Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Feb 2013 @ 5:56am
Re:
On the other hand there is radio and television which transmits to large unknown, to the station, audiences.
Google is nothing like broadcasters. Radio/TV is a one-to-many platform. I personally wouldn't compare Google to a telephone company, either - telephones are a one-to-one platform. The internet is a many-to-many platform, and Google is just a small part of it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Feb 2013 @ 1:58pm
via Ars on same topic:
"PACER users paid about $120 million in 2012, thanks in part to a 25 percent fee hike announced in 2011. But Schultze says the judiciary's own figures show running PACER only costs around $20 million."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Feb 2013 @ 12:41pm
Re:
I think the fight against piracy is largely to hang on to what you've got.
I agree with that statement.
Here's the problem: In this case, trying to hang out to what you've got is both preventing you from embracing new oppurtunities AND not actually helping you to retain what you already have.
I agree that there are ways to increase revenue- largely via more robust, user-friendly distribution. But the viability of that will be undermined by the proliferation of piracy.
When attacking piracy prevents the user-friendly distribution, and is not effective in stopping piracy, you are loosing on both fronts at once.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Feb 2013 @ 12:09pm
Re: Like I said before...
The law of the land is granted to the government by the constitution, if it doesn't apply within 100 miles,
1) The federal government exists because of the Constitution.
2) The Constitution does not apply within 100mi of the nation's borders.
3) Washington DC is within the 100mi exclusion zone.
Therefore nearly all of the federal government doesn't exist.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Feb 2013 @ 6:29am
Re: This makes me sick
Too many lawyers and bureaucrats. They've taken over the creative side of free speech (music, movies, books), and now they're working on the news reporting side, too.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Feb 2013 @ 6:26am
Re:
But sometimes it's about honoring other people's wishes.
She is the subject of the story, using bogus legal threats to have a story about her censored.
Like it or not, this is a news story, and she doesn't get veto rights over it. Her tweets are an accurate account of what she said/did. They are an important part of the story.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 4:27pm
Re: Re: Re:
Facebook is a private walled club.
I don't disagree - I don't have a Facebook account and don't want one, so there's stuff behind that wall I don't have access to. My point is that other methods the SEC has been okay with releasing similar information are *far, far* more restrictive than Facebook.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 1:29pm
Re:
it is not a forum truly open to the public.
Facebook is far more open than many of the previous ways companies would release this type of information.
How many people are on the distribution list for press releases? And think about prior to email - how many individuals had access to wire services without a newspaper or other media outlet telling them what came across it? Investor/analyst conference calls were for years relatively closed - small investors were not allowed to join, and in the few cases they were, they certainly couldn't ask questions.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 10:04am
Re: Re: Re:
Rather than work to bring about change legitimately, he attempted to force people to change on his terms.
There's been a movement for open access for longer than we've been talking about Aaron. Thousands of academics had agreed to boycott Elsevier long before Aaron became the top story. The publishers had their chance to embrace change. Instead, they're fighting it.
You have the gall to call him selfish, when he is fighting for access to basic scientific knowledge for everyone? Who are the ones hoarding knowledge? Who are the ones doing it for monetary gain? And Aaron is the selfish one?
Answer me one question: whose rights was he not respecting? The only one (JSTOR) with any possible imaginary harm based on his actions were urging that all charges be dropped.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 8:47am
Re:
What is baffling is that you continue to demonize an incredibly brilliant and promising individual who promoted the open access of knowledge and dedicated his personal time and money to it.
He did not put himself over others. With his skills, he could've made millions starting his own for-profit company. Open access to knowledge for all was his goal, not the hoarding or ownership of it. He dedicated his life to the promotion of "the good of the many over the good of the few."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Feb 2013 @ 5:19am
Re: Stock Market
If you hold on to the shares and collect the dividends, then you won't loose any money. In fact, you will make money.
This is not necessarily true. Any company can implode and go all the way to zero. However small the chance, it is still possible. If you're not prepared for that, you shouldn't be in the market at all.
On the post: Providing Electronic Access To Public Records Is 'Expensive' And Other Government Excuses For PACER Fees
Re:
it would allow comprehensive study and analysis of how the law is working
Stop scaring the government, they don't like or want those things. They don't need your trust, they only need your obediance.
On the post: Providing Electronic Access To Public Records Is 'Expensive' And Other Government Excuses For PACER Fees
Re:
On the post: Providing Electronic Access To Public Records Is 'Expensive' And Other Government Excuses For PACER Fees
Re: Re: I wonder...
On the post: Aussie Court Realizes That Google Is Not Responsible For Content In Google Ads
Re:
Google is nothing like broadcasters. Radio/TV is a one-to-many platform. I personally wouldn't compare Google to a telephone company, either - telephones are a one-to-one platform. The internet is a many-to-many platform, and Google is just a small part of it.
On the post: Providing Electronic Access To Public Records Is 'Expensive' And Other Government Excuses For PACER Fees
"PACER users paid about $120 million in 2012, thanks in part to a 25 percent fee hike announced in 2011. But Schultze says the judiciary's own figures show running PACER only costs around $20 million."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/the-inside-story-of-aaron-swartzs-campaign-t o-liberate-court-filings/
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
Except if you're doing a better job promoting someone else's agenda and that someone else wants your stuff, it seems.
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Re: Re: Re: Meh on the UN Stuff
1) The domain was not stolen.
2) The domain holders are not taking advantage of confusion and are taking affirmative steps to prevent confusion.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are two contradictory thoughts. You've effectively said: "Piracy is the impetus for change, but piracy stops change."
Piracy is the competition. Stop fighting against it existing and adapt to beat it.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re:
I agree with that statement.
Here's the problem: In this case, trying to hang out to what you've got is both preventing you from embracing new oppurtunities AND not actually helping you to retain what you already have.
I agree that there are ways to increase revenue- largely via more robust, user-friendly distribution. But the viability of that will be undermined by the proliferation of piracy.
When attacking piracy prevents the user-friendly distribution, and is not effective in stopping piracy, you are loosing on both fronts at once.
On the post: Homeland Security: Not Searching Your Laptop Doesn't Benefit Your Civil Liberties, So We Can Do It
Re: Like I said before...
1) The federal government exists because of the Constitution.
2) The Constitution does not apply within 100mi of the nation's borders.
3) Washington DC is within the 100mi exclusion zone.
Therefore nearly all of the federal government doesn't exist.
So, problem solved, I guess.
On the post: Two Famous Journalism Institutions Shame Themselves By Not Standing Up For Basic Fair Use
Re: This makes me sick
On the post: Two Famous Journalism Institutions Shame Themselves By Not Standing Up For Basic Fair Use
Re:
She is the subject of the story, using bogus legal threats to have a story about her censored.
Like it or not, this is a news story, and she doesn't get veto rights over it. Her tweets are an accurate account of what she said/did. They are an important part of the story.
On the post: SEC Still Way Behind The Times In Dealing With The Way People Communicate
Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree - I don't have a Facebook account and don't want one, so there's stuff behind that wall I don't have access to. My point is that other methods the SEC has been okay with releasing similar information are *far, far* more restrictive than Facebook.
On the post: IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions
Re:
On the post: SEC Still Way Behind The Times In Dealing With The Way People Communicate
Re:
Facebook is far more open than many of the previous ways companies would release this type of information.
How many people are on the distribution list for press releases? And think about prior to email - how many individuals had access to wire services without a newspaper or other media outlet telling them what came across it? Investor/analyst conference calls were for years relatively closed - small investors were not allowed to join, and in the few cases they were, they certainly couldn't ask questions.
On the post: Oh Wait: MIT Already Made All Its Research Open; So Why Was It So Against Aaron Swartz?
Re: Re:
/s
On the post: Amoeba Records Deals With Orphan Works By Pretending It Can Just Digitize & Sell Now, But Pay Later
Re: Re: Re: who sues?
On the post: Oh Wait: MIT Already Made All Its Research Open; So Why Was It So Against Aaron Swartz?
Re: Re: Re:
There's been a movement for open access for longer than we've been talking about Aaron. Thousands of academics had agreed to boycott Elsevier long before Aaron became the top story. The publishers had their chance to embrace change. Instead, they're fighting it.
You have the gall to call him selfish, when he is fighting for access to basic scientific knowledge for everyone? Who are the ones hoarding knowledge? Who are the ones doing it for monetary gain? And Aaron is the selfish one?
Answer me one question: whose rights was he not respecting? The only one (JSTOR) with any possible imaginary harm based on his actions were urging that all charges be dropped.
On the post: Oh Wait: MIT Already Made All Its Research Open; So Why Was It So Against Aaron Swartz?
Re:
He did not put himself over others. With his skills, he could've made millions starting his own for-profit company. Open access to knowledge for all was his goal, not the hoarding or ownership of it. He dedicated his life to the promotion of "the good of the many over the good of the few."
On the post: Some Dell Shareholders Don't Know Much About This Leveraged Buyout, But They Know They Don't Like It
Re: Stock Market
This is not necessarily true. Any company can implode and go all the way to zero. However small the chance, it is still possible. If you're not prepared for that, you shouldn't be in the market at all.
Next >>