These retarded devices were supposed to be used for MASS TRANSPORTATION?
Uh, no they weren't. You know what mass transportation means right? No one ever said that there'd be Segway buses or Segway trams. As for the rest of your little scenario, it's pretty much all a strawman argument because the Segway was never intended for highway commutes.
Did the Segway live up to the overblown hype? No. But that had more to do with the level of hype and people like you that based on their opinions the hype rather than what Kamen and crew actually said.
Besides, providing more examples of why the Segway sucks is missing the point of the article. It failed not because of all of these examples, but because these examples existed in the first place because Kamen believed he could release his baby, fully-formed onto the world and that he would somehow be immune the normal market forces that demand ongoing innovation.
It does seem rather pointless to get worked up about Alaska abusing copyright when there's no information provided in the linked article to support the assertion. Would I be surprised if a government were abusing copyright in this way? No, but until there's at least some proof that this is what Alaska is doing, it's a non-issue.
Every now and then, I make the mistake of looking in the comments section after a newspaper article, and it's always a cesspit.
But this actually supports Mike's point. If you don't do anything to help it be otherwise, don't be surprised when your comments section is nothing more than a cesspit. It's like a record company offering to sell the public online music that is delivered via a crappy interface with a tiny selection and laden with debilitating DRM and then turning around and saying "A ha! I told you the public didn't want to buy online music!"
It channels them into a fairly harmless (but public) venue, and all the normal people who want to discuss something in a rational fashion go blog
This may work for the reader, but this model means that the newspapers are allowing someone else to gain value from what could be their community. If you think that comments sections can't be improved, or worse yet, that getting feedback from your users isn't worthwhile in the first place, bloggers and other parties are just going to eat your lunch.
However, it is practically impossible to encourage intelligent discourse if you haven't done some prerequisite limitation of asinine comments.
I think the Techdirt comments section proves you wrong. Sure, we get comments from shills, idiots, newbies, and the masters of the straw man argument and the ad hominem attack, but for the most part there is some very intelligent discourse here.
"[T]hey [comments sections] create a self-perpetuating cycle in which anonymous, unverified information creeps into legitimate news coverage in ways that haven't been fully vetted" - Douglas Bailey
"Fully vetted"? I'm sure this comment would justify his opinion, but Douglas Bailey if a fucking idiot. This asinine statement makes the obvious implication that all readers of comments sections are drooling idiots that can't differentiate opinion from fact. No, Mr. Bailey, we don't believe everything just because "I read it on the Internet." We actually guage whether something is true or not instead of taking everything at face value as you appear to assume we do.
No wonder he doesn't want to hear from readers. He thinks we're so stupid that we'd have nothing to contribute anyway. Better to get "fully vetted" news spoonfed to us from the arbiters of truth.
Google also does not respect robots.txt 100% of the time
You tell me which is a more compeling argument...
A) We're really pissed off that Google is linking to our web site but we can't be bothered to implement a simple technical solution that would stop this.
B) We don't want Google linking to our web site, but they're ignoring our configuration and linking to it anyway.
Because the AP is choosing option A, it's all but irrelevent whether Google respects robots.txt 100% of the time. Right now, the ball is in the AP's court.
Well, that doesn't make the argument flawed, does it? It just means the AP doesn't have a leg to stand on
Exactly. Google knows that the AP knows about robots.txt. So the purpose of the Google blog post is not to let the AP know about robots.txt, it's to let everyone else know that the AP knows about robots.txt, which will result in undermining the AP's arguments for a legislative "solution".
Re: And you people talk about the decline of journalism?
The reasons behind this were public knowledge months ago, BEFORE WoW was taken down in China. I will leave it to those of intelligence with the interest in the topic to find the info themselves.
You do realize that when most people read this kind of unsubstantiated accusation, they either just flat out ignore it or at least question its authenticity. By making such a big deal about how Techdirt didn't take into account some key information and then not actually telling us what that key information is, the natural conclusion is that the key information doesn't really exist. If you're actually trying to convince someone of your point, you'd be better served by making that point rather than throwing out a shadowy accusation and putting the burden of researching your point on the reader.
People, for whatever reason, can't stand to see other people benefit from their work.
From a sociobiological standpoint, I think the reason is simply that humans are hardwired to view property as a zero sum game. If, for millions of years, the only way that you could have a bone with some meat on it was for someone else not to have it, you're going to have a harder time wrapping your primal monkey brain around the idea that it's OK to be better off even when others are more better off. The contradiction is a result of how we evolved clashing with the modern concept of intangible property.
But I believe Mike is talking about the benefits of "externalities" outside of the application of copyright to make the point that positive "externalities" flow both ways and to everyone's benefit. However, I don't think you can completely divorce those benefits from copyright except in the very abstract (at least not in the current climate).
I don't think Mike is saying that you can, so I'm having a hard time seeing exactly why you're saying that he "misstates the situation". Mike is saying that the AP applies a double standard in that they can benefit from transforming content from others, but that once the AP transforms the content, all further transformations are prohibited. Your corrections appear to be stating that AP is not applying a double standard because the content becomes copyrighted when the AP does the transformation. But, under the current copyright system, whether the content is copyrighted is irrelevent. What is relevent is the amount of transformation.
So...how exactly is Mike misstating the situation?
And, yet, when it comes to the other direction, suddenly the AP says that no one else might benefit from externalities based on content it created and to which it owns the rights. Only it may benefit from externalities freely given by newsmakers, which it transforms by its reporting.
Your "corrections" involve two aspects, who owns the original content and the transformation of the original content. However, in terms of fair use, it doesn't matter who owns the original content. Specifically, you can have a legitimate fair use claim on either content that is "freely given" or copyrighted, as long as it's transformative.
Also, while it does seem to be better from a moral perspective to credit the original source, from a legal standpoint, I don't believe that this is a requirement for a fair use claim.
Anyway - if someone really wants to shake things up - then one of the musicians that were sampled, and one that supports fair use, should go ahead and sue.
This sounds like a plot twist worthy of a Law and Order episode. Artist A sues Artist B for copyright infringement, but Artist A purposely bungles the case by only using arguments that can be easilly refuted by Artist B.
Perhaps the lawyers at the record labels (and representing certain musicians) have all recognized the same thing. Gillis will almost certainly win in court, and all those terribly decided cases that ignore fair use in music will get pushed aside.
At the risk of being a pollyanna, I think that the pendulum will swing back to fair use in spite of the record label lawyers choosing their battles. The more times the lawyers have to pull their punches on people like Gillis, the greater the public perception will be that this kind of work really is fair use. Sure, it'd be nice to get a court decision that reversed the trend in case law, but I think the record labels and their lawyers are in a no-win situation. Damned if they sue, damned (eventually) if they don't.
it's possible they either found that LAN support was turning out poorly, or that they realized they had to cut *something* to make it to market.
This may be true, but it's besides the point. The issue is not why a feature was removed or even whether it was removed before or after the release. As you allude to, the issue is the blatantly transparent falsehood that these changes are made for the benefit of the consumer. Fair enough if you believe that removing a feature will help decrease piracy or that you're overbudget and have to cut a feature. But don't treat us like drooling idiots that will accept the lame line about doing it for our own good. That's the galling part.
Re: Re: Re: First Amendment and Copyright Injunctions
His discussion of the parody issue draws on false distinctions and is misleading. It's not that the court is suggesting that parody is the only form of fair use in these types of situations, it's that parodies are presumptively fair use and the defendant's main argument was that the sequel was a parody. Therefore, it was important for the court to debunk that argument.
I have to agree with you here. From the linked article...
"Mr. Colting's lawyers argued, among other things, that the new novel, titled '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,' did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work."
It's my understanding that a judge rules on the arguments that are actually presented, not any possible argument. So, if Colting's lawyer said, "Don't ban this book because it's a parody" the fact that the judge said that it wasn't a parody doesn't mean that only parodies are protected. Just that, in this particular case, the argument presented was not applicable.
I find it interesting that in the same post, you point out that Jammie is in a very good position to set a precedent, yet deem this to be not "prudent" or "smart". I don't consider doing the right thing in spite of the risks as imprudent and stupid. I simply think of it as...well, doing the right thing.
When I hear of companies who cave to outlandish copyright claims by settling, I realize that from a practical standpoint, it's cheaper than going to court. But by not fighting back, they allow similar types of extortion to go on. They're basically saying a big fuck you to any other company (or worse) individual out there. "Hey, I settled, so I'm covered. Now you deal with the problem."
But while overall revenues are being hit by falling CD sales and lower income from music in advertising, Porter said 80% of the decline can be blamed on interest rate cuts.
I'm no accountant, but it seems like they are mixing up (perhaps purposely) two different categories of money. One category is the money they collect on behalf of the artists. (This is affected by "falling CD sales".) The other category is the additional money they make by using the money from the first category before it's passed back to the artists. (This is affected by "interest rate cuts".)
If they're using the term "overall revenue" to include both of these catagories of money, I take this to mean that the 80% drop is affecting the second category, not the first. In other words, all the article is saying is that the profits that the collection agency gets to keep for itself are going to be a hell of a lot less than they were last year. Based on my reading of the original article, they never actually touch on the effect on the money distributed back out to artists.
Given this, I don't see how this is relevent to the issue of "people complaining about how much songwriters are 'hurt' by file sharing". While I think the article uses wording that, at best, doesn't make clear the distinction between the money made by the collection agency and the artists, it really is just about how much the collection ageny is hurting, not the artists.
In the old days, people bought music albums and listened to the radio.
LOL. Did you have walk to school in the snow, up hill, both ways when you were a kid? Get off my lawn! But seriously folks...in those four paragraphs, all I heard was you have a problem with people using technology to experience more pleasure from music. Again, this is bad...because?
The movie industry is worried about piracy too, but you don't see...
You're not seriously pointing to the movie industry as an example of moderate copyright enforcement? Please. If there's any reason that the movie industry hasn't gone as far as the music industry, it's that in some small number of cases, they've learned their lesson from watching the music industry.
You don't see people obsessed with having 100+ movies on their iPod before leaving the house.
I have some friends/family who obsess about getting a DVD or Blue Ray as soon as it comes out. Others, about cramming as much music as they can onto their iPod. But the visibility of these collectors in public places has more to do with the size of storage devices and screens than it does a fundamental difference in what people collect or obsess over.
On the post: Why Segway Failed To Reshape The World: Focused On Invention, Rather Than Innovation
Re: Re:
Uh, no they weren't. You know what mass transportation means right? No one ever said that there'd be Segway buses or Segway trams. As for the rest of your little scenario, it's pretty much all a strawman argument because the Segway was never intended for highway commutes.
Did the Segway live up to the overblown hype? No. But that had more to do with the level of hype and people like you that based on their opinions the hype rather than what Kamen and crew actually said.
Besides, providing more examples of why the Segway sucks is missing the point of the article. It failed not because of all of these examples, but because these examples existed in the first place because Kamen believed he could release his baby, fully-formed onto the world and that he would somehow be immune the normal market forces that demand ongoing innovation.
On the post: For East Texas Patent Lawyers: Maybe Next Time Don't Sue Random Open Source Developers
Re: Open Source ???? Hmm...
I think the main point is not that the company being sued is open source, but rather that it no longer exists.
On the post: Alaska Officials Using Copyright To Try To Stifle Images Of Killed Wolves
Re: Re:
On the post: Media Consultant: Comments Are Bad, Please Shut Up
But this actually supports Mike's point. If you don't do anything to help it be otherwise, don't be surprised when your comments section is nothing more than a cesspit. It's like a record company offering to sell the public online music that is delivered via a crappy interface with a tiny selection and laden with debilitating DRM and then turning around and saying "A ha! I told you the public didn't want to buy online music!"
It channels them into a fairly harmless (but public) venue, and all the normal people who want to discuss something in a rational fashion go blog
This may work for the reader, but this model means that the newspapers are allowing someone else to gain value from what could be their community. If you think that comments sections can't be improved, or worse yet, that getting feedback from your users isn't worthwhile in the first place, bloggers and other parties are just going to eat your lunch.
On the post: Media Consultant: Comments Are Bad, Please Shut Up
Re:
I think the Techdirt comments section proves you wrong. Sure, we get comments from shills, idiots, newbies, and the masters of the straw man argument and the ad hominem attack, but for the most part there is some very intelligent discourse here.
On the post: Media Consultant: Comments Are Bad, Please Shut Up
"Fully vetted"? I'm sure this comment would justify his opinion, but Douglas Bailey if a fucking idiot. This asinine statement makes the obvious implication that all readers of comments sections are drooling idiots that can't differentiate opinion from fact. No, Mr. Bailey, we don't believe everything just because "I read it on the Internet." We actually guage whether something is true or not instead of taking everything at face value as you appear to assume we do.
No wonder he doesn't want to hear from readers. He thinks we're so stupid that we'd have nothing to contribute anyway. Better to get "fully vetted" news spoonfed to us from the arbiters of truth.
On the post: Google To Newspapers: Here, Let Me Introduce You To Robots.txt
Re:
You tell me which is a more compeling argument...
A) We're really pissed off that Google is linking to our web site but we can't be bothered to implement a simple technical solution that would stop this.
B) We don't want Google linking to our web site, but they're ignoring our configuration and linking to it anyway.
Because the AP is choosing option A, it's all but irrelevent whether Google respects robots.txt 100% of the time. Right now, the ball is in the AP's court.
On the post: Google To Newspapers: Here, Let Me Introduce You To Robots.txt
Re: Re:
Exactly. Google knows that the AP knows about robots.txt. So the purpose of the Google blog post is not to let the AP know about robots.txt, it's to let everyone else know that the AP knows about robots.txt, which will result in undermining the AP's arguments for a legislative "solution".
On the post: But Who's Doing All That World Of Warcraft Gold Farming While WoW Is Down In China?
Re:
You don't see any problem with breaking the terms of service and cheating?
On the post: But Who's Doing All That World Of Warcraft Gold Farming While WoW Is Down In China?
Re: And you people talk about the decline of journalism?
You do realize that when most people read this kind of unsubstantiated accusation, they either just flat out ignore it or at least question its authenticity. By making such a big deal about how Techdirt didn't take into account some key information and then not actually telling us what that key information is, the natural conclusion is that the key information doesn't really exist. If you're actually trying to convince someone of your point, you'd be better served by making that point rather than throwing out a shadowy accusation and putting the burden of researching your point on the reader.
On the post: The Psychology Of Externalities: Only I Can Benefit
Re: This sums up the problem
From a sociobiological standpoint, I think the reason is simply that humans are hardwired to view property as a zero sum game. If, for millions of years, the only way that you could have a bone with some meat on it was for someone else not to have it, you're going to have a harder time wrapping your primal monkey brain around the idea that it's OK to be better off even when others are more better off. The contradiction is a result of how we evolved clashing with the modern concept of intangible property.
On the post: The Psychology Of Externalities: Only I Can Benefit
Re: Re: Re: Missing the Forest...
I don't think Mike is saying that you can, so I'm having a hard time seeing exactly why you're saying that he "misstates the situation". Mike is saying that the AP applies a double standard in that they can benefit from transforming content from others, but that once the AP transforms the content, all further transformations are prohibited. Your corrections appear to be stating that AP is not applying a double standard because the content becomes copyrighted when the AP does the transformation. But, under the current copyright system, whether the content is copyrighted is irrelevent. What is relevent is the amount of transformation.
So...how exactly is Mike misstating the situation?
On the post: The Psychology Of Externalities: Only I Can Benefit
Re: Missing the Forest...
Your "corrections" involve two aspects, who owns the original content and the transformation of the original content. However, in terms of fair use, it doesn't matter who owns the original content. Specifically, you can have a legitimate fair use claim on either content that is "freely given" or copyrighted, as long as it's transformative.
Also, while it does seem to be better from a moral perspective to credit the original source, from a legal standpoint, I don't believe that this is a requirement for a fair use claim.
On the post: Why Hasn't The Recording Industry Sued Girl Talk?
Re: Courts defining the law
This sounds like a plot twist worthy of a Law and Order episode. Artist A sues Artist B for copyright infringement, but Artist A purposely bungles the case by only using arguments that can be easilly refuted by Artist B.
On the post: Why Hasn't The Recording Industry Sued Girl Talk?
Damned if they sue...
At the risk of being a pollyanna, I think that the pendulum will swing back to fair use in spite of the record label lawyers choosing their battles. The more times the lawyers have to pull their punches on people like Gillis, the greater the public perception will be that this kind of work really is fair use. Sure, it'd be nice to get a court decision that reversed the trend in case law, but I think the record labels and their lawyers are in a no-win situation. Damned if they sue, damned (eventually) if they don't.
On the post: Blizzard The Latest To Kill Features, Call It An Upgrade
Re: Well, sort of
This may be true, but it's besides the point. The issue is not why a feature was removed or even whether it was removed before or after the release. As you allude to, the issue is the blatantly transparent falsehood that these changes are made for the benefit of the consumer. Fair enough if you believe that removing a feature will help decrease piracy or that you're overbudget and have to cut a feature. But don't treat us like drooling idiots that will accept the lame line about doing it for our own good. That's the galling part.
On the post: District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?
Re: Re: Re: First Amendment and Copyright Injunctions
I have to agree with you here. From the linked article...
"Mr. Colting's lawyers argued, among other things, that the new novel, titled '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,' did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work."
It's my understanding that a judge rules on the arguments that are actually presented, not any possible argument. So, if Colting's lawyer said, "Don't ban this book because it's a parody" the fact that the judge said that it wasn't a parody doesn't mean that only parodies are protected. Just that, in this particular case, the argument presented was not applicable.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award
Re: If not her, then who?
When I hear of companies who cave to outlandish copyright claims by settling, I realize that from a practical standpoint, it's cheaper than going to court. But by not fighting back, they allow similar types of extortion to go on. They're basically saying a big fuck you to any other company (or worse) individual out there. "Hey, I settled, so I'm covered. Now you deal with the problem."
On the post: The Real Problem For The Music Industry Is... Interest Rates?
"Revenue"?
I'm no accountant, but it seems like they are mixing up (perhaps purposely) two different categories of money. One category is the money they collect on behalf of the artists. (This is affected by "falling CD sales".) The other category is the additional money they make by using the money from the first category before it's passed back to the artists. (This is affected by "interest rate cuts".)
If they're using the term "overall revenue" to include both of these catagories of money, I take this to mean that the 80% drop is affecting the second category, not the first. In other words, all the article is saying is that the profits that the collection agency gets to keep for itself are going to be a hell of a lot less than they were last year. Based on my reading of the original article, they never actually touch on the effect on the money distributed back out to artists.
Given this, I don't see how this is relevent to the issue of "people complaining about how much songwriters are 'hurt' by file sharing". While I think the article uses wording that, at best, doesn't make clear the distinction between the money made by the collection agency and the artists, it really is just about how much the collection ageny is hurting, not the artists.
On the post: Microsoft, Yahoo And Real Sued For Failing To Get All Necessary Licenses For Music Stores
Re: Re: Re:
LOL. Did you have walk to school in the snow, up hill, both ways when you were a kid? Get off my lawn! But seriously folks...in those four paragraphs, all I heard was you have a problem with people using technology to experience more pleasure from music. Again, this is bad...because?
The movie industry is worried about piracy too, but you don't see...
You're not seriously pointing to the movie industry as an example of moderate copyright enforcement? Please. If there's any reason that the movie industry hasn't gone as far as the music industry, it's that in some small number of cases, they've learned their lesson from watching the music industry.
You don't see people obsessed with having 100+ movies on their iPod before leaving the house.
I have some friends/family who obsess about getting a DVD or Blue Ray as soon as it comes out. Others, about cramming as much music as they can onto their iPod. But the visibility of these collectors in public places has more to do with the size of storage devices and screens than it does a fundamental difference in what people collect or obsess over.
Next >>