What happens if the pledges aren't honored? The band needs $8k; $8k gets pledged. $7k actually gets donated. What happens then? The band should not be obligated to do the release they said they'd do for $8k, and the users who paid have _paid_; who has their money? Can they get it back?
I can certainly understand that if the band doesn't produce they will get blackballed, but a few "anonymous" fans could really hurt the process.
As for where musicslu might make money, I can see a number of (non-evil) ways:
1. advertising
2. as the "holder" of the intermediate money -- while the pledges are coming in they need to be held somewhere, and that money can accrue interest (not much individually, but if there are enough pools...)
3. as the agent for the money transfer. PayPal gets 3-6%, I'm sure musicslu might be able to make a better deal.
"leaving out important writes of others" -- writings? Or was it just late and you meant "rights"?
Wouldn't it be a copyright violation for them to take someone else's work and go "fixing up and correcting" it?
I do agree that if you are going to be putting out an instruction manual it should have a trouble-shooting guide, such as when the expected behavior doesn't apply.
Consider the case of a furniture small-business. A purchaser for a company comes into the shop and arranges to have a bunch of shelves / desks / etc delivered to their office. Payment under those conditions might be Net30; they have 30 days to pay -- that's giving the customer a line of credit, which gives the customer time to arrange for financing (or rearranging their cash flow) to handle this decision to buy furniture.
The owner of the furniture store, however, received the goods from its distributor (unless they make the furniture themselves, in which case it is the lumber mill), and there they also probably have a Net30 arrangement. The distributor _must_ do it this way in order to move their goods; by doing so they give their customers the capability to have stock on hand to show /their/ customers.
Yes, if you have a good stretch of sales, you probably can set money aside. If you are a new business you do not have that luxury. If your business is growing (opening a new store means you have to _stock_ that store, and Net30 will only help a little in keeping it stocked unless items are flying off the shelves) your money is tight because it is invested in the non-performing start up costs of a new store.
No credit means businesses won't grow, won't start, and will have trouble continuing because their customers are less likely to be making purchases without the flexibility credit provides them to manage their cash flow.
I agree that some people (and by your won admission, yourself) have stolen music. People who steal (including stealing music) should be punished, but they should be allowed a fair trial if they want one.
The RIAA wants to define "fair" in such a way that if you happen to put your music in a non-private folder on your computer that is prima-facie evidence that you've shared music (helped someone else steal, therefore you are guilty). That's a definition of "fair" that is unreasonable. That's like saying just leaving a book on a copier makes you guilty of assisting in violating the copyright of the book with out any proof that the copier was ever used.
There is a level of proof they need come up which shows that you actually did something wrong, not just that you (and not the 15 year old who shares your internet connection) happen to be clueless enough to put a file in the wrong place. They need to prove that they were harmed before they should be allowed to sue.
He who gets to patent first wins. Bell patented the telephone. It had also been invented by (iirc) a German. Bell submnitted his patent first (and had the notes to prove his process or invention), and won.
Just because Google, or Prof Baclawski, developed something does not give them the rights to it until they get it patented. Prof Baclawski got the patent; it is up to the courts to decide if (a) it was patentable [sufficiently new, prior art, obviousness, etc], (b) who actually should get the patent, and finally (c) is there infringement. I'm not even sure how Trade Secrets work into patent claims, but it is a business decision someone at Google had to have made, and may very well lose at a result of that decision.
Also, my understanding of this specific case is that Northeastern University is part owner of the patent in question, and it/they are the ones pressing the patent suit; Prof Baclawski has to go along because his name is the top one on the patent.
Off the top of my head I see one possible solution as: if a site is "tested" it should then be unavailable for some period (5 days? a week?) after it is returned. This would prevent the sites from being "up" all the time, and is not a real hardship for someone forced to wait for a domain to become available (and you could always just talk to them to get it available sooner)
Or: if a domain name is tested more than once in a certain time period, some portion of the fee is non-refundable (like $1) -- something where the casual user wouldn't care, but if you scale it to 73 (365/5) times per year it would at least costs someone _something_ and likely prevent this from being abused.
I just don't understand how the photographer is a plaintiff in this case. He should be the one being sued. He had no right to claim his photograph(s) were available under CC 2.0 unless he had a release form from the "models". Perhaps Flikr should have been sued for not requiring more documentation for submission images under CC 2.0.
What I find really annoying is that the plaintiffs aren't on the hook to cover CC's court costs -- _they_ decided to sue two entities (VMUSA and CC) and then later drop them from the suit. One of the consequences of dropping the suit should be to cover reasonable court costs for the defendants to that point (and certainly all the court costs if their suit is found to be without merit).
There should be consequences for suing people without having a sound reason for doing so. It should have been their lawyer's job to tell them there was no reason to sue CC / VMUSA.
Provided their use doesn't make News Corp's property less valuable, and it is for educational use, part of critical discussion, or even parody, then it is "fair use" (note there may be a fourth category). I find it hard to believe that use of the Romney portion of the debate alone would reduce the value of News Corp's "property".
My understanding has been that the new electricity meters the power companies have been trying to push out would permit demand pricing -- when the demand is high (or, more specifically, at times when demand is traditionally high) the price is increased. An orb device, which monitors the regional load (not your house load), would make an even better metric as well as giving feedback to the consumer: the orb is red, so don't run the dryer now.
However, until the power companies institute that level of pricing (rather than just by time) it is just a novelty device (granted one that I wouldn't mind having...)
I find it interesting that there was no mention in the Newsday Link of a woman having contractions or being pregnant while in line. Did they edit that out of their story or was the headline for this piece just a sensationalistic attempt by TechDirt at gathering readers?
I'm sure the Australian government will just insist that the company running Second Life reports all monetary withdrawls from the game. In the US I could see them requiring a 1099 be issued at the end of the year for any amount withdrawn above a certain watermark (e.g. $600). Once you have a 1099 it would work as either a normal self-employment or as a hobby. I don't think it will be very hard for governments to track those bank transactions.
What I wonder about is what other regulation will be needed? What expenses will be available for write-off (i.e. will they accept Second Life as a self-employment or will they only accept it as a hobby? The difference is being able to write off the cost of the computer used to play it).
The distinction of Second Life rather than WoW (and many other games) is the expectation that money earned in the game can be removed at some exchange rate; I am not aware of that being possible in WoW (although there are transactions that happen outside the game which affect behavior in the game; those would be impossible to track).
Lastly, if you look at it as gambling winnings (earning money from playing a game) it does make a certain kind of sense.
I just have problems with the whole airport security "fiasco"
Is the intent to prevent another 9/11-style event? That wouldn't have happened on 9/12. The ability to take over the planes was the (wrong) assumption by the people in the planes that the hijackers were _hijacking_ the planes -- meaning they were going to take them as hostages and possibly kill them in small numbers to get their point across rather than killing them all at once while destroying a landmark. As of 9/12 no plane would have been susceptible to that since the passengers wouldn't have stood for it (evidence flight 93).
The airport security we are seeing _is_ theater. I was on one of the first flights out of Boston after 9/11 (it was October 1st!). They /insisted/ on no lighters be brought through the security check point. I landed in Pittsburgh, and there, in the concourse mall (on the plane side of their security check point), they were selling lighters. That was when I realized all they were doing was theater, and not even very good theater.
Hand /every/ passenger who wants one a gun when they get on board; Nobody would dare try hijacking the plane after that (and there are bullets designed not to damage the airplane skin so as to make them "safe")
I, personally, chose Avast! starting from one of the online reviews a year or two ago, and have not looked back. Norton, et al, have turned into subscription services, so buying commercial antivirus software is actually only "renting" it for a year.
Avast! (or more accurately, awil software) does concern me in that I do have doubts about trusting a company located in the Czechoslovakian republic. I still use them, but I am at least aware if the issue. Free for home use, and paying for commercial use makes sense, and is a great marketing plan designed to build a loyal customer base.
All of this is a moot issue, if anyone on this blog understood HIPAA and IRB issues. But then, why bother?
Why would it be moot? HIPAA doesn't prevent clinical information from being transmitted. HIPAA mostly places responsibility sa as to treat PHI (protected health information) confidentially.
P2P piracy wouldn't hurt the movie release -- the movie is a different experience. Their argument is it will/does hurt DVD sales which is where it seems most moview are expecting to make their money these days.
Personally, the reason to buy the DVD is to egt the 'extras' they usually include; i.e. added value.
On the post: New Service Helps Musicians Pre-Fund Releases From Fans
and then what happens?
I can certainly understand that if the band doesn't produce they will get blackballed, but a few "anonymous" fans could really hurt the process.
As for where musicslu might make money, I can see a number of (non-evil) ways:
1. advertising
2. as the "holder" of the intermediate money -- while the pledges are coming in they need to be held somewhere, and that money can accrue interest (not much individually, but if there are enough pools...)
3. as the agent for the money transfer. PayPal gets 3-6%, I'm sure musicslu might be able to make a better deal.
-or-
4. No need -- they're insane fans.
On the post: Copyright Doesn't Just Grant The Content Creator Rights
others-have-writes-as-well dept?
Wouldn't it be a copyright violation for them to take someone else's work and go "fixing up and correcting" it?
I do agree that if you are going to be putting out an instruction manual it should have a trouble-shooting guide, such as when the expected behavior doesn't apply.
On the post: Intellectual Property Laws... Rewritten As Poetry
Re: Awesome
Nothing the government
Makes is copyrighted
But they can buy copyrights
At K-mart sales, red-lighted
... so of course it isn't infringement since the government can't copyright the copyright code.
On the post: So How Will The Financial Crisis Impact The Wider Economy?
Re: Some perspective
The owner of the furniture store, however, received the goods from its distributor (unless they make the furniture themselves, in which case it is the lumber mill), and there they also probably have a Net30 arrangement. The distributor _must_ do it this way in order to move their goods; by doing so they give their customers the capability to have stock on hand to show /their/ customers.
Yes, if you have a good stretch of sales, you probably can set money aside. If you are a new business you do not have that luxury. If your business is growing (opening a new store means you have to _stock_ that store, and Net30 will only help a little in keeping it stocked unless items are flying off the shelves) your money is tight because it is invested in the non-performing start up costs of a new store.
No credit means businesses won't grow, won't start, and will have trouble continuing because their customers are less likely to be making purchases without the flexibility credit provides them to manage their cash flow.
On the post: Court Rejects RIAA's 'Making Available' Theory In Infamous Howell Case
Re: tactics
The RIAA wants to define "fair" in such a way that if you happen to put your music in a non-private folder on your computer that is prima-facie evidence that you've shared music (helped someone else steal, therefore you are guilty). That's a definition of "fair" that is unreasonable. That's like saying just leaving a book on a copier makes you guilty of assisting in violating the copyright of the book with out any proof that the copier was ever used.
There is a level of proof they need come up which shows that you actually did something wrong, not just that you (and not the 15 year old who shares your internet connection) happen to be clueless enough to put a file in the wrong place. They need to prove that they were harmed before they should be allowed to sue.
On the post: Google Hits Back On Questionable Search Patent
It's like the telephone ...
Just because Google, or Prof Baclawski, developed something does not give them the rights to it until they get it patented. Prof Baclawski got the patent; it is up to the courts to decide if (a) it was patentable [sufficiently new, prior art, obviousness, etc], (b) who actually should get the patent, and finally (c) is there infringement. I'm not even sure how Trade Secrets work into patent claims, but it is a business decision someone at Google had to have made, and may very well lose at a result of that decision.
Also, my understanding of this specific case is that Northeastern University is part owner of the patent in question, and it/they are the ones pressing the patent suit; Prof Baclawski has to go along because his name is the top one on the patent.
On the post: ICANN Finally Realizes Domain Tasting Is A Problem, Might Fix It Sometime This Decade
place some restriction on catch-and-release
Or: if a domain name is tested more than once in a certain time period, some portion of the fee is non-refundable (like $1) -- something where the casual user wouldn't care, but if you scale it to 73 (365/5) times per year it would at least costs someone _something_ and likely prevent this from being abused.
On the post: Turns Out You Can't Sue Creative Commons Because You Didn't Understand The CC License
The Photographer was a Plaintiff?
What I find really annoying is that the plaintiffs aren't on the hook to cover CC's court costs -- _they_ decided to sue two entities (VMUSA and CC) and then later drop them from the suit. One of the consequences of dropping the suit should be to cover reasonable court costs for the defendants to that point (and certainly all the court costs if their suit is found to be without merit).
There should be consequences for suing people without having a sound reason for doing so. It should have been their lawyer's job to tell them there was no reason to sue CC / VMUSA.
On the post: Mitt Romney To Fox News: Here's A Lesson In Fair Use
Fair use is nicely described in the (amusing) Disney hash-video pointed to by http://techdirt.com/articles/20071102/125418.shtml
Provided their use doesn't make News Corp's property less valuable, and it is for educational use, part of critical discussion, or even parody, then it is "fair use" (note there may be a fourth category). I find it hard to believe that use of the Romney portion of the debate alone would reduce the value of News Corp's "property".
On the post: Would You Broadcast Your Energy Usage?
Load pricing
However, until the power companies institute that level of pricing (rather than just by time) it is just a novelty device (granted one that I wouldn't mind having...)
On the post: PS3 Line Insanity; Pregnant Woman Tries Not To Give Birth While Waiting
?Pregnant Line Waiting?
On the post: Australia To Tax Money From Second Life, But Can Money Spent On Your Avatar Be A Write-Off?
Re: Bad Direction
What I wonder about is what other regulation will be needed? What expenses will be available for write-off (i.e. will they accept Second Life as a self-employment or will they only accept it as a hobby? The difference is being able to write off the cost of the computer used to play it).
The distinction of Second Life rather than WoW (and many other games) is the expectation that money earned in the game can be removed at some exchange rate; I am not aware of that being possible in WoW (although there are transactions that happen outside the game which affect behavior in the game; those would be impossible to track).
Lastly, if you look at it as gambling winnings (earning money from playing a game) it does make a certain kind of sense.
On the post: Security Theater Isn't Much Good When People Can Still Get Bombs On Planes
what is "security"?
Is the intent to prevent another 9/11-style event? That wouldn't have happened on 9/12. The ability to take over the planes was the (wrong) assumption by the people in the planes that the hijackers were _hijacking_ the planes -- meaning they were going to take them as hostages and possibly kill them in small numbers to get their point across rather than killing them all at once while destroying a landmark. As of 9/12 no plane would have been susceptible to that since the passengers wouldn't have stood for it (evidence flight 93).
The airport security we are seeing _is_ theater. I was on one of the first flights out of Boston after 9/11 (it was October 1st!). They /insisted/ on no lighters be brought through the security check point. I landed in Pittsburgh, and there, in the concourse mall (on the plane side of their security check point), they were selling lighters. That was when I realized all they were doing was theater, and not even very good theater.
Hand /every/ passenger who wants one a gun when they get on board; Nobody would dare try hijacking the plane after that (and there are bullets designed not to damage the airplane skin so as to make them "safe")
On the post: Security Companies Prove You Can Compete With Free
Free antivirus, like Avast!
Avast! (or more accurately, awil software) does concern me in that I do have doubts about trusting a company located in the Czechoslovakian republic. I still use them, but I am at least aware if the issue. Free for home use, and paying for commercial use makes sense, and is a great marketing plan designed to build a loyal customer base.
On the post: Collecting Clinical Data Over The Internet? You'll Probably Get Sued For Patent Infringement
Re: HIPAA
Why would it be moot? HIPAA doesn't prevent clinical information from being transmitted. HIPAA mostly places responsibility sa as to treat PHI (protected health information) confidentially.
So it isn't moot at all.
On the post: 'Pirates' Thriving, In Spite Of Pirates
Those aren't the sales they're looking for.
Personally, the reason to buy the DVD is to egt the 'extras' they usually include; i.e. added value.
Next >>