the other sites that don't get traffic even though they use your stories are doing something else wrong (separate discussion)
a good lawyer could help you claim copyright over current content at any time as long as it has your name attached to it, so I don't think your argument stands that your content is "public domain" per se, i think you'd still go after someone if they really affected your site's traffic by using your stuff;
yeah, i think most open-source apps have pay commercial options, especially the really large ones.
Unfortunately I don't have time to address all of these, but hopefully others will see my side and not just bash me here. Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate in order to make sure that all the avenues are covered, but basically:
It isn't up to me to do it, the point is there exist ways to do it and if a large company wanted to really cook your company's goose, it would be pretty easy for them to do given that they wouldn't have to worry about the content production.
Do you have any comment on me being called a gutless windbag for trying to get a discussion going about this topic?
Did I say I had done this before? Nope. It's not gutless, it's called a discussion. Do you argue with someone that says that it's possible to run the 100m in 10 seconds that if they can't do it, they are gutless and and empty windbag?
although... you can use up to 8 bars with a 'wink and a nod' and not have to pay generally speaking (rap music does this a lot.)
All of that relies on the content. If I have the content for free, then I can rebuild all of it except for a millisecond delay between when the posts appear. Then the only thing left for me to do is to provide something better, say, comment moderation like slashdot does, and boom, I have a majorly cool site with no content development costs whatsoever.
The Police/Sting could absolutely get royalties off of you for that particular recording, according to the current recording deal laws.
I don't feel like doing that, because I am gainfully employed and I don't need the headache of dealing with the techdirt lawsuits, etc. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done just because I don't feel like it.
You use "Creator endorsed" marks... they seem so very close to copyright. This is what I was talking about in all my other posts, that inevitably you end up back at something like copyright even if you think you're not actually using the current "copyright" designation:
"A distributor may only use the mark with permission from the creator of the work, and creators may grant blanket permission to use particular versions of the mark to anyone who meets certain conditions. For example, the creator might say that anyone who shares any profits at all with them can use the generic "proceeds support" version of the mark"
Aside from public domain grandfathering after time, which obviously is not what this is about, even the most liberal of copyright licenses are still licenses that require some kind of payment for commercial use somewhere down the road, as I point out in examples in that same reply, such as open source software licensing that is free at home but pay for commercial license. Sure, you could install it at work, but people are compelled to pay for that.
More from that site:
"the song licensors require additional payments per 5,000 DVDs sold. "
If you are giving away content for free "unlimited", this is where the model breaks down.
From the site:
"Certain musical works included in Sita Sings the Blues, listed below, are subject to restrictive licenses. This is not by my choice; it is the result of retroactive copyright term extensions that I had no say in." So no, she couldn't just take whatever.
Exactly. And of course, I would exploit the story in the news to steal the last of the traffic away. Muhahaha! And that's how you use free content against itself.
It's not capitalism if I don't have to pay for the stories and the original site does. The only way they can compete with me is to turn around and charge me money for the stories, or cut off my access to the free stories. Otherwise, as I stated, I have an enormous financial advantage by not having to generate the seed content.
GPL is very different from what's being stipulated in the article. GPL means that if I am profiting, I also have to make my changes available for free for others to profit from my work. What the article's talking about is basically "public domain" meaning I can take your content and profit from it... no stipulations beyond that. Without the "teeth" of the GPL requiring the new content to also be free back, you get into a serious problem, right?
So if I build a better site that scrapes all of techdirt's traffic, do I get a mea culpa from all of you, or just a lawsuit from Techdirt? Let me take a wild guess which one would really happen.
Actually... it has nothing to do with the audience getting the content for free. As I said, if this site has to spend money to generate content, and I can use that same content for free for my own profit, then I have a huge financial advantage by not having to generate any of that content. In case you didn't realize, most legitimate businesses have to pay to license content for commercial use. Even most "free" open-source software packages require fees for commercial use.
Let me know if you want me to repeat this in Dr. Dre format.
Furthermore, what if you decide to ask me how I'm getting all that traffic, and I say "not telling". Now you're competing with me ... but really, you're competing with your own content. While you're still spending to generate more content, I can use all the money and time I would be spending making content in order to recruit YOUR audience.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really...
Now that's a logic fail.