You realize that the method of selling seats has nothing to do with how those seats are distributed, right?
Next thing you know, they'll be putting Goldman Sachs execs in charge of Treasury.
You can't apply property rights to non-scarce goods. Just ask your mom.
The First Amendment wins eventually...
Like cats, the government will always address mistakes with that "I meant to do that" look. Only without the cute.
I think the key here is that MS isn't a traditional media company, so it probably doesn't occur to them to 'send notes' about scripts et al. I suspect you'll see more of these kinds of companies building the web content marketplace.
(Also, Hi Al!)
1. Yeah, if it's not a NY-style 'za, it's not pizza. Chicago apparently is trying to pass off casserole as the real thing.
2. Wait. What?
These things strike me as "any publicity is good publicity" moves, but then I'm probably giving drama queens too much credit.
Still, if she wants to optimize "whore" and "Carla Franklin" for google, I'm happy to oblige.
I've been trying to remember what I always think of as the "Don't trust the merchants" quote from AS, and google has failed me (due to miserable retention on my part.)
Bingo. That's half the reason that the financial papers can make it sorta work. They're being paid with a third party's money. The other half is that the timely access to their reporting is more valuable (to a certain group) than it is expensive.
That doesn't really work for local reporting. Or for 99% of the NYT.
1) You'd be surprised at the expertise that is available in the crowd. Teasing out the actual expertise is part of the art that I mentioned above.
2) You'd be surprised at how tenacious the crowd can be at following the chain of evidence (assuming it's present, and at this point why wouldn't it be?)
"Something key here: not all published science is expected to be correct! All kinds of slightly incorrect/misinterpreted data get published all the time."
Well, yeah, so there's room for improvement. That's the point of crowd-sourcing review. It's not going to be perfect either (interpreting the crowd is an art in itself) but it'll likely improve things.
"You are aware that the moment a lawyer is sworn he/she becomes a law enforcement officer in the state he/she is sworn in at?"
What does that mean, in practical terms?
Don't you need standing to file a suit?
"Look through your contract and you'll find all the copyrights are owned by your employer."
Because it's all about protecting the rights of the artists. Or something.
I'm struck at the similarity between how lawyers and cops (at least, my cops) behave. The idea seems to be to establish your authority by leveraging your advantage and being the biggest asshole in the room.
The only downside is that everyone is your profession is assumed to be an asshole.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA... no, it's pretty much the same.
If relatives of missing persons *really* gave a shit, they'd raise millions of dollars.
Poseurs.
OMG! And here I've been submitting story ideas like a sucker...
sigh
I've seen this mentality again and again from people in the industry. They're promised potential windfalls down the road in exchange for doing things (relatively) cheaply up front. So, their sense of entitlement makes some kind of sense given the current business practices.
Of course, that's exactly why Hollywood won't survive the coming upheaval. Unless they can leverage their current status to get laws to prevent such a thing, of course.