I have long wondered why WSJ stories are accessible on-line during the initial search but then locked when you share them with others (e.g., via social media channels). It's unbelievable actually.
It's actually more evidence that Murdoch is trying to spread FUD about Google. The WSJ checks the referrer header, and if it comes from Google, you get to see the full article. If the link didn't come from Google, you don't.
Murdoch knows full well that Google provides a valuable service to his organizations, he just doesn't want to have to admit it.
You're making it sound like Google News provides nothing to the news sites, which obviously isn't true. If it were, every news site would simply modify their robots.txt file and be done with it. Google News sends visitors to the news sites - what they don't like is that Google makes money on providing a service making fair use of their material.
Your "solution" of stopping the aggregators simply wouldn't work, regardless. The newspapers all complain about Google, knowing full well they can block it easily. It's posturing, plain and simple - they don't want to lose the audience Google sends their way. So they raise the threat of a paywall, to see if they can get Google to cough up some money for them.
The newspapers aren't interested in solving their problems - they're interested in finding someone to blame, and trying to make them pay. Paywalls have been tried before, and for the most part have failed miserably. And without the ability to share links, social networks won't touch the sites. Micropayments are another dead-end - nobody wants to break out their credit card to read a news story.
It's not the aggregator's fault the news sites are losing money - they're just being used as scapegoats. The real problem is the news sites themselves, who have developed a massive sense of entitlement to any use of their content. They think if they can just "take back the news", everything will be fine, except what they're proposing is essentially a suicide pact.
Check your bank account, check his. Check the number of companies you own, check his list. Call me when you catch up. Just being insulting towards a very successful businessman is arrogant.
Translation: since you're not as successful as Murdoch, you should just automatically assume every idea he has is brilliant. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy.
The fact is, since they've always had the option to block Google's news aggregating, it's nothing but empty blustering when he bashes them.
Distribution should be something you ask for,
Says who?
not something that is shoved onto you without permission.
Sorry, the internet doesn't work that way. Linking, aggregating, embedding, etc...no permission required. If you don't want your stuff distributed on the internet, don't put it there.
Why are you arguing about the morality of stealing copy written material?
Because stealing and infringement aren't synonyms.
We're not talking about someone stealing bread and water so they can live in this case either.
Exactly correct - those are physical items. If you take someone's bread and water, they no longer have those items. It doesn't work that way with so called "intellectual property". Infringement is unlawful copying, not stealing.
Yes, and could imagine the uproar if every book in a bookstore suddenly had a label slapped on it to that effect? every time you picked up a book, someone tapped you on the shoulder and reminded you that you can read it at the library for free?
Except that in order for any of this to come about, someone has to install the extension - it's a user choice to install and use it, and since it's accessing public domain material, I'm not really sure where you're seeing a lawsuit.
Hey genius, most musicians that copyright their music do it with their own production companies.
While I'm sure you meant 'genius' sarcastically, you haven't contradicted what I've said.
This does not mean that you buy a record and you can copy it and give anyone who wants a copy. Whether you like it or not the law is still the law. Just ask the lady in Minnesota who got nailed yesterday.
Ok...you're apparently reading things I didn't write. In any case, your original comment had nothing to do with the article. You did, however, manage to present an example that illustrates the point quite nicely. The use of 'Imagine' in the Stein's propaganda film was ruled fair use; it doesn't matter if Ono supported the films viewpoint or not. The use of the song was allowable, and there is no moral right as to how music is used.
You might want to try reading the article and responding with something that makes sense. Your comment relates in no way to the posted article.
If an artist wants to keep their music copyrighted, then it is their choice.
Actually, for the most part, they don't have much of a choice at all. The music is copyrighted upon creation, and there isn't any commonly recognized method for removing said copyright.
If they choose to use a different business model; that too is their choice.
Reading comprehension - this article doesn't say anything about business models; it's talking about the lack of moral rights over content, and how that's actually a good thing.
It is their music and their right to do with it as they want.
Actually, there are a variety of ways their music can be used without any authorization by the musicians - it's called fair use.
What gives everyone the idea they have a right to what someone else has created?
Because in the case of intellectual property, we already have that right. The legal system places a restriction on that right, in order to provide an incentive for the creation of more works.
I found the report, Disrupting the TV Ecosystem on the Media Matters website, and the anti statements are true. The report is here.
From the report:
"Putting high quality, professionally produced TV content on the web for free may turn out to be anti-consumer, anti-media employees and even anti-America.
In the battle of piracy vs free, piracy is the lesser of two evils."
So with that being said because a used game that works has almost the same value of the same sealed game at gamestop the video game companies should recieve some of the revenue of selling that game. The consumer of the used game recieves the same benefit as a consumer who bought that game new. If a used video game has the same conusmer benefit as a that same game newley sealed then the video game companies should recieve some revenue for that used game because both customers (new and used) recieve virtually the same benefit.
Again, you're not presenting any logic or evidence that the video game companies deserve a cut of the secondary market. I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't support the point you're trying to make.
You say that the consumer of a used game receives the same benefit that a consumer that bought the game brand new receives (which isn't necessarily true). What you don't provide is any logical reason why that should translate into the video game companies getting a cut of the resale. The game was purchased; after the initial sale, the video game company has no right to that copy anymore, and thus no valid claim to a stake of the resale.
Many companies, including Gamestop, try to increase the sales of new games via pre-ordering incentives, thus increasing the value of the new game for some consumers. Another aspect of value that you're missing is time - there are plenty of people out there that don't want to wait for the secondary market. Being the one the first people to play a game is an additional value to those consumers. So the benefit of a used game vs. a new game is not necessarily the same.
In any case, whether the used game provides the same value/benefit as a new game is irrelevant. The video game companies have already been compensated for the copies entering the secondary market. Since they've already been paid, they have no standing to demand money from transactions they have no part in.
We heard you the first time - but the majority of used game sales aren't for PC games, they're for consoles. Gamespot doesn't even bother with used PC games anymore because of all the BS the game companies have instituted to kill resales (and encourage piracy).
Trying to push the same idiotic legalese on console games would create a much bigger backlash, and would most likely result in quite a few class action lawsuits against the companies.
video games cannot be compared to other used items such as a house or a book. Those items are worth less used because of physical wear and tear.
You don't honestly believe wear and tear are the only factors in determining the value of a house or a book, do you?
As long as the game works it has almost the exact same value of a new version of the game, therefore it is semi legit for the video game companies to get a share of the used game sale.
Your statement is incorrect on two levels. First, the value of a game changes over time, just like other products. New games typically run around $60, and will be reduced in price over the shelf life of the game as time passes.
Secondly, you haven't actually bothered to state why the video game companies deserve a cut of used sales. Even if your statements were accurate, it doesn't justify cutting them into a portion of the used sales. If the video game companies want to discourage used game sales, they should provide a reason for consumers to do so.
Once again this post shows Mike linking to other opinion pieces on Techdirt as if they were fact.
The reason for this has already been explained, and more than once. Additionally, the first linked article isn't on Techdirt, so you're not even being accurate in your complaint.
The second part is only a restating of the first part - a restating that Mike often seems to forget.
Sorry, but you're incorrect. You want to equate encouraging innovation with discouraging duplication, and they aren't the same thing. It isn't a restatement at all; it's a completely different statement.
Being against certain types of patents and copyrights is like saying "everyone should just copy everyone else".
Again, you're wrong. It means that some things should not be capable of being restricted to a single company or person. In particular, business method patents seem to be increasingly used to attack competitors rather than compete with them.
This means that copyright actually encourages innovation, because it is often cheaper to innovate than duplicate.
To a certain extent, perhaps. However, locking up content for life of the creator plus 70 years does not. Get rid of the ridiculous copyright term and scale it back to something reasonable (and life of the author isn't reasonable either), and you'll also encourage innovation because people won't be able to rest on their laurels, J.D. Salinger being a prime example.
Usually, it's the industry mounting the PR campaign and whining about their "massive" losses, because they have more lobbyists on their payroll.
No, by leaving out that part, Techdirt doesn't give the full picture.
As I stated, Techdirt is making the point that it is possible to benefit from the proliferation caused by piracy. It doesn't need to provide counter figures to the BSA's stats in order to do so.
Techdirt writers are well-known for very cleverly leaving out vital information in their posts.
It wasn't vital, since that wasn't the point the article was trying to get across.
Because they would have to admit that piracy does cause some lost sales and that the industry is actually losing money due to piracy.
Because the point Techdirt has consistently made is that piracy is nowhere near as big a problem as content providers want the public to believe, and that there are ways to take advantage of piracy and benefit from it.
As the previous commentator stated, you are arguing against something Techdirt hasn't stated. And when called on it, you change tactics to imply that the site is somehow trying to trick people because they didn't state that some sales were lost.
Additionally, while you have the BSA coming up with bogus statistics, determining a realistic number of how many instances of piracy would have been legitimate sales is incredibly difficult, if not impossible. It makes more sense to debunk the jokers stating that the industry loses billions to piracy than engaging in speculation as to what the actual number is.
RSS
Twitter
Re: News must be free (as DanC)
Um, there's no paywall on TechDirt.
Re: Murdoch's lock (as DanC)
I have long wondered why WSJ stories are accessible on-line during the initial search but then locked when you share them with others (e.g., via social media channels). It's unbelievable actually.
It's actually more evidence that Murdoch is trying to spread FUD about Google. The WSJ checks the referrer header, and if it comes from Google, you get to see the full article. If the link didn't come from Google, you don't.
Murdoch knows full well that Google provides a valuable service to his organizations, he just doesn't want to have to admit it.
Re: (as DanC)
You're making it sound like Google News provides nothing to the news sites, which obviously isn't true. If it were, every news site would simply modify their robots.txt file and be done with it. Google News sends visitors to the news sites - what they don't like is that Google makes money on providing a service making fair use of their material.
Your "solution" of stopping the aggregators simply wouldn't work, regardless. The newspapers all complain about Google, knowing full well they can block it easily. It's posturing, plain and simple - they don't want to lose the audience Google sends their way. So they raise the threat of a paywall, to see if they can get Google to cough up some money for them.
The newspapers aren't interested in solving their problems - they're interested in finding someone to blame, and trying to make them pay. Paywalls have been tried before, and for the most part have failed miserably. And without the ability to share links, social networks won't touch the sites. Micropayments are another dead-end - nobody wants to break out their credit card to read a news story.
It's not the aggregator's fault the news sites are losing money - they're just being used as scapegoats. The real problem is the news sites themselves, who have developed a massive sense of entitlement to any use of their content. They think if they can just "take back the news", everything will be fine, except what they're proposing is essentially a suicide pact.
Re: Re: Re: (as DanC)
Check your bank account, check his. Check the number of companies you own, check his list. Call me when you catch up. Just being insulting towards a very successful businessman is arrogant.
Translation: since you're not as successful as Murdoch, you should just automatically assume every idea he has is brilliant. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy.
The fact is, since they've always had the option to block Google's news aggregating, it's nothing but empty blustering when he bashes them.
Distribution should be something you ask for,
Says who?
not something that is shoved onto you without permission.
Sorry, the internet doesn't work that way. Linking, aggregating, embedding, etc...no permission required. If you don't want your stuff distributed on the internet, don't put it there.
Re: Homework (as DanC)
You mean it's not a criminal issue - it's still a legal issue regardless.
Re: I just don't get why this is an argument (as DanC)
Why are you arguing about the morality of stealing copy written material?
Because stealing and infringement aren't synonyms.
We're not talking about someone stealing bread and water so they can live in this case either.
Exactly correct - those are physical items. If you take someone's bread and water, they no longer have those items. It doesn't work that way with so called "intellectual property". Infringement is unlawful copying, not stealing.
Re: (as DanC)
Except that, if you knew anything about TechDirt, you'd know it is not, in fact, ad-supported.
It has ads, but does not rely on them to keep the site running.
(as DanC)
Most of the articles I've been able to find claim that the two patents at issue are the same ones Paltalk sued Microsoft over previously.
5,822,523 - Server-group messaging system for interactive applications
6,226,686 - Server-group messaging system for interactive applications
PalTalk acquired the patents from HearMe, formerly known as MPath.
Re: Re: (as DanC)
Yes, and could imagine the uproar if every book in a bookstore suddenly had a label slapped on it to that effect? every time you picked up a book, someone tapped you on the shoulder and reminded you that you can read it at the library for free?
Except that in order for any of this to come about, someone has to install the extension - it's a user choice to install and use it, and since it's accessing public domain material, I'm not really sure where you're seeing a lawsuit.
The promoter, not Deep Purple? (as DanC)
According to this article, it's not the band itself but the concert promoter who failed to pay the proper public performance licenses.
The whole matter still seems incredibly ridiculous, however.
Re: Re: Re: Not Your Choice (as DanC)
Hey genius, most musicians that copyright their music do it with their own production companies.
While I'm sure you meant 'genius' sarcastically, you haven't contradicted what I've said.
This does not mean that you buy a record and you can copy it and give anyone who wants a copy. Whether you like it or not the law is still the law. Just ask the lady in Minnesota who got nailed yesterday.
Ok...you're apparently reading things I didn't write. In any case, your original comment had nothing to do with the article. You did, however, manage to present an example that illustrates the point quite nicely. The use of 'Imagine' in the Stein's propaganda film was ruled fair use; it doesn't matter if Ono supported the films viewpoint or not. The use of the song was allowable, and there is no moral right as to how music is used.
Re: Not Your Choice (as DanC)
You might want to try reading the article and responding with something that makes sense. Your comment relates in no way to the posted article.
If an artist wants to keep their music copyrighted, then it is their choice.
Actually, for the most part, they don't have much of a choice at all. The music is copyrighted upon creation, and there isn't any commonly recognized method for removing said copyright.
If they choose to use a different business model; that too is their choice.
Reading comprehension - this article doesn't say anything about business models; it's talking about the lack of moral rights over content, and how that's actually a good thing.
It is their music and their right to do with it as they want.
Actually, there are a variety of ways their music can be used without any authorization by the musicians - it's called fair use.
What gives everyone the idea they have a right to what someone else has created?
Because in the case of intellectual property, we already have that right. The legal system places a restriction on that right, in order to provide an incentive for the creation of more works.
Re: Unsubstantiated? (as DanC)
I found the report, Disrupting the TV Ecosystem on the Media Matters website, and the anti statements are true. The report is here.
From the report:
"Putting high quality, professionally produced TV content on the web for free may turn out to be anti-consumer, anti-media employees and even anti-America.
In the battle of piracy vs free, piracy is the lesser of two evils."
Re: Re: Re: give the video game companies a break (as DanC)
So with that being said because a used game that works has almost the same value of the same sealed game at gamestop the video game companies should recieve some of the revenue of selling that game. The consumer of the used game recieves the same benefit as a consumer who bought that game new. If a used video game has the same conusmer benefit as a that same game newley sealed then the video game companies should recieve some revenue for that used game because both customers (new and used) recieve virtually the same benefit.
Again, you're not presenting any logic or evidence that the video game companies deserve a cut of the secondary market. I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't support the point you're trying to make.
You say that the consumer of a used game receives the same benefit that a consumer that bought the game brand new receives (which isn't necessarily true). What you don't provide is any logical reason why that should translate into the video game companies getting a cut of the resale. The game was purchased; after the initial sale, the video game company has no right to that copy anymore, and thus no valid claim to a stake of the resale.
Many companies, including Gamestop, try to increase the sales of new games via pre-ordering incentives, thus increasing the value of the new game for some consumers. Another aspect of value that you're missing is time - there are plenty of people out there that don't want to wait for the secondary market. Being the one the first people to play a game is an additional value to those consumers. So the benefit of a used game vs. a new game is not necessarily the same.
In any case, whether the used game provides the same value/benefit as a new game is irrelevant. The video game companies have already been compensated for the copies entering the secondary market. Since they've already been paid, they have no standing to demand money from transactions they have no part in.
Re: (as DanC)
We heard you the first time - but the majority of used game sales aren't for PC games, they're for consoles. Gamespot doesn't even bother with used PC games anymore because of all the BS the game companies have instituted to kill resales (and encourage piracy).
Trying to push the same idiotic legalese on console games would create a much bigger backlash, and would most likely result in quite a few class action lawsuits against the companies.
Re: give the video game companies a break (as DanC)
video games cannot be compared to other used items such as a house or a book. Those items are worth less used because of physical wear and tear.
You don't honestly believe wear and tear are the only factors in determining the value of a house or a book, do you?
As long as the game works it has almost the exact same value of a new version of the game, therefore it is semi legit for the video game companies to get a share of the used game sale.
Your statement is incorrect on two levels. First, the value of a game changes over time, just like other products. New games typically run around $60, and will be reduced in price over the shelf life of the game as time passes.
Secondly, you haven't actually bothered to state why the video game companies deserve a cut of used sales. Even if your statements were accurate, it doesn't justify cutting them into a portion of the used sales. If the video game companies want to discourage used game sales, they should provide a reason for consumers to do so.
Re: (as DanC)
Once again this post shows Mike linking to other opinion pieces on Techdirt as if they were fact.
The reason for this has already been explained, and more than once. Additionally, the first linked article isn't on Techdirt, so you're not even being accurate in your complaint.
Come up with something else to whine about.
Re: Re: Re: (as DanC)
The second part is only a restating of the first part - a restating that Mike often seems to forget.
Sorry, but you're incorrect. You want to equate encouraging innovation with discouraging duplication, and they aren't the same thing. It isn't a restatement at all; it's a completely different statement.
Being against certain types of patents and copyrights is like saying "everyone should just copy everyone else".
Again, you're wrong. It means that some things should not be capable of being restricted to a single company or person. In particular, business method patents seem to be increasingly used to attack competitors rather than compete with them.
This means that copyright actually encourages innovation, because it is often cheaper to innovate than duplicate.
To a certain extent, perhaps. However, locking up content for life of the creator plus 70 years does not. Get rid of the ridiculous copyright term and scale it back to something reasonable (and life of the author isn't reasonable either), and you'll also encourage innovation because people won't be able to rest on their laurels, J.D. Salinger being a prime example.
Re: (as DanC)
And who defines the "bigness" of the problem?
Usually, it's the industry mounting the PR campaign and whining about their "massive" losses, because they have more lobbyists on their payroll.
No, by leaving out that part, Techdirt doesn't give the full picture.
As I stated, Techdirt is making the point that it is possible to benefit from the proliferation caused by piracy. It doesn't need to provide counter figures to the BSA's stats in order to do so.
Techdirt writers are well-known for very cleverly leaving out vital information in their posts.
It wasn't vital, since that wasn't the point the article was trying to get across.
Re: Re: Re: (as DanC)
Because they would have to admit that piracy does cause some lost sales and that the industry is actually losing money due to piracy.
Because the point Techdirt has consistently made is that piracy is nowhere near as big a problem as content providers want the public to believe, and that there are ways to take advantage of piracy and benefit from it.
As the previous commentator stated, you are arguing against something Techdirt hasn't stated. And when called on it, you change tactics to imply that the site is somehow trying to trick people because they didn't state that some sales were lost.
Additionally, while you have the BSA coming up with bogus statistics, determining a realistic number of how many instances of piracy would have been legitimate sales is incredibly difficult, if not impossible. It makes more sense to debunk the jokers stating that the industry loses billions to piracy than engaging in speculation as to what the actual number is.