But there was lost profit in that the infringers chose to freely download material instead purchasing it. Calling it a non-profit use doesn't apply. Moreover, what about the precedent set by the rulings of SCOTUS justices that fundamentally alter the intended purpose of statutory damages? It's one thing to be disappointed by a ruling and another to protest that which is judicially sound.
I agree that the data (being open) is not the culprit in this instance; but if we can anticipate an undesirable end use caused by an open structure, then should we entertain alternative, stricter architectures that could achieve a more positive end? It doesn't make sense to remain committed to an ideal when it fails to achieve the ends the idealists desired in the first place. That is, do we think that open architectures are always desirable?
Just went Open Sky's website and agree that the promotion of content creators on the site would be a substantive addition; possibly even a way to cultivate a genuine community of interest and collaboration between creators of infinite goods and sellers of scarce item.
Also, I'm curious if anything has ever been written on TechDirt that touches on the idea of a "gift economy" as defined by Lewis Hyde in his seminal work, The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World. If anyone could provide a link to a relevant post that would be great. While Hyde essentially removes monetization from the available actions in a "Gift Cycle," it seems to me that using scarce goods to promote and often freely distribute infinite goods creates a kind of "gifting" relationship between creator and consumer. Just a thought. Great post.
It's the portion that was excluded just prior to the quoted portion. I agree, my initial comment was not well constructed. But it's the height of stupidity, in my opinion, to be upset with and continue to attack Goldman. They were not and are not the problem and their actions were perfectly legal. The charge was weak, which is why it was settled for a measly sum, and the timing was convenient for the Government given the financial regulatory legislation (legislation which I support) they were looking to pass. And, I think it's silly for a site like TechDirt to be commenting on the matter. It cheapens the rest of the rich content that is on the site. Here's video of the entire portion of the testimony.
Either the testimony from which you are quoting is off or you mistranscribed that which you quoted, because there are several places where the words of Viniar are not correct. Secondly, you have quite ignorantly misrepresented what Goldman did and the kinds of deals they were involved with. It's tired and boring. Please stick to a subject matter you understand.
He will have no problem moving at least 25,000 copies of the book as his audience is tech literate and full of early adopters when it comes to innovations in the art and mixed media worlds. For an fine artist of his stature, these less expensive products provide an opportunity for less "monied" fans of his work to own an original piece.
By this logic, what is to keep a tennis instructor from seeking IP protections for a particular serve motion or volleying technique? The notion is absurd and reflective of the problems inherent in a society that does not have proper understanding of IP's purpose or structure. Sad.
Preface: war is necessary, as is the development of a formidable military presence.
The notion of a trade war (playing to win) waged in an effort to keep jobs or industry in the state to which some individual or group is loyal is counterintuitive. The inherent destruction associated with said act (war) generates too many external damages (negative externalities) to a system of technology based innovation. Behaving with such aggression does not serve an efficient end and should be avoided.
This is not to say that Mr. Grove's paper does not make a series of valid points. The idea of a job-protectionist war (however casualties are defined within this setting) in service to technological innovation does not serve a worthwhile end. Nationalist bias doesn't help either but is inevitable. Just a thought but I hope it resonates.
University of Chicago science historian, Adrian Johns, contributes significantly to this debate in his book, Piracy. It is a must read for anyone who wants to be an informed contributor to this particular debate.
I'm all for broadband investment in rural areas, but would much rather $602 million go to pay for the wars. It makes all the economic/fiscal sense in the world. Thinking otherwise demonstrates an irrational bias. That said, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a supporter of the war in Afghanistan and of a strong U.S. military. Not saying that's the only way to be, but that is where I stand. Happy 4th Techdirt!
As to Hulu's plans to monetize their site further by charging a subscription fee, I say ok. I'll happily pay it, especially if it means that shows like Thr Daily Show and Colbert Report will be reintroduced to the service, as has been eluded to on Charlie Rose. Moreover, I don't own a television, so $10 doesn't feel like much considering the money I'm saving on not having cable.
Now, all of that said, they are missing an opportunity by not significantly upgrading the service they provide. Apple showed us what the market will pay for guaranteed product quality and thoughtful content organization.
This is the point of greatest opportunity for Hulu. While I doubt that much will be done to follow through on this promise given the networks they are in cooperation with, I will hope that the spark that birthed this innovative service will continue to direct it's course. The fee is only bad in relationship to the outcome we have yet to see. Moreover, what should we expect from a company (Hulu) that colludes with such perennial media behemoths. Not innovative. But not surprising.
Agreed; the actions of the NY Times are not new (I like to say tired and boring) and their approach is antiquated.
This bit in particular bothers me:
"We want our readers to respect intellectual property," says Samson. "Intellectual property is arguably the biggest asset of this company. We value others' IP rights, and we want their IP rights to be respected."
The question has nothing to do with readers respecting their IP, rather the principle issue is one of permitting subsequent journalistic pieces the freedom to draw from the work of the Times' writers. We're talking about derivative works. We're debating the legitimacy of remix.
The Times position is synonymous with that of other media companies and is mind-numbingly boring, not to mention aggravating. How are we to have any sympathy for their plight in the age of globally-networked-information (i.e.their struggling business models) when their actions seek to limit innovation and perpetuate a broken, non-sharing system?
Any chance the tune was in the public domain or from a country that lacks well structured IP Laws?
Regardless, I agree that it appears hypocritical. Independent of the financial issues, lack of attribution in art drives me crazy. Moreover, I often find understanding the origins of a work make it that much more appealing; the context provides a new dimension from which to view or listen to the piece.
JNomics
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JNomics.
But there was lost profit in that the infringers chose to freely download material instead purchasing it. Calling it a non-profit use doesn't apply. Moreover, what about the precedent set by the rulings of SCOTUS justices that fundamentally alter the intended purpose of statutory damages? It's one thing to be disappointed by a ruling and another to protest that which is judicially sound.
JNomics
The Desirability of Open Architecture
I agree that the data (being open) is not the culprit in this instance; but if we can anticipate an undesirable end use caused by an open structure, then should we entertain alternative, stricter architectures that could achieve a more positive end? It doesn't make sense to remain committed to an ideal when it fails to achieve the ends the idealists desired in the first place. That is, do we think that open architectures are always desirable?
JNOMICS
Just went Open Sky's website and agree that the promotion of content creators on the site would be a substantive addition; possibly even a way to cultivate a genuine community of interest and collaboration between creators of infinite goods and sellers of scarce item.
Also, I'm curious if anything has ever been written on TechDirt that touches on the idea of a "gift economy" as defined by Lewis Hyde in his seminal work, The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World. If anyone could provide a link to a relevant post that would be great. While Hyde essentially removes monetization from the available actions in a "Gift Cycle," it seems to me that using scarce goods to promote and often freely distribute infinite goods creates a kind of "gifting" relationship between creator and consumer. Just a thought. Great post.
JNOMICS
It's the portion that was excluded just prior to the quoted portion. I agree, my initial comment was not well constructed. But it's the height of stupidity, in my opinion, to be upset with and continue to attack Goldman. They were not and are not the problem and their actions were perfectly legal. The charge was weak, which is why it was settled for a measly sum, and the timing was convenient for the Government given the financial regulatory legislation (legislation which I support) they were looking to pass. And, I think it's silly for a site like TechDirt to be commenting on the matter. It cheapens the rest of the rich content that is on the site. Here's video of the entire portion of the testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_NtV6Rptd4
Either the testimony from which you are quoting is off or you mistranscribed that which you quoted, because there are several places where the words of Viniar are not correct. Secondly, you have quite ignorantly misrepresented what Goldman did and the kinds of deals they were involved with. It's tired and boring. Please stick to a subject matter you understand.
MURAKAMI
He will have no problem moving at least 25,000 copies of the book as his audience is tech literate and full of early adopters when it comes to innovations in the art and mixed media worlds. For an fine artist of his stature, these less expensive products provide an opportunity for less "monied" fans of his work to own an original piece.
JNOMICS
By this logic, what is to keep a tennis instructor from seeking IP protections for a particular serve motion or volleying technique? The notion is absurd and reflective of the problems inherent in a society that does not have proper understanding of IP's purpose or structure. Sad.
JNOMICS
A Comment on the Nature of War
Preface: war is necessary, as is the development of a formidable military presence.
The notion of a trade war (playing to win) waged in an effort to keep jobs or industry in the state to which some individual or group is loyal is counterintuitive. The inherent destruction associated with said act (war) generates too many external damages (negative externalities) to a system of technology based innovation. Behaving with such aggression does not serve an efficient end and should be avoided.
This is not to say that Mr. Grove's paper does not make a series of valid points. The idea of a job-protectionist war (however casualties are defined within this setting) in service to technological innovation does not serve a worthwhile end. Nationalist bias doesn't help either but is inevitable. Just a thought but I hope it resonates.
JNOMICS
University of Chicago science historian, Adrian Johns, contributes significantly to this debate in his book, Piracy. It is a must read for anyone who wants to be an informed contributor to this particular debate.
JNOMICS
I'm all for broadband investment in rural areas, but would much rather $602 million go to pay for the wars. It makes all the economic/fiscal sense in the world. Thinking otherwise demonstrates an irrational bias. That said, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a supporter of the war in Afghanistan and of a strong U.S. military. Not saying that's the only way to be, but that is where I stand. Happy 4th Techdirt!
JNOMICS
I'll happily pay the $10 but...
As to Hulu's plans to monetize their site further by charging a subscription fee, I say ok. I'll happily pay it, especially if it means that shows like Thr Daily Show and Colbert Report will be reintroduced to the service, as has been eluded to on Charlie Rose. Moreover, I don't own a television, so $10 doesn't feel like much considering the money I'm saving on not having cable.
Now, all of that said, they are missing an opportunity by not significantly upgrading the service they provide. Apple showed us what the market will pay for guaranteed product quality and thoughtful content organization.
This is the point of greatest opportunity for Hulu. While I doubt that much will be done to follow through on this promise given the networks they are in cooperation with, I will hope that the spark that birthed this innovative service will continue to direct it's course. The fee is only bad in relationship to the outcome we have yet to see. Moreover, what should we expect from a company (Hulu) that colludes with such perennial media behemoths. Not innovative. But not surprising.
JNOMICS
A CONVENIENT INTERPRETATION
Agreed; the actions of the NY Times are not new (I like to say tired and boring) and their approach is antiquated.
This bit in particular bothers me:
"We want our readers to respect intellectual property," says Samson. "Intellectual property is arguably the biggest asset of this company. We value others' IP rights, and we want their IP rights to be respected."
The question has nothing to do with readers respecting their IP, rather the principle issue is one of permitting subsequent journalistic pieces the freedom to draw from the work of the Times' writers. We're talking about derivative works. We're debating the legitimacy of remix.
The Times position is synonymous with that of other media companies and is mind-numbingly boring, not to mention aggravating. How are we to have any sympathy for their plight in the age of globally-networked-information (i.e.their struggling business models) when their actions seek to limit innovation and perpetuate a broken, non-sharing system?
An important post from Tech Dirt. Thank you.
JNomics
Any chance the tune was in the public domain or from a country that lacks well structured IP Laws?
Regardless, I agree that it appears hypocritical. Independent of the financial issues, lack of attribution in art drives me crazy. Moreover, I often find understanding the origins of a work make it that much more appealing; the context provides a new dimension from which to view or listen to the piece.
JNomics