It depends on what I'm looking for. People I know, local news, objective data, just trying different places until I find one I like. There are no great answers.
Sorry, but this is not an accurate summary of the state of the law. Whether Android's implementation of Java was fair use is one of the questions the Supreme Court is considering. Google was absolutely trying to achieve interoperability with Java, so if Google loses it would make it more difficult for others to claim fair use. Fair use is complicated so others might succeed where Google failed, but a loss for Google would be bad news for interoperability generally.
> Google was absolutely trying to achieve interoperability with Java
I don't think this is such an easy argument. Google's interest was ultimately the bottom line.
Without discussing the copyrightability, from a strictly monetary perspective, APIs are product that, in this case, has a very high monetary value (market share == $$$), and Google chose it for this very specific reason (developers == market share == $$$). Again, I don't imply that copyrightability is good or bad, but the entire matter has been about money, and strictly from that perspective, ownership has a sense.
I don't believe that Google was really trying to achieve interoperability. If it was then they would have passed the Java Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK) tests. Other companies did that and are legally in the clear for their Java implementations. Why didn't Google?
I'm not privy to Google's management thinking but I suspect they made that decision to save time and hit a market window. Android originally used the open source Apache Harmony Java implementation which didn't comply with the Sun (Oracle) Java license for the TCK. If Google had dropped Harmony they would have had to either write their own Java implementation from scratch or license one from another vendor like IBM. They had plenty of resources to pursue those other options but either one would have take more time and allowed Apple to build a lead in the smartphone market. So Google stuck with Harmony and now they're facing the legal consequences.
No, it's closer to the opposite. The statute says that the courts "may, only to the extent necessary" charge fees for access to PACER. I don't think there would be any legal barrier to the courts eliminating the paywall other than the courts have become dependent on the revenue stream. I suppose in that sense Congress has forced it to exist by failing to provide an alternative funding source.
You would think 10¢ per page would be excessive though. Thankfully, that ruling a few weeks ago agreed. I could understand that cost if you had to go to an actual courthouse and have a clerk photocopy it for you, but the cost of transferring a PDF of these sizes over the internet is less than 10¢ per document.
Man, you're reading way too much into my headline. The headline describes the article accurately: I created a deepfake. It took me two weeks and I spent $552. The headline doesn't say anything about whether it was convincing or not.
> The headline doesn't say anything about whether it was convincing or not.
I guess I always assumed the 'deep' in deepfake meant it was convincing, but upon further consideration it's probably just a nod to DNNs. Well played sir.
Absolutely, but they have that influence and so far they've mostly been using it in ways that make journalism worse (creating powerful incentives for shallow articles with clickbait headlines). This seems like a step in the right direction.
The question is how you want to characterize an iPhone. If the phone is Apple's property that they're letting you use, then Apple's app store restrictions are analogous to McDonalds deciding what going on their menu. If the iPhone is a product that you bought from Apple, then Apple's app store policies are equivalent to GE selling me an oven that will only cook food purchased from GE's grocery store.
Luckily, oven technology doesn't really make that business model feasible so GE doesn't try to do it. But I think there are reasons for antitrust authorities to take a careful look at the behavior of companies that do have this kind of power over their customers.
But none of those things are a monopoly. A GE oven that only cooks GE food isn’t a monopoly, it’s just a shitty oven.
Plus, monopolies aren’t illegal, using them anti-competitively is. So the analogy would be GE buying or putting out of business all the other oven makers, then saying you can only cook GE food in a GE oven.
Author here. What do you mean by "short?" The piece is 1,500 words, which is about double the length of a typical newspaper column.
I'm not going to get into the exact economics, but Ars writers write about a piece a day, and the average piece gets tens of thousands of visitors. Revenue per article (for most mainstream news site, not just Ars) is significantly better than $0.001 per visitor. High-end advertisers are willing to pay a premium to put their ads next to high-quality content and to know the demographics of the people seeing their ads. None of us is getting rich doing this though!
We're also fortunate to have a significant base of paying subscribers, which makes it easier for us to write in-depth pieces that might not generate enough revenue from ads alone.
First of all, let me say that I liked the article. I am the one who posted it to HN after all.
Maybe "short" was not the perfect word to express what I mean. I mean that the message/idea is kind of short. It's almost like a showerthought "See this chart? It looks like they are in the red all the time. But think of it this way: They build success after success. They could have been profitable ever since Model S. But they keep investing in bigger projects instead.".
Interesting, that the revenue is significantly higher then $0.001 per visitor. Because it looks like the main ad spots are filled with Google Ads. Which I run too. Do advertisers really target specific sites manually via Google Ads? I would have thought they do that algorithmically based on demographic factors.
Mainstream news sites aren't going to give you the kind of super-deep insights you're going to find in academic research or trade press or whatever. 90 percent of any site's audience knows very little about any given topic, so laying out obvious-to-insiders ideas in a clear way is a significant value for the average reader. Ars readers are more technically savvy than most sites but most of them are not experts on corporate finance.
I do not know very much about the specifics of Ars's ad sales strategy. I would guess Google pays more to established sites. Also, if you're seeing a Google ad that might be because they didn't have a higher-paying direct-sale competitor for that particular impression.
