Recent Posts
NOW you come up with the idea as I've started to learn how to not click POST during a heavy drinking session...-Renegade (March 10, 2012, 01:40 AM)
The buttons get progressively more vibrant and larger, eventually occupying the entire screen, so the user really has no way to post.-nosh (March 10, 2012, 01:30 AM)
@iphigenie - If you do in fact decide you absolutely must re-encode 500 CDs, I can give you the name of an excellent psychologist I know. She specializes in the treatment of OCD.
-40hz (March 09, 2012, 08:55 AM)
He had an accident lately (January) not sure where I read about it, but apparently he will be ok.-tomos (March 08, 2012, 12:24 PM)
So I take it no one liked my "Ad Page" idea in either of it's forms.No, that's not true in my case. I didn't dislike the idea in either form, but it didn't seem that you were all that serious about it... (Sorry.)-TaoPhoenix (March 05, 2012, 06:19 AM)
And in any event, your idea(s) didn't really seem to encourage the unabandonment of "the one month ad experiment".
I had thought the idea of this experiment could potentially realise some concrete and useful information/knowledge if it were implemented, and that just might lead to
..."Action which is not based on sound theory or "best"/good practice is irrational by definition." (WE Deming)
Thus, I figured that thinking about how to build a sturdy hypothesis for the experiment might be more immediately useful (right now) than innovative ideas - e.g., like yours.-IainB (March 05, 2012, 08:11 AM)
PResumably if it is not in the public domain in the US then you can't sell it as though it was - which seems fair enough.
Sooner or later someone will have to sort out the broken copyright laws - we live in a global marketplace now and one set of agreed rules should apply. It would be good to have a new set of rules drawn up - preferably without US media interests being the dominant force!-Carol Haynes (March 03, 2012, 05:50 AM)
We do need a rational, fair, and unified international copyright law. Desperately.
But I think we'll see cheap and abundant fusion energy deployed globally, war abolished, and hunger and disease completely eliminated before we see a copyright law like that.-40hz (March 03, 2012, 07:59 AM)
There are search engines and some commercial apps that are taking output from google search and removing the redirects and presenting it to users. Scroogle isn't the only in town for that. I am sure like this other search engines like dogpile that will die soon. So google is taking things seriously and hitting on services which are against their business model. As for google being charity, that's funny, google was known to spend money on useless stuff like - labs, summer of code, random contests, doodles from users and amazon gift certificates for answering their stupid 1 page survey. Sure all that was for their own benefit in one way or the other, but it was no less than charity in marketing sense.
If tomorrow bing takes data out of duckduckgo, expect gabriel to close DDG as well. Big point here is - nobody is trying to see the big picture due to the cost involved and hence leeching out on each other for solution.-mahesh2k (March 03, 2012, 11:13 AM)
And here I was planning how to target google ads so they would appear here, to sell my wine.
All in vain... although I hadnt figured it out yet-iphigenie (March 02, 2012, 04:28 PM)
Ok.. after chewing over everyone's comments, I decided to abandon the one month ad experiment for now.
Not because I think there is anything wrong with experimenting -- but because I think the comments exposed that I didn't have a good reason for doing it other than basic curiosity. So I think instead we will wait until there is some question worth answering -- some new idea to experiment with. If you think of anything that might be worth an experiment let us know.-mouser (March 02, 2012, 03:21 AM)
Agreed, and being a have your cake and eat it too kind of guy. I'd say why not do both... Leave the main page/site intact and untouched. Then put up a separate (but site accessable) Ad experiment page that clearly says this is an experiment at the top...and contains only ads below. That way participation could be complete voluntary for those that could/would/did go to said page periodically to effect the necessary traffic.-Stoic Joker (March 02, 2012, 06:53 AM)
The real problem with Creative Commons IMO is that they tried to keep it loose and on the honor system while at the same time trying to give it some legal 'teeth.'
That doesn't usually fly in a courtroom.
While I admire the motivation and the philosophy behind it, I can't help but think it's largely unworkable in its current incarnation. Mainly because it attempts to provide all the protections that a registry would provide - without actually maintaining a registry.
So whenever push comes to shove, it's extremely difficult to enforce CC provisions if a well-financed challenger stepped up to the plate over a given piece of creative work. And all assertions to the contrary on CC's website, it's still not a given. Most judges take a fairly dim view of assertions and appeals to justice in the absence of due diligence and an actual law to fall back on.
If CC wants to be taken seriously, it's going to have to get much more serious about what it's doing. Because right now it's more like a social club than a licensing organization. If you read the policy pages on the website, CC makes all sorts of claims and establishes a fairly specific set of rules. Then it negates it all with the following:Can Creative Commons give legal advice about its licenses or other tools, or help with CC license enforcement?
No. Creative Commons is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or legal services. CC is similar to a self-help service that offers free, form-based legal documents for others to use. CC also provides a jurisdiction database where you can compare the international licenses (formerly known at the "unported licenses") and ports (adaptations of the international licenses for particular jurisdictions), and a license versions page where you can compare the differences between license versions.
The CC wiki has a list of lawyers and organizations who have identified themselves as willing to provide information to others about CC licensing issues. However, please note that CC does not provide referral services, and does not endorse or recommend any person on that list. CC's Affiliate Network may also be a good resource for information about the licenses in a particular jurisdiction, though they should not be contacted for legal advice, at least in their capacity as a member of our CC Affiliate Network.
Who gives permission to use works offered under Creative Commons licenses?
Our licenses and legal tools are intended for use by anyone who holds copyright to the work. This is often, but not always, the creator or author. Creative Commons has no authority to grant permission on behalf of those persons, nor does CC manage those rights on behalf of others. CC offers licenses and tools to the public free of charge and does not require that creators or other rightsholders register with CC in order to apply a CC license to a work. This means that CC does not have special knowledge of who uses the licenses and for what purposes, nor does CC have a way to contact authors beyond means generally available to the public.
If you would like to obtain additional permissions to use the work beyond those granted by the license that has been applied, you should contact the rightsholder.
Does Creative Commons collect or track works licensed under a CC license?
CC does not collect content or track works except by way of example. CC builds technical tools that help the public search for and use works licensed under our licenses and other legal tools. For instance, the CC Network allows creators and users to express their support for Creative Commons, and also provides a tool for creators to authenticate ownership of their works. CC also offers tools like CC Search to help the public discover works offered under Creative Commons licenses on the Internet via CC-aware search engines and repositories.
So ok...there's no registration, no tracking, no support, no legal assistance...just a bunch of 'feel-good' stuff about sharing and being open. All very noble. And I mean that in all sincerity. But it hardly gives a CC license issuer much to work with if somebody violates those rules. Because without an underlying law specifically for CC, or an organization that keeps track of registrations - and attempts to enforce the rules - you're basically just issuing your own personal license. Except in this case, it was written for you by CC.
Not very good protection. More along the lines of using "moral suasion" as they (used to?) teach in management school.
And any good attorney will tell you if you have genuine faith in the notion of "moral suasion" when dealing with business, they have a bridge on Brooklyn they'd like to sell you.-40hz (February 29, 2012, 05:17 AM)