I am not Mike Masnick, so I don't have to agree with him.
when "information" is copied, it strips opportunity of getting money for doing so
We disagree here.
As I've said elsewhere, copyright was a reasonable way to get creators paid in earlier times, when copying was expensive.
Now that copying is essentially free, we need new ways to get creators paid. There are lots of other ways. The challenge is to find the best ones and setup institutions to implement them.
For the record, I think it's fantastic that these images are now public domain. I just don't think they necessarily had to be. If any other company took pictures of its product testing---a car company, a shipyard, a machine shop---should they be obligated to release all of those pictures?
This seems to be the main point of contention and confusion.
I don't think anyone is saying they should be obligated to release any (let alone all) of those pictures.
But many people are saying that if they choose to release a picture, then it's unreasonable that - after releasing it to the public - they still have an absolute chattel property right over it.
Because information is not like physical goods - it can be copied costlessly without depriving the original owner of anything.
For my part, I don't understand what is so onerous about providing attribution to the source of a photograph you're planning to use. If I didn't or couldn't take the picture myself, it seems like the minimum courtesy to at least credit the person who did.
I mostly agree with you here - I think it is indeed a minimum courtesy to credit the source. But I think a strong social convention is enough. I don't think there should be a right to sue for damages over it.
It's a donation toward somebody's art project. If you get anything in exchange, that's a bonus.
Just like any donation, you need to look at who is running the project, and decide not only if the goal is worthwhile, but if the people doing it seem competent enough to complete the project.
The problem on Kickstarter is that many, many of the people running projects - although they have the best of intentions - just are in over their head. They don't know how to manage stuff, how to spend money and time wisely, etc.
There is a reason many of them have trouble getting funded by conventional means.
The great part about Kickstarter tho is that it provides a way to test the market for a new product without committing anything - if not enough people "donate" (in anticipation of getting the product), they just give the money back and drop it.
This works great when the people running the project have a track record that shows they know what they're doing.
But my understanding of Kickstarter (at least) is that they aren't making the promise. They only promise is that they'll make a good-faith effort to complete the project and deliver the rewards.
You're funding a project, that may or may not be successful. Not buying a product. A year or so back Kickstarter changed a bunch of things to try to make this more clear to people.
I'm OK with this model. But I do expect a real good-faith effort to deliver.
If somebody just does a song-and-dance and then pockets the money, I agree that's fraud.
I'm surprised (and somewhat impressed) that the CBP didn't find an agent willing to simply lie to the court and claim they obtained consent for the X ray.
It's not like courts demand any evidence of consent, like a video recording or a signature on a form.
...and a majority of Congress appears to have decided that this instance of soldiers literally dying for the flag was worthy and wonderful enough to become the topic of the national anthem.
Whereas I look at as a foolish waste of life - as George S. Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that's why it's called "Congress". Because it's the opposite of "Progress".
And yet again we introduce new rules and regulations to ease the symptoms instead of addressing the disease.
If we allowed real, open competition in the provision of telecoms, Verizon would never have been able to get away with this bullshit - their customers would have walked away.
But we let VZ and their cronies write the rules to keep out competitors. So now when they abuse their quasi-monopoly we write more rules telling them not to do that.
The reason why DC VIPs get special service is because the cable business (Comcast) is heavily regulated ("managed"), so these VIPs have a big influence on Comcast's business.
Maybe I'm missing your point. But if "the free-market brigade" got their way, the DC powers-that-be wouldn't be able to (a) push Comcast around, or (b) push around Comcast's competitors (making life easier for Comcast).
So then Comcast would have no reason to give the VIPs the red carpet treatment.
On the post: Elon Musk Says SpaceX Photos Are Now Fully Public Domain
Re: Re: Digital versus Physical goods.
We disagree here.
As I've said elsewhere, copyright was a reasonable way to get creators paid in earlier times, when copying was expensive.
Now that copying is essentially free, we need new ways to get creators paid. There are lots of other ways. The challenge is to find the best ones and setup institutions to implement them.
Defending the broken status quo is not helpful.
On the post: Elon Musk Says SpaceX Photos Are Now Fully Public Domain
Re: everything "needs" to be public domain
I don't think anyone is saying they should be obligated to release any (let alone all) of those pictures.
But many people are saying that if they choose to release a picture, then it's unreasonable that - after releasing it to the public - they still have an absolute chattel property right over it.
Because information is not like physical goods - it can be copied costlessly without depriving the original owner of anything.
I mostly agree with you here - I think it is indeed a minimum courtesy to credit the source. But I think a strong social convention is enough. I don't think there should be a right to sue for damages over it.
[Kudos to Mr. Musk. You are one of my heros.]
On the post: TPP Talks Hung Up On Intellectual Property Issues: Maybe Just Drop That Section
Re: The TPP is an end run around democracy. We should call it that and nothing else. It is not about trade.
It could be about anything at all or nothing.
As for being an "end run around democracy", well is that necessarily a bad thing? Look at our democratically-elected Congress...
On the post: Texas Lawmaker Wants To Make It Illegal To Film Cops From Less Than 25 Feet Away
How does filming threaten police?
(Other than exposing their indiscretions, that is.)
On the post: Not So Awesome Stuff: Your Worst Crowdfunding Project?
Re: Re: [investment]
Just like any donation, you need to look at who is running the project, and decide not only if the goal is worthwhile, but if the people doing it seem competent enough to complete the project.
The problem on Kickstarter is that many, many of the people running projects - although they have the best of intentions - just are in over their head. They don't know how to manage stuff, how to spend money and time wisely, etc.
There is a reason many of them have trouble getting funded by conventional means.
The great part about Kickstarter tho is that it provides a way to test the market for a new product without committing anything - if not enough people "donate" (in anticipation of getting the product), they just give the money back and drop it.
This works great when the people running the project have a track record that shows they know what they're doing.
But donor beware.
On the post: Not So Awesome Stuff: Your Worst Crowdfunding Project?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But my understanding of Kickstarter (at least) is that they aren't making the promise. They only promise is that they'll make a good-faith effort to complete the project and deliver the rewards.
You're funding a project, that may or may not be successful. Not buying a product. A year or so back Kickstarter changed a bunch of things to try to make this more clear to people.
I'm OK with this model. But I do expect a real good-faith effort to deliver.
If somebody just does a song-and-dance and then pockets the money, I agree that's fraud.
On the post: The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law
Re: Ayn Rand Fantasyland
Not everyone who thinks people ought to be free to live their own lives is your enemy, y'know?
On the post: The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law
Re: Re: What about the tinfoil hat guys?
On the post: 532,900,000 Reasons Why We Need Patent Reform Now
Re: Hmmm
Because if you find something and then are found to infringe it, that's willful infringement and you get hit harder.
So any "advancement of the state of the art" in published patents is effectively kept away from people actually trying to build things.
On the post: 532,900,000 Reasons Why We Need Patent Reform Now
Re: Re: the troll will take it and go after others as well
The problem is that the trolls use the money from their first victim to fund pursuit of others.
I've seen it happen over and over.
On the post: Judge Tosses 16 Kilos Of Meth Because CBP Couldn't Be Bothered To Obtain Consent For Its X-Ray Search
Re: A loss of respect
It's not like courts demand any evidence of consent, like a video recording or a signature on a form.
On the post: School Principal Contacts FBI After Student Throws American Flag Out A Window
Re: Fort McHenry
Whereas I look at as a foolish waste of life - as George S. Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
But, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that's why it's called "Congress". Because it's the opposite of "Progress".
On the post: DailyDirt: Made In The USA Rockets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, Forth. Which doesn't even have typed variables.
On the post: Verizon's Last Tiny Shred Of Credibility On Net Neutrality Just Died
Re: Re: WDJ Editorial
If we allowed real, open competition in the provision of telecoms, Verizon would never have been able to get away with this bullshit - their customers would have walked away.
But we let VZ and their cronies write the rules to keep out competitors. So now when they abuse their quasi-monopoly we write more rules telling them not to do that.
I have a feeling this is going to end badly.
On the post: What Billions In Subsidies Bought: The Final Map Of Verizon's FiOS Fiber
Re: Success
Naturally, they wrote the laws in a way that gives them an effective monopoly, so they don't have to worry about competition.
Without competition, any industry is going to suck. It's just human nature.
On the post: Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
Re: Re: I blame the free-market brigade
The reason why DC VIPs get special service is because the cable business (Comcast) is heavily regulated ("managed"), so these VIPs have a big influence on Comcast's business.
Maybe I'm missing your point. But if "the free-market brigade" got their way, the DC powers-that-be wouldn't be able to (a) push Comcast around, or (b) push around Comcast's competitors (making life easier for Comcast).
So then Comcast would have no reason to give the VIPs the red carpet treatment.
Am I missing something here?
On the post: Prominent YouTube Personality Locked Out Of His Account After A Bogus Copyright Claim
"I don't want to support Google in their effort to appease the major content companies at the expense of actual people"
Google is the main lobbyist in favor of online rights - they have to obey existing law and stay in business despite those laws at the same time.
By boycotting Google for being less than 100% successful in their attempts to improve the law, you are punishing your best ally.
On the post: That Crazy Story About Making 'Hate Speech' A Crime? Yeah, That's Satire
Colbert
If delivered in the right tone of voice, this might work...
On the post: That Crazy Story About Making 'Hate Speech' A Crime? Yeah, That's Satire
Re:
(I know, to you Dutch we all look alike...)
On the post: Hilariously Stupid Defamation Suit Against A Blogging Lawyer Tossed By New York Judge
"sanctions and costs are denied"???
If ever there was a case the justified costs shifted to the plaintiff, this would seem to be one.
Can somebody more familiar with these things explain what is going on here? This doesn't smell like justice.
Next >>