It is possible that the two newspaper have some sort of reciprocal agreement. Maybe the India Times provides the NY Times with reporting from Central Asia.
But it's not the first time I have seen articles from the Times posted on this web site, and if they did it consistently without permission I think the Times would go after them.
Plagarism is taking credit for something someone else has written and claiming to have written it yourself. But this cannot be plagarism because the article clearly states that it comes from the NY Times and credits the original authors of the article. Perhaps it is infringment, but plagarism it is not.
BTW, the reason the link isn't to the original story in the NY Times is that registration is sometimes required to access articles in the Times and slashdotters don't like it when they have to register to read an article and complain about it in the comments.
Just for laughs, check the link in my original submission.
You are correct. There is an error in the story I submitted.
The original story said that:
Joe Konrath has an interesting interview with independent writer John Locke who currently holds the coveted #1 spot in the Amazon Top 100 and has sold just over 350,000 downloads on Kindle of his 99 cent books since January 1st of this year which with a royalty rate of 35%, is an annual income well over $500k. Locke says that 99 cents is the magic number and adds that when he lowered the price of his book "The List" from $2.99 to 99 cents, he started selling 20 times as many copies - about 800 a day, turning his loss lead into his biggest earner. "These days the buying public looks at a $9.95 eBook and pauses. It's not an automatic sale," says Locke. "And the reason it's not is because the buyer knows when an eBook is priced ten times higher than it has to be. And so the buyer pauses. And it is in this pause - this golden, sweet-scented pause - that we independent authors gain the advantage, because we offer incredible value." Kevin Kelly predicts that within 5 years all digital books will cost 99 cents. "I don't think publishers are ready for how low book prices will go," writes Kelly. "It seems insane, dangerous, life threatening, but inevitable."
The story should have read:
Joe Konrath has an interesting interview with independent writer John Locke who currently holds the coveted #1 spot in the Amazon Top 100 and has sold just over 350,000 downloads on Kindle of his 99 cent books since January 1st of this year which with a royalty rate of 35%, is an annual income well over $500k. Konrath says that 99 cents is the magic number and adds that when he lowered the price of his book "The List" from $2.99 to 99 cents, he started selling 20 times as many copies - about 800 a day, turning his loss lead into his biggest earner. "These days the buying public looks at a $9.95 eBook and pauses. It's not an automatic sale," says Locke. "And the reason it's not is because the buyer knows when an eBook is priced ten times higher than it has to be. And so the buyer pauses. And it is in this pause - this golden, sweet-scented pause - that we independent authors gain the advantage, because we offer incredible value." Kevin Kelly predicts that within 5 years all digital books will cost 99 cents. "I don't think publishers are ready for how low book prices will go," writes Kelly. "It seems insane, dangerous, life threatening, but inevitable."
In spite of the error, this particular submission is very thought provoking as evidenced by the number of comments it received and is one of my personal favorites. Please accept my apology for my mistake in attributing the statement about "The List" to John Locke, the subject of the interview, when the statement was actually written by Joe Konrath, the man who conducted the interview. I assure you that the mistake was completely inadvertent on my part.
The issue of why a public figure might decide to trademark their name is an interesting one and the comments today have brought forward a number of illuminating answers.
As for being ideological, I strongly suspect the article would still have been published on slashdot if Barack Obama or if John McCain had decided to trademark his name.
Slashdot Mirror
It is possible that the two newspaper have some sort of reciprocal agreement. Maybe the India Times provides the NY Times with reporting from Central Asia.
But it's not the first time I have seen articles from the Times posted on this web site, and if they did it consistently without permission I think the Times would go after them.
Best Regards,
Hugh Pickens
Plagarism is taking credit for something someone else has written and claiming to have written it yourself. But this cannot be plagarism because the article clearly states that it comes from the NY Times and credits the original authors of the article. Perhaps it is infringment, but plagarism it is not.
BTW, the reason the link isn't to the original story in the NY Times is that registration is sometimes required to access articles in the Times and slashdotters don't like it when they have to register to read an article and complain about it in the comments.
Just for laughs, check the link in my original submission.
Best Regards,
Hugh Pickens
You are correct. There is an error in the story I submitted.
The original story said that:
Joe Konrath has an interesting interview with independent writer John Locke who currently holds the coveted #1 spot in the Amazon Top 100 and has sold just over 350,000 downloads on Kindle of his 99 cent books since January 1st of this year which with a royalty rate of 35%, is an annual income well over $500k. Locke says that 99 cents is the magic number and adds that when he lowered the price of his book "The List" from $2.99 to 99 cents, he started selling 20 times as many copies - about 800 a day, turning his loss lead into his biggest earner. "These days the buying public looks at a $9.95 eBook and pauses. It's not an automatic sale," says Locke. "And the reason it's not is because the buyer knows when an eBook is priced ten times higher than it has to be. And so the buyer pauses. And it is in this pause - this golden, sweet-scented pause - that we independent authors gain the advantage, because we offer incredible value." Kevin Kelly predicts that within 5 years all digital books will cost 99 cents. "I don't think publishers are ready for how low book prices will go," writes Kelly. "It seems insane, dangerous, life threatening, but inevitable."
The story should have read:
Joe Konrath has an interesting interview with independent writer John Locke who currently holds the coveted #1 spot in the Amazon Top 100 and has sold just over 350,000 downloads on Kindle of his 99 cent books since January 1st of this year which with a royalty rate of 35%, is an annual income well over $500k. Konrath says that 99 cents is the magic number and adds that when he lowered the price of his book "The List" from $2.99 to 99 cents, he started selling 20 times as many copies - about 800 a day, turning his loss lead into his biggest earner. "These days the buying public looks at a $9.95 eBook and pauses. It's not an automatic sale," says Locke. "And the reason it's not is because the buyer knows when an eBook is priced ten times higher than it has to be. And so the buyer pauses. And it is in this pause - this golden, sweet-scented pause - that we independent authors gain the advantage, because we offer incredible value." Kevin Kelly predicts that within 5 years all digital books will cost 99 cents. "I don't think publishers are ready for how low book prices will go," writes Kelly. "It seems insane, dangerous, life threatening, but inevitable."
In spite of the error, this particular submission is very thought provoking as evidenced by the number of comments it received and is one of my personal favorites. Please accept my apology for my mistake in attributing the statement about "The List" to John Locke, the subject of the interview, when the statement was actually written by Joe Konrath, the man who conducted the interview. I assure you that the mistake was completely inadvertent on my part.
Best Regards,
Hugh Pickens
Trademark is a geek issue that has been discussed dozens of times on slashdot along with similar intellectual property issues like copyright and patent.
The issue of why a public figure might decide to trademark their name is an interesting one and the comments today have brought forward a number of illuminating answers.
As for being ideological, I strongly suspect the article would still have been published on slashdot if Barack Obama or if John McCain had decided to trademark his name.