Thanks for the reply, and I just wanted to say I'm hip to the CE mark and think it is a good thing. Heck I might even use it myself (is why I thought about this old-ish post) in a real and valid manner. I'm not one to try to be all sneaky-pete and imply I'm sharing with those who give freely.
Still, I must be missing something because to use the mark properly doesn't seem to need anything more than sharing some revenue with at least one contributor. I'll have to look at the CE Mark's page again I guess. I figure what I'll do is find a way to express to a visitor what I share back with whom so as not to create any false impression.
And now to scroll up and find the link which I probably bookmarked ... and lost in a sea of bookmarks cuz I bookmark first and ask questions later. doh!
First, commenter #2 is a fool. CC licensing uses the copyright model to allow a content creator to retain rights while still sharing under terms they see fit. Without CC I'd have a choice between traditional "i own it you can't touch it" or "it's public domain so Disney can steal it without issue".
So what exactly is the problem with a content creator saying "you can use this except not to make money from"? I mean, if that's what I want to do then what is the problem with me saying that? People are going to cheat any and all systems out there, so other than peeps cheating and me theoretically needing to police for those cheaters, what is wrong with me saying "use this for personal stuff not money-making stuff"?
BTW I'm hip to the idea of the school play that is also a fund raiser, and don't see how that can be considered commercial even though it is to get money. The purpose of the school is NOT to have a play to raise funds, so it is not commercial by design even though the content is being used in a fund-raising effort.
If I understand the Creator-Endorsed thing, it means someone can make money off my stuff and pop that mark on their work if they share some proceeds with me. But what about something with content from multiple people including me? Billy says "yeah sure I'll take a cut", the mashup person then puts the mark on and doesn't need to give a cut to me or anyone else. Is that what the mark will mean? ONE contributor got a cut? Great. Now I can take anything out there that allows commercial use, add some trivial little content to it, then grant myself a cut and permission to pop that useless little symbol on the product.
So ... why would a juror not be totally capable of seeing if a patent is bogus or not? To me the ultimate value in this observation is that the Patent People can just hire folks at slightly more than min wage for no more than a year each to sit, 12 at a time, and review patents. If they can't get to a unanimous decision then it goes back to the traditional rubber stamp method.
Depending on the length of the article, I often *like* truncated feeds. Basically just let me know something is there and give me enough to see if I want to click through. I don't like my page filling up with all the content when guess what: I'm going to go read it in it's native environment anyway.
Feed ads suck, canned text as the feed content sucks (except for web comics), but a worthy bit of teaser is fine with me for most everything I have in my aggregator. ESPECIALLY the ones that tend to write long stuff.
Harm to content creators who do not want their work shared freely is sharing their work freely. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else can make an argument you or anyone else deems sound regarding potential benefits of that sharing. The simple fact that the content creator chooses to not share it and it ends up easily shared is 'harm'.
Think of the harm done by forcing someone who's religious beliefs to not eat certain foods to eat those foods. They will still digest them and poop later, and (hey - bright side!) they might find they like these foods. But clearly forcing them to partake is just wrong.
Waiting for the dinosaurs to die is a really nice thing. Taunting them isn't. Nor is enabling them, which is where the guvamint is at. THAT is major harm done to the future, but I digress. And digest so I'm gonna go share some previously used food.
Someone in the field disagreeing with others in the field doesn't automatically make either side right or wrong.
Addiction is a horrible thing. When I went through rehab (alcohol addiction, 2 years ago, one year sober now) we learned all sorts of things about the problem - including that it is almost impossible to say what an addiction is. But basically when your brain responds inappropriately to something then your brain has a problem. For me it was booze. For others heroin or cocaine. For 2 young ladies, it was food. Yeah: food.
The problem, if you have a problem, isn't based on voluume or time of day or even if someone else thinks you're wrong to think you have an addiction. The problem is when the habit controls you instead of the right way of being. Booze owned me. Plain and simple, no argument. I own the problem now, but dammit booze still owns me. I hope and pray I never drink again. And for those who eschew real life in favor of the internet, I hope and pray they can get the help they need.
You "normal" people will never get it either. You'll think your stupid little thoughts based on how your brains work, ignoring any and all evidence that points to how wrong you are. No worries. Those of us who lived it know how it feels to be owned by something 'normal people' can handle. And we don't begrudge you your healthy brains! But please: don't piss on someone else just because you don't or won't understand.
um... I don't think the decision means the judges decided to not prop up a business model, meaning your conclusion doesn't follow. It basically does what you often accuse others of doing: using data to fit your view.
All that decision means is that the ISP is not a party to infringement by connecting a source to a person who might want to steal someone else's intellectual property.
No matter the fuel source or efficiency, wear and tear on a road is related more to the size of the vehicle than the distance it travels. Motorcycle versus MegaSUV eh? So a road tax based on distance traveled by class of vehicle makes more sense than fuel consumed IF you want to use the tax to maintain the roads.
Not that I'm in favor of a real GPS added to any of my vehicles! I'd be okay with "them" adding something that only calculates distance traveled and simply can't track or report any other info (where, when, how fast), but everyone knows you can't trust "them".