What Pinterest offers is images-on-computers. Movie makers sell movies-on-computers, musicians sell music-on-computers, but selling images-on-computers is ridiculous. Sell prints, paintings, posters or postcards, but I doubt many people will pay for a png.
Illegal doesn't mean wrong, and neither illegal nor wrong means that something isn't smart to allow. I'm not saying that this isn't copyright infringement, I'm saying that that doesn't make it harmful. I'm saying that it would be beneficial to the artist to allow their work to be showcased, whether by opting in or not opting out, assuming that their objective is either to have more people enjoy their work or to make money off of it. Wrong and illegal have nothing to do with it. Though if they keep the opt-out approach a claims system would be good, because not linking back to the original is both wrong and harmful.
Somewhere around 13,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 on Earth, assuming we eventually perfect nanotechnology and don't import the Moon.
I'm not sure what your point is. If one shoplifter brings in nine new customers, then that's a win for Walmart. Putting "mathematically speaking" in quotes doesn't change basic subtraction. The problem with your proposed experiment is that giving away bank data to random people on the Internet is already known not to work like that.
And, again, unless what you're selling is the ability to view your images on a computer screen, this is less shoplifting and more taking pictures of their products and posting those pictures around town.
Pinterest is more in line of showcasing, in that it generates interest for the original artist at no loss to them. Traffic isn't just a shoutout, it is people walking into the store. Unless your business model is based around charging people for the right to find out what you're selling there's not much of an issue here.
And yes, mathematically speaking, if Walmart could increase sales by letting the occasional shoplifter through they'd be idiots to not let the occasional shoplifter through. Since having images posted doesn't reduce your inventory the choice should be even easier for you.
I haven't made anything artsy; I'm just not that kind of creative. I have, however, seen a TV show's producer mention that anyone interested in it can find it on YouTube. Does that count?
As opposed to highly biased reporters that only lack professional integrity and culture?
The bad blogs will remain obscure, aside from a few that are so terrible that it becomes novel. The ones that will spread and gather the most influence will be the ones that actually know what they're talking about and stay in the realm of their expertise. There will also be trawlers that roam the Internet, gathering stories from the lesser-known blogs when they deem them worth presenting. And once a story breaks, other blogs and forum-like entities can analyze them and determine their significance, if the original blogger failed to do so. Back when Russia invaded Georgia all the news was really good for was saying what was happening at that moment; I got the history of the conflict and intelligent discussion about its ramifications from a video game forum. That's the kind of thing the Internet allows: the people that say what is happening no longer need to be the same as the people who weave it into a narrative.
Saying "we need to protect the President" is about as irrefutable as "we can't let the terrorists win". It makes for good rhetoric to pass something that is tangentially related to it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DanMitchell on Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 8:00pm
Hello, companies. Look at your ads. Now back to me. Now back to your ads, now back to me. Sadly, they aren't me. But if you stopped putting flashing "shoot the watermelon" banners on the top of the page and switched to funding music videos they could sell things like me. Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're in a bank with the ad your ads could sell like. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's a ratings chart with record sales for that thing you love. Look again. The ratings are now diamonds. Anything is possible when your ad sells like Old Spice and not like a flash game. I'm on a horse.
It'd be a step up from the "we can't ever tell you anything about this or the terrorists will use it to destroy America YOU DON'T WANT THE TERRORISTS TO WIN, DO YOU?!" line that we get now.
The "anymore" was the key there. Allowing that would require changing current laws, not just not passing this one.
What some people are saying here is a bit troubling, but they wouldn't get what they want even if this bill is defeated. Nutjobs can already be stopped under existing laws. It's just protesters that can't.
I guess I did, since the Wall Street Journal apparently has a paywall. I read an article on their website and had no idea that I was supposed to pay for it. Whoops?
I'd be more than happy to go to a ballot box and vote against this bill, but it's not on any ballots. What democratic means would you suggest then, or am I only entitled to speak of things that I've been allowed to vote on?
As has already been pointed out elsewhere on this page, there are already laws in place that can be used against people that are too disruptive. No one here is complaining that they won't be able to toss Molotov cocktails at Santorum anymore, because stuff like that is already illegal and there's nothing stopping the Secret Service from tackling and arresting a guy carrying a bottle with a rag sticking out of it. The issue is that the language of this bill could easily apply to people that aren't too disruptive.
You forgot the shirt and matching bumper sticker supporting the ruling party, but not having those will only get you five years in prison, so it's no big deal.
And I'm never going to attend a concert from a band I've never heard either. I've been to several concerts, and I didn't go to see Rush, Blue Man Group or Weird Al because I wanted to find out if their music was any good. I went because I'd heard it before and thought it was worth paying to see. The only time I've ever paid for music that I didn't know the quality of was when I wanted to support the artist and didn't give a shit about the music.
And quite frankly I'm not sure how sneaking into a concert is "stealing a performance". The performance goes on whether or not you're there, and as long as you're not in someone else's seat no one else is inconvenienced. The effect on the performance is exactly the same if you weren't there as if you are.
On the post: Josef Anvil's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
Re: Again
Illegal doesn't mean wrong, and neither illegal nor wrong means that something isn't smart to allow. I'm not saying that this isn't copyright infringement, I'm saying that that doesn't make it harmful. I'm saying that it would be beneficial to the artist to allow their work to be showcased, whether by opting in or not opting out, assuming that their objective is either to have more people enjoy their work or to make money off of it. Wrong and illegal have nothing to do with it. Though if they keep the opt-out approach a claims system would be good, because not linking back to the original is both wrong and harmful.
On the post: Josef Anvil's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
Re:
And, again, unless what you're selling is the ability to view your images on a computer screen, this is less shoplifting and more taking pictures of their products and posting those pictures around town.
On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
On the post: In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important
Re: Re:
Pinterest is more in line of showcasing, in that it generates interest for the original artist at no loss to them. Traffic isn't just a shoutout, it is people walking into the store. Unless your business model is based around charging people for the right to find out what you're selling there's not much of an issue here.
And yes, mathematically speaking, if Walmart could increase sales by letting the occasional shoplifter through they'd be idiots to not let the occasional shoplifter through. Since having images posted doesn't reduce your inventory the choice should be even easier for you.
I haven't made anything artsy; I'm just not that kind of creative. I have, however, seen a TV show's producer mention that anyone interested in it can find it on YouTube. Does that count?
On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'
Re:
The bad blogs will remain obscure, aside from a few that are so terrible that it becomes novel. The ones that will spread and gather the most influence will be the ones that actually know what they're talking about and stay in the realm of their expertise. There will also be trawlers that roam the Internet, gathering stories from the lesser-known blogs when they deem them worth presenting. And once a story breaks, other blogs and forum-like entities can analyze them and determine their significance, if the original blogger failed to do so. Back when Russia invaded Georgia all the news was really good for was saying what was happening at that moment; I got the history of the conflict and intelligent discussion about its ramifications from a video game forum. That's the kind of thing the Internet allows: the people that say what is happening no longer need to be the same as the people who weave it into a narrative.
On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unsafe politicos
On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DanMitchell on Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 8:00pm
On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'
Re: Re: Just a thought
On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What some people are saying here is a bit troubling, but they wouldn't get what they want even if this bill is defeated. Nutjobs can already be stopped under existing laws. It's just protesters that can't.
On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'
Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'
Re:
On the post: Something's Not Right: German User Has To Use Chinese Proxy To See New Music Video
Re: Re: For years now German and many other people around the world have been wondering
On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
Re: Re: Re:
As has already been pointed out elsewhere on this page, there are already laws in place that can be used against people that are too disruptive. No one here is complaining that they won't be able to toss Molotov cocktails at Santorum anymore, because stuff like that is already illegal and there's nothing stopping the Secret Service from tackling and arresting a guy carrying a bottle with a rag sticking out of it. The issue is that the language of this bill could easily apply to people that aren't too disruptive.
On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
Re:
On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
Re:
On the post: Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
On the post: Yes, Online And Offline Rules Are Different... Because Online And Offline Are Different
Re: Re: Re:
And quite frankly I'm not sure how sneaking into a concert is "stealing a performance". The performance goes on whether or not you're there, and as long as you're not in someone else's seat no one else is inconvenienced. The effect on the performance is exactly the same if you weren't there as if you are.
On the post: WaPo's Kaplan Scolded For Demanding $300 From Student Trying To Sell One Of Its Books On eBay
Re: first sale and contracts
Next >>