It's funny how Taylor Swift is the champion for artists rights in these situations but yet she's the biggest hypocrite. A year ago she called out Apple Music on its free month and about how artists would not get paid for that, yet she demanded photographers surrender their rights to images they take of her for worldwide use in perpetuity without any compensation. Junction10 Photography covered this on their blog post "An open response to Taylor Swift’s rant against Apple".
Now she's going after the "safe harbor" clause in the DMCA and about how YouTube is so bad, yet she has no problem abusing the DMCA to have YouTube take down videos that are clearly protected by fair rights usage. In 2014, amidst "The Interview" controversy, she had Shane Dawson's parody video of "Blank Space" taken down. She objected to it because it was "too violent" yet abused copyright law to do it. The only reason it was restored was because Dawson threatened to sue her over it and she knew she'd lose.
You really wouldn't escape it since these stupid laws the EU craps out extend beyond their borders. Look at Google.Com and that moronic "Right to be Forgotten" and how they want that ruling to apply to US servers.
Exactly. As sickening as those two freaks are, in the absence of a conviction or any other kind of legally binding decision (e.g. a civil suit), for all Model Mayhem knew they were just allegations.
The main drag on updates isn't always the OEM though. Because Google doesn't exert the level of control that Apple does, the OEMs make the update, send it to the carrier who then fills it with bloatware and releases it at their leisure. I think it was a month in between when Samsung released Android 4.4 for my device and when AT&T finished bloating it and pushed it out.
The thing is if it is used in a criminal trial, it can become subject to discovery. And they will only be able to hide behind the "national security" lie for so long before judges get tired of hearing it.
It has nothing to do with if there is any harm from the food or not. Some people do not like the idea of putting "franken-food" in their bodies. And we do have the right to know and make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies. And you'll note I listed two other examples: Trans Fat and Added Sugar which we do know is unhealthy yet the food lobby resisted/resists those labels too. It is to protect corporate interests and old business models from the free market.
And if you listen to every Libertarian, they will tell you that the free market will fix this. When this is actual a proof that the free market doesn't exist and never will.
Exactly. The US has a sick and twisted version of capitalism that is poison. It uses laws and government regulations to pick and choose which industries/businesses get favored as opposed to the market. Usually based on how much they donate bribe a congressman/senator or two. It's because if we lived in a truly free market the market may not choose their product.
That's why the food industry resists GMO labeling and fought things like labeling TransFat and the new Added Sugar.
Exactly. I used to teach at a community college and my colleagues and I would ask that question constantly to the people who thought throwing technology at something would fix it. Essentially a bad process is like driving a car into a brick wall at 35mph. Throw in some technology and we now hit that wall at 70mph. We're still hitting the brick wall!
Your response makes absolutely no sense. This is not about the quality of books, but rather distribution channels. Authors have noticed that their sales were being cannibalized by the KU reads. Which translates into less money. And if their a midlist author, like 99.9% are, then this hurts them even more so there's no incentive to allow their works to be put onto KU. Even if Amazon makes it a condition to receiving 70% royalties, which they would be stupid to do, it still would not be an incentive to do it because all you'd be doing is forcing authors to take a smaller pay cut because they did not take a huge pay cut.
Amazon is NOT a monopoly. A monopoly is when one company, or a small group of companies, control the supply of a product/service/etc. in a way that harms the consumer. Amazon does not control any supply and it is not harming the US consumers. First and foremost, in the grand scheme of things Amazon controls only a small segment of retail itself. In 2013 US retail spending was $5.4 Trillion. US E-Commerce sales totaled $263 Billion. So even if Amazon was the sole eCommerce site used by everyone in the US that would still amount to only 5.8% of all US retail.
The true monopolists in the book industry are the publishers. Let's examine the Amazon/Hachette spat in detail a little. Amazon wanted more freedom to price eBooks cheaper and Hachette objected. That's the core of the argument right there. Now let's take a look at some of Amazon's behavior during this spat:
1) They stopped taking pre-orders for Hachette books. Since Amazon no longer had a sales agreement with Hachette, it would seem logical that they would not want to take pre-orders and then be unable to fulfill them since its stock of these titles would be at Hachette's discretion and not at a mutually agreed upon level.
2) Amazon stopped stocking Hachette titles as much. So? Where is it written that a retail store must carry the products of a vendor with whom it has disagreements? Other retailers reported upswings in purchasing of Hachette titles during the negotiations with Amazon (it took 6 months). People were still able to get the titles.
3) They stopped discounting Hachette titles. Discounts has been Amazon's thing, it's why most of us shop there when we don't need the item right away. But let's really examine this one because it is the pièce de résistance. What Hachette was complaining about was that Amazon was selling Hachette's books at the price Hachette set for them. Keep that in mind, because Hachette wanted Amazon to sell eBooks at the price Hachette set. Translation: Hachette wanted Amazon to sell eBooks more expensive than they had to be (something Hachette, five other publishers, and Apple got nailed by the Department of Justice and several State Attorneys General for) in order to subsidize their print sales which is what Hachette is trying so hard to protect because the barriers of entry to the eBook market are substantially lower.
According the the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/technology/amazon-offers-all-you-can-eat-books-authors-turn-up-noses.html), authors who make their works available via Kindle Unlimited are experiencing income drops some in excess of 75%. So unless Amazon changes the model, authors' income is threatened and KU is doomed to fail. The exodus has already started and Amazon really has nothing more to entice authors to allow their works to be distributed through it.
Free speech guarantees you the right to say it free from consequences. It says nothing about a guaranteed venue or audience. And any college would have a legitimate interest in blocking that material over their e-mail system on a mass scale. It's happened before:
"An estimated 3000 [Michigan State University] students protesting the ban on alcohol at Munn Field tailgate parties resulted in police firing tear gas at the crowd. The gathering was planned in advance by an email spread through the student body email system asking students to gather and protest the ban. The university police informed students, via the school newspaper, that anyone getting on Munn Field would be arrested for trespassing. One student crossed the fence and was arrested by campus police. Shortly thereafter, 30-40 students crossed the fence and when the remaining students saw the police unable to arrest everyone, approximately 1,500 students poured over the fence on Munn field. The students played football, frisbee and played in the rain and mud. The police then tear gassed the students, who then left and went to the University President's (M. Peter McPherson) house. When the students learned the President was not available, they then went to Grand River Ave, and a small riot ensued."
And don't pull the "only conservatives are restricted" card because it is easily annihilated.
Slashdot Mirror
We already did that. Citizens United decision.
It's funny how Taylor Swift is the champion for artists rights in these situations but yet she's the biggest hypocrite. A year ago she called out Apple Music on its free month and about how artists would not get paid for that, yet she demanded photographers surrender their rights to images they take of her for worldwide use in perpetuity without any compensation. Junction10 Photography covered this on their blog post "An open response to Taylor Swift’s rant against Apple".
Now she's going after the "safe harbor" clause in the DMCA and about how YouTube is so bad, yet she has no problem abusing the DMCA to have YouTube take down videos that are clearly protected by fair rights usage. In 2014, amidst "The Interview" controversy, she had Shane Dawson's parody video of "Blank Space" taken down. She objected to it because it was "too violent" yet abused copyright law to do it. The only reason it was restored was because Dawson threatened to sue her over it and she knew she'd lose.
Closet case
Yeah. I guess he never heard of the 16 year old Irish girl who came up with an encryption method better than what RSA was using at the time.
You really wouldn't escape it since these stupid laws the EU craps out extend beyond their borders. Look at Google.Com and that moronic "Right to be Forgotten" and how they want that ruling to apply to US servers.
Exactly. As sickening as those two freaks are, in the absence of a conviction or any other kind of legally binding decision (e.g. a civil suit), for all Model Mayhem knew they were just allegations.
The main drag on updates isn't always the OEM though. Because Google doesn't exert the level of control that Apple does, the OEMs make the update, send it to the carrier who then fills it with bloatware and releases it at their leisure. I think it was a month in between when Samsung released Android 4.4 for my device and when AT&T finished bloating it and pushed it out.
Shopping at the grocery store for infinitely more nutritious food than the poison McDonald's serves.
The thing is if it is used in a criminal trial, it can become subject to discovery. And they will only be able to hide behind the "national security" lie for so long before judges get tired of hearing it.
Exactly my thought. Even more so if they're going to a more insecure cert too.
Exactly my thought. Maybe if publishers were on the hook for the damage their ads cause they might be a bit better at policing them.
I was thinking the same thing. 4.0 broke NPM though :(
4. Report them to the Feds for a Federal Education Records Protection Act violation.
It has nothing to do with if there is any harm from the food or not. Some people do not like the idea of putting "franken-food" in their bodies. And we do have the right to know and make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies. And you'll note I listed two other examples: Trans Fat and Added Sugar which we do know is unhealthy yet the food lobby resisted/resists those labels too. It is to protect corporate interests and old business models from the free market.
And if you listen to every Libertarian, they will tell you that the free market will fix this. When this is actual a proof that the free market doesn't exist and never will.
Exactly. The US has a sick and twisted version of capitalism that is poison. It uses laws and government regulations to pick and choose which industries/businesses get favored as opposed to the market. Usually based on how much they donate bribe a congressman/senator or two. It's because if we lived in a truly free market the market may not choose their product.
That's why the food industry resists GMO labeling and fought things like labeling TransFat and the new Added Sugar.
Exactly. I used to teach at a community college and my colleagues and I would ask that question constantly to the people who thought throwing technology at something would fix it. Essentially a bad process is like driving a car into a brick wall at 35mph. Throw in some technology and we now hit that wall at 70mph. We're still hitting the brick wall!
I know. Dictating what women can and cannot do with their bodies, dictating who you can have sex with and marry, etc.
Or not be a Republican? She needs to look at her own party before she ever has the right to complain about someone else being a hypocrite.
Same here. I refuse to run the botched abortion known as Windows 8.
Your response makes absolutely no sense. This is not about the quality of books, but rather distribution channels. Authors have noticed that their sales were being cannibalized by the KU reads. Which translates into less money. And if their a midlist author, like 99.9% are, then this hurts them even more so there's no incentive to allow their works to be put onto KU. Even if Amazon makes it a condition to receiving 70% royalties, which they would be stupid to do, it still would not be an incentive to do it because all you'd be doing is forcing authors to take a smaller pay cut because they did not take a huge pay cut.
Amazon is NOT a monopoly. A monopoly is when one company, or a small group of companies, control the supply of a product/service/etc. in a way that harms the consumer. Amazon does not control any supply and it is not harming the US consumers. First and foremost, in the grand scheme of things Amazon controls only a small segment of retail itself. In 2013 US retail spending was $5.4 Trillion. US E-Commerce sales totaled $263 Billion. So even if Amazon was the sole eCommerce site used by everyone in the US that would still amount to only 5.8% of all US retail.
The true monopolists in the book industry are the publishers. Let's examine the Amazon/Hachette spat in detail a little. Amazon wanted more freedom to price eBooks cheaper and Hachette objected. That's the core of the argument right there. Now let's take a look at some of Amazon's behavior during this spat:
1) They stopped taking pre-orders for Hachette books. Since Amazon no longer had a sales agreement with Hachette, it would seem logical that they would not want to take pre-orders and then be unable to fulfill them since its stock of these titles would be at Hachette's discretion and not at a mutually agreed upon level.
2) Amazon stopped stocking Hachette titles as much. So? Where is it written that a retail store must carry the products of a vendor with whom it has disagreements? Other retailers reported upswings in purchasing of Hachette titles during the negotiations with Amazon (it took 6 months). People were still able to get the titles.
3) They stopped discounting Hachette titles. Discounts has been Amazon's thing, it's why most of us shop there when we don't need the item right away. But let's really examine this one because it is the pièce de résistance. What Hachette was complaining about was that Amazon was selling Hachette's books at the price Hachette set for them. Keep that in mind, because Hachette wanted Amazon to sell eBooks at the price Hachette set. Translation: Hachette wanted Amazon to sell eBooks more expensive than they had to be (something Hachette, five other publishers, and Apple got nailed by the Department of Justice and several State Attorneys General for) in order to subsidize their print sales which is what Hachette is trying so hard to protect because the barriers of entry to the eBook market are substantially lower.
According the the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/technology/amazon-offers-all-you-can-eat-books-authors-turn-up-noses.html), authors who make their works available via Kindle Unlimited are experiencing income drops some in excess of 75%. So unless Amazon changes the model, authors' income is threatened and KU is doomed to fail. The exodus has already started and Amazon really has nothing more to entice authors to allow their works to be distributed through it.
If that were possible, Fox "News" would have ceased to exist long ago.
Yeah, because who needs clean air, fresh water, safe food, safe working conditions, fair pay and other such "Big Government" regulations?
Free speech guarantees you the right to say it free from consequences. It says nothing about a guaranteed venue or audience. And any college would have a legitimate interest in blocking that material over their e-mail system on a mass scale. It's happened before:
"An estimated 3000 [Michigan State University] students protesting the ban on alcohol at Munn Field tailgate parties resulted in police firing tear gas at the crowd. The gathering was planned in advance by an email spread through the student body email system asking students to gather and protest the ban. The university police informed students, via the school newspaper, that anyone getting on Munn Field would be arrested for trespassing. One student crossed the fence and was arrested by campus police. Shortly thereafter, 30-40 students crossed the fence and when the remaining students saw the police unable to arrest everyone, approximately 1,500 students poured over the fence on Munn field. The students played football, frisbee and played in the rain and mud. The police then tear gassed the students, who then left and went to the University President's (M. Peter McPherson) house. When the students learned the President was not available, they then went to Grand River Ave, and a small riot ensued."
And don't pull the "only conservatives are restricted" card because it is easily annihilated.