MUSICIAN, PLAY WITH THYSELF: The RIAA is going to lose this fight. Maybe not this lawsuit, and maybe not the next few. But within the next five years it will be over.
Michael Lopez has some predictions about what the music industry will be like a few years down the road and I think he’s probably spot on.
Via Byzantium’s Shores.
Ok, I admit to stealing the title from this Craig Cheslog post which discusses the burden we are placing on our children and likely their children by allowing unnecessary deficits and spending large sums on misplaced policy agendas.
I wonder too about taxing our children today. You all know the principle of no taxation without representation. Why then do we allow federal, state and local governments to tax people who have not yet reached voting age?
More D-Squared. This time on the microprobabily of micropayments. Which leads to:
Micropayments: First Clay Shirky and then Scott McCloud.
Reading Update (9/18): Kip, Longstory; shortpier, thinks micropayments for the right stuff will fly and suggests we also read Dirk Keppey’s supportive discussion at The Comics Journal.
Brian at Samizdata writes at leeennnnggth to suggest we all check out the new blog from the Adam Smith Institute. It may seem too free market for some but if they adhere to free market principles they will be an anathema to bush, et al.
Good Night!
Tim Dunlop analyzes the post-war situation in Iraq.
Kos likes the latest NY Times Bestseller standings.
D-squared reviews the fall out from Cancun:
When push came to shove, the rich nations were not prepared to give an inch to the poor ones on agriculture unless they got their quid pro quo in the form of progress toward an agenda which has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with massively undermining the ability of democratically elected governments to set the terms on which the ownership of the means of production is decided.
Apparently it is getting more difficult for the public to access academic journals. This is not a good thing: check out Scientific American, The Invisible Adjunct and Relevant History who notes:
But just what is it that publishers think they’re protecting? Do they think that members of the general public could constitute a potential new revenue stream that can be tapped if only free public access to journals is eliminated? Were they thinking, “Gee, I would spend $9,000 a year for a subscription to Letters in Neuroscience, but since I can read it for free, I won’t”? And now they will?
Good Night!
Everybody got caught up in Fox’s rediculous ‘fair and balanced’ suit angainst Franken. But how many of you are aware of the effort Verizon is making to play the same game with ‘Can you hear me now?”
Brett Marston has written a number of posts on this trademark issue. Start with his most recent one here and follow his links to his other writings and other materials.
Here is Verizon’s statement of their position:
We are sorry that you feel this way about the lawsuit. However, “The company has spent millions of dollars in advertising and public relations to establish the phrase ‘Can you hear me now’ as a symbol of our network’s quality and our relentless efforts to continue to test and expand our coverage. We will take action against any company or other organization that infringes upon our trademark and damages the valuable brand we have created.”
Apparently Verizon doesn’t like others, especially their union members, using the phrase. As Brett argues it is our language. If Verizon want’s something trademarkable then they should make up some new words.
I think I’ll make an effort to use the phrase regularly, say at least once a week.
Oh, and I wonder what Verizon thinks about this?