1) After the referendum was initially thrown out, City Council passed a resolution that shut down the red light cameras. So they've taken some action to enact the will of the people.
2) There's a settlement on the table. And it does not involve rebooting the red light camera program. It will be, however, funded by revenues generated from tickets issued when the program was in force.
That's a bit of muddled thinking isn't it? As you admit, these sites 1) don't add value, 2) aren't actually monetizing content in a way that's BETTER than the creators, since you acknowledge these sites don't make any money. Publishers are making some, just not enough to be profitable. If by better, you mean the splogs are profitable, I guess that's true. But they're illegal free riders, so they're profitable by definition.
Individual splogs aren't making much money, of course. But if there's an efficient way to collect monies from Google and Yahoo, the aggregate amounts received could be substantial.
I think you've been a bit of a knee jerk here. Assuming the consortium can reliably, and automagically, identify splogs (as they've been doing), and the obvious legal kinks can be worked out (perhaps through ToS amendments), this approach seems like a clever, market-based approach to the problem in which interested actors are using incentives to set private policy that maximize wealth, without the kind of rent-seeking activity that would result in a tax.
In this approach, as I read it, it sounds as though both the splogs and Google would retain some of the revenue. Is that the way you read it as well? If so, it sounds much more realistic than the harebrained schemes we typically hear from wronged publishers.
As a loyal Techdirt reader, I admit I'm skeptical of the usual attempts to collect what's "rightfully" owed, but in the case described, the rights are clear and the means are potentially quite efficient. There's the chance this program could morph into a behemoth that bludgeons fair use. But that, to me, is a separate issue.
I'm with anonymous. I've not seen much of an effort on Microsoft's part to aggressively litigate its patent holdings. It seems like they're using patents as a shield rather than a sword, and with an eye towards cross-licensing agreements with peers.
Anonymous, you don't get paid every time software is sold because, like all other coders, you lack market power. Writers are a select bunch, and they're striking because they CAN. They are hard to replace. and being in a union tends to further distort their market power.
On the other hand, there are so many coders you couldn't unionize if you wanted to. Live with it, crybaby.
A few corrections
1) After the referendum was initially thrown out, City Council passed a resolution that shut down the red light cameras. So they've taken some action to enact the will of the people.
2) There's a settlement on the table. And it does not involve rebooting the red light camera program. It will be, however, funded by revenues generated from tickets issued when the program was in force.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Red-light-camera-settlement-to-cost-Houston-2666658.php
People need to stop with the whining.
They really do. If EA's decision is so dumb, the market will tell them and they'll do something else.
My guess is the marketplace has already confirmed what these few whiners are really bitching about: they don't matter.
That's a bit of muddled thinking isn't it? As you admit, these sites 1) don't add value, 2) aren't actually monetizing content in a way that's BETTER than the creators, since you acknowledge these sites don't make any money. Publishers are making some, just not enough to be profitable. If by better, you mean the splogs are profitable, I guess that's true. But they're illegal free riders, so they're profitable by definition.
Individual splogs aren't making much money, of course. But if there's an efficient way to collect monies from Google and Yahoo, the aggregate amounts received could be substantial.
I think you've been a bit of a knee jerk here. Assuming the consortium can reliably, and automagically, identify splogs (as they've been doing), and the obvious legal kinks can be worked out (perhaps through ToS amendments), this approach seems like a clever, market-based approach to the problem in which interested actors are using incentives to set private policy that maximize wealth, without the kind of rent-seeking activity that would result in a tax.
In this approach, as I read it, it sounds as though both the splogs and Google would retain some of the revenue. Is that the way you read it as well? If so, it sounds much more realistic than the harebrained schemes we typically hear from wronged publishers.
As a loyal Techdirt reader, I admit I'm skeptical of the usual attempts to collect what's "rightfully" owed, but in the case described, the rights are clear and the means are potentially quite efficient. There's the chance this program could morph into a behemoth that bludgeons fair use. But that, to me, is a separate issue.
I'm with anonymous. I've not seen much of an effort on Microsoft's part to aggressively litigate its patent holdings. It seems like they're using patents as a shield rather than a sword, and with an eye towards cross-licensing agreements with peers.
Anonymous, you don't get paid every time software is sold because, like all other coders, you lack market power. Writers are a select bunch, and they're striking because they CAN. They are hard to replace. and being in a union tends to further distort their market power.
On the other hand, there are so many coders you couldn't unionize if you wanted to. Live with it, crybaby.
Something else you might not know.
Most television shows employ a separate group of "writers." Then a different group of people called "actors" mouth the words the "writers" give them.
This has been done for many years. They even have different guilds.