Hmm.... I'd never be able to be a CEO then. I'm just not a good liar. A lie on the order of hiding a present for my wife for a week or so I can manage. Keeping a company's horrible state a secret from investors while saying how wonderful things were going? Nope. I'd break down on the second word of my speech. Maybe the third. I'd wind up blurting out the complete truth and then all of my stock options would be worthless.
If you'd like to see the rest of this scene, sign our petition declaring animals people.
Tomorrow's Headline: "PETA succeeds in getting a million signatures for their latest petition."
(Of course, the above headline's in their heads. The real headline would be "Annoyed porn-surfers flee PETA site. Find free non-animal-cruelty-message-filled porn elsewhere.")
But how far in the future will it be before Netflix can get a good selection of streaming movies. This split feels like it should have happened more gradually than announcing they were splitting the plans and then, 2 months later, announcing they are splitting the companies. What it'll do is force users to side with one company or the other. Meanwhile, Netflix won't have the DVD business to use as leverage when at the negotiating table with the studios.
Exactly. Streaming is the future, but how far down the line is this future? One year? Five years? A decade? While Netflix (sans DVDs) tries to get profitable via streaming (while fighting studios who don't want streaming to succeed and who own the keys to the content), The-Service-Formally-Known-As-Netflix-DVDs will be doing a reasonable amount of business. (Assuming everyone doesn't jump ship because of the whole Netflix PR messup, of course.)
They're betting the company on a product that isn't viable on its own just yet and, by doing so in a clumsy fashion, jeopardizing both sides of the business.
Of course politicians have morals. They just have exactly the set of morals that will win them the most votes. This set of morals is subject to change at a moment's notice depending on poll numbers and campaign strategy.
When I first heard about this, I was excited. I can post to Twitter and Facebook (if I used the latter) using Seesmic Desktop, but can't post to Google+ unless I go to their website. This is because Seesmic (and other 3rd party clients) didn't have an API to access the site. Unfortunately, when I looked at the API, it's read-only. So Seesmic could show you comments on your stream, but to post an update or comment, you'd still have to go to their site. Perhaps the read-and-write API will come soon, but until it is read-and-write it'll only be half of an API to me.
There is a happy medium between letting people board with guns/flamethrowers/bombs and groping people/confiscating half-full water bottles. An effective TSA security system would have a minimal impact on 99% of flyers but would stop those trying to carry dangerous items on board.
More like we can figure out that someone who has trouble paying attention isn't just "a bad student who just isn't trying hard enough" but actually has a medical problem that can be treated (either with therapy or drugs or both depending on the circumstance). This person can then do better in class and actually live a more productive and happier life.
As another poster noted, a company once built a cell tower and people complained about all of the bad things it did to them... until the company informed them that they hadn't turned the tower on yet.
Doesn't matter, though, a side effect of this disease is immunity to reason and logic.
Part of it is increased detection. Decades ago, someone with a peanut allergy might not have known about it. They might have eaten some food that had incidentally touched peanuts and had a fatal reaction. The people around them wouldn't have known just what killed Mr. Peanut Allergy. They might chalk it up to some disease, "bad humors" or God being angry at him for his sins. Today, we can do skin tests and find out that a person is allergic to peanuts. They can then avoid peanuts and live a happy life. Or we can detect that someone has ADD and isn't just hyperactive for no good reason.
Another part is more publicity. Decades ago, if you had bad allergies or were different in any measurable way you might be institutionalized to get the "proper care." Society just wasn't good at helping these people so they were pushed to the side and forgotten about.
Increased detection and publicity makes it seem like a sudden surge occurred.
I think you're misunderstanding the problem. Your blog and your photos are a non-issue because your blog remains available. The content that causes problems is content from publishers or developers who stop making their products available for an extended period of time, and who disappear from the face of the Internet.
You originally said "there should be a registration requirement, without which you cannot claim damages". I was just pointing out that, under a system like that, I could post a blog item with a photo and then have a company take my photo and use it for their own purposes. Since I hadn't registered my photo, I wouldn't have been able to claim damages and the company could do whatever they liked with it.
As far as making it available, copyright doesn't require availability. In the past, this was offset by shorter copyright terms. Yes, you could refuse to make any more runs of your book after the initial run, but once 28 years passed, it was public domain and someone could copy your book to make a new run of it. Now, of course, you'd need to wait 70-90 years if not more. By that time, any surviving copies will be hard to come by and even the existence of the book/work might be forgotten.
The problem isn't one of availability, but of copyright duration. After all, how do you define "available"? What about if the content is available, but behind a paywall and in a lower resolution? If a movie company released a VCR-quality movie through a Netflix-like paid-streaming service, would that keep their copyright perpetually registered? What if they released a Blu-Ray disc but priced it at $10,000? It's "available", but only at a price point that nobody would be willing to pay. You can bet that companies would use tricks like this to skirt around the available rule.
Our best bet for a sane copyright is a simple one: Every work gets 14 years of automatic protection. If you want more, you can register and pay to get 28 years. After 28 years, your work is Public Domain.
Maybe they'd conquer Earth to turn it into some sort of weird alien spa. "Take a relaxing trip to Terra 3! Bask in the warming rays of Terra's star. The lighter gravity will make you feel years younger. All of your needs will be catered to by Terran slaves. We don't even mind if you break a few. We've got billions more."
Somehow, your "soul/sole" typo makes your comment even funnier.
Perry: "My fellow Americans, we must build space faring vehicles and faster than light engines to destroy alien life before they destroy us. God and Jesus told me we need to. Our souls depend on it!"
Of course, his R&D method of praying for divine FTL engine designs probably wouldn't work too quickly.
I'd wager that, for most works, there isn't much income to be made past 14 years. In fact, it probably breaks down like this: 90% of musical works make nearly all their money in the first 5 years and then makes nearly nothing. 5% likely bottom out after the first 10 years and 4% after the first 15 years. But thanks to that 1% that keeps making money after 15 years have passed, we get lobbying to keep extending copyright.
In fact, if anyone wants to do the legwork, here's Wikipedia's listing of albums released in 1981: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_in_music#Albums_released
Nearly 300 albums there. How many of those, 30 years later, are making significant sums for the labels? How many are making significant sums for the artists? If only a handful are making significant sums of money, then what's the argument for holding the rest out of the public domain because a couple are still money makers? (Since the arguments FOR extending copyright are invariably money-based.)
No, I agree completely with the artists. They should be well paid for works they did decades ago.
In other news, I just finished making a website. I'm now going to retire and expect to be paid for it for the next 50 years or so. In fact, my kids and grandkids shouldn't have to work because I made a few websites!
(All above was in jest for those who are humor-and-sarcasm-challenged.)
My problem with registration is that I don't want to have to register every picture I take, every blog post I make, etc just to be sure that some company doesn't steal it for their own use. However, perhaps there should be two levels of copyright protection.
Unregistered copyright protection would last for 14 years (the original copyright term length). After that 14 years, it would fall into the public domain. No options for renewal unless you registered it. Registered copyright protection would last for 28 years. After that, it would fall into the public domain.
To prevent people from abusing the system by waiting 14 years, registering and then getting 28 more years, registering would only extend your copyright protection until it had been protected for 28 years. So if you took a photo today and registered it 10 years from now, it's copyright would still expire in the year 2039. Meanwhile, a photo you took today and didn't register would become public domain in 2025.
Under this copyright scheme, we'd see works created in 1983 falling into the public domain. (I'd be generous and assume that anything created prior to this scheme being enacted should be treated as if it were registered.) This would include many classic games. By 2017, we'd have everything from the 1980's in the public domain and by 2027, everything from the 1990's would be in the public domain.
I don't think Microsoft needs Yahoo, but I could see them bidding on it in an attempt to get Google to buy Yahoo (as a defensive, keep-it-out-of-Microsoft's-hands maneuver). Then, as Google after Google has spent a chunk of cash and is trying to somehow assimilate Yahoo into their offerings, Microsoft could catch up to Google. Of course, this could backfire and Google could, wisely, realize that Yahoo offers nothing they don't already have and let Microsoft waste their cash.
I've experienced something like this. I thought I was awake and was indeed walking around, but my sense of history (what had been going on recently) and location (where I was) where set by a dream I was having. Due to the circumstances of a dream I was having, I thought I was in a different room and, when I tried to exit, couldn't find the door. I began to panic (since the door "should have been" right where I was) and called out for help. Once the light was turned on, I woke up entirely and realized what had happened. (I had walked into my closet instead of to my door since the room I was dreaming I was in had a different layout.)
Just last night, my son did a similar thing. He woke up, went to the bathroom and then walked over to the couch and sat down. His eyes were open and he seemed awake. He was even able to talk to us to some degree but couldn't answer why he went to the couch. I tried to guide him back to his bed only for him to head to the bathroom and then back to the couch. Finally, I picked him up and carried him to his bed where he fell asleep. The next morning, he had no recollection of walking around.
Agreed. I'd sell a few paintings as my primary income, do some side work as I felt like it, and would spend quality time with my family. As a bonus, sleeping in counts as working longer hours!
I don't torrent, but I agree. If Netflix announced tomorrow that they had come to an agreement with the major studios to put all movies on streaming, say 90 days after the DVD release, then tons of people would sign up for the service. Netflix and the studios would both win. They could even raise their Streaming plan to $10 a month and it would still be a great deal. Instead, the content providers complain that if people access their titles on Netflix they won't buy the DVDs when many people will either 1) Go without the movie or 2) pirate the movie instead.
Yes. Netflix recently separated their DVD and Streaming plans. Streaming costs $7.99 a month. 1 DVD at a time costs $7.99 a month. 2 DVDs at a time costs $11.99 a month. If you want 2 DVDs and Streaming, that would cost $19.98 ($7.99 + $11.99).
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm.... I'd never be able to be a CEO then. I'm just not a good liar. A lie on the order of hiding a present for my wife for a week or so I can manage. Keeping a company's horrible state a secret from investors while saying how wonderful things were going? Nope. I'd break down on the second word of my speech. Maybe the third. I'd wind up blurting out the complete truth and then all of my stock options would be worthless.
If you'd like to see the rest of this scene, sign our petition declaring animals people.
Tomorrow's Headline: "PETA succeeds in getting a million signatures for their latest petition."
(Of course, the above headline's in their heads. The real headline would be "Annoyed porn-surfers flee PETA site. Find free non-animal-cruelty-message-filled porn elsewhere.")
But how far in the future will it be before Netflix can get a good selection of streaming movies. This split feels like it should have happened more gradually than announcing they were splitting the plans and then, 2 months later, announcing they are splitting the companies. What it'll do is force users to side with one company or the other. Meanwhile, Netflix won't have the DVD business to use as leverage when at the negotiating table with the studios.
Exactly. Streaming is the future, but how far down the line is this future? One year? Five years? A decade? While Netflix (sans DVDs) tries to get profitable via streaming (while fighting studios who don't want streaming to succeed and who own the keys to the content), The-Service-Formally-Known-As-Netflix-DVDs will be doing a reasonable amount of business. (Assuming everyone doesn't jump ship because of the whole Netflix PR messup, of course.)
They're betting the company on a product that isn't viable on its own just yet and, by doing so in a clumsy fashion, jeopardizing both sides of the business.
Of course politicians have morals. They just have exactly the set of morals that will win them the most votes. This set of morals is subject to change at a moment's notice depending on poll numbers and campaign strategy.
When I first heard about this, I was excited. I can post to Twitter and Facebook (if I used the latter) using Seesmic Desktop, but can't post to Google+ unless I go to their website. This is because Seesmic (and other 3rd party clients) didn't have an API to access the site. Unfortunately, when I looked at the API, it's read-only. So Seesmic could show you comments on your stream, but to post an update or comment, you'd still have to go to their site. Perhaps the read-and-write API will come soon, but until it is read-and-write it'll only be half of an API to me.
There is a happy medium between letting people board with guns/flamethrowers/bombs and groping people/confiscating half-full water bottles. An effective TSA security system would have a minimal impact on 99% of flyers but would stop those trying to carry dangerous items on board.
More like we can figure out that someone who has trouble paying attention isn't just "a bad student who just isn't trying hard enough" but actually has a medical problem that can be treated (either with therapy or drugs or both depending on the circumstance). This person can then do better in class and actually live a more productive and happier life.
As another poster noted, a company once built a cell tower and people complained about all of the bad things it did to them... until the company informed them that they hadn't turned the tower on yet.
Doesn't matter, though, a side effect of this disease is immunity to reason and logic.
Part of it is increased detection. Decades ago, someone with a peanut allergy might not have known about it. They might have eaten some food that had incidentally touched peanuts and had a fatal reaction. The people around them wouldn't have known just what killed Mr. Peanut Allergy. They might chalk it up to some disease, "bad humors" or God being angry at him for his sins. Today, we can do skin tests and find out that a person is allergic to peanuts. They can then avoid peanuts and live a happy life. Or we can detect that someone has ADD and isn't just hyperactive for no good reason.
Another part is more publicity. Decades ago, if you had bad allergies or were different in any measurable way you might be institutionalized to get the "proper care." Society just wasn't good at helping these people so they were pushed to the side and forgotten about.
Increased detection and publicity makes it seem like a sudden surge occurred.
I think you're misunderstanding the problem. Your blog and your photos are a non-issue because your blog remains available. The content that causes problems is content from publishers or developers who stop making their products available for an extended period of time, and who disappear from the face of the Internet.
You originally said "there should be a registration requirement, without which you cannot claim damages". I was just pointing out that, under a system like that, I could post a blog item with a photo and then have a company take my photo and use it for their own purposes. Since I hadn't registered my photo, I wouldn't have been able to claim damages and the company could do whatever they liked with it.
As far as making it available, copyright doesn't require availability. In the past, this was offset by shorter copyright terms. Yes, you could refuse to make any more runs of your book after the initial run, but once 28 years passed, it was public domain and someone could copy your book to make a new run of it. Now, of course, you'd need to wait 70-90 years if not more. By that time, any surviving copies will be hard to come by and even the existence of the book/work might be forgotten.
The problem isn't one of availability, but of copyright duration. After all, how do you define "available"? What about if the content is available, but behind a paywall and in a lower resolution? If a movie company released a VCR-quality movie through a Netflix-like paid-streaming service, would that keep their copyright perpetually registered? What if they released a Blu-Ray disc but priced it at $10,000? It's "available", but only at a price point that nobody would be willing to pay. You can bet that companies would use tricks like this to skirt around the available rule.
Our best bet for a sane copyright is a simple one: Every work gets 14 years of automatic protection. If you want more, you can register and pay to get 28 years. After 28 years, your work is Public Domain.
Maybe they'd conquer Earth to turn it into some sort of weird alien spa. "Take a relaxing trip to Terra 3! Bask in the warming rays of Terra's star. The lighter gravity will make you feel years younger. All of your needs will be catered to by Terran slaves. We don't even mind if you break a few. We've got billions more."
Somehow, your "soul/sole" typo makes your comment even funnier.
Perry: "My fellow Americans, we must build space faring vehicles and faster than light engines to destroy alien life before they destroy us. God and Jesus told me we need to. Our souls depend on it!"
Of course, his R&D method of praying for divine FTL engine designs probably wouldn't work too quickly.
Once Futurama-inspired Head-in-a-Jar technology becomes reality, music will be copyrighted forever so head-in-jar rockers can express their delight.
Curse you, Matt Groening!
I'd wager that, for most works, there isn't much income to be made past 14 years. In fact, it probably breaks down like this: 90% of musical works make nearly all their money in the first 5 years and then makes nearly nothing. 5% likely bottom out after the first 10 years and 4% after the first 15 years. But thanks to that 1% that keeps making money after 15 years have passed, we get lobbying to keep extending copyright.
In fact, if anyone wants to do the legwork, here's Wikipedia's listing of albums released in 1981: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_in_music#Albums_released
Nearly 300 albums there. How many of those, 30 years later, are making significant sums for the labels? How many are making significant sums for the artists? If only a handful are making significant sums of money, then what's the argument for holding the rest out of the public domain because a couple are still money makers? (Since the arguments FOR extending copyright are invariably money-based.)
No, I agree completely with the artists. They should be well paid for works they did decades ago.
In other news, I just finished making a website. I'm now going to retire and expect to be paid for it for the next 50 years or so. In fact, my kids and grandkids shouldn't have to work because I made a few websites!
(All above was in jest for those who are humor-and-sarcasm-challenged.)
Amazon's video on demand service is available on Roku. Can't speak for 360 or PS3, but I've definitely accessed Amazon Video offerings via Roku.
My problem with registration is that I don't want to have to register every picture I take, every blog post I make, etc just to be sure that some company doesn't steal it for their own use. However, perhaps there should be two levels of copyright protection.
Unregistered copyright protection would last for 14 years (the original copyright term length). After that 14 years, it would fall into the public domain. No options for renewal unless you registered it. Registered copyright protection would last for 28 years. After that, it would fall into the public domain.
To prevent people from abusing the system by waiting 14 years, registering and then getting 28 more years, registering would only extend your copyright protection until it had been protected for 28 years. So if you took a photo today and registered it 10 years from now, it's copyright would still expire in the year 2039. Meanwhile, a photo you took today and didn't register would become public domain in 2025.
Under this copyright scheme, we'd see works created in 1983 falling into the public domain. (I'd be generous and assume that anything created prior to this scheme being enacted should be treated as if it were registered.) This would include many classic games. By 2017, we'd have everything from the 1980's in the public domain and by 2027, everything from the 1990's would be in the public domain.
This sentence is false!
I don't think Microsoft needs Yahoo, but I could see them bidding on it in an attempt to get Google to buy Yahoo (as a defensive, keep-it-out-of-Microsoft's-hands maneuver). Then, as Google after Google has spent a chunk of cash and is trying to somehow assimilate Yahoo into their offerings, Microsoft could catch up to Google. Of course, this could backfire and Google could, wisely, realize that Yahoo offers nothing they don't already have and let Microsoft waste their cash.
"Everyone loves us. See? There's nothing negative said about us online."
"What about this right here."
"Hold on a second. *delete* What right where?"
"You're right. The people love us!"
I've experienced something like this. I thought I was awake and was indeed walking around, but my sense of history (what had been going on recently) and location (where I was) where set by a dream I was having. Due to the circumstances of a dream I was having, I thought I was in a different room and, when I tried to exit, couldn't find the door. I began to panic (since the door "should have been" right where I was) and called out for help. Once the light was turned on, I woke up entirely and realized what had happened. (I had walked into my closet instead of to my door since the room I was dreaming I was in had a different layout.)
Just last night, my son did a similar thing. He woke up, went to the bathroom and then walked over to the couch and sat down. His eyes were open and he seemed awake. He was even able to talk to us to some degree but couldn't answer why he went to the couch. I tried to guide him back to his bed only for him to head to the bathroom and then back to the couch. Finally, I picked him up and carried him to his bed where he fell asleep. The next morning, he had no recollection of walking around.
Agreed. I'd sell a few paintings as my primary income, do some side work as I felt like it, and would spend quality time with my family. As a bonus, sleeping in counts as working longer hours!
I don't torrent, but I agree. If Netflix announced tomorrow that they had come to an agreement with the major studios to put all movies on streaming, say 90 days after the DVD release, then tons of people would sign up for the service. Netflix and the studios would both win. They could even raise their Streaming plan to $10 a month and it would still be a great deal. Instead, the content providers complain that if people access their titles on Netflix they won't buy the DVDs when many people will either 1) Go without the movie or 2) pirate the movie instead.
Yes. Netflix recently separated their DVD and Streaming plans. Streaming costs $7.99 a month. 1 DVD at a time costs $7.99 a month. 2 DVDs at a time costs $11.99 a month. If you want 2 DVDs and Streaming, that would cost $19.98 ($7.99 + $11.99).