"Even if it believed it had the right to use her content, removing her name after being alerted to the issue appears really sketchy. Perhaps there's an explanation that involves helping out those poor corn farmers?"
True, it's not like her work was released to the public domain. In that case, there'd be no story because she gave them permission to take it, right?
The reason it's expensive is render time. In order to render at super-high resolution for the big screen, on a deadline, even with free software it will take some serious hardware and that costs money no matter what.
Google indexes content. If a balloon is on Google, someone has found it. In the best case scenario, where all the balloons had been found and indexed by Google, but none of the finders had found each other, someone could've hooked it all up with Google. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
Although I disagree, at least I understand how you're saying it would work now.
Because there's no backlash if they have your permission?
People click on /. links, but just to see the very front page, it's not your content if it doesn't have your name or links in it, I don't think it would be huge for your business, but why am I continuing to argue my points if your business model doesn't require traffic in the first place?
That's all you had to say, "you win".
I'm just responding to the discussion point that supposedly she lost 200k on it... I don't think it means I'm not paying attention if I took that from the comments, do you?
Because I believe there is a difference between "free content" where somehow people wind up back at your site because your name or something is on the work, and "free content" in which people can take credit for your work and basically pretend that you don't exist.
If she hasn't made any money at all? Incredibly difficult, and it will get exponentially harder to get funding for each new movie that also doesn't make money.
SIGH. They wouldn't be linking to your site. You wouldn't get the Slashdot effect.
Why would the press care? Google would just say you said it was OK. I really don't think this is an example of the Streisand effect, but for your sake I hope that you're right.
Where did Universal get the $50 million to lose on land of the lost? They made a crap ton of money on other movies. It doesn't work if you lose 200k on one movie and don't make it back.
Slashdot poaches other site's traffic and user bases by linking to other site's content, and by giving users no reason to need the original site. As they say on Slashdot, hardly anyone RTFA's, and so even with links and attribution, Slashdot has become a massive tech community. Do you really think a community of 800,000 will hold up to a community of 10,000,000+? I would be willing to bet that every single techdirt reader at one time was a Slashdot reader. If all of these stories were available there, via a screen scraper within milliseconds of their posting on here, why would anyone still come here for that content?
You still don't get it. Let's use yet another example of why you need to at least have a CC attribution license on your works. Google is not supposed to be evil, but they could be pretty evil to you by doing the following:
1. Take all your public domain content.
2. Take your name and your site links off of all of it.
3. Rebrand it with "google" links and authors.
4. De-list your site from google's search results, replacing your links with links to their version of your stuff.
You really don't see how you need to at least have an attribution license for you to be able to get any credit/income whatsoever from your works?
You're right, "scraped" was a dumb word. I should have said "poached". You're right, my crazy wacky idea about a site getting huge as hell from other people's traffic could never happen (Slashdot). If a site that can't possibly exist according to some people here (despite having existed for more than a decade) started posting your stories tomorrow without links back, personally I would be pretty nervous, but you operate a site that is giving away your content potentially to sites like that one that doesn't exist. How would you recommmend I combat this non-existent site from doing that to my stuff, and thus "poaching" my traffic, assuming they were doing it?
Redhat. Oracle. Netscape. Why would they charge for support on free projects if there's no benefit to putting up a pay wall?
Seems to me that Microsoft has built an empire by being late to the game and selling things that used to be free, so they're a pretty good example of how it can be done.
Wow, the vitriol that you get for suggesting that something might be possible without having a working model done and finished...
it's not your content, it's everyone's content. That's the problem. I agree, the more people that read YOUR content, the better it is for you. Once it's on someone else's site, if they don't link back to you, there's nothing stopping them from growing as large or larger than you are with your own stuff until it affects your site.
Re: Re: Public domain
But you said:
"Look, even if the content is public domain, as it is, it's still *socially* the norm to properly credit it. We work on that assumption that most people would do so. And if they don't, we highlight that they're socially deviant. And that's a news story. A big one."
How is it not a story if this lady had released her content to public domain and someone used it this way, but it is a story if it happened to you?