In a separate tweet, she says "lol, does it count if the [sharer] was the composer?" To which I say, it almost certainly does, as the composer probably does not have publishing rights. Still illegal.
Also, big thumbs down to the random body-snarking in the comments here. Thought most of the TechDirt commenters (the non AC ones) were better than that.
Amazon kicks so much ass. For those who don't remember, they were the ones who fought for DRM-less music, and forced iTunes to do the same. Now it's standard.
Yes, I wish they'd do the same for their ebooks. But Amazon does a pretty great job 99% of the time.
Shoot the executive customer service an email. Couldn't hurt:
http://consumerist.com/2006/12/email-amazons-executive-customer-service.html
"wherein said information received by said user of said IP phone comprises a variety of offers, wherein said user selects one of said variety of offers associated with said one of said merchants listed, wherein said selected offer is transmitted to said one of said merchants listed electronically; and"
It should be invalidated for being obfuscated as all get-out.
"Following your logic anytime a company is sold the employees should be paid a percentage of the profits."
I like the way you think.
"You can take your left leaning, entitled, socialist attitude some place else."
I, for one, will keep my left-leaning (let's not beat around the push, it's not leaning, it fell over a long time ago), socialist attitude right here, thanks.
At least the government has to pay lip service to working for the general public. Companies *have* to screw you over in every possible manner. If they're not squeezing out every inch of profit, they're not running the business correctly. There's not even a facade that they're on your side.
Yeah, that's completely fair, especially where eBook revenue is concerned. But I think the worry that publishing companies are somehow sneaking in clauses to completely screw the author is overblown.
Yes, you sign over some rights, obviously -- some copy rights. But no one is "forcing" her to sign those over.
There are some sneaky publishing contracts, but for the most part, contracts are pretty standard now. In any case, Hocking likely has an agent, and for someone with her kind of money, a lawyer, so it's extremely unlikely there's going to be some sort of sneaky fine print that screws her over.
Yes, but the author specifically hedges that by saying "not all of them may be good reasons," which, of course, is a tautology that doesn't really say anything, but makes it clear that the author thinks that a publishing contract is generally a bad idea.
Exactly which rights is she being forced to sign away? People are automatically assuming that a publishing contract is the devil, when I've rarely seen that to be the case. Should authors being making a higher percentage of profits? Maybe, but that's not really a case of rights.
Publishing is in a weird flux right now. eBooks are still not the primary means of reading for most people, and as such, a traditional publishing contract still has a lot of benefits. That said, self-publishing has some benefits too, such as keeping a much bigger chunk of the profits.
Really, what many people, TechDirt included, fail to realize is that one doesn't preclude the other, in most cases. You can publish some things with a traditional contract, and simultaneously put other things out into the eBook world. It's not mutually exclusive. I think the most successful authors are going to recognize that, and have a foot in both worlds.
Can I call dibs on his contract?
I don't really care about your argument, but what? 'Paywall' is the 'n-word' of the Internet? I think the n-word is the n-word of the Internet, asshole.
Certainly Jon Kyl. He's the biggest asshole in the Senate. Worse than McConnell, Graham or Sessions.
I'd be ecstatic if the government paid for infrastructure upgrades. Oh well, since that will never happen, let's instead cut women's health funding and libraries/public radio to pay for unnecessary tax cuts and WAR! U-S-A! U-S-A!
As a Texan, let me say that I'm so glad I am able to save a few bucks while the schools here (annual contenders for the worst in the nation) are slashed even further. But that extra couple of hundred bucks is worth some stupid kids!
You missed one of my favorite lines from the story:
"This gives those sites content that they crave and also acts as a promotional tool, but more important, it distributes Conan content as quickly as possible, which is crucial to discouraging piracy. 'There's no need for some kid to become a bedroom programmer if the clips are already out there,' says Wooden. 'Our job is to give them the tools to share, so they don't have to rip.'"
Instead of being afraid of piracy and sharing in general, they're taking ownership of it and embracing it.
I guess, but saying "there are measures in the Constitution" to "kill your government" certainly raised my eyebrows.
While I agree Match.com is not liable, all the victim blaming ("You should take *personal responsibility* for being raped!") in the comments is really disgusting.