I showed this to several people where I work and they didn't find it that funny. As someone who laughed out loud, I'm beginning to wonder how small the audience for this commercial actually is. Also, I fear my perspective has become overly attenuated.
I think the conversation on this topic would benefit from more precise language. Just as 'piracy' is not 'theft', the exemption granted by the WTO to Antigua is not approval to commit 'piracy'. Since the US is a member state of the WTO, and as such agreed to an exemption from copyright being a potential remedy, this exemption amounts to an authorization to use and distribute works copyrighted under US copyright law, which by way of binding international agreements is functionally authorized by the US itself. It's almost like an anti-copyright. US rights holders are excluded from asserting their right to exclude.
Just recently I noticed that John Scalzi (author of Old Man's War, etc.), is releasing his newest book in serial format in one week intervals. Each release (starting with http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Division-B-Team-ebook/dp/B00AF62EX0/ref=pd_sim_kstore_12 for the curious) is priced at $0.99. So, while the book totals out to roughly $13, if you're a Scalzi fan and want the latest bit as it is released, you really won't feel the price hit as much. My guess is that they'll release the entire thing at a lower price after the initial run.
Sidenote: Scalzi hates DRM, and as I think has been covered here, his publisher, TOR, has moved to DRM free ebook releases. While this is not precisely what this article was talking about, it looks like it's in the same vein of what is now enabled with e-publishing.
Also, sorry if this reads like an ad for his book. I just hadn't seen this happen before now.
... I get replying, really, it's the gut reaction they're going for, and it's hard to resist. But, why are you feeding the trolls even more by "first word"-ing your reply? Especially OOTB (for goodness sake, we have an ACRONYM for that one and you still had to draw more attention to him). Come on. Please kids, don't feed the trolls.
I am curious though, since the oldest live registrations I could find are pretty new (2000s), if they're actually updating the silhouette to match the current look of the tree, or if they're trimming the tree to keep it in line with the 1919 drawing, because it does look pretty similar.
Of course, none of that takes away from the absurdity of any of this, I'm just trying to provide a bit more context.
"Boyle's paper is a timely reminder that judges need to take into account the special nature of open source when considering whether to grant patent injunctions"
Seems to me that it's the lawyers on both sides who need to take this into account more than the judges. As we've seen with a lot of IP related suits, a defense attorney's failure to understand how new systems, technologies, and ways of doing things work often lead to a failure to bring up arguments that judges never become aware of. Even worse, when the attorney really thinks they "get it" they some times fail at the basic law (I'm looking at you here, Nesson).
My point is that an evaluation based on an understanding of the disruptive change in creative pursuits of all sorts requires lawyers who either are, or are willing to learn from, competent technologists and other experts. It's really up to them to educate the judges.
Since this post went live, the home concert and dinner options have both received 1 backer. That's $20,000 right there, and she's given herself an 18 month window to fold the events into her normal tour plans, so there aren't travel expenses to be concerned about.
I think it's worth noting that this may have been in the course of being resolved by the time Mike posted, since in the screenshot above there are 3 "shares" on facebook already. I agree it should not have happened in the first place, but at least in this instance facebook was responsive, even if it wasn't an instant fix.
In the reading I've done in the last few minutes, it looks like your step 3 may not be part of the calculus at all. The mined material may be used "in situ" to help on our way to exploring/colonizing/monetizing the solar system. I will say though that Diamandis has mentioned funding such a project by speculating in the markets that such mining might impact (in a TED talk), so maybe he does intend to get the stuff back here (if that's even what this is all about).
I agree that steps 1 and 2 are problematic, but it at least looks like we have some sense of what the rough makeup of many of the asteroids are, and what it will take to reach them, even if not economically feasible under any existing models.
While we'll find out more next Tuesday about the nature of the company, I did a little follow up reading on asteroid mining. This section of the Asteroid Mining wikipedia article (along with a few other sections/pages), seems to raise the possibility that in "the near future" asteroid mining might be feasible, and specifically, NEO's might be a better option than the moon due to the lower gravitational propellent costs:
This is actually wrong. The roku sticks need a HDMI port. I don't mean to be rude, but in half the time it took to write your comment, you could have clicked on the link of the previous commenter and found out that the only port on the stick is HDMI (and that's just from the pictures). Also, the only "upgrade" required is MHL. From the article:
"MHL is a new standard that uses the HDMI connector on TVs to deliver power and other critical elements for the streaming experience. There are already TVs with MHL from Samsung and Toshiba, and you’ll see a bunch more announced at CES."
Going forward, most TVs will be including this support, Smart TV or no, so while you sort of have a point about the current crop not supporting the stick, you're absolutely wrong about the need for a Smart TV with an "upgraded usb port," whatever that even is. And ultimately, this solution really is the best of both worlds. Bundle a new TV with the stick, and now it's a removable component that can be upgraded in a few years. While you could argue that in the mean time the standard has shifted away from powered HDMI to something else, consider that A/V, power, and a network connection are really the only requirements a set top box (for IP type connections) really needs, so there would be no good reason for roku to stop supporting this type of connection, even if they add others.
This solution really takes care of all of the concerns of the blog post (and has the added bonus of not actually being "set top"), and I expect to see other Set top box manufacturers following roku's lead in the not too distant future.
I actually commented on the article when it first showed up (and referenced a great techdirt post), and I got Paul to admit that even he sees that plagiarism are copyright are different. As you can see if you read the thread though, he really only seems to think this matters once the term of copyright has expired. Forget the fact that we're talking consumption vs. passing off, they're both using copyrighted material, so they're the exact same kind of harm. But we're not even necessarily talking about harm here, we're talking about dishonesty. Just because plagiarism may also be an infringing act doesn't make them the same, or even related. It just means they can happen at the same time. And apparently, timing is all it takes to make us all hypocrites.
That's actually not what I'm suggesting. I can point you to several instances where a contributor is immediately assumed to be a shill just because of their user name. This sometimes happens when a new user sees a problem with the article, and since that is what is on their mind, they incorporate that topic into their user name. The result is that anything they do is immediately assumed to be done for the purpose of advancing the POV of the topic of the article, and the reaction is fast and harsh (and where the user gets another chance, it is often demanded by wikipedia editors that they change their user name to be something less tied to any possible topic). In my last recommendation, I actually made quite clear that I think it's important to be very aware of WP:COI, which has specific recommendations for when and how to disclose your relationship to a topic.
Having gone through a similar experience myself, I've found that in navigating the potential "Conflict of Interest" waters on Wikipedia, it is important to know the rules as well, if not better than, the editors who revert even positive and accurate changes that rely on secondary sources. I got into it with a few editors less than a week after joining. This was over an entry that was accurate, but had little information citable to a 3rd party, and I found a few things to be VERY helpful in dealing with the overall atmosphere:
1. Pick a user name that is arbitrary, and not related to your business or clients.
2. Whenever possible, find a source to cite to that is not a property owned by the topic of the article.
3. Watch the article's talk page.
4. If anyone raises concerns, pay attention to their talk page, and the talk page of any other users that get involved.
5. When the ONLY source is the subject's own information, only mention those things that would have no impact on the subject's perception either way (ie, boring facts).
6. Know WP:VERIFY (especially WP:SOURCES and WP:ABOUTSELF) and be very aware of WP:COI.