Why are you calling it Reverse Streisand Effect? I would call it using the Streisand Effect for a desirable outcome, or pretending to be a Streisand Effect victim with but with a desirable outcome.
McGuinness should hang out with Bono when he does his charitable diplomacy campings. He could blame corrupt governments for poverty and war. That deserves much more attention. But he would probably mess that up as well.
Venture Hacks posted on this topic recently as well. It is an idea (pun intended) that is spreading through the VC community. They all probably knew this already, but when you talk about investing resources in ideas all day, it is great, concise sound bite for VCs.
some old guy and Ron Larsen are right. This is an extreme abuse of copyright and trademark law, and this action is actually and violation of the the First-sale doctrine.
Seller of goods want to control the distribution of their products, but they really have no legal rights to do this unless, as Ron suggested, there was a legal contract that the seller would not resell. But even then, the agreement is worthless. The last thing the shampoo company wants to do is go after their vendor. This would scare off their potential vendors.
The shampoo companies lawyers are being asked to stretch copyright and trademarks to suite their desire to control the market of their goods.
This is the notion of an "Authorized Dealer." This means that the party selling to the consumer has been authorized by the manufacturer/official sales channel. Some manufacturers do a really poor job of policing their salespeople, well because, they want to make a sale. The sales departments are seen gods; more important than the marketing departments. The marketing departments wants to make sure their products are presented in a specific way (no legal right to this, by the way), so they sometimes have a problem with who the sales department sells to. Trademark does not touch this, because the sales department knows who they are selling to (or, at least the good, responsible ones do). If the goods are authentic, trademark has not been violated. Salespeople are intellectually dishonest when a sale occurs to a vendor they knowingly sell to (who may or may not resell) and lie by saying that the item is a knock-off or forgery. I have seen this happen in the consumer electronics business.
Bad market control decisions does not equal trademark infringement, especially if the goods are authentic.
Plentiful, abundant, infinite. Whatever you want to call it, what Mike is saying (though mjr1007 choses to argue about semantics so the argument never ends) that the margins between the cost of self-distribution of digital media over the net is so low compared to the overhead required to run a record label and duplicate physical CDs, that if you were to round the difference, it would be zero.
The same argument could have been made when the printing press was invented. You could say now it now takes "no time at all" to print a book. It is only stated this way because before it would take a scribe weeks, months, or years to produce a single book. With the printing press it takes days or hours.
A day is 0.0027397 of a year. Round that off, it means it takes zero years to make a book.
A day is 0.032258 of a month. Round that off to, it means it takes zero days to make a book.
Let's leverage this new difference to our advantage. If you choose to be a luddite instead, that is your choice.
Imagine all brick-and-mortar stores charged an entrance fee, and also charged for the oxygen you used while in the store, and rent for the space you occupied in the store for the time you were there.
Then your competitor offered all of these for free. Are they then leaving money on the table? Or are they breaking down competitive barriers to get people into your store to look at the merchandise so they might buy something from you instead of your competitor?
Sure, you have to pay rent, you have to pay for maintenance on your door, you have to pay for garbage collection for your store so it does not stink which would require people to bring their own oxygen tanks to breath without smelling rotting trash. But these are all the normal costs of doing business.
The small infrastructure cost of giving away things that were not previously given (infinitively copyable media) is the new cost of doing business. Leverage that to find paying customers of goods that are more scarce that you can sell at high margins.
Sell me something I want that I can get for free, and I'll buy it. This is so simple.
Creative Commons is an option to a creator. Its proponents do not suggest that everyone abolishes copyright and replace it with Creative Commons.
There are many different types of Creative Commons licenses. By far, the most popular is BY-NC-SA. BY states that the secondary user of the work say who the original artist its, NC means it cannot be for commercial purposes, and SA is share alike, meaning the license becomes viral, that the secondary user must also license their derivative work as a share alike license, as well as any others. This is probably becuase authors open to CC appreciate flattery, they hate red-tape and their possible contribution to it.
The Creative Commons license that most opponents default to thinking about is BY only, who's only requirement is author attribution. It which allows commercial derivative use, does not require the derivatives be licensed under CC. It is easy for opponents to say that it allows media corporations to "steal" artists' work. But the artists might decide on this license for personal reasons which the opponents are either not aware of or ignorant about. Some authors might not even disclose the purposes for the choice of the license he or she choses.
It is possible to be a profitable and commercial with Creative Commons or GPL licenses. Examples are Nine Inch Nails, Cory Doctorow, MySQL. Virility is a marketing strategy. Allowing content and ideas to flow with less restrictions than copyright can be central to the marketing strategy for some. CC allows artists and strategist to chose CC for its virility. If the author choose the traditional copyright for another type of work, he or she may have reasons, but the freedom to chose CC or copyright is the key. It is intellectuality dishonest to suggest that anyone who picks a CC license is an IP abolitionist or disrespectful of the way other peoples chose to license his or her works.
Why do I need to be an "idea serf" to the media companies that Mr. Sydnor represents? I, Masnick, Lessig, Doctorow, Von Lohman, Boldrin, Levine and others intellectuals in this space have declared: I do not want to be and IP serf, and to allow such control by the few is bad for society.
Secondly, a compulsory licensing of IP would topple incumbent media powers that Mr. Sydnor represents while giving freer expression using IP to normal people who do not have to hire lawyers. Mr. Sydnor equates this as "tax-funding of expression with a regime of pervasive surveillance." Good one, governor! Nice spin. Are the taxes that I pay to kill innocent people overseas any less evil? I would much rather have that tax money go to insuring a wider freedom of my expression. Is the IRS not a form of surveillance?
I'll tell you what Lessig has in common with Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Minh. They are/were seen as threats to U.S. Capitalist global agenda, and were/are being deamonized by U.S. propaganda/media conglomerates to the rest of the world for their own financial gain.
Were they oppressive to their people? Sure. But the U.S. propaganda machine will only use this argument when it suites them. Oil in Iraq? Sadama is a tyrant. Oppression and genocide in Tibet, Myanmar, or Daufar? Sorry, no financial windfall to be had by intervening there.
What Mr. Sydnor is attempting to do is show guilt by association of who mutually exclusive ideas: a small fee for freer expression and oppression of people. If Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Minh, could see the dangers of maximilast capitalism, but at the same time, happened to oppressed their people. Are counties like Sweden, who have the loosest IP regulations oppressing their people? I don't think so.
To pinpoint Mr. Sydnor's intellectual dishonesty, he wants the world to believe that if you have a government that allows freer use IP and a way to compensate creators without hiring lawyers, then you must also be an oppressor of your people. Actually, the opposite is true. The sweet irony in Mr. Sydnor argument is that restrictive use of ideas and IP is the new way to oppress of people by making them pay the controlling media powers and lawyers.
This smear campaign, brought to you courtesy of Big incumbent Media outlets: AT&T, ClearChannel, NBC Universal, Time-Warner, Viacom, Disney, Microsoft, Sony, Verizon, Comcast, DirecTV. http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
All of the companies Lessig points out in Free Culture, chapter Ten, "Property," sub chapter "Market: Concentration" page 164. Very interesting. It looks like someone is trying to get their revenge.
Regrettably, also Yahoo and Google are on the list of supporters. They should now reconsider their support. Yahoo and Google, I challenge you, drop your support for PFF now!!
Many companies are now stating if a consumer alters its products in any way, the consumer is liable.
Just because the are saying this does not make it true. The have no legal right to do this. In your example with Microsoft, this is more of a "code is law" thing that Lessig talks about in Code and Code 2.0. But just like the record companies saying that a promo CD is their property simply by printing this on the insert does not make it true.
The cold hard truth that the record industry must face is that that the market for music using their old strategy is shrinking. They are going to need to let artists go. They are going to need to lay off employees. Their presidents are going to need receive less compensation. There is no amount of creative accounting or anti-consumer business model shifts that are going to save them. They must die, the sooner the better. Upstarts who understand the new music economy with take their place. It's innovators dilemma.
Ok, I was not aware of this. So is it safe to say the market did already decide that perceived value on the side of the seller does not equal a perceived value on the side of the buyer?
In a way, iTunes is already doing this by charging a premium for non-DRM files. Why would the industry need help from government? If they think there is more value, they could just try charging more and let the market decide. Besides, you cannot reset customers beliefs going back 40 years starting with the reel-to-reel, then cassettes, the ill-fated MiniDisc, then CDRs, then MP3s that the ability to copy music you purchased (or have not) is an inherent consumer right.
I think the problem is that the old school journalists still think that they are the only source for any particular news story. But today, with so many news sources, this is not the case. While anyone and everyone can and does recite and site (link to) the cold facts, (especially via AP and Reuters syndication), more sources are ready and willing to engage in opinion and analysis, and this naturally leads to conversation, especially op-ed pieces. It is syndication that has made the facts non-scares, and opinion and analysis from the writers scares and sought after. Online newspapers that are all AP and Reuters syndication may as well be spam blogs that scrape other sites. They offer little value.
Maybe Mattel/RealNetworks are trying to poison the Scrabulous brand with their crappy official version. If that is the case, it is really sad. It just goes to show that you need a real passion and meritocracy to win, not simply permission by an authority handed down to someone willing to play by the authorities' rules.
On the post: Mock Outrage Over An Ad You Paid For? Reverse Streisand Effect
On the post: U2's Manager Lashes Out Yet Again: Blames Absolutely Everyone For Not Making U2 Even Wealthier
On the post: When Ideas Are Easy And Execution Is Hard... It Makes Sense To Share Your Ideas
On the post: Is Reselling A Shampoo Bottle Copyright Infringement?
Seller of goods want to control the distribution of their products, but they really have no legal rights to do this unless, as Ron suggested, there was a legal contract that the seller would not resell. But even then, the agreement is worthless. The last thing the shampoo company wants to do is go after their vendor. This would scare off their potential vendors.
The shampoo companies lawyers are being asked to stretch copyright and trademarks to suite their desire to control the market of their goods.
This is the notion of an "Authorized Dealer." This means that the party selling to the consumer has been authorized by the manufacturer/official sales channel. Some manufacturers do a really poor job of policing their salespeople, well because, they want to make a sale. The sales departments are seen gods; more important than the marketing departments. The marketing departments wants to make sure their products are presented in a specific way (no legal right to this, by the way), so they sometimes have a problem with who the sales department sells to. Trademark does not touch this, because the sales department knows who they are selling to (or, at least the good, responsible ones do). If the goods are authentic, trademark has not been violated. Salespeople are intellectually dishonest when a sale occurs to a vendor they knowingly sell to (who may or may not resell) and lie by saying that the item is a knock-off or forgery. I have seen this happen in the consumer electronics business.
Bad market control decisions does not equal trademark infringement, especially if the goods are authentic.
On the post: China Shows Again That Stronger IP Protection Comes After There's Content To Protect, Not Before
typo?
On the post: The Smear Campaign Against Larry Lessig And Free Culture
mjr1007 and his semantic arguments
The same argument could have been made when the printing press was invented. You could say now it now takes "no time at all" to print a book. It is only stated this way because before it would take a scribe weeks, months, or years to produce a single book. With the printing press it takes days or hours.
A day is 0.0027397 of a year. Round that off, it means it takes zero years to make a book.
A day is 0.032258 of a month. Round that off to, it means it takes zero days to make a book.
Let's leverage this new difference to our advantage. If you choose to be a luddite instead, that is your choice.
On the post: The Smear Campaign Against Larry Lessig And Free Culture
The new cost of doing business
Then your competitor offered all of these for free. Are they then leaving money on the table? Or are they breaking down competitive barriers to get people into your store to look at the merchandise so they might buy something from you instead of your competitor?
Sure, you have to pay rent, you have to pay for maintenance on your door, you have to pay for garbage collection for your store so it does not stink which would require people to bring their own oxygen tanks to breath without smelling rotting trash. But these are all the normal costs of doing business.
The small infrastructure cost of giving away things that were not previously given (infinitively copyable media) is the new cost of doing business. Leverage that to find paying customers of goods that are more scarce that you can sell at high margins.
Sell me something I want that I can get for free, and I'll buy it. This is so simple.
On the post: The Smear Campaign Against Larry Lessig And Free Culture
Re: Re: to MLS,
There are many different types of Creative Commons licenses. By far, the most popular is BY-NC-SA. BY states that the secondary user of the work say who the original artist its, NC means it cannot be for commercial purposes, and SA is share alike, meaning the license becomes viral, that the secondary user must also license their derivative work as a share alike license, as well as any others. This is probably becuase authors open to CC appreciate flattery, they hate red-tape and their possible contribution to it.
The Creative Commons license that most opponents default to thinking about is BY only, who's only requirement is author attribution. It which allows commercial derivative use, does not require the derivatives be licensed under CC. It is easy for opponents to say that it allows media corporations to "steal" artists' work. But the artists might decide on this license for personal reasons which the opponents are either not aware of or ignorant about. Some authors might not even disclose the purposes for the choice of the license he or she choses.
It is possible to be a profitable and commercial with Creative Commons or GPL licenses. Examples are Nine Inch Nails, Cory Doctorow, MySQL. Virility is a marketing strategy. Allowing content and ideas to flow with less restrictions than copyright can be central to the marketing strategy for some. CC allows artists and strategist to chose CC for its virility. If the author choose the traditional copyright for another type of work, he or she may have reasons, but the freedom to chose CC or copyright is the key. It is intellectuality dishonest to suggest that anyone who picks a CC license is an IP abolitionist or disrespectful of the way other peoples chose to license his or her works.
On the post: The Smear Campaign Against Larry Lessig And Free Culture
Secondly, a compulsory licensing of IP would topple incumbent media powers that Mr. Sydnor represents while giving freer expression using IP to normal people who do not have to hire lawyers. Mr. Sydnor equates this as "tax-funding of expression with a regime of pervasive surveillance." Good one, governor! Nice spin. Are the taxes that I pay to kill innocent people overseas any less evil? I would much rather have that tax money go to insuring a wider freedom of my expression. Is the IRS not a form of surveillance?
I'll tell you what Lessig has in common with Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Minh. They are/were seen as threats to U.S. Capitalist global agenda, and were/are being deamonized by U.S. propaganda/media conglomerates to the rest of the world for their own financial gain.
Were they oppressive to their people? Sure. But the U.S. propaganda machine will only use this argument when it suites them. Oil in Iraq? Sadama is a tyrant. Oppression and genocide in Tibet, Myanmar, or Daufar? Sorry, no financial windfall to be had by intervening there.
What Mr. Sydnor is attempting to do is show guilt by association of who mutually exclusive ideas: a small fee for freer expression and oppression of people. If Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Minh, could see the dangers of maximilast capitalism, but at the same time, happened to oppressed their people. Are counties like Sweden, who have the loosest IP regulations oppressing their people? I don't think so.
To pinpoint Mr. Sydnor's intellectual dishonesty, he wants the world to believe that if you have a government that allows freer use IP and a way to compensate creators without hiring lawyers, then you must also be an oppressor of your people. Actually, the opposite is true. The sweet irony in Mr. Sydnor argument is that restrictive use of ideas and IP is the new way to oppress of people by making them pay the controlling media powers and lawyers.
On the post: The Smear Campaign Against Larry Lessig And Free Culture
the truth is out there
http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
All of the companies Lessig points out in Free Culture, chapter Ten, "Property," sub chapter "Market: Concentration" page 164. Very interesting. It looks like someone is trying to get their revenge.
Regrettably, also Yahoo and Google are on the list of supporters. They should now reconsider their support. Yahoo and Google, I challenge you, drop your support for PFF now!!
On the post: If You're Going To Put Up Fake Grassroots Videos On YouTube, Shouldn't You At Least Pretend To Be Real People?
On the post: Comcast Can't Fill Seats With Comcast Supporters; Skips FCC Hearing Entirely
On the post: Recording Industry Testing Out New Theory: It Deserves More Money Because It Lets You Transfer Music
Just because the are saying this does not make it true. The have no legal right to do this. In your example with Microsoft, this is more of a "code is law" thing that Lessig talks about in Code and Code 2.0. But just like the record companies saying that a promo CD is their property simply by printing this on the insert does not make it true.
On the post: Recording Industry Testing Out New Theory: It Deserves More Money Because It Lets You Transfer Music
On the post: Recording Industry Testing Out New Theory: It Deserves More Money Because It Lets You Transfer Music
to Luke and DanC
On the post: Recording Industry Testing Out New Theory: It Deserves More Money Because It Lets You Transfer Music
On the post: Blue Jean Cable Shows One Way To Respond To Overly Broad Patent Threats
On the post: Blockbuster In Surprise Bid To Buy Circuit City
On the post: Old School Journalists Still More Resistant To Conversational Journalism
On the post: The Way To Beat Scrabulous Is Not With Lawsuits Or Crappy Versions Of Scrabble
Next >>