A formula I've used is to take yourselves out of the equation. Pretend that you are going to hire outsiders to do the design and dev work. Decide how you would split the profit, given that you would be doing zero work yourselves.
Then bill your time back against the revenue at realistic hourly rates for the qualifications and experience. Finally split the profit as decided above.
Good idea. I often have questions where I'd like to canvas the views of other developers. Given the popularity of a lot of closed questions on SO, I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
Don't much like the drill-down aspect. When you click on a question (/topics/blahblah), I'd rather see one long single-column page with everything on it. The Select Viewpoint nav bar could stay with you, as you scroll, for convenience.
"Copyright was never about rights holders making money."
Here's a quote from the Statute of Anne:
"Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:"
Also copyright doesn't protect ideas.
Also the "high quality ideas (and shit)" are not free. High quality work is expensive, but may be free to you because they are subsidised. A model not without its problems.
Well, one problem with this is that most authors don't hold the rights to their works and it's not possible to get their permission. I think if all I had to do to publish a homemade video to Weird Al song was get Al's permission, it would be pretty sensible. But he signed away his right to a corp who will fight to the death to extend and exclusively control the work. The authors would have a much better sense of whether a derivative work robs them of income or is reasonable.
Also, high quality work is expensive. And in the old days, it probably took decades to recoup costs when books were prohibitively expensive. But when a film these days make 100MM in its premiere, I think we need to seriously shorten copyright terms.
Thanks for that. I am assuming too much in favor of the public interest at the expense of authors. However, today's debate does acknowledge that there was and is a public interest in dissemination, which helps to support copyright law.
Linguistic amendments were also included; the line in the preamble emphasising that authors possessed books as they would any other piece of property was dropped, and the bill moved from something designed "for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof" to a bill "for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies".[39] Another amendment allowed anyone to own and trade in copies of books, undermining the Stationers.[39] Other changes were made when the bill went to the House of Lords, and it was finally returned to the Commons on 5 April. The aims of the resulting statute are debated; Ronan Deazley suggests that the intent was to balance the rights of the author, publisher and public in such a way as to ensure the maximum dissemination of works,[40] while other academics argue that the bill was intended to protect the Company's monopoly or, conversely, to weaken it. Oren Bracha, writing in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, says that when considering which of these options are correct, "the most probable answer [is] all of them".[41] Whatever the motivations, the bill was passed on 5 April 1710, and is commonly known simply as the Statute of Anne due its passage during the reign of Queen Anne.[42]
Seems to me the flaw in the plan here is that we're talking about asking the user for permission, when we should be asking the contact. I don't want Path to have my contact details, but anyone who has me in their address book is able to provide them. Asking the user for address book permission doesn't fix that.
If you give your contact information to another person but what to technologically restrict how that information can be disseminated after that you are asking for DRM.
My comment wasn't asking for anything. I was pointing out that an "allow access to address book" dialog wasn't going to solve the underlying problem, which is that unlike location services, the data you are giving access to is someone else's.
Don't think so. I use a fair number of web apps and can't think of a single one that I wouldn't prefer to have a well designed desktop version of. Gmail, google reader, google calendar, twitter etc I use desktop apps.
Ghee is milk fat. The clarification process removes the water and protein from the butter.