I have worked in the internet advertising industry for almost a decade now, and I feel your pain.
It is great that you have standards that you try your hardest to hold to, and its unfortunate that the industry as a whole has been unable to provide an answer.
It is a two way street though. Users also want the websites for free, and without intrusive ads, but are also unwilling to make up that lost portion.
If you ever figure out the land between "users want it free with easy to ignore ads" and "ads which pay enough for us to sustain ourselves", please let me know. I expect without a major paradigm shift, there is no land in between.
It makes a very good point. When its not your own money at risk, you shouldn't get the benefits. Seems like a very simple idea to get behind. The investors in VC's will still get the capital gains bonus, its just the VC's who are profiting off money from others that shouldn't.
Scott Adam's Point: Piracy is bad as your taking something away from the creator. It should be the creators choice whether ot make it free or not.
Techdirts point: DRM is bad as a person should be allowed to legally do whatever they want with what they bought.
I think both sides can easily agree that if you bought something legally, you should be able to do what you want with it, but you should have bought it legally in the first place.
When you create the music. It should be up to you whether you want it spread for free or not. It should not be the choice of others. In the same vein. If someone has bought the mp3 of a song, it doesn't mean they have the right to copy it and give it to all their friends, it does mean that they can give that single copy of an mp3 to anyone they want (which current DRM would not allow).
Scott Adams has said numerous times that he is perfectly okay with people emailing his comics around.
Scott Adams is saying there is a cost, and its an emotional one. Techdirt and Dilbert are making the same point, only one feels the emotional cost is important, the other doesn't.
The reason why only big names complain isn't because they are big. Its because you have to be a big name to get your complaints public. Small no-name bands complain too, they just aren't heard. It takes "not caring about copyright" to get into the news for small groups.
The goal of the underwear analogy is to look ridiculous, but make you think. I would say "underwear replicator" is an even more ridiculous analogy.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by fudouri.
We have taken the wrong message here.
It is plainly obvious the amount of bloodshed that could have been avoided if only no one ever played War!
I wish you the best
I have worked in the internet advertising industry for almost a decade now, and I feel your pain.
It is great that you have standards that you try your hardest to hold to, and its unfortunate that the industry as a whole has been unable to provide an answer.
It is a two way street though. Users also want the websites for free, and without intrusive ads, but are also unwilling to make up that lost portion.
If you ever figure out the land between "users want it free with easy to ignore ads" and "ads which pay enough for us to sustain ourselves", please let me know. I expect without a major paradigm shift, there is no land in between.
Where are the links to the other side?
Here is link to a very popular VC's blog arguing FOR income tax on carried interest.
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/06/the-carried-int.html
It makes a very good point. When its not your own money at risk, you shouldn't get the benefits. Seems like a very simple idea to get behind. The investors in VC's will still get the capital gains bonus, its just the VC's who are profiting off money from others that shouldn't.
They are ineffective now...
But, that doesnt' mean they always will be. commercials still exist on tv. display advertising has its place, the question is how to do it right.
Some interesting ones include the apple ads previously found on nytimes, or the site take overs (using standard ad sizes) on sites like 1up.com
disclaimer: i am in the display ad business.
Talking past each other
Two sides seem to be talking past each other.
Scott Adam's Point: Piracy is bad as your taking something away from the creator. It should be the creators choice whether ot make it free or not.
Techdirts point: DRM is bad as a person should be allowed to legally do whatever they want with what they bought.
I think both sides can easily agree that if you bought something legally, you should be able to do what you want with it, but you should have bought it legally in the first place.
When you create the music. It should be up to you whether you want it spread for free or not. It should not be the choice of others. In the same vein. If someone has bought the mp3 of a song, it doesn't mean they have the right to copy it and give it to all their friends, it does mean that they can give that single copy of an mp3 to anyone they want (which current DRM would not allow).
Some quick points
Scott Adams has said numerous times that he is perfectly okay with people emailing his comics around.
Scott Adams is saying there is a cost, and its an emotional one. Techdirt and Dilbert are making the same point, only one feels the emotional cost is important, the other doesn't.
The reason why only big names complain isn't because they are big. Its because you have to be a big name to get your complaints public. Small no-name bands complain too, they just aren't heard. It takes "not caring about copyright" to get into the news for small groups.
The goal of the underwear analogy is to look ridiculous, but make you think. I would say "underwear replicator" is an even more ridiculous analogy.