Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Gary Farber
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Inspiration and repetition on Scobleizer
It's still "Andrew Olmsted" who was killed.
The old saying used to be that if someone was killed, at least get my name right.
I think Andy would appreciate it if you'd bother to get his name right.
Thanks.
The old saying used to be that if someone was killed, at least get my name right.
I think Andy would appreciate it if you'd bother to get his name right.
Thanks.
1 year ago
in Death of a blogger: The last post on Mathew's comments
Olmsted. Not "Olmstead."
1 reply
mathewi
Oops. Thanks, Gary. Fixed.
3 years ago
in Blogburst Backlash on Plagiarism Today
"It would require that all of their partners remove Blogburst-referred content automatically after X number of years and have a system in place to deal with bloggers that change their mind. A license requiring payment would demand a financial infrastructure they do not have in place."
This is actually not remotely a problem, as witness the contract offered by competitors such as TexTile, which I'll get around to blogging about.
And their excuse about not having money upfront is nonsense. The whole point of a royalty is that it isn't money upfront. It's money that is a percentage of profits earned. No profits into Blogburst, no outlay by them to bloggers.
Claiming otherwise is a lie.
The point of a royalty is that it calls for a percentage of profits, not a percentage of income (this can cause problems and a need for audits of dishonest publishers, but I won't go into that here).
But claiming that it's a strain to not grant royalties, a grant only of a share of deserved profits, and not income, is blatantly dishonest, given that it glosses over this basic fact.
If there's no profit to the company, in this case Blogburst, they have no outlays to make, and no problem.
What they're objecting to us sharing profits, not income. That's the Big Lie they're making. And that makes me doubt their good faith (though possibly they're simply completely clueless).
I've updated my post to link to yours.
I'll probably get around to expanding on this in a while, though I expect to be busy and not blogging much for a couple of days.
Incidentally, recent posts on plagiarism include this not quite example by Ron Fournier, this about William H. Swanson, chief of Raytheon, and this, amongst various others in the past.
This is actually not remotely a problem, as witness the contract offered by competitors such as TexTile, which I'll get around to blogging about.
And their excuse about not having money upfront is nonsense. The whole point of a royalty is that it isn't money upfront. It's money that is a percentage of profits earned. No profits into Blogburst, no outlay by them to bloggers.
Claiming otherwise is a lie.
The point of a royalty is that it calls for a percentage of profits, not a percentage of income (this can cause problems and a need for audits of dishonest publishers, but I won't go into that here).
But claiming that it's a strain to not grant royalties, a grant only of a share of deserved profits, and not income, is blatantly dishonest, given that it glosses over this basic fact.
If there's no profit to the company, in this case Blogburst, they have no outlays to make, and no problem.
What they're objecting to us sharing profits, not income. That's the Big Lie they're making. And that makes me doubt their good faith (though possibly they're simply completely clueless).
I've updated my post to link to yours.
I'll probably get around to expanding on this in a while, though I expect to be busy and not blogging much for a couple of days.
Incidentally, recent posts on plagiarism include this not quite example by Ron Fournier, this about William H. Swanson, chief of Raytheon, and this, amongst various others in the past.