Still missing the point. The point is about how people tend to shut off their brains (common sense) and trust technology. This is actually a documented behavior--the more complex a system, the more trusting individuals are with the output, especially if it is in common use.
A better analogy than the ones being given in many of the comments here would be: Yesterday the bridge wasn't out and I drove over it. Today, I ask my friend if the bridge is out and he says "no". While I'm driving, I see a sign saying the bridge is out and it looks like part of it is missing, but I'm going to keep driving because I trust my friend. Friend = GPS; Friend's knowledge = Fat-finger mistake.
It's also interesting to see how people who want to see certain things, *always* see them, regardless of the facts. Now that sounds like a sheep to me....
At the extreme risk of oversimplifying one of the possible flaws here, what about the can't put the genie back in the bottle issue?
#1 is irrelevant because of the following assertions... The number of agents in the market seems to make the possibility of #2 unfeasible. #3 is fine, obviously. #4 is ludicrous--information ages too quickly. Technology advances in language processing will continue to make #5 possible and #6 impossible for the originator. How exactly will a court determine what is "parasitic" and what is not? Not to mention that news orgs will quickly realize (much like pirating) that suing these folks will be the equivalent of whack-a-mole.
Great job refuting me with completely random words. I will respond in kind... snorkle! Splunge! You'll have to point out where I applied selection bias or HG to get credit.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are putting forth a rational argument, but I think you might be throwing around the word "fascist" a bit too loosely. By your definition, anyone that disagrees with you or has issues with nonconstructive criticism is a fascist. That's like calling someone that thinks Michael Jackson was a pedophile, a racist.
"Pointing out problems is about the limit of journalism". Sorry, your argument is a rationalization, not a valid point. Otherwise, journalistic publications ought to remove their editorial pages and blogs aren't journalism. It is possible to point out problems in a constructive way--there are many journalists that do so. This is very hard and requires significant talent and intelligence. Anyone can criticize. I'm just suggesting that those who just criticize often do so out of an ugly, self-inflating reason, rather than the collective benefit that they claim.
No, I haven't, because these sites are fraught with selection bias and hasty generalization. Meaning, if you look only at the negative results without the larger context, you will make incorrect conclusions.
The argument for sites like these is generally, "someone has to keep the authorities in check" which is an important goal, except for the way in which it is usually executed--full of glee, anarchism, and schadenfreude. I don't find that particularly noble. If these sites focused on helping improve the situation rather than simply pointing out failures I might read them more often.
As for DH, I understand and agree with your points, but it seems to me that if you take the "C" route, you're now in a never ending cycle of violence. At some point, someone has to stand up and make it stop--and assuming it will be the authorities just keeps you in the role of victim. I realize, however, that this is a wonderful theory that in practice may be extremely difficult (thus the issue with the journalists decision).
No, not a strawman--I think we must have different ideas about what that means, since I never knocked it down.
However, I will grant you that I did extrapolate your argument further than it seems you intended. I apologize, that extrapolation seems to be the general tone of the responses to this overall topic and I unfairly applied it to you.
As for the rest of your response--since we're debating matters of opinion and perception we'll just have to move on. You same SOME, I say MOST. I think that people unfairly generalize behaviors of individuals to the entire group. There are a lot of psychological reasons for this (selection bias, remembering the negative, etc) plus everyone likes there to be laws, but no one likes it when they restrict our desired behaviors.
Huh? Actually, the law does not support this guy's claim, which is much of the problem here.
The issue is that this guy *thinks* copyright gives him unfettered rights to decide how his work is used. That is incorrect. Copyright is a *limited* monopoly, including such limits as fair use and first sale doctrine. If his work was purchased by the memorial committee, I don't see how *he* can claim anything.
Wow, I mean, just wow. You'd feel much different if it was your child that was murdered and the student was withholding information that would help catch the murderer.
This is a dangerous road to go down-lauding those that fight against law enforcement. Perhaps we should all just do whatever we want and disband the police force.
DH, I generally enjoy your witty postings, but this is disappointing at best. Cops are as human as the rest of us, doing a job very few of us would do. It seems to me that it is becoming culturally acceptable to denigrate officers and the profession in general. I find this sickening.
Spend some time in a country like Mexico and interact with law enforcement there and you'll realize how good we have it here. I don't have some blind eyes of the failings of our LEAs, but I do have some sense of the difficult job they have to do on a daily basis.
Spend a week or so where every person you speak to generally lies, obfuscates, or makes your job difficult and you'd get frustrated like them pretty quick.
I know you're frustrated, but you know saying "you, the authorities, couldn't keep from happening," makes no sense. No "authority" can prevent a murder from occurring unless they are present for the action--threat of prosecution or capture is the only deterrent and even in the face of certain arrest people still kill other people.
@Pixelpusher: What about the empirical studies that show that the incidents of accidents *increase*?
There's a saying that goes something like: "Fix the process, not the people." This really applies to processes that execute in the level of intuition-things that you generally do without concentrated cognitive thought (using a stapler vs doing differential calculus). Expecting people to adapt to a process that should not consume all of your higher thought is generally a recipe for failure.
It is possible that your #2 will work over long periods of time, but the real question is why not use longer yellows, which *have* been shown to reduce accidents?
So what? if they don't execute, why should they be rewarded? If you have the idea to start a coffee shop, but two other people actually put in the effort to make it happen, who should get the reward? People pay for products and services, not ideas. An idea without execution is just that--an idea.
@Comboman, I'm not sure you're correct. In today's climate, I would be very nervous about creating that work--if a claim were brought against me I'm not sure I would prevail.
But I think this is exactly the problem. What is not clear is the extent to which the ideas are covered because we know that some ideas are covered and some are not. Clearly a book about spies does not infringe upon James Bond, but what about a book about a British spy named James that likes martinis but has no other associated characteristics? Or what about a book about british spies that battle a secret organization called "Ghost"? Both are derivative of James Bond but in different ways and to different extents.
And what really bothers me is why we wouldn't want the market to address these issues. If someone creates a crappy derivative work it seems to me that people will vote with their dollars. Why not let the market reward those that execute best? Isn't that in the best interest of the consumer?
Sorry, this thread is still pretty much the equivalent of "is not" vs "is too".
Please explain your definition of investigative journalism and how this does not meet that definition.
The Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/) seems to define it as "high-quality, accessible investigative reports, databases, and contextual analysis on issues of public importance."
Agreed on my example, I did waffle on whether to include it. :)
I understand that each case is determined on the facts, but the gray area of what is infringing and what is not is so wide, I'm not sure how any reasonable person could navigate it. It seems reasonable to me that we, as a society, ought to want individuals to build on and transform the works of others for the times and to create innovations.
There are two points here I think, but please correct me if I misunderstand. One is that the character of Holden Caulfield was found to be a copyrighted character. I can't debate this, but this falls under my opinion of it is the wrong result. Copyrighting characters seems wrong in my inexpert opinion mostly because there are very few, if any original characters. In fact, this smells to me to be more of a trademark-type argument or situation.
The other is that the issue seems to be decided by what is commercially viable--that copyright infringement should be found when there is harm. Again, perhaps, but this seems backwards. In particular in this case, the argument seems to be "because I *might* use it". In which case I would argue that any harm is null because there is no reasonable expectation of future profits by Salinger.
In particular this seems no different than patent trolls that hold patents but never produce anything.
What is the threshold for building off someone's work?
I can see why the legal arguments would not be as clearly in the favor of publishing the "sequel" as Mike would recommend, but I'm truly stumped as to what the landscape of reason is here.
Dark Helmet gave a really great example of his experience writing a book that seems like it could be questionable under some of the interpretations here. I would dearly love to understand the legal threshold for when something goes from building on, to transformative, to infringing.
For example, if I write a book that has an x-wing in it, but no other star wars jargon or canon, is that infringing? What if I write an unique star trek novel that uses all of the canon, jargon, and all of the characters, but every single one of them have completely different names?
What happens if I write a book about a russian submarine that goes rogue?
I'm truly lost. Regardless of the legal arguments, this seems like the wrong result. As an example, by this logic, The Once and Future King could not have been written (today) because it would have been infringing on the original King Arthur fables/stories (if they were not in the public domain).
On the post: Couple Taken 400 Miles Off Course By Trusting Their GPS
Re:
A better analogy than the ones being given in many of the comments here would be: Yesterday the bridge wasn't out and I drove over it. Today, I ask my friend if the bridge is out and he says "no". While I'm driving, I see a sign saying the bridge is out and it looks like part of it is missing, but I'm going to keep driving because I trust my friend. Friend = GPS; Friend's knowledge = Fat-finger mistake.
On the post: How Reuters Should Be Responding To The AP's Suicide
Re: This site proves
On the post: Associated Press Tries To DRM The News
Re:
On the post: If You're Going To Meter Or Cap Broadband, Shouldn't You Provide A Meter?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Closer Look At The Marburgers' Plan To Save Newspapers Via Copyright Law
Re: One more thing about the analyses
#1 is irrelevant because of the following assertions... The number of agents in the market seems to make the possibility of #2 unfeasible. #3 is fine, obviously. #4 is ludicrous--information ages too quickly. Technology advances in language processing will continue to make #5 possible and #6 impossible for the originator. How exactly will a court determine what is "parasitic" and what is not? Not to mention that news orgs will quickly realize (much like pirating) that suing these folks will be the equivalent of whack-a-mole.
On the post: Journalism Student Protected By California Shield Law
Re: Re: Re: Sneeje
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are putting forth a rational argument, but I think you might be throwing around the word "fascist" a bit too loosely. By your definition, anyone that disagrees with you or has issues with nonconstructive criticism is a fascist. That's like calling someone that thinks Michael Jackson was a pedophile, a racist.
"Pointing out problems is about the limit of journalism". Sorry, your argument is a rationalization, not a valid point. Otherwise, journalistic publications ought to remove their editorial pages and blogs aren't journalism. It is possible to point out problems in a constructive way--there are many journalists that do so. This is very hard and requires significant talent and intelligence. Anyone can criticize. I'm just suggesting that those who just criticize often do so out of an ugly, self-inflating reason, rather than the collective benefit that they claim.
On the post: Journalism Student Protected By California Shield Law
Re: Sneeje
The argument for sites like these is generally, "someone has to keep the authorities in check" which is an important goal, except for the way in which it is usually executed--full of glee, anarchism, and schadenfreude. I don't find that particularly noble. If these sites focused on helping improve the situation rather than simply pointing out failures I might read them more often.
As for DH, I understand and agree with your points, but it seems to me that if you take the "C" route, you're now in a never ending cycle of violence. At some point, someone has to stand up and make it stop--and assuming it will be the authorities just keeps you in the role of victim. I realize, however, that this is a wonderful theory that in practice may be extremely difficult (thus the issue with the journalists decision).
On the post: Journalism Student Protected By California Shield Law
Re: Re: Re:
However, I will grant you that I did extrapolate your argument further than it seems you intended. I apologize, that extrapolation seems to be the general tone of the responses to this overall topic and I unfairly applied it to you.
As for the rest of your response--since we're debating matters of opinion and perception we'll just have to move on. You same SOME, I say MOST. I think that people unfairly generalize behaviors of individuals to the entire group. There are a lot of psychological reasons for this (selection bias, remembering the negative, etc) plus everyone likes there to be laws, but no one likes it when they restrict our desired behaviors.
On the post: Sculptor Sues Postal Service Over Stamp With Photo Of His Sculpture
Re: you don't get it because you don't want to
The issue is that this guy *thinks* copyright gives him unfettered rights to decide how his work is used. That is incorrect. Copyright is a *limited* monopoly, including such limits as fair use and first sale doctrine. If his work was purchased by the memorial committee, I don't see how *he* can claim anything.
On the post: Journalism Student Protected By California Shield Law
Re:
On the post: Journalism Student Protected By California Shield Law
Re: Re: Sickening
This is a dangerous road to go down-lauding those that fight against law enforcement. Perhaps we should all just do whatever we want and disband the police force.
On the post: Journalism Student Protected By California Shield Law
Re:
Spend some time in a country like Mexico and interact with law enforcement there and you'll realize how good we have it here. I don't have some blind eyes of the failings of our LEAs, but I do have some sense of the difficult job they have to do on a daily basis.
Spend a week or so where every person you speak to generally lies, obfuscates, or makes your job difficult and you'd get frustrated like them pretty quick.
I know you're frustrated, but you know saying "you, the authorities, couldn't keep from happening," makes no sense. No "authority" can prevent a murder from occurring unless they are present for the action--threat of prosecution or capture is the only deterrent and even in the face of certain arrest people still kill other people.
On the post: Redlight Cameras In Kansas City Are Too Successful
Re: Re: Re: quick income
There's a saying that goes something like: "Fix the process, not the people." This really applies to processes that execute in the level of intuition-things that you generally do without concentrated cognitive thought (using a stapler vs doing differential calculus). Expecting people to adapt to a process that should not consume all of your higher thought is generally a recipe for failure.
It is possible that your #2 will work over long periods of time, but the real question is why not use longer yellows, which *have* been shown to reduce accidents?
On the post: Is There Really An Idea/Expression Dichotomy In Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: The problem with copyright...
On the post: Is There Really An Idea/Expression Dichotomy In Copyright?
Re: No monopoly on ideas.
On the post: Is There Really An Idea/Expression Dichotomy In Copyright?
Re: The problem with copyright...
And what really bothers me is why we wouldn't want the market to address these issues. If someone creates a crappy derivative work it seems to me that people will vote with their dollars. Why not let the market reward those that execute best? Isn't that in the best interest of the consumer?
On the post: Oh Look, Citizen Journalists Can Do Real Investigative Reporting
Re:
So, your post is actually the one making stuff up.
On the post: Oh Look, Citizen Journalists Can Do Real Investigative Reporting
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain your definition of investigative journalism and how this does not meet that definition.
The Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/about/) seems to define it as "high-quality, accessible investigative reports, databases, and contextual analysis on issues of public importance."
This pretty much seems to fit that bill.
On the post: District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?
Re:
I understand that each case is determined on the facts, but the gray area of what is infringing and what is not is so wide, I'm not sure how any reasonable person could navigate it. It seems reasonable to me that we, as a society, ought to want individuals to build on and transform the works of others for the times and to create innovations.
There are two points here I think, but please correct me if I misunderstand. One is that the character of Holden Caulfield was found to be a copyrighted character. I can't debate this, but this falls under my opinion of it is the wrong result. Copyrighting characters seems wrong in my inexpert opinion mostly because there are very few, if any original characters. In fact, this smells to me to be more of a trademark-type argument or situation.
The other is that the issue seems to be decided by what is commercially viable--that copyright infringement should be found when there is harm. Again, perhaps, but this seems backwards. In particular in this case, the argument seems to be "because I *might* use it". In which case I would argue that any harm is null because there is no reasonable expectation of future profits by Salinger.
In particular this seems no different than patent trolls that hold patents but never produce anything.
On the post: District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?
What is the threshold for building off someone's work?
Dark Helmet gave a really great example of his experience writing a book that seems like it could be questionable under some of the interpretations here. I would dearly love to understand the legal threshold for when something goes from building on, to transformative, to infringing.
For example, if I write a book that has an x-wing in it, but no other star wars jargon or canon, is that infringing? What if I write an unique star trek novel that uses all of the canon, jargon, and all of the characters, but every single one of them have completely different names?
What happens if I write a book about a russian submarine that goes rogue?
I'm truly lost. Regardless of the legal arguments, this seems like the wrong result. As an example, by this logic, The Once and Future King could not have been written (today) because it would have been infringing on the original King Arthur fables/stories (if they were not in the public domain).
Next >>