He used the word "monetized". It's doomed to fail.
Seriously, though -- he compared old magazines to old movies, noting that Hollywood makes a substantial portion of its money from its old catalog, and thinks he can do the same with magazines. Doesn't he notice that there's a bit fo a difference between movies (entertainment) and magazines (news)? News ain't evergreen, my friend.
You're not going to change the laws that have already been passed -- there's too much money at stake and the lobbies are too powerful.
At least this would mitigate some of the damage that's been done by allowing important, un-shepherded works to pass into public domain before the paper they're printed on crumbles into dust.
Is it a perfect solution? No. But it does addres many of the major problems of Infinite Copyright.
Companies are not the only entities that create copyrighted material -- individuals do, too. A small fee makes sure that you're not punishing people who can't afford to keep their works copyrighted. Making the fee large would actually work in favor of the large companies, since they would be the only ones with the money to pay hefty fees.
And that's fine if they do -- if it's worth it to a company to automate the process, more power to them. That's not what this is for.
This is to allow the works of artists and writers who have gone missing to become public domain, so that their books and such don't just sit around collecting dust (and potentially disappearing from the face of the earth). This would allow people to save obscure works by republishing them even if they can't contact the original author to get permission.
This will become more and more important as the term for copyright gets extended indefinitely by congress, and we lose more and more works of brilliance to the dustbin of history.
TiVo's problem has always been getting people to understand just what the hell their product is, and why they would want it. It's a great product. Everyone who gets one invariably says that it completely changes the way they watch TV and that they would never go back to the way thigns were previously. But getting people over that initial "But I already have a VCR" hurdle has been tough for a small company with a smaller advertising budget.
With Time-Warner pushing a copeting product, people will finally understand what a DVR is, because lots of people will be exposed to them. A god portion of those people will like the concept, but will be upset by all the restrictions. They will want a less heavy-handed alternative.
This is where a smartly-run TiVo ad campaign (a la the Earthlink campaigns appealing to AOL customers who had tired of AOL) could be very effective. It will be interesting to see how wisely TiVo plays the hand they are about to be dealt.
This is almost to be expected; companies need to actively protect their trademarks lest they lose their rights to them. If a word falls into common usage and no longer represents a brand, but a category of product (a la aspirin), they will have their trademark taken away. Lawsuits are the best tool companies have for this sort of thing.
Site maps are meaningless for the most part, I've found. If your navigation and site structure are well-designed and intuitive, a site map isn't necessary. If your navigation and site structure are poorly planned, then a site map isn't going to be much help.
Odds are good that George wasn't bagging any babes at those post-con parties, though. Rumor has it that he's gay.
Don't know if it's true or not, but I always thought that if it was, it was a shame that they didn't take advantage of it to talk about gay issues in any of the Star Trek series. Paramount doesn't seem terribly eager to boldly go there.
Clearly, it's going to take more than lots of render power to completely fool audiences into believing that a computer-generated human is real.
So what's it going to take? What does someone need to do to achieve the holy grail of computer animation and create a human being that fools a movie audience?
think about the holy hell that would get raised if you decided to charge a fee of $2500 a year to drive to Manhattan Island! (Personally, I'm against any scheme in which a citizen of a nation is charged money by the government to travel to or across particular public lands. They're public lands! Public!)
As a Manhattan resident, I would love to see this implemented -- reducing traffic through Manhattan would make my home livable.
And of course you're welcome to travel across it -- you're correct, it is public land. So use public transportation -- acces to private motorized transportation isn't a right, it's a privilege.
Or try walking -- New Yorkers seem to have gotten the hang of it.
Frankly, after reading the article, I'm pretty worried that they may just legislate these things out of existence.
So I bought one now, while I still can.
Way to go, TV Execs!
Re:There ARE other ways
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
There are other ways to insure artists are compensated, without granting them (or, more likely, their publishers) an exclusive monopoly on their work, for any length of time.
Okay, what are they? Please clarify. I'm not trolling; I want to discuss specifics to make sure that the alternatives you're proposing are fair.
But, the history of the human race, indeed of our own civilization, doesn't bear it out. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Ulysees, Shakespear, Van Gogh, Michaelangelo, and other artists too numerous to mention had all the incentive they needed to create the greatest works our civilization has ever known, all without the existence of copyright or any other form of "intellectual property."
I would argue that the conditions under which those artists created and were compensated for their work no longer exists in our modern society. Do you have any modern-day examples to support your argument?
We should be discussing alternatives to copyright which can be implimented to insure that artists get compensated for their work, without imposing artifical, government mandated monopolies upon our society, monopolies which are antithetical to free markets, to freedom of speech, and ultimately, to freedom itself.
Again, please discuss these alternatives you mention. I am curious to see exactly what they are.
I love my Wacom pad. Using a pen instead of a mouse means I work quicker, more accurately and with less hand stress than pushing a mouse around a pad. It's especially handy for working on digital artwork.
However, I couldn never imagine entering text with it -- it's simply too cumbrous a process to write out text with a pen. Keyboards, even with their limitations, are still the way to go.
I think one-handed chording keyboards would be a more likely replacement.
...A large percentage of slashdot posters have mutated into picky pedants with nothing better to do than parrot the same mistaken "error" they found in the language of the article.
According to the specifications, this would require an adaptor to play in existing CD drives.
If they're pushing this as a supplement to advertisements (distribution via mail, magazine, what have you), how are they going to get the adapters to people? How are they going to overcome the barrier of getting people to actually use the adapters?
Seems like there's a bit of a bottleneck in this biz plan.
Slashdot Mirror
He used the word "monetized". It's doomed to fail.
Seriously, though -- he compared old magazines to old movies, noting that Hollywood makes a substantial portion of its money from its old catalog, and thinks he can do the same with magazines. Doesn't he notice that there's a bit fo a difference between movies (entertainment) and magazines (news)? News ain't evergreen, my friend.
Oh, trust me -- I know all about silly walks.
I mean works.
Or something.
You're not going to change the laws that have already been passed -- there's too much money at stake and the lobbies are too powerful.
At least this would mitigate some of the damage that's been done by allowing important, un-shepherded works to pass into public domain before the paper they're printed on crumbles into dust.
Is it a perfect solution? No. But it does addres many of the major problems of Infinite Copyright.
Companies are not the only entities that create copyrighted material -- individuals do, too. A small fee makes sure that you're not punishing people who can't afford to keep their works copyrighted. Making the fee large would actually work in favor of the large companies, since they would be the only ones with the money to pay hefty fees.
And that's fine if they do -- if it's worth it to a company to automate the process, more power to them. That's not what this is for.
This is to allow the works of artists and writers who have gone missing to become public domain, so that their books and such don't just sit around collecting dust (and potentially disappearing from the face of the earth). This would allow people to save obscure works by republishing them even if they can't contact the original author to get permission.
This will become more and more important as the term for copyright gets extended indefinitely by congress, and we lose more and more works of brilliance to the dustbin of history.
TiVo's problem has always been getting people to understand just what the hell their product is, and why they would want it. It's a great product. Everyone who gets one invariably says that it completely changes the way they watch TV and that they would never go back to the way thigns were previously. But getting people over that initial "But I already have a VCR" hurdle has been tough for a small company with a smaller advertising budget.
With Time-Warner pushing a copeting product, people will finally understand what a DVR is, because lots of people will be exposed to them. A god portion of those people will like the concept, but will be upset by all the restrictions. They will want a less heavy-handed alternative.
This is where a smartly-run TiVo ad campaign (a la the Earthlink campaigns appealing to AOL customers who had tired of AOL) could be very effective. It will be interesting to see how wisely TiVo plays the hand they are about to be dealt.
This is almost to be expected; companies need to actively protect their trademarks lest they lose their rights to them. If a word falls into common usage and no longer represents a brand, but a category of product (a la aspirin), they will have their trademark taken away. Lawsuits are the best tool companies have for this sort of thing.
Auto painting is the industries largest manufacturing expense, and this could be what they're looking for...as soon as the price comes down."
I couldn't have written something as wonderfully confused as this even if I had eaten a hash brownie and spent an hour on a sit 'n' spin.
Futurama is already available for preorder on DVD. Why bother with the inconvenient timeslots and commercials?
Site maps are meaningless for the most part, I've found. If your navigation and site structure are well-designed and intuitive, a site map isn't necessary. If your navigation and site structure are poorly planned, then a site map isn't going to be much help.
Replay offers these kinds of features, plus their monthly fee is only $10, so with two units I'd save $6 a month.
And if you owned 429 units, you'd save $1,287 a month. Wow! Now that's value.
Odds are good that George wasn't bagging any babes at those post-con parties, though. Rumor has it that he's gay.
Don't know if it's true or not, but I always thought that if it was, it was a shame that they didn't take advantage of it to talk about gay issues in any of the Star Trek series. Paramount doesn't seem terribly eager to boldly go there.
Why, oh why did you feel the need to introduce fart jokes to Star Trek?
Why do you wear a hairpiece?
An intelligent politician? Who'da thunk it?
Maybe a benevolent dictatorship wouldn't be such an impossibility after all. Lofgren for Emperor!
Clearly, it's going to take more than lots of render power to completely fool audiences into believing that a computer-generated human is real.
So what's it going to take? What does someone need to do to achieve the holy grail of computer animation and create a human being that fools a movie audience?
think about the holy hell that would get raised if you decided to charge a fee of $2500 a year to drive to Manhattan Island! (Personally, I'm against any scheme in which a citizen of a nation is charged money by the government to travel to or across particular public lands. They're public lands! Public!)
As a Manhattan resident, I would love to see this implemented -- reducing traffic through Manhattan would make my home livable.
And of course you're welcome to travel across it -- you're correct, it is public land. So use public transportation -- acces to private motorized transportation isn't a right, it's a privilege.
Or try walking -- New Yorkers seem to have gotten the hang of it.
Frankly, after reading the article, I'm pretty worried that they may just legislate these things out of existence.
So I bought one now, while I still can.
Way to go, TV Execs!
Okay, what are they? Please clarify. I'm not trolling; I want to discuss specifics to make sure that the alternatives you're proposing are fair.
But, the history of the human race, indeed of our own civilization, doesn't bear it out. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Ulysees, Shakespear, Van Gogh, Michaelangelo, and other artists too numerous to mention had all the incentive they needed to create the greatest works our civilization has ever known, all without the existence of copyright or any other form of "intellectual property."
I would argue that the conditions under which those artists created and were compensated for their work no longer exists in our modern society. Do you have any modern-day examples to support your argument?
We should be discussing alternatives to copyright which can be implimented to insure that artists get compensated for their work, without imposing artifical, government mandated monopolies upon our society, monopolies which are antithetical to free markets, to freedom of speech, and ultimately, to freedom itself.
Again, please discuss these alternatives you mention. I am curious to see exactly what they are.
my phone lets me talk to people.
is this a truly great achievement?
or a terrible misuse of technology?
quick! someone tell me what to think!
(where's jon katz when you need him?)
However, I couldn never imagine entering text with it -- it's simply too cumbrous a process to write out text with a pen. Keyboards, even with their limitations, are still the way to go.
I think one-handed chording keyboards would be a more likely replacement.
...A large percentage of slashdot posters have mutated into picky pedants with nothing better to do than parrot the same mistaken "error" they found in the language of the article.
It's a nice day, folks. Go get some air.
Because the nutrient-rich liquid is fetal cow extract. Not exactly an ideal beverage.
The only thing worse might be a glass of Clamato.
According to the specifications, this would require an adaptor to play in existing CD drives.
If they're pushing this as a supplement to advertisements (distribution via mail, magazine, what have you), how are they going to get the adapters to people? How are they going to overcome the barrier of getting people to actually use the adapters?
Seems like there's a bit of a bottleneck in this biz plan.