DISQUS

Sweet.

Thanks for doing this! I was trying to remember the details from the keynote today and this came in handy. :)

Dell's Digital Nomads thing was done through the Floor64 Insight Community. Floor64 also runs the Techdirt blog (disclaimer: I'm a contributor), and one of the running themes there is the idea that advertising is content and content is advertising.

Hmm.. is Canada across the ocean?

Thanks!

Seems like it just got a lot weaker as a source of news in Canada...

I'm just thinking aloud too, but I think I share some of your skepticism.

Coming from a free software perspective, jailbreaking iPhones is pretty ridiculous to me. If you want a device that respects your freedom, wait for an OpenMoko, or even an Android phone. To pay Apple for chains just because you know how to break them off isn't really unifying money and mouth, and it's certainly not helpful the non-technical users that can't remove the chains so easily.

There's an important difference, I think, between technical users putting effort into jailbreaking iPhones versus supporting the Android or OpenMoko platforms. Most people won't get beyond the defaults... the former isn't helping most people while the latter options are improving the situation for everyone.

Another example... my ISP, Rogers, started hijacking failed DNS lookups over the summer. There was a lot of backlash from technical users, many posting instructions about how to switch to OpenDNS, and within a few weeks, Rogers semi-caved and provided an alternate DNS server that actually follows the standard. Except, only the advanced users are actually going to change their DNS settings. The majority are using the new default.

I don't know... I think it depends on the nature of the particular problem and solution in question. Sometimes, technical users can lead the way... it only takes a few people circumventing DRM and uploading to file sharing networks to make it available to all and to eventually cause the labels to question DRM altogether... but on the other hand, I'm very skeptical at what real good jailbreaking an iPhone does for most people.

Congrats! I'm excited to see what you'll be able to accomplish!

@Dominick: The best defence, short and long term, imho. If you really teach a kid what not to do or look at online, they won't need policing via some software that's guaranteed to be circumventable by any kid with the motivation to do a few google searches.

Why does standing up for yourself have to be at odds with walking away? Couldn't you say something like, "stand up for yourself and don't let the bully drag you down to their level, walk away rather than resorting to violence" or something along those lines... Though, whether or not that's intelligible depends on the age range... *shrugs*

I don't think it's as binary as RMS seems to suggest that it is in that interview, there is a "freedom-respecting" medium. Over at autonomo.us, for example (which the FSF has been supportive of), people in the free software community are working out what it means to be freedom-respecting in the cloud. Take identi.ca for example.

Of course it's inevitable that people will use services that are free and convenient. What's important, from a free software perspective, is to make sure there are more of those services like Identi.ca, less like Google's services (which I admittedly use a lot). RMS gets that on some level at least, though that's still new territory for the FSF that they're currently trying to feel out.

Mmmm.... bad definition.

"If you don’t want to talk about it with your family at the dinner table, and you don’t want to read about it on the front page of the Boston Globe, it’s not ethical."

How about "the great sex I had with my wife last night." I sure wouldn't want that to be dinner table discussion, nor would I want to read about it on the front page of the globe, but I sure as hell hope it's not unethical.


I get the point though, but that's a weak definition, even for a simple one.

Yeah, besides the reactionary nature of the ads... I'm a PC and I don't run Windows. ;)

"Loren Feldman told me that he agrees with Christie, and that he likes to read what I write, and doesn’t care about the comments. That’s very flattering..."

I don't always read the comments either. But sometimes I do, when I disagree or when I want to dig deeper into a story.

But, more importantly, *you* read your comments. Even if the majority of readers don't participate in the comments thread, the fact that you as the writer engage in discussion benefits your future posts! Even the readers who never read the comments will benefit from them as they help you fine tune your points and alert you to new stories and perspectives.

I think that makes a lot of sense. I don't have a particularly methodology for attributed my sources (yet), but my general approach is to link generously, to try and link back to anyone who helped me find the information I'm sharing.

In terms of the specific terminology though, I usually just use "via" if I'm referencing a middle-man... e.g. "Photo by Squeaky Marmot (via www.miss604.com)"

Also, this reminds me of a Techdirt post on the importance of attribution.

Interesting post. I think by Ontario, you mean Quebec though. Not many of us in Ontario are interested in breaking off, but back in 1995 there was a referendum in Quebec which almost split the country. There's a political party in Canada which has the Quebec separatist movement as its sole reason of being.

In other words, I think you're inventing the distinction between modified and derivative works. That's not a legal distinction, to the best of my knowledge.

There is, however (at least in the US), a distinction between non-transformative and transformative derivative works.

I'm no lawyer,but I've taken an interest in this sort of thing.

All of those cases are clearly derivative works, except maybe image 3. The Creative Commons tends not to view a picture in a page of text as a derivative work, where as the Free Software Foundation (with the GNU Free Documentation License) believes that would constitute a derivative work. Which of them is right has yet to be seen, and would depend on the theories being tested in court. Or so I've been told.

I don't see how there's any question as to whether a cropped image is legally a derivative work. I think the real question you're asking is about transformative use. I think there's a strong argument that image 1 is transformative, whereas it would be harder to say the same about image 4. Image 3, if considered a derivative of the original, is also clearly transformative.

This is pretty much the opposite of that Nick Carr, "Is Google making us stupid?" article. Very insightful.

I guess the question is... how to you measure the credibility of those rating the authors credibility?

I suppose their answer would be that it'll balance itself out in the end...

But what about controversial topics? Like, abortion or the Iraq war or something. With a service like Wikipedia, the aggregate result of a multitude of contributions is often a compromise, which is ideal. Is a compromise always appropriate for a credibility ranking? I mean, if there's a disagreement about an author's credibility, then sure, a compromise is a great solution, but if there's disagreement about the *beliefs* the author holds, is that something different than credibility?

I mean, can you disagree with someone and still consider them credible? There's a difference between someone being dishonest or having their facts wrong, and someone just coming to a different conclusion than you based on the same credible sources of information.

I have a bit of a hierarchical approach to remembering and sharing web pages...

If I like something in Google Reader, I'll share it. If I really like it, I'll share it and StumbleUpon it (though I just started using StumbleUpon this week). Then, if I *really* like something, I'll share it, StumbleUpon it, and post it to del.icio.us (and sometimes Facebook if I want my friends to see it).

What I find most useful about delicious isn't so much the individual bookmarks, but rather the sort of "streams" that are created. For example, I can link to http://del.icio.us/balleyne/copyright or http://del.icio.us/balleyne/music (or http://del.icio.us/balleyne/copyright+music) in order to share bookmarks with people, and I can grab the RSS from those streams to embed on my website, etc... I find I use that sort of functionality much more than I ever go back in search of any particular bookmark (the FF3 awesome bar is great for that).

So, *shrugs* to the redesign.

Yeah, just reading that post now. :)

But how are they reaping the benefits by pissing off Scrabulous users? The resounding cry from users in response to the lawsuit and takedown isn't "thank God there's finally an official version for us to play!" It's been, "screw you Hasbro, I was having fun."

It's not even a matter of compensating the Agarwalla brothers. It's a matter of making a smart business decision.

This is the thesis of the pirate's dilemna.

The Argarwallas found untapped demand in the market for Hasbro, they created something that renewed interest in the game and got people playing it again in a new way on a new medium. Why not hire these people who are obviously a valuable asset to the business? More importantly, why not buy Scrabulous so that it's *Hasbro's*? Rather than sue them, risk a lot of bad publicity, and risk the likely event that not many people will use Hasbro's version, make the switch to a company that sued their fun offline.

The Economist recently covered this: "in a recent book, “The Pirate’s Dilemma”, Matt Mason gives the example of Nigo, a Japanese designer who took Air Force 1 trainers made by Nike, removed the famous “swoosh” logo, applied his own designs and then sold the resulting shoes in limited editions at $300 a pair under his own label, A Bathing Ape. Instead of suing Nigo, Nike realised that he had spotted a gap in the market. It took a stake in his firm and also launched its own premium “remixes” of its trainers. Mr Mason argues that “the best way to profit from pirates is to copy them.”" [http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750492]

It's certainly within their right to take legal action, but it's a bad business decision and no one wins (Hasbro would be better off taking advantage of Scrabulous).

uh... they'd*