Good ideas, but the bands are doing it backwards. What they need to do is offer concert tickets in CD's, as the cd's are the medium that is flagging. The shows, personal momentos, and hang time with the band should be used to sell T-shirts, cd's, mugs, hats, key-chains, and etc. The key is that social interaction with the band and invitations to hear thier music are far more valuable than physical items. I'm sure everybody can put the parts together from here.
That doesn't change the fact that they have a business model. Nor does it make what they are doing any more acceptable. Infact, it makes it worse. It's not just a major financial institution bullying a private citizen, it's a major financial government intitution bullying a priveate citizen.
Non-profit organisations still generate money. Therefore, they have a business model. Take The United Way, a non-profit organisation. They generate money by way of government grants, private donations, and public charity projects. The money is then filtered into thier many and varied humanitarian efforts as well as the upkeep of The United Way itself. Worlds apart from the business model of say, McDonalds, but no less a business model.
Mike did not state it was the cab drivers themselves, he stated it was the companies. Two totally different entities. The cab drivers are simply the employees, with as little say in the management of the company as any other hourly/comission employee.
Just as Mike said, this is a typical and easily forseen action by the cab companies. That the people who run the electric vehicles didn't see this coming speaks volumes about thier capabilities.
That said, don't think I am defending the cab companies. Thier attempt is only one step removed from outright thuggery. In fact, it's the economical equivalent to knee breaking and curb stomping.
It is maneuvers like this that make me shrug and say, "Eh." whenever I hear of someone breaking certain laws. I know the laws were enacted not for public safety/protection but to further the monetary goals of political/economical entities. Especially since in most cases those laws are directly in opposition to my wants and needs. If 90 percent of America isn't felons yet, it soon will be.
Wrong. It is not the marketers who decide if a strategy is a failure or a winner. Never has been. The marketers ride the trends, predict future intrests and demand. However, large companies don't like changing markets, as it generally means loss of profit for them. Smaller companies, on the other hand, generally like a market in flux, as it often opens niches and horizons for them. Enter the marketers. One group, those who work for large companies, attempts to generate intrest in failing markets, identify new markets, and force smaller companies out through brand spam. They do this through a variety of ways, but they don't decide what works and what doesn't. They attempt different methods, find the one that fits thier clients intrests best, and proceed. Notice I did not say they find the most effective method. The company decides which sttategy to use, after consulting with the marketer. This is how you end up with idiot brand campaigns and markets that act as if they are dying of terminal cancer. Mike's method works, and it works well. The reason it hasn't caught on like wildfire is simple. There are to many large companies totally invested in the old methods. The new methods popping up revolve around the musician, not the label. Because of this the companies are pumping all available capital into legislature to halt the new methods as well as brand spam campaigns and market campaigns. With that lined up against it, no wonder musicians are flocking to it in droves. Give it time. It will win out.
The truly stupid thing is, it's all image related, Lonzo. The only legal way they could get him for trademark infringement is if they claim his use of thier name endorsed or improved marketing of his product. In other words, they don't want to be associated with or potentially endorsing thier own screw up. To top it all off, legaly there is no way they can win the case on these grounds, and I am certain they know that.
Nope, not missing anything. They are attempting to CREATE scarcity. Not only that, but they are doing so in a way that alienates thier major customers. Add that all up with a product that is quite easily found at the expenditure of only a few minutes, and you have a company doomed to fail miserably.
"The original section 92a would have forced internet service providers to cut off copyright infringers "in reasonable circumstances", acting on evidence from copyright holders."
"People accused of internet piracy might be deemed to have waived some rights if they had not disputed warning notices."
These days, more so than any in recent history, people ACCUSED of a crime are suddenly second class citizens. Innocence or guilt, these are secondary issues in the media and litigation frenzies. Businesses, reputations, family units, and careers are eagerly ripped apart in the quest for the "TRUTH". And even should you find a guilty party, does the punishment fit the crime? How is hundreds of thousands in fines considered fair for theft under a hundred dollars? How is a thousand dollars fair for a theft of under a hundred dollars? If this is fair, should we not recieve hundreds of thousands of dollars in renumeration for every defective music trac, disconnected internet sight, and scratched movie we purchase? After all, we actually lose more money over these things than big companies do a downloaded song, and we make far far less.
I have worked salary jobs and hourly. When I worked salary the company expected me to work eighteen hours a day and be on call the rest. When I worked hourly, the company expected me to clock out for everything and it was the end of the world if I achieved overtime. Whatever model companies choose, it is the one best suited to the company. Workers, on the other hand, always fight for the method that best suits them. It is inevitable. The breakdown comes when the gap between the two is to great. For example, if an hourly company only allows twenty hours maximum, then it's workers are going to corrupt the system as much as they possibly can. For them the job will be just that, a job they do while looking for something decent. And if your employee's don't care about the work or the company, you will fail. It may take time, but it is garaunteed to happen. Untill companies are force to recognize that, while profit is the destination, good products and happy workers are the way to get there.
I am an author. I write for money. I like to be paid lots of money. I do not care if my writing still generates money when I am dead. My sons and daughters have no claim on the fruits of MY labor. If I am able to put some in a fund, so be it. If not, then they have to work, too. Pay me a percentage, or flat sum. I do not care. If, in ten years another author picks up where I left off....good. Then my writing never dies. Should I be paid because thier efforts enhanced my own? I don't see why, they did the enhancing. I don't see why it should be any different with patents. You make a chair, I make it better. You want more money? Make my better chair even better. Make it faster or cheaper or more comfortable. Don't whine cause you can't keep up with me.
Well, trolls are useless ninety percent of the time, that's true. But new readers can be thrown off by them. Sometimes it's best to dust off a few of your favorite trolls, heat them up, and throw them out for everyone to see. That has more than one positive effect. First, people can see the idgits for who and what they are. If nobody feeds em, they are likely to die of neglect. Second, a subject can often be judged by it's proponents and oponents. Let the people see that only morons and idgits disagree. And third, it's a good way to relieve stress and frustrations. Nothing says fun like a good troll beating contest.
I used to be Q.A. for an insurance sales company. Many detest these companies and thier methods, employee's included. That said, one of the things I did like about that company is that every transaction was closely scrutinised and if there was any doubt that the customer knew what he or she was doing or purchasing, then the transaction was canceled. Now, this wasn't advertising, but if even telemarketers and insurance companies agree that tricking your customers into purchasing things is bad, well then, it must be something pretty awful indeed. I don't know if legal action should be taken for merely having the sites up, but those tricked should have legal options if they can't get thier monies back.
Quite infantile, but hardly intimidating. I heard worse on the playground in elementary school. If that is enough to cause a person to change thier actions/views, then they truly are the cowards the words call them. I'm not defending the student, mind you, but this is hardly the kind of thing to lose sleep over. Put the kid in detention, slap a dunce hat on him, and get back to teaching. To take this kind of thing to court is not only a waste of our resources, but an admission of failure on the part of the school system. After all, a large part of public schooling is to teach people how to interact socially.
Hmm, come to think of it, with those kind of role models and teachers it's no wonder that ninety percent of our youth is worthless.
A lot of people making *some* money is vastly preferable to a few people making most of the money. In fact, the only situation I can see where it wouldn't be preferable is if the other option is a lot of people making a lot of money. Of course that option is not going to happen, so I'll go with the a lot of people making some option.
Does it matter if he's faking or not? The fact remains that he's been following a crazyman for 20 years. Now, ask yourself, do you want a cultist to be president? I'm not talking wiccan or anything like that, don't consider them cults. But it's not a stretch of the imagination to see his minister in the center of the next Waco. Obama is not the man you want running your country, the first should have been when all our enemies cheered for him......
Are you seriously quoting security as a reason for blocking facebook? Any information shared on a social networking sight can be shared easier through other means. A letter in the mail, e-mail, posted via an anonymous library computor. Anybody quoting security as a reason is simply making excuses for thier excess control. I run a small business, I don't care one whit if my employees use a social networking sight while working. As long as thier jobs get done, they can have as much fun as they like. Heck, half the time I have a social networking sight open while doing my reports. My friends are scattered throughout the country and we like to talk a little. No biggie, I just glance down once and a while, make a reply or something. Never takes me more than a minute or two, helps to relieve tension, and often clears the fog from my mind. Is it necessary? No. But it is a valuable tool, even if it's not directly related to work output. There are reasons why we have breaks and distractions. The human mind is only capable of concentration for a set amount of time, after that your work output is significantly lowered. Makes more sense to let in a few fun things to keep the workers capable of putting forth a 100 percent effort during the times they are working.
Yup, it is clearly the fault of social networking, and all those involved with social networking, that teenaged kids all talk about sex. And since that is thier fault, it also follows that any crimes or injuries resulting from such imature behavior is thier fault as well. I mean, we all know that I 75 is really at fault for all traffic related crimes and injuries that happen upon it, and this is no different. I mean, it's obvious that without social networks Adolecents wouldn't be able to group together and speak of these things, and therefore, predators couldn't find them. Seriously, with logic like this, and the resulting legislature, I'm wondering who's going to protect us innocents from our own frigging government? Someone slap the stupid out of them, please!
I don't know who Louis Vuitton's legal and pr heads are, but they obviously suck at thier jobs. First, there was no infringement. Second, you can't sue a person for disclosing legal information about themselves. And, third, you cannot sue a person for mentioning your company name unless that person is claiming to market your products. It is quite evident that Louis Vuitton has stepped on it's own equipment with this one, and my hope is that if it is taken to court that the court assigns severe penalties to them for it's frivolous attitude and attempt to bully a charity aimed at helping starving people.
Creating an encyclopedia of movie/book information is legit fair use. It's been going on for years without qualm. Suddenly it's morally repugnent and grounds for law suit? There is something else going on here, or, and I hate to say this as I like her work, J.K. Rowling is acting the part of a four year old. As far as I can tell the author isn't claiming that the encyclopedia's content is anything but J.K.'s work, only that the encyclopedia gathers all the info and trivia into one handy format. Essentialy, the "crime" here is the gathering and organisation of data not created by the author. Hmm...does that mean all encyclopedias are copyright infringements?
Pouty? Remember that little thing called the Revolutionary War? Do you remember what it was about? That's right, ding ding ding, unreasonable tax laws. What do we have here? You guessed it, unreasonable tax laws. Well Johnny, what prizes do we have for today's "I'm a Moron" winner?
Good ideas, but the bands are doing it backwards. What they need to do is offer concert tickets in CD's, as the cd's are the medium that is flagging. The shows, personal momentos, and hang time with the band should be used to sell T-shirts, cd's, mugs, hats, key-chains, and etc. The key is that social interaction with the band and invitations to hear thier music are far more valuable than physical items. I'm sure everybody can put the parts together from here.
Re: Re: Re: Michael Kirkland
That doesn't change the fact that they have a business model. Nor does it make what they are doing any more acceptable. Infact, it makes it worse. It's not just a major financial institution bullying a private citizen, it's a major financial government intitution bullying a priveate citizen.
Re: Michael Kirkland
Non-profit organisations still generate money. Therefore, they have a business model. Take The United Way, a non-profit organisation. They generate money by way of government grants, private donations, and public charity projects. The money is then filtered into thier many and varied humanitarian efforts as well as the upkeep of The United Way itself. Worlds apart from the business model of say, McDonalds, but no less a business model.
Re: AnonCow
Mike did not state it was the cab drivers themselves, he stated it was the companies. Two totally different entities. The cab drivers are simply the employees, with as little say in the management of the company as any other hourly/comission employee.
Just as Mike said, this is a typical and easily forseen action by the cab companies. That the people who run the electric vehicles didn't see this coming speaks volumes about thier capabilities.
That said, don't think I am defending the cab companies. Thier attempt is only one step removed from outright thuggery. In fact, it's the economical equivalent to knee breaking and curb stomping.
It is maneuvers like this that make me shrug and say, "Eh." whenever I hear of someone breaking certain laws. I know the laws were enacted not for public safety/protection but to further the monetary goals of political/economical entities. Especially since in most cases those laws are directly in opposition to my wants and needs. If 90 percent of America isn't felons yet, it soon will be.
Re: AnonCow
Wrong. It is not the marketers who decide if a strategy is a failure or a winner. Never has been. The marketers ride the trends, predict future intrests and demand. However, large companies don't like changing markets, as it generally means loss of profit for them. Smaller companies, on the other hand, generally like a market in flux, as it often opens niches and horizons for them. Enter the marketers. One group, those who work for large companies, attempts to generate intrest in failing markets, identify new markets, and force smaller companies out through brand spam. They do this through a variety of ways, but they don't decide what works and what doesn't. They attempt different methods, find the one that fits thier clients intrests best, and proceed. Notice I did not say they find the most effective method. The company decides which sttategy to use, after consulting with the marketer. This is how you end up with idiot brand campaigns and markets that act as if they are dying of terminal cancer. Mike's method works, and it works well. The reason it hasn't caught on like wildfire is simple. There are to many large companies totally invested in the old methods. The new methods popping up revolve around the musician, not the label. Because of this the companies are pumping all available capital into legislature to halt the new methods as well as brand spam campaigns and market campaigns. With that lined up against it, no wonder musicians are flocking to it in droves. Give it time. It will win out.
Re: Lonzo5
The truly stupid thing is, it's all image related, Lonzo. The only legal way they could get him for trademark infringement is if they claim his use of thier name endorsed or improved marketing of his product. In other words, they don't want to be associated with or potentially endorsing thier own screw up. To top it all off, legaly there is no way they can win the case on these grounds, and I am certain they know that.
Re:
Nope, not missing anything. They are attempting to CREATE scarcity. Not only that, but they are doing so in a way that alienates thier major customers. Add that all up with a product that is quite easily found at the expenditure of only a few minutes, and you have a company doomed to fail miserably.
klu klux Hollywood?
"The original section 92a would have forced internet service providers to cut off copyright infringers "in reasonable circumstances", acting on evidence from copyright holders."
"People accused of internet piracy might be deemed to have waived some rights if they had not disputed warning notices."
These days, more so than any in recent history, people ACCUSED of a crime are suddenly second class citizens. Innocence or guilt, these are secondary issues in the media and litigation frenzies. Businesses, reputations, family units, and careers are eagerly ripped apart in the quest for the "TRUTH". And even should you find a guilty party, does the punishment fit the crime? How is hundreds of thousands in fines considered fair for theft under a hundred dollars? How is a thousand dollars fair for a theft of under a hundred dollars? If this is fair, should we not recieve hundreds of thousands of dollars in renumeration for every defective music trac, disconnected internet sight, and scratched movie we purchase? After all, we actually lose more money over these things than big companies do a downloaded song, and we make far far less.
six of one, half dozen of the other...
I have worked salary jobs and hourly. When I worked salary the company expected me to work eighteen hours a day and be on call the rest. When I worked hourly, the company expected me to clock out for everything and it was the end of the world if I achieved overtime. Whatever model companies choose, it is the one best suited to the company. Workers, on the other hand, always fight for the method that best suits them. It is inevitable. The breakdown comes when the gap between the two is to great. For example, if an hourly company only allows twenty hours maximum, then it's workers are going to corrupt the system as much as they possibly can. For them the job will be just that, a job they do while looking for something decent. And if your employee's don't care about the work or the company, you will fail. It may take time, but it is garaunteed to happen. Untill companies are force to recognize that, while profit is the destination, good products and happy workers are the way to get there.
on again off again
On topic:
I am an author. I write for money. I like to be paid lots of money. I do not care if my writing still generates money when I am dead. My sons and daughters have no claim on the fruits of MY labor. If I am able to put some in a fund, so be it. If not, then they have to work, too. Pay me a percentage, or flat sum. I do not care. If, in ten years another author picks up where I left off....good. Then my writing never dies. Should I be paid because thier efforts enhanced my own? I don't see why, they did the enhancing. I don't see why it should be any different with patents. You make a chair, I make it better. You want more money? Make my better chair even better. Make it faster or cheaper or more comfortable. Don't whine cause you can't keep up with me.
Off Topic:
At least the bots are pleasant....
Off Topic.
Leave them under the bridge...
Well, trolls are useless ninety percent of the time, that's true. But new readers can be thrown off by them. Sometimes it's best to dust off a few of your favorite trolls, heat them up, and throw them out for everyone to see. That has more than one positive effect. First, people can see the idgits for who and what they are. If nobody feeds em, they are likely to die of neglect. Second, a subject can often be judged by it's proponents and oponents. Let the people see that only morons and idgits disagree. And third, it's a good way to relieve stress and frustrations. Nothing says fun like a good troll beating contest.
content is advertising
I used to be Q.A. for an insurance sales company. Many detest these companies and thier methods, employee's included. That said, one of the things I did like about that company is that every transaction was closely scrutinised and if there was any doubt that the customer knew what he or she was doing or purchasing, then the transaction was canceled. Now, this wasn't advertising, but if even telemarketers and insurance companies agree that tricking your customers into purchasing things is bad, well then, it must be something pretty awful indeed. I don't know if legal action should be taken for merely having the sites up, but those tricked should have legal options if they can't get thier monies back.
In regards to the email
Quite infantile, but hardly intimidating. I heard worse on the playground in elementary school. If that is enough to cause a person to change thier actions/views, then they truly are the cowards the words call them. I'm not defending the student, mind you, but this is hardly the kind of thing to lose sleep over. Put the kid in detention, slap a dunce hat on him, and get back to teaching. To take this kind of thing to court is not only a waste of our resources, but an admission of failure on the part of the school system. After all, a large part of public schooling is to teach people how to interact socially.
Hmm, come to think of it, with those kind of role models and teachers it's no wonder that ninety percent of our youth is worthless.
Re: Scale and Sustainability
A lot of people making *some* money is vastly preferable to a few people making most of the money. In fact, the only situation I can see where it wouldn't be preferable is if the other option is a lot of people making a lot of money. Of course that option is not going to happen, so I'll go with the a lot of people making some option.
Re: Re: Re: Other Pending Patents from Halliburton
Does it matter if he's faking or not? The fact remains that he's been following a crazyman for 20 years. Now, ask yourself, do you want a cultist to be president? I'm not talking wiccan or anything like that, don't consider them cults. But it's not a stretch of the imagination to see his minister in the center of the next Waco. Obama is not the man you want running your country, the first should have been when all our enemies cheered for him......
Re: Security ramifications
Are you seriously quoting security as a reason for blocking facebook? Any information shared on a social networking sight can be shared easier through other means. A letter in the mail, e-mail, posted via an anonymous library computor. Anybody quoting security as a reason is simply making excuses for thier excess control. I run a small business, I don't care one whit if my employees use a social networking sight while working. As long as thier jobs get done, they can have as much fun as they like. Heck, half the time I have a social networking sight open while doing my reports. My friends are scattered throughout the country and we like to talk a little. No biggie, I just glance down once and a while, make a reply or something. Never takes me more than a minute or two, helps to relieve tension, and often clears the fog from my mind. Is it necessary? No. But it is a valuable tool, even if it's not directly related to work output. There are reasons why we have breaks and distractions. The human mind is only capable of concentration for a set amount of time, after that your work output is significantly lowered. Makes more sense to let in a few fun things to keep the workers capable of putting forth a 100 percent effort during the times they are working.
Protect the Innocents
Yup, it is clearly the fault of social networking, and all those involved with social networking, that teenaged kids all talk about sex. And since that is thier fault, it also follows that any crimes or injuries resulting from such imature behavior is thier fault as well. I mean, we all know that I 75 is really at fault for all traffic related crimes and injuries that happen upon it, and this is no different. I mean, it's obvious that without social networks Adolecents wouldn't be able to group together and speak of these things, and therefore, predators couldn't find them. Seriously, with logic like this, and the resulting legislature, I'm wondering who's going to protect us innocents from our own frigging government? Someone slap the stupid out of them, please!
Sue Happy
I don't know who Louis Vuitton's legal and pr heads are, but they obviously suck at thier jobs. First, there was no infringement. Second, you can't sue a person for disclosing legal information about themselves. And, third, you cannot sue a person for mentioning your company name unless that person is claiming to market your products. It is quite evident that Louis Vuitton has stepped on it's own equipment with this one, and my hope is that if it is taken to court that the court assigns severe penalties to them for it's frivolous attitude and attempt to bully a charity aimed at helping starving people.
fair use
Creating an encyclopedia of movie/book information is legit fair use. It's been going on for years without qualm. Suddenly it's morally repugnent and grounds for law suit? There is something else going on here, or, and I hate to say this as I like her work, J.K. Rowling is acting the part of a four year old. As far as I can tell the author isn't claiming that the encyclopedia's content is anything but J.K.'s work, only that the encyclopedia gathers all the info and trivia into one handy format. Essentialy, the "crime" here is the gathering and organisation of data not created by the author. Hmm...does that mean all encyclopedias are copyright infringements?
Re:
Pouty? Remember that little thing called the Revolutionary War? Do you remember what it was about? That's right, ding ding ding, unreasonable tax laws. What do we have here? You guessed it, unreasonable tax laws. Well Johnny, what prizes do we have for today's "I'm a Moron" winner?