Agreed. In an american court this would be a slam dunk for censure as the payee is clearly acting in bad faith with no desire to obey the legally mandated terms of the settlement.
This whole trial has revolved around bad faith for me. In a wholly technical sense, they have done nothing wrong. But their intent has clearly been to defraud/infringe copyright/etc.
It's just like the whole situation with Grokster. They marketed themselves specifically as a tool to download copyrighted content, and the courts ruled that that was clearly Inducement and that they were therefore liable.
TPB says, when confronted, "We have no control over what people put on our service" and then they turn around and specifically mock the people who complain about it. That just doesn't fly with the judicial system.
Well, my home network is mostly wired, so the reverse holds true...The monitor only messes with my laptop, and even then, only occasionally (it loses its channel setting when the power goes out, so power blips, laptop internet tanks).
Just from personal experience, the monitors have a good 100 yard range, so you can go do yard work and stuff and not have to worry that the baby is awake and screaming it's head off. You can also do a better job of soundproofing their room...My office is next door, and I have a clicky keyboard, and blah blah blah. It's handy when you can move 'em around.
The thing is, they already use the same band. I had issues with mine, and I've got the only baby for like 200 meters, and I sprung for a high-end digital monitor with a lower footprint on the band.
They offer the ability to switch channels, but I can see how having 5 or 6 of 'em around, with multiple APs, there would be problems.
I'd be perfectly willing to have a network enabled monitor, I'm just not sure how that would solve the problem. The damn things have to broadcast more or less constantly to do their jobs, so it's going to be a fricking ton of traffic regardless...
Frankly, the best case would be to restrict monitors to a subset of the band, to keep them from screwing with routers, and if your neighbors have a couple of monitors and they're causing problems with your monitors, you can just set their house on fire or something.
Hopefully some of the newly open space on the spectrum can help with this crap. The tiny sliver we've got is way over utilized.
This is actually very similar to what Apple did...They kept OS 9 support on all systems that had the old power PC processors. Once you bought intel, however, no more OS 9, no matter what version of OS X you were using.
Like anything else, users will have to decide for themselves if there is anything that is good enough to make them upgrade.
I run a domain of mine through Google's free domain/email hosting. It's a hell of a lot better (so far) than the paid email hosting you get through Network Solutions, or similar.
It's not their job to make moral judgments on their clients. Their client has a grievance, their client is paying them to pursue that grievance. They may choose not to pursue it, but really, this is hardly a situation where you're going to excuse yourself for moral reasons.
Psssh. Ass-money is the least of your problems. Mass layoffs, pay cuts...I basically got another paper handed to me, a doubled work load, with no extra resources.
Gotta love the guys running the little free papers. I ran one myself once. 20,000 circ, 7 full time employees, worked out of a shithole office. I tell ya, though, I was always man enough to stand behind my opnions.
We made enough to keep going. That's about as good as it gets for those papers. Some months better, some months a lot worse.
Anyway, free papers are taking it in the ass right now too. The Loaf had huge layoffs. The guy here in town who thinks he's our competition has started getting paid in dining room sets, as opposed to, you know, cash.
But whatever. I'm sure your expertise in trollish asshattery will come in handy at some point. It is a valuable skill for someone involved in free papers.
How could it raise monopoly issues? Almost every industry charges for its products. Are you going to sue the auto industry for charging for cars? Producing as much news content as even a small paper produces in a day is expensive. Lot of full time employees.
From my own experience, given the amount we make on online ad revenue, we won't be able to survive without charging some small fee. If everyone who doesn't charge goes out of business, it'll amount to the same thing.
If you can't be bothered to read my post on the AP, which is right above this one, why should I be bothered to read whatever you wrote after "...pay out the ass for AP subscriptions..."
We pay less for our AP subscription than we pay on maintenance for our accounting mainframe. It ain't breaking the bank.
An infinite good? Are you out of your fucking mind? They pay millions of dollars a day to produce that good. As they go out of business, you'll see how infinite it really is.
You don't know your numbers regarding the actual subscription cost of the paper, either. Newspapers can break even on their printing and distribution costs for the physical product, when we're just talking subscriber circulation. Add in the single copy (the ones you buy in the stores, or from the boxes) and they make a large chunk of their operating expenses, just on that alone.
Ad revenue goes on top of that, and, for most newspapers today, helps pay corporate costs.
People who say that ad revenue can pay for the whole product don't know what they're talking about. And that goes double for internet ad revenue, which is a very small proportion of overall ad revenue. Look at little weekly entertainment papers! Do you see them thriving on ad revenue alone? It's lucky if they can afford an office, and any significant full time staff.
It is a thorny problem, though there are other ways to do it. Join up with the ISPs and offer your content, through them, using subscriptions. No subscription, no content.
In the long run, the content needs to pay for itself. News content is often thankless to produce, and it takes funding and full-time work to do a good job.
I think enough people want the content that monetizing it is no more difficult an idea than selling a physical product. The mechanism is the problem.
Associated Press. Associated. Most of the stories that go on news services were written by local newspapers who subscribe to those services...That's the whole point. When you get an AP story from bumfuck illinois, do you really think that the AP has an office there? That they're going to waste their time sending a reporter there?
The AP and Reuters employ very few reporters in comparison to the organizations who feed them their content.
What business model? Newspapers pay out the ass to create content, put it online for free, hemorrhage subscribers, and go broke? It's very Web 2.0, I'll give you that.
I think he's right. They're not gaining enough from putting it online for free to justify continuing the experiment. Our (I work for a newspaper) own numbers are still going up, but they're not going up enough...The online revenue isn't going to stabilize at a level that's high enough to allow the business to continue.
I've been harping on flipping the pay model for a while: right now a lot of papers charge for archival data...Stuff that's old, and has a very limited earnings potential...And give away the current stuff for free. If you flip that, and charge for anything in depth for the last 14 days(or so), and then release everything older than that for free, you keep your internet revenue stream, while still driving a viable pay product.
So, if Gannett and McClatchy and some of the other big boys follow suit, you don't think that's going to cause massive problems for free aggregator sites?
This is a big deal. No one in the industry is making any money, the vast majority of papers are controlled by big corporations that absolutely can make this sort of decision arbitrarily. If News corp doesn't show a massive drop in profits (and they won't, since the online revenue is shit) then others will follow their lead.
How is MySpace a massive success? It doesn't make any fricking MONEY.
It's not about readership. A zillion readers who don't pay is still useless. Ad revenue, especially internet ad revenue, just doesn't cut it.
What you should be worried about as a consumer of free media is what happens when the New York Times, LA Time, Washington Post, and all the other top-tier papers follow suit? They are dying to do so, I assure you.
It only took one to start the "free" ball rolling. It'll take more to turn it around, but this is a huge start.
Newspapers are having money problems, but it's not because no one reads: more people read than ever before. It's because they're giving away their content. They simply can't afford to keep doing that...The money they make (from ads) by putting it up for free is tiny in comparison to what they make from their pay product.
I've been predicting that the pay model would come back for a while. I'm not surprised it has.
It reduces the profitablility of ransacking historic sites and graves that might otherwise be studied scientifically.
Fuck collectors, they're 99% of the problem. And if it's good enough to fool a curator, then it's good enough to display in a museum. Not like the average schmuck walking through the museum is going to know the difference.
"100% Authentic" is a classic example of a common advertising dodge. It's not a sentence, it's a meaningless fragment without an object, subject, or a verb. The implication is that you're saying that the object right there on the same page is 100% authentic, but they're not responsible for your misunderstanding.
This is a particularly good example, because the sentence not only lacks an object, it also lacks the object that is supposed to be related to the object by the descriptor "authentic". Not only do we not know what is supposed to be authentic, but we don't what class of thing it's supposed supposed to be an authentic member of!
So (unknown object) (is a) 100% Authentic (unknown thing). A perfectly meaningless sentence fragment. Caveat Emptor.
Wow, who could have ever thought new technology could have beneficial side effects? That's just crazy.
I'm glad to see this get press. Maybe some people will think twice about jumping on the alarmist "Must Fear Everything New" bandwagon.
Then again, it double's their potential for attention-whoredom: make news talking up your baseless dire predictions, then make news with the shocking revelation that, not only did your predicts not come true, the opposite happened! Who could have seen this amazing twist ending!
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. In an american court this would be a slam dunk for censure as the payee is clearly acting in bad faith with no desire to obey the legally mandated terms of the settlement.
This whole trial has revolved around bad faith for me. In a wholly technical sense, they have done nothing wrong. But their intent has clearly been to defraud/infringe copyright/etc.
It's just like the whole situation with Grokster. They marketed themselves specifically as a tool to download copyrighted content, and the courts ruled that that was clearly Inducement and that they were therefore liable.
TPB says, when confronted, "We have no control over what people put on our service" and then they turn around and specifically mock the people who complain about it. That just doesn't fly with the judicial system.
Well, my home network is mostly wired, so the reverse holds true...The monitor only messes with my laptop, and even then, only occasionally (it loses its channel setting when the power goes out, so power blips, laptop internet tanks).
Just from personal experience, the monitors have a good 100 yard range, so you can go do yard work and stuff and not have to worry that the baby is awake and screaming it's head off. You can also do a better job of soundproofing their room...My office is next door, and I have a clicky keyboard, and blah blah blah. It's handy when you can move 'em around.
The thing is, they already use the same band. I had issues with mine, and I've got the only baby for like 200 meters, and I sprung for a high-end digital monitor with a lower footprint on the band.
They offer the ability to switch channels, but I can see how having 5 or 6 of 'em around, with multiple APs, there would be problems.
I'd be perfectly willing to have a network enabled monitor, I'm just not sure how that would solve the problem. The damn things have to broadcast more or less constantly to do their jobs, so it's going to be a fricking ton of traffic regardless...
Frankly, the best case would be to restrict monitors to a subset of the band, to keep them from screwing with routers, and if your neighbors have a couple of monitors and they're causing problems with your monitors, you can just set their house on fire or something.
Hopefully some of the newly open space on the spectrum can help with this crap. The tiny sliver we've got is way over utilized.
"How can you kill...That which has no life?"
This is actually very similar to what Apple did...They kept OS 9 support on all systems that had the old power PC processors. Once you bought intel, however, no more OS 9, no matter what version of OS X you were using.
Like anything else, users will have to decide for themselves if there is anything that is good enough to make them upgrade.
I run a domain of mine through Google's free domain/email hosting. It's a hell of a lot better (so far) than the paid email hosting you get through Network Solutions, or similar.
It's not their job to make moral judgments on their clients. Their client has a grievance, their client is paying them to pursue that grievance. They may choose not to pursue it, but really, this is hardly a situation where you're going to excuse yourself for moral reasons.
Sure, sure. Whatever you say chief.
Psssh. Ass-money is the least of your problems. Mass layoffs, pay cuts...I basically got another paper handed to me, a doubled work load, with no extra resources.
Gotta love the guys running the little free papers. I ran one myself once. 20,000 circ, 7 full time employees, worked out of a shithole office. I tell ya, though, I was always man enough to stand behind my opnions.
We made enough to keep going. That's about as good as it gets for those papers. Some months better, some months a lot worse.
Anyway, free papers are taking it in the ass right now too. The Loaf had huge layoffs. The guy here in town who thinks he's our competition has started getting paid in dining room sets, as opposed to, you know, cash.
But whatever. I'm sure your expertise in trollish asshattery will come in handy at some point. It is a valuable skill for someone involved in free papers.
How could it raise monopoly issues? Almost every industry charges for its products. Are you going to sue the auto industry for charging for cars? Producing as much news content as even a small paper produces in a day is expensive. Lot of full time employees.
From my own experience, given the amount we make on online ad revenue, we won't be able to survive without charging some small fee. If everyone who doesn't charge goes out of business, it'll amount to the same thing.
If you can't be bothered to read my post on the AP, which is right above this one, why should I be bothered to read whatever you wrote after "...pay out the ass for AP subscriptions..."
We pay less for our AP subscription than we pay on maintenance for our accounting mainframe. It ain't breaking the bank.
I think those researchers must have read Galapagos.
I think it's unlikely that the trait that allowed us to survive so many other environments would be selected against in a challenging environment.
An infinite good? Are you out of your fucking mind? They pay millions of dollars a day to produce that good. As they go out of business, you'll see how infinite it really is.
You don't know your numbers regarding the actual subscription cost of the paper, either. Newspapers can break even on their printing and distribution costs for the physical product, when we're just talking subscriber circulation. Add in the single copy (the ones you buy in the stores, or from the boxes) and they make a large chunk of their operating expenses, just on that alone.
Ad revenue goes on top of that, and, for most newspapers today, helps pay corporate costs.
People who say that ad revenue can pay for the whole product don't know what they're talking about. And that goes double for internet ad revenue, which is a very small proportion of overall ad revenue. Look at little weekly entertainment papers! Do you see them thriving on ad revenue alone? It's lucky if they can afford an office, and any significant full time staff.
It is a thorny problem, though there are other ways to do it. Join up with the ISPs and offer your content, through them, using subscriptions. No subscription, no content.
In the long run, the content needs to pay for itself. News content is often thankless to produce, and it takes funding and full-time work to do a good job.
I think enough people want the content that monetizing it is no more difficult an idea than selling a physical product. The mechanism is the problem.
Associated Press. Associated. Most of the stories that go on news services were written by local newspapers who subscribe to those services...That's the whole point. When you get an AP story from bumfuck illinois, do you really think that the AP has an office there? That they're going to waste their time sending a reporter there?
The AP and Reuters employ very few reporters in comparison to the organizations who feed them their content.
Anyway, the AP was talking about requiring payment months ago. I posted in that thread as well, and, among other things, predicted that newspapers would, again, start charging for their web content.
What business model? Newspapers pay out the ass to create content, put it online for free, hemorrhage subscribers, and go broke? It's very Web 2.0, I'll give you that.
I think he's right. They're not gaining enough from putting it online for free to justify continuing the experiment. Our (I work for a newspaper) own numbers are still going up, but they're not going up enough...The online revenue isn't going to stabilize at a level that's high enough to allow the business to continue.
I've been harping on flipping the pay model for a while: right now a lot of papers charge for archival data...Stuff that's old, and has a very limited earnings potential...And give away the current stuff for free. If you flip that, and charge for anything in depth for the last 14 days(or so), and then release everything older than that for free, you keep your internet revenue stream, while still driving a viable pay product.
So, if Gannett and McClatchy and some of the other big boys follow suit, you don't think that's going to cause massive problems for free aggregator sites?
This is a big deal. No one in the industry is making any money, the vast majority of papers are controlled by big corporations that absolutely can make this sort of decision arbitrarily. If News corp doesn't show a massive drop in profits (and they won't, since the online revenue is shit) then others will follow their lead.
How is MySpace a massive success? It doesn't make any fricking MONEY.
It's not about readership. A zillion readers who don't pay is still useless. Ad revenue, especially internet ad revenue, just doesn't cut it.
What you should be worried about as a consumer of free media is what happens when the New York Times, LA Time, Washington Post, and all the other top-tier papers follow suit? They are dying to do so, I assure you.
It only took one to start the "free" ball rolling. It'll take more to turn it around, but this is a huge start.
Newspapers are having money problems, but it's not because no one reads: more people read than ever before. It's because they're giving away their content. They simply can't afford to keep doing that...The money they make (from ads) by putting it up for free is tiny in comparison to what they make from their pay product.
I've been predicting that the pay model would come back for a while. I'm not surprised it has.
Oblig. Bash.org
It reduces the profitablility of ransacking historic sites and graves that might otherwise be studied scientifically.
Fuck collectors, they're 99% of the problem. And if it's good enough to fool a curator, then it's good enough to display in a museum. Not like the average schmuck walking through the museum is going to know the difference.
Heh. It's like Ms. California's boobs(psfw)...Real, but not natural.
"100% Authentic" is a classic example of a common advertising dodge. It's not a sentence, it's a meaningless fragment without an object, subject, or a verb. The implication is that you're saying that the object right there on the same page is 100% authentic, but they're not responsible for your misunderstanding.
This is a particularly good example, because the sentence not only lacks an object, it also lacks the object that is supposed to be related to the object by the descriptor "authentic". Not only do we not know what is supposed to be authentic, but we don't what class of thing it's supposed supposed to be an authentic member of!
So (unknown object) (is a) 100% Authentic (unknown thing). A perfectly meaningless sentence fragment. Caveat Emptor.
Wow, who could have ever thought new technology could have beneficial side effects? That's just crazy.
I'm glad to see this get press. Maybe some people will think twice about jumping on the alarmist "Must Fear Everything New" bandwagon.
Then again, it double's their potential for attention-whoredom: make news talking up your baseless dire predictions, then make news with the shocking revelation that, not only did your predicts not come true, the opposite happened! Who could have seen this amazing twist ending!