Bob’s Techdirt Profile

bsinatra

About Bob




Bob’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 29th, 2011 @ 7:08am

    Re: 39-45

    41 & 44: The principal scolded her for an hour and at the time required her to write the apology letter. Only after the superintendent stepped in was that demand reversed.

    42 & 43: She said as much. It was a joke. At the time she had 60 followers, they were her friends and peers who got the joke. She reasonably had no idea the Gov's office was looking for comments about him online.

    45: Thanks for noticing.

    His apology, if sincere, could have come on Friday afternoon when the story broke, before she had 12,000 followers on twitter. The apology after the bad publicity looks like he's sorry it blew up in their face. If he truly disagreed with the policy he could have apologized upon hearing about it.

    I have heard claims of disrespect toward the young lady. She was on a school sponsored "youth in Government" trip. If anything she is guilty of being a teenager. Tweeting instead of paying attention, and guilty of tweeting something of little value in the debate of this governor being a horrible governor, of which there are many good arguments. Disrespectful, sure. But so was vetoing the Arts commission out of existence, making Kansas the only state ineligible for federal arts funds. And doing so in the face of his own party's desire and the desire of the majority of those he supposedly governs.

  • Feb 11th, 2010 @ 11:23am

    There would be negatives for Chrysler

    If you are the opposing school you are going to make fun of their mascot and more directly of Dodge products. That is one good reason to yank their logo. Any badwill is erased by the local dealer doing right by paying for a redesign. That is where brand image is maintained at the dealer level.

  • Feb 3rd, 2010 @ 2:01pm

    What if...

    ...they sometimes used it to frame and sometimes switched it to another site they were promoting?

    http://www.tech-dirt.com

  • Jan 8th, 2010 @ 3:01pm

    @compgeek

    Horrible example but you have one good point.

    If I am going to busk or even perform at small clubs, I should be able to contract only with people whoes songs I cover.

    I would prefer this, that way I am not subsidizing the current crop of Autotune "Songwriters" and other "popular" artists that I would choose not to support.

    When I do covers, they tend to be from independent artists. These people are never going to see a cent from ASCAP, SOCAN and the like. Why? Because in the formula, nobody listens to their music so in the formula, they don't get paid.

    Of course the reality of personally contracting with each person whose songs I cover is horrible as well. The only solution, that is just as open to corruption as the current system is to have any ASCAP paying venue require that artists submit a playlist from a set.

    But the real issue on this article is muddied by the involvement of SOCAN. While it is not unreasonable to pay a fee to a venue such as this for the return you will get in return, it is stupid, when the TransLink people could have done better in good will, than they will get in fees.

  • Jan 8th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    not all bad

    While this is not necessarily a bad thing, this quote shows that the TransLink people know they are getting the best end of this deal.

    "We want to provide an enjoyable experience for people if they have to wait a bit longer during the Games," said Translink spokeswoman Judy Rudin.

    They are getting very cheap entertainment for travelers they know will need it during expected delays during service.

    This is not your typical busking environment. You are basically hired, ok you audition for this gig. The problem is that they are not hiring these people but just basically letting their own customers pay for it. Smart on their behalf, but if they are auditioning people for this, the least they could do is eat the $880 dollars they have to pay SOCAN.

    Hopefully the tips these performers will more than outweigh the license fee they have to pay. The fee has less to do with recouping the license fee and more to do with trying to add value to the license. That said, the smart thing would have been to not raise the fees, take the cheap entertainment and everybody wins.

  • Jan 7th, 2010 @ 11:23am

    We'll see

    If it really turns out to be a better deal for them, that allows them to stream more movies, I couldn't care less if I have to wait a month for new releases. They need more streaming content more than they need faster releases.

  • Dec 15th, 2009 @ 11:50am

    Well...

    Maybe it should be South Butte

  • Oct 1st, 2009 @ 8:10am

    More to it than iReport

    I am a free app junkie but I didn't even blink at shelling out $1.99 for this app. Mine is a touch so can't even do the iReporting. There is live Cnn.com video streaming, archived video and text stories. With apple still not supporting flash video this is a great way to get the news and I personally don't mind paying for it.

  • Jul 16th, 2009 @ 11:30am

    Umm well.

    As far as I can see, google doesn't embed full stories into their pages. And on the google news main page there aren't even any ads. If I search for news that would appear in my local paper, I also don't get links for ads on the result page. So this guy complaining that Google is getting rich on other people's content is way off. It seems to me that google is not monetizing their content, they are only sending them eyeballs.

    I think newspapers are just missing the boat by not monetizing the traffic properly. They are stuck in the "display ad" idea of making money and they make some. They all have the technology to see what search query brought people to their site. They could easily turn those search queries into money on their site by using google's ad tools.

    Oh never mind...talking to them is useless.

  • Dec 17th, 2007 @ 2:54pm

    no auction site yet

    The auction hasn't been set up yet, only planned.

  • Dec 10th, 2007 @ 8:21am

    The thing is...

    I can straddle the fence here a little. I have a close relative that earns their living writing songs and performing music.

    I am a board member for a small "very non-profit" community theater. We were "approached" in letter form telling us we needed to have an asscap license for our shows. Not for musicals which rights are acquired differently but for ambiance music. Pre-show, intermission and the like. We of course complied and paid the whatever hundreds' of dollars per year.

    My problem is that they never ask for or accept our play list for the music we are now legally presenting to the paying public.

    Shouldn't the independent artists that we choose to highlight in our pre-show music be getting the royalties? Just how do they decide how to spread the licensing monies around if they don't gather play lists?

    Anyone know this stuff?

    PS spell checker suggests 'ass cap' as the corect spelling for 'asscap' (yes I realize it has one 'S')