Re: SUBSCRIPTION FEDERATION - the only wat to get people to pay
"Thirty million people paying seven dollars a month"
Good luck with that.
Plus you'd need some sort of an organisation to collect the payments (lets call them "royalties") and distribute it to the newspapers and journalists (lets call them "artists").
Anyone know where we can find a good organisation like that?
And those who read the free newspapers given out in London (and presumably other cities?)
And people who watch freeview TV (in the UK - not sure on US terminology)
And people who listen to the radio
And anyone who has ever asked a friend what the score from last night was
etc etc
I would comment that the point is you do still make money for your product it's just that you don't charge the end user and instead make money elsewhere but I'm guessing since you're on here you're aware of that argument and aren't interested in that.
Plus if I'm a mechanic and someone brings in their car I probably will work for free for the first half an hour to tell them what's wrong and advertise what I can do to help if they're willing to pay for a scarce resource - my time.
Weren't the American Sports leagues trying something similar - essentially trying to prevent people describing the game to their friends the next day around the water cooler?
(a) Using censorship to decide what citizens can see / say
(b) Premitting people to cause unrest and damage under cover of free speech
We argue that (a) is poisonous, but we still make use of it. For example, in some central European countries Nazi symbols are banned and you can be jailed for Holocaust denial. In the UK (and I believe the US) you can be jailed for Hate Speech crimes. In both these instances the government has decided that free speech only goes so far and in the interest of keeping the peace that certain forms of free speech are not permitted - that (a) is less poisonous on the whole than (b).
(Granted in China the restrictions on free speech go further than here in the West, but as we don't have completely free speech here either so it becomes a matter of degree, shades of grey rather than black and white)
My point is that we tend to draw the line to declare things evil, or limit free speech, when it goes against our values. Just because someone else's line is in a different place to ours doesn't *necessarily* make them evil.
After all, China could consider supporting pro-democracy movements evil to the same extent that we consider their censorship evil. Who is right?
I would state that generally I don't agree with censorship - people should be allowed to learn about tiananman square, and to deny the holocaust. Because it goes against my values I agree with placing restrictions on people when what they do causes harm to others - actual harm, rather than upset because you disagree with them. My problem is with countries / people being tarred with the "evil" brush simply because we disagree with them.
And how about preventing anonymous comments, or would you not be in support of that?
I think the problem with a rating system is it runs the risk of being used to silence dissenters rather than promoting intelligent discourse. The comments currently on here are a whole world away from those on youtube anyway.
Playing devil's advocate here, I always thought Google's claim to do no evil was rather amusing. After all, who defines what is "evil"?
There are probably some things that pretty much everyone can agree are evil, I won't mention examples for fear of invoking Godwin's law. However, various cultures around the world have differing viewpoints - the case in point here being the US and Chinese governments. I'm sure anyone on here can list large numbers of countries where the government/people have very different values and beliefs to us in the west.
Is following the law in a country in which you operate evil? Or is inflicting the beliefs from one country on another country evil? After all, if America throws her weight around trying to get the world to fall into step just because the US is currently top dog they're not going to be so happy when/if China overtakes the US.
Following on from this I'd like to see whether Google is speaking to the French and German governments over their censorship of anything relating to the Nazi party and holocaust denial. (damn ... and I did try to avoid Godwin's Law ...)
The contract between the producer and director (and cameramen, actors, etc) will state who owns the copyright - as does the contract for wedding photographers.
For wedding photos in my experience the photographer owns the copyright. As for films, I'm not a director/producer so can't comment there ...
As you say, I believe that in the US you automatically hold copyright on stuff you've created (such as photos) without having to register.
However, before you can sue for breach of copyright they do have to be registered. Since Vanessa is suing over the photos either they are registered, or she/her lawyer is dumb.
Disclaimer: I'm not a (copyright) lawyer, so it could always be me that's dumb ...
Apart from the "you get what you pay for" adage you mean?
Seriously though, there are lots of people out there who don't need 5 nines service for example. There is a whole spectrum of reliability being demanded by different segments of the market, along with a spectrum of ability and willingness to pay.
If they're not meeting a group of people's reliability/price tradeoff then something will have to give otherwise they'll just lose money. There's nothing inherently wrong with the company not keeping promises, they'll just lose customers if they are breaking their promises more than they had promised to do so ... if that makes sense ...
Really? Taking a photo of another photo isn't a violation of the copyright of whoever took the original photo?
IANAL but it seems that if taking a copy (using a camera) of something that is protected by copyright (the original photo) doesn't breach copyright what's all the hassle around taking a copy (using a computer and the internet) of something else that is protected by copyright (some music)?
Not just that, I'm willing to bet one of the BitTorrent users will be first in line to buy a copy and MSM a photo as they walk out of the shop. You'll be able to download the file from BT that evening.
Problem is in knowing *all* the conditions *exactly* - see Chaos Theory.
Also, for the "no such thing as random", the decay of individual radioactive atoms currently does appear to be random (although I know there are arguments that it is merely chaotic, and I guess that there could be further developments that can aid predictions of decay? IANAP ...)
On the post: UK ISPs Get Tiny Safe Harbor For Hate Speech... Why Not Full Safe Harbors?
Re: Re: look out road builders
Fixed that for you :)
On the post: NY Times Apparently Planning To Commit Suicide Online With Paywall
Re: SUBSCRIPTION FEDERATION - the only wat to get people to pay
Good luck with that.
Plus you'd need some sort of an organisation to collect the payments (lets call them "royalties") and distribute it to the newspapers and journalists (lets call them "artists").
Anyone know where we can find a good organisation like that?
On the post: NY Times Apparently Planning To Commit Suicide Online With Paywall
Re: Bye Bye NYT
On the post: NY Times Apparently Planning To Commit Suicide Online With Paywall
Re:
And those who read the free newspapers given out in London (and presumably other cities?)
And people who watch freeview TV (in the UK - not sure on US terminology)
And people who listen to the radio
And anyone who has ever asked a friend what the score from last night was
etc etc
I would comment that the point is you do still make money for your product it's just that you don't charge the end user and instead make money elsewhere but I'm guessing since you're on here you're aware of that argument and aren't interested in that.
Plus if I'm a mechanic and someone brings in their car I probably will work for free for the first half an hour to tell them what's wrong and advertise what I can do to help if they're willing to pay for a scarce resource - my time.
On the post: Couple Claims That Merely Talking About A Photo Is Copyright Infringement
American Sports
On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search
Re: Re: who defines evil?
What's more poisonous?
(a) Using censorship to decide what citizens can see / say
(b) Premitting people to cause unrest and damage under cover of free speech
We argue that (a) is poisonous, but we still make use of it. For example, in some central European countries Nazi symbols are banned and you can be jailed for Holocaust denial. In the UK (and I believe the US) you can be jailed for Hate Speech crimes. In both these instances the government has decided that free speech only goes so far and in the interest of keeping the peace that certain forms of free speech are not permitted - that (a) is less poisonous on the whole than (b).
(Granted in China the restrictions on free speech go further than here in the West, but as we don't have completely free speech here either so it becomes a matter of degree, shades of grey rather than black and white)
My point is that we tend to draw the line to declare things evil, or limit free speech, when it goes against our values. Just because someone else's line is in a different place to ours doesn't *necessarily* make them evil.
After all, China could consider supporting pro-democracy movements evil to the same extent that we consider their censorship evil. Who is right?
I would state that generally I don't agree with censorship - people should be allowed to learn about tiananman square, and to deny the holocaust. Because it goes against my values I agree with placing restrictions on people when what they do causes harm to others - actual harm, rather than upset because you disagree with them. My problem is with countries / people being tarred with the "evil" brush simply because we disagree with them.
On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search
Re: Re: who defines evil?
After all, preventing 20% of the world's population from seeing disturbing things sounds like it's producing a lot of happiness.
To my mind, evil is more about morals than happiness.
On the post: Google's Communication Problems Continue: Blogger Can't Get His Blog Turned Back On After Six Months
Re: Re: Re: Re: simple solution
(a) provide a reliable service with a charge if necessary, or
(b) don't provide a service
missing out (c) provide a unreliable service for free / less than a reliable one.
Granted the takeup will depend on competitors and how much unreliability people are willing to put up with to avoid shelling out.
Plus, public transport in the UK is a fantastic example of how to provide unreliable service *and* charge a lot for it. Gotta love monopolies.
On the post: France's Three Strikes Enforcement Agency... Pirated A Font For Its Logo
Re:
I think the problem with a rating system is it runs the risk of being used to silence dissenters rather than promoting intelligent discourse. The comments currently on here are a whole world away from those on youtube anyway.
PS. LOLFAG!!!!
On the post: Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search
who defines evil?
There are probably some things that pretty much everyone can agree are evil, I won't mention examples for fear of invoking Godwin's law. However, various cultures around the world have differing viewpoints - the case in point here being the US and Chinese governments. I'm sure anyone on here can list large numbers of countries where the government/people have very different values and beliefs to us in the west.
Is following the law in a country in which you operate evil? Or is inflicting the beliefs from one country on another country evil? After all, if America throws her weight around trying to get the world to fall into step just because the US is currently top dog they're not going to be so happy when/if China overtakes the US.
Following on from this I'd like to see whether Google is speaking to the French and German governments over their censorship of anything relating to the Nazi party and holocaust denial. (damn ... and I did try to avoid Godwin's Law ...)
On the post: Fox News Sued For Copyright Infringement; Complaint Mocks Murdoch's Comments On 'Stealing' Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Vanessa Hudgens Claims She Owns Copyright On Nude Photos Of Herself
Re: Re: Re: A little off...
The contract between the producer and director (and cameramen, actors, etc) will state who owns the copyright - as does the contract for wedding photographers.
For wedding photos in my experience the photographer owns the copyright. As for films, I'm not a director/producer so can't comment there ...
On the post: Vanessa Hudgens Claims She Owns Copyright On Nude Photos Of Herself
Re:
However, before you can sue for breach of copyright they do have to be registered. Since Vanessa is suing over the photos either they are registered, or she/her lawyer is dumb.
Disclaimer: I'm not a (copyright) lawyer, so it could always be me that's dumb ...
On the post: Google's Communication Problems Continue: Blogger Can't Get His Blog Turned Back On After Six Months
Re: Re: simple solution
Seriously though, there are lots of people out there who don't need 5 nines service for example. There is a whole spectrum of reliability being demanded by different segments of the market, along with a spectrum of ability and willingness to pay.
If they're not meeting a group of people's reliability/price tradeoff then something will have to give otherwise they'll just lose money. There's nothing inherently wrong with the company not keeping promises, they'll just lose customers if they are breaking their promises more than they had promised to do so ... if that makes sense ...
On the post: Scottish Football Tries To Fine Kid For Filming Amateur Games
Re: Not Copyright issues, but maybe Trademark
IANAL but it seems that if taking a copy (using a camera) of something that is protected by copyright (the original photo) doesn't breach copyright what's all the hassle around taking a copy (using a computer and the internet) of something else that is protected by copyright (some music)?
On the post: Blu-Ray's Managed Copy Appears To Be Another Hollywood Disaster In The Making
Re: that's better
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I give up!
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re:
dammit ... that worked fine in the preview honest! Ah well, attempt 2 is html formatting and & reg; (without the space after &): ®
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re:
(character map is your friend - assuming you're on windows, no idea what the mac/*nix equivalent is)
On the post: That Random Coin Toss? Not So Random Afterall...
Re:
Also, for the "no such thing as random", the decay of individual radioactive atoms currently does appear to be random (although I know there are arguments that it is merely chaotic, and I guess that there could be further developments that can aid predictions of decay? IANAP ...)
Next >>