The way to fix orphan works is not to increase the burden, it's to fix a broken copyright system, and to require registration in the first place.
They way to fix the orphan works problem does involve increasing the burden, but not in the way the Copyright Office is suggesting.
Rather the burden needs to be increased for would-be copyright holders, and decreased for the public. Registration needs to be mandatory, so the public doesn't have to go on some stupid hunt for clues, trying to find out who owns a given copyright and if it's still valid.
That may make forcing them to hold up their end of the contract this time around an exercise in futility, but the idea is to put enough pressure on those being bought that are writing the laws that they start at least pretending to care about something other than who they're selling out to next, hopefully leading to the elimination or overturning of state laws that have been passed to ensure that Verizon and the other teleco companies don't face competition.
Get rid of those laws, and they can then start offering smaller ISPs the same deals that Verizon got, and I imagine a good many of them would jump at the chance.
A cost which would be the same whether you're talking about digital or physical format, so if that's boosting the price of the digital version, it should be boosting the price of the physical version the same amount.
Forget begging Verizon to do anything, they should be writing letters to the public, making it clear that Verizon isn't interested in holding up their end of the various bargains, and if they want a decent service, then it's going to have to come from elsewhere.
Urge the public to put pressure on their (theoretical) representatives to open the playing field, and offer the same terms that Verizon both took and ignored to anyone willing to step in and fill the void. If Verizon isn't interested in meeting their obligations then drop them, and find someone who is willing and able to do so.
If someone complains about a product, but still buys it, the seller has no reason to pay attention to the complaints, as they aren't affecting their profits. If someone complains about a product, and doesn't buy it, then the seller has a real reason to pay attention to the complaints, because they are affecting their profits. Therefore if you object to a product, or how it's offered, unless you stop buying your complaints are almost certain to be ignored.
Unless you're arguing that the above is not true, or that there's some more effective way to protest against a product or feature that you don't like, I think I'm going to stand by my claim/opinion that refusal to buy is the proper way to deal with DRM, in that it's the most likely to actually be effective at dealing with the problem on a long-term basis.
If an eReader can display color, then it will display a given pic in full color. If it isn't capable of displaying color, then it will still display the pic, it will just be in black and white. While color vs black and white has a real price difference when it comes to print, given the different inks and papers required, for digital so long as the device can display pictures at all there's no real difference, so I don't really see that being a valid reason to boost the price.
At most I suppose I could see the argument that more pictures requires more formatting work to get it ready, but that same argument would also apply to the physical versions, so you'd expect both to rise in price roughly equally.
No clue what you mean when you said I was looking at the second hand price, I listed the prices as they were displayed in the 'main' price box, ignoring the Used/New listings below it.
You don't re-paint a house destroyed by rot and termites, you bulldoze it
The OIG recommends a complete overhaul of the NYPD's use-of-force policies, as well as the creation of new incident reporting systems.
At this point forget 'complete overhaul', the entire force, top to bottom, needs to be fired and replaced. When the entire force is corrupt, then minor changes or 'clarifications' of policies that are already being ignored aren't going to cut it. Get rid of every last one of them, and start fresh. This would both allow them to start from a clean slate, as well as show both public and police what happens if things get too out of hand.
I've looked into plenty, and while some are cheaper(though generally only slightly so), a large number that I've seen are priced equal if not higher than the dead-tree format versions of the same book.
But by all means, don't just take my word for it though, here's the top 10 'Best Sellers' on Amazon, paperback versus digital price comparison, with the price difference from digital and the cheapest physical version listed afterwards. A plus indicates that it's more expensive than the physical version, a minus indicates that it's cheaper.
1. The Martian Paperback/Hardback: 9/14.88 Digital: 8.99 Difference:-0.01
2. A Common Struggle: A Personal Journey Through the Past and Future of Mental Illness and Addiction Paperback/Hardback: NA/15.92 Digital: 14.99 Difference:-0.93
3. The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing Paperback/Hardback: 8.10/10.62 Digital: 9.99 Difference:+1.89
(This next one is particularly ridiculous, given it's meant to be played with by a child, making the digital version a terrible idea) 4. First 100 Words Board Book: 3.30 Digital: 5.99 Difference:+2.69
5. Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard, Book 1: The Sword of Summer Paperback/Hardback: NA/13.95 Digital: 10.99 Difference:-2.96
6. The Pioneer Woman Cooks: Dinnertime: Comfort Classics, Freezer Food, 16-Minute Meals, and Other Delicious Ways to Solve Supper! Paperback/Hardback: NA/17.99 Digital: 16.99 Difference:-1.00
7. Killing Reagan: The Violent Assault That Changed a Presidency Paperback/Hardback: NA/17.99 Digital: 12.99 Difference:-5.00
8. Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Old School Paperback/Hardback: NA/7.92 Digital: 7.52 Difference:-0.40
9. Secret Garden: An Inky Treasure Hunt and Coloring Book Paperback/Hardback: 9.57/NA Digital: NA Difference:NA
10. The Three Little Pigs (Disney Classic) (Little Golden Book) Paperback/Hardback: NA/2.10 Digital: 3.99 Difference:+1.89
As you can see, three out of the ten are more expensive in digital format(+$1.89, +$2.69, and+ $1.89 respectively), two are cheaper by a noticeable margin($-2.96 and -$5 respectively), and of the remaining four, the 'savings' by going digital is $1 or less(-$0.01, -$0.93, -$1.00, and -$0.40 respectively).
Add in the DRM that is likely to be in most of the above, which guts value by eliminating the ability to recoup costs by re-selling the book, and even the ones that are technically cheaper are still terrible deals. Cheaper they are not.
You're also telling them you want the $9 kindle version over the $45 hardback/$30 soft back.
And by not buying, I'm telling them that it doesn't matter what the price is, if it's infected with DRM I'm not interested. It's not my job to educate them on the idea that pricing lower doesn't always mean less profits(and in fact can lead to more profits if done right), but I'm more than willing to educate them on what leads to no profits, at least on a personal level. And while yes, just one, or a handful of people refusing to buy isn't likely to lead to any change, if enough people do it then the seller will either change or go out of business, and on a personal level I get to enjoy not throwing money at someone who holds me in contempt.
The proper response is to not be so conceited as to tell others what the 'proper' response should be.
If someone complains about DRM, but buys ebooks infected with it regardless, then their complaints can and will be ignored.
If someone complains about DRM, and acts accordingly by refusing to buy anything infected with it, then the seller has a reason to care and may change their practices as a result.
I fail to see how pointing out when someone is wasting everyone's time, and undercutting their own argument through the contrast of what they say versus what they do is 'conceited'.
As the article notes, buying a book is voting with your wallet. You'll be voting for more DRM by doing this.
This really needs to be pointed out more often. Can you strip an ebook of DRM with minimal effort if you know what your'e doing? Absolutely. However, by buying a DRM infected ebook in the first place, you are telling the ones selling it that you don't mind DRM. That despite what you may claim, DRM isn't enough to keep you from buying, which means any complaints you may bring against DRM can be ignored.
The proper response to DRM isn't buying the product anyway with the expectations of stripping it out, as that completely undercuts any arguments you may make against DRM by showing that it's not enough to block the sale.
No, the proper response is not to buy in the first place, to make DRM an automatic 'No buy', and if possible let the seller know why you refuse to buy from them. Hit 'em where it hurts, their wallets, and then they'll take you seriously.
One of the big problems with ebooks is the publishers' insistence that they not threaten the current paperback market. As a result, they continue to insist that ebooks be priced equally to paperbacks, if not hardbacks, in addition to infecting them with DRM. So people are looking at paying just as much, if not more for a digital version that comes with restrictions that don't exist in the paper-version, like no lending, giving, or re-selling.
If the ebook market isn't doing as well as it could be, which I would imagine to be the case, it's likely to be almost entirely because the major publishers have done everything they can to hamstring it from the get-go, in order to protect the entrenched paper-back market.
What really gets me is that the excuses for why a given site is removing the comments section is both insult and lie at the same time. Gutting comments does not 'foster better communication' any more than cutting down a forest 'fosters appreciation of trees', so that's a lie. The insult come into play when they assume that their (hopefully ex-readers) are too stupid to realize that they are being lied to.
"We don't care to listen to you any more, and we're firmly of the opinion that you're stupid enough to buy into the excuse that blocking you from commenting on our stories is meant to increase communication and discussion."
They can remove the comments sections if they care to, whether because they get tired of reader comments showing how and when they're wrong, or simply because they can't be bothered to do even a bit of moderating, but when they lie about their reasons, then they need to be called out on it.
Delays followed by 'miscommunications', searching for the 'proper' forms and authorizations before releasing documents, claiming that what's blatantly written isn't nearly as bad as it could have been, utterly ignoring how bad it is, 'accidentally' forgetting to release certain parts until people specifically ask for them, and then dragging their feet regarding releasing those parts...
Given the utter secrecy that has infused the 'negotiations' so far, and the overwhelming contempt they've shown towards the public and it's concerns, I fully expect that those involved will do everything in their power to continue to hide any real details from the public until it becomes a moot point, maintaining a condescending and dismissive attitude the entire time.
So long as there remains absolutely no penalty for sending bogus, even clearly bogus DMCA claims, this will continue. Why aim for accuracy when you're not penalized for screwing up after all? Why care if you target a few innocent sites if you aren't the one who has to deal with the consequences of your actions?
Put some real penalties in the DMCA, penalties matching if not exceeding what those who post infringing works face if found guilty, or even simply enforce the penalties already there, and then you'll see this sort of thing stop happening. Until that happens though, the only surprise is that it doesn't happen more often.
'Conflict of interest', clearly a term beyond government and police comprehension
Seems to me you could use the same logic to drastically cut down on all other forms of crime, simply by letting those that perform the acts judge whether or not their actions are justified, and letting them choose what they want to report.
Murders by non-cops? Simply don't happen, every last reported incident is found to be an act of self-defense by the one who committed the action.
Assault? Not reported or justified.
Robbery? Not reported or justified.
Fraud? Not reported or justified.
Arson? Not reported or justified.
And so on.
The FBI and police actions here are exactly the kinds of behavior that leads to loss of trust from the public. They are blatantly indifferent to the problem, and show no interest in anything more than the most transparently laughable 'solutions' that don't involve merely brushing it under the rug, and people see this. And when people see that those in charge, whether government agency or police, have no interest in holding their own accountable, it's not hard to understand why people would lose any trust towards those in charge.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can get away with pretty much anything so long as you claim to be doing it in the name of copyright. Extortion, censorship, gutting the public domain and sabotaging cultural growth, destroying the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'... it's all good as long as it's in the name of protecting the holy 'copyright'.