The school should take another look at what their business actually is.
Are they trying to educate students or just collect fees for students being there?
The student was highly motivated to get his education in the shortest period of time and did just that. The university wants to charge him for time and resources that he didn't use or need.
Maybe they should be suing him for copyright infringements on the notes he used. That might be a stronger case.
"Why don't they just pay to be on the top of Google's rankings?"
Because, like it or not, people can read. If I search for free music or movies, I don't really care if the top paid results appear at the top. I just scroll down to what I want.
I do agree that their sense of entitlement about not paying for ads is insane. I guess that happens when you are used to just collecting money for decades and then wake up one morning and have to work for it.
The web is basically the "pink slime" that the CA describes. How exactly does the CA expect anyone to find what they are looking for without a search engine? I suspect they want us to memorize the sites that they advertize through old media (broadcast and print).
On a related note, we hear a lot of the old guard complaining about Google and yet embracing Microsoft, as if Bing doesn't do the same thing.
Why all the whining about Google getting paid for selling ads? It just sounds like jealousy about a company that made a business model out of "free".
He should do as the officers say if a complaint is made. He should take down his sign and then he should report every church, synagogue, and mosque in the area for displaying offensive signs (cross, star, crescent&star).
The officers should then respond to his complaint in the same manner and request all those other offensive signs be removed.
I want to be a TV analyst. Seems all I have to do is watch what is trending, misinterpret it, and then give the worst possible advice; then get paid for it.
Corporations buy media outlets and politicians. That is just the way the business model works.
It could be that all of the kerfuffle about new business models in the content industry is not just about copyrights. Advertisers may be just as worried about any disruption of the current business models which would cause them to lose control over the media outlet.
It's difficult to threaten to pull millions in advertising from most web based services in order to control their content.
I'm not sure why we even discuss this. We all know why the content industry can't adapt. IP sets up a monopoly and the people in control of that monopoly are GREEDY (yes, all caps.
It's not EGO, its GREED which is what causes the stupidity. The government has told content creators that they are owners and can control the market for their content. Sharing???? Are you NUTZ!?!?!???!!! My content is TOO VALUABLE to share !!!!
Monopoly holders simply do not want to try new ideas until they are 100% sure that they will make their monopoly rents. If they can't get those rents, they simply will not step over dollars to pick up pennies, even if those pennies total up to more than the dollars they are stepping over.
TimeWarner, Comcast, and Verizon. It's odd that ATT is absent from that group. Well it looks like a boss ad campaign for ATT, Sprint, T-Mobile, Qwest, and any other broadband provider to pinch customers.
Because of how cable companies have a near monopoly in their respective territories, it won't bother them so much. Verizon seems to be taking a huge chance though.
I mean I get that these providers want to move away from net neutrality, so it seems they are using the excuse that the reason they don't want net neutrality is so they can protect the content industry.
That's all I have as far as making this make sense.
The blog post is written by David Newhoff who has been mentioned on TechDirt before.
I had to reread his comment a few times before finding the flaw in his logic. His premise is that:
"(Search engines)...their business models are literally based on grinding up all content into a homogenous slurry in order to turn billions of clicks into billions of dollars."
So it would appear that he believes that search engines are responsible for populating the internet with content. Even if that were true, it wouldn't make his argument much less crazy than it is.
He doesn't seem to understand that the search engines are what allow you to find what you are looking for in the pool of pink slime. His lack of understanding is best illustrated when he says:
"The paradigm Google wants to foster is one that asserts that the booty-shakin’ college girl video has the same intrinsic value as the Emmy Award-winning TV show and that the value of either will only be determined by the number of hits each receives in cyberspace."
If I search for a specific Emmy Award-winning TV show and I get a booty-shaking' college girl high in the result as well, then yes that would imply that they have the same intrinsic value.
As much as I personally would like this to happen, it never does.
Search engines assert that the result that best matches the query has the highest value, which is how search is supposed to work.
According to David Newhoff's version of search, when I type in booty-shaking college girl, I should get some sort of high value artistic result from the search engine instead of what I actually asked for. If it worked like that then I guess it Google would be creating pink slime.
I'm really not all that opposed to stricter enforcement. I really could care less if the industry cracks down on criminal commercial infringement.
The problem is that the current laws do not discriminate. All consumers are criminals in the eyes of the current laws, for things we were doing long before the internet evolved. Now technology has evolved and the content industry is lagging far behind and wants Congress to make up for its lack of willingness to adapt.
So yes to stricter enforcement, IF the content industry can A) work out a way to grant us open access for a reasonable fee and B) ratchet back the length of copyright. Two lifetimes is just far too long. Even one lifetime is excessive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It sounds like someone needs to be fired
Sorry Mike, but they got you on this one.
When it comes to draconian copyright laws and the reality of what is happening in the market, you do a great job. You are often VERY correct.
Stating that Senator Wyden has oversight concerning international trade holds about as much weight as stating that piracy is destroying culture.
The reality is that Senator Wyden needs a security clearance to enter a room and browse documents that he cannot share with congressional staffers, and has no input in the negotiations, while MPAA execs can login at home and look at those same documents and share them and discuss them with whomever they like. Those same execs have influence to steer the negotiations and actually have oversight of this trade negotiation.
If Wyden ACTUALLY had oversight of this trade negotiation then he wouldn't have to quizz Kirk about the lack of transparency.
That being said, you are correct about the insane level of corruption that this trade negotiation shines a spotlight on.
On the post: University Sues Student For Graduating Too Fast
A classic Mike moment
Are they trying to educate students or just collect fees for students being there?
The student was highly motivated to get his education in the shortest period of time and did just that. The university wants to charge him for time and resources that he didn't use or need.
Maybe they should be suing him for copyright infringements on the notes he used. That might be a stronger case.
On the post: Quality Search Results: From Pink Slime To Correctly Diagnosing Appendicitis
Re:
Because, like it or not, people can read. If I search for free music or movies, I don't really care if the top paid results appear at the top. I just scroll down to what I want.
I do agree that their sense of entitlement about not paying for ads is insane. I guess that happens when you are used to just collecting money for decades and then wake up one morning and have to work for it.
On the post: Quality Search Results: From Pink Slime To Correctly Diagnosing Appendicitis
I don't get it
On a related note, we hear a lot of the old guard complaining about Google and yet embracing Microsoft, as if Bing doesn't do the same thing.
Why all the whining about Google getting paid for selling ads? It just sounds like jealousy about a company that made a business model out of "free".
On the post: UK Pensioner Could Face Arrest For Atheist Poster
Re: absolutely correct
The officers should then respond to his complaint in the same manner and request all those other offensive signs be removed.
Fair is fair.
On the post: TV Analyst: Kids Love Netflix, And Disney Should Break Them Of That Nasty Habit
How do I get THAT job?
SWEET
On the post: Judge Slams Universal Music For Trying To 'Bamboozle' Court & Producers Over Eminem Royalties
Help is on the way
On the post: Copyright: An Easy Excuse For Making Something Disappear
It's just the way it works
It could be that all of the kerfuffle about new business models in the content industry is not just about copyrights. Advertisers may be just as worried about any disruption of the current business models which would cause them to lose control over the media outlet.
It's difficult to threaten to pull millions in advertising from most web based services in order to control their content.
On the post: Anonymous Courtroom Notes Raise Serious Questions About SurfTheChannel Conviction
Re:
If DeBeasi was a known Terrorist then that would change things.
On the post: $29 Billion Spent Dealing With Patent Trolls In The US Alone Last Year
Re: Uh-huh.
On the post: $29 Billion Spent Dealing With Patent Trolls In The US Alone Last Year
Re: Uh-huh.
On the post: Hollywood & The RIAA Won't Let Tech Save Them
Why the content industry cannot adapt
It's not EGO, its GREED which is what causes the stupidity. The government has told content creators that they are owners and can control the market for their content. Sharing???? Are you NUTZ!?!?!???!!! My content is TOO VALUABLE to share !!!!
Monopoly holders simply do not want to try new ideas until they are 100% sure that they will make their monopoly rents. If they can't get those rents, they simply will not step over dollars to pick up pennies, even if those pennies total up to more than the dollars they are stepping over.
On the post: Big ISPs Expected To Start Six Strikes Program This Weekend [Updated]
Odd
Because of how cable companies have a near monopoly in their respective territories, it won't bother them so much. Verizon seems to be taking a huge chance though.
I mean I get that these providers want to move away from net neutrality, so it seems they are using the excuse that the reason they don't want net neutrality is so they can protect the content industry.
That's all I have as far as making this make sense.
On the post: Google Is To Pink Slime As Apples Are To Airplanes
That took a while
I had to reread his comment a few times before finding the flaw in his logic. His premise is that:
"(Search engines)...their business models are literally based on grinding up all content into a homogenous slurry in order to turn billions of clicks into billions of dollars."
So it would appear that he believes that search engines are responsible for populating the internet with content. Even if that were true, it wouldn't make his argument much less crazy than it is.
He doesn't seem to understand that the search engines are what allow you to find what you are looking for in the pool of pink slime. His lack of understanding is best illustrated when he says:
"The paradigm Google wants to foster is one that asserts that the booty-shakin’ college girl video has the same intrinsic value as the Emmy Award-winning TV show and that the value of either will only be determined by the number of hits each receives in cyberspace."
If I search for a specific Emmy Award-winning TV show and I get a booty-shaking' college girl high in the result as well, then yes that would imply that they have the same intrinsic value.
As much as I personally would like this to happen, it never does.
Search engines assert that the result that best matches the query has the highest value, which is how search is supposed to work.
According to David Newhoff's version of search, when I type in booty-shaking college girl, I should get some sort of high value artistic result from the search engine instead of what I actually asked for. If it worked like that then I guess it Google would be creating pink slime.
On the post: Taiwan Denies Use Of 'Pirate Party' Name Because People Might Think They're Actual Sea-Faring Pirates
Re:
On the post: EU Parlamentarian Gallo: ACTA Dissent 'A Soft Form Of Terrorism'
Wait for it....
Wait for it...
The cyberpedophilepornterrorist.
On the post: Miami Heat Owner Now Threatening To Separately Sue The Lawyer Defending Blogger Who Linked To Unflattering Image
smh
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Headline June 10, 2035
smh
On the post: The White House Wants To Hear From You Concerning Its Strategy For Intellectual Property Enforcement
Actually...
The problem is that the current laws do not discriminate. All consumers are criminals in the eyes of the current laws, for things we were doing long before the internet evolved. Now technology has evolved and the content industry is lagging far behind and wants Congress to make up for its lack of willingness to adapt.
So yes to stricter enforcement, IF the content industry can A) work out a way to grant us open access for a reasonable fee and B) ratchet back the length of copyright. Two lifetimes is just far too long. Even one lifetime is excessive.
On the post: Louis CK Keeps Experimenting: Now Bringing The Direct-To-Fan Approach To Ticket Sales
but but but....
On the post: USTR Gives MPAA Full Online Access To TPP Text, But Still Won't Share With Senate Staffers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It sounds like someone needs to be fired
When it comes to draconian copyright laws and the reality of what is happening in the market, you do a great job. You are often VERY correct.
Stating that Senator Wyden has oversight concerning international trade holds about as much weight as stating that piracy is destroying culture.
The reality is that Senator Wyden needs a security clearance to enter a room and browse documents that he cannot share with congressional staffers, and has no input in the negotiations, while MPAA execs can login at home and look at those same documents and share them and discuss them with whomever they like. Those same execs have influence to steer the negotiations and actually have oversight of this trade negotiation.
If Wyden ACTUALLY had oversight of this trade negotiation then he wouldn't have to quizz Kirk about the lack of transparency.
That being said, you are correct about the insane level of corruption that this trade negotiation shines a spotlight on.
Next >>