Aggregation is a particularly effective and profitable form of free-riding, especially when you have no incentive or need to contribute in any way to the things you're aggregating.
Apart from making it easier for people to find content they care about in one easy place, of course.
And assuming you have any model that allows you make money from simply aggregating, and assuming your aggregation service in particular is one people will want to use, and assuming aggregation is some form of public menace and evil.
Reading further, it only seems to talk about fees for filing a case against someone, not a defendant who disputes a claim (so far, haven't gone through it all yet).
Nope, I didn't, but, like most commenters, I don't think I should be expected to automatically know about some post the author wrote three years ago. If I'm expected to have read his earlier essay, then he should've linked to it.
I guess you missed them then, seeing as they're linked on the front page.
No one expects you too, but it's common sense and etiquette. Browsing around the other articles would have been a much better way to spend your time rather than writing out that large comment, as then you would be able to see the exact same or similar arguments presented elsewhere, and see how they were argued against or debunked. This would either out your claims to rest, or allow you to formulate a better argument that doesn't follow the same pattern as every other person who disagrees, of which the arguments have been dealt with numerous times.
You mean the company that sells training, customization, and tech-support? That only works when you have a complex product that requires lots of experience. You simply aren't selling those things with most software. You can't seriously suggest that Blizzard can give-away Starcraft 2, and charge for "training, customization, and tech-support". On that system, would they make anything close to 1/20th the amount of money they make on sales? Besides, Red Hat piggy-backing on the work they get for free off of Linux.
When did I mention Blizzard?
And yeah, Red Hat piggybacks on Linux, despite the fact that they continue to invest and develop Linux, having created quite a hefty amount of software for it and having a large contribution to the Linux Kernel itself. There is in fact regular checks on who is the biggest contributor to Linux, and Red Hat is regularly amongst those at the top.
Not to mention you don't just ship Linux as is. Not only do you have to actively contribute if you're a company like Red Hat who wants to create something customers will want, you also have to work at producing further patches and further stabilising the product due to the high requirements of businesses.
On that system, would they make anything close to 1/20th the amount of money they make on sales?
Irrelevant hypothetical. Red Hat don't charge for software, because they employ a development model that allows them to produce software cheaper than normal (which means they inherently don't have to make as much back to cover it), and don't sell software because of the same realisations Mike has talked about in this post and various others. They only have any right to make as much money as they're ever going to make, no more, no less.
You can't seriously suggest that Blizzard can give-away Starcraft 2, and charge for "training, customization, and tech-support"
I'm seriously suggesting that Blizzard could find other ways to monetise the game if they were to make a product that was free upfront. They already have a services based model with WoW. They charge you for ongoing service and maintenance of servers (which help to provide a consistent, good experience), along with the production of new content.
If people are happy for pay for Starcraft 2, so be it. If they're not, you can't force them too because you're not creative enough to come up with another way to finance the creation of a large game, especially when there are models that allow you to develop cheaper. Either way, there doesn't appear to be a huge need for DRM of overly draconion copyright systems to allow them to do that, and that's the point.
The concept of "artificial scarcity" is used by the free-culture movement to suggest some sort of conspiracy to drive up prices (like DeBeer's and the diamond market). The reality is this: when digital media is everywhere, it ceases to have value. You can't sell software if getting free copies is trivial. What this means is that under "natural" conditions, the market value of digital media is zero. How do you get people to pay for something that has zero market value? You can't.
Tell that to Red Hat, Novell and Canonical all of whom make money from software that is freely distributable.
I suggest you take a little read around Techdirt before you post, Mike has gone over the economic principles many, many, many times.
This is the perfect place to apply innovative disruption. Currently, there has been a sudden explosion in mobile broadband with USB dongles. The competition is fast becoming mobile operators who don't need to try and buy up or create their own wired infrastructure, instead using their existing wireless networks and continuing to improve beyond 3G. Add to that the improving Wi-Fi standards, they have some trouble coming.
Should note I'm in the UK, not sure how different the market is in the US.
As more and more unknown bands put stuff on the internet (videos, music, etc), the more the noise level grows and the less chance anyone has to stand out. It is actually a self defeating concept, similar to having a shopping mall with nothing but coffee shops and spatula stores. While both coffee and spatulas are useful and people want them, nobody has the time or desire to wade through many coffee shops or spatula stores to get the best price or find the best product.
From the beginning of time people have speculated on "information Overload". At any point in history,looking forward always seems like it'll be a mess of too much information and too many things going on to be possibly dealt with.
But this has never happened and never will, nor is it a self defeating concept. With more information comes better filters. From explicit products like Google search or Last.fm that provide helpful suggestions and search tools using a mixture of popularity and relevance, so too do humans themselves change their behaviours, or should I say their own filters, alongside the usual network effects that this entails from people sharing music with close friends (who might generally trust their taste and recommendations more). Any artist who strikes a chord (ba dum chsh) will inevitably be shared out with strong recommendation, who will then gain better footing from search products, from there getting further and further.
He said exactly what he had to say--that his customers and their needs and desires were the reason for the changes to Facebook's privacy. The truth that he knows, that is obvious, but that apparently you are completely oblivious to, is that the changes were to bolster the service's competitiveness for the future.
Except that this is exactly what Mike said, but it doesn't make sense to do this. Making your product more competitive inherently involves listening to your customers - in this case, not breaking their trust by mandating what they can and can't keep private, to try and compete with a product that doesn't actallly compete in regards as to what people use it for.
The extra disk is cheap, certainly not a bottom line breaker. Do you not think that the public considers getting two (or something three!) copies of a movie as a better deal?
Why would they when they already have the capability to produce copies easily at no extra cost and without scratching?
There's no better deal when you already have what they're giving you, but now apparently it's "approved".
The disc just adds extra expense, when they could decrease their cost by removing the DRM and the fees associated with licensing it and developing it into the hardware of DVD players.
He can't be familiar with Innovator's Dilemma type situations, as he's completely misjudged whether Facebook and Twitter even encroach on each others users (people using Twitter over Facebook, and Facebook over Twitter). A large part of the focus of the Innovators Dilemma and Innovators Solution was figuring out who you really compete against and why.
Twitter is a different use case than Facebook. Anything regarding social networking has some cross over, but there's little reason to start chasing Twitter. Especially in ways that breaks their trust by forcing them to share. If they kept it secret, then assume they have good reason too, and that this is part of the reason they're using your site. Social norms are dictated by people and their own choices, not ones you've dictated for them.
The vast majority of consumers are not experienced computer programmers capable of handling higher level languages. For the small percentage that can write it for themselves, well, more power to them. The point of DRM (or the lock on your door or the alarm on your car) isn't to 100% stop all illegal activity, but rather to stop the less determined from doing what they want.
You've missed the point. It doesn't matter that the majority of people aren't software developers, it matters that developers already have the methods available to them to produce software that allows their users or customers to rip the DVD's regardless, which already widely exists and is widely used.
The logic offered here is similar to saying that we should leave our cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition, because some people can steal a car without them - so why bother locking the car? I can make it pretty easily so that 99% of all people won't even consider stealing my car. In DRM terms, that would be beyond the perfect score.
Only if it's already widely known precisely how to break the lock in an easy and uniform way with very easy tools that allow for that, and only if the morality of stealing a car is the same as backing up a DVD to your PC for convenience and "just in case" scenarios.
There is no way, no ability to stop very clever end users from finding and circumventing DRM at this point. Nobody is suggesting it is the perfect solution. But for most of the people, most of the time, it does what it is intended to do, protect the content creators rights while allowing the general public to enjoy the product.
Thankfully most users are clever, and regularly use software that circumvents the DVD DRM whether they realise it's supposed to be illegal or not. They do this precisely because DRM stops them from enjoying the product the way they want, whilst content producers feel secure in their non-working protection scheme.
If you want to add to it or customise it, there is the easy to find and obviously labelled Software Centre. Changing theme is a matter of right clicking he desktop > change background, or System > Preferences > Appearance.
Unless your idea of customisation involves more fundamental problems and tasks like severe driver issues or a completely broken system, then please tell me where you'd need to use the command line to customise and add to Ubuntu, assuming a reasonable range if things covered in "customise and add"
Re: Re: Re: Not Going to Reduce Piracy of Real Windows
For a start, WINE is not an emulator. In fact, the name WINE stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator.
The rest of what you said you probably just restated after reading it somewhere else, and there's little real point in addressing it - suffice to say, it gets adressed pretty satisfactorily many times a day.
Seriosuly? You have no clue about the typical FOSS business model.
They do not put up pay walls. Red Had certainly have all their software under the GPL. In fact, CentOS is a rebuilt from source clone of RHEL (Red Hat's Linux based operating system, itself mostly under the GPL).
You pay for services relating to software, but there's no pay wall for the software itself - support, integration (business or OEM's that don't have the expertise in-house) amongst others. They use free distributions to drive use, with the higher use driving demand and value to other things. Very similar to the way how Techdirt uses free content, and on top of that provides certain products or services whose demand and value increases the more people are able to view their content.
Was that a troll? Microsofts only products that have been truly successful have been Office and Windows.
The reason people bought them was because they were above what free versions were doing - in other words, they added value to a degree that people would buy them, and were cheaper than more expensive alternatives.
As soon as Linux came onto netbooks for example, they dropped the price of XP dramatically to OEM's so as to fend Linux off - they knew competition was about to squeeze them out from underneath with a model that could provide an operating system for free.
Hosting for a start. Paying for developers to implement this for you, or taking the time to create it. Then Mike can also do more to attract people to his site.
This is the basis of every post. You can't expect to stay ahead of the competition if you don't do anything to stay ahead - and you don't know Mikes future plans, meaning catching up to where he is now - which may take months - may mean in that time that Mike has added more, meaning you have to continue trying to copy to fully "steal" his site, which may never happen due to the site itself continually moving and adding more value for people who visit.
Then as soon as Mikes site goes down, assuming you're site was successful and Mike stayed stagnant with the site, you would be forced into a bad position - a site with no new content, which then means you'd have to create your own. It's inherently short term, and inherently unstable, assuming success.
Because this site would still have an advantage - content would still appear here first, there's a community who comment and provide further value to the stories, along with access to the store, and certain niceties the store gives you that only apply on this site (insider badge for example).
On the post: Ubisoft's New DRM: Must Be Online To Play
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines
Re: Re:
Apart from making it easier for people to find content they care about in one easy place, of course.
And assuming you have any model that allows you make money from simply aggregating, and assuming your aggregation service in particular is one people will want to use, and assuming aggregation is some form of public menace and evil.
On the post: Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal
Court Fees
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Thejudicialsystem/DG_066863
http://w ww.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/7770.htm
Reading further, it only seems to talk about fees for filing a case against someone, not a defendant who disputes a claim (so far, haven't gone through it all yet).
On the post: Nina Paley vs. Jaron Lanier
You must've missed them
I guess you missed them then, seeing as they're linked on the front page.
No one expects you too, but it's common sense and etiquette. Browsing around the other articles would have been a much better way to spend your time rather than writing out that large comment, as then you would be able to see the exact same or similar arguments presented elsewhere, and see how they were argued against or debunked. This would either out your claims to rest, or allow you to formulate a better argument that doesn't follow the same pattern as every other person who disagrees, of which the arguments have been dealt with numerous times.
On the post: Nina Paley vs. Jaron Lanier
Re: Re: No evidence
When did I mention Blizzard?
And yeah, Red Hat piggybacks on Linux, despite the fact that they continue to invest and develop Linux, having created quite a hefty amount of software for it and having a large contribution to the Linux Kernel itself. There is in fact regular checks on who is the biggest contributor to Linux, and Red Hat is regularly amongst those at the top.
Not to mention you don't just ship Linux as is. Not only do you have to actively contribute if you're a company like Red Hat who wants to create something customers will want, you also have to work at producing further patches and further stabilising the product due to the high requirements of businesses.
Irrelevant hypothetical. Red Hat don't charge for software, because they employ a development model that allows them to produce software cheaper than normal (which means they inherently don't have to make as much back to cover it), and don't sell software because of the same realisations Mike has talked about in this post and various others. They only have any right to make as much money as they're ever going to make, no more, no less.
I'm seriously suggesting that Blizzard could find other ways to monetise the game if they were to make a product that was free upfront. They already have a services based model with WoW. They charge you for ongoing service and maintenance of servers (which help to provide a consistent, good experience), along with the production of new content.
If people are happy for pay for Starcraft 2, so be it. If they're not, you can't force them too because you're not creative enough to come up with another way to finance the creation of a large game, especially when there are models that allow you to develop cheaper. Either way, there doesn't appear to be a huge need for DRM of overly draconion copyright systems to allow them to do that, and that's the point.
On the post: Nina Paley vs. Jaron Lanier
No evidence
Tell that to Red Hat, Novell and Canonical all of whom make money from software that is freely distributable.
I suggest you take a little read around Techdirt before you post, Mike has gone over the economic principles many, many, many times.
On the post: Does Network Neutrality Make Economic Sense?
Innovative Disruption
Should note I'm in the UK, not sure how different the market is in the US.
On the post: Dear Rock Stars: Please Stop Claiming You're Just Interested In Helping Up-And-Coming Artists
Re: Re:
From the beginning of time people have speculated on "information Overload". At any point in history,looking forward always seems like it'll be a mess of too much information and too many things going on to be possibly dealt with.
But this has never happened and never will, nor is it a self defeating concept. With more information comes better filters. From explicit products like Google search or Last.fm that provide helpful suggestions and search tools using a mixture of popularity and relevance, so too do humans themselves change their behaviours, or should I say their own filters, alongside the usual network effects that this entails from people sharing music with close friends (who might generally trust their taste and recommendations more). Any artist who strikes a chord (ba dum chsh) will inevitably be shared out with strong recommendation, who will then gain better footing from search products, from there getting further and further.
Do you realise how much noise there already is?
On the post: Zuckerberg: People Are Comfortable Without Privacy, So We Threw Them All Over The Cliff
Re: Really?
Except that this is exactly what Mike said, but it doesn't make sense to do this. Making your product more competitive inherently involves listening to your customers - in this case, not breaking their trust by mandating what they can and can't keep private, to try and compete with a product that doesn't actallly compete in regards as to what people use it for.
On the post: Judge Says No Antitrust Violation In Hollywood Killing RealDVD
Why?
Why would they when they already have the capability to produce copies easily at no extra cost and without scratching?
There's no better deal when you already have what they're giving you, but now apparently it's "approved".
The disc just adds extra expense, when they could decrease their cost by removing the DRM and the fees associated with licensing it and developing it into the hardware of DVD players.
On the post: Zuckerberg: People Are Comfortable Without Privacy, So We Threw Them All Over The Cliff
He Can't Bet Familiar
Twitter is a different use case than Facebook. Anything regarding social networking has some cross over, but there's little reason to start chasing Twitter. Especially in ways that breaks their trust by forcing them to share. If they kept it secret, then assume they have good reason too, and that this is part of the reason they're using your site. Social norms are dictated by people and their own choices, not ones you've dictated for them.
On the post: Judge Says No Antitrust Violation In Hollywood Killing RealDVD
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Says No Antitrust Violation In Hollywood Killing RealDVD
Re: Re:
You've missed the point. It doesn't matter that the majority of people aren't software developers, it matters that developers already have the methods available to them to produce software that allows their users or customers to rip the DVD's regardless, which already widely exists and is widely used.
The logic offered here is similar to saying that we should leave our cars unlocked with the keys in the ignition, because some people can steal a car without them - so why bother locking the car? I can make it pretty easily so that 99% of all people won't even consider stealing my car. In DRM terms, that would be beyond the perfect score.
Only if it's already widely known precisely how to break the lock in an easy and uniform way with very easy tools that allow for that, and only if the morality of stealing a car is the same as backing up a DVD to your PC for convenience and "just in case" scenarios.
On the post: Microsoft Cracks Down On Windows Piracy In China... So Pirating Group Offers Up Ubuntu That Looks Like XP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Going to Reduce Piracy of Real Windows
http://www.winehq.org/myths#slow
If you want to add to it or customise it, there is the easy to find and obviously labelled Software Centre. Changing theme is a matter of right clicking he desktop > change background, or System > Preferences > Appearance.
Unless your idea of customisation involves more fundamental problems and tasks like severe driver issues or a completely broken system, then please tell me where you'd need to use the command line to customise and add to Ubuntu, assuming a reasonable range if things covered in "customise and add"
On the post: Microsoft Cracks Down On Windows Piracy In China... So Pirating Group Offers Up Ubuntu That Looks Like XP
Re: Re: Re: Not Going to Reduce Piracy of Real Windows
The rest of what you said you probably just restated after reading it somewhere else, and there's little real point in addressing it - suffice to say, it gets adressed pretty satisfactorily many times a day.
On the post: IsoHunt Loses Big; Court Says: You Induce, You Lose
Re: Just as it ever was
Thank God dreams aren't real.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really...
They do not put up pay walls. Red Had certainly have all their software under the GPL. In fact, CentOS is a rebuilt from source clone of RHEL (Red Hat's Linux based operating system, itself mostly under the GPL).
You pay for services relating to software, but there's no pay wall for the software itself - support, integration (business or OEM's that don't have the expertise in-house) amongst others. They use free distributions to drive use, with the higher use driving demand and value to other things. Very similar to the way how Techdirt uses free content, and on top of that provides certain products or services whose demand and value increases the more people are able to view their content.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: What?
The reason people bought them was because they were above what free versions were doing - in other words, they added value to a degree that people would buy them, and were cheaper than more expensive alternatives.
As soon as Linux came onto netbooks for example, they dropped the price of XP dramatically to OEM's so as to fend Linux off - they knew competition was about to squeeze them out from underneath with a model that could provide an operating system for free.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really...
Hosting for a start. Paying for developers to implement this for you, or taking the time to create it. Then Mike can also do more to attract people to his site.
This is the basis of every post. You can't expect to stay ahead of the competition if you don't do anything to stay ahead - and you don't know Mikes future plans, meaning catching up to where he is now - which may take months - may mean in that time that Mike has added more, meaning you have to continue trying to copy to fully "steal" his site, which may never happen due to the site itself continually moving and adding more value for people who visit.
Then as soon as Mikes site goes down, assuming you're site was successful and Mike stayed stagnant with the site, you would be forced into a bad position - a site with no new content, which then means you'd have to create your own. It's inherently short term, and inherently unstable, assuming success.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really...
Next >>