, and when they get a hit they say, "See, I am a market genius!"
NO THEY DON'T HAVE THE CHOICE OF NOT ALLOWING IT TO BE PART OF OTHER PEOPLE'S ART!
They only have the choice of sharing or not sharing. Once it is shared, it will become part of someone else's art. PERIOD.
If we're going to talk fallacious slippery slopes, what about the slippery slope of the monopoly on the specific expression? Today, we are well down that slope--meaning, infringement is claimed on all kinds of things that use PART of an expression, sometimes nothing more than a name (e.g., sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird). Why are you afraid of one slippery slope leading to complete piracy and not the other which could lead to the implosion of cultural progress?
I agree with everything you said, but the post was about using math to debunk the potential success of the paywall--I saw little math and little analysis. Certainly not as much as usual on this site.
Fact 4, seems to undermine his point--if they can be profitable with just 1% (which he concludes is 6%), then that doesn't seem to be such a leap--something Bas didn't address.
The piracy thing was only an example of something that lots of people seem to blindly accept without scrutiny.
Just like, hey, no one will pay $200 per year for something. Great opinion, and I feel like that is true, but I see a number of people on various sites saying that the NYT is important to them and they'll pony up. It remains to be seen if those positive remarks convert to cash.
I generally agree that they are overly optimistic about those that will decide to pay given the value degradation, however, I think this is waay too simple an analysis to support the rather dramatic conclusion.
It seems ludicrous that people will go from $0 to $195, yes, but what evidence do we have that generally doesn't work? There are lots of things that are generally accepted that aren't true when you dig (pirated copy = lost sale anyone?).
I think if you try to learn to read things without filtering it with your own bias and context, you might not feel that way.
If you can't recognize your own bias as part of the conversation, then you're going to spend every moment of your time on this site being frustrated and making silly, bitter-sounding comments like this.
Completely agree, and I didn't mean to dilute your point. Been waiting decades for AI and language processing to "get over the hump" and we're still just taking baby steps.
Sued fans, banned posters in the stadium, charges full price for preseason games, charges for tickets to observe training camp, clamped down on tailgating, charges some of the highest prices in the league for parking, got the local authorities to restrict competing local parking under the auspices of pedestrian safety, has a standing policy that employees cannot look him in the eye in his presence... Ummm... yeah, that guy.
I live in the DC area and I can say that the radio media coverage (regardless of station) is universally negative. Except for the station that Snyder owns of course.
Here's what's really strange. The word is out that Tony Wylie was the man behind the lawsuit. He himself admitted it to Brian Mitchell and Snyder threw him under the bus during other interviews.
You mean to tell me that one of the most lauded PR men in sports, didn't know that this would be the result?!?!? Are you kidding me?
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
It would be fantastic if that was a consideration for patent aggregators as well--can't sue unless you're in the space competing.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, while Righthaven may have all of the appropriate rights, if they are not in the business of selling and producing content, they cannot assert economic harm.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re:
I understand you focus on just the legal arguments, but that is a clinical and ultimately insufficient way to analyze legal disputes. Ethics, congressional intent, etc. are all very much part of the legal system and key elements in determining outcomes.
So effectively, your prior response is, "outcome uncertain" rather than an insightful analysis of the specific issues at hand and that is why you aren't getting any love from the audience here.
On the post: Amazon Uses Steve Jobs Words Against Him In App Store Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Cool
Either they fight over which one belongs to each person/dog or fight over the same one because for some odd reason that's the one everyone wants.
I never had siblings, so maybe that's my gap in understanding.
On the post: On NYT Paywall, Citigroup says 'Good Buy'; Techdirt says 'Hello!?!'
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: I support this.
They only have the choice of sharing or not sharing. Once it is shared, it will become part of someone else's art. PERIOD.
If we're going to talk fallacious slippery slopes, what about the slippery slope of the monopoly on the specific expression? Today, we are well down that slope--meaning, infringement is claimed on all kinds of things that use PART of an expression, sometimes nothing more than a name (e.g., sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird). Why are you afraid of one slippery slope leading to complete piracy and not the other which could lead to the implosion of cultural progress?
(sorry to shout).
On the post: Great Moments In Legal Questioning: IT Boss In Cuyahoga County Cannot Identify A Photocopier
Re:
I'll be here all week folks!
(silence) (nervous cough)
On the post: Great Moments In Legal Questioning: IT Boss In Cuyahoga County Cannot Identify A Photocopier
Re: Re: Re: I know what this is
On the post: Why The NY Times Paywall Business Model Is Doomed to Fail (Numbers)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Way too simple an analysis
On the post: Why The NY Times Paywall Business Model Is Doomed to Fail (Numbers)
Re: Re: Way too simple an analysis
Fact 4, seems to undermine his point--if they can be profitable with just 1% (which he concludes is 6%), then that doesn't seem to be such a leap--something Bas didn't address.
The piracy thing was only an example of something that lots of people seem to blindly accept without scrutiny.
Just like, hey, no one will pay $200 per year for something. Great opinion, and I feel like that is true, but I see a number of people on various sites saying that the NYT is important to them and they'll pony up. It remains to be seen if those positive remarks convert to cash.
On the post: Why The NY Times Paywall Business Model Is Doomed to Fail (Numbers)
Way too simple an analysis
It seems ludicrous that people will go from $0 to $195, yes, but what evidence do we have that generally doesn't work? There are lots of things that are generally accepted that aren't true when you dig (pirated copy = lost sale anyone?).
On the post: Apple Tries To Convince Trademark Board That App Store Really Means Apple Store
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hilarious!
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re:
If you can't recognize your own bias as part of the conversation, then you're going to spend every moment of your time on this site being frustrated and making silly, bitter-sounding comments like this.
On the post: Dan Snyder Helps Us Demonstrate The Streisand Effect In Numbers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dan Snyder Helps Us Demonstrate The Streisand Effect In Numbers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dan Snyder Helps Us Demonstrate The Streisand Effect In Numbers
Re:
On the post: Dan Snyder Helps Us Demonstrate The Streisand Effect In Numbers
Re:
Here's what's really strange. The word is out that Tony Wylie was the man behind the lawsuit. He himself admitted it to Brian Mitchell and Snyder threw him under the bus during other interviews.
You mean to tell me that one of the most lauded PR men in sports, didn't know that this would be the result?!?!? Are you kidding me?
On the post: Humane Association Trademarked 'No Animals Were Harmed'; Threatens King's Speech With Infringement Claim
Re:
Next >>