This is part of your attempt to rationalize why you support paywalls for Louis CK and Kevin Smith, but you can't bring yourself to support a major media paywall.
Did you even stop for a moment to think about the exclusivity of delivery? I don't know about you, but I usually find jokes funnier when delivered by the competent comedian. In contrast, I couldn't care less where the news specifically came from since my confidence in such information is less dependent on the individual source and more dependent on my own heuristics and meta-analysis. To sum up, news is more reliable from multiple independent sources (which in text links make easy to quickly determine), whereas comedy is less reliable upon delivery in the same context. As soon as comedians figure out how to tell each others jokes, while citing each other, and remain funny, this will change; the logical conclusion of this is captured well by the present shift in the field of journalism.
... said the two registered users. I realize the significant difference between a signup requirement and the clear option of equally functional anonymity presented by Techdirt, but the great irony of your sentiments in spite of the clear influence of CWF+RTB was too much not to point out.
Hey, be fair: It's not the monopolies that are all that bad. It's not allowing them to die out naturally, codifying their protection in law, the associated regulatory capture and political corruption, and the pond scum sucking bottom feeder bitches trying to defend the whole state of affairs that are ruining the future of our culture.
On the other hand, what THEY COULD do is PROVIDE REASONABLE LICENSING OPTIONS to those using the word in what would otherwise be a completely innocuous manner AND NOT LITIGATE unless there was tangible proof of harm to or false association with their brand.
The world is ruled by hot button issues, while real serious problems are ignored.
Normally, as an engineer, I'd say "well, then we'll just have to fix that; I'll get back to you in a week," but there's only so much that can be done without "playing the game." And we've seen how well that's gone over just about every time it's been tried. Events like the revolution that founded this country that give me hope that the right conditions can still exist for real changes to occur. Maybe they'll even last a little longer next time.
Well, given the proximity, I'm not that surprised after the whole iiNet circus. If the content providers followed suit with the ISPs in the general region, this is the logical end point where people start developing a sense of humor and a thicker skin. Now, if only courts/lawyers on this side of the planet gave out similar advice... bah, I'm sure the result of that would be a decade of fearful lawyers and a bunch of very angry and clueless lawsuit-happy people not being drained of money fast enough.
Even though there is a silly fee attached to it, at least the value of access to research has been recognized, even if just indirectly. Access like this would have likely prevented issues like the debacle over vaccination with Nature. With more people reading the articles and critically analyzing them, the peer review process will benefit from the implicit check by the public.
If I recall correctly, from what we've seen of copytroll lawsuits so far, even judges pissed off with those "claiming" infringement have refused to follow through and find the obvious bad faith of such take downs actionable. It's one of the major weaknesses of the DMCA.
As a member of the scientific and engineering communities, I have to disagree. While allowing such information to be public upon publication may not always aid the layman, it does aid in circulating the information around the scientific community (arXiv is a great example of this at work). We scientists do not get a free pass to such information with a smile or a professional promise; we pay for access (typical rates are ~$30 for 24hrs access or one-time access to a bulk number of articles at a similar cost) or are granted access via the questionable channel of sharing between colleagues at the crumbling largess of the publishers. The widespread circulation allowed by removing the monetary cost of access reinforces the peer-review process by opening the forum to a wider audience for analysis. While many scientists still publish their work on their private websites or share the PDF's at request, this practice is actively discouraged by many journals and limits the audience to those who know of the scientist making the article available.
Getting an article accepted and published often takes a year or longer. That is also the time it usually takes to at least design if not begin followup work, by which time critical feedback does not always have the opportunity to seriously affect the followup work's design without extra costs.
I'm sorry, but that is still too long. As far as I'm concerned, the time taken to produce and publish the research is time enough. Just look what windowing has done to the entertainment industry (HUGE STRAW MAN, but I think a valid consideration in contemporary context).
The rounded corners, oh GOD, THE ROUNDED CORNERS!!! Whole markets are rising and falling on unique combinations osculating radii!!! How DARE they use this CRITICAL feature without permission??? Do they know how many hours of sanding it took to shave each phone down to specs by hand???
Oh, they aren't unique? There's other stuff involved in making a phone? The curves aren't shaped into being by the mental prowess of the Geniuses? Well, that just ruins all the fun.