Not really. All of JoCo's stuff is released under Creative Commons. All his tracks are sold sans DRM. He actively encourages and posts tabs for his material (so others can learn how to mimic his genius and continue spreading the word). His approach to copyright and "control" is the exact opposite of the traditional record label, which is part of why he's so successful.
Yes, there are still tickets to gigs, merchandise and publishing deals, as those are pretty much the way any musician does their stuff. The difference is, JoCo tends to look to the community in order to promote his stuff in any way possible. He even keeps a 'donation jar' on his website in case you obtained his stuff through piracy and feel bad about it.
I'm actually a fan of the AV/Instant Run-Off) idea. Your 'divisible votes' would essentially accomplish the same thing, ranking candidates in order of preference, rather than forcing everyone to vote for the candidate they think can win a general election.
It seems to me that this way, we would have less choices that amount to "the guy that sucks or the guy that sucks worse" and more choices like "hey, this guy's okay, and these next two might not be so bad, but I really loathe this guy".
I realize it's a bit radical, but I would be in favor of immediately imposing term limits on every member of the legislative and executive branches, instituting AV, and then having a massive re-election for anyone who's gone over their limit at the end of their current term.
Of course, this will never happen, because all of the politicians are way too fat and happy on their $200,000+ yearly salaries + kickbacks to ever vote for something that would be against their best interest. Power corrupts, and then corruption feeds more corruption, and then you get the current state of US politics.
But Nina, I'm an American. As a child, I was explicitly taught that "No Means No" and I have learned via conditioning that "Yes" means "Okay, I guess, but only after a whole bunch of paperwork is completed and you jump through these seven flaming hoops."
Here's some more uninformed opinion, worth about as much as this analyst's.
Apple has clearly made enough money providing a "walled garden" utopia for its users, so it's time for Apple to simply call it quits and leave the scraps of the market (the "unbelievers" or "heretics") who are not already obsessed with their iDevices to be squabbled over like leftover meat by the losers: RIM and everybody else (Moto, HTC, Nokia, whoever).
After all, since everybody already has an iPhone or an iPad who could possibly want them? (Since, of course, they're so incredibly perfect, if you don't have one by now, you'll just never understand.) What reason does Apple have to stay in the market at all? I say they should just bow out, now that they've clearly proven their hipster superiority, and start suing everyone else for "not being cool enough to own an iPhone."
"...consider the decrease in debt that students will emerge from college with due to the decrease in textbooks costs."
A nice thought, but currently not the case. My school is offering e-book versions of a lot of the textbooks. The publisher is still requiring them to charge about the same price as a used copy of the printed book for this electronic version... maybe $25 less than a new copy.
This is, unfortunately, not going to save anyone any student loan debt unless publishers wise up and realize that e-book versions should not cost as much as the 'dead-tree' version.
Am I wrong, or was this "jingle" not a fairly common part of old Looney Tunes cartoons from the '40s and '50s? Whenever I hear those particular notes mentioned, I always hear Daffy Duck screaming 'CHARGE!' at the end... which most definitely predates this schmuck's claims.
So this Dan Allen guy originally was in full agreement with Hoff. Enough so that he took the time and wrote a letter to U of M telling them that they should terminate the plaintiff based on the allegations, AND copied Hoff's blog on it, involving himself in the process and in the "libel".
Then he settles with the plaintiff and does a complete-180 on his own positions, even going so far as to testify AGAINST the blogger?
How does he "have it right"? He was originally *helping* to "attack" the individual! Where was his "sense of responsibility" when he was sending off letters to U of M and copying the blog?
Makes me wonder what that settlement entailed. Hope he feels good selling out his right to free speech.
In my opinion, this is the much more enlightening quote in that article:
Jane Kirtley, a U of M professor of media law and ethics, called the lawsuit an example of "trash torts," in which someone unable to sue for libel, which by definition involves falsity, reaches for another legal claim. She predicted the verdict will be overturned.
"This is based on expression, and expression enjoys First Amendment protection," Kirtley said. Just last week, she said, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the Westboro Baptist Church's antigay protests at military funerals.
"I find it really hard to believe that there was a degree of emotional distress caused by this reporting that outstrips that suffered by [a Marine's] family," Kirtley said.
I'm actually quite sad to hear this. I've been a casual Twitter follower/user for quite some time, and managed to leverage it during an admission fiasco (my own fault, not theirs, but they helped me anyway!) at PAX East this past weekend.
I was really very impressed by the power that a public forum like Twitter can create. Hopefully the company will come around, but if we're all forced to exodus to a new place, the same power will only be preserved by everyone moving to the SAME new place.
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The war of ideology (and the inability of both the citizens and our elected officials to see anything beyond it) is one of the largest problems America faces today, in my opinion. The two-party system suffocates independent thinking and pragmatism, requiring people to spout off talking points that they may not fully agree with or even understand just to get elected (or in some cases, even appear on the ballot!).
Evidence. Pragmatism. Compromise. Citizen representatives, not career politicians. TERM effin' LIMITS for all government positions. These are just a few of the things that I would like to see come out of all levels of government.