There is a difference between something being "public information" but requiring specific action to discover and a 3rd party collecting that information and publicly publishing it.
Try repeating that line when yet another 'piracy' website is under fire. The "It's just indexing information that's already out there" defense is somewhere at the top.
I think that the newspaper did that in an attempt to intimidate those people and anyone thinking of getting a similar permit.
And I think they did it to make a point showing that there's so many gun owners around, there's really no point in being 'afraid' of the few that you know about. In fact, maybe you should consider becoming one yourself. A friend here (currently in the U.S.) thinks it was just a "hey, look at that.. we can visualize this stuff!" idea from some data visualization guy that editors then ran with. I've certainly seen worse things published. ( Remember when there was that facebook/foursquare hybrid app that would show users of that app where people fitting certain criteria (say, female, young, and attractive) would be with quick access to facebook profiles to scope them out some more and everybody thought that was creepy? Maybe the newspaper should have added facebook profile links to their gun ownership map. )
But really, the reason for publishing is largely moot. The effect of having published it is vastly more important.
Which is where the "irony" part comes in.
True, although exactly which flavor of irony depends on which way you look at it. Some find it ironic that in response to an 'anti-gun' article they are now having to get guns to defend themselves**. Others find it ironic that in response to an article saying 'guns are scary', some people with guns* are indeed now scaring the heck outta them. Yet others find it ironic because the newspaper decided to play it against individuals (roughly anyway) rather than the gun lobby that helps make it so easy to obtain a gun, and now some of the individuals* are playing it against the newspaper rather than the government who are making this information public in the first place.
( * and, I'm sure, some people without guns who are just as concerned about the public nature of this information. )
Either way, concurring with the following quote:
It's still stupid on both sides.
But one final thought to go with my double-asterisk up above...
Now the newspaper people have turned to OTHER armed people (not the government or police force) for protection from the people they attempted to intimidate in the first place.
** Note that you emphasized the word 'other' there. The newspaper people aren't arming themselves (they might be, but at least that's not what the article is about) - they are hiring a firm that specializes in (armed) defense of personnel. I presume that the people working there are well-trained to handle threatening situations and how to use any weapons they are armed with to best effect - which may well include shooting the legs or the shoulder well before randomly pumping badly-aimed rounds into an assailant's chest, head, pinkie toe and a couple of innocent standers-by.
I'll let others do the usual list of reasons why pirating is better for all mankind, and just point out that the digital rights referred to may be the access to resources on the internet (TPB), being allowed to host a proxy (as they had doe), or redirect (as some others do).
It is most unfortunate that they're basically giving up the fight. It makes their statement that they'll continue to fight the good fight elsewhere a bit hollow. I realize one should fight the battles one can win, live to fight another day, lose the battle but not the war and all that - but it still sends a message that when faced with legal threats, they'll back down pretty quickly. Given the great number of 'pirates', mounting a legal defense fund should have been easy. Getting those 'pirates' to put money into that fund may be easier said than done for obvious and non-obvious reasons, though.
Sweet - thanks for getting back to me, AC:) ( Speaking as a former AC told to get an account because reasons but always having come back to reply as well, I do appreciate it. )
It seems many people do believe it to be 'like a store', unfortunately. But yes, this usually tends to come out when people start to get disgruntled over one thing or another.
I, personally, don't see it as a store - even though if it's clearly a case of "we've got product X and basically we're selling it through KickStarter rather than on e.g. Amazon", I could probably be swayed to say that it is remarkably store-like.. even if it isn't one on paper.
I've seen many positive comments about the Teensy 3 project at forums, IRC, etc. and congratulate you on the successful KickStarter:) I'll have to get one myself at some point.
I think what most people need to realize here, though, is that your KickStarter was basically "we want to do more of what we're already doing."
There's no doubt that the Teensy 3 is a great product, and much better than the Teensy 2. But it's still 'just' a PCB populated with components. Given the design files and some funds, anybody could hit up a PCB plant and get a populated panel made. Given slightly lesser funds and a lot more time, the panel could be made and then populated manually and soldered in a cheap reflow oven. Most of the work would actually be in the design, software and, later, logistics (mailing things out - but that's also nothing new to you) and support (again, nothing new - just added load). There's no enclosure that needed to be designed, a mold made for, test runs made, changes sent back, etc. that are costly operations. There's no initial set of boards that needed to be made (well, they did, but you made them before the KickStarter was launched), so as far as the KickStarter project goes there was no back-and-forth on board design. It's all things that you're already well-familiar with and well-versed in.
There's two aspects to why I think people need to realize this... 1. This means that there was basically never a fear that you might not deliver or hit major snags, etc. You're well-established, have proved (via very similar previous products) that your products work, that you can sell them and support them, etc. 2. The project is atypical for a KickStarter. Although this is changing, most KickStarters are not of the form "We have everything ready to go, we just need a lump-sum of cash to produce these at bigger numbers for a sweet pricepoint." (that's an assumption - the project doesn't really state why KickStarter funds were sought). Most KickStarters, almost especially in electronics, are "I have this idea, I have a rough schematic and PCB layout, it more-or-less works on this here breadboard (PCB from BatchPCB/OSHPark coming soon), but I need your funds to change this into a 4-layer PCB to reduce size, get it manufactured and populated, design an injection mold (for which I'll need a CAD license I don't have right now and need to learn about injection molding processes), get that manufactured, then figure out who charges what to ship the result where and/or find a fulfillment company and, and, and..."
If not for the KickStarter, the Teensy 3 would still have sold quite well. For most KickStarter projects that are about electronics, I wouldn't dare say the same.
It doesn't state anything about scams - in part because it's difficult to determine if something is a scam (never intended to deliver) or the project just failed (intended to deliver, but couldn't, because [reason]).
The big ones relevant here:
Only 25% of projects delivered on time! According to Prof. Mollickâ(TM)s model, after 8 months of delay, 75% of finished products (as opposed to give-aways like t-shirts) will have been delivered.
'm waiting for venture capital to start cherry picking ideas from Kickstarter and racing them to market
This happens anywhere, really. There's a few crowdfunding/crowdsourcing websites that actually work exactly that way but keeping the idea-generating people in on it (quirky comes to mind).
There's not so much 'racing', though, as there is VCs going "that's cool, we should invest in that" and then end up approaching the project creator (translusense, for example - http://www.translusense.com/) and striking a deal of some sort. (acquiring IP, securing manufacturing, hiring, etc.)
Kickstarter is almost like free market research.
That, however, is very much true.. at every scale. This really started to take off with all the computer game ideas. Industry veterans that want to make a game Type X while the current industry is not convinced that Type X will be popular enough to really bring in the money, so they go to KickStarter, get backers enough for basic content, with as an integral part of the goal for them marketing and showing publishers/etc. that there is interest and please send them more money - quite a bit more than they could hope to get through pledges alone. But recently a guy I know started a KickStarter for a physical product just to see how the market would react, then take the results of that back to the drawing board before fully launching a product (which may or may not be through KickStarter). Personally, I think this goes against the idea of KickStarter, but KickStarter has clearly welcomed it with open arms.
after Kickstarter projects get a reputation for late delivery and failure?
In some ways, there is already that reputation. But you have to keep in mind that for many projects, all you're pledging is anywhere between $1 and $50. So if a $50 project fails to deliver on time, or even fails completely (but at least shows they tried - important distinction), how upset are you going to be, really?
KickStarter even mentioned this in an interview with Polygon a while back - people aren't going to raise a stink, much less threaten legal action, given the low pledge amounts.. even if it all adds up for the project creator (and KickStarter).
Mind you, that reputation is not entirely earned. It mostly applies to design/technology and even there most projects do deliver, albeit late, and most backers really aren't too upset with late deliveries as long as there's good reason for it (even if that good reason is the creator being a little overly optimistic).
Dangit AC, I had two "C"s - which one are you referring to?;)
I think you meant 2c, though, from the "there's no logical reason they should be on the hook for failed or behind-schedule projects".
That depends on how you look at it (though, legally, it doesn't depend on that at all, of course).
If you consider KickStarter to be a store with pre-sales (and for some projects this is actually pretty close to the truth as they have finished products but need to bump up to mass production, for example), then you pay that store $N, of which the store itself will take $x and the creator gets $y. So time goes by and it turns out that the manufacturer the store was supposed to get the product from, fails to deliver. In any normal store, you wouldn't have to go to the manufacturer and demand $y back from them; you go to the store and demand $N.
KickStarter, however, likes to explain it as if they were, let's say, a marketplace owner. They just lease lots to stand holders asking 10% of their revenue from the market, and your business is purely with them. So when you give money, all of that money goes to the stand holder, and that stand holder pays the marketplace owner the lease money. So if the stand holder doesn't deliver, your beef is purely with them.
This is actually reflected in the Amazon payment processes; it suggests that the project creator (the stand holder) got all the money. ( source: http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter#comments ) Yet the project creator does not, in fact, get all the money. They get the money minus the chunk KickStarter and Amazon get.
So who are you really paying - the stand holder, or the market owner? And if the latter, why shouldn't they be on the hook for the full amount?
KickStarter would benefit greatly from greater transparency on this matter.
It would also benefit greatly from making S&H costs for projects easier and clearer (I and others have pointed out solutions many times - but project creators are still stuck having to spell out to backers that they need to manually add S&H costs to pledges if they're international/etc. ) That's another topic, but it goes to show that KickStarter is, on these matters, very confusing through - absolutely - KickStarter's own fault.
I *still* do not understand what an Ouya is going to be good for that cannot be done by buying an Android tablet with an HDMI port.
And a controller. And a platform publishers can readily take advantage of. And all that in a single box that could be laying around at Walmart the same way that a Roku is laying around there and kicking the pants off of most suggestions regarding generic NAS that people can then add an IR dongle for and then buy a separate remote to operate, etc.
At least, I think that's the appeal to both publishers (eventually) and consumers. Very few people still assemble their own computers - something that is ready-to-go off the shelf in a single box is much more convenient.
On the down side, of course, a tablet can work as more than just a box with HDMI output and a controller. Can't lay down in bed with an OUYA and do some catching up on world events or reading an e-book.
The negativity surrounding KickStarter is based on a number of things.
1. project issues a. There are scam projects. Period. Sometimes they're easily outed, other times you won't know it's a scam until it's well over with. b. A lot of projects - especially in technology/design (and why these are 2 separate categories is beyond everyone - the overlap is ridiculous) - do not deliver on the estimated shipping date. KickStarter themselves acknowledged this and made everybody using those categories add a 'risks' explanation in which the project creator will explain what difficulties a project may face and how they believe they can overcome these difficulties. c. Some projects, delivered on time or not, don't deliver what was promised or do deliver what was promised but then the 'thing' falls apart or is otherwise not particularly useful. Think an iPhone holder using a suction cup that fails to keep suction. A fire piston that leaks and fails to ignite the material (fabrication issue, manufacturer has taken responsibility after the creator informed them of the issue, so backers will get a good one). A colorful iDevice cable that is rendered obsolete by the new design (yes, they pledged for the old connector design... more than a year ago before anybody even knew Apple would change things around, but deliver is after that change. d. Some projects just don't deliver. You already mentioned Zeyez.. that one remains to be seen. But then there's projects like Hanfree. Its creator eventually had to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after some backers went to the courts out of principle - the guy received tens of thousands of dollars, then apparently mismanaged those funds (what they were hoping to find out through the case).
And in 'd' lies a bigger issue, along with 'a'. 2. KickStarter's responsibility a. KickStarter doesn't really vet projects. They have gotten better about this - demanding prototypes in design/technology and all that, but once live they are very hands-off. b. If it turns out to be a scam, or the creator fails to deliver, KickStarter tells backers their issue is with the creator and they can go pursue legal matters but leave KickStarter out of it (in a recent case, KickStarter was actually named - this was covered at Slashdot). c. KickStarter - and amazon - still take a chunk of the funds. On paper they're doing some tricky business where - supposedly - legally the funds they receive is separate from the funds pledged to the creator. But common sense says that KickStarter benefits financially - on an individual case - from scam projects. In the long run, it might hurt their platform which reduces revenue overall, but purely for an individual project.. they already got their chunk of money and are keeping it well out of the hands of backers seeking to get their money back.
C. Ambiguity of KickStarter as a platform Simply put.. is KickStarter a (pre-order) store, or not? Legally, it might be. Others believe you're investing (you're not - no dividends, shares, etc.). Others see it somewhere in between. This ambiguity - and with it more questions than answers, rights-wise.
Now, you asked about personal experiences.. pretty sure I posted about this before, but basically.. so far most projects have delivered, albeit late, and the delivered projects have been pretty much as expected or better. That said, just today one of the projects I backed seems to have delivered the product to pre-sales outside of the KickStarter backers before the vast majority of KickStarter backers received the product themselves. That's disappointing. Of course the pre-sales people paid a good chunk more and didn't get to 'experience' the KickStarter development process, but it does feel like slighting the backers in a way. I would certainly recommend to any KickStarter project creator that they fulfill their KickStarter obligations first.
Good luck to her - no courts-assisted enforcement without reasonable punishment, and hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly not reasonable.
The summary does err a bit, though. Jammie wasn't targeted for downloading, but for sharing (i.e. uploading / distributing).
But while I do believe that distribution should be enforced (as opposed to downloading), the height of these awards is ridiculous and acts as no deterring factor; there's little chance you get caught and if you do get caught and try to put up a fight, you're so screwed that you might as well do it anyway. The '6 strikes' scheme would be vastly more efficient - albeit scary in what it will be warped into once put in place.
Can't say I've ever fully understood this part of the healthcare debate.
Many people who like the U.S. system will point out that their waiting lists are shorter - that is, as long as you've got the expensive medical insurance for it. Which, unless your employer has you covered, may very well be near impossible for you to even get.
But then, I'm from NL. If I want to bypass the waiting lists, I have that option as well: I can go to a private clinic. Yes, my insurance would have to cover that and that would be a hefty additional to the base insurance we're all practically required to get. But that pretty much would just put me on even terms, and get the best of both worlds if I really were impatient or indeed desperate enough.
Of course there are yet other options - going to Germany or Belgium, for example. Some base plan insurers will happily cover that. Or, for dental work needing done, Turkey is a popular destination.
( Keep in mind that any argument regarding having to go to another country while discussing options within Europe - let alone the EU member states - is about as moot as arguing that people in Minnesota may have to go to Florida to get the care they need/want. It's really not that big of a deal even if, of course, one would prefer having the care available at one's doorstep. )
It's Ask Slashdot - for better or for worse, that means you're going to see diverse replies. Some more helpful, some not so much. Some on-topic, some the usual racist flamebait.
If you were expecting just drive model brands, types, numbers and diagnostic output - well, there's plenty of those answers as well. Feel free to read only those in the future:)
P.S. I'm pretty sure one of the alternatives I mentioned comes down to your suggestion;)
Then you haven't seen very many USB CD/DVD drives. I'd say most of them these days will actually happily work off a single USB port but will often include a USB cable that splits off in two - a data plug and a power plug - to drop it into 2 ports if 1 won't source enough current.
Just throwing some other approaches out there - I'm sure people will point to SATA drives that rip plenty fast (myce.com is sure to have some recommendations, for what it's worth).
Alternative A: Why just 1 drive? Get multiple. They're cheap (sub-$15 for an external CD drive that'll happily do DVD as well. And burn them. Sell them on when you're done.)
Alternative B: Better yet, since you have so many discs, get a (semi-)automatic CD changer system. Sit back, let it rip a bunch at a time. Sell system on when done.
Alternative C: Why even bother with it yourself at all? Go find a CD ripping service. I have no experience with these guys - http://musicshifter.com/ - but at less than $1/CD and the option to have them rip lossless (yes, including FLAC) and send them a drive to put it on, perhaps it's worth it to let them deal with it and use your time and effort elsewhere. I know it's not much effort (I just digitized every single Stargate DVD between working on things, just swapping out the DVDs - each taking about half an hour), but the option is out there anyway.
Alternative D: Piracy! Well, it's not really piracy since you already have the CDs. There's some sites out there that will happily let you submit your CD's code (either the simple code used by e.g. Windows 95's media player or a more complex one) and spit out links for getting digitized versions. I'll let you do the Googling there.
Alternative E: Buy them. Certainly a lot (understatement, seriously) more expensive than the other options, but on the up side you should get perfect metadata, album art, etc. included.
MPAA: Dear Google, It has come to our attention that the following links to online attachments need to disappear right quick under the DMCA for reasons.
Option 1 Google: Go fuck yourself. You want to drag this out to a lawsuit? We'll see who has deeper pockets and greater political clout. USER FREEDOM, ARRR!
Option 2 Google: Well since our own TOS says people can't use our services for illegal activities and you have made a compelling case that this is the case here... OK.
Oh, and of course the Google Drive 'attachments' require an account and setting up of access rights. On the positive side, you'd only share the files you want to share with the people you want to share with. On the negative side, that means it would be highly unlikely that it would achieve the same status as the generally openly accessible Usenet services. You would have to establish a vast web of trust and hope there's never an MPAA agent in there that would work its way through that web. That is, if it would ever grow popular enough for them to care. I don't remember there being a crackdown on Dropbox for any 'piracy'-related issues - even though there's certainly the odd pirated movie to be found on there.
Canada's current private copying levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer), and $0.29 per unit for CD-R
Let me be optimistic here and suggest that you purchased a spindle of 100 CD-Rs.
That would be $29.00 in levies.
But wait a minute... sources (tigerdirect.ca, amazon.ca tell me the price need only be somewhere around $15.
So what you're saying is, not only should you not be able to be sued for any hypothetical (right? right.) TV series and movies you have downloaded and most certainly (right? right.) wouldn't be burning to those CD-Rs... but, really, the copyright holders owe you $14.
I do agree that levies should be dropped, mind you. I'm also not a fan of lawsuits, however. Then again, if you're just making copies for yourself - I really don't think anybody should give a damn. If you start distributing - and that includes uploading - I say you're fair game.
Just to note, one begets the other, and not the other way around.
It's not that because you're paying the levy that you are allowed to download music/TV/movie works.
You are allowed to do so due to the interpretation of a law that said you could make copies for private use. That law didn't consider the source back then (era of tapes) and hasn't been updated to the realities of the modern world.
However, because people could make these copies for private use, a levy was instated to partially compensate the rights holders for copies that were made by e.g. recording off the radio, or copying a tape you borrowed from a friend, etc.
I wouldn't say it's 'theft', considering you have the option of not purchasing these goods, or purchasing exempt goods instead, or even getting an exempting license (administrative costs + no consumer store that I know of knowing how to handle it make that mostly a non-option, though).
As far as creating a wrong to deal with another wrong... there's many examples of exactly that being done and most people tend to be okay with it in light of alternatives.
Not sure about any appropriate analogy here, but let's go with the CRV. You effectively pay a levy (they just don't want to call it that) on certain beverage containers in California because other people just throw them out into nature - wasting perfectly good recyclable material and also.. well.. nature. As an incentive not to, you can recoup that levy by turning the empty can over to a recycling center - but let's face it, most people still just throw the cans out into regular trash or a generic 'metals go here' container, and let the litterpickers get the cans out and into their bags/shopping carts so those people can turn over hundreds of the things at a time and make a few bucks that way.
In 2011 they collected (regular collection, minus a collection of historic funds) E6.740M, and listed as distributable E4.723M
Perhaps also of interest: E0.774M of their total funds goes to fighting piracy (through contribution to BREIN - see other post).
Now, whether that E4.723 actually ends up at the artists rather than the deeper pockets of record companies, is another matter entirely. But then the artists did sign over the rights to those record companies.
Actually, Stichting BREIN is a different kind of evil.
Although it's difficult to say which is more bad, I'm inclined to say that the RIAA is certainly worse.
Whereas the RIAA will happily target individuals and use their techniques to coerce people into paying a settlement fine rather than going through lengthy and very expensive litigation - and generally having the defendant end up paying great multiples of the settlement amounts......Stichting BREIN tends to target the entry points to distribution. I.e. TPB and various other torrent (indexing) sites, MasterNZB and various other usenet (indexing) sites.
The reason it's difficult to say which is worse is that while the RIAA goes after dead people, old grannies without computers, cats, etc. they do tend to 'only' target those people and there's no great erosion of fundamental concepts of copyright and the internet.
Stichting BREIN, on the other hand, has successfully managed to get courts to force ISPs to block sites, in one case even being allowed to add IPs to the list and the ISP must add those to the block list (though they can contest it if they feel the adding of an IP address is in err), has successfully managed to expand things from direct copyright infringement to the 'facilitating' argument (and continues to expand that), can happily get government officials to come along with them on 'raids' (no court order) making those they're raiding feel like they really have little choice but to allow e.g. computers to be taken, etc.
That said, BREIN isn't really the one to be targeting in this case. They just tend to catch the most flak (for the reasons outlined above). Stichting de Thuiskopie, SONT and Buma/Stemra (on the side of wanting levies) and STOBI (on the side of blank media producers/etc.) are the main players here , along with then-minister Fred Teeven for actually getting things signed into law a long time ago (an zero Euro levy, which formed the bridge to making it a non-zero Euro levy - whereas going directly for a non-zero Euro levy would have met with great resistance).
Many people have traditionally bought goods in Germany where it's much cheaper thanks to lower prices to begin with. Whereas Germany is stuck at 19% VAT, NL upped it to 21% recently.
On a E500 device, that means in Germany you'd pay E595, and in NL you'd add E605. If you add the levy of E5, that's E610. E15 is often barely worth it due to added delivery costs.
The thing is that in Germany the base price of the device isn't E500 in the first place. It might be something like E450. Now you're talking actual savings.
Why is it cheaper? Plenty of reasons that could be cited. Storage space is certainly a lot cheaper (for the same reasons housing in DE is a lot cheaper than it is in NL and a lot of Dutch people who lived near the border anyway have no problems relocating to DE.. to a bigger house.. with more land.. and lower costs), transport costs are lower, even translation of e.g. manuals is a lot more cost-efficient for the DE market than it is for NL (+Northern part of BE).
The absence of a levy would barely make a difference in purchasing decisions for these high-valued goods. People have been buying stacks of CD-Rs and DVD-Rs from Germany-based resellers, though. The levy there can certainly add up to a significant portion.
The â5 levy on e.g. a mediarecorder grants you a lifetime (for the life of the product) right to download any and all music and video products you want. Rather than paying â2500 for 100 DVDs, or â200 for 100 â2 'rentals', â5 and you are set.... okay, no - not really. No more than the existing levies of a few dimes on tapes, video cassettes, CD-Rs and DVD-Rs are payola for putting those 100 movies on your HTPC.
The levy is a compensation measure for people copying, originating in the era of tapes. It's not a license to make those copies. And yes, it's a levy you pay even if you don't make copies - the alternative would be massive invasions of privacy to determine who is and who isn't making those copies. Or, of course, copyright reform - good luck with that one. Many of the same laws have been applied to the digital era* and with more people downloading to computers, 'MP3 players', etc. the levies on tapes and optical media were starting to be rather outdated.
Then again, downloading of such material is already legal in NL - it's only uploading that is illegal, and even uploaders are basically not targeted. (* This, too, is a result of laws formulated way back when - don't see too many complaints this aspect, though.) Major sites and facilitators on the other hand, are a different story. Several usenet account resellers were booted off by PayPal (while holding on to funds), for example - most likely after complaints by rights holders: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/85659/paypal-sluit-nederlandse-usenet-resellers-af.html
Note: This (the levy) is actually something being handed down from the EU level.. with the usual vague terms, causing each member state to implement things differently and leaving the courts to decide whether the implementation is in accordance, etc.
It's interesting to see this guy come forward, you can google dna testing and figure out what's going on. If he was indeed the killer he could've voluntarily declined, like I'm sure some people did.
People did, both in this test, and the previous test. I don't think they've mentioned whether this suspect had also had a DNA sample taken the first time around.
Here's the thing about this second set of tests. They weren't specifically looking for a direct match with the perp (though that ending up being the case is, I'm sure, a boon) but rather for a match to a family member of the perp.
So assume the first time around he declined to let a DNA sample be taken, and gets to walk scott free.
But this second time around, his sons who actually knew the victim at the time, may or may not be tested against. Being the father of them, he could either take that risk and hope they did not get tested against... or also supply a sample to spare his sons the additional shame, guilt, etc. of effectively having ousted their very own father by virtue of the lab having a direct match.
That would be my guess as to any reason for coming forward, at least. Who knows, maybe he just started feeling guilty, grew a conscience, etc. and the above is unrelated.
Slashdot Mirror
Try repeating that line when yet another 'piracy' website is under fire. The "It's just indexing information that's already out there" defense is somewhere at the top.
And I think they did it to make a point showing that there's so many gun owners around, there's really no point in being 'afraid' of the few that you know about. In fact, maybe you should consider becoming one yourself.
A friend here (currently in the U.S.) thinks it was just a "hey, look at that.. we can visualize this stuff!" idea from some data visualization guy that editors then ran with. I've certainly seen worse things published.
( Remember when there was that facebook/foursquare hybrid app that would show users of that app where people fitting certain criteria (say, female, young, and attractive) would be with quick access to facebook profiles to scope them out some more and everybody thought that was creepy? Maybe the newspaper should have added facebook profile links to their gun ownership map. )
But really, the reason for publishing is largely moot. The effect of having published it is vastly more important.
True, although exactly which flavor of irony depends on which way you look at it.
Some find it ironic that in response to an 'anti-gun' article they are now having to get guns to defend themselves**.
Others find it ironic that in response to an article saying 'guns are scary', some people with guns* are indeed now scaring the heck outta them.
Yet others find it ironic because the newspaper decided to play it against individuals (roughly anyway) rather than the gun lobby that helps make it so easy to obtain a gun, and now some of the individuals* are playing it against the newspaper rather than the government who are making this information public in the first place.
( * and, I'm sure, some people without guns who are just as concerned about the public nature of this information. )
Either way, concurring with the following quote:
But one final thought to go with my double-asterisk up above...
** Note that you emphasized the word 'other' there. The newspaper people aren't arming themselves (they might be, but at least that's not what the article is about) - they are hiring a firm that specializes in (armed) defense of personnel. I presume that the people working there are well-trained to handle threatening situations and how to use any weapons they are armed with to best effect - which may well include shooting the legs or the shoulder well before randomly pumping badly-aimed rounds into an assailant's chest, head, pinkie toe and a couple of innocent standers-by.
I'll let others do the usual list of reasons why pirating is better for all mankind, and just point out that the digital rights referred to may be the access to resources on the internet (TPB), being allowed to host a proxy (as they had doe), or redirect (as some others do).
It is most unfortunate that they're basically giving up the fight. It makes their statement that they'll continue to fight the good fight elsewhere a bit hollow. I realize one should fight the battles one can win, live to fight another day, lose the battle but not the war and all that - but it still sends a message that when faced with legal threats, they'll back down pretty quickly.
Given the great number of 'pirates', mounting a legal defense fund should have been easy. Getting those 'pirates' to put money into that fund may be easier said than done for obvious and non-obvious reasons, though.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/12/1935205/twitpic-will-sell-your-photos-but-no-cash-for-you
Sweet - thanks for getting back to me, AC :)
( Speaking as a former AC told to get an account because reasons but always having come back to reply as well, I do appreciate it. )
It seems many people do believe it to be 'like a store', unfortunately. But yes, this usually tends to come out when people start to get disgruntled over one thing or another.
I, personally, don't see it as a store - even though if it's clearly a case of "we've got product X and basically we're selling it through KickStarter rather than on e.g. Amazon", I could probably be swayed to say that it is remarkably store-like.. even if it isn't one on paper.
I've seen many positive comments about the Teensy 3 project at forums, IRC, etc. and congratulate you on the successful KickStarter :) I'll have to get one myself at some point.
I think what most people need to realize here, though, is that your KickStarter was basically "we want to do more of what we're already doing."
There's no doubt that the Teensy 3 is a great product, and much better than the Teensy 2. But it's still 'just' a PCB populated with components. Given the design files and some funds, anybody could hit up a PCB plant and get a populated panel made. Given slightly lesser funds and a lot more time, the panel could be made and then populated manually and soldered in a cheap reflow oven. Most of the work would actually be in the design, software and, later, logistics (mailing things out - but that's also nothing new to you) and support (again, nothing new - just added load).
There's no enclosure that needed to be designed, a mold made for, test runs made, changes sent back, etc. that are costly operations.
There's no initial set of boards that needed to be made (well, they did, but you made them before the KickStarter was launched), so as far as the KickStarter project goes there was no back-and-forth on board design.
It's all things that you're already well-familiar with and well-versed in.
There's two aspects to why I think people need to realize this...
1. This means that there was basically never a fear that you might not deliver or hit major snags, etc. You're well-established, have proved (via very similar previous products) that your products work, that you can sell them and support them, etc.
2. The project is atypical for a KickStarter. Although this is changing, most KickStarters are not of the form "We have everything ready to go, we just need a lump-sum of cash to produce these at bigger numbers for a sweet pricepoint." (that's an assumption - the project doesn't really state why KickStarter funds were sought).
Most KickStarters, almost especially in electronics, are "I have this idea, I have a rough schematic and PCB layout, it more-or-less works on this here breadboard (PCB from BatchPCB/OSHPark coming soon), but I need your funds to change this into a 4-layer PCB to reduce size, get it manufactured and populated, design an injection mold (for which I'll need a CAD license I don't have right now and need to learn about injection molding processes), get that manufactured, then figure out who charges what to ship the result where and/or find a fulfillment company and, and, and..."
If not for the KickStarter, the Teensy 3 would still have sold quite well. For most KickStarter projects that are about electronics, I wouldn't dare say the same.
Perhaps this is more to your liking?
http://www.appsblogger.com/behind-kickstarter-crowdfunding-stats/
It doesn't state anything about scams - in part because it's difficult to determine if something is a scam (never intended to deliver) or the project just failed (intended to deliver, but couldn't, because [reason]).
The big ones relevant here:
This happens anywhere, really. There's a few crowdfunding/crowdsourcing websites that actually work exactly that way but keeping the idea-generating people in on it (quirky comes to mind).
There's not so much 'racing', though, as there is VCs going "that's cool, we should invest in that" and then end up approaching the project creator (translusense, for example - http://www.translusense.com/) and striking a deal of some sort. (acquiring IP, securing manufacturing, hiring, etc.)
That, however, is very much true.. at every scale.
This really started to take off with all the computer game ideas. Industry veterans that want to make a game Type X while the current industry is not convinced that Type X will be popular enough to really bring in the money, so they go to KickStarter, get backers enough for basic content, with as an integral part of the goal for them marketing and showing publishers/etc. that there is interest and please send them more money - quite a bit more than they could hope to get through pledges alone.
But recently a guy I know started a KickStarter for a physical product just to see how the market would react, then take the results of that back to the drawing board before fully launching a product (which may or may not be through KickStarter).
Personally, I think this goes against the idea of KickStarter, but KickStarter has clearly welcomed it with open arms.
In some ways, there is already that reputation. But you have to keep in mind that for many projects, all you're pledging is anywhere between $1 and $50. So if a $50 project fails to deliver on time, or even fails completely (but at least shows they tried - important distinction), how upset are you going to be, really?
KickStarter even mentioned this in an interview with Polygon a while back - people aren't going to raise a stink, much less threaten legal action, given the low pledge amounts.. even if it all adds up for the project creator (and KickStarter).
Mind you, that reputation is not entirely earned. It mostly applies to design/technology and even there most projects do deliver, albeit late, and most backers really aren't too upset with late deliveries as long as there's good reason for it (even if that good reason is the creator being a little overly optimistic).
Dangit AC, I had two "C"s - which one are you referring to? ;)
I think you meant 2c, though, from the "there's no logical reason they should be on the hook for failed or behind-schedule projects".
That depends on how you look at it (though, legally, it doesn't depend on that at all, of course).
If you consider KickStarter to be a store with pre-sales (and for some projects this is actually pretty close to the truth as they have finished products but need to bump up to mass production, for example), then you pay that store $N, of which the store itself will take $x and the creator gets $y.
So time goes by and it turns out that the manufacturer the store was supposed to get the product from, fails to deliver. In any normal store, you wouldn't have to go to the manufacturer and demand $y back from them; you go to the store and demand $N.
KickStarter, however, likes to explain it as if they were, let's say, a marketplace owner. They just lease lots to stand holders asking 10% of their revenue from the market, and your business is purely with them. So when you give money, all of that money goes to the stand holder, and that stand holder pays the marketplace owner the lease money. So if the stand holder doesn't deliver, your beef is purely with them.
This is actually reflected in the Amazon payment processes; it suggests that the project creator (the stand holder) got all the money.
( source: http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter#comments )
Yet the project creator does not, in fact, get all the money. They get the money minus the chunk KickStarter and Amazon get.
So who are you really paying - the stand holder, or the market owner? And if the latter, why shouldn't they be on the hook for the full amount?
KickStarter would benefit greatly from greater transparency on this matter.
It would also benefit greatly from making S&H costs for projects easier and clearer (I and others have pointed out solutions many times - but project creators are still stuck having to spell out to backers that they need to manually add S&H costs to pledges if they're international/etc. ) That's another topic, but it goes to show that KickStarter is, on these matters, very confusing through - absolutely - KickStarter's own fault.
And a controller. And a platform publishers can readily take advantage of. And all that in a single box that could be laying around at Walmart the same way that a Roku is laying around there and kicking the pants off of most suggestions regarding generic NAS that people can then add an IR dongle for and then buy a separate remote to operate, etc.
At least, I think that's the appeal to both publishers (eventually) and consumers. Very few people still assemble their own computers - something that is ready-to-go off the shelf in a single box is much more convenient.
On the down side, of course, a tablet can work as more than just a box with HDMI output and a controller. Can't lay down in bed with an OUYA and do some catching up on world events or reading an e-book.
The negativity surrounding KickStarter is based on a number of things.
1. project issues
a. There are scam projects. Period. Sometimes they're easily outed, other times you won't know it's a scam until it's well over with.
b. A lot of projects - especially in technology/design (and why these are 2 separate categories is beyond everyone - the overlap is ridiculous) - do not deliver on the estimated shipping date. KickStarter themselves acknowledged this and made everybody using those categories add a 'risks' explanation in which the project creator will explain what difficulties a project may face and how they believe they can overcome these difficulties.
c. Some projects, delivered on time or not, don't deliver what was promised or do deliver what was promised but then the 'thing' falls apart or is otherwise not particularly useful. Think an iPhone holder using a suction cup that fails to keep suction. A fire piston that leaks and fails to ignite the material (fabrication issue, manufacturer has taken responsibility after the creator informed them of the issue, so backers will get a good one). A colorful iDevice cable that is rendered obsolete by the new design (yes, they pledged for the old connector design... more than a year ago before anybody even knew Apple would change things around, but deliver is after that change.
d. Some projects just don't deliver. You already mentioned Zeyez.. that one remains to be seen. But then there's projects like Hanfree. Its creator eventually had to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after some backers went to the courts out of principle - the guy received tens of thousands of dollars, then apparently mismanaged those funds (what they were hoping to find out through the case).
And in 'd' lies a bigger issue, along with 'a'.
2. KickStarter's responsibility
a. KickStarter doesn't really vet projects. They have gotten better about this - demanding prototypes in design/technology and all that, but once live they are very hands-off.
b. If it turns out to be a scam, or the creator fails to deliver, KickStarter tells backers their issue is with the creator and they can go pursue legal matters but leave KickStarter out of it (in a recent case, KickStarter was actually named - this was covered at Slashdot).
c. KickStarter - and amazon - still take a chunk of the funds. On paper they're doing some tricky business where - supposedly - legally the funds they receive is separate from the funds pledged to the creator. But common sense says that KickStarter benefits financially - on an individual case - from scam projects. In the long run, it might hurt their platform which reduces revenue overall, but purely for an individual project.. they already got their chunk of money and are keeping it well out of the hands of backers seeking to get their money back.
C. Ambiguity of KickStarter as a platform
Simply put.. is KickStarter a (pre-order) store, or not?
Legally, it might be. Others believe you're investing (you're not - no dividends, shares, etc.). Others see it somewhere in between. This ambiguity - and with it more questions than answers, rights-wise.
Now, you asked about personal experiences.. pretty sure I posted about this before, but basically.. so far most projects have delivered, albeit late, and the delivered projects have been pretty much as expected or better.
That said, just today one of the projects I backed seems to have delivered the product to pre-sales outside of the KickStarter backers before the vast majority of KickStarter backers received the product themselves. That's disappointing. Of course the pre-sales people paid a good chunk more and didn't get to 'experience' the KickStarter development process, but it does feel like slighting the backers in a way. I would certainly recommend to any KickStarter project creator that they fulfill their KickStarter obligations first.
Good luck to her - no courts-assisted enforcement without reasonable punishment, and hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly not reasonable.
The summary does err a bit, though. Jammie wasn't targeted for downloading, but for sharing (i.e. uploading / distributing).
But while I do believe that distribution should be enforced (as opposed to downloading), the height of these awards is ridiculous and acts as no deterring factor; there's little chance you get caught and if you do get caught and try to put up a fight, you're so screwed that you might as well do it anyway. The '6 strikes' scheme would be vastly more efficient - albeit scary in what it will be warped into once put in place.
Can't say I've ever fully understood this part of the healthcare debate.
Many people who like the U.S. system will point out that their waiting lists are shorter - that is, as long as you've got the expensive medical insurance for it. Which, unless your employer has you covered, may very well be near impossible for you to even get.
But then, I'm from NL. If I want to bypass the waiting lists, I have that option as well: I can go to a private clinic. Yes, my insurance would have to cover that and that would be a hefty additional to the base insurance we're all practically required to get. But that pretty much would just put me on even terms, and get the best of both worlds if I really were impatient or indeed desperate enough.
Of course there are yet other options - going to Germany or Belgium, for example. Some base plan insurers will happily cover that. Or, for dental work needing done, Turkey is a popular destination.
( Keep in mind that any argument regarding having to go to another country while discussing options within Europe - let alone the EU member states - is about as moot as arguing that people in Minnesota may have to go to Florida to get the care they need/want. It's really not that big of a deal even if, of course, one would prefer having the care available at one's doorstep. )
D:
Actually.. if you think that is perverse, you should check out SparkFun Electronics' Cerberus.
More helpful than your comment, at least :)
It's Ask Slashdot - for better or for worse, that means you're going to see diverse replies. Some more helpful, some not so much. Some on-topic, some the usual racist flamebait.
If you were expecting just drive model brands, types, numbers and diagnostic output - well, there's plenty of those answers as well. Feel free to read only those in the future :)
P.S. I'm pretty sure one of the alternatives I mentioned comes down to your suggestion ;)
Then you haven't seen very many USB CD/DVD drives. I'd say most of them these days will actually happily work off a single USB port but will often include a USB cable that splits off in two - a data plug and a power plug - to drop it into 2 ports if 1 won't source enough current.
Just throwing some other approaches out there - I'm sure people will point to SATA drives that rip plenty fast (myce.com is sure to have some recommendations, for what it's worth).
Alternative A: Why just 1 drive? Get multiple. They're cheap (sub-$15 for an external CD drive that'll happily do DVD as well. And burn them. Sell them on when you're done.)
Alternative B: Better yet, since you have so many discs, get a (semi-)automatic CD changer system. Sit back, let it rip a bunch at a time. Sell system on when done.
Alternative C: Why even bother with it yourself at all? Go find a CD ripping service. I have no experience with these guys - http://musicshifter.com/ - but at less than $1/CD and the option to have them rip lossless (yes, including FLAC) and send them a drive to put it on, perhaps it's worth it to let them deal with it and use your time and effort elsewhere. I know it's not much effort (I just digitized every single Stargate DVD between working on things, just swapping out the DVDs - each taking about half an hour), but the option is out there anyway.
Alternative D: Piracy! Well, it's not really piracy since you already have the CDs. There's some sites out there that will happily let you submit your CD's code (either the simple code used by e.g. Windows 95's media player or a more complex one) and spit out links for getting digitized versions. I'll let you do the Googling there.
Alternative E: Buy them. Certainly a lot (understatement, seriously) more expensive than the other options, but on the up side you should get perfect metadata, album art, etc. included.
MPAA: Dear Google, It has come to our attention that the following links to online attachments need to disappear right quick under the DMCA for reasons.
Option 1
Google: Go fuck yourself. You want to drag this out to a lawsuit? We'll see who has deeper pockets and greater political clout. USER FREEDOM, ARRR!
Option 2
Google: Well since our own TOS says people can't use our services for illegal activities and you have made a compelling case that this is the case here... OK.
Oh, and of course the Google Drive 'attachments' require an account and setting up of access rights. On the positive side, you'd only share the files you want to share with the people you want to share with. On the negative side, that means it would be highly unlikely that it would achieve the same status as the generally openly accessible Usenet services. You would have to establish a vast web of trust and hope there's never an MPAA agent in there that would work its way through that web. That is, if it would ever grow popular enough for them to care. I don't remember there being a crackdown on Dropbox for any 'piracy'-related issues - even though there's certainly the odd pirated movie to be found on there.
Let me be optimistic here and suggest that you purchased a spindle of 100 CD-Rs.
That would be $29.00 in levies.
But wait a minute... sources (tigerdirect.ca, amazon.ca tell me the price need only be somewhere around $15.
So what you're saying is, not only should you not be able to be sued for any hypothetical (right? right.) TV series and movies you have downloaded and most certainly (right? right.) wouldn't be burning to those CD-Rs... but, really, the copyright holders owe you $14.
I do agree that levies should be dropped, mind you. I'm also not a fan of lawsuits, however. Then again, if you're just making copies for yourself - I really don't think anybody should give a damn. If you start distributing - and that includes uploading - I say you're fair game.
Just to note, one begets the other, and not the other way around.
It's not that because you're paying the levy that you are allowed to download music/TV/movie works.
You are allowed to do so due to the interpretation of a law that said you could make copies for private use. That law didn't consider the source back then (era of tapes) and hasn't been updated to the realities of the modern world.
However, because people could make these copies for private use, a levy was instated to partially compensate the rights holders for copies that were made by e.g. recording off the radio, or copying a tape you borrowed from a friend, etc.
I wouldn't say it's 'theft', considering you have the option of not purchasing these goods, or purchasing exempt goods instead, or even getting an exempting license (administrative costs + no consumer store that I know of knowing how to handle it make that mostly a non-option, though).
As far as creating a wrong to deal with another wrong... there's many examples of exactly that being done and most people tend to be okay with it in light of alternatives.
Not sure about any appropriate analogy here, but let's go with the CRV. You effectively pay a levy (they just don't want to call it that) on certain beverage containers in California because other people just throw them out into nature - wasting perfectly good recyclable material and also.. well.. nature. As an incentive not to, you can recoup that levy by turning the empty can over to a recycling center - but let's face it, most people still just throw the cans out into regular trash or a generic 'metals go here' container, and let the litterpickers get the cans out and into their bags/shopping carts so those people can turn over hundreds of the things at a time and make a few bucks that way.
http://www.thuiskopie.nl/uploads/files/jaarverslag%202011.pdf
In 2011 they collected (regular collection, minus a collection of historic funds) E6.740M, and listed as distributable E4.723M
Perhaps also of interest: E0.774M of their total funds goes to fighting piracy (through contribution to BREIN - see other post).
Now, whether that E4.723 actually ends up at the artists rather than the deeper pockets of record companies, is another matter entirely. But then the artists did sign over the rights to those record companies.
Actually, Stichting BREIN is a different kind of evil.
Although it's difficult to say which is more bad, I'm inclined to say that the RIAA is certainly worse.
Whereas the RIAA will happily target individuals and use their techniques to coerce people into paying a settlement fine rather than going through lengthy and very expensive litigation - and generally having the defendant end up paying great multiples of the settlement amounts... ...Stichting BREIN tends to target the entry points to distribution. I.e. TPB and various other torrent (indexing) sites, MasterNZB and various other usenet (indexing) sites.
The reason it's difficult to say which is worse is that while the RIAA goes after dead people, old grannies without computers, cats, etc. they do tend to 'only' target those people and there's no great erosion of fundamental concepts of copyright and the internet.
Stichting BREIN, on the other hand, has successfully managed to get courts to force ISPs to block sites, in one case even being allowed to add IPs to the list and the ISP must add those to the block list (though they can contest it if they feel the adding of an IP address is in err), has successfully managed to expand things from direct copyright infringement to the 'facilitating' argument (and continues to expand that), can happily get government officials to come along with them on 'raids' (no court order) making those they're raiding feel like they really have little choice but to allow e.g. computers to be taken, etc.
That said, BREIN isn't really the one to be targeting in this case. They just tend to catch the most flak (for the reasons outlined above). Stichting de Thuiskopie, SONT and Buma/Stemra (on the side of wanting levies) and STOBI (on the side of blank media producers/etc.) are the main players here , along with then-minister Fred Teeven for actually getting things signed into law a long time ago (an zero Euro levy, which formed the bridge to making it a non-zero Euro levy - whereas going directly for a non-zero Euro levy would have met with great resistance).
Many people have traditionally bought goods in Germany where it's much cheaper thanks to lower prices to begin with. Whereas Germany is stuck at 19% VAT, NL upped it to 21% recently.
On a E500 device, that means in Germany you'd pay E595, and in NL you'd add E605. If you add the levy of E5, that's E610. E15 is often barely worth it due to added delivery costs.
The thing is that in Germany the base price of the device isn't E500 in the first place. It might be something like E450. Now you're talking actual savings.
Why is it cheaper? Plenty of reasons that could be cited. Storage space is certainly a lot cheaper (for the same reasons housing in DE is a lot cheaper than it is in NL and a lot of Dutch people who lived near the border anyway have no problems relocating to DE.. to a bigger house.. with more land.. and lower costs), transport costs are lower, even translation of e.g. manuals is a lot more cost-efficient for the DE market than it is for NL (+Northern part of BE).
The absence of a levy would barely make a difference in purchasing decisions for these high-valued goods. People have been buying stacks of CD-Rs and DVD-Rs from Germany-based resellers, though. The levy there can certainly add up to a significant portion.
Yes, absolutely.
The â5 levy on e.g. a mediarecorder grants you a lifetime (for the life of the product) right to download any and all music and video products you want. Rather than paying â2500 for 100 DVDs, or â200 for 100 â2 'rentals', â5 and you are set. ... okay, no - not really. No more than the existing levies of a few dimes on tapes, video cassettes, CD-Rs and DVD-Rs are payola for putting those 100 movies on your HTPC.
The levy is a compensation measure for people copying, originating in the era of tapes. It's not a license to make those copies. And yes, it's a levy you pay even if you don't make copies - the alternative would be massive invasions of privacy to determine who is and who isn't making those copies. Or, of course, copyright reform - good luck with that one. Many of the same laws have been applied to the digital era* and with more people downloading to computers, 'MP3 players', etc. the levies on tapes and optical media were starting to be rather outdated.
Then again, downloading of such material is already legal in NL - it's only uploading that is illegal, and even uploaders are basically not targeted. (* This, too, is a result of laws formulated way back when - don't see too many complaints this aspect, though.) Major sites and facilitators on the other hand, are a different story. Several usenet account resellers were booted off by PayPal (while holding on to funds), for example - most likely after complaints by rights holders: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/85659/paypal-sluit-nederlandse-usenet-resellers-af.html
Note: This (the levy) is actually something being handed down from the EU level.. with the usual vague terms, causing each member state to implement things differently and leaving the courts to decide whether the implementation is in accordance, etc.
People did, both in this test, and the previous test. I don't think they've mentioned whether this suspect had also had a DNA sample taken the first time around.
Here's the thing about this second set of tests. They weren't specifically looking for a direct match with the perp (though that ending up being the case is, I'm sure, a boon) but rather for a match to a family member of the perp.
So assume the first time around he declined to let a DNA sample be taken, and gets to walk scott free.
But this second time around, his sons who actually knew the victim at the time, may or may not be tested against. Being the father of them, he could either take that risk and hope they did not get tested against... or also supply a sample to spare his sons the additional shame, guilt, etc. of effectively having ousted their very own father by virtue of the lab having a direct match.
That would be my guess as to any reason for coming forward, at least. Who knows, maybe he just started feeling guilty, grew a conscience, etc. and the above is unrelated.