They could have funded research into how people today actually want to consume and interact with their content. What are people looking to get out of the NYT? Are they there for the hard hitting reporting, would they like to have more of a chance to discuss things with the authors of the articles, would they like to be able to vote for specific stories floating around the interwebs that they would like to see a specific member of the times staff write some commentary on? Do people wish there was an easier way for whistleblowers to submit their dirt to the NYT safely and anonymously? Maybe people want to tailored paper subscriptions, with their favorite writers appearing on the front page? They could have asked their readers ANYTHING, and done so for far less than $40 million dollars.
If you want one project they could have probably done for 40 mil, they could have created a curated database of source information of all of the research that has gone into every hard hitting NYT story (ever?) and charge for access to that (searchable, etc), along with a subscription for content added in the future, and as a bonus, use this DB internally to embed relevant source material on every story hosted on the site (at the very least going forward, and at best, retroactively). How would you like to see that? I know I would.
Mike, you mention the need for a federal Anti-SLAPP law pretty often. What would you think of legislation that took this type of situation into account as well?
Ha! I'm talking about the name, like the pirate bay. And it also mentions header information as a place where the terms can be found to indicate a site like this. But you're right, it would definitely be funny, and what with the whole push for allowing vanity TLDs, it is possible we could see that.
I think it's worth noting that in Senate Report on the DMCA, the whole purpose of the 'red flag' knowledge requirement is to exclude 'pirate' sites or directories from safe harbors. While I think this is a difficult definition in and of itself, the Senate's discussion of 'pirate' sites pretty clearly excludes sites like Youtube, in that it describes them as sites where the URL typically describes the site as 'bootleg' and 'pirate.' Again, I think this definition has it's own problems, but when you have a website like Youtube where Viacom is not sure which content it uploaded and which is infringing, it becomes a lot clearer that Youtube falls outside the scope of the intended purpose of the 'red flag' knowledge provision for its content, and since it's not a directory that scrapes content from other sites, again, there is no good way to make the requirement stick (at least according to its intended purpose).
Every time I tell someone that this is happening, and what's wrong with it (including at my law school), they stare at me shocked and ask, "Why haven't I heard about this?!?" Apparently, only us freetards are paying any attention to this stuff at all.
Even if that's the case they're doing it wrong. If I'm in the advertising business, and I can't make my advertising coincide with the realities of user behavior, then I'm still doing business wrong. Sponsored posts, content as advertising, and engaging the community enough that they want to visit the site with the ads intact (like I do with techdirt, and just about nothing else) are all ways of making this work.
No, it's definitely the lawyers. The rights holders may come in shouting "I'm angry, I want retribution!" but the lawyers make the "let's sue their house off!" answer possible, along with recommending it.
Not that many use it, but Apple's Safari has a "Reader" button baked right into the browser itself that formats what it detects to be articles, stripping out any advertising in the process. So really, browsers do this already without any help. A browser cutting out the middle man (Ha, clicking on a button is a middle man now!) is suddenly cause for a lawyer letter? I'm really at a loss.
Yes and no. You know the manufacturer its from, but as we've seen from the pics of the iPhone factory workers, that really doesn't mean much. On top of that, anything can happen at the retail level. And finally, on top of all of that, you have no idea what "partnerships" have been made with OEMs for preinstalled bloatware. So most joking aside, you really have no idea what's going on in there, and a clean install is the best - and only reliably safe - solution.
I was thinking about that, and the fact that what we classify as trolls today have had many other names in the past, and how the internet has made their job so much easier. But since "trolling" is a new term, and it's arguable that the addition of anonymity and lack of any need for restraint have really created something new here, I decided to go the other way.
Hey now, I loved Waterworld. You leave my fishmen and gas (how do they still have gas?!?!) pirates alone! I also enjoyed this video. I don't think there's any inference to draw from that, right? No, of course not, couldn't be.
My first point was a response to the idea that the article was poorly worded. You in effect agreed with me about what the college was saying, while making it sound like I was saying that the IP should not be used as "evidence" or a jumping off point or what have you. Other's in the comments are discussing those issues, but I was only pointing out that this is what the school was saying, in response to the comment that the school was warning about the activities of others, as opposed to warning how it would look if their router was involved.
You are mistaken. The college says that although you may not be the one sharing, it will appear that you are, and the college will turn over your information as the infringer based on the IP of your router. Hence, from the school's position of caving to copyright owners, you might as well be the guilty party, since the IP is the evidence of infringement, and the IP is attached to you.
In the wider debate, I can't quite buy that logic, although I am sympathetic to it. The problem I see is that it is often hard to tell whether someone that shares content has the right to do so (eg, copyright owners "leaking" their own content). The term "sharing" may sound more innocent, but it is much more appropriate than either "theft" or "infringement" when the provenance of shared material is in doubt, since it is an inclusive term (legally speaking). In this situation however, I agree that the most accurate term Dodd could have used is in fact infringement.
As bad as I think throttling is, I think it's important to be as clear as possible about what happened here. Blizzard has an update downloader client that leverages BitTorrent P2P tech in order to speed up the process for its users. This setting can be turned off. Apparently, the only users that were experiencing a slowdown were users that had the P2P setting enabled and had the update downloader running. Now, I think this is worse than mistakenly throttling WoW in general, as it demonstrates that throttling P2P traffic can easily impact non infringing P2P uses. If they had merely throttled the wrong kind of traffic, then that's just a stupid technical blunder that shows at most that it is hard to filter P2P traffic out. In reality, this draws attention to the fantastic uses P2P can be put to. On top of this, if they manage to somehow exclude Blizzard traffic in the future, that still does not help efforts like the Pioneer One series. See where I'm going here? BitTorrent is not some sort of societal ill, and this is more evidence for that point.
On the post: How Else Could The NY Times Have Spent $40 Million?
Research
If you want one project they could have probably done for 40 mil, they could have created a curated database of source information of all of the research that has gone into every hard hitting NYT story (ever?) and charge for access to that (searchable, etc), along with a subscription for content added in the future, and as a bonus, use this DB internally to embed relevant source material on every story hosted on the site (at the very least going forward, and at best, retroactively). How would you like to see that? I know I would.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim
Re: Anti SLAPP for Copyright
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090910/1851016158.shtml
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Filmmaker Gets Fair Use Clip Removed From Documentary Over Copyright Claim
Anti SLAPP for Copyright
On the post: YouTube's Reply In Viacom Case Demolishes Each Of Viacom's Key Arguments
Re: Re: 'Red Flags' and 'Pirate' Sites
On the post: YouTube's Reply In Viacom Case Demolishes Each Of Viacom's Key Arguments
'Red Flags' and 'Pirate' Sites
http://www.hrrc.org/File/S._Rept._105-190.pdf (you're looking for page 48)
On the post: MPAA Praises Government Censorship And Lack Of Due Process
Re: Yet...
On the post: Big Media To Innovative App Maker: Stop Innovating Without Our Permission!
Re:
On the post: Protection
Re: Um... I can't agree with this comic.
On the post: Big Media To Innovative App Maker: Stop Innovating Without Our Permission!
Browsers do this without extensions
On the post: Samsung Accused Of Installing Secret Keyloggers On New Laptops 'To Monitor Performance' [Updated]
Re:
On the post: Samsung Accused Of Installing Secret Keyloggers On New Laptops 'To Monitor Performance' [Updated]
Re: Re: Remember Kids...
On the post: Samsung Accused Of Installing Secret Keyloggers On New Laptops 'To Monitor Performance' [Updated]
Remember Kids...
On the post: Gladwell Logic: There Was War Before Nuclear Bombs Existed, Thus Nukes Have No Impact On War
Re: Re:
On the post: Gladwell Logic: There Was War Before Nuclear Bombs Existed, Thus Nukes Have No Impact On War
On the post: The Continuing Adventures Of Copyright Man... Episode 1
Re:
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re:
On the post: Chris Dodd Memorizing Bogus MPAA Talking Points; Says File Sharing Ruins Community Bonding
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Canadian ISP's Hamfisted Attempts To Throttle File Sharing Throttles World Of Warcraft Instead
Next >>