I pay my ISP for access to the Internet, but here is where things get into semantics. I make a Skype call. Is that "content" that I am accessing? What I am seeking in that instance is interaction with the person on the other end. If you define that as content, fine. But it is content that didn't exist before I sought it.
If there were no content on the web, it would be a sad place not worth visiting. However it turns out that there is a lot of content on the web. Some of it is unique, most of it is not. If Techdirt were to cease to exist tomorrow, would I be able to find another site offering similar stories and discussions? Sure. Not exactly the same, but similar.
Re: In astronomy circles ---probably more than other sciences -- there is really no practical "scientific research" difference between pros & amateurs.
and liability insurance , (in case he releases a new life form that the goes wild and eats the city of Pittsburgh .)
Actually, a study was conducted and it turns out that very few people would mind if something ate Pittsburgh (with the exception of some people in Pittsburgh, of course). Cleveland is the same way. And Detroit. And L.A.
Where Does Give It Away and Pray End and a Real Business Model Begins?
Mike is fond of the term "Give it away and pray" to describe the thinking of those who don't really have a plan for making money as they give their work away for free. I think he's right that there a number of people who do this. Just look at the dot com boom and bust to see some shining examples. However, I think Mike is sometimes a little quick to use this term. Just because you don't know what their plan is doesn't mean they don't have one.
Also, the act of giving away something that cost you money to produce is an act of faith. Just as the recording industry is slowly learning that no one guaranteed them a permanent market for shiny plastic disks, no one promises anyone that their investment in time and money will net returns. A solid business model helps, but it's no guarantee. So a little bit of prayer is a necessary part of any business model.
Then obviously the bill needs to be amended to make it retroactive.
My own guess is that this politician's political enemies managed to plant a mole among his staffers. That mole planted the Wikipedia text in the plagiarism bill and he, like most politicians, rubber stamped it. Now the political hay-making can begin!
While there are some jokes that are so bad, it's almost criminal, I'd hate to criminalize bad jokes. I've made a few myself, including some in this venue (though I doubt anyone would find any of them "menacing").
Or have a contest where readers can log onto a website and create a "fantasy" schedule for two years from now. All the readers' schedules will be "published" on the website with attribution in exchange for transfer of the copyright to the paper. When the league tries to publish their schedule, there's a good chance it will be in violation of one of the schedules which the paper already published.
In my family we've had several phones exposed to water. I can't say anything about the liquid damage sensors, but I can report about the durability of phones. My daughter unknowingly dropped her phone on a sidewalk. The case cracked and the phone sat in the rain for a while. It worked after it dried out, but only partially. My wife has dropped her phone in the toilet--not once, but twice--and both times the phone was trashed. My son ran his phone through the washing machine once and had the phone in his pocket when he immersed himself in cool water after a run. Both of these to the same phone, which works to this day. So water isn't instant death to phones, especially if you disconnect the battery and dry the phone as quickly as possible.
While I agree with the main point of the story, something in the quote isn't adding up...
The three largest film industries in the world are India, Nigeria and China. Nigeria cranks out some 2,000 films a year (Nollywood), India produces about 1,000 a year (Bollywood) and China less than 500. Together they produce four times as many films per year as Hollywood.
So if India, Nigeria, and China produce 3500 movies a year (2000+1000+500) and Hollywood produces one fourth as many, which is 875, then isn't the U.S. the third largest film industry in the world?
Another way that OCW can help the professor and the university is if some high school teachers use the OCW materials to enhance their teaching. With some difficult concepts it takes time to assimilate them. Having been exposed to a concept briefly in high school can make that concept less foreign when it is discussed in detail in college.
""You can't correlate the drop in crime to internet file sharing "
"I think you got that backwards"
There's no backwards in correlation. Correlation just means that A and B follow each other, i.e. when A increases, so does B and when A decreases so does B. Correlation does not imply causation, i.e. whether A causes B or B causes A or both are caused by C or they're not linked by cause. However, if there's no correlation, there's no causation, so establishing correlation is a necessary first step to establish causation.
I agree that the "drop in crime" argument is pretty weak. The "gateway crime" is even weaker.
While I think it's unfortunate that Larrikin Music chose to sue over this, I can see why the court ruled as they did. Kookaburra is such a short song. I count 37 notes. It's so short that identifying the song by name is probably infringement. (Note to LM: That was sarcasm; please don't sue me.) The part that Men At Work used is actually two pieces, each 11 notes long. So that's 59% of the tune quoted, multiple times, in Land Down Under.
While it's true the notes aren't part of the versus or chorus, they are the melody line for an instrumental interlude between verses and therefore feature prominently in the song. While not solely responsible for the success of Land Down Under, they do help to give it that Australian flavor.
I agree that the current copyright laws are overboard, but for now they are the law.
I think that the subject article makes some good points (although it maybe overstates its case a little). The point they are trying to make is that adapting was harder for buggy whip makers because the skill set they possessed ("braiding fiber around a hard core") didn't have an application in the automobile business. The carriage makers were closer, with mostly woodworking skills, while the carriage part makers were the closest, since many of them already had metalworking skills.
This isn't to say that a particular industry can't adapt. I take issue with the article's final statement: "But the buggy whip makers never had a fighting chance." In fact the article contradicts itself, as it mentions that a few whip makers survived by focusing on the equestrian market (polo, horse racing, etc.)
There's a saying "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Humans have a tendency to try to solve problems with the skills and tools they already have rather than learning new ones. It takes an exceptional person to 1) recognize that their skills and tools are losing relevance, and 2) acquire new skills and tools to make a successful transition.
This is just my interpretation, but I think the point of the article is not that buggy whip makers aren't a good example of businesses disrupted by innovation. The point is rather that for most businesses, the carriage makers and carriage part makers are more apt analogies. Most modern businesses facing disruption have some (but not all) of the skills they will need for the future.
I think Mike was just too full of rage when he read the article. ;-)