I'm not really seeing the problem here. If any restaurant did take her up on this offer, she'd be pretty much required to state up front she was compensated for her plugging it. If she didn't, she'd be in big trouble with the FTC, who recently issued very specific rules that if you got comped in return for a plug on your blog, you have to say so.
As far as I know, it's a pretty common practice for blogs to approach companies with products they want to review offering a review in return for a complimentary product. This blogger seems a bit audacious, but then her offer is couched in PR-speak, to which average consumers these days tend to have a poor response.
The article I read suggested the DA's decision was a bit more pragmatic than realizing Gizmodo hadn't done anything illegal. The subtext I got, reading between the lines, was that they still thought Gizmodo had acted illegally in receiving stolen property, but Gizmodo was prepared to use a first-amendment freedom-of-the-press defense that could drag on into a lengthy, highly-publicized legal battle that would just end up Streisand-effecting them into greater publicity. Even if the DA's office eventually won, it would have been at too great a cost for any possible benefit.
Technically, it's not that they want all content to be sold through in-app purchases. It's just that they want in-app purchases to be available if out-of-app purchases are. And in-app purchases would pay 30% to them.
"My friend Jim Griffin always says that anything invented before you’re 20 was there forever; anything invented before you’re 30 is the coolest thing ever; and anything invented after that should be illegal." —Cory Doctorow
Whatever you say about Righthaven, you have to admit that they're not pulling an RIAA, making threats to people they believe will readily cave and pay them more money than it cost to send the copyright notices.
They're going after one of the most pugnacious bloggers in the whole blogosphere, the guy who stood up to an ex-Clinton aide and won. (What are they thinking? Are they thinking?)
Amazon pulled it only a couple of hours after making the announcement, leading to speculation that the announcement was a knee-jerk boilerplate Amazon sends out in the event of a complaint about any book (such as, say, a Tea Partier complaining about Amazon selling Obama's book, or a fundamentalist complaining about Amazon selling books about Satanism) whereas the decision to pull the pedophilia manual was made by someone high-ranking enough to be able to use his own judgment.
When you get down to it, Amazon rolled right over on the pedophile book, too.
Remember that high speed flip scanner that University of Tokyo researchers developed was done with the rationale of scanning manga for world-wide dissemination. (Manga publishers weren't too happy about the idea.) And they want to shrink it down and put it in cell phones!
I seem to recall hearing that the porn industry has historically always been one of the earliest adopters of any new media technology. DVDs, for instanceâ€”and also, erotica titles are just about the hottest-selling model of e-books (and one of the first big e-book stores (so old that one of their delivery options was snailmailed floppy disk!), Hard Shell Word Factory, was a romance/erotica publisher).
Perhaps they're among the earliest adopters of new business models, too.
Interestingly enough, William Shatner is doing a series for cable on this very idea, in which he talks with people who were formerly part of huge stories, like Bernard Goetz or the Malvos (his interview with them made the news itself).
Funny to see the review repost on YouTube, given that the Nostalgia Critic started out on YouTube before having to move to his own site due to YouTube taking his reviews down for copyright violations. Wonder how long that will stay up?
By the way, nobody can decisively say that it is or isn't fair use. Fair use is a legal defense, and as such has to be decided by a judge using a four-factor test. People can say that they think it is or isn't fair use, but there aren't really any bright lines.
Which is why the current copyright system is heavily tilted in favor of those who own the media, since even if everyone would agree something is a fair use and the copyright owner challenges it, the arguably fair user still has to pay his own defense costs and argue it out in court to get a declaration.
It's worse than that.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it fair use is a defense, not a right, because each putative instance of it has to be considered separatelyâ€”there's no "this will always be fair use" rule of thumb in legal terms, even if we laypeople like to claim this or that use is "obviously" fair. There's a four-factor test that has to be applied to judge each case.
Thus, Woodlief could very well have been sued by Joe Henry's record label if he'd gone ahead, over just those eight words. A court might well have found for him in the end, but in the meantime he (and his publisher) would have have had to pay the legal fees and deal with the stress of the lawsuitâ€”over eight little, easily replaceable words.
So the fault in this case is not with overcautious publishers but with the system itself as it now stands.
Right. Remember, even though the Supreme Court held that you have the legal right to rip CDs to MP3s, you should still buy the CD AND the MP3s because purchasing one version doesn't entitle you to other versions of a given product.
Eh. I think that hardcover and paperback are convenient shorthands. People know that hardcovers cost more than paperbacks and come out first; they don't publish both editions at the same time. People getting hung up on "hardcover vs. paperback e-ink" are just looking for a fight to pick.
There's more going on here than scarcity vs. abundance, though. There's also the time factor involved.
I go into more detail about this in a TeleRead post scheduled to go up at 8:15 a.m. Central Time (in which I link this post, too), but bear in mind the difference between the cost of printing a paperback and printing a hardcover is only a buck or twoâ€”but hardcovers cost three times paperback price.
It's a premium on impatience. People who absolutely have to have the book right now will be willing to pay that extra cash. People who aren't, won't.
It's the same way with Baen's E-ARCs. Nobody seems to feel that they're somehow trying to pull a fast one by selling these less-proofed electronic advance reader copies for $15 three months before the final e-book comes out for $6. If people are impatient enough to want to pay that much for a draft version, they can. If not, nobody's forcing them to.
I don't see Macmillan's variable pricing plan as being substantially different in principle than that. Just on a longer time scale.