No, but if you don't like Mike's coverage of something, go start your own blog. It's rather "Tardian" of you to come here and complain because you don't like what he's covering.
Then stop doing it for free since you're a part of AOL. You're not retroactively entitled to anything for doing what you agreed to do at the price you agreed to do it for. I'm not sure why you would even think you would be.
Theft is a criminal offense. The most that this is would be a violation of TOS, which is NOT a criminal offense. Finite and infinite don't matter because if I have unlimited bandwidth, then it's unlimited; there's no way for me to take more bandwidth than I paid for. Since I paid for it, there cannot be any theft.
To me, it screams of a band getting called out on their excuse for not 'making it big.' Rather than simply admit, "No, we're not selling any music because we suck," they opted to blame the boogeyman for it. Things would have been fine, except someone poked around and found out the boogeyman didn't even know who these guys were.
"Now the stock answer from the TechDirt echo chamber is: gosh, I want to be pirated because I know that somehow, some way other money will finds its way into my pocket."
As opposed to selling something to nobody and no money finding it's way into your pocket?
If you think that point of this article was that you can't succeed without be being pirated or only those who are pirated can succeed, then you need to stop, take a break and try rereading it. (SPOILER: It's not.)
"I knew the paywall was misguided, but they spent that much on it? OMG. I'm a web developer, and I could have set up something that doesn't work for MUCH less than that!"
Hell, I could set up something that is easier to get around and cost MORE. If they're willing to pay $40 million for what they got, I'm sure I could sell them a paywall (for about $50 million or so) that turns itself off.
Mike, once again you've missed the point. Trademarking descriptive words and phrases has everything to do with preventing consumer confusion. The fewer companies that consumers have to choose from, the less confusion consumers will have. Really, these companies are doing the consumers a great service by winnowing down the choices they have to worry about. Less choices are really what people want.
Re:
Or pay taxes?
Re: Re: Re:
So the police got her credit card information?
Re: Re: Re:
No, but if you don't like Mike's coverage of something, go start your own blog. It's rather "Tardian" of you to come here and complain because you don't like what he's covering.
I wonder if they could sue a hooker with a team tat...they could argue that it was used in commerce.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
You have my permission to copy my money to your heart's content. ;)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
No, piracy is saying "I deserve to be able to rob those people on that ship." I think you meant to say "[C]opyright infringement is saying.."
Re: Re: Drop but not dismiss
Naw, let em stay. The do provide comic relief. ;)
Re: Re:
I don't think it ever showed up in the first place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We'll wait on you. Hope it goes well.
Re:
Then stop doing it for free since you're a part of AOL. You're not retroactively entitled to anything for doing what you agreed to do at the price you agreed to do it for. I'm not sure why you would even think you would be.
Re: Devil's advocate
Theft is a criminal offense. The most that this is would be a violation of TOS, which is NOT a criminal offense. Finite and infinite don't matter because if I have unlimited bandwidth, then it's unlimited; there's no way for me to take more bandwidth than I paid for. Since I paid for it, there cannot be any theft.
Re: Maybe not so dumb
To me, it screams of a band getting called out on their excuse for not 'making it big.' Rather than simply admit, "No, we're not selling any music because we suck," they opted to blame the boogeyman for it. Things would have been fine, except someone poked around and found out the boogeyman didn't even know who these guys were.
Re: Sort of a lame question
"Now the stock answer from the TechDirt echo chamber is: gosh, I want to be pirated because I know that somehow, some way other money will finds its way into my pocket."
As opposed to selling something to nobody and no money finding it's way into your pocket?
If you think that point of this article was that you can't succeed without be being pirated or only those who are pirated can succeed, then you need to stop, take a break and try rereading it. (SPOILER: It's not.)
Re: 40 Mill!
"I knew the paywall was misguided, but they spent that much on it? OMG. I'm a web developer, and I could have set up something that doesn't work for MUCH less than that!"
Hell, I could set up something that is easier to get around and cost MORE. If they're willing to pay $40 million for what they got, I'm sure I could sell them a paywall (for about $50 million or so) that turns itself off.
Am I the only one wondering who Taylor Swift is?
Re: Forget the phones, ban the lawyers!
I once pirated a rectum so bad, a lawyer had to get a real job?
Maybe I'm in the wrong article...
Mike, once again you've missed the point. Trademarking descriptive words and phrases has everything to do with preventing consumer confusion. The fewer companies that consumers have to choose from, the less confusion consumers will have. Really, these companies are doing the consumers a great service by winnowing down the choices they have to worry about. Less choices are really what people want.
;)
Re:
You should have followed the doc's advice and gotten that rabies shot.
Re: A better question
"First, it was dumb of the nytimes to make a dollar figure public. They should have recognized it would open them to ridicule."
I tend to agree with you, but the execs probably thought the amount would show their "seriousness" about it or something like that.
Re:
Scope tsunami is more like it.