Not that facebook necessarily wants to get in this business, but is there a way that facebook could throw in some sort of limited power of attorney or somesuch that basically says, if facebook learns that your info is being sought by x entities, you give facebook the right, but not obligation, to challenge that request for you and notify you that they are taking that action?
The Postal Service must be saved because it beats the alternative
I laugh heartily any time someone starts talking about privatizing the US Mail.
Yes, UPS and FedEx say they could fill the void because they would do it like they do service now -- cut deliveries to remote, unprofitable areas and not deliver anything that hurts the bottom line. I wager the USPS would do that too, if they were allowed to.
If the government actually let the Post Office run like an actual government organization or an actual business, we wouldn't have so many complaints. Instead, it's a business beholden to government oversight and half the government wants to see it fail. No wonder they have problems.
However, even with all that, it's been twenty-five years and they still haven't lost a package or letter coming to or from me. And that includes a pair of shoes I sent to Peru where they don't even have zip codes. Can't say the same for FedEx or UPS.
where a country just blocks everything without the right designation. Google isn't censoring, but it is enabling censoring. Twitter too, and as long as the big boys are doing it, then everyone else will have to too. Hello higher barrier to entry. Works out kinda nicely for Google and Twitter that way huh?
I also think there was the added negative that since the licensing costs were so much, somehow the game execs became convinced that licensing different music was the key to making future games successful.
Realistically, that's a low energy way to make a "new" game and thanks to cognitive dissonance, execs couldn't help but figure the new music would make the games sell like hotcakes.
Without all the music industries jedi mind tricks, the execs wouldn't have lost sight of the need to innovate.
The article I read (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20001905-93.html) seemed to be pointing to a potential conflict. The article suggests that Google will be happy to have Apple in the mobile advertising market, but friendly rivals today often turn into bitter enemies tomorrow...
I don't think either of those is the case. If there is less advertising then there is less need for staff. If the price of advertising goes up then only advertising that stands a chance of affecting me will be sent (it's too expensive otherwise). So me, the USPS and advertisers all win.
If in turn we start to get more spam, well spam doesn't waste paper, it can be dealt with in about half an eye blink and we all have filters specifically to deal with this issue. It's not smallpox come to the New World, this is a problem we're used to.
No, it is not. Not at all one bit. I consider myself to be a big geek and I had to have it pointed out to me that the androids in Bladerunner were Nexuses (Nexii?)
I read the name Nexus One and thought, "Hey cool. This is the first Nexus phone. Hey double cool, Nexus means the center point for a bunch of stuff. So the name is totally meaningful"
What the hell does a phone have to do with an artificial person? Plus, why do people think Google wants their new bit of technology associated with fake people that go all murderous? What's their next model, the Bundy?.
Actually I'm suggesting not all counterfeits are bad things and yes this is about handbags. With the exception of the very recent past, the only counterfeit stuff you've heard about is knock-off purses and clothing. Plus most of the examples you're pointing out are instances of the actual products being adulterated, not counterfeited. Different issue altogether and one that is well-legislated already.
More to the point, the article is suggesting that copyright infringement is not counterfeiting and that certain folks love to confuse the two because some counterfeiting can be quite nasty and its a lot harder to show how infringement hurts anyone.
Don't be deliberately obtuse. I don't want you in my house. I don't want others in my house. If I decide to sell my home my CD collection isn't going to help.
On the other hand, purse makers, jeans makers, shoe makers & other makers want you to buy their stuff. If they want this to happen, then they do have to put up with consumers buying and using the product in ways they don't like or not buying their product at all.
Now let's look at that last option. If you represent a certain shoe maker with a distinctive logo and you know X customer is going to buy a shoe and it's not going to be yours, would you rather that person buy a competitor's shoe or a cheap knock-off of your shoe?
If he buys the competitor's shoe maybe he comes to like the shoe and decides that is his new brand. Maybe he never buys your shoes again and what's more tells all his friends how great your competitor's shoes are and maybe they actually listen to him and start buying your competitor's shoes too. Or maybe he just wears your competitor's shoes all the time and since he is cool, others see his shoes and want a pair.
Or maybe he buys a knockoff of your shoe and wears those instead. Obviously these shoes are not going to be great shoes and eventually X is going to realize to get the quality of shoe he wants, he's got to buy the real thing. In the meantime, X is still talking up your shoe to his friends and even if he's complaining about the price, that is just a spur to some types to buy two pairs -- one in white and one in black.
You do realize that Charles Atlas started out as a 98 lb. weakling right?
Time and time again, Murdoch has shown a desire to make the market suit his plans and not the other way around. I applaud/curse him for his success so far, but what he's railing against right now is the market getting its own back.
As an impartial observer who doesn't have a vested interest in calling either side the winner, I think even he might not be able to make this deal come out to his liking.
The same thing that makes the Internet great is what makes it suck -- connections, undreamed of connections.
Sure, it's great when entrepreneurs in underdeveloped countries can use the Internet to get micro-loans or gender-confused teens in small, close-minded towns can actually find acceptance and not sink into a shame spiral that ends in suicide.
But, the Internet also makes it possible for people filled with hate to learn new and better ways to propagate hate and to act on their hate. These people also can find acceptance. These people also can find funding. None of that is as possible without the Internet.
Obviously, the Internet isn't solely to blame or even mostly, but like the telephone and the automobile, the Internet has transformed our culture and society. Some for the good, but some for the bad too.
We wish to advise you that the stories, headlines and/or ledes that you are copying are the copyrighted property of GateHouse Media... and that your copying constitutes infringement.
It may well be that copying and pasting the whole article is infringement. However, it is not the case that all copying of stories or headlines or ledes is infringement. Therefore what they are saying is wrong.
Now the important issue here is, are they being overly broad through ignorance or as a way to assert more control than they have?
Ah, it is you who is missing the point. The author thinks giving away the e-book will induce sales. I think Cory Doctorow would agree with him and could probably point you to a couple other folks who agree too.
Yes, free doesn't have to be totally free, but it would be nice if it was an option the guy who wrote the book could choose.
O'Reilly says "We have published books on Linux where the authors have said: "I want this to be put under free documentation license" and we still ended up selling in some cases millions of dollars worth of copies of those books.
In many cases it was less than we would have made otherwise. But there are other books, where a topic was legitimized by the free content, and by getting millions of people to read it online, we were then able to commercialize them after the fact."
Little something wrong with your logic.
The author notes "that the original version's ebook barely had noteworthy sales, so it seemed reasonable to offer up the ebook for free to drive more attention."
If the ebook version is so great, why weren't the sales better? If your theory is that because the book itself sucked, then why is he getting to put out a second one?
However, you're right the market is for $40 books. If there's no market for the ebooks, you might as well give them away as a means to induce the purchase of the book.
What's killing the various news organizations is that they suck. I am interested in news, but my hometown newspaper's online site is a joke. It's all filled up with Obama is the socialist anti-Christ stuff. So I cruise to other sites where the level of conversation is a little different. I get the same stories and conversation more to my liking.
A desire for community is what is screwing newspapers. They have crappy online communities and no one wants to be there.
They can try to charge for all the content they'd like, but it wouldn't solve their problems. Instead sites like this one would just stop linking to them and provide a discussion of stories they had read. How hard is that? They can't sue you (and win) for discussing something you read.
If you seriously consider it, how many people on this site read the articles that are linked to versus simply riffing off of what is written about the articles?