So, why would you wait for the pilot to end to assess the effectiveness? Well, because the purpose of having the pilot was to test whether or not Peer To Patent would be effective. Therefore, for the same reasons I detailed in my answer to 1) above, it makes sense to have a finite set of data (i.e. all of the applications having received FOAMs) prior to attempting to evaluate the data.
Valuating a finite set of data in no way requires the closure of the service. Setting a cut off point for what to include in your evaluation does the job just as well.
Something may be considered obvious without there having been prior art for multiple reasons, like being simple extensions of already existing ideas/technology.
There's a great episode of a show called Hak5 that deals specifically with this, using a device called the pineapple where you can fool people to connect to the pineapple to become a man in the middle.
I don't see how suggesting that the theory behind copyright is that it's necessary to encourage innovation in x market is in any way misrepresentation. The entire point of copyright is that without it, such innovation or certain kinds of innovation will not happen or will be hampered as incentives won't naturally play out in how we want them to.
I've NEVER seen it argued that the government-granted monopolies are NECESSARY. The argument is that they are SUFFICIENT.
I have no idea how this distinction is actually meaningful. To put in place copyright or other such laws is to suggest they are necessary for a given purpose.
Channel 4 is not fully funded by public money either.
"Remaining an independent not-for-profit organisation, funded primarily in the marketplace, with public support that does not exceed the historic value of gifted analogue spectrum"
We're seeing the common problem of people expecting beta or release quality software out of something that is pre-alpha, is advertised as pre-alpha and was always planned to open up development to help improve it, and nothing else.
Indeed, the entire reason why Diaspora is and has been released like this is to catch these problems and to spur development forward in general.
Sometimes I wonder if over use of the term beta for all sorts of things has raised expectations of alpha and even pre-alpha services. The article also seems to point to users who apparently didn't take notice of any of these obvious concerns of alpha software.
I've even seen people calling Diaspora vapourware long before it reached the scheduled time of public release.
Why you keep focusing on but one point out of what was said I have no idea. Commercial use was not even the most significant claim made in the article, only pointing out that some cases involved an analysis of financial harm along side others.
Moving features that can be done locally into online or even putting a wall around services it makes perfect sense in many instances to be free (like basic online play) is hardly selling a scarcity. By all means charge for access to official servers or what ever else, but erecting a complete wall as a means to scrape money out of people purely because they bought second hand is hardly CwF + RtB.
Similarly, TechDirt applauded the Humble Indie Bundle, despire the fact that the Bundle was basically "give it away and pray" (admittedly with a chartible component).
Except this was in fact brought up at the time by Mike, but the bundling of the games, charity and being able to specify who your money goes to seem like fairly good reasons to buy to me at least.
I've been hopeful but I have to be realistic. Three of the restaurants from this NY Times article are closed. The authors blame "freeloaders"
Physical goods != digital goods.
This article says that giving away free copies did not increase sales.
Maybe because it wasn't a very good book? Maybe there weren't enough extra reasons to buy over the online version? Judging by the site, not very many of them appear to be at all.
When was free speech given too much leeway for copyright to kick in and restrict it?
It hasn't. Copyright is solely granted based on an economic and technological assumption, one that is intended to reach the larger goal of promote the progress. Copyright is not a counter balance to too much free speech, it is a counter balance to presumed negative economic forces that happens to interfere with free speech in ways that it requires idea/expression dichotomies and fair use to not be ruled unconstitutional.
Except nowhere did the founders talk of how freedom of expression needed to be balanced against a monopoly over reproduction of a work, only over how a monopoly *may* be needed in cases where there was an economic imbalance between middle men distributors and artists reluctant to publish their work, and that this should be reserved to severe circumstances.
There is no balance to be had between copyright and the first amendment - first amendment trumps copyright, and copyright is only allowed given certain criteria and with restrictions like fair use.
On the post: Peer-To-Patent About To Come Back?
Re: Re: Re: of note
Valuating a finite set of data in no way requires the closure of the service. Setting a cut off point for what to include in your evaluation does the job just as well.
On the post: Peer-To-Patent About To Come Back?
Re: The only obviousness problem here...
On the post: The History Of The (Fake) 'Free Public WiFi' You Always See At Airports
http://www.hak5.org/episodes/episode-705
On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays
Re:
On the post: Game Developers Can Beat Piracy By Copying Their Actual Competition
Re: Re: Steam
Yes, you quite clearly can.
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/publishingservices.php
On the post: Patrick Leahy Against Internet Censorship In Other Countries, But All For It At Home
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TPB is a search engine, it does not host content.
On the post: Richard Dawkins Points Fan To The Pirate Bay To See His Latest Documentary
Re: Re: http://rustb.lt
http://www.channel4.com/about4/index.html
Channel 4 is not fully funded by public money either.
"Remaining an independent not-for-profit organisation, funded primarily in the marketplace, with public support that does not exceed the historic value of gifted analogue spectrum"
http://www.channel4.com/about4/next_on4.html
On the post: As Expected, Expectations Are Way Too High On Diaspora
Re: Haystack 2.0
On the post: As Expected, Expectations Are Way Too High On Diaspora
Sometimes I wonder if over use of the term beta for all sorts of things has raised expectations of alpha and even pre-alpha services. The article also seems to point to users who apparently didn't take notice of any of these obvious concerns of alpha software.
I've even seen people calling Diaspora vapourware long before it reached the scheduled time of public release.
On the post: Fox News Sues Senate Candidate For Using Clip In Commercial
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Indie Game Developer Points Out That It's Better To Give People Reasons To Buy Than Worry About 'Piracy'
Re:
Moving features that can be done locally into online or even putting a wall around services it makes perfect sense in many instances to be free (like basic online play) is hardly selling a scarcity. By all means charge for access to official servers or what ever else, but erecting a complete wall as a means to scrape money out of people purely because they bought second hand is hardly CwF + RtB.
Similarly, TechDirt applauded the Humble Indie Bundle, despire the fact that the Bundle was basically "give it away and pray" (admittedly with a chartible component).
Except this was in fact brought up at the time by Mike, but the bundling of the games, charity and being able to specify who your money goes to seem like fairly good reasons to buy to me at least.
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite goods?
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite goods?
Physical goods != digital goods.
Maybe because it wasn't a very good book? Maybe there weren't enough extra reasons to buy over the online version? Judging by the site, not very many of them appear to be at all.
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Is Destroying The Economy Because It Believes In Efficiency?
Re: Thats right Mike, Smear, louder and more ridiculously than Anyone else. Its what you do..
On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca
On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It hasn't. Copyright is solely granted based on an economic and technological assumption, one that is intended to reach the larger goal of promote the progress. Copyright is not a counter balance to too much free speech, it is a counter balance to presumed negative economic forces that happens to interfere with free speech in ways that it requires idea/expression dichotomies and fair use to not be ruled unconstitutional.
On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no balance to be had between copyright and the first amendment - first amendment trumps copyright, and copyright is only allowed given certain criteria and with restrictions like fair use.
Next >>