Argh, don't suggest the NC restriction. It's not a good thing. It fails to stop exploitation any better than SA and it divides the commons because it is incompatible with truly free licenses!
Summary: you *want* to restrict commercial use, so you use NC. Result: your decision has little or no impact on actual commercial uses, but you seriously hamper non-commercial users who you wanted to support. That's what happens with NC. It's a broken license, don't use it!
See my example here:
Wrong. Once a work is CC0, she could publish it again with modifications and a different license, but she can't remove the CC0 from the copy you download today and which you can share with the world unrestricted.
What nonsense completely divorced from reality. I myself was a fully active participant in fighting these awful bills. I blacked out my site, signed petitions, made calls, and spread the word to others. I also am a critic of Google, do not like their business model, and nothing I did was in any way directed or influenced by Google.
Defeating SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA are marvellous and noteworthy. But this just leaves us where we were. What we did was work hard to stop things from getting much worse. Will 2013 possibly be a year where we actually improve things?
People laugh and react sometimes to movies, we know we are there as a crowd, it's just that those bright blue lights from cell phones are really distracting.
What we need is flux (see stereopsis.com/flux) for all devices and have that go on in a "cine" mode so the screen is much more dim and red. That will be much less annoying, I guarantee it.
Problem is, Flux is available for iOS but Apple's BS ToS don't allow it, so you have to jailbreak your device. Plus, none of the Android apps to do the same thing are any good. The Android apps all add *red* color universally across the screen, thus making blacks become more red instead of *removing* blue color.
Incidentally, GNU/Linux users should get "redshift" instead.
I really highly recommend this for normal use at night anyway separate from cinema. But the point is: it is the harsh blue tint of these screens that is so annoying whether in a theatre or anywhere else at night. Bad for your eyes, unnatural, and distracting to anyone around you.
Services can be just a good otherwise whether paid directly or paid via third-party ads or whatever, sure. The reason this discussion keeps coming up is because people are having a hard time putting words to what they know intuitively: advertising stinks! A world full of product placements and gimmicky sales and all these other junk… Ubiquitous ads are a detriment to our society.
The thing is: a company that accepts a business model of pushing ads in users faces is NOT a company that respects the users. They may have market pressure to still give good service, and they may be a business with mixed feelings that partly respects the users. But real respect means not shoving ads in people's faces.
Now, a non-advertisement-focused business model doesn't mean that the business respects users. They may be just as bad or worse on respectfulness.
The best companies treat users with real dignity, and that means minimal or no ads. But the problems with respect aren't due to the business model. The model is just one reflection of whether or not users are truly respected.
Re: Re: Maybe someone knew you would write an article about this??
Thanks for clarifying about the details in that case. It's still almost an unbelievable coincidence that 1984 would be the example where Amazon demonstrated for the first time that they had the technical capacity to go into your device and delete things unilaterally.
By your logic if they next say that copyright infringement is murder (you know, it threatens someone's income which is what they need to survive, so that makes it life-threatening, so you're killing them), and your reply: "well, if you don't want to be charged with murder, just DON'T INFRINGE COPYRIGHT!"
Now, in case you don't get it, I'm using something called reductio ad absurdem. I'm not saying you actually would think this. I'm saying that your argument is equally logical as this absurd example, and I sure hope you aren't so insane that you think even this absurd example is reasonable. Cheers.
Maybe someone knew you would write an article about this??
Like how Amazon showed they could delete Kindle content by deleting "1984" — that *had* to be some insider trying to get the message to the world about the injustice.
Maybe somebody knew that if they screwed with YOUR account, then you'd bother telling the world and bring attention to this problem?
Anyway, ridiculous stuff. I wish we had an open-framework for social networking like we have with e-mail. There should be a way to network via whatever system you want and not have to agree to any particular provider's policies in order to interact with other people in this way.
To hae a productive discussion, agree on the meaning of terms
and then stick to those agreed meanings.
It matters not whether copyright is property or not WITHIN THIS DISCUSSION. What matters is that copyright is distinct from rights that go with physical property. Anybody who wishes to have a useful discussion needs to accept that, and I think people on both sides here DO accept that.
The problem with the words is that in arguments elsewhere (i.e. not on this precise web page), many people use some claims to accept the term "property" when it comes to copyright but then they go on to assert things about all property (copyright included) that, in reality, only apply to physical property.
Nobody need care what words are used unless the words lead to confusion about what copyright is and isn't. AND IN THIS CASE THEY DO LEAD TO CONFUSION, and often it appears that this confusion is INTENTIONAL. So, if anyone wants to insist that we use the word "property" for copyright, then please accept the burden of always qualifying this by adding "this does not mean it has all of the qualities of physical property." Then we can be clear.