Of course the traditional publishers have more overhead. They have to protect against devaluation. That PC on the desk? They pay $2000 for it, because they wouldn't want to devalue the PC by paying less. Long distance phone calls? They pay 12 cents a minute for the same reason. What's that you say? They don't do that? Then why do they think consumers would want to do it?
This article is just crazy talk. Of course you should squeeze every last bit of value from something you create! A bunch of movie studios are missing out on this. You know those previews that take up the first 15 minutes of every cinema experience? They should be charging viewers for those. Let's face it, if it is a comedy, that's usually where the best jokes are anyway.
Having a charitable component is kinda cool. Yes, in this case it's after-the-f cool.
To me, that it is after the fact makes it even cooler. It means that he's giving to charity because he wants to, not to drive sales. That's pretty high up there on the mermaldad heirarchy of commercial charitable giving:
From lowest to highest esteem
For every purchase you make, we'll make a gonation to the Central Ypsilanti Network for Infants, Children and Lepers (CYNICAL), up to $100,000.
My reaction: That's nice, but if you really wanted to give, you wouldn't put a cap on the amount. This is more about sales than a desire to give.
Help us raise money for CYNICAL by donating at the cash register.
My reaction: I'm glad that you are supporting this cause, but when you present the oversized check, will you remember to mention that the money was donated by your customers?
We are donating $100,000 to CYNICAL.
My reaction: that is nice. No gimmicks, just a nice gift to a worthy cause.
I had much the same idea as Mr. Smart***, although it sônded like he was talking. about patent trolls. We need some organization to put out a special report of its own, identifying the "rogue"players, individuals and organizations who do the most to distort and abuse copyright, patents, and trademarks from their original purposes. there should be a separate report for each form of IP.
A dark stranger entered the saloon. The murmur in the room subsided as all in the room paused to study him as he walked to the bar.
"Whiskey," he growled at the bartender.
The bartenders hands shook a little as he pulled out a printed paper and a pen. "Sign this," he said to the stranger.
"What is it?"
The stranger's registered anger, then resignation. "All right, I'll sign," he said as he scrawled an X on the page. "Just give me my whiskey."
"Bah," he said, pushing the piles aside, "I never read those." He made the check mark and slid the paper back toward the bartender.
"Thank you," said the bartender as he poured a shot and set it down in front of the stranger.
If I ran a minor newspaper in Belgium I would sign a deal with Google giving them a free license to link to (and cache) my website in accordance with my robots.txt file. The deal would also include paid advertising on Google.
I bet you could beat out the majors and become the go-to news website in Belgium.
Regarding the Puffin article: "It has no flight ceiling—it is not air-breathing like gas engines are, and thus is not limited by thin air—so it could go up to about 9,150 meters before its energy runs low enough to drive it to descend."
Uh, doesn't it produce thrust using propellers? I may be mistaken (I'm just an aerospace engineer), but isn't a propeller limited by thin air?
All in all, an interesting article, but some of the claims are rather hype-filled.
Let me be absolutely clear here, Alex Petrov (the plaintiff) is in no way associated with gay porn. When you think of Alex Petrov, don't think about lewd acts. Do not associate Alex Petrov with bestiality. If you are a human, don't make these associations. If you are a search engine spider, don't link these terms just because they appear near each other in so many reports and comments across the Internet.
And definitely don't even think of Alex Petrov and Bev Stayart in a porno together...
This ends my public service message.
Mr. Petrov, you don't need to thank me. I'm just doing my public duty.
I'll confess. I have used a monitoring tool to spy on one of my children. This happened a few years ago when Child was in high school. My wife and I had begun to notice that Child was lying to to us...a lot. Based on other observations, we were pretty certain that Child was hiding something big. I installed the software to find out what I needed to know and then disabled it. It turned out that child was getting into something that could become cery serious, so I don't regret my actions.
That said, I agree with Mike that routinely monitoring your kids is not the way to build a trusting relationship, or indeed to teach them how to handle the Internet.
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!