Re: I'd like to expand an example a bit further...
"There's also be no Linux. This isn't an OS which was distributed on CD-ROM. It was distributed on the World Wide Web (LOLCats were complimentary)."
Actually you're confusing the WWW standard with the internet in general. Linux probably didn't even have a WWW capable browser when it was first developed. And I'd guess that any updates came from FTP servers.
I remember reading an interview with one of the guys who invented the MIDI protocol. Which was released as an open standard.
He was asked if he regretted that he never forced licenses on it, because if he had, he would have clearly been rich because MIDI became ubiquitous.
His answer was great, and I wish I could find that interview now. He replied something along the lines of, If we had forced licensing on MIDI, it never would have became ubiquitous, and I'd be exactly as "rich" as I am now.
I bet the interviewer was perplexed by that answer. He's an idiot for even asking the question.
Once again, I never said it would work. My guess is that it will not work. Even if the Onion's content is unique, there's a lot of free comedic competition on the net. I myself stopped reading the Onion for no reason at all. I'm assuming even more will stop reading if it becomes inconvenient.
I'm just saying you can't compare it to paywall attempts at news websites. It's a completely different situation.
I stopped reading the Onion years ago. I have no idea if it's worth paying for or not.
However, the reason it's ridiculous for news websites to put up paywalls is because news is ubiquitous. It's everywhere. If you can't read about the riot at one news website, you find it another, or another, or another.
If (and that's a mighty big "if") the Onion is worth reading, it might be worth paying for because its content is unique and can't be found elsewhere.
I'm not saying this will work. Or that it's a good idea. What I'm saying is that merely because its an asinine idea for a news website to put up a paywall, does not mean it's an asinine idea for every website.
Think about it, Netflix has a pay wall. I don't hear anyone bitching about that. And it works in that instance because Netflix has unique content.
Of course this is a stupid law. But what I really find disturbing is that this is just another excuse for yet another collection society.
There will need to be such a society to keep track of ownership and to dole out money. The collection society will take its huge cut to pay the salaries of its employees. Of course smaller less successful artists will not see any money at all, i.e., the vast majority of artists.
This is just a huge scam for some rich and connected people to sit back and collect money while doing absolutely nothing. Congress will jump right on this.
"There is no basis for the Court to conclude that searches of laptops or other electronic devices at the border should be subjected to a different standard than that for other closed containers."
When the feds search a closed container. They open it up, search it, and then immediately give it back.
When the feds search a laptop or other electronic device, they send it to a computer foresnic division and they search it for months.
"This solves the problem of how to maintain for-profit capitalist enterprise. Anyone who tries to supply their needs from their replicator without paying the copyright cartels would become an outlaw"
The government setting up artificial gates for the rich to collect monopoly rents is not fricken capitalism. Intellectual property is NOT a free market. It's the opposite of any free market. Sitting back and collecting money because the government is holding the threat of prison over your "customer's" head is not a flipping free market. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?!
"you wonder if it won't just package up the same beer for each location"
Well, if the number described the location of its origin... then it would be a merely descriptive mark. Which could not be trademarked. So the only way it'll work is if they do not use it to describe its origin.
About a decade or so ago I saw James Brown perform. There was a much younger guy in the audience dressed up just like him, dancing to his songs just like him.
Eventually James invited him up on the stage to dance with him. He kept him around and let him sing a song by himself while James stood back and watched. It was awesome. The look on the guy's face was priceless.
Back in the 90s I saw Soundgarden. They did a cover of Spinal Tap's Big Bottoms. They let someone from the audience come up and sing it. I though, "Oh, like this random kid is going to know the lyrics." He did, and once again, it was awesome.
"Until I hear from the monkey’s lawyers, I will stick to the belief that I own the copyright,"
Notice out Slater presupposes that someone must "own" the copyright. To him there are only two possibilities, either he owns the copyrights or someone else does. The third possibility, that they're not covered by copyright is unimaginable to him.
Exactly, that's why they want this power. They can force users to pay for their high profit TV and movie services and kick off the deadbeats who won't. And they can pretend it's not their fault.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: I'd like to expand an example a bit further...
Actually you're confusing the WWW standard with the internet in general. Linux probably didn't even have a WWW capable browser when it was first developed. And I'd guess that any updates came from FTP servers.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
Re: Ben Franklin didn't patent either
Yeah, Ben was incredibly anti-capitalist. Only a commie would innovate without a government granted monopoly to profit from.
On the post: What If Tim Berners-Lee Had Patented The Web?
He was asked if he regretted that he never forced licenses on it, because if he had, he would have clearly been rich because MIDI became ubiquitous.
His answer was great, and I wish I could find that interview now. He replied something along the lines of, If we had forced licensing on MIDI, it never would have became ubiquitous, and I'd be exactly as "rich" as I am now.
I bet the interviewer was perplexed by that answer. He's an idiot for even asking the question.
On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall
Re: Re: Re:
I'm just saying you can't compare it to paywall attempts at news websites. It's a completely different situation.
On the post: Disappointing: The Onion Tests A Paywall
However, the reason it's ridiculous for news websites to put up paywalls is because news is ubiquitous. It's everywhere. If you can't read about the riot at one news website, you find it another, or another, or another.
If (and that's a mighty big "if") the Onion is worth reading, it might be worth paying for because its content is unique and can't be found elsewhere.
I'm not saying this will work. Or that it's a good idea. What I'm saying is that merely because its an asinine idea for a news website to put up a paywall, does not mean it's an asinine idea for every website.
Think about it, Netflix has a pay wall. I don't hear anyone bitching about that. And it works in that instance because Netflix has unique content.
On the post: Artists In The US Want To Get Paid Multiple Times For A Single Work
There will need to be such a society to keep track of ownership and to dole out money. The collection society will take its huge cut to pay the salaries of its employees. Of course smaller less successful artists will not see any money at all, i.e., the vast majority of artists.
This is just a huge scam for some rich and connected people to sit back and collect money while doing absolutely nothing. Congress will jump right on this.
On the post: Feds Say They Can Search Bradley Manning's Friend's Laptop Because They Can
When the feds search a closed container. They open it up, search it, and then immediately give it back.
When the feds search a laptop or other electronic device, they send it to a computer foresnic division and they search it for months.
That's a huge fricken difference, nimrods!
On the post: Homeland Security Finally Admits To Latest Domain Seizures; Arrests Guy For Selling Unauthorized 'Sons Of Anarchy' T-Shirts
On the post: Star Trek In The Age Of Intellectual Property
The government setting up artificial gates for the rich to collect monopoly rents is not fricken capitalism. Intellectual property is NOT a free market. It's the opposite of any free market. Sitting back and collecting money because the government is holding the threat of prison over your "customer's" head is not a flipping free market. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?!
On the post: Anheuser-Busch Trying To Trademark Area Codes For Local Beers
Well, if the number described the location of its origin... then it would be a merely descriptive mark. Which could not be trademarked. So the only way it'll work is if they do not use it to describe its origin.
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Re: Re: Video
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re: Video
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Mike, "with prejudice" means the charges cannot be brought again.
On the post: Connecting With Fans: Paul Simon Invites Fan On Stage To Play Song After She Yells That She Learned Guitar To It
Re:
On the post: Connecting With Fans: Paul Simon Invites Fan On Stage To Play Song After She Yells That She Learned Guitar To It
Eventually James invited him up on the stage to dance with him. He kept him around and let him sing a song by himself while James stood back and watched. It was awesome. The look on the guy's face was priceless.
Back in the 90s I saw Soundgarden. They did a cover of Spinal Tap's Big Bottoms. They let someone from the audience come up and sing it. I though, "Oh, like this random kid is going to know the lyrics." He did, and once again, it was awesome.
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His
Notice out Slater presupposes that someone must "own" the copyright. To him there are only two possibilities, either he owns the copyrights or someone else does. The third possibility, that they're not covered by copyright is unimaginable to him.
On the post: Zero-Sum Economics
Re: Re:
On the post: Zero-Sum Economics
Because you forgot a step. Going to Congress to have laws passed forcing people to pay for your government granted monopolies.
On the post: Did The Entertainment Industry Backdoor In Forcing ISPs To Kick People Offline, While Claiming It Did Not?
Re: Re:
Next >>