Not to mention that people would be exposed to significant UV light at night, when their pupils are most dilated. So we get retinal damage, skin cancer, plus the cost of deploying both the gold nanoparticles and the large-scale UV light infrastructure.
How did this story make it into the news stream? Why can't my goofy half-baked ideas get me fame and fortune?
IANAL, but I think you are mistaken on a technicality. You may be correct insofar as registering a trademark, but to defend it in court against infringers is different. In court, Nintendo would have to show that it has zealously defended its trademark, and if the phrase is well-established in the wild then that test is likely to fail. I would assume that they are registering in order to exterminate unauthorized use with the hope that cease-and-desist letters will be enough, and nobody with deep pockets and an itch to fight will stand up to them.
No Comrade! When our Great Leaders and Comrade Journalists refer to a certain class of people as Heroes, Patriots, Allies, Investors, or Job Creators, we must do the same. They are enlightening us with their profound knowledge and great wisdom. You must never question them!
I would find it extremely disturbing for some bozo to take it upon himself to be a "real life superhero" in my town. I do not want the rule of law to be suspended arbitrarily by some nut, well-meaning or not. We do not live in a movie or a graphic novel. We live in a lawful society, or at least strive for it to be so.
An admirable model, albeit rife with uncertainty. I wish them all the luck in the world, but it is still too new to reach any reproducible conclusions.
I agree. I think all copyright extensions that have occurred in the past century should be rolled back without further discussion. Nevertheless, eliminating copyright eliminates the incentive to produce intellectual property for those who expect to make a living selling it. I sense that people think artists can live solely on the satisfaction of creating art, rather than on food, shelter, and clothing.
Can you provide a significant number of concrete examples of individual artists or businesses that allow people to download digital works on a voluntary payment basis and are still able to support themselves or their businesses? I mean large numbers of painters, musicians, software developers, etc. who support themselves at least at a US middle-class income level with such a business model. I also don't mean a few outliers like Trent Reznor, I mean thousands of people who have shown that it can be done.
Artists need to be able to make a living in order to continue creating art. If your artist friends make a living exclusively from their art, particularly those who sell downloadable copies of their art rather than performances, I would be curious to know whether they would accept having their work freely downloadable with no payment obligation on the part of the buyer.
Name 100 more who also do it and can support a viable business, Trent Reznor is an isolated case. I'm happy for him, but it's hard to believe that it is a universally applicable and scalable business model.
Let's say that on average each ad click-through generated $0.05 (a generous estimate). To get back the $50 million they would need to have 50,000,000 / 0.05 = 1,000,000,000 click-throughs. If they wanted to make that money in the first year, that's over 2,700,000 click-throughs per day, or over 30 per second every single day for a year. Of course, there are no guarantees.
Your subscription service amounts to selling downloads, so you got nowhere with that one.
You have not proposed anything particularly realistic, not to mention attractive.
When you sell something you created for $1, you are not expecting that single sale to be your income for the period of time it took you to produce the product. "To continue to reap money without doing much work is rather disgusting" unless you expect make the income prospectively, that is after you put the product of your labor on the market, rather than before. If it took you 1000 hours to write a book and you offer it for sale, you expect to make 1000 x $N, where $N is the hourly rate you hope to earn. Do you find that disgusting?
That was a troll? You have got to be kidding! You realize that destroying copyright destroys the value of copyright-protected commercial products and the monetary incentive to create them, don't you?
What is a download? Is a $0.99 song a download that would be OK to "pirate?" What about a video game that cost a company $50 million to create? If it was legal, why would anyone buy it instead of "pirating" it? Who would pay for its production? What incentive would there be to create any but the most trivial digital content?
Has it occurred to you that you are proposing the destruction of the value of human labor on a massive scale?
Yes! Flash on Linux sucks beyond belief! Beyond measure! Beyond any reasonable criterion of practicality! Sucks, sucks, SUCKS!
Surely at least one Adobe geek is reading this. Please tell someone at Adobe, please! I know your development cycles are about 40 years long, but please, at least get it on the change request list! Please!
Slashdot Mirror
They can always dream, can't they?
You just threw 262 pages of trademark law at me and YANAL? Dude...
Not to mention that people would be exposed to significant UV light at night, when their pupils are most dilated. So we get retinal damage, skin cancer, plus the cost of deploying both the gold nanoparticles and the large-scale UV light infrastructure.
How did this story make it into the news stream? Why can't my goofy half-baked ideas get me fame and fortune?
IANAL, but I think you are mistaken on a technicality. You may be correct insofar as registering a trademark, but to defend it in court against infringers is different. In court, Nintendo would have to show that it has zealously defended its trademark, and if the phrase is well-established in the wild then that test is likely to fail. I would assume that they are registering in order to exterminate unauthorized use with the hope that cease-and-desist letters will be enough, and nobody with deep pockets and an itch to fight will stand up to them.
To put it mildly
No Comrade! When our Great Leaders and Comrade Journalists refer to a certain class of people as Heroes, Patriots, Allies, Investors, or Job Creators, we must do the same. They are enlightening us with their profound knowledge and great wisdom. You must never question them!
I would find it extremely disturbing for some bozo to take it upon himself to be a "real life superhero" in my town. I do not want the rule of law to be suspended arbitrarily by some nut, well-meaning or not. We do not live in a movie or a graphic novel. We live in a lawful society, or at least strive for it to be so.
An admirable model, albeit rife with uncertainty. I wish them all the luck in the world, but it is still too new to reach any reproducible conclusions.
Who said that anyone has a right to a middle class livelihood?
Not me. I'm using it as a metric to judge whether a venture can be considered a viable business or not. Nothing more.
If I publish a book as a PDF is it valueless?
I agree. I think all copyright extensions that have occurred in the past century should be rolled back without further discussion. Nevertheless, eliminating copyright eliminates the incentive to produce intellectual property for those who expect to make a living selling it. I sense that people think artists can live solely on the satisfaction of creating art, rather than on food, shelter, and clothing.
Do you run them or are you a part of the business? Can they consistently and sustainably support one or more people with a US middle class livelihood?
Do you run it? Can it consistently and sustainably support one or more people with a US middle class livelihood?
Get the hourly rate from whom? The idea is to sell a downloadable product. You don't get paid until people download it.
Can you provide a significant number of concrete examples of individual artists or businesses that allow people to download digital works on a voluntary payment basis and are still able to support themselves or their businesses? I mean large numbers of painters, musicians, software developers, etc. who support themselves at least at a US middle-class income level with such a business model. I also don't mean a few outliers like Trent Reznor, I mean thousands of people who have shown that it can be done.
Artists need to be able to make a living in order to continue creating art. If your artist friends make a living exclusively from their art, particularly those who sell downloadable copies of their art rather than performances, I would be curious to know whether they would accept having their work freely downloadable with no payment obligation on the part of the buyer.
I like the way you started your post. Is it a serious proposal?
Name 100 more who also do it and can support a viable business, Trent Reznor is an isolated case. I'm happy for him, but it's hard to believe that it is a universally applicable and scalable business model.
Let's say that on average each ad click-through generated $0.05 (a generous estimate). To get back the $50 million they would need to have 50,000,000 / 0.05 = 1,000,000,000 click-throughs. If they wanted to make that money in the first year, that's over 2,700,000 click-throughs per day, or over 30 per second every single day for a year. Of course, there are no guarantees.
Your subscription service amounts to selling downloads, so you got nowhere with that one.
You have not proposed anything particularly realistic, not to mention attractive.
When you sell something you created for $1, you are not expecting that single sale to be your income for the period of time it took you to produce the product. "To continue to reap money without doing much work is rather disgusting" unless you expect make the income prospectively, that is after you put the product of your labor on the market, rather than before. If it took you 1000 hours to write a book and you offer it for sale, you expect to make 1000 x $N, where $N is the hourly rate you hope to earn. Do you find that disgusting?
That was a troll? You have got to be kidding! You realize that destroying copyright destroys the value of copyright-protected commercial products and the monetary incentive to create them, don't you?
What is a download? Is a $0.99 song a download that would be OK to "pirate?" What about a video game that cost a company $50 million to create? If it was legal, why would anyone buy it instead of "pirating" it? Who would pay for its production? What incentive would there be to create any but the most trivial digital content?
Has it occurred to you that you are proposing the destruction of the value of human labor on a massive scale?
Choosing any amount will allow those rich enough to simply ignore the law.
You have inadvertently re-invented the US judicial system. Bad AC, bad!
You are aware that this destroys the value of human labor on a massive scale, right?
Yes! Flash on Linux sucks beyond belief! Beyond measure! Beyond any reasonable criterion of practicality! Sucks, sucks, SUCKS!
Surely at least one Adobe geek is reading this. Please tell someone at Adobe, please! I know your development cycles are about 40 years long, but please, at least get it on the change request list! Please!