I tend to agree. From a corporate behaviour perspective, there's really not much more that could be asked from Microsoft on Silverlight (and by extension, .Net in general).
Unfortunately they just don't have enough goodwill to pull it off. No one trusts them not to pull the rug out from under everyone if it takes off, so few outside the MS sphere of influence invest much into it, even though it has good potential.
If they want to build the social capital to do that sort of thing, they'll need to show that they're willing to be a follower of industry standards, not a leader.
Someone selling used mattresses on Craigslist for $20 sets that as the upper bound, "devaluing" (or depricing) my ability to sell billion dollar used mattresses.
That the market doesn't care is exactly the point. We shouldn't be surprised that the guy who needs mattresses to sell for a billion dollars to keep his business model going doesn't like it.
The people making this argument aren't using the same definition of value that you are. Yes, value and price are not the same thing, but they're using the word to mean price.
If you give away music, you do create the expectation that music should be given away. If you make your livelihood taking a cut of music sales, you're going to want music to sell for a high price and you won't appreciate people doing things that tend to lower the price.
Sure, but it would be nice to have a well thought out list of things that can be done (like what CBC needs) for a standardized fee passed on to the artist.
I think the problem is that people's intentions are far more nuanced than either "no commercial use at all" or "any commercial use you like," but there's no way to articulate that.
I think the vast majority of CC-NC licensed works are really CC-NC-unless-you-give-me-a-cut works. There just needs to be a low friction way to do that.
The photo has already been used, so the band/photographer is in a bad negotiating position to buy it now, and the girl has a reasonable claim to proceeds from the album.
If we make the girl sue the photographer, he bankruptcies out and she sees nothing. This sets the precedent that you need only set up a dummy corporation to hold any infringement liability. If anyone sues, you let it fall on it's sword and get away with it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you use someone else's stuff to make money, they should get a cut. Though I guess that's a foreign concept to record labels.
How is this any different from quoting people from another medium? Presuming that they take single tweets from any one person, this seems like fair use.
You're certainly not as bad as those that have just discovered linking, and then pepper every article with links to their own tag pages. There's a point where it ceases to be context and merely becomes click baiting. Where that point would be is, of course, subjective.
Re:
I tend to agree. From a corporate behaviour perspective, there's really not much more that could be asked from Microsoft on Silverlight (and by extension, .Net in general).
Unfortunately they just don't have enough goodwill to pull it off. No one trusts them not to pull the rug out from under everyone if it takes off, so few outside the MS sphere of influence invest much into it, even though it has good potential.
If they want to build the social capital to do that sort of thing, they'll need to show that they're willing to be a follower of industry standards, not a leader.
Correction
61% of the tiny minority of Americans who still have a land line and do not immediately hang up when they hear "survey."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One is worse
"poopertry" wins this thread.
Re: Re: Re:
Someone selling used mattresses on Craigslist for $20 sets that as the upper bound, "devaluing" (or depricing) my ability to sell billion dollar used mattresses.
That the market doesn't care is exactly the point. We shouldn't be surprised that the guy who needs mattresses to sell for a billion dollars to keep his business model going doesn't like it.
The people making this argument aren't using the same definition of value that you are. Yes, value and price are not the same thing, but they're using the word to mean price.
If you give away music, you do create the expectation that music should be given away. If you make your livelihood taking a cut of music sales, you're going to want music to sell for a high price and you won't appreciate people doing things that tend to lower the price.
Re: Re:
Sure, but it would be nice to have a well thought out list of things that can be done (like what CBC needs) for a standardized fee passed on to the artist.
Re: Re:
My point was that there's no low friction way for entities to pass on a cut. There's not currently a way to have a CC-SomeCommercial license.
I think the problem is that people's intentions are far more nuanced than either "no commercial use at all" or "any commercial use you like," but there's no way to articulate that.
I think the vast majority of CC-NC licensed works are really CC-NC-unless-you-give-me-a-cut works. There just needs to be a low friction way to do that.
Re: Re: You won't stop until the artists include the first born
Unfortunately that specific license won't allow you to, say, convert it to ePub for people.
Re: What's going to happen...
I suppose he'll just have to adapt his business model. ;)
Simple solution
Cut the arphid off the recycling bin, and duct tape it to the garbage bin. Problem solved.
The photo has already been used, so the band/photographer is in a bad negotiating position to buy it now, and the girl has a reasonable claim to proceeds from the album.
If we make the girl sue the photographer, he bankruptcies out and she sees nothing. This sets the precedent that you need only set up a dummy corporation to hold any infringement liability. If anyone sues, you let it fall on it's sword and get away with it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you use someone else's stuff to make money, they should get a cut. Though I guess that's a foreign concept to record labels.
How are addresses/phone numbers public info?
They're not in the phone book unless you have 20th century style tethered service. Even then it's optional.
Publishing that info against the wishes of the person in question is implicitly threatening. This is a good law.
How is this any different from quoting people from another medium? Presuming that they take single tweets from any one person, this seems like fair use.
Not really free to play
I gave this a try when they first went free to play, but it's really more free to demo. You can't really advance without paying past level 5.
Re: Free with a catch
That's just a content updater torrent client. You can set it to only run with the game.
Re: Re: Yes it is...
I don't think anyone's arguing that all anonymity should be sacrosanct, just that of commenters.
The identity of Deep Throat was certainly newsworthy, but it would have been wildly inappropriate for Woodward and Bernstein to publish it.
The real problem is that the class almost never gets paid, they get coupons.
Re: Re:
One of those two is the article in question, and the other is in a quote from said article.
Re: Re: Onanistic links
Not a complaint, it's just amusing.
You're certainly not as bad as those that have just discovered linking, and then pepper every article with links to their own tag pages. There's a point where it ceases to be context and merely becomes click baiting. Where that point would be is, of course, subjective.