Is this article a way to test the waters for a pay-as-you-go/.? A way to see how much subscribers are willing to pay? Kuro5hin is doing it already, offering an ad-free pay service for $9.95 a month.
Really? We accept credit cards at my business and we get the funds in 2 to 3 business days.
I don't think that was the problem. Seems like razor-thin margins to me. It costs a lot to run a van fleet. Items like gas, insurance, maintenance add up quickly.
I'm a little young for the slide rule era; I have never owned or used one. I do remember the old HP-35 from when I was a kid. Thinking it was so powerful, a little handheld "computer".
Today, I still bring my HP-48GX to work. That's my modern-day slide rule.
Yes, we know about them, but due to the annoying aspect of the ads, a portion of the audience will disregard them for being annoying. I will not buy from them and there are many here who would probably agree.
That might be true. What most people object to is way the ads are delivered. Popups and popdowns annoy because they open up extra windows. Banner ads suck precious bandwidth.
The least obtrusive form of ad is the text ad. They might be effective on sites with heavy hits.
Will they keep hounding me until they've found the one unlicensed copy of Windows NT 3.50 sitting around on some long-neglected 486 in a remote office? Is that entirely legal to do?
The answer is yes. The copyright is still valid, and will be for many years. The upshot is, it falls under the category of "don't sweat the small stuff", so it's likely that they won't bother you. Kind of like copying a tape for a friend.
In the original legislation, copyrights lasted just 14 years, with the copyright holder can opt for one 14 year extension, bringing the maximum to 28 years.
The 20-year copyright extension you refer to is the Sonny Bono Act. That piece of legislation also effectively extend copyrights infinitely, since now it takes a simple "act of Congress" to amend copyright law. If lawmakers can be bought by big business once, they can certainly be bought again.
Doesn't this fly in the face of the Constitution, where copyrights are set for "Limited Times"? Even though they are technically limited, a work created when I was born in 1969 probably will not be public domain in my granchildren's lives.
E.T. and Star Wars arrived a bit before the Attention Economy had fully bloomed.
So what's the difference between then and now? One could say that those movies were just in time for the Marketing Economy. Maybe these figures weren't in Happy Meals (did they have Happy Meals in 1977? And if memory serves correct, they did have toys from the Episodes V and VI movies.) There were a full range of products then, ranging from action figures to bedsheets to video games. (Remember gobbling up Reeses Pieces in the old Atari 2600 game?)
It's not too much different now than then. Perhaps there's just more information out there now, but or years, I've felt overwhelmed.
it's sobering to see how much trouble is involved in attempting to provide what Gielda calls "anonymity with accountability"
Isn't the whole point of being anonymous to decrease you accountability? Using software to mask your IP, or even simply posting anonymously on here are both methods of decreasing accountability.
It's no small wonder why Mr. Gielda's job is so difficult.
You have some valid points, dada21. But as the article states, most institutions are not even sending the notices due to the loophole in the law. And do you think that everyone is even aware of the changes in the law?
We have a mixed free market system. This means an essentially free market with mechanisms built-in to protect consumers and vendors. It is different than a TOTAL free-market system.
Fortunately, most of the removed material will be older articles, up to 1995. At least more recent work had the proper clauses built in.
Unfortunately, this removal could be avoided by simply making the payment to the authors who did the work.
Another problem is the issue of CD-based content. How will they prevent distribution of such archived works? If I have a CD with articles that are destined for electronic deletion are they going to go to my house and impound it?
Napster was taken to court for vicarious copyright infringement. This means, even though Napster itself did not violate copright law being making illegal copies of songs, it contributed to it billions of times by allowing people to search indexes and download off of others.
In other words, it wasn't the criminal, but it was the getaway car.
As for the forums, they're closed right now. I used to be a forum regular, nick=kdogg731.
Yes, but it's a matter of time before Morpheus becomes as big as Napster. Now that Napster is going legit, the RIAA can now train their sights on the next big piracy threat. So far, Morpheus seems like the likely choice.
Better get all those MP3's and such, before the next free ride is over!
Napster, once the bad boy of music sites is finally going legit, something they really should have done in the first place. Now they are signing licensing deals - the opt-in system.
Now the question is, will the users come back in droves, or will it be an easier-to-use version of mp3.com? First, Napster is destined to be a pay site. A lot of Napster's user base were teens looking for free tunes. Another question is that these are indie labels they're dealing with now. most of those teens were looking for mainstream, big-label music.
However, it does give the indies a portal for distribution over the net, exposure that the "big labels" are unlikely to take soon. And Napster can now work on removing the stigma of a "piracy site".
It's flexible, operating across many OS's. And no licensing fees means it was less expensive. It's refreshing to see our government striving to operate on a more cost-efficient basis.
Not everyone is well versed in corporate finance. So here goes.
IPO stands for Initial Public Offering. It's simply the first time that a company's stock is offered to the general public. It is underwritten by an investment bank, such as Bear Stearns, where they function as the dealer for the stock. IPO's are useful since they provide much cash quickly for further investment and growth for the company.
Then again, if your statement in your subject line is true, I'd like to think of the corn/human relationship as symbiotic. We help it reproduce, it helps feed us and produce an alternative fuel.
Do viable, yet ungerminated, seeds count as an extant tree?
I'm no expert, but I suppose if no viable plants or seeds can be found, it should be considered extinct. Finding seeds in soil is exceedingly difficult to do; if no seeds exist "in captivity", it is assumed to be extinct.
Plants seem to be a little more resistant to extinction. Even though all members of the species have disappeared, the seeds may still exist, and they can remain fertile for many years before finally sprouting.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this article a way to test the waters for a pay-as-you-go /.? A way to see how much subscribers are willing to pay? Kuro5hin is doing it already, offering an ad-free pay service for $9.95 a month.
Sounds suspicious to me.
Really? We accept credit cards at my business and we get the funds in 2 to 3 business days.
I don't think that was the problem. Seems like razor-thin margins to me. It costs a lot to run a van fleet. Items like gas, insurance, maintenance add up quickly.
I'm a little young for the slide rule era; I have never owned or used one. I do remember the old HP-35 from when I was a kid. Thinking it was so powerful, a little handheld "computer".
Today, I still bring my HP-48GX to work. That's my modern-day slide rule.
I love that the call their own business a "problem"!
At least they're honest.
Yes, we know about them, but due to the annoying aspect of the ads, a portion of the audience will disregard them for being annoying. I will not buy from them and there are many here who would probably agree.
That might be true. What most people object to is way the ads are delivered. Popups and popdowns annoy because they open up extra windows. Banner ads suck precious bandwidth.
The least obtrusive form of ad is the text ad. They might be effective on sites with heavy hits.
Will they keep hounding me until they've found the one unlicensed copy of Windows NT 3.50 sitting around on some long-neglected 486 in a remote office? Is that entirely legal to do?
The answer is yes. The copyright is still valid, and will be for many years. The upshot is, it falls under the category of "don't sweat the small stuff", so it's likely that they won't bother you. Kind of like copying a tape for a friend.
In the original legislation, copyrights lasted just 14 years, with the copyright holder can opt for one 14 year extension, bringing the maximum to 28 years.
The 20-year copyright extension you refer to is the Sonny Bono Act. That piece of legislation also effectively extend copyrights infinitely, since now it takes a simple "act of Congress" to amend copyright law. If lawmakers can be bought by big business once, they can certainly be bought again.
Doesn't this fly in the face of the Constitution, where copyrights are set for "Limited Times"? Even though they are technically limited, a work created when I was born in 1969 probably will not be public domain in my granchildren's lives.
E.T. and Star Wars arrived a bit before the Attention Economy had fully bloomed.
So what's the difference between then and now? One could say that those movies were just in time for the Marketing Economy. Maybe these figures weren't in Happy Meals (did they have Happy Meals in 1977? And if memory serves correct, they did have toys from the Episodes V and VI movies.) There were a full range of products then, ranging from action figures to bedsheets to video games. (Remember gobbling up Reeses Pieces in the old Atari 2600 game?)
It's not too much different now than then. Perhaps there's just more information out there now, but or years, I've felt overwhelmed.
During the Super Bowl, we got overwhelmed," Todd said. "That's the other thing: When you get a match, how quickly can you get to these people?
Not bloody quick, at an event of this size, it seems.
Now we got authorities watching us, and it doesn't even work well in large crowds.
I'm glad I live in Fort Lauderdale, and not Tampa!
BTW, fuck privacy - you don't need it if you ain't guilty.
True, but sometimes the only crime these users are guilty of is voicing an opinion.
it's sobering to see how much trouble is involved in attempting to provide what Gielda calls "anonymity with accountability"
Isn't the whole point of being anonymous to decrease you accountability? Using software to mask your IP, or even simply posting anonymously on here are both methods of decreasing accountability.
It's no small wonder why Mr. Gielda's job is so difficult.
You have some valid points, dada21. But as the article states, most institutions are not even sending the notices due to the loophole in the law. And do you think that everyone is even aware of the changes in the law?
We have a mixed free market system. This means an essentially free market with mechanisms built-in to protect consumers and vendors. It is different than a TOTAL free-market system.
Personal information has become a commodity to be bought and sold.
Even with your phone number, you have to PAY for the privilege of not being listed.
It's smooth, fast and delivers a lot of images per search.
"A picture says a thousand words" never rang truer.
Fortunately, most of the removed material will be older articles, up to 1995. At least more recent work had the proper clauses built in.
Unfortunately, this removal could be avoided by simply making the payment to the authors who did the work.
Another problem is the issue of CD-based content. How will they prevent distribution of such archived works? If I have a CD with articles that are destined for electronic deletion are they going to go to my house and impound it?
Napster was taken to court for vicarious copyright infringement. This means, even though Napster itself did not violate copright law being making illegal copies of songs, it contributed to it billions of times by allowing people to search indexes and download off of others.
In other words, it wasn't the criminal, but it was the getaway car.
As for the forums, they're closed right now. I used to be a forum regular, nick=kdogg731.
Yes, but it's a matter of time before Morpheus becomes as big as Napster. Now that Napster is going legit, the RIAA can now train their sights on the next big piracy threat. So far, Morpheus seems like the likely choice.
Better get all those MP3's and such, before the next free ride is over!
Napster, once the bad boy of music sites is finally going legit, something they really should have done in the first place. Now they are signing licensing deals - the opt-in system.
Now the question is, will the users come back in droves, or will it be an easier-to-use version of mp3.com? First, Napster is destined to be a pay site. A lot of Napster's user base were teens looking for free tunes. Another question is that these are indie labels they're dealing with now. most of those teens were looking for mainstream, big-label music.
However, it does give the indies a portal for distribution over the net, exposure that the "big labels" are unlikely to take soon. And Napster can now work on removing the stigma of a "piracy site".
Only time will tell for sure.
It's flexible, operating across many OS's. And no licensing fees means it was less expensive. It's refreshing to see our government striving to operate on a more cost-efficient basis.
Not everyone is well versed in corporate finance. So here goes.
IPO stands for Initial Public Offering. It's simply the first time that a company's stock is offered to the general public. It is underwritten by an investment bank, such as Bear Stearns, where they function as the dealer for the stock. IPO's are useful since they provide much cash quickly for further investment and growth for the company.
Then again, if your statement in your subject line is true, I'd like to think of the corn/human relationship as symbiotic. We help it reproduce, it helps feed us and produce an alternative fuel.
Do viable, yet ungerminated, seeds count as an extant tree?
I'm no expert, but I suppose if no viable plants or seeds can be found, it should be considered extinct. Finding seeds in soil is exceedingly difficult to do; if no seeds exist "in captivity", it is assumed to be extinct.
Plants seem to be a little more resistant to extinction. Even though all members of the species have disappeared, the seeds may still exist, and they can remain fertile for many years before finally sprouting.
This may have happened here.