The same thing that makes the Internet great is what makes it suck -- connections, undreamed of connections.
Sure, it's great when entrepreneurs in underdeveloped countries can use the Internet to get micro-loans or gender-confused teens in small, close-minded towns can actually find acceptance and not sink into a shame spiral that ends in suicide.
But, the Internet also makes it possible for people filled with hate to learn new and better ways to propagate hate and to act on their hate. These people also can find acceptance. These people also can find funding. None of that is as possible without the Internet.
Obviously, the Internet isn't solely to blame or even mostly, but like the telephone and the automobile, the Internet has transformed our culture and society. Some for the good, but some for the bad too.
We wish to advise you that the stories, headlines and/or ledes that you are copying are the copyrighted property of GateHouse Media... and that your copying constitutes infringement.
It may well be that copying and pasting the whole article is infringement. However, it is not the case that all copying of stories or headlines or ledes is infringement. Therefore what they are saying is wrong.
Now the important issue here is, are they being overly broad through ignorance or as a way to assert more control than they have?
Ah, it is you who is missing the point. The author thinks giving away the e-book will induce sales. I think Cory Doctorow would agree with him and could probably point you to a couple other folks who agree too.
Yes, free doesn't have to be totally free, but it would be nice if it was an option the guy who wrote the book could choose.
O'Reilly says "We have published books on Linux where the authors have said: "I want this to be put under free documentation license" and we still ended up selling in some cases millions of dollars worth of copies of those books.
In many cases it was less than we would have made otherwise. But there are other books, where a topic was legitimized by the free content, and by getting millions of people to read it online, we were then able to commercialize them after the fact."
Little something wrong with your logic.
The author notes "that the original version's ebook barely had noteworthy sales, so it seemed reasonable to offer up the ebook for free to drive more attention."
If the ebook version is so great, why weren't the sales better? If your theory is that because the book itself sucked, then why is he getting to put out a second one?
However, you're right the market is for $40 books. If there's no market for the ebooks, you might as well give them away as a means to induce the purchase of the book.
What's killing the various news organizations is that they suck. I am interested in news, but my hometown newspaper's online site is a joke. It's all filled up with Obama is the socialist anti-Christ stuff. So I cruise to other sites where the level of conversation is a little different. I get the same stories and conversation more to my liking.
A desire for community is what is screwing newspapers. They have crappy online communities and no one wants to be there.
They can try to charge for all the content they'd like, but it wouldn't solve their problems. Instead sites like this one would just stop linking to them and provide a discussion of stories they had read. How hard is that? They can't sue you (and win) for discussing something you read.
If you seriously consider it, how many people on this site read the articles that are linked to versus simply riffing off of what is written about the articles?
"Either way, looks like the Federal Courts don't like competition eating away at their PACER profits."
The Federal Court System doesn't actually call the shots with PACER and the monies it generates. Congress determines what PACER charges and what money, if any, the Federal Courts get from PACER. This is actually true for all the money the Federal Court System gets. So, PACER could generate a kabillion dollars and it wouldn't make much difference. Congresspeople would just direct it some place else and cut their budget again...
I think you are spot on. This isn't just a pure pricing scheme at work, there is an emotional factor working too and that is perfectly OK. It might mean that it won't scale up very well, but at other levels, perhaps other methods & incentives would work.
It is important to understand that PACER is actually a reaction to something and not just some crazy scheme dreamed up by the government to make our lives more difficult.
1. Any information available in PACER is available for free if you go down to your courthouse. Yes you have to pay for copies, but where is that not the case? Also, just to look at documents is free.
2. PACER was developed as a reaction to the complaints of lawyers who were tired of paying people to go down to the courthouse and research stuff. This used to be a thriving small business for some. Now PACER lets the lawyers do it online and the charge is negligible when compared to the old way.
3. The price for PACER might seem high but if you spend less than $10 a year, they don't even charge you.
4. They've capped the prices at 30 pages max, so, for example, if you want a 30 page document it is $2.40. If you want a 50 page document it is $2.40.
5. Attorneys of record and parties in a case can get one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, in most cases.
6. Individual researchers associated with educational institutions and section 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations, among others, can be exempted from these fees.
7. Congress directed the judiciary to charge for the service and sets the fees.
What all this means is that the system actually tries really hard to do what it is supposed to -- make it easy for people who need the information to get it while making it hard for those who don't. Those who don't include data miners and crazy people with stalking (or worse) in mind. That is not groundless scare-mongering. My wife works in the bankruptcy court system and has seen instances of both.
You are not paid by the word here.
Also, you make no sense, even with the extra words. Speak to the point of the post not what you imagine the post is about.
What the hell? Are you reading as you type? The government has given itself the power to grant the monopoly. Mike and many others are suggesting that maybe the government might want to look at that. Maybe copyrights don't need to be such strong monopolies. Maybe they don't need to last as long. Maybe if our Congress people substituted the word "monopoly" for the word "copyright" they might understand why letting someone take a creative work out of play for ever-increasing periods of time is not the best idea. It's not like "analysis" means shoot someone in the face. Analysis is simply giving something a long hard look. That's a good thing and something no one seems to have done in a while.
It doesn't fall apart, it just means that the games you mention are the only ones developed by people looking to make money the way they know how to make it now. That's business.
To be truthful it seems like that's where all the games are going now anyway. Sad for me the non-multi-player gamer, but they cancel all the damn TV shows I like too, so I'm used to it.
However, at some point game companies will realize how tough the competition in the above-mentioned fields is getting and look at other options. They will conclude that if they are willing to accept lower profits they can have a real competitive edge over other companies (for a little while) and single player games will come back. Yay for me.
Considering it further though, you don't seem to understand the concept completely. To a certain extent, a game isn't just a game any more. It can also be books based on the game, movies or cartoons based on the game, ancillary materials (guidebooks, extra levels, etc.) based on the game, the list goes on. What technology is bringing us is a future where everything is content and what the savvy businessperson realizes is that everything can be leveraged with or for something else. Profit potential is everywhere, you just have to look at it right.
Actually what has been said here is that pretty much everything is content. And good ads are viewed as content. Lots of us are not watching the Super Bowl for the football.
Also, you kind of lost your point when you said "Had they been, you wouldn't have placed the "Now a word from our sponsors" text to specifically distinguish them." That's why magazines label things as advertising section, because in some cases, you can't tell the difference. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it is the truth.
And your last point doesn't even make sense. An ad is content. Hell, I'd say a fair portion of crap on youtube is funny commercials, music videos, etc. That stuff is all ads, but ta-da, it is also content.
The difference here, the actual point of this post, is that we seek out those ads. Putting ads where we don't like them is not going to benefit you.
I think you're right that this constitutes reasonable use, but I also think that the person above is right too. More and more, people see a logo and think, "Ooh, product placement." That isn't necessarily right, but I think it is more prevalent than ever before.
In that case, the university is right to be a little concerned. Despite what is right, this is what is perceived.
You also say "If you needed to get approval of every brand ever used in your TV show, no TV shows would ever get produced." and I think that's true too and is why on a lot of cable shows you see everything under the sun blurred out or taped over. And don't get me started on the background music...
The Internet is all about serendipity. Don't get me wrong, I love all my libraries. I've got three I visit on a regular basis and I use the online system to request books that I see on the Internet that I'm too cheap to buy.
However, sites like popurls, Digg, Slashdot and Metafilter regularly led me down very weird paths full of new learning and the best part is I can just bookmark it and come back to it later. I never have to return the link like a library book.
Also, nothing against real books, but 1 thumb drive holds about a bazillion books. I like the feel of a real book in my hands, but since I don't own a secret underground lair, my bookshelf space is very limited.
Almost a good point, except that all the principal wanted to do was add in a bit about high tattoos are permanent and other scary messages.
If there was worry about parental backlash, killing the article was the best option. This is just heavy-handed editing that will make the article suck.
It's not that they are trying to get any money. They want the judgment to stand. If it goes on the books as a judgment of a kabillion dollars, no one reads the part about settling for $3500. The kabillion dollar judgment is what counts and what they'll use to scare college kids and grandmas with.
Also, it's not theft. Not now, not ever. They want you to think it is, just like they want you to think that she got punished for downloading music. Neither are true.
Seems to have helped New Albany, Clarksville and Jeffersontown Indiana. Also where ever the hell it is that Belterra is located (Rising Sun, I think).
Horse racing helped make Louisville, KY and we're no more degraded than your average mid-sized city.
But to consider your point as if it were valid, legalizing gambling is often a symptom of greater troubles, such as financial trouble or lack of growth. So your particular burg might be a craphole, but it wasn't gambling that made it so.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with betting on whatever you want, if you can find someone to take the action.
I can legally bet on if I'm going to die or get maimed, my home will get burned down, burgled or flooded or if I'm going to get in an auto accident or hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist. And the worst part about all of that is that even if I win, I lose.
RSS
Twitter
he's sort of right (as duane)
The same thing that makes the Internet great is what makes it suck -- connections, undreamed of connections.
Sure, it's great when entrepreneurs in underdeveloped countries can use the Internet to get micro-loans or gender-confused teens in small, close-minded towns can actually find acceptance and not sink into a shame spiral that ends in suicide.
But, the Internet also makes it possible for people filled with hate to learn new and better ways to propagate hate and to act on their hate. These people also can find acceptance. These people also can find funding. None of that is as possible without the Internet.
Obviously, the Internet isn't solely to blame or even mostly, but like the telephone and the automobile, the Internet has transformed our culture and society. Some for the good, but some for the bad too.
Sort of skipping over the inmportant part (as duane)
We wish to advise you that the stories, headlines and/or ledes that you are copying are the copyrighted property of GateHouse Media... and that your copying constitutes infringement. It may well be that copying and pasting the whole article is infringement. However, it is not the case that all copying of stories or headlines or ledes is infringement. Therefore what they are saying is wrong. Now the important issue here is, are they being overly broad through ignorance or as a way to assert more control than they have?
Re: Re: Re: (as duane)
Ah, it is you who is missing the point. The author thinks giving away the e-book will induce sales. I think Cory Doctorow would agree with him and could probably point you to a couple other folks who agree too.
Yes, free doesn't have to be totally free, but it would be nice if it was an option the guy who wrote the book could choose.
Also, you're wrong. http://www.masternewmedia.org/how-do-you-monetize-free-tim-oreilly/
Re: (as duane)
Little something wrong with your logic.
The author notes "that the original version's ebook barely had noteworthy sales, so it seemed reasonable to offer up the ebook for free to drive more attention."
If the ebook version is so great, why weren't the sales better? If your theory is that because the book itself sucked, then why is he getting to put out a second one?
However, you're right the market is for $40 books. If there's no market for the ebooks, you might as well give them away as a means to induce the purchase of the book.
they have a point (as duane)
What's killing the various news organizations is that they suck. I am interested in news, but my hometown newspaper's online site is a joke. It's all filled up with Obama is the socialist anti-Christ stuff. So I cruise to other sites where the level of conversation is a little different. I get the same stories and conversation more to my liking.
A desire for community is what is screwing newspapers. They have crappy online communities and no one wants to be there.
They can try to charge for all the content they'd like, but it wouldn't solve their problems. Instead sites like this one would just stop linking to them and provide a discussion of stories they had read. How hard is that? They can't sue you (and win) for discussing something you read.
If you seriously consider it, how many people on this site read the articles that are linked to versus simply riffing off of what is written about the articles?
Re: um... (as duane)
I do not want to live where you live.
with you on all but one point... (as duane)
"Either way, looks like the Federal Courts don't like competition eating away at their PACER profits."
The Federal Court System doesn't actually call the shots with PACER and the monies it generates. Congress determines what PACER charges and what money, if any, the Federal Courts get from PACER. This is actually true for all the money the Federal Court System gets. So, PACER could generate a kabillion dollars and it wouldn't make much difference. Congresspeople would just direct it some place else and cut their budget again...
Re: (as duane)
I think you are spot on. This isn't just a pure pricing scheme at work, there is an emotional factor working too and that is perfectly OK. It might mean that it won't scale up very well, but at other levels, perhaps other methods & incentives would work.
No need for PACER-hatin' (as duane)
It is important to understand that PACER is actually a reaction to something and not just some crazy scheme dreamed up by the government to make our lives more difficult.
1. Any information available in PACER is available for free if you go down to your courthouse. Yes you have to pay for copies, but where is that not the case? Also, just to look at documents is free.
2. PACER was developed as a reaction to the complaints of lawyers who were tired of paying people to go down to the courthouse and research stuff. This used to be a thriving small business for some. Now PACER lets the lawyers do it online and the charge is negligible when compared to the old way.
3. The price for PACER might seem high but if you spend less than $10 a year, they don't even charge you.
4. They've capped the prices at 30 pages max, so, for example, if you want a 30 page document it is $2.40. If you want a 50 page document it is $2.40.
5. Attorneys of record and parties in a case can get one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, in most cases.
6. Individual researchers associated with educational institutions and section 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations, among others, can be exempted from these fees.
7. Congress directed the judiciary to charge for the service and sets the fees.
What all this means is that the system actually tries really hard to do what it is supposed to -- make it easy for people who need the information to get it while making it hard for those who don't. Those who don't include data miners and crazy people with stalking (or worse) in mind. That is not groundless scare-mongering. My wife works in the bankruptcy court system and has seen instances of both.
Re: Actors are Making Less?? (as duane)
I think that is called running a bordello.
Actually the videoing would be a pretty good dodge. I bet you could get away with it. For a little while at least...
Re: (as duane)
You are not paid by the word here.
Also, you make no sense, even with the extra words. Speak to the point of the post not what you imagine the post is about.
Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins (as duane)
What the hell? Are you reading as you type? The government has given itself the power to grant the monopoly. Mike and many others are suggesting that maybe the government might want to look at that. Maybe copyrights don't need to be such strong monopolies. Maybe they don't need to last as long. Maybe if our Congress people substituted the word "monopoly" for the word "copyright" they might understand why letting someone take a creative work out of play for ever-increasing periods of time is not the best idea. It's not like "analysis" means shoot someone in the face. Analysis is simply giving something a long hard look. That's a good thing and something no one seems to have done in a while.
Re: (as duane)
It doesn't fall apart, it just means that the games you mention are the only ones developed by people looking to make money the way they know how to make it now. That's business.
To be truthful it seems like that's where all the games are going now anyway. Sad for me the non-multi-player gamer, but they cancel all the damn TV shows I like too, so I'm used to it.
However, at some point game companies will realize how tough the competition in the above-mentioned fields is getting and look at other options. They will conclude that if they are willing to accept lower profits they can have a real competitive edge over other companies (for a little while) and single player games will come back. Yay for me.
Considering it further though, you don't seem to understand the concept completely. To a certain extent, a game isn't just a game any more. It can also be books based on the game, movies or cartoons based on the game, ancillary materials (guidebooks, extra levels, etc.) based on the game, the list goes on. What technology is bringing us is a future where everything is content and what the savvy businessperson realizes is that everything can be leveraged with or for something else. Profit potential is everywhere, you just have to look at it right.
Re: Irony at its best. (as duane)
Actually what has been said here is that pretty much everything is content. And good ads are viewed as content. Lots of us are not watching the Super Bowl for the football.
Also, you kind of lost your point when you said "Had they been, you wouldn't have placed the "Now a word from our sponsors" text to specifically distinguish them." That's why magazines label things as advertising section, because in some cases, you can't tell the difference. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it is the truth.
And your last point doesn't even make sense. An ad is content. Hell, I'd say a fair portion of crap on youtube is funny commercials, music videos, etc. That stuff is all ads, but ta-da, it is also content.
The difference here, the actual point of this post, is that we seek out those ads. Putting ads where we don't like them is not going to benefit you.
not with you on this one (as duane)
I think you're right that this constitutes reasonable use, but I also think that the person above is right too. More and more, people see a logo and think, "Ooh, product placement." That isn't necessarily right, but I think it is more prevalent than ever before.
In that case, the university is right to be a little concerned. Despite what is right, this is what is perceived.
You also say "If you needed to get approval of every brand ever used in your TV show, no TV shows would ever get produced." and I think that's true too and is why on a lot of cable shows you see everything under the sun blurred out or taped over. And don't get me started on the background music...
Re: (as duane)
The Internet UR doing it wrong.
The Internet is all about serendipity. Don't get me wrong, I love all my libraries. I've got three I visit on a regular basis and I use the online system to request books that I see on the Internet that I'm too cheap to buy.
However, sites like popurls, Digg, Slashdot and Metafilter regularly led me down very weird paths full of new learning and the best part is I can just bookmark it and come back to it later. I never have to return the link like a library book.
Also, nothing against real books, but 1 thumb drive holds about a bazillion books. I like the feel of a real book in my hands, but since I don't own a secret underground lair, my bookshelf space is very limited.
Re: It's about the image and liability (as duane)
Almost a good point, except that all the principal wanted to do was add in a bit about high tattoos are permanent and other scary messages.
If there was worry about parental backlash, killing the article was the best option. This is just heavy-handed editing that will make the article suck.
Re: The damages are within the law (as duane)
It's not that they are trying to get any money. They want the judgment to stand. If it goes on the books as a judgment of a kabillion dollars, no one reads the part about settling for $3500. The kabillion dollar judgment is what counts and what they'll use to scare college kids and grandmas with.
Also, it's not theft. Not now, not ever. They want you to think it is, just like they want you to think that she got punished for downloading music. Neither are true.
Re: Re: (as duane)
It'd be really nice if this site had a thumbs up button or a favorite option or something...
Re: (as duane)
Seems to have helped New Albany, Clarksville and Jeffersontown Indiana. Also where ever the hell it is that Belterra is located (Rising Sun, I think).
Horse racing helped make Louisville, KY and we're no more degraded than your average mid-sized city.
But to consider your point as if it were valid, legalizing gambling is often a symptom of greater troubles, such as financial trouble or lack of growth. So your particular burg might be a craphole, but it wasn't gambling that made it so.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with betting on whatever you want, if you can find someone to take the action.
I can legally bet on if I'm going to die or get maimed, my home will get burned down, burgled or flooded or if I'm going to get in an auto accident or hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist. And the worst part about all of that is that even if I win, I lose.
Gimme horses or slots any day.