Sorry, no; I'm explaining how other people could confuse the tool, since that's what the GP was asking about. I was using Their Voice, but I didn't mean to imply that's a belief I held; sorry it wasn't clear.
With regards to the sheriff, how can people actually come to the conclusion that craigslist is bad that soon after using it for the forces of good?
Imagine a newsletter set up and distributed secretly with the express purpose of arragning criminal acts. Even if the police get ahold of this document and use it to track down criminals, isn't the newsletter itself bad? Despite it being used for good, none of the evil would have happened without the newsletter.
Imagine a seedy bar where patrons are able to congregate for less-than-legal activities. Even if the cops are able to steak-out the place and catch criminals, isn't the bar it'self bad? None of the evil would have happened if there wasn't a site set up to commit the acts.
That's how cops can take a good thing like Craigslist and only see the bad.
Exactly. If you want a ferrari, pay for a ferrari, and get a ferrari, you're not a sucker. You're only a sucker if you pay for a Ferrari and get a Ford Focus and don't recognize it.
Not necessarily true. If I want Clapton's guitar, or I want a reasonable facsimile, I don't think that desire necessarily makes me a sucker. Collecting memorabilia may not be practical, but the best things in life aren't.
I'm only a sucker if I think I'm getting something I want and I'm not. Wanting something that others don't want is immaterial.
I disagree. If I legitimately want to buy an orange, and you sell me a fair-priced orange, nothing in that scenario makes me a sucker.
If I want to buy an orange and you successfully sell me an apple (while I believe I've just bought an orange), then I'm a sucker, and it doesn't matter if I realize it later or not.
If I want to buy an orange and you sell me an orange but charge twice as much because "this orange is special in a nebulous way," then I'm again a sucker, whether I realize it or not.
If someone doesn't feel like a sucker, is that sufficient to claim that they're not a sucker? Isn't the biggest sucker the one that doesn't realize it?
But the going-forward of Techdirt, generally, is that these things SHOULD be free to plagerize. Especially in your comic book scenario (as there's a lot more involved in "adapting" a short story to a comic than just cut-and-paste), and especialy in the Cook Source scenario (where the author was given fair credit). I think it's disingenuous to claim on the one hand that this sort of thing should be the norm, and then turn around and complain when it actually happens.
She did give credit, she just didn't TELL the author about it. From the linked Techdirt article, "They did put her name on it, but she only found out after a friend spotted it and told her about it."
she should have responded in a reasonable manner
I agree, but I think it's mostly just a case of bad people skills. Tone is hard to discern in text, and it can be read as her saying, "I should have not creditted you" or "you need to pay ME for the publicity," but the same words can be interpretted as "we credited you, where others might not" and "we're giving you free publicity." It can even be read as "you're attacking us because we creditted you" because if they hadn't put her name on it she might never have even found it.
I'm not sure why she balked at paying $130 to a charity, but it's not terribly unlike some other authers swinging their weight around and demanding payment.
My point is, if the editor didn't SOUND like a bitch -- and that may be a complete fluke of the text medium -- then her stance isn't any different from what we usually promote here at Techdirt.
"As the editor of a magazine a plea of ignorance on how IP on the internet works..."
I think I'm with AC on this one. We're always talking about how copyright is broken, how it doesn't work in the digital age, giving examples of how copyright SHOULD work. And now we're crucifying this lady because she ognored how copyright DOES work. Isn't that a bit two-faced?
Yeah, I'm having trouble finding sympathy for her, but that's an emotional response to the tone of her reply. She was kind of a jerk, but I don't think anything she said is particularly untrue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
The guy making 12k still needs to buy things, so does it really matter if you're (a) asking him to buy the same amount on less money (tax income), or (b) asking him to buy the same amount on a higher price (tax consumption)?
To be fair, I don't think that's entirely fair. Some people have said or done things in the past that they'd like to distance themselves from, and it's not always about getting drunk at a party. That having been said, though I can understand the sentiment, I'm against government-mandated amnesia, and I think some things need to be remembered no matter how many people wish it could be forgotten. The burden of the past is, I think, an acceptible cost to avoid the side effects of such a law.
Maybe someone quotes you saying something foolish or embarrassing. Maybe you just changed your mind. Maybe you just don't like what they said in reply. Should you have legal force to have their comment removed?
Maybe you show up in the background of some's picture doing something foolish/dangerous/embarrassing. Should you have legal force to have their picture taken down?
If you answered yes to either of those, now envision government or corporate abuses that could stem from this. Even if the "right" only applies to natural persons (as opposed to legal ones, like corporations), corps and governments can pay people to exercize this right on their behalf. Don't like an article, make sure someone quoted by it changes their mind and wants their comments forgotten. Don't like a pictures from protest? Make sure someone in the background decides they don't want to be associated with the event.
And even if you can't enforce it 100% of the time, having such a law is better than not having it...
There's evidence that the opposite is true, that having a poorly-enforced law can actually be worse than having no law at all, both because of the effects on the specific issue in question and the side effects on "respect for the law" in general.
Nevermind unintended consequences, potential abuses, etc, etc.
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Bravo
Sorry, no; I'm explaining how other people could confuse the tool, since that's what the GP was asking about. I was using Their Voice, but I didn't mean to imply that's a belief I held; sorry it wasn't clear.
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Bravo
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Bravo
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Bravo
Imagine a newsletter set up and distributed secretly with the express purpose of arragning criminal acts. Even if the police get ahold of this document and use it to track down criminals, isn't the newsletter itself bad? Despite it being used for good, none of the evil would have happened without the newsletter.
Imagine a seedy bar where patrons are able to congregate for less-than-legal activities. Even if the cops are able to steak-out the place and catch criminals, isn't the bar it'self bad? None of the evil would have happened if there wasn't a site set up to commit the acts.
That's how cops can take a good thing like Craigslist and only see the bad.
On the post: The Secret Contagious Mojo That Makes People Value Stuff Connected To Famous People
Re:
On the post: The Secret Contagious Mojo That Makes People Value Stuff Connected To Famous People
Re:
I'm only a sucker if I think I'm getting something I want and I'm not. Wanting something that others don't want is immaterial.
On the post: The Secret Contagious Mojo That Makes People Value Stuff Connected To Famous People
Re: Re:
On the post: The Secret Contagious Mojo That Makes People Value Stuff Connected To Famous People
Re: Re:
If I want to buy an orange and you successfully sell me an apple (while I believe I've just bought an orange), then I'm a sucker, and it doesn't matter if I realize it later or not.
If I want to buy an orange and you sell me an orange but charge twice as much because "this orange is special in a nebulous way," then I'm again a sucker, whether I realize it or not.
On the post: The Secret Contagious Mojo That Makes People Value Stuff Connected To Famous People
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Gives First Interview; Says She'll Probably Shut Down The Magazine
Re: Re: Re: Some people just have no class.
2. Fair enough, though I'm half-willing to believe this is (a) mostly just bad people-skills and (b) the Internet misinterpretting what was meant.
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Gives First Interview; Says She'll Probably Shut Down The Magazine
Re: Some people just have no class.
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Gives First Interview; Says She'll Probably Shut Down The Magazine
Re:
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Gives First Interview; Says She'll Probably Shut Down The Magazine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She did give credit, she just didn't TELL the author about it. From the linked Techdirt article, "They did put her name on it, but she only found out after a friend spotted it and told her about it."
she should have responded in a reasonable manner
I agree, but I think it's mostly just a case of bad people skills. Tone is hard to discern in text, and it can be read as her saying, "I should have not creditted you" or "you need to pay ME for the publicity," but the same words can be interpretted as "we credited you, where others might not" and "we're giving you free publicity." It can even be read as "you're attacking us because we creditted you" because if they hadn't put her name on it she might never have even found it.
I'm not sure why she balked at paying $130 to a charity, but it's not terribly unlike some other authers swinging their weight around and demanding payment.
My point is, if the editor didn't SOUND like a bitch -- and that may be a complete fluke of the text medium -- then her stance isn't any different from what we usually promote here at Techdirt.
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Gives First Interview; Says She'll Probably Shut Down The Magazine
Re: Re: Re:
I think I'm with AC on this one. We're always talking about how copyright is broken, how it doesn't work in the digital age, giving examples of how copyright SHOULD work. And now we're crucifying this lady because she ognored how copyright DOES work. Isn't that a bit two-faced?
Yeah, I'm having trouble finding sympathy for her, but that's an emotional response to the tone of her reply. She was kind of a jerk, but I don't think anything she said is particularly untrue.
On the post: Google Employee Leaks The News That Google Fired Employee Who Leaked Salary Info
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's re-distribution from taxes to employees, shareholders.
On the post: Google Employee Leaks The News That Google Fired Employee Who Leaked Salary Info
On the post: EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts
Re: Re: Re: Good for them!
On the post: EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts
Re: Good for them!
Maybe you show up in the background of some's picture doing something foolish/dangerous/embarrassing. Should you have legal force to have their picture taken down?
If you answered yes to either of those, now envision government or corporate abuses that could stem from this. Even if the "right" only applies to natural persons (as opposed to legal ones, like corporations), corps and governments can pay people to exercize this right on their behalf. Don't like an article, make sure someone quoted by it changes their mind and wants their comments forgotten. Don't like a pictures from protest? Make sure someone in the background decides they don't want to be associated with the event.
On the post: EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts
Re:
There's evidence that the opposite is true, that having a poorly-enforced law can actually be worse than having no law at all, both because of the effects on the specific issue in question and the side effects on "respect for the law" in general.
Nevermind unintended consequences, potential abuses, etc, etc.
On the post: EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts
Re: Re: i think
Next >>