I got sent an email from a recent campaign that was made (thanks to another Techdirt commenter) to contact MP's and convince them to review the DEB, where they're posting ads in newspapers and other media.
They asked for donations amounting up to £10,000 and have gotten over £20,000. Methinks the word will get out one way or another.
The point about standardization is that the open system encourages publishers to target lowest-common-denominator requirements because they don't know what device people will use. Yes, an iPad-specific website that simply refused to work (or worked poorly) on netbooks, phones, etc, would have similar advantages as an iPad app. But significantly stronger downsides (harder to monetize, customer service issues)
Except you're over emphasizing, there's nothing to believe it's "harder to monetize". iPad renders normal browser content and displays it perfectly fine, and good mobile browsers have also taken to task in resizing and displaying already existing sites. The problem you're talking about is somewhat more muted than you're making it out to be at the moment.
3) Um, Apple sells apps. I have an app in the App Store, in fact. I would never have built it as an ad supported website or a website that required external payments. Living in the app store means exposure to users, sales are easier because users trust Apple with their CC info more than they would trust me, and it's a two-click purchase. It's true that $1M is on the high end for apps or websites. Same argument holds for smaller companies just spending $50k.
Um, everyone gets news content for free. There are already existing models that allow for software to be produced cheaper and freely, there's plenty of free apps and the exposure you get is generally no more than usual in a crowded situation with many competing apps. Viewing free online content is no more clicks than viewing or buying an app.
4) So why would they bother at all, then? You're saying that publishers are just going to put stuff online for free because there's no point in charging for an app that attempts to add value because people will just get the content online for free? Or am I missing something?
Because the apps don't offer anything special over the free content that people will continue receiving, especially at the prices they seem to be setting. They also fit in worse with modern news habits, not better. It's the same reason the music industry thought iTunes would save them. They're just re-upping the same content as before but now behind a subscription/paywall.
You'd also be investing a large amount of money for a minority audience compared to producing web content that can be accessed by all and fits in better with those habits.
!) Switching between tabs is easier than switching between apps, and better facilitates linking, reading and posting to other services.
2) There is already a high degree of standardisation. Any web browser that is at least fairly standards compliant will render most content in a way that is pretty uniform. Web standards are not hugely draining on CPU/GPU, especially as browsers are improved and the devices themselves get more powerful. Certainly not a problem for iPad and Safari. Browsers for smaller devices can be improved to deal with more/complex content too.
3) There is nothing to say these apps are going to be inherently more "monetizable". I highly doubt your oddly high numbers for redesigning a website too, and it has advantages like working across many platforms, not just a minority.
4) They don't need that option on the web. It's been seemingly shown audiences aren't willing to pay for content that's free and just as good elsewhere, especially in this instance with little genuine advantage over browsers.
As far as I understand it, the only way they can qualify for safe harbor is if they immediately take the content down upon request, irrespective of the content being infringing or not.
Er no it isn't - a DMCA takedown effectivly claims the copyright belings to those who issue the takedown rather than the person who posted the madia so it's infringing the real copyright.
You misunderstood. He was talking about how if the logic in that original claim had gone through, it would mean anyone who tried to post a video they owned the copyright to and were refused could claim that this refusal was in itself copyright infringement by not allowing them to do so. This would undermine any content hosts ability to refuse content on the basis of, for example, being "adult" material that they'd rather not have.
In other words, not hosting or putting out someone elses work would itself be considered copyright infringement, vs now where it's based on whether you distribute content without authorisation and doesn't come under fair use.
We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to phone calls delivered over data networks and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. And as many members of the Internet community and key congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons to be concerned about the future of openness.
They can't seriously be saying that as the runners of a proprietary VOIP network which is part of what has allowed this crappyness to come about in the first place.
It's all gone downhill for openness in net communication since email.
I'm glad this post came about, as it brings up an issue that is at the heart of disruption:
Why do companies that are run well and according to all known good rules of management still fail?
Answer: Business models are not absolute, they're fit for purpose. When the situation and purpose change, so too do the business models.
It's more difficult to change the already existing system to fit the new situation than it is to simply start over. Especially when all the incentives tell you the low end or emerging market isn't enough to placate your companies needs.
No one has said they're not, but the issue isn't how someone who uses a blog or blog format, but limited space where more larger reaching publications are bound to be considered first.
The fundmanetal problem to me here seems to be that analysts are consistently little more than public windbags who make all sorts of predictions based on little evidence, with no need for consideration in being taken up on what they say.
At least, that's always been the experience whenever I've read anything from an analyst (see: Michael Pachter).
dmca doesn't limit free speech, except where that free speech starts to impact others.
Assuming that the lack of DMCA would have a negative impact (Various prior studies have shown that people who engage in piracy actually buy the most overall), and that somehow copyright enforcement and infringement is an issue of free speech. It's fair use that protects free speech, not the DMCA.
The examples the EFF provided above, and many others over the years have clearly shown how the DMCA stifles free speech and fair use. Cases of DMCA abuse are not fringe. This site in general and the EFF have covered for a long time these abuses, and the EFF actively fights against them.
Regardless of whether you get it off the shelf or online, it uses Steam. Steam is itself a prerequisite to being able to play any of Valves games on PC.
Watched the interview linked (in Danish but it has subs) - whether that woman was playing devils advocate or not I have no idea, but suffice to say she spouted fantastic lines like doesn't "they" have a right to make money and logic like people who invent should be able to have some say or control in how it's used.
You can triple boot them and yes the license covers ALL at the same time, you just technically are not allowed to run all three simultaneously. What you are not allowed to do is take that license and use it to install those operating systems on three different machines and run them all at the same time.
That just confused me - you can use all 3, except you can't?
My point appears to be exactly the same as you stated. The license is only allowed to be used on one version at any one time. This means you are getting one operating system - you simply get to choose the older one if you didn't want the new one, but regardless you are only allowed one. I've heard nothing about the license being re-transferable (or at least, being allowed to by their terms) once you've gone to XP.
I consider getting 2 for one as actually getting 2 for one - both products for the price as one to use as how I see fit, not paying for the highest cost one then being allowed to choose the older lower cost one afterwards without refund and neither at the same time.
The point is the license is transferred - you cannot use the same license for both at the same time. You are effectively getting one operating system, not 2.
"Microsoft mandates that customers who want to downgrade to XP must purchase the license to Vista Business or Vista Ultimate," Frink said. "[That's] typically about a $130 premium, though some retail outlets charge more."
Los Angeles resident Emma Alvarado charged Microsoft with multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices and consumer protection laws over its policy of barring computer makers from continuing to offer XP on new PCs after Vista's early-2007 launch. Alvarado is seeking compensatory damages and wants the case declared a class-action suit.
According to Alvarado, Microsoft coerced computer makers into "agreeing to restrictive and anticompetitive licensing terms" for XP. "Microsoft did so in order to maintain, protect and extend its market power in operating systems software into the next generation of personal computing, to lessen competition, to promote Vista and to enhance its monopoly position," her lawsuit claimed.
I understand the analogy, I just do not agree with it. TV commercials by themselves have no value.
Yes they do - or at least, they can, like turning ads into small skits, product placement in shows (making the shows advertising for a product that's in it) and various other things.
The overall point though is that copies of music can be used as advertising in themselves.
What you are saying is that one of the main products that a musician produces has little to no value, it should be given away. I disagree, there is some non-zero value in recorded music
No one's arguing that. They're arguing the value of using copies of music as advertising for other scarce things, using this analogy to help demonstrate that - a free advert, which may be done in various ways and yes, may in themselves hold value that can drive attention to a product that people may want and is scarce so they'll be willing to pay for it in a way that's long-term sustainable.
The majority of money is leaving the market for people paying for access to songs when they already have the ability to access it in so many ways. The song may hold value, but not necessarily in a way that can demand significant money from charging people to be able to access it, especially for smaller artists and as time goes on. Instead use that to drive attention and value in other areas that are scarce and can be made to be even more scarce by increasing demand through something that effectively has no limit on how much demand it can satisfy.
Scarce may also mean live performance and/or appearance, adding more value to bundles that include recorded music (special editions), commissioned to work on music for film, tv etc.
In all these cases, the recorded music essentially acts as the advertising for the artist and other scarce things. The recording of music in itself stops being the main job, and it becomes focused back on live performance, commission work, patronage and unique value that can only be achieved through physical means as part of a recorded music bundle as it were.
On the post: Views On The Digital Economy Bill Shifting Rapidly
http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2010/03/30/digital-economy-bill-what-did-your-mp-say/#comment-4 2466986
Should make an interesting read.
On the post: Views On The Digital Economy Bill Shifting Rapidly
They asked for donations amounting up to £10,000 and have gotten over £20,000. Methinks the word will get out one way or another.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/contribute/DigitalEconomyBillAd
On the post: Are Publishers Putting Too Much Stock In The iPad, Or Are They Just Doing It Wrong?
Re: Re: Re: I'm going to disagree
Except you're over emphasizing, there's nothing to believe it's "harder to monetize". iPad renders normal browser content and displays it perfectly fine, and good mobile browsers have also taken to task in resizing and displaying already existing sites. The problem you're talking about is somewhat more muted than you're making it out to be at the moment.
Um, everyone gets news content for free. There are already existing models that allow for software to be produced cheaper and freely, there's plenty of free apps and the exposure you get is generally no more than usual in a crowded situation with many competing apps. Viewing free online content is no more clicks than viewing or buying an app.
Because the apps don't offer anything special over the free content that people will continue receiving, especially at the prices they seem to be setting. They also fit in worse with modern news habits, not better. It's the same reason the music industry thought iTunes would save them. They're just re-upping the same content as before but now behind a subscription/paywall.
You'd also be investing a large amount of money for a minority audience compared to producing web content that can be accessed by all and fits in better with those habits.
On the post: Are Publishers Putting Too Much Stock In The iPad, Or Are They Just Doing It Wrong?
Re: I'm going to disagree
2) There is already a high degree of standardisation. Any web browser that is at least fairly standards compliant will render most content in a way that is pretty uniform. Web standards are not hugely draining on CPU/GPU, especially as browsers are improved and the devices themselves get more powerful. Certainly not a problem for iPad and Safari. Browsers for smaller devices can be improved to deal with more/complex content too.
3) There is nothing to say these apps are going to be inherently more "monetizable". I highly doubt your oddly high numbers for redesigning a website too, and it has advantages like working across many platforms, not just a minority.
4) They don't need that option on the web. It's been seemingly shown audiences aren't willing to pay for content that's free and just as good elsewhere, especially in this instance with little genuine advantage over browsers.
On the post: Are Publishers Putting Too Much Stock In The iPad, Or Are They Just Doing It Wrong?
I doubt even Steve Jobs believes it'll save the newspapers.
On the post: Bogus DMCA Takedown Is Not Copyright Infringement And Not Libel
Re:
You misunderstood. He was talking about how if the logic in that original claim had gone through, it would mean anyone who tried to post a video they owned the copyright to and were refused could claim that this refusal was in itself copyright infringement by not allowing them to do so. This would undermine any content hosts ability to refuse content on the basis of, for example, being "adult" material that they'd rather not have.
In other words, not hosting or putting out someone elses work would itself be considered copyright infringement, vs now where it's based on whether you distribute content without authorisation and doesn't come under fair use.
On the post: Skype Deliberately Crippling Functionality of iPhone and WinMo and Verizon Apps?
Re: Who cares about Skype?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(pro tocol)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Messaging_and_Presence_Protocol
On the post: Skype Deliberately Crippling Functionality of iPhone and WinMo and Verizon Apps?
They can't seriously be saying that as the runners of a proprietary VOIP network which is part of what has allowed this crappyness to come about in the first place.
It's all gone downhill for openness in net communication since email.
On the post: Society Doesn't Know How To Deal With Abundance
Why do companies that are run well and according to all known good rules of management still fail?
Answer: Business models are not absolute, they're fit for purpose. When the situation and purpose change, so too do the business models.
It's more difficult to change the already existing system to fit the new situation than it is to simply start over. Especially when all the incentives tell you the low end or emerging market isn't enough to placate your companies needs.
On the post: More Bloggers Suing For Gov't Press Passes
Re: Bloggers as journalists
On the post: Sorry, There's No Silver Bullet Business Model For The Music Industry
At least, that's always been the experience whenever I've read anything from an analyst (see: Michael Pachter).
On the post: A Look At Twelve Years Of Dangerous Unintended Consequences From The DMCA
Re:
Assuming that the lack of DMCA would have a negative impact (Various prior studies have shown that people who engage in piracy actually buy the most overall), and that somehow copyright enforcement and infringement is an issue of free speech. It's fair use that protects free speech, not the DMCA.
The examples the EFF provided above, and many others over the years have clearly shown how the DMCA stifles free speech and fair use. Cases of DMCA abuse are not fringe. This site in general and the EFF have covered for a long time these abuses, and the EFF actively fights against them.
On the post: Ubisoft's 'You Must Be Connected To This Server' Annoying DRM Servers Go Down
Re: Re: Re: Found this
Regardless of whether you get it off the shelf or online, it uses Steam. Steam is itself a prerequisite to being able to play any of Valves games on PC.
On the post: Danish Politicians Questioning Why Denmark Is So Against ACTA Transparency
*sigh*
On the post: No, Having To Pay To Downgrade From Vista To XP Is Not An Antitrust Violation
Re: Re: Re: Re: No "Free" Operating System
On the post: No, Having To Pay To Downgrade From Vista To XP Is Not An Antitrust Violation
Re: Re: No "Free" Operating System
On the post: No, Having To Pay To Downgrade From Vista To XP Is Not An Antitrust Violation
Hmmm...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9123045/Dell_We_re_not_charging_more_for_XP_downgra des
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9127950/Lawsuit_targets_Microsoft_over_Vista_to_X P_downgrades
On the post: Is The Fan Who Buys A Product He Wants A Big Dope?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes they do - or at least, they can, like turning ads into small skits, product placement in shows (making the shows advertising for a product that's in it) and various other things.
The overall point though is that copies of music can be used as advertising in themselves.
No one's arguing that. They're arguing the value of using copies of music as advertising for other scarce things, using this analogy to help demonstrate that - a free advert, which may be done in various ways and yes, may in themselves hold value that can drive attention to a product that people may want and is scarce so they'll be willing to pay for it in a way that's long-term sustainable.
The majority of money is leaving the market for people paying for access to songs when they already have the ability to access it in so many ways. The song may hold value, but not necessarily in a way that can demand significant money from charging people to be able to access it, especially for smaller artists and as time goes on. Instead use that to drive attention and value in other areas that are scarce and can be made to be even more scarce by increasing demand through something that effectively has no limit on how much demand it can satisfy.
On the post: Is The Fan Who Buys A Product He Wants A Big Dope?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In all these cases, the recorded music essentially acts as the advertising for the artist and other scarce things. The recording of music in itself stops being the main job, and it becomes focused back on live performance, commission work, patronage and unique value that can only be achieved through physical means as part of a recorded music bundle as it were.
On the post: Is The Fan Who Buys A Product He Wants A Big Dope?
Re: Re: Re: Well, generally I like the analogies...
Next >>