From what I heard, services like Dropbox don't even work in South-Korea. No online backup system is allowed in that country as it could potentially be used for illegal filesharing.
I'm now less inclined to go and watch that movie. If the fans are being heckled by the director, he is not worthy of my money. (to my knowledge that movie isn't yet in the Dutch and Belgian movie theatres: IMDB reports a release date of 14 January 2010)
Try 2006... I meant of course Live8.
Did you try to watch their coverage? It was solely MTV 'VJ's strutting their stuff in front of a crowd, instead of any of the music, except for tiny snippets every once in a while.
It was just ads and talk tv.
The definition of stealing is that the previous owner no longer owns it. Please do not muddle the conversation with emotional terms like stealing, because it's counter-productive. And in a different lawbook all together even.
Call it copyright infringement, as that's the proper term, and it's also as illegal. (just gouverned by a different law)
And you can keep your preconceived notions about techdirters at the door also. We do not condone copyright infringement, but we do care about the proper naming of things.
It's not theft, never has been never will be, unless PHYSICAL property changes hands.
Napster was centralized file sharing. They tried to squash it.
Then came decentralized file sharing, making it harder to find who shared what. They tried to squash that
Then came bittorrent, everyone shares a tiny piece with torrent files in a central location. And they are currently trying to squash it.
that they need to compete with free content.
You can't use Hulu and watch the ad-supported shows, so you can only go to piracy. It's as if they WANT you to pirate.
If Hulu was smart, they'd strike a deal with Witopia, and only allow Witopia users that are originating from the US. I'm sure that Witopia could set it up like that.
you have implied that a paywall for a news scoop will never work because someone else can just repost the content and offer it for free
and YET
you claim here that the very concept of someone copying and reposting content is imaginary.
Incentive. Yes, indeed, it will happen, but why would I go to the copy-site, if I can go to the original site for free? It's a different matter when the original site is asking me money for the same article.
Personally I've seen my own content which I placed on Wikipedia re-served verbatim through some other ad filled site, so this automated scraping definitely goes on. Why it would not happen for news is a bit hard to fathom.
No one is saying that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't matter.
This is not ideal (like automatic takedown actions without due process) but google have the talent to automatically decide for themselves if page x is actually plagiarised from page y (or vice versa) based on content scanning and publishing dates based on their own spider visits.
As we see with the DMCA takedown notices. Someone flags a piece of content as being infringing, and the site takes it down often without investigation.
We don't need MORE gatekeepers in the internet world, we need less. As gatekeepers will only hinder progress.
Yes the downside of this are the spamsites, but they are easily recognizable as such. And isn't a big threat. The biggest threat for newspapers is themselves.
They don't want to move along with the 21st century, then they are destined to go down.
Newspapers should focus their attention on making good content, and making sure that they build a good community. Word-of-mouth is a much better advertisement for your newspapers than litigation is.
Plagiarism is bad, that, I'm sure, is something we all agree on. But is it worth that much time and money? If the net benefit of the fight is approaching zero?
I, for one, only see those spamsites, if I mistype an address. If I search for news, I use news.google.com or some other aggregator, and those are generally well kept.
It doesn't matter.
Indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Example:
If person A thinks Glen Beck is the best thing to have happened since sliced bread, then he/she will find many sites to suit their needs. And to them those are the best places to find news.
But person B can't stand Glen Beck, then for him/her there are a whole host of other sites that suits their needs.
It doesn't matter that good and bad are relative to the beholder.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
indeed, because the link in the article leads to a squatter.
(as Marcel de Jong)
From what I heard, services like Dropbox don't even work in South-Korea. No online backup system is allowed in that country as it could potentially be used for illegal filesharing.
Re: Link is wrong (as Marcel de Jong)
Oddly enough they had 2 reporters on the same story:
http://www.examiner.com/x-4981-Romance-Novel-Examiner~y2009m11d10-Harlequin-creates-digitalo nly-publisher-Carina-Press
I thought the newspaper industry was struggling? Why then put two different reporters on the same story for the same newspaper?
Link is wrong (as Marcel de Jong)
Link leads to a 404 page. There is an "f" too many in the url.
I think this is the right URL:
http://www.examiner.com/x-12973-Long-Island-Books-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Harlequin-announces-new- digital-only-Carina-Press
what a jackass move (as Marcel de Jong)
I'm now less inclined to go and watch that movie. If the fans are being heckled by the director, he is not worthy of my money. (to my knowledge that movie isn't yet in the Dutch and Belgian movie theatres: IMDB reports a release date of 14 January 2010)
Re: Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
Try 2006... I meant of course Live8.
Did you try to watch their coverage? It was solely MTV 'VJ's strutting their stuff in front of a crowd, instead of any of the music, except for tiny snippets every once in a while.
It was just ads and talk tv.
Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
yes they made 0 money of the scarce concert... 0? yes, because the concert was free. Nice try troll.
And they could have used something other than a fence with white tarp over it... like an open fence...
(as Marcel de Jong)
MTV screwed up LiveAid a few years back, now they screw up this.
MTV, you are way past your due date... you have become irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
I still fail to see the relevance to this article. Stay on topic please.
Re: Re: Re: Effective Name? (as Marcel de Jong)
They probably should have called themselves the Privateer party. :)
laws on the intarwebs (as Marcel de Jong)
But do England's laws apply on the internet? Can I, as a Dutch person, be held accountable to laws that apply only in the UK?
Or am I allowed to anonymously insult their clients?
Re: Effective Name? (as Marcel de Jong)
What are your thoughts on the name "Labour party"?
Does that consist solely of labourers and pregnant women?
Or the "Conservative party"? Do they want that everything stays the same.
Or the "Democratic party"? Do they imply that only they are following democratic principles, and do they even follow those principles?
A name is a name.
Re: Re: Re: Attacks on File Sharing (as Marcel de Jong)
The definition of stealing is that the previous owner no longer owns it. Please do not muddle the conversation with emotional terms like stealing, because it's counter-productive. And in a different lawbook all together even.
Call it copyright infringement, as that's the proper term, and it's also as illegal. (just gouverned by a different law)
And you can keep your preconceived notions about techdirters at the door also. We do not condone copyright infringement, but we do care about the proper naming of things.
It's not theft, never has been never will be, unless PHYSICAL property changes hands.
Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
The reason Hulu blocks VPNs is to stop people from other countries (other than the US that is) to see their content.
It has nothing to do with potential illicit behaviour shielded behind VPNs.
history repeats itself (as Marcel de Jong)
Napster was centralized file sharing. They tried to squash it.
Then came decentralized file sharing, making it harder to find who shared what. They tried to squash that
Then came bittorrent, everyone shares a tiny piece with torrent files in a central location. And they are currently trying to squash it.
What's next?
Decentralized torrent trackers?
The networks haven't found out (as Marcel de Jong)
that they need to compete with free content.
You can't use Hulu and watch the ad-supported shows, so you can only go to piracy. It's as if they WANT you to pirate.
If Hulu was smart, they'd strike a deal with Witopia, and only allow Witopia users that are originating from the US. I'm sure that Witopia could set it up like that.
Re: (as Marcel de Jong)
More like the fish slapping dance.
Re: On the other hand... (as Marcel de Jong)
I thought she was quiting the music business? Or was that a lie?
Re: Arguing against yourself (as Marcel de Jong)
Incentive. Yes, indeed, it will happen, but why would I go to the copy-site, if I can go to the original site for free? It's a different matter when the original site is asking me money for the same article.
No one is saying that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't matter.
As we see with the DMCA takedown notices. Someone flags a piece of content as being infringing, and the site takes it down often without investigation.
We don't need MORE gatekeepers in the internet world, we need less. As gatekeepers will only hinder progress.
Yes the downside of this are the spamsites, but they are easily recognizable as such. And isn't a big threat. The biggest threat for newspapers is themselves.
They don't want to move along with the 21st century, then they are destined to go down.
Newspapers should focus their attention on making good content, and making sure that they build a good community. Word-of-mouth is a much better advertisement for your newspapers than litigation is.
Plagiarism is bad, that, I'm sure, is something we all agree on. But is it worth that much time and money? If the net benefit of the fight is approaching zero?
I, for one, only see those spamsites, if I mistype an address. If I search for news, I use news.google.com or some other aggregator, and those are generally well kept.
Re: The problem with this article (as Marcel de Jong)
It doesn't matter.
Indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Example:
If person A thinks Glen Beck is the best thing to have happened since sliced bread, then he/she will find many sites to suit their needs. And to them those are the best places to find news.
But person B can't stand Glen Beck, then for him/her there are a whole host of other sites that suits their needs.
It doesn't matter that good and bad are relative to the beholder.