Maybe they should let me put myself/my band/my cat (even though I don't have a cat) on the cover of the Rolling Stone. That way there would be no infringing on whatever merchandising rights are out there and I could buy 5 copies for my mother.
I think that the difference is that these artists agreed to be (and were perhaps even paid to be) on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Creating t-shirts from the covers may be extending the use of the artist's image beyond what was originally expected, but at least there was some kind of agreement in place about the user of the image.
As ac pointed out above, providing an explanation, albeit one that is logical, is quite different from actually providing a citation of evidence. Chris didn't say "I believe red light cameras save lives because they trade fewer more-severe accidents for more less-severe accidents." He made a difinitive statement.
While red-light cameras are never popular with the public, they do save lives.
Citation needed.
Same as seat belts and motorcycle helmets - both are the things that have been shunned in the US due to public back-clash.
I think you've misundestood the objections to red light cameras. Unlike red light cameras, most people who don't want to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets would admit that they increase safety. They may just think that they're inconvenient/uncomfortable or they may not like the government forcing them to do something that only affects their safety, not the safety of others. But with the issue of red light cameras, there is serious doubt on 1) whether they actually do increase overall safety and 2) whether there isn't a much simpler, albeit less income generating solution.
It'd be like if the government skipped the step of citing you if they happen to see you're not wearing a seatbelt and went right for putting Big Brother type cameras in every car on the road to ensure people were wearing their seatbelts. Because, "it's your lives people" after, right?
Can the increase in accidents be attributed to people stopping to avoid running a red light and getting hit from behind by other cars?
This is in fact one of the popular theories on why the number of accidents at intersections with red light cameras actually increases instead of decreases.
And on a related note, I think there's actually a connection with another popular TechDirt topic: illegal downloading of copyrighted songs. See, with illegal downloads, the recording industry is getting too hung up on the legal and ethical issues of people downloading songs when they don't have permission. They've lost sight of the real goal, to make money. Similarly, (some) proponants of red light cameras are getting too hung up on punishing the red light runners. They've lost sight of the real goal, making intersections safer.
My guess is the money behind this site would get a little bit more than peeved, and all of a sudden you'd care a whole lot about the protection of copyright.
My guess is that your guess is wrong. See, the part of TechDirt that is easilly copied, the "content" is actually not the sole reason for the traffic. As this thread itself demonstrates, it's the community. So, even if someone did copy TechDirt -- which people apparently already do -- they never get nearly the traffic that TechDirt itself does because the readers of those ripoff sites eventually find their way here and see the benefits of reading the original.
Won't e-book readers be all but irrelevant in a few years anyway? I don't have an e-book reader, so I admit, I could be missing the point, but it's my understanding that people just don't read e-books on their laptops or a netbook because e-book readers have very specialized displays that can render text very well. But then wouldn't it make sense that eventually, companies would be able to make a screen that could display your run-of-the-mill laptop/netbook graphics in addition to very clear, easy-on-the-eyes text? In which case, the whole concept of an e-book reader will be about as popular as the word processor.
Underpriced Ebooks would undermine the rest of the book selling business. It is fairly logical for the price of an E-book to be similar in the market place because customer demand supports it. Customers value the product and pay for it.
I'm not sure if I have the wording right, but in the UPS video that Mike did recently, he said "It's better to compete against yourself than have others compete against you." I think what your statements above don't take into account is that Sony e-books aren't just competing with Sony paper books, they're competing with other companies' e-books. So, regardless of whether Sony wants to maintain similar pricing, the marketplace will eventually dictate otherwise.
Also, in the minds of consumers an e-book that is the same price as a paper book is not "underpriced". It's overpriced. Because the very kind of person that would be willing to buy an e-book is the same kind of person who would know that the productions costs are dramatically lower and, but all rights, the price should be lower. As someone else pointed out, the price is what people are willing to pay, not what the seller wants to get.
All three are related to DRM because the person wouldn't need to looked for a cracked version in the first place if there weren't DRM.
and once it's broken the 'technical ability' required is near zero.
I think you're overestimating the technical ability of the average computer user. I'm not talking about the hard core gamer that knows his way around every aspect of their computer. For the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" to be disproved, all you have to do is find someone that tried to make a copy of a computer program for their friend or relative, found out that it didn't work just by copying the CD, and then said, "Oh well, I guess that didn't work. Sorry."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
You can only say the DRM stopped some piracy if you can show that more people purchased the game with DRM than would have without it - which is an unknowable statistic.
No, you can say that DRM stopped some piracy if you can show that DRM stopped some piracy. My point about the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is that the "in any way" clause takes us out of the realm of what the net effect is of DRM or the theoretical sales figures without DRM. The statement is disproved by one single example of somebody not bypassing DRM.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Yes, DRM is great at preventing copies that nobody really wants. I'll grant you that.
It's my guess that there are at least three major aspects to whether or not someone will attempt to find an illegitimate copy of something: 1) their interest level 2) their technical ability and 3) their fear of getting caught. So, using your example, someone may really want a copy of something, but may not know even where to start looking or, even if they did, may judge that it's more risk than they want to deal with.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
The fact that some people are too ignorant to bypass the DRM does not mean the DRM is secure.
Well, the overall question is whether "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way", not whether DRM is absolutely secure. Just because someone is smart enough to bypass DRM illegitimately, doesn't mean that there aren't others out there, the "casual pirates", that are either "too ignorant" to bypass it illegitimately or just simply can't be bothered.
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Name a situation where DRM has stopped something from being pirated.
You can't, because it doesn't exist. DRM has never stopped piracy in any way.
If you look at a particular item of media -- a movie, a song, a TV show, a computer program -- the statement holds true that DRM has not stopped piracy. Once a single copy of, for example, a computer game has been cracked, it's now available to everyone on the Internet who searches hard enough. But what about on a per copy basis? Can't you say that DRM has stopped individuals from copying a computer game? Sure, if they looked hard enough, they could find a cracked version, but that's often more trouble than it's worth, so in that particular case, DRM did stop piracy.
In fact, this is the reason that you can make the case that selling people non-DRM'ed media at a fair price is a viable business model, because if you make it easy for people to buy legitimatelly and add value to that experience, people will pay money in spite of there being pirated copies available somewhere on the Internet.
I just think that the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is not literally true and does a disservice to the argument against DRM. It uses the same twisted logic of studies sponsored by the RIAA/MPAA that fail to take into account the possible benefits of piracy. Yes, on the whole it may not stop piracy and (I believe) is a counterproductive business strategy, but all you have to do is find one person who tried to copy a game, couldn't because of some DRM, and then didn't go out and get a cracked version and you've disproved the statement.
To me, saying that "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is like saying that speed limits have never stopped speeding in any way. Sure, you can drive on any road in America and see examples of people speeding, but that doesn't mean that speed limits have never stopped any speeding.
I am not prone to gross generalizations, but by and large this is a word I have seen used by persons of "liberal" bent to mock those of "conservative" bent.
Astroturfing simply means a fake grass roots effort. Fair enough if you've seen this used in the context of being critical of conservative efforts, but the term itself has no left or right connotation.
Assuming this is accurate, then I have a difficult time understanding why these same users are viewed by some of the commenters above are likely to be misled and encouraged to express an opinion by the dangling of a "carrot" in front of them.
The problem is not encouraging people to express an opinion. The problem obviously is that people are being paid to express a specific opinion. If you think that the people who are paying this virtual money care whether or not the recipients actually hold the opinion they're supporting, then I believe you're seriously mistaken. Do you seriously not see the difference between "write your congressperson and tell them what you think about healthcare reform" and "write your congressperson and tell them you that you oppose healthcare reform and we'll pay you with virtual money"?
Again, this does seem to be an innovative way to get a message out and solicit support for political action.
Just because something is innovative, doesn't mean it's good. Credit default swaps were innovative, but you won't find too many outspoken supporters of them these days.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
Please? Support my assertion? I have already done that, and you choose to ignore it.
Repeatedly restating the same opinion does not equate to supporting an assertion. You said that Mike does not agree that the US health care system should be reformed and that because the lobbying is in favor of US healthcare reform, he characterizes the lobbying as the derogatory term "astroturfing". The only problem is that there is nothing in Mike's post that indicates his opinion on the health care reform issue or that he would hold an hypocritical viewpoint if the lobbying were pro-healthcare reform.
See, usually when a reasonable person wants to make an assertion, they make it and provide some supporting evidence or ideas. You, on the otherhand, are hiding behing the it's-so-obvious-I-shouldn't-have-to-explain-it technique. A technique which is, ironically, itself an obvious copout.
Hulser, the slant is obvious from here.
So, for the third time, you've refused to actually support your assertion. If it's so obvious, then it should be a simple matter to explain your reasoning. The fact that you won't explain your reasoning, even after repeated requests and responses, would logically indicate that you in fact don't have any justification for your assertion.
You are choosing not to see it, that is your right. Enjoy it.
To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." I see a pattern developing. First, you accuse Mike of slanting the article to match his political leanings without providing any evidence other than "it's obvious". Then, when someone questions your unsupported assertions, your reply is that I must be blinding myself to the obvious. Well, I'd rather be blind than see things that aren't there.
Hulser, if Mike approved of what they were doing, the story would be:
Clever Support Group Uses Social Gaming to Engage Youth
You've simply restated your assertion without providing any evidence. So, this is two posts you've made where you accuse Mike of some political slant where none is obvious from the post. I'm sure Mike has an opinion on health care reform and since he's not a journalist he's under no obligation to hide this opinion, but what is being lobbied is all but irrelevant to the point of the post which is the problematic nature of the lobbying.
Astroturfing is wrong. Astroturfing is being combined with games on social networking sites. Mike posted a comment about how this is wrong. You state that he wouldn't think it was wrong if the topic of the astroturfing were different. I repeat...and you know this how?
How is offering someone virtual currency different than paying protesters like SEIU and other left leaning organizations have done for years?
It's not different. They're both astroturf. I don't think I implied otherwise. Is applying a definition, like "astroturf", to all cases which meet the criteria, regardless of whether it's "left" or "right" so rare that you have to jump to this conclusion?
I think you're missing the point. The issue is not the goal of the lobbying organization, but the method of the lobbying. They could be lobbying to give free puppies to disabled orphans of war veterans and lobbying scheme would still be wrong.
If the Farmville and Mafia Wars players genuinely oppose the legislation and the offer gets them to get off their social gaming site long enough to speak out, good for them! If they don't oppose it, they should pass on the offer.
You can't be serious. Using your logic, bribing a politician would be OK as long as he was going to vote that way anyway. A bribe is a bribe. Do you honestly think that the people who developed this scheme intend for people who oppose health care reform to "pass on the offer"? Please.
On the post: Can Rolling Stone Sell T-Shirts Of Its Covers? It's Not That Simple, Apparently...
Re: Design your own cover shirts
I think that the difference is that these artists agreed to be (and were perhaps even paid to be) on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Creating t-shirts from the covers may be extending the use of the artist's image beyond what was originally expected, but at least there was some kind of agreement in place about the user of the image.
(Nice Dr. Hook reference, BTW.)
On the post: Chicago Tribune Notices More Accidents Happening At Many Intersections With Red Light Cameras
Re: Re: Red light cameras
As ac pointed out above, providing an explanation, albeit one that is logical, is quite different from actually providing a citation of evidence. Chris didn't say "I believe red light cameras save lives because they trade fewer more-severe accidents for more less-severe accidents." He made a difinitive statement.
On the post: Chicago Tribune Notices More Accidents Happening At Many Intersections With Red Light Cameras
Re: Red light cameras
Citation needed.
Same as seat belts and motorcycle helmets - both are the things that have been shunned in the US due to public back-clash.
I think you've misundestood the objections to red light cameras. Unlike red light cameras, most people who don't want to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets would admit that they increase safety. They may just think that they're inconvenient/uncomfortable or they may not like the government forcing them to do something that only affects their safety, not the safety of others. But with the issue of red light cameras, there is serious doubt on 1) whether they actually do increase overall safety and 2) whether there isn't a much simpler, albeit less income generating solution.
It'd be like if the government skipped the step of citing you if they happen to see you're not wearing a seatbelt and went right for putting Big Brother type cameras in every car on the road to ensure people were wearing their seatbelts. Because, "it's your lives people" after, right?
On the post: Chicago Tribune Notices More Accidents Happening At Many Intersections With Red Light Cameras
Re: Hard to seperate out data
This is in fact one of the popular theories on why the number of accidents at intersections with red light cameras actually increases instead of decreases.
And on a related note, I think there's actually a connection with another popular TechDirt topic: illegal downloading of copyrighted songs. See, with illegal downloads, the recording industry is getting too hung up on the legal and ethical issues of people downloading songs when they don't have permission. They've lost sight of the real goal, to make money. Similarly, (some) proponants of red light cameras are getting too hung up on punishing the red light runners. They've lost sight of the real goal, making intersections safer.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Really...
My guess is that your guess is wrong. See, the part of TechDirt that is easilly copied, the "content" is actually not the sole reason for the traffic. As this thread itself demonstrates, it's the community. So, even if someone did copy TechDirt -- which people apparently already do -- they never get nearly the traffic that TechDirt itself does because the readers of those ripoff sites eventually find their way here and see the benefits of reading the original.
On the post: Sony Ebook Boss: DRM Needs To Stay And Ebooks Should Cost More Than $10
Irrelevant?
Won't e-book readers be all but irrelevant in a few years anyway? I don't have an e-book reader, so I admit, I could be missing the point, but it's my understanding that people just don't read e-books on their laptops or a netbook because e-book readers have very specialized displays that can render text very well. But then wouldn't it make sense that eventually, companies would be able to make a screen that could display your run-of-the-mill laptop/netbook graphics in addition to very clear, easy-on-the-eyes text? In which case, the whole concept of an e-book reader will be about as popular as the word processor.
On the post: Sony Ebook Boss: DRM Needs To Stay And Ebooks Should Cost More Than $10
Re:
I'm not sure if I have the wording right, but in the UPS video that Mike did recently, he said "It's better to compete against yourself than have others compete against you." I think what your statements above don't take into account is that Sony e-books aren't just competing with Sony paper books, they're competing with other companies' e-books. So, regardless of whether Sony wants to maintain similar pricing, the marketplace will eventually dictate otherwise.
Also, in the minds of consumers an e-book that is the same price as a paper book is not "underpriced". It's overpriced. Because the very kind of person that would be willing to buy an e-book is the same kind of person who would know that the productions costs are dramatically lower and, but all rights, the price should be lower. As someone else pointed out, the price is what people are willing to pay, not what the seller wants to get.
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
All three are related to DRM because the person wouldn't need to looked for a cracked version in the first place if there weren't DRM.
and once it's broken the 'technical ability' required is near zero.
I think you're overestimating the technical ability of the average computer user. I'm not talking about the hard core gamer that knows his way around every aspect of their computer. For the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" to be disproved, all you have to do is find someone that tried to make a copy of a computer program for their friend or relative, found out that it didn't work just by copying the CD, and then said, "Oh well, I guess that didn't work. Sorry."
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
No, you can say that DRM stopped some piracy if you can show that DRM stopped some piracy. My point about the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is that the "in any way" clause takes us out of the realm of what the net effect is of DRM or the theoretical sales figures without DRM. The statement is disproved by one single example of somebody not bypassing DRM.
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
It's my guess that there are at least three major aspects to whether or not someone will attempt to find an illegitimate copy of something: 1) their interest level 2) their technical ability and 3) their fear of getting caught. So, using your example, someone may really want a copy of something, but may not know even where to start looking or, even if they did, may judge that it's more risk than they want to deal with.
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Well, the overall question is whether "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way", not whether DRM is absolutely secure. Just because someone is smart enough to bypass DRM illegitimately, doesn't mean that there aren't others out there, the "casual pirates", that are either "too ignorant" to bypass it illegitimately or just simply can't be bothered.
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
You can't, because it doesn't exist. DRM has never stopped piracy in any way.
If you look at a particular item of media -- a movie, a song, a TV show, a computer program -- the statement holds true that DRM has not stopped piracy. Once a single copy of, for example, a computer game has been cracked, it's now available to everyone on the Internet who searches hard enough. But what about on a per copy basis? Can't you say that DRM has stopped individuals from copying a computer game? Sure, if they looked hard enough, they could find a cracked version, but that's often more trouble than it's worth, so in that particular case, DRM did stop piracy.
In fact, this is the reason that you can make the case that selling people non-DRM'ed media at a fair price is a viable business model, because if you make it easy for people to buy legitimatelly and add value to that experience, people will pay money in spite of there being pirated copies available somewhere on the Internet.
I just think that the statement "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is not literally true and does a disservice to the argument against DRM. It uses the same twisted logic of studies sponsored by the RIAA/MPAA that fail to take into account the possible benefits of piracy. Yes, on the whole it may not stop piracy and (I believe) is a counterproductive business strategy, but all you have to do is find one person who tried to copy a game, couldn't because of some DRM, and then didn't go out and get a cracked version and you've disproved the statement.
To me, saying that "DRM has never stopped piracy in any way" is like saying that speed limits have never stopped speeding in any way. Sure, you can drive on any road in America and see examples of people speeding, but that doesn't mean that speed limits have never stopped any speeding.
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re:
Astroturfing simply means a fake grass roots effort. Fair enough if you've seen this used in the context of being critical of conservative efforts, but the term itself has no left or right connotation.
Assuming this is accurate, then I have a difficult time understanding why these same users are viewed by some of the commenters above are likely to be misled and encouraged to express an opinion by the dangling of a "carrot" in front of them.
The problem is not encouraging people to express an opinion. The problem obviously is that people are being paid to express a specific opinion. If you think that the people who are paying this virtual money care whether or not the recipients actually hold the opinion they're supporting, then I believe you're seriously mistaken. Do you seriously not see the difference between "write your congressperson and tell them what you think about healthcare reform" and "write your congressperson and tell them you that you oppose healthcare reform and we'll pay you with virtual money"?
Again, this does seem to be an innovative way to get a message out and solicit support for political action.
Just because something is innovative, doesn't mean it's good. Credit default swaps were innovative, but you won't find too many outspoken supporters of them these days.
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
Repeatedly restating the same opinion does not equate to supporting an assertion. You said that Mike does not agree that the US health care system should be reformed and that because the lobbying is in favor of US healthcare reform, he characterizes the lobbying as the derogatory term "astroturfing". The only problem is that there is nothing in Mike's post that indicates his opinion on the health care reform issue or that he would hold an hypocritical viewpoint if the lobbying were pro-healthcare reform.
See, usually when a reasonable person wants to make an assertion, they make it and provide some supporting evidence or ideas. You, on the otherhand, are hiding behing the it's-so-obvious-I-shouldn't-have-to-explain-it technique. A technique which is, ironically, itself an obvious copout.
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
So, for the third time, you've refused to actually support your assertion. If it's so obvious, then it should be a simple matter to explain your reasoning. The fact that you won't explain your reasoning, even after repeated requests and responses, would logically indicate that you in fact don't have any justification for your assertion.
You are choosing not to see it, that is your right. Enjoy it.
To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." I see a pattern developing. First, you accuse Mike of slanting the article to match his political leanings without providing any evidence other than "it's obvious". Then, when someone questions your unsupported assertions, your reply is that I must be blinding myself to the obvious. Well, I'd rather be blind than see things that aren't there.
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
Clever Support Group Uses Social Gaming to Engage Youth
You've simply restated your assertion without providing any evidence. So, this is two posts you've made where you accuse Mike of some political slant where none is obvious from the post. I'm sure Mike has an opinion on health care reform and since he's not a journalist he's under no obligation to hide this opinion, but what is being lobbied is all but irrelevant to the point of the post which is the problematic nature of the lobbying.
Astroturfing is wrong. Astroturfing is being combined with games on social networking sites. Mike posted a comment about how this is wrong. You state that he wouldn't think it was wrong if the topic of the astroturfing were different. I repeat...and you know this how?
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re: Re: Re: Mutually exclusive
It's not different. They're both astroturf. I don't think I implied otherwise. Is applying a definition, like "astroturf", to all cases which meet the criteria, regardless of whether it's "left" or "right" so rare that you have to jump to this conclusion?
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
And you know this how?
The post is packed full of derogatory terms, just as "astroturfing", "scams", etc.
And your point is? You might as well have said the post is full of verbs and nouns.
It isn't hard to figure out that Mike must be a very big supporter of the government's plan.
Not hard if you have a loose grasp on reality and jump to conclusions based on little to no evidence.
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re:
I think you're missing the point. The issue is not the goal of the lobbying organization, but the method of the lobbying. They could be lobbying to give free puppies to disabled orphans of war veterans and lobbying scheme would still be wrong.
On the post: Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
Re: Mutually exclusive
You can't be serious. Using your logic, bribing a politician would be OK as long as he was going to vote that way anyway. A bribe is a bribe. Do you honestly think that the people who developed this scheme intend for people who oppose health care reform to "pass on the offer"? Please.
Next >>