The answer is to adjust your business model. Don't focus on selling infinite goods(like digital books). That's a losing strategy. Instead, come up with ways to use the infinite goods to make your finite goods more valuable. You make your money off of the finite goods.
Did anyone else catch that the first article states "City officials say they aren't making money off the red-light cameras which were installed in 2001." but in the very next sentace, there is a link to another article, and in that article, it says "The cameras also have been revenue producers. The cost of the cameras for a four-year period from 2002-2006 was $1.49 million while the gross revenue while the gross revenue for the same period was $1.78 million -- a net revenue of $295,000."
What I am saying is that if Metallica offers to sell their CDs with the stipulation that you can't smash them with a hammer, and you agree to purchase the CD with that stipulation, then you should not be able to smash it. And if you don't agree to that stipulation, then you should not buy the CD to begin with.
Now, that is not what I stated. I never said anyone should not follow the law. My argument was that the law was not a good law, and it should be changed so that there was balance on both sides, allowing the creator to choose whether their works would eventually go public, be public immediately, or never go public.
Fair Use is a loophole that should never have been placed into the law. It prevents a creator from controlling their works, if they so desire. Nothing prevents a creator from putting their work into the public domain, or creative commons non-commercial, and allowing someone to use their work for whatever they like.
But the difference is that its the creator's choice. Under the current system of Fair Use, and with the changes proposed above, you are taking that choice away.
Yes, if Ford wanted to put that sort of restriction in the contracts for selling their cars, then he should have that right. And if you don't like it, you have the right to buy from someone else, or at the very least, not buy from Ford.
Whats wrong with that? No one is forcing you to buy from Ford. But you are trying to force Ford into doing business in a way that they may not agree with. Why should you have that power over a company that isn't yours?
I like Dan's article, but I don't draw the same conclusion he does. He was actually in the room, so I could be way off base here, but when I hear that a company doesn't want to try the experiment because they don't want to upset their customers, that doesn't make me think that they are great humanitarians. That makes me think that they are greedily hoarding the customers they already have, and don't want to risk loosing the profits they are generating.
Am I cynical? Yes. But that doesn't mean I'm not right.
Mike, I'm not sure I agree with your disagreement..
Let me hit the easy point first with your comment about cub reporters, who don't ask questions because they aren't comfortable, or who are fed press releases without asking hard questions. I don't think that this is the point she was making. An inexperienced reporter is going to have this problem no matter what. But an experienced reporter who is reporting on a subject they are not an expert in will have more confidence and be able to pick apart something that is nicely packaged, because they have had experience in other areas. If you've seen experienced reporters who take the nice package at face value, whether they are covering their normal beat, or branching out into something new, I would say that they probably just aren't very good investigative reporters.
This leads up to the more challenging question of whether or not this expert bias is a problem. You state:
"even after nodding my head through Wallace's column, after thinking about it a bit, I'm no longer sure I really believe it makes sense. Go back to her opening anecdote. In that case, she's actually as guilty as the reporters she's mocking. "
This seems contradictory. It looks to me like you are saying that this expert bias doesn't exist because she is falling for it as well. But logically, if she's falling for it, then it must exist.
It seems to me like Expert Bias exists, but it can stem from multiple sources. In one case, Lane recognizes that other reporters are biased because they are familiar and knowledgeable with the industry. In the other case, we recognize that Lane is biased because she has insider information.
So, with two examples of this Expert Bias, and you even kicking in a few examples from your own past, why would you not think that it makes sense?
A website that offers the ability to post anonymously should never reveal one of its own posters who has chosen to make use of that ability. They have the responsibility to make the effort to protect the posters anonymity in the same way that a reporter has a responsibility to protect the identity of their sources.
However, if they are discovered by a third-party (perhaps some other investigative reporter?) without the assistance of the website, and that third-party reveals the poster's identity, the website is off the hook.
Suggestion: If they were to change their name to Project L.E.G.O., it would make me pause from my constant hurry and wonder if there might be a different meaning here instead of instantly assuming they meant the toy blocks.
Being broadcast over a specific medium, even public access television, would have no affect on whether or not material is copyrighted.
I guess I would want to know if they are claiming copyright over any recordings made of the meeting, or only over some sort of 'official' recording made? If John Q. Citizen brought his camcorder in and made his own recording, and they tried to claim copyright over that, then there is a serious issue.