Can you elaborate on the point about intellectual property?
If you're publishing something in a public forum without written consent, that's problematic. I want the photos to represent the standards of the restaurant. If I post a fuzzy picture from Schwa, for example, I don't think it would be right to spread that.
These are the same people who love to sue people for leaving less than stellar feedback on public forums. Now RJ Cooper outed himself not only as a douche, but it's also clear that he doesn't even understand what intellectual property is. Way to go, RJ!
When principles and your own selfish interests collide, few people stand by the former. Which is why the people arguing in favor of copyright are the ones who stand to gain from it. All the hogwash by maximalists about how strengthening copyright would somehow benefit society is akin to billionaires preaching the benefits of a trickle down economy. It's refreshing that Twain at least doesn't pretend his stance would be based on anything other than a sense of entitlement.
Re: an actual editor on how book prices are decided
"I look at the price of other books for the same consumer and price my book the same because that's what the consumer has shown he's willing to pay."
Right, but that's an incomplete equation and it's a very volatile assumption. There are a multitude of reasons why consumers are willing to pay a certain price, and none of them have anything to do with the fixed costs of producing the product, which was the point of the article. You are right that the price of similar books play a role in the perceived value of a book, so it's an obvious starting point in setting the price, but it's also not the only factor.
Consumers are aware of the marginal costs of digital copies so that lowers the perceived value of an e-book. Also, DRM lowers the perceived value of an e-book, so one book may sell better at the same price as another simply because one may be DRM-free and the other isn't.
The reason looking at the price of competing products kind of works is that someone else already did the work for you of figuring out what the market will bear, but it's still a shortcut and it may or may not work to copy that. Then there's the whole issue of monopolies and price fixing in the publishing industry which makes it very hard to gauge the perceived value consumers are putting on a product, so you run the risk that there's such a large disparity between price and perceived value that eventually a large number of consumers not only look to piracy as an alternative but feel justified in doing so. That's a trend you need to factor in when pricing an e-book. If you just keep the prices high because everybody else does you're undermining consumer trust and in the long term you're shooting yourself in the foot.
The point that you're missing so spectacularly is that "borrowing" samples from each other is part of their culture, so they should be in favor of strengthening fair use to allow for these things. So they can speak out against current copyright laws as they relate to fair use without having to call for abolishing all copyright.
A consumer boycott large enough to make a dent is unrealistic and would just be used as extra fuel in the debate of why they need new legislation ("See, sales are down dramatically, PIRACY!")
What needs to happen in the music industry is a boycott by the artists. If the popular artists refuse to sign deals with the major labels and sell directly to the consumers (or use a co-op label) then the tides are really turning. I think this is just a matter of time, too. SOPA became so toxic that no politician wants to be associated with it. Artists, too, should be distancing themselves from the industry.
In the film industry it is slightly more complicated and it will take longer to bypass the gatekeepers, but I believe it is possible.
I also like his objection to touring: Aretha Franklin shouldn't have to drag her 78 years old butt on stage. Well yeah, he's right. Just like everybody else has retired by that age. It's called planning ahead and managing your finances. The sense of entitlement these guys display is just mind-boggling and, frankly, insulting to anybody working normal jobs.
Naw, they complained to the pirate party via email. Well, they didn't accuse them of anything really, just "expressed concern". Maybe they thought this way the story makes the news and therefore the message reaches the intended audience :)
The reason they haven't sued anyone is because there's nobody to sue. The pirate party itself never used the toys, just multiple news outlets. Someone did it once, other thought it's cute, and now it it has turned into somewhat of a meme. The party itself doesn't even particularly like being associated with toys. It's funny that Playmobil then direct their complaint to the party who isn't responsible for any of this.
He never framed the issues like you said. Where did he focus on individual patents? It says it pretty clearly that it's the current implementation of the patent system as a whole that is hindering progress rather than promoting it.
Sure, patents are a trade-off, but all evidence points to the fact that the balance is clearly off, causing the system to stifle progress (yes, even in the long term). Also, nobody said the benefit to the public needs to be upfront, so that's just a silly straw man.
I disagree that the name will prevent them from being accepted by the mainstream. The meaning and associations of words change over time and what sticks is what they stand for, not what you currently associate with the word pirate. Society used to think of pirates just as the swashbuckling kind before it associated the term also with file-sharers. There's nothing that says we won't associate the term with people fighting for our civil liberties one day.
Another example of how that already happened before with a political party is the Green party in Germany. When they started out, being "green" was considered totally out of the mainstream. The name conjured up images of idealistic yet utterly unrealistic one-issue hippies and it was very much a protest party at the time. People said the same thing you're saying now, that their name would lock them in and prevent them from ever becoming mainstream. Now that they've been in the mainstream for 30 years people no longer associate "green" with purely environmental issues and the name is no hindrance.
The fact that this made front page news in a tabloid paper speaks volumes actually. That just goes to show how popular the phenomenon is if tabloid papers think it's a story that will be that interesting to its readers, most of whom probably care little about politics or the talking points of the party.
I thought the issue was more that overzealous photographers/artists might sue pinterest because they store copies of their work. The TOS is standard boilerplate, sure, but if you pinned the work of someone else and the guy in turn sues pinterest, you're the one who promised to indemnify them.
I don't even use pinterest so I can't be sure I'm getting this right. This is based on what I read in her blog post. I wouldn't be too surprised if one of those self-righteous overzealous entitled artists decides to make a big stink about something and you might be the one having to deal with it. Am I getting this wrong?
One of the major issues of the day? Setting fire to his ideals? Jesus, talk about hyperbole.
This wasn't an "assault on free speech", unless you believe campaigns should be able to anonymously smear their opponents in an election. He wasn't going after some random individual on the internet because he didn't like the message. He was suing because he was reasonable sure that the Huntsman campaign was behind it. There are different standards and would the press have done their job with some basic investigative journalism this could have been quite a scandal.
So yeah, you can complain about him using the wrong tools for the job, but to call this a flip flop on his ideals is stretching it.
The last time this was mentioned here I hadn't actually heard about the incident so I caught up on the story and read what was out there. To call the evidence improbable or downright stupid and painting Ron Paul supporters as conspiracy theorists is lazy, opinionated drivel. There's plenty of evidence out there pointing to the Huntsman campaign. It's not certain, but even Ron Paul was sure enough that he decided to launch a lawsuit to reveal who's behind it.
Was he using a loophole? Yeah. Abusing the trademark law? Probably. Would the result have justified the means? I think it might have. I certainly would have liked to know if the Huntsman campaign actively smeared a candidate using a false flag attack. But the one thing I'm sure about is that Mike never bothered looking into the case, or he's so biased that he doesn't care about the facts. I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter and that much is obvious to me.
Pretty close. It's the credit card companies, but they don't typically refuse payments. They just charge a lot more because of the added risk of chargebacks. Paypal doesn't want to take on the extra cost so they just refuse any content that might be deemed risky.