I think you need to recognize the fact that site operators have a wide variety of goals and needs, beyond just appealing to the small segment of the population with such incredibly strict design standards. I think several of your points are good ones, but I also think you are taking them to an absurdly absolutist level that you know perfectly well is unrealistic to expect on the modern internet.
And to clarify: we did not design and build the Techdirt Deals store. It's a partnership program with StackCommerce and the design comes from them. It also seems pretty clean and straightforward to me, hardly a mess of information that must be sifted through. I think you're being unreasonable.
Honestly, while I understand some of your complaints, it does not seem as bad as all that, and seems pretty in-line with the standard for a huge majority of websites for several years now. I too have my issues with some of the trends in modern web design, but it must really suck to use the web if you experience this much rage over every site that doesn't adhere to your strict minimalist design principles, since that's pretty much all of them.
Site looks nice enough to me, and I don't see the grey on grey you are talking about. And between the brief introductory text and the big list of products with prices, I think it's fairly obvious that the page is a store -- what more explanation were you looking for?
Where? If you're going to point to a four-year-old thread with 159 comments that appears to mostly be you (oh sorry, I mean "someone") going on extensive repetitive rants, it'd help if you pointed us to the exact comment in which you believe Mike claims this.
But... everything is public domain unless society, via its intellectual property laws, says otherwise.
So it's not a question of whether everything "needs" to be public domain -- everything IS, by default. It's a question of when and why anything "needs" to be granted an exception to that natural fact, and taken out of the public domain.
Re: Funniest of week is Techdirt slips and validates intellectual property: "your stuff"!
Took me fifteen minutes to compose this piece long as typical Techdirt post.
Is that why it's completely incoherent, scatterbrained, and doesn't seem to be making any particular point whatsoever? Spend a little longer next time, because honestly I can't follow any of what you just said...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And for making a web-site, Kickstarter rakes off TEN PERCENT!
How am I not "arguing in good faith"?
Let's make this simple: if you're going to suggest KS is "crawling with thieves" then you need to provide some evidence of that. I just don't see it. I've backed lots of projects, and perused & followed many more, and I don't see this infestation you're talking about.
And if it's so easy to come up with a superior service, then why don't you or someone else just do that right now? A moment ago, you said KS was "the only place" -- that seems to me like proof that creating a superior service isn't so easy.
Re: Re: Re: And for making a web-site, Kickstarter rakes off TEN PERCENT!
Do you not see the contradiction inherent in what you say?
In one breath, you say that Kickstarter basically does nothing, is useless, is bad at its job, requires no work, etc. In the next, you say that it's the only way for small creators to get funding and make something a reality.
So, if Kickstarter sucks so much, why is it the only way? Why are there not lots and lots of equally popular alternatives? Why is it so advantageous and unique for creators? If Kickstarter's cut is so ridiculous and unfair, why aren't there a bunch of other sites offering the same service without taking a cut?
Like it or not, Kickstarter provides a really good platform that a lot of people find great to use. I don't see what it is that you think is so poor about what they do. And honestly, it does not seem to be overrun with "scams" — anyone who says that is, at best, lumping together a couple genuine (and rarely successful) attempts at scams with a bunch of other projects that simply failed or didn't go according to plan.
It has been my experience — and it's my guess with the people who immediately start complaining about KS in these comments, including you — that they are primarily motivated by one or two personal disappointments. I've seen the rage that Kickstarter failures bring (I've even succumbed to it on a couple of occasions) but translating it into accusing the whole operation of being a complicit den of thieves seems counterproductive.
It's more that it's important for people to understand the distinction. There is a common, and entirely fallacious, belief that copyright is mostly about protecting a creator's moral rights and ensuring they get attribution and credit -- but it's not, at least not in the US. It's solely about economic rights and attribution/plagiarism doesn't enter into it. (On the flipside, some people believe that as long as you credit someone, what you are doing is less likely to be infringing - and again that's simply not true.)
Plagiarism is likely to be infringement, but the plagiarism aspect doesn't really matter. Meaning if I copy your song and credit it to you, but don't have permission, that's infringement -- and if I copy your song and pretend I made it myself, again without permission, then that's the exact same kind of infringement. The fact that one is plagiarism and one is admitted copying makes no real difference to the legal question.