A sad reality in the US is that any and all actions that "foster" economic growth are automatically deemed "legitimate" no matter how repugnant they may be.
Advertising revenue is declining for a lot media irrespective of whether a pay-wall exists or does not exist. So the question becomes: How can the loss of adverting revenue be attributed to the pay-wall?
I'm confused as to the relevance of Schrodinger's Cat to the chicken. With Schrodinger's Cat, the cat's state (existence) is undetermined and does not become established until examined.
For a paper that supposedly advocates on behalf of the disenfranchised and champions social justice; the Times when it comes to so-called "intellectual property" seems to loose all sense of propriety. To think, the supposed advocate of honest journalism turns out to be a biased self-serving lackey of the content industry!
Learn something new everyday. I thought the quote below carried particular weight.
"It is not the intention of the committee to extend the right of copyright to the mechanical reproductions themselves, but only to give the composer or copyright proprietor the control,..."
Lets take the CD/DVD as an example. The content industry claims that copying the contents on a CD/DVD for your personal use requires (out-of-thin-air) additional permissions. The quote above seems to support the concept that an author retains a copyright privilege over the work itself, but in selling a "mechanical" copy property ownership to use the content on the CD/DVD is transferred to the buyer. Therefore, buyers are entitled to mix content for personal use as they fit. Unfortunately the content industry still seems able to create out-of-thin=-air "rights" for themselves that deprive the public of their rights.
Why would it be prohibitively expensive to license? Genzyme could set whatever licensing schedule they want. In fact, if they are unable to produce a "life-saving" drug and even have a minimal sense of social consciousness they could set the license fee at $0.00. Good public relations.
Of course, the drug could be very expensive to produce. So even if the license fee were $0.0, other drug companies may still not offer to produce it.
why isn't Genzyme voluntarily offering others the opportunity to produce the drug? Just think of the public's reaction to a reporter asking the Genzyme CEO, "Why are you letting people die when you have the cure?". A public relations nightmare.
Just Got off the Phone with Time-Warner Customer Service
Since my blood pressure is up, I might as well throw in my tale of woe. I just spend 20+ minutes waiting to talk to a customer service representative because the glossy we are your friends marketing brochure didn't tell you how to find a particular channel. It even took the customer service representative several attempts and a few minutes to find the channel.
While we were fiddling around, I was reminded that the remote control is "disabled" when you are on a premium channel. With the "free" channels, when you press "exit" (search mode), you actually exit and return to your program. With the premium channels the "exit" key only returns you to the search mode. If you actually want to return to watching your programs, you have to find a "free" channel and then exit. I guess the hope is that you will hit the "select" key by accident and then be charged. Seems to be an endless "supply" of marketing dirty tricks.
That's it for now, have to check my blood pressure.
Thanks exactly what happened. We lost the phone immediately after the close of the billing period and had to wait 30 days to get the bill. Of course everyone we called (who had received a call from that phone) denied any knowledge of who had called. Its simply another example of companies imposing necessary "road blocks" that frustrate the consumer. Fortunately, in the case of Mike's post the woman was able to get a positive response to retrieve her phone.
Many years ago we lost our Sprint phone. After calling the phone, it became "stolen" as it became obvious that the finder had no intention of returning it. Called up Sprint to help us retrieve the phone by giving us the numbers being called from that phone. Sprint said "NO" and offered no further advice or help on recovering the phone, other than turning the phone off, which we did. Sprint BAD.
Microsoft retires Windows 2000, Windows XP SP2. While this is not exactly equivalent to putting trash on the street corner,when a software company discontinues a product, that product has been figuratively placed on the street corner.
The implication, the software company has relinquished "ownership" through abandonment. The software should fall immediately into the public domain.
Another reason for this approach, the consumers who have bought the software have invested significant resources such as time and money. They may want to keep the software functional, so if it falls into the public domain they will have the opportunity to maintain it.
Furthermore, when the company pulls the plug, they have purposely obsoleted what you have invested in. While obsolesce is a fact of life, let the consumer through the public domain decide when a product should gracefully "die".
Anonymous wrote "rights holders are taking a stand against their content being used freely without consideration." The supposed rights holder are NOT taking a stand, they are actively aggrandizing their so-called rights. This is a "land-grab" by the content industry.
Copyright used to be for a period of 14 years with a renewal option, now it is almost to the point of being a "perpetual" right rather than a limited privilege. Content producers have been working on obtaining legislation that would effectively allow the content industry to spy on consumers and force ISPs to act on the content industry's behalf. The content producers are not "taking a stand", they are actively depriving the consumer of the consumer's property rights to content that they have aquired.
Why should an artist be immune from the free-market? People lose their income sources (jobs) all the time.
Of course there is the claim of infringement. For that you should be able to file your claim in a civil court.
The problem is that copyright has been bastardized to the point that content producers feel entitled and in fact have received legal permission to infringe on the peoples rights to protect their revenue stream.
So are you advocating that content producers should have extra special "rights" not available to the public to do whatever they feel is appropriate to protect their revenue stream?
Regretfully, Tony Woodlief's article is simply a recognition that the attempts of those favoring "strong" copyright to extort revenue are starting to meet economic resistance. Missing from Woodlief's article is any consideration of the fact that those advocate a "strong" copyright continue to push for a police state that protects their so-called intellectual property.
Woodlief could at least have thrown in some analysis showing how copyright has been bastardized, how it has expanded in time and scope, and that formerly civil infringement is now considered criminal behavior.
Anonymous wrote: "this story is perhaps the best indication of why there is a copyright law, because it is the one standard regardless." (emphasis added).
Copyright is NOT one standard it is a moving "standard" that is becoming increasingly whimsical in interpretation and continuously ever more onerous to the public.
Contract law, like copyright/patent law continues to be increasingly bastardized. Examples, abound with many terms of service contracts such as those of Verizon and Time-Warner Cable where you are obligated to the terms but the companies are not. Today there is NO pretense of contracts as being negotiated or even even possessing reciprocal obligations. Will sanity ever prevail, I don't know?
Those in favor of "strong" copyright present their position as a "balanced approach to bringing copyright into the digital age". But it seems that no matter how much "positive" legislation they get from their perspective, it is never enough. Missing from the concept of "balance" is any recognition that the consumers possesses any rights. The term "balance" has become an empty concept with a constantly "shifting" fulcrum that moves evermore in favor of granting all rights to the content producer. This is hardly what "balance" is supposed to mean.
How about this unsubstantiated statement from Preston Gralla: "When it comes to revenue, Windows cleans up as well, with nearly $5.4 billion in revenue for the quarter, compared to a little over $1.9 billion in revenue for Linux." If we want an apples to apples comparison on Linux versus Windows we need to know the actual number of servers installed.
On the post: Compare And Contrast Google To Microsoft On The Privacy vs. Ads Question
Marketing Trumps All Rights
On the post: Wait, Wasn't A Paywall Supposed To Boost Ad Revenue?
Advertising Revenue and Schrodinger's Cat
Advertising revenue is declining for a lot media irrespective of whether a pay-wall exists or does not exist. So the question becomes: How can the loss of adverting revenue be attributed to the pay-wall?
I'm confused as to the relevance of Schrodinger's Cat to the chicken. With Schrodinger's Cat, the cat's state (existence) is undetermined and does not become established until examined.
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
Re: Re: Re: (Calling a horse a horse, and extortion extortion)
On the post: A Day In The Life Of Legalized Extortion: How The BMI Shakedown Works
New York Times Schizophrenia Continues
On the post: Why World War I Recordings Won't Enter The Public Domain Until 2049
Derivative Reproductions
"It is not the intention of the committee to extend the right of copyright to the mechanical reproductions themselves, but only to give the composer or copyright proprietor the control,..."
Lets take the CD/DVD as an example. The content industry claims that copying the contents on a CD/DVD for your personal use requires (out-of-thin-air) additional permissions. The quote above seems to support the concept that an author retains a copyright privilege over the work itself, but in selling a "mechanical" copy property ownership to use the content on the CD/DVD is transferred to the buyer. Therefore, buyers are entitled to mix content for personal use as they fit. Unfortunately the content industry still seems able to create out-of-thin=-air "rights" for themselves that deprive the public of their rights.
On the post: Patents Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives; Fabry Disease Sufferers Petition US Gov't To Step In
Re: Re: Re: Aren't we Forgetting Something?
Of course, the drug could be very expensive to produce. So even if the license fee were $0.0, other drug companies may still not offer to produce it.
On the post: Patents Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives; Fabry Disease Sufferers Petition US Gov't To Step In
Aren't we Forgetting Something?
On the post: Comcast Cares: Pay Us The $0.00 You Owe, Or We Cut You Off
Just Got off the Phone with Time-Warner Customer Service
While we were fiddling around, I was reminded that the remote control is "disabled" when you are on a premium channel. With the "free" channels, when you press "exit" (search mode), you actually exit and return to your program. With the premium channels the "exit" key only returns you to the search mode. If you actually want to return to watching your programs, you have to find a "free" channel and then exit. I guess the hope is that you will hit the "select" key by accident and then be charged. Seems to be an endless "supply" of marketing dirty tricks.
That's it for now, have to check my blood pressure.
On the post: If You're Going To Steal Something, Perhaps Avoid A Phone Demoing A GPS Tracking Program
Re: Re: Well that's Good News
On the post: If You're Going To Steal Something, Perhaps Avoid A Phone Demoing A GPS Tracking Program
Well that's Good News
On the post: Authorities Force 73,000 Blogs Offline?
The March to Implement 1984 Continues
On the post: Judge Rejects Attempt To Fine Family For Picking Up Discarded Air Conditioning Unit
The Tech Implication
The implication, the software company has relinquished "ownership" through abandonment. The software should fall immediately into the public domain.
Another reason for this approach, the consumers who have bought the software have invested significant resources such as time and money. They may want to keep the software functional, so if it falls into the public domain they will have the opportunity to maintain it.
Furthermore, when the company pulls the plug, they have purposely obsoleted what you have invested in. While obsolesce is a fact of life, let the consumer through the public domain decide when a product should gracefully "die".
On the post: WSJ Opinion Highlights The Problems Of 'Permission Culture'
Re:
Copyright used to be for a period of 14 years with a renewal option, now it is almost to the point of being a "perpetual" right rather than a limited privilege. Content producers have been working on obtaining legislation that would effectively allow the content industry to spy on consumers and force ISPs to act on the content industry's behalf. The content producers are not "taking a stand", they are actively depriving the consumer of the consumer's property rights to content that they have aquired.
On the post: WSJ Opinion Highlights The Problems Of 'Permission Culture'
Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
Of course there is the claim of infringement. For that you should be able to file your claim in a civil court.
The problem is that copyright has been bastardized to the point that content producers feel entitled and in fact have received legal permission to infringe on the peoples rights to protect their revenue stream.
So are you advocating that content producers should have extra special "rights" not available to the public to do whatever they feel is appropriate to protect their revenue stream?
On the post: WSJ Opinion Highlights The Problems Of 'Permission Culture'
Misses the Bigger Question
Woodlief could at least have thrown in some analysis showing how copyright has been bastardized, how it has expanded in time and scope, and that formerly civil infringement is now considered criminal behavior.
On the post: Lawsuit Over Use Of Creative Commons Content Raises Contract vs. Copyright Issue
Re: Surely You Jest
Copyright is NOT one standard it is a moving "standard" that is becoming increasingly whimsical in interpretation and continuously ever more onerous to the public.
On the post: Lawsuit Over Use Of Creative Commons Content Raises Contract vs. Copyright Issue
Continued Bastardization - We Own Your Soul
On the post: Financial Columnist Lectures Little Kids Who Want To Give Away Lemonade That They're Destroying America
Re:
On the post: Evidence Suggests RIAA Labels Behind 'Grassroots Citizen's Group' Supporting Canadian DMCA
Balance - You must be kidding
On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free
Misleading Revenue Figures?
Next >>