That isn't my argument. I'm happy if Rob makes money off me, but only in an honest way. If the amazon book link is presented as simply being a book link, but is really there because it could make him money then it's a little underhanded.
A better comparison might be if a coworker tells you about a great life insurance company he uses, and you decide to sign on. Then later you find out he was paid a commision for getting you to sign on. Sure, he might truly believe that it's great insurance -- but can you trust that his opinion is subjective?
Rob has chosen to make this his job instead of going out and getting a salaried job. I don't plan to pay him directly for this service, but if he can make money off my presence here that's great. On the other hand, I'm not going to go out of my way to buy a book at amazon simply because he can get a cut of the money I spend.
But in any case, you're missing the whole point. It is deceptive to present a link as if it were simply a link to where to buy the book -- when it actually is a way to make money.
If this were disclosed somewhere then it would be fine, but as it is, I find it deceptive.
Admittedly, I haven't read the cookie spec, what I was basing that on was that one of the Cookie options in Netscape is "only accept cookies that are sent back to the originating server", which to me implies that you can have cookies which are sent back to other servers, like maybe slashdot to amazon.
But if I'm wrong... I'm wrong. I basically don't use cookies at all.
They could easily post a link on where to get it without having that link benefit them in any way.
The comparison with movie theatres is a flawed one, because AFAIK the movie reviewers don't get anything for saying where the movie is playing, and they also don't just mention one theater.
Ok, so if you agree there's the possibility I might find the hidden side-effect of the link "immoral, unethical or whatnot", shouldn't I be informed of that side effect?
Some have said the very fact that it says "Slashdot" in the URL is enough of a disclaimer -- but not everyone is as paranoid as me, and checks the url before they click it.
Fair enough -- and I agree. It's great if Rob has found a minimally intrusive way of helping slashdot pay for itself. And I don't believe that reviews are at all biased, even if they include a link to Amazon.
However, if what other people are saying is true, Rob only makes money from these links if people buy the books. Therefore Rob is likely to profit more when a book review is positive. Now this hopefully has never, and will never influence a review. But somewhere it should be disclosed that links to books at Amazon.com have the side effect of perhaps making Rob money.
Maybe just a disclaimer page somewhere deep in the bowels of slashdot that says "all comments belong to those who post them, all trademarks belong to those who own them, all user information is kept solely for use on the site and is not given out or resold, and all links to books at amazon are part of the amazon affiliate program"
PS -- I also agree logic classes are fun. It was so long ago I took mine I don't remember any of the cool terms though. But I do remember how horrible most of the artsie types were at understanding the simple concept of boolean logic. hehe.
I'm not equating the two, and I'm certainly not implying that something is being sold to Amazon, though I believe that with cookies it would be possible that through accidental or purposeful configuration amazon could receive information on the users clicking on the link.
But it's not a non-sequitor. It all falls in the category of disclosure. I don't mind seeing a link to amazon that makes money for slashdot, but when it's in a context that doesn't suggest that it is making money for slashdot, I want to know that that's why it's there.
I found the placement of this link misleading. It seems an entirely innocent link meant purely to allow the user to buy the book, but has a secondary hidden motive -- to make money. To me that begs the question of what other things have a hidden motive. *shrug*, but maybe that's just me.
No one is making money "off of" anyone clicking the link.
Those are some mighty fine hairs you're splitting. Slashdot receives money (or some kind of financial remuneration) when someone clicks on the link.
I agree that it's great if, in a way that's transparent to me, slashdot can make a little money by my clicking on a link. I just think the fact that's what's happening should be disclosed.
I'm not so worried about that one particular little link as I am about the precedent it sets. Say Wired starts a similar program where they pay back people who link to their stories. Will we start seeing more things posted on slashdot saying "Wired is reporting...", even if the article isn't particularly interesting/newsworthy/useful, etc. All I would like is something similar to what's mentioned for the job search engine, saying that Rob benefits when people use it.
I care because it's relevant. I like to know when people are making money off me.
It's also for the same reason that when a newspaper does a story on itself or an affiliated group (like MSNBC does a story on Microsoft) they mention that they are affiliated. A book review should be objective, but if the reviewer makes more money when people buy more copies of the book, the temptation to give the book a better review is there.
I hold Slashdot in high enough regard that I don't think this would likely happen conciously... but it's something I think is relevant. Would you like to be informed if/. were selling any user information you entered to Microsoft?
I've been pissed at the appearance of ads before movies for a long time now. I'm *paying* to see the movie, often paying a high price, and I have to watch an ad for the post office first??? I don't know when this started but it will be a welcome relief to see it disappear.
I encourage anybody else with clout in the movie-making business to restrict ads before movies. Please! I'm paying to see your art, don't let the theatres spoil it with ads!
If I understand things correctly Amazon pays when people click on the link like the one in this story.
If I'm wrong, sorry. If I'm right, shouldn't there be some kind of disclaimer saying "if you click on this link I/we get money"? If not it's pretty underhanded.
I don't think so -- the tabs you're talking about opened when I just happened to go near them and stayed open./P.
I fully appreciate the skills of graphic artists, and admit I can't draw worth crap, but I do know how to make a design functional and intuitive, and most graphics people either can't or don't.
Oh, you poor person you. Well I'd start looking for a new job now -- it's hard to keep up with the competition when you've just shot yourself square in the foot.
PS -- how long do you figure it will be before Microsoft becomes "MS"?
joe.com is already taken, as is nearly any other interesting.com address. I think it's about time for some proper TLDs, as well as some authority to say "no, your name isn't Mr. Microsoft, you cannot register microsoft.nom".
After the French Revolution, copyrights were eliminated. The result was that creators hoarded information while releasing things that were only useful short term.
I don't think you can really make a case about anything that occurs right after a revolution. It's always a time of turmoil, and takes a while for the system to adjust.
The GPL also says that you can't close off the source. Elimination of the copyright would remove the GPL's teeth. In other words, the programmers who invested in GPL code in the hopes of keeping it open would have worked for naught. Companies would be able to take the GPL code and lock it up tight.
As other people have mentioned the FSF considers the GPL to be an interim solution until everything is free. Besides, companies would never be able to take GPLed code and lock it up tight. The worst they'd be able to do is make something based on the GPLed code and not give back the additions/fixes/modifications. But since following that liscense is somewhat on the honour system already, I don't think it would disappear. I think many people who contribute already do so because they think the project is worthwhile, not because they know the GPL will protect them.
Anyhow, I agree that the abolition of copyright would fundamentally shift the economies of the world's countries... but is that necessarily a bad thing? There would still be a need for people to code. Unless you want to imagine an apocalypse then computers will still exist. People will still make hardware, and so they'll need drivers and software. People will still need to produce manuals so tech writers will still have jobs. So what if people copy the manuals? It's pretty useless without the hardware. What about software that doesn't relate to hardware. Well people will still need to communicate, so some form of email system will exist. Now it could be that each company would use their own proprietary thing... but I think it's more likely that you'd see a community effort to produce a very functional email client, because people will need it. I can see employers paying these people to spend the time too... sure, they'll have to deal with the fact that anything their employees produce will be immediately available to their competition... but recent events have shown that companies are willing to go open-source.
Now you would probably see a reduction in the number of certain things, like commercial games. You might start seeing games with hardware protection, or open-source games, or games with really detailed manuals, or more advanced forms of copy protection. But I personally would be willing to forgo games to live in a world where I didn't have to deal with the stupidities of copyright.
Movies are a great example of how copyrights aren't needed.
People will still go to theatres to see movies that are worth seeing. If you have the choice to see "The Phantom Menace" in the theatre for $8 or for free on a pan-and-scan vcr version, which are you gonna do?
Now unless you think people are going to start competing with the actual distribution of films... I can't see how getting rid of copyright is going to change movies at all.
You're making outlandish assumptions there. Murder isn't a good example because it's hard to imagine it being something you can't prevent.
Think about prostitution or marijuana use. Governments spend millions if not billions trying to fight these "crimes" and have next to no effect. It makes no sense to spend money that way.
Now whether or not prostitution or marijuana use are bad things or not is not the issue. If a rule can't be enforced, get rid of it or change it.
If the community decides the unenforceable activity is really horrible, make a new law that can actually be enforced.
If I own a lot and want to build a house there, you can't build a house there too. There is only one land and use/ownership of it is mutually exclusive.
If I own a program I can copy it and give it to you and keep using it. There is virtually no incremental cost to copying and no reason two people can't use it at the same time.
Any comment beginning with "That is retarded" can be ignored.
Thanks for helping strengthen that general rule.
The reference to smoking crack though -- that really helps your argument. Touche!
The only people who would likely lose out if copyright didn't exist are those who depend heavily on copyright laws because they make an inferior product.
I've often paid big bucks(TM) for a video game that turned out to be useless crap. Since then I've learned that it makes sense to try out a game first. That way I end up trying out a lot of games, becoming bored within a day or so, and giving up. On rare occasions I find a game that's actually worth those big bucks and I'll go out and buy it for: tech support, manuals, the box, etc.
Now on occasion the means I use to try out a product before I buy it are technically illegal because of copyright laws. Never mind that after a couple of hours of playing the game I erase it in disgust. But guess what, when I do that the software publishing companies pretend that every person who does that would actually have spent $50 or whatever the ridiculous price is to buy the game, but that money was lost due to piracy.
HA!
Reasoning like this is why software tends to cost as much as it does. Companies have to pay for ads, lawyers and distribution. The end result is that people still steal the software but aren't quite as open about it.
Although it's really a weak reason, you also can't just dismiss that copying can't be stopped. Esp. with the Internet, I can get a crack to nearly any game that's been copy protected within minutes of looking, and within weeks of release. CD Burners are cheap and it's easy to copy software CDs. When a law is simply uninforceable, why is it still on the books?
Anyhow, I think everything should be open. I love open source, I hate intellectual property laws, and have yet to hear a decent argument against my views. Though again, that "crack smoking" comment.... touche
By that same logic, my local radio station is a network service provider, since it has a.net domain.
Does anybody know a way to dispute the right of people/businesses/groups etc. to domains they shouldn't use? I want to nail the radio station, as well as some businesses I know of that use.org domains.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't my argument. I'm happy if Rob makes money off me, but only in an honest way. If the amazon book link is presented as simply being a book link, but is really there because it could make him money then it's a little underhanded.
A better comparison might be if a coworker tells you about a great life insurance company he uses, and you decide to sign on. Then later you find out he was paid a commision for getting you to sign on. Sure, he might truly believe that it's great insurance -- but can you trust that his opinion is subjective?
Rob has chosen to make this his job instead of going out and getting a salaried job. I don't plan to pay him directly for this service, but if he can make money off my presence here that's great. On the other hand, I'm not going to go out of my way to buy a book at amazon simply because he can get a cut of the money I spend.
But in any case, you're missing the whole point. It is deceptive to present a link as if it were simply a link to where to buy the book -- when it actually is a way to make money.
If this were disclosed somewhere then it would be fine, but as it is, I find it deceptive.
I remember reading that this time around the native discs will be DVD format, and there was talk it would play movie DVDs too.
Yes I have, and nowhere there does it mention that links to amazon make money for Rob if and only if we buy the book mentioned.
Admittedly, I haven't read the cookie spec, what I was basing that on was that one of the Cookie options in Netscape is "only accept cookies that are sent back to the originating server", which to me implies that you can have cookies which are sent back to other servers, like maybe slashdot to amazon.
But if I'm wrong... I'm wrong. I basically don't use cookies at all.
They could easily post a link on where to get it without having that link benefit them in any way.
The comparison with movie theatres is a flawed one, because AFAIK the movie reviewers don't get anything for saying where the movie is playing, and they also don't just mention one theater.
Ok, so if you agree there's the possibility I might find the hidden side-effect of the link "immoral, unethical or whatnot", shouldn't I be informed of that side effect?
Some have said the very fact that it says "Slashdot" in the URL is enough of a disclaimer -- but not everyone is as paranoid as me, and checks the url before they click it.
Fair enough -- and I agree. It's great if Rob has found a minimally intrusive way of helping slashdot pay for itself. And I don't believe that reviews are at all biased, even if they include a link to Amazon.
However, if what other people are saying is true, Rob only makes money from these links if people buy the books. Therefore Rob is likely to profit more when a book review is positive. Now this hopefully has never, and will never influence a review. But somewhere it should be disclosed that links to books at Amazon.com have the side effect of perhaps making Rob money.
Maybe just a disclaimer page somewhere deep in the bowels of slashdot that says "all comments belong to those who post them, all trademarks belong to those who own them, all user information is kept solely for use on the site and is not given out or resold, and all links to books at amazon are part of the amazon affiliate program"
PS -- I also agree logic classes are fun. It was so long ago I took mine I don't remember any of the cool terms though. But I do remember how horrible most of the artsie types were at understanding the simple concept of boolean logic. hehe.Ooh, someone who took a logic course! *grin*
I'm not equating the two, and I'm certainly not implying that something is being sold to Amazon, though I believe that with cookies it would be possible that through accidental or purposeful configuration amazon could receive information on the users clicking on the link.
But it's not a non-sequitor. It all falls in the category of disclosure. I don't mind seeing a link to amazon that makes money for slashdot, but when it's in a context that doesn't suggest that it is making money for slashdot, I want to know that that's why it's there.
I found the placement of this link misleading. It seems an entirely innocent link meant purely to allow the user to buy the book, but has a secondary hidden motive -- to make money. To me that begs the question of what other things have a hidden motive. *shrug*, but maybe that's just me.
Those are some mighty fine hairs you're splitting. Slashdot receives money (or some kind of financial remuneration) when someone clicks on the link.
I agree that it's great if, in a way that's transparent to me, slashdot can make a little money by my clicking on a link. I just think the fact that's what's happening should be disclosed.
I'm not so worried about that one particular little link as I am about the precedent it sets. Say Wired starts a similar program where they pay back people who link to their stories. Will we start seeing more things posted on slashdot saying "Wired is reporting...", even if the article isn't particularly interesting/newsworthy/useful, etc. All I would like is something similar to what's mentioned for the job search engine, saying that Rob benefits when people use it.
I care because it's relevant. I like to know when people are making money off me.
It's also for the same reason that when a newspaper does a story on itself or an affiliated group (like MSNBC does a story on Microsoft) they mention that they are affiliated. A book review should be objective, but if the reviewer makes more money when people buy more copies of the book, the temptation to give the book a better review is there.
I hold Slashdot in high enough regard that I don't think this would likely happen conciously... but it's something I think is relevant. Would you like to be informed if /. were selling any user information you entered to Microsoft?
No Ads!!!
I've been pissed at the appearance of ads before movies for a long time now. I'm *paying* to see the movie, often paying a high price, and I have to watch an ad for the post office first??? I don't know when this started but it will be a welcome relief to see it disappear.
I encourage anybody else with clout in the movie-making business to restrict ads before movies. Please! I'm paying to see your art, don't let the theatres spoil it with ads!
Why not two links. So it's not hidden that slashdot is profiting, and if you don't want them to profit you don't have to help out.
Take a look at the review or take a look and help us out.
If I understand things correctly Amazon pays when people click on the link like the one in this story.
If I'm wrong, sorry. If I'm right, shouldn't there be some kind of disclaimer saying "if you click on this link I/we get money"? If not it's pretty underhanded.
When I use a search engine, I try to use one that offers the following:
Altavista was my choice because it did most of that well. If they're even considering this I'm switching.
What do others consider important criteria in a search engine? What do others use? Any suggestions?
Hehe, nice one.
Don't forget:
I don't think so -- the tabs you're talking about opened when I just happened to go near them and stayed open. /P.
I fully appreciate the skills of graphic artists, and admit I can't draw worth crap, but I do know how to make a design functional and intuitive, and most graphics people either can't or don't.
Oh, you poor person you. Well I'd start looking for a new job now -- it's hard to keep up with the competition when you've just shot yourself square in the foot.
PS -- how long do you figure it will be before Microsoft becomes "MS"?
the St. Joe company (JOE18-DOM)
1650 Prudential Drive #400
Jacksonville, FL 32207
US
Domain Name: JOE.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone
Contact:
Bayer, Michael (MB8364) mbayer@ST-JOE.COM
904.396.6600
Billing Contact:
Bayer, Michael (MB8364) mbayer@ST-JOE.COM
904.396.6600
Record last updated on 11-Jan-99.
Record created on 11-Jan-99.
Database last updated on 12-Apr-99 19:00:42 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.SE.MEDIAONE.NET 24.129.0.34
NS2.SE.MEDIAONE.NET 24.129.0.66
joe.com is already taken, as is nearly any other interesting .com address. I think it's about time for some proper TLDs, as well as some authority to say "no, your name isn't Mr. Microsoft, you cannot register microsoft.nom".
I don't think you can really make a case about anything that occurs right after a revolution. It's always a time of turmoil, and takes a while for the system to adjust.
As other people have mentioned the FSF considers the GPL to be an interim solution until everything is free. Besides, companies would never be able to take GPLed code and lock it up tight. The worst they'd be able to do is make something based on the GPLed code and not give back the additions/fixes/modifications. But since following that liscense is somewhat on the honour system already, I don't think it would disappear. I think many people who contribute already do so because they think the project is worthwhile, not because they know the GPL will protect them.
Anyhow, I agree that the abolition of copyright would fundamentally shift the economies of the world's countries... but is that necessarily a bad thing? There would still be a need for people to code. Unless you want to imagine an apocalypse then computers will still exist. People will still make hardware, and so they'll need drivers and software. People will still need to produce manuals so tech writers will still have jobs. So what if people copy the manuals? It's pretty useless without the hardware. What about software that doesn't relate to hardware. Well people will still need to communicate, so some form of email system will exist. Now it could be that each company would use their own proprietary thing... but I think it's more likely that you'd see a community effort to produce a very functional email client, because people will need it. I can see employers paying these people to spend the time too... sure, they'll have to deal with the fact that anything their employees produce will be immediately available to their competition... but recent events have shown that companies are willing to go open-source.
Now you would probably see a reduction in the number of certain things, like commercial games. You might start seeing games with hardware protection, or open-source games, or games with really detailed manuals, or more advanced forms of copy protection. But I personally would be willing to forgo games to live in a world where I didn't have to deal with the stupidities of copyright.
Movies are a great example of how copyrights aren't needed.
People will still go to theatres to see movies that are worth seeing. If you have the choice to see "The Phantom Menace" in the theatre for $8 or for free on a pan-and-scan vcr version, which are you gonna do?
Now unless you think people are going to start competing with the actual distribution of films... I can't see how getting rid of copyright is going to change movies at all.
You're making outlandish assumptions there. Murder isn't a good example because it's hard to imagine it being something you can't prevent.
Think about prostitution or marijuana use. Governments spend millions if not billions trying to fight these "crimes" and have next to no effect. It makes no sense to spend money that way.
Now whether or not prostitution or marijuana use are bad things or not is not the issue. If a rule can't be enforced, get rid of it or change it.
If the community decides the unenforceable activity is really horrible, make a new law that can actually be enforced.
Simple:
If I own a lot and want to build a house there, you can't build a house there too. There is only one land and use/ownership of it is mutually exclusive.
If I own a program I can copy it and give it to you and keep using it. There is virtually no incremental cost to copying and no reason two people can't use it at the same time.
Any comment beginning with "That is retarded" can be ignored.
Thanks for helping strengthen that general rule.
The reference to smoking crack though -- that really helps your argument. Touche!
The only people who would likely lose out if copyright didn't exist are those who depend heavily on copyright laws because they make an inferior product.
I've often paid big bucks(TM) for a video game that turned out to be useless crap. Since then I've learned that it makes sense to try out a game first. That way I end up trying out a lot of games, becoming bored within a day or so, and giving up. On rare occasions I find a game that's actually worth those big bucks and I'll go out and buy it for: tech support, manuals, the box, etc.
Now on occasion the means I use to try out a product before I buy it are technically illegal because of copyright laws. Never mind that after a couple of hours of playing the game I erase it in disgust. But guess what, when I do that the software publishing companies pretend that every person who does that would actually have spent $50 or whatever the ridiculous price is to buy the game, but that money was lost due to piracy.
HA!
Reasoning like this is why software tends to cost as much as it does. Companies have to pay for ads, lawyers and distribution. The end result is that people still steal the software but aren't quite as open about it.
Although it's really a weak reason, you also can't just dismiss that copying can't be stopped. Esp. with the Internet, I can get a crack to nearly any game that's been copy protected within minutes of looking, and within weeks of release. CD Burners are cheap and it's easy to copy software CDs. When a law is simply uninforceable, why is it still on the books?
Anyhow, I think everything should be open. I love open source, I hate intellectual property laws, and have yet to hear a decent argument against my views. Though again, that "crack smoking" comment.... touche
By that same logic, my local radio station is a network service provider, since it has a .net domain.
Does anybody know a way to dispute the right of people/businesses/groups etc. to domains they shouldn't use? I want to nail the radio station, as well as some businesses I know of that use .org domains.
Er, careful never to use that analogy or even joke about that in an airport. From what I understand body cavity searches are not pleasant.
I think it's more about finding a scapegoat anyhow. If they hadn't quickly found a suspect there might actually be some tough questions asked: