AI or not, you're supposed to READ the books that you're recommending, so it's lazy freelancing as well. Recommendations in an article are supposed to be more than 'these titles looked interesting, dunno about the content'. (I know, wistful thinking at this point).
Who is really coming up with these loopholes? Trump is neither smart enough nor well informed to create such clever endruns, just gleefully agreeing to sign off on someone else's work. Which advisor is the Kissinger-type hatemonger really doing the work and causing the pain?
Maybe 10-20 years ago, the author would have gone ahead and said "it's fair use, sue us". But now publishers require authors sign indemnification agreements that state the author (not publisher) is responsible for all legal costs and settlement fees the publisher might encounter with the material.
Which means the author isn't booking the lawyer or deciding whether to fight or settle, the publisher is-- but the publisher has no incentive to not just capitulate because the author is one that pays the costs.
If you're a writer, strike out the indemnification clause before signing (or, if they push back, have it capped at the amount they paid you). That they've become standard is terrible.
Please please have Monster Energy buy a guitar accessories vendor so we can FINALLY get the 'Monster Cable vs Monster Energy' fight we've all been wanting!
Worth noting that NASA data (from space telescopes, etc) has always been public. It either goes public immediately if it's a survey mission (like STEREO) or, if a Principal Investigator wrote the proposal (like with HST), 1 year after the data is taken (so the PI who came up with the idea has a short window to get their paper out).
What this new directive does is frees up the other half of research, the analysis and results in paper form. Most of those are available via ads.harvard.edu already, except some journals have a paywall. The hope is this directive will mean that even paywalled papers can be distributed.
tl;dr-- NASA already has a history of making all their data and most papers public, this closes the final holes. Yay!
He should (as others suggest) just seize the moment and market his photos as "As seen on the Today Show"-- but then NBC would sue him for unlicensed use of their trademarked show name.
I think the editorial was spot on with: "They can no longer be coronated; their voices have to be deemed essential to the lives of their customers."
This has always been the ideal case for writing. In the past, magazine editors had to guess which writing was bringing in readers, based on a handful of reply letters and a single number called 'sales'. In the web era, we now get this information instantly.
So we've shifted from the pair of gatekeepers (good) & nepotism (bad) to a mix of meritocracy (good) and populism (bad). It's not worse, it's just different, and I think it has pluses.
Alex
The Daytime Astronomer, http://scientificblogging.com/sky_day/
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sandy_freelance.
the problem is >AI
AI or not, you're supposed to READ the books that you're recommending, so it's lazy freelancing as well. Recommendations in an article are supposed to be more than 'these titles looked interesting, dunno about the content'. (I know, wistful thinking at this point).
Who is the real architect?
Who is really coming up with these loopholes? Trump is neither smart enough nor well informed to create such clever endruns, just gleefully agreeing to sign off on someone else's work. Which advisor is the Kissinger-type hatemonger really doing the work and causing the pain?
indemnification agreements sux
Maybe 10-20 years ago, the author would have gone ahead and said "it's fair use, sue us". But now publishers require authors sign indemnification agreements that state the author (not publisher) is responsible for all legal costs and settlement fees the publisher might encounter with the material. Which means the author isn't booking the lawyer or deciding whether to fight or settle, the publisher is-- but the publisher has no incentive to not just capitulate because the author is one that pays the costs. If you're a writer, strike out the indemnification clause before signing (or, if they push back, have it capped at the amount they paid you). That they've become standard is terrible.
vs Monster cable, please
Please please have Monster Energy buy a guitar accessories vendor so we can FINALLY get the 'Monster Cable vs Monster Energy' fight we've all been wanting!
NASA data was already public
Worth noting that NASA data (from space telescopes, etc) has always been public. It either goes public immediately if it's a survey mission (like STEREO) or, if a Principal Investigator wrote the proposal (like with HST), 1 year after the data is taken (so the PI who came up with the idea has a short window to get their paper out).
What this new directive does is frees up the other half of research, the analysis and results in paper form. Most of those are available via ads.harvard.edu already, except some journals have a paywall. The hope is this directive will mean that even paywalled papers can be distributed.
tl;dr-- NASA already has a history of making all their data and most papers public, this closes the final holes. Yay!
'as seen on the Today show'
He should (as others suggest) just seize the moment and market his photos as "As seen on the Today Show"-- but then NBC would sue him for unlicensed use of their trademarked show name.
best April Fools prank ever!
Faking coverage to get clients you can't service? Trivial.
Extending a customer service nightmare for 3 extra months just to so techdirt would report on it on April Fools Day? Best prank ever!
Now Comcast should just call him, say 'April Fools!' and hook up his cable.
editorial was right,f or wrong reasons
I think the editorial was spot on with: "They can no longer be coronated; their voices have to be deemed essential to the lives of their customers."
This has always been the ideal case for writing. In the past, magazine editors had to guess which writing was bringing in readers, based on a handful of reply letters and a single number called 'sales'. In the web era, we now get this information instantly.
So we've shifted from the pair of gatekeepers (good) & nepotism (bad) to a mix of meritocracy (good) and populism (bad). It's not worse, it's just different, and I think it has pluses.
Alex
The Daytime Astronomer, http://scientificblogging.com/sky_day/