You can't. There isn't a model where you make money out of publishing something digitally in the long term. You might make money out of ancillary stuff like T-Shirts or running concerts, but digital publication in and of itself is a loss making enterprise because of the entrenched attitude that there is no need to remunerate the creator for a product that can be copied indefinitely.
In the long run fewer people will create professionally. Why spend time making music if all the money is in making the T-shirts?
In Australia in the 80's Aboriginal art became popular. Because most Aboriginal artists didn't live anywhere near tourist areas, unscrupulous whites would copy their art and then sell those copies at high prices to tourists. You want to know what a world without copyright is? It's going to be like that. It is middlemen getting fat by selling copies of other people's works while the person who created the work gets nothing because they have no rights.
There are people who are really good at selling stuff - at the moment copyright means that they have to give something back to the person who created the thing that is sold. Under your "Copyright Should Be Abolished" system the artist might never be paid, but their painting, which might be copied a million times, will earn some shifty bastard millions of dollars.
Given that most of the people in Gitmo haven't been charged or gone to trial, the idea that the US might detain and torture people indefinitely isn't ridiculous.
So you're saying that publishers that are currently publishing without DRM are desperate to move to a secure DRM platform? Now why would that be? I thought all those publishers that weren't using DRM were raking in the bucks.
Second, what is so special about Facebook that it will avoid being obsolesced by the next cool fad? Answer again, "nothing".
Installed userbase. Facebook can adapt to whatever the newest fad is quicker than the newest fad can build up a similar userbase. Your chances of being able to build the same network on something new are almost zero. People will only switch if all their contacts have switched - and why would their contacts switch?
They show Win 8 running on ARM in stage, but the guy on Slashdot who cries Vaporware gets a +5 Mod. It's like the Open Source version of Fox News here sometimes.
The migration to IIS was completed a decade ago. They hit bumps like any migration, but they got it done.
All free mail services delete your account if you don't access within a couple of monthis (including gmail). The interesting question is - if accounts from hotmail are deleted due to inactivity, why does hotmail still have double the number of users of gmail (and yahoo mail 3 times as many users as gmail)
http://gorumors.com/crunchies/number-of-users-on-hotmail-vs-gmail-vs-yahoo-mail/
If Google did have the ability to adverse the government of any nation, they need to be regulated like a mofo. At what point does it become okay for a company to try to bring down a government?
People goofing off with laptops never sit in the front few rows of a lecture. Sit up the front and you won't be distracted. You'll probably also pay better attention because it will be more obvious to the lecturer when you are disinterested in whatever they are trying to teach you.
The only way to ensure that you aren't distracted by other students laptop use is to sit further towards the front of the lecture room. Students who waste time in lectures don't tend to sit in the front few rows.
Most people weren't going to Open Office - they simply put up with the nagging - because in the end the nagging was less annoying than using Open Office.
Blood and Chrome will fail for the same reason that SGU did - the audience prefers to watch Torrents of shows to watching it at the scheduled time. SGU was one of the most torrented shows - but couldn't get enough people to actually watch it during broadcast time to keep it on the air. There is no money to be made in creating media for an audience who don't believe in compensating content producers.
As long as you don't consume any work generated by artists without in some way compensating them, not a problem.
If you do consume the work of others for your own reward, gratification, or entertainment - and you have benefited tangibly from it - what right have you not to provide some sort of compensation for the benefit you've accrued?
Most form of civil dissobedience comes at some sort of personal risk (whether that be prison, fines or some other sanction) - anonymous gets the dissobedience without any of the risk.
Several tracker sites were hosting advertisements and making more than a million a year in advertising - so there is money to be made out of it. One of Google's recent initiatives is to make sure that they don't serve ads on websites hosting pirated content.
Lets see - Apple refuses to allow GPL software to run on its IOS devices, and the same rule will apply to the future OSX App store. But Microsoft is more evil.
Just glad that I'm clear on that.
The message that MSFT should be putting out is that their mobile OS is designed to be centrally managed by the organization rather than the phone company. Microsoft has products that allow you to manage the phones in your organization as tightly as you manage the desktop - deploy and update applications, lock off features, enforce password policies and so on. As phones become as critical for applications and data as laptops are, the need to have a central management platform becomes more important. At the moment most organization's don't give a toss about managing their phone fleet - but when, in a few years time, some poor bastard in the IT department needs to make sure that all company phones have the latest operating system updates and anti-malware definitions, the back end infrastructure that MSFT has put together *may* give them a point of differentiation. Microsoft can differentiate with the following question: "How to I install and update an application on 1000 company phones with a minimum of effort?"
Ultimately their strategy is something between Apple and Google's. Google allows Android to be put on anything - which means that we are seeing some really 3rd rate phones running Android (there was a review of a $99 Android tablet posted on Fark the other day - this sort of hardware shovelware is going to harm the reputation of Android). Apple makes its own phone and ties it down to enforce a consistent experience. Microsoft has a minimum hardware spec as a middle ground - anyone can make a phone as long as it has these minimum specs. It sort of deals with the Android hardware shovelware problem. They also allow central OS update - meaning that if you have the phone, it will be automatically updated as updates are released (and the minimum hardware spec means that all phones will support the updates). Google gave the carriers a lot of freedom in these issues, which is why, unless you're fairly competent, it can be a bastard to keep your Android phone up to date because the carriers have no interest in you keeping your phone current.
The US' economic future relies on intellectual property. If the US doesn't take radical steps to protect that property, it will have little to export. The US cannot compete on labor costs, but has been able to lead with raw intellectual power. If the US doesn't protect the revenue generating ability of that intellectual property - if the US simply turns a blind eye as China and India reverse engineer every American invention and sell it at a fraction of the cost, the US is farked.
And making money off it through advertising is even different again. Estimates are that these guys made several million dollars in advertising. It wasn't some altruistic project - they directly profited off copyright infringement by selling ads against people visiting their site.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't. There isn't a model where you make money out of publishing something digitally in the long term. You might make money out of ancillary stuff like T-Shirts or running concerts, but digital publication in and of itself is a loss making enterprise because of the entrenched attitude that there is no need to remunerate the creator for a product that can be copied indefinitely. In the long run fewer people will create professionally. Why spend time making music if all the money is in making the T-shirts?
I can't drive a Porsche because I can't afford one. Is your argument that I should steal one?
Yup and other parts of the World, like Australia, had had it for almost 50 years by that point.
8 hours work. 8 hours play. 8 hours rest. Long predates Ford. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
Where the heck did you get this idea that the police could get whatever they want without judicial oversight ?
FOX News - where else?
In Australia in the 80's Aboriginal art became popular. Because most Aboriginal artists didn't live anywhere near tourist areas, unscrupulous whites would copy their art and then sell those copies at high prices to tourists. You want to know what a world without copyright is? It's going to be like that. It is middlemen getting fat by selling copies of other people's works while the person who created the work gets nothing because they have no rights. There are people who are really good at selling stuff - at the moment copyright means that they have to give something back to the person who created the thing that is sold. Under your "Copyright Should Be Abolished" system the artist might never be paid, but their painting, which might be copied a million times, will earn some shifty bastard millions of dollars.
Given that most of the people in Gitmo haven't been charged or gone to trial, the idea that the US might detain and torture people indefinitely isn't ridiculous.
So you're saying that publishers that are currently publishing without DRM are desperate to move to a secure DRM platform? Now why would that be? I thought all those publishers that weren't using DRM were raking in the bucks.
Second, what is so special about Facebook that it will avoid being obsolesced by the next cool fad? Answer again, "nothing". Installed userbase. Facebook can adapt to whatever the newest fad is quicker than the newest fad can build up a similar userbase. Your chances of being able to build the same network on something new are almost zero. People will only switch if all their contacts have switched - and why would their contacts switch?
They show Win 8 running on ARM in stage, but the guy on Slashdot who cries Vaporware gets a +5 Mod. It's like the Open Source version of Fox News here sometimes.
The migration to IIS was completed a decade ago. They hit bumps like any migration, but they got it done. All free mail services delete your account if you don't access within a couple of monthis (including gmail). The interesting question is - if accounts from hotmail are deleted due to inactivity, why does hotmail still have double the number of users of gmail (and yahoo mail 3 times as many users as gmail) http://gorumors.com/crunchies/number-of-users-on-hotmail-vs-gmail-vs-yahoo-mail/
If Google did have the ability to adverse the government of any nation, they need to be regulated like a mofo. At what point does it become okay for a company to try to bring down a government?
People goofing off with laptops never sit in the front few rows of a lecture. Sit up the front and you won't be distracted. You'll probably also pay better attention because it will be more obvious to the lecturer when you are disinterested in whatever they are trying to teach you.
The only way to ensure that you aren't distracted by other students laptop use is to sit further towards the front of the lecture room. Students who waste time in lectures don't tend to sit in the front few rows.
Most people weren't going to Open Office - they simply put up with the nagging - because in the end the nagging was less annoying than using Open Office.
Blood and Chrome will fail for the same reason that SGU did - the audience prefers to watch Torrents of shows to watching it at the scheduled time. SGU was one of the most torrented shows - but couldn't get enough people to actually watch it during broadcast time to keep it on the air. There is no money to be made in creating media for an audience who don't believe in compensating content producers.
As long as you don't consume any work generated by artists without in some way compensating them, not a problem. If you do consume the work of others for your own reward, gratification, or entertainment - and you have benefited tangibly from it - what right have you not to provide some sort of compensation for the benefit you've accrued?
Most form of civil dissobedience comes at some sort of personal risk (whether that be prison, fines or some other sanction) - anonymous gets the dissobedience without any of the risk.
Nearly half of RedHat's profits come from investments http://ostatic.com/blog/red-hat-invests-and-supports-its-way-to-another-solid-quarter rather than its Open Source support business. The Open Source support business has very little gold to mine
Several tracker sites were hosting advertisements and making more than a million a year in advertising - so there is money to be made out of it. One of Google's recent initiatives is to make sure that they don't serve ads on websites hosting pirated content.
Lets see - Apple refuses to allow GPL software to run on its IOS devices, and the same rule will apply to the future OSX App store. But Microsoft is more evil. Just glad that I'm clear on that.
The message that MSFT should be putting out is that their mobile OS is designed to be centrally managed by the organization rather than the phone company. Microsoft has products that allow you to manage the phones in your organization as tightly as you manage the desktop - deploy and update applications, lock off features, enforce password policies and so on. As phones become as critical for applications and data as laptops are, the need to have a central management platform becomes more important. At the moment most organization's don't give a toss about managing their phone fleet - but when, in a few years time, some poor bastard in the IT department needs to make sure that all company phones have the latest operating system updates and anti-malware definitions, the back end infrastructure that MSFT has put together *may* give them a point of differentiation. Microsoft can differentiate with the following question: "How to I install and update an application on 1000 company phones with a minimum of effort?" Ultimately their strategy is something between Apple and Google's. Google allows Android to be put on anything - which means that we are seeing some really 3rd rate phones running Android (there was a review of a $99 Android tablet posted on Fark the other day - this sort of hardware shovelware is going to harm the reputation of Android). Apple makes its own phone and ties it down to enforce a consistent experience. Microsoft has a minimum hardware spec as a middle ground - anyone can make a phone as long as it has these minimum specs. It sort of deals with the Android hardware shovelware problem. They also allow central OS update - meaning that if you have the phone, it will be automatically updated as updates are released (and the minimum hardware spec means that all phones will support the updates). Google gave the carriers a lot of freedom in these issues, which is why, unless you're fairly competent, it can be a bastard to keep your Android phone up to date because the carriers have no interest in you keeping your phone current.
iPhone 3G wasn't the first iPhone though was it.
The US' economic future relies on intellectual property. If the US doesn't take radical steps to protect that property, it will have little to export. The US cannot compete on labor costs, but has been able to lead with raw intellectual power. If the US doesn't protect the revenue generating ability of that intellectual property - if the US simply turns a blind eye as China and India reverse engineer every American invention and sell it at a fraction of the cost, the US is farked.
And making money off it through advertising is even different again. Estimates are that these guys made several million dollars in advertising. It wasn't some altruistic project - they directly profited off copyright infringement by selling ads against people visiting their site.