Washington Post Fails To Ask NBC's Rick Cotton Any Tough Questions
from the ah,-the-press dept
Dark Helmet was the first of a few of you to send over this interview by the Washington Post's Cecilia Kang of NBC's Rick Cotton. Cotton, of course, is one of our favorite quote machines. He's the guy who famously claimed that movie downloading was hurting corn farmers of America, because people wouldn't buy popcorn at movies any more (a factually ridiculous statement, considering that (1) box office sales keep going up (2) corn is one of the most heavily subsidized markets and continues to grow and (3) people watching movies at home still eat popcorn). He also considered it a victory, that his efforts made it more difficult for legitimate viewers to watch the Olympics. Kang, by the way, has actually been pretty good in interviews when it comes to telco/broadband stories, so I had high hopes that she would at least ask a couple of tough questions.Instead... she basically accepts his (extremely faulty) premise that all copyright infringement is evil and must be stopped at all costs, talking about how ACTA is "evidence of progress," with a brief aside that "some public interest groups don't like" ACTA. But, then we get to the questions, which are basically "please give us all your talking points, and I won't challenge you on a single one of them." It kicks off with this one:
How do you think Washington needs to approach such a big problem?But, uh, is it really a problem? I mean, this interview takes place just a week or so after the GAO pointed out that the claims of losses from folks like Rick Cotton are basically made up and that there's little evidence to support them. The next question suggests the entire problem is with everyone else on the internet and not, say, NBC's failure to adapt its business model:
What would be a wake-up call for those users to make them change their behavior?Why not ask when will NBC wake up and fix its business model?
From there, the interview veers into Cotton's favorite talking point: that ISPs should be forced to police the interwebs, because his company is too incompetent to do so itself. None of the questions really challenge the basic premise of what he's saying. They only weakly push back, questioning why ISPs would want to do that. The only question that touches on pushback is when she notes that deep packet inspection could be misused, which Cotton brushes off.
But, really, the final question is the kicker. It's sort of the opposite of the "and when did you stop beating your wife" variety, in that it sets up a totally false premise as a layup for Cotton:
Are you saying the opponents of the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement aren't offering solutions?To which Cotton slams the ball home by lying:
Yes. They are about just saying no. No is the only answer. That is not only not constructive, I think it is actively destructive. What strikes me is that everyone marvels at technology of a search engine that can go out and identify 10 million returns in 0.002 of a second. But they say that that same technology has nothing to contribute or can only be a destructive force.But, of course, none of that is true, and you would think that a reporter for the Washington Post would be armed with the facts to question such blatantly wrong talking points. Opponents of ACTA have detailed over and over again the serious problems of what's in it. They've talked about the faulty premise that Kang and Cotton keep up through the whole interview that infringement is a legal problem that requires getting the gov't to prop up NBC, rather than a business model problem of NBC refusing to adapt to a changing market.
Opponents of ACTA offer up all sorts of solutions: starting with NBC no longer running to the government demanding protection, but instead updating its business model and focusing on offering more products that its customers actually want. This was an incredibly disappointing interview. I would have expected better.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cecilia kang, copyright, rick cotton
Companies: nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Village "Journalist" has no critical thinking skills
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So says Rick Cotton, renowned understander of nothing about technology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Village "Journalist" has no critical thinking skills
"We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye "
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First of all, if those users aren't going to pay anyways then you haven't lost anything.
Secondly, If you're right and stand on the moral high ground then you shouldn't have a problem getting enough others to pay without laws requiring it. Unless you are implying that very few people would pay and it is unethical for most people not to pay which implies that you are the ultimate authority of morality and that your moral judgment is somehow superior than those who compose the majority of the population. If this is the case the public should take this as an insult and as more reason to ignore you. If there is a large enough percentage of the population who won't pay without laws requiring them to then who are you to tell them that your moral judgment is better than theirs? If it truly is then you shouldn't have a problem getting enough people to voluntarily pay without laws.
Thirdly, you deliberately ignore how broken the existing laws are, the fact that you unfairly benefit from these unethical laws, and instead focus on how to make copy privilege laws even worse. You censor any meaningful opposing views. This is unethical. Why should I trust your moral judgment? Put Mike Masnick on your show and let me see what he has to say on the subject? You won't, he would make you look like a fool and you are unethical for not allowing him and people like him on your show to discuss the matter meaningfully. You unfairly benefit from the monopoly power the the government wrongfully grants you and then you turn around and abuse that monopoly power by only presenting one side of the issue. I have absolutely no reason to trust your moral judgment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course she would not ask the tough questions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh, and only presenting only one side of the issue would be fine if the government did nothing to restrict competition in the field of public broadcasting and cableco infrastructure/information distribution. But they do, and so presenting only one side of the issue is an unethical abuse of your monopoly power. But the big corporations in the U.S. / U.K. always get their way, and they get held to a lower standard than what the laws require when they do something illegal (ie: Pfizer). Just like with this whole oil spill problem those responsible will likely not be adequately punished. Instead, the U.S. simply gives into lobbyists that want to save a few bucks by not installing an acoustic valve or some other preventative device that all other countries require and look how much it ends up costing. Then the U.S. wants to turn around and tell other countries how to enact laws, as if the U.S. can do a better job because the corporations say so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
An interesting thought just occured to me. What if ACTA is partially an attempt to maintain control over the "Mass news" market. To prevent the rise of social media and the implications of that rise. News by the masses, uncontrolable, corrected by anyone, fact checked by anyone.
xxx note entry) News Blogs should contain a Story correction, factual error, missing info, historical information, comment section to go with the "paperboy"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
take it easy
That's why everyone watches Colbert Report and similar news now. They get the same stuff in a more interesting format. Then they go online during work to read the real news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"unfair" irony
Why do you believe you're entitled to the fruits of another man's labors? You didn't help fund it, you didn't help create it, so why do you think you deserve equal rights in the marketplace when you didn't take any of the risk or put in any of the work?
Google has less competition and more market share than any record label, publisher, or film studio ever had. In that respect they are more of a monopoly than any content creator or copyright holder ever was.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To which Cotton slams the ball home by lying:
Yes. They are about just saying no. No is the only answer. That is not only not constructive, I think it is actively destructive."
ACTA proponents get 95 year copy privileges and yet they have the nerve to try and act like it's ACTA opponents that are uncompromising? SHUT THE HECK UP, YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO TALK. The mere fact that you won't allow opposing arguments to be presented only demonstrates the undefendable nature of your position. These people make me so mad!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "unfair" irony
First of I am entitled to make copies of whatever anyone does. That's my inherit right, you don't like it, don't create, others will. Find another job.
Secondly, in regards to patents, I'm entitled to independently invent or research whatever I want without the need to worry about who has a patent on what and who might sue me for infringement, and lawsuit expenses, even if I will win the lawsuit. Why do you believe you're entitled to tell me what I can and can't do with my property? Get lost and find a real job.
Thirdly, I was referring to the control they have over public airwaves and over any content and news and opinions that can make their way over to our houses via any sort of communication medium (ie: wires, cables, etc...) outside the Internet and over their control over who can build new infrastructure to facilitate communication. Cable companies have no right to have a monopoly on these things, they have no right to prevent others from building new cableco/telco infrastructure, and the government shouldn't grant these privileges. and I have a right to record and freely distribute and do whatever I please with anything that gets broadcasted on PUBLIC airwaves, furthermore, I have an inherit right to use those public airwaves however I see fit without the government interfering. Those public airwaves rightfully belong to the public, not to the corporations, and as such the public rightfully gets to do whatever it pleases with the content delivered on it and they rightfully get to do whatever they please with those public airwaves, they should be used for the PUBLIC good. The government has no right to grant monopolies on those public airwaves and then, worse, to grant monopolies on the content on those public airwaves on top of that. This is unethical, I want these monopolies removed immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "unfair" irony
Why do you believe you're entitled to prevent artists who want to give away their work under a creative commons or similar license from broadcasting their work on public airwaves by enabling special interest groups to control the public airwave spectra? If an artist wants to buy broadcasting equipment and give their work away on public airwaves the FCC and you have NO right to stop them, ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!! Those public airwaves belong to the public, not to you and NOT to some selfish corporations or even the government that grants monopoly power on both the spectra and the content. An artist has a right to give away their work, they have a right to have their work heard on public airwaves, you have NO right to stop them, and the government has NO right to grant monopolies on public airwaves and on the content delivered on those public airwaves.
"Google has less competition and more market share than any record label, publisher, or film studio ever had."
Microsoft has more market share than Google. Why not pick on them? Also, Google has no monopoly on anything, anyone is free to compete, including you. To the extent that Google has market share it's because they earned it by offering people with what they want. To the extent that NBC et al, the record labels, public airwave broadcasters, and cableco companies have market share it's because they stole it by lobbying the government for monopoly power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not entitled to the fruits of another man's labors. I am, however, entitled to copy what he did at my expense, on my own time, on my own property, and use it for my own purposes. If you don't like it, don't make your "labors" public, keep them secret, keep them hidden, keep them under lock and key, and then you have the exclusive right to them. Fair 'nuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The new discourse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The new discourse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Follow the money
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NBC = Next Boring Channel
NBC = Nothing But Crap
NBC = Now Begging Conan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "unfair" irony
For the same reason ANY asset holder receives recurring payments for work they did years ago. Are you against shareholder dividends? Stocks in general? Are you against renting property? Licensing in general?
Or are you just a big fucking hypocrite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Shareholder dividends are based on the works that the company the holder owns is doing now.
"Stocks in general?"
Owning a company with a physical location and physically limited resources is different than owning an idea or the exclusive privilege over a design. Regulating the allocation of physical resources makes much more sense than regulating the allocation of intellectual ideas because physical resources have different limitations than intellectual ideas.
"Are you against renting property?"
Again, you're confusing physical property with intellectual ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They don't "own" it in the sense that it rightfully belongs to them, they merely have privileges over it in the sense that the government grants them those privileges. No one owes them a monopoly on anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Umm, you don't get dividends or rent unless your investment is actually doing something. Dividends are shares of the profit of owning something. You don't get rent unless you provide shelter. Does that make sense?
If I don't provide shelter for someone next month, they aren't going to pay me rent. If my business doesn't make any profit next year, I don't get a dividend.
However, when you record a song, you don't have to do anything ever again. You might haven't picked up a guitar in ten years, but those licensing checks still come in.
The landlord and the business still contribute to society and the economy. That's why they deserve to get paid.
Please explain why a musician's estate deserves to get paid decades after they have died? They aren't contributing to the economy any more at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Nice strawman. I have never said anything to this effect. I believe creative commons artists should have the right to be completely ignored using whatever medium or distribution system they choose.
I'm not "picking" on anyone, merely stating facts that you would obviously rather ignore.
A so-called "natural monopoly" is still a monopoly. I'm sorry if this makes you want to cry into a pillow but that's reality.
Furthermore, anyone is free to compete with the record labels, publishing houses, and movie studios. You can make your own music and upload it to the internet, you can write your own novels and self publish them, and you can direct your own movies and offer them on bittorrent. Of course, these aforementioned industries also fiercely compete with themselves as none of them represent a single, monolithic entity. So how exactly are the various copyright industries "anti-competitive" when they have many orders of magnitude more competition than Google does?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Go make copies of US currency. When you get caught just explain how you have an "inherit right" to do so.
Make a company that sells knock off Coca-Cola using the exact same packaging. When you get sued for trademark infringement just inform them of your "inherent right" to copy whatever you want.
Tell us how that goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Not necessarily. They could just be licensing past works. And even then, it's besides the point, the shareholder still stands to receive "recurring payments" for work performed in the past.
Bullshit cop-out. You have obviously painted yourself into an intellectual corner. The original complaint was "artists receiving recurring payments for work performed in the past". Your current assertion that this is wrong for IP and perfectly fine for physical property is based on nothing legal, moral, or rational.
No. You're just a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That agreement permits you to do certain things with their content--enjoy it, quote it, excerpt it...but not others. It creates no obligation for you. If you want to opt out of the agreement, stop enjoying the content. If you want to renegotiate the agreement, go right ahead. The Internet makes it easier than ever to reach out and touch the people whose content you enjoy.
You seem to feel that your ability to click on an MP3 file and hit control-C control-V makes you a creator of music, and entitled to the privileges of other creators. This is a very strange notion of creation with respect to, e.g. art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Umm, a copyright holder doesn't get royalties unless their investment is actually "doing something" either. Does that make sense? How are you possibly this stupid?
"Those licensing checks" only come in if the IP is still being sold and making a profit. There is also a licensing infrastructure to maintain. If there's units, then you have the manufacturing and distribution systems to maintain. Even if the units are only distributed on the internet there are still hosting, upkeep and advertising costs associated with that. You have elucidated NO differences between IP and physical asset ownership and licensing in your entire meaningless, rambling post.
What a joke.
Please explain how the stockholder or landlord contributes to society and the economy whereas the IP holder doesn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The new discourse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
So then you don't mind us either disbarring the FCC or the FCC enforcing laws ensuring that broadcasters who hold privileges on public airwaves use those privileges for the public good, and not for their own personal agenda, and as such that they do play creative commons music?
"Furthermore, anyone is free to compete with the record labels, publishing houses, and movie studios."
No, there is a difference here, as the monopoly power that the governments grants to public airwave broadcasters and to cableco infrastructure controllers effectively prevents those who create creative commons music and video from using said infrastructure to distribute their content. That is, the record labels and the MPAA et al who get their copy privileged content played on these platforms have an unearned unlevel playing field with respect to delivering and advertising their content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
and the record labels are doing everything in their power to shut down distribution platforms like bit torrent. The unearned control they got over public airwaves to ensure that both the airwaves and the content on those airwaves are monopolized didn't happen overnight, it was an incremental process, and attempts to destroy bit torrent is a step forward in the process of controlling all content on the Internet like they do over public airwaves. These corporations even have almost admit to the fact that they are not just interested in preventing piracy, they want to stop people from offering free alternatives. and, outside the Internet, they have made it very difficult for someone who freely offers their content to distribute it. They want to do the same exact thing to the Internet. They have no right to do what they did outside the Internet (ie: take control of public airwaves and cableco/telco infrastructure the way they have) and they have no right to do what they're trying to do to the Internet as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
If someone builds a house and sells it and that person dies they no longer get paid for the house the built. If someone works for a corporation and they leave and the software they help build stays, they no longer get paid for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
It absolutely is. It's based on the fact that physical property and intellectual thought have different limiting factors. Physical property laws exist, and should exist, only to the extent that they cause more good to society than they cause harm. The argument for the existence of physical property laws is that they cause more good to society than they cause harm. Intellectual property privileges are no exception to this rule. and these privileges, at least the way they are now (ie: copy privilege length and patent laws), cause far more harm then good. In fact, there is very little evidence that they do anything to promote the progress and most of the evidence suggests the opposite. Because physical property and intellectual thought have different limiting factors it makes more sense to allocate it since something physical can't be in two places at once. A thought or idea doesn't suffer from this limitation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
In the case of intellectual property, the fact that they could be licensing past works doesn't mean they have a right to control past works.
"And even then, it's besides the point, the shareholder still stands to receive "recurring payments" for work performed in the past."
They receive recurring payments provided the company can continue providing goods and services that customers buy. It's for their present work that they receive recurring payments, if the company can no longer provide goods and services that customers buy the company goes out of business and the shareholders receive nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
The fact that you can't tell the difference between a physical object and an intellectual idea doesn't make me a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
http://www.usewisdom.com/sayings/patentsj.html
Physical property laws should only exist to the extent that they cause more good to society than they cause harm. You have no inherit right to the computer you own or the house you're in. IP laws are no exception to this rule. The current state of IP is absurd at best, it does not cause more good than harm and it does little to nothing to promote the progress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
It's not my fault you merely ignore the difference and are still too incompetent to tell the difference between a physical object and an intellectual thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
But you won't: you want to enjoy the full benefits of the work of others without assuming any risk at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
What proof do you have, then, that private ownership of property maximizes the benefit for society? Many worldly philosophers heartily disagree. If I can make better or more socially valuable use of your property than you can, why should I not be allowed to take it from you? If you have great wealth and your neighbor goes hungry, how is that just?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
If bittorrent was used only for creative commons music, creative commons films, self published books, and linux distros, no one (including the entertainment industries) would give a shit.
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
To the extent that it doesn't then it should be done away with.
"If I can make better or more socially valuable use of your property than you can, why should I not be allowed to take it from you?"
It's called eminent domain laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
I don't know enough about spectrum to have a useful discussion on it and unlike the majority of the "wiki-expert" readership here I'm unwilling to pretend I do. If it's possible I'm all for the FCC opening up spectrum for public use. Competition from the Creative Commons crowd isn't going to get anyone quaking in their boots. At least, no time soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Not good enough for what, your opinion?
"but the minute someone draws an unfavorable analogy you retreat and claim that no analogy can be drawn whatsoever under any circumstances."
I am merely stating that there is a difference between physical property and intellectual thought and that those differences influence how the two should be governed differently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Except for the fact that I provided evidence to the contrary and you ignore it.
"Sorry."
Sorry for what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
I can't because I don't believe they do. The difference between us is I have problems with the concept of inheritance--in general--not just when it comes to inheritance of IP. The real difference then, is you are a hypocrite on this subject, and I am not.
I also see the rationale behind the utilitarian goal of copyright. What I don't understand is why we shouldn't be "promoting the progress" in ALL endeavors, tangible or intangible. How is it "unfair" and "greedy" for a novelist to pass on his copyrights to his heirs and yet it's completely acceptable for rich daddies to leave millions or billions of dollars for their undeserving sons and grandsons?
Unless you're a hypocrite, the answer is, "it's not".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
You have a problem with a specific analogy, feel free to elaborate. But it is clear from your tactics that you think demagoguery will win the day. I expect little.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Which still doesn't justify having laws that allow the government to subsidize songwriters et al with monopoly privileges. To the extent that I want a song to exist and there is a need, if it were really a scarcity, I can pay someone to make it without anyone getting any copy privileges and people will pay to the extent that such a need exists. To the extent that others are willing to give away their art for free and it fulfills this need, then the free market is perfectly capable of optimally allocating resources. Even if monopolies do encourage more art why should the government subsidize artists with monopoly rents when the free market would otherwise dictate that something else in the economy is marginally more important? I would much rather those artists contribute to the economy elsewhere than get a monopoly subsidy that encourages them to take away from what the free market would deem is a marginally more important endeavor. Why not them become a doctor or something else that the economy deems marginally more important? It's economically inefficient for the government to subsidize certain sectors of the economy because it thinks it knows what the economy needs the most and it knows how to better influence the allocation of resources than the free market. When an artist does art it takes away from other things the artist can do for the economy instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If that's the case then no one "owes" anyone a right to privacy either. You don't "own" your privacy in the sense that it rightfully belongs to you, you merely have privileges over it in the sense that the government grants you those privileges.
All rights are government granted and enforced. "Rights" do not exist in nature, the very concept is the furthest thing from "natural" you could possibly imagine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
I never did any such thing.
"You have a problem with a specific analogy, feel free to elaborate."
The analogy fails on the grounds that it makes more sense for the government to allocate physical property differently than how it should allocate ideas because the two are different and have different limitations. In the case of physical property the government is trying to allocate a limited physical scarcity in everyone's best interest. In the case of an idea the same limiting factors do not exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
We should be.
"How is it "unfair" and "greedy" for a novelist to pass on his copyrights to his heirs and yet it's completely acceptable for rich daddies to leave millions or billions of dollars for their undeserving sons and grandsons? "
For one thing those rich people should have to pay huge property taxes on any property they own and income taxes on any income they receive. Copyright laws do not seem to suffer such property taxes. Some, but not all, patents do suffer property taxes but even then the taxes are minimal and I'm in favor of increasing them and applying property taxes to all patents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
The don't suffer property taxes because they DO SUFFER term limitations. The Rockafellers can filter their their billions down through endless generations of undeserving grand kids, what progress is that promoting exactly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.PDF
Usually the FCC auctions the spectra to the highest bidder (personally I don't really see how this is much different than bribery other than the fact that the money goes to the government in this case). Then, after paying for the spectra those who get the spectra get to use it for their own private interests. It is automatically assumed that those who are willing to pay the most are best able to use them in the public interest. I disagree. No one has an inherit right to those spectra and to the exclusive privilege of using those spectra just because they give "the government", me, or some random person some money. Everyone delegates their right to use the spectra to the government with the expectation that the government will use them for the public interest. I do not see how simply handing them to whomever is willing to pay the most is in the public interest.
I also think that everyone has a right to record, copy, and redistribute anything that is broadcasted on public spectrum. Those public spectrum belong to the public, their emissions cross public property and the private property of many people, and if there were no music or content on it or if there were no licensing laws associated with them and people simply used them to communicate either music, fact, news, or opinion then anyone should be allowed to record it. If nothing meaningful was on that spectra people would be allowed to record whatever is on there be it noise from space and they should be allowed to do whatever they want including analyze it and see maybe if there is ET out there. Simply because some broadcaster who has privileges on said spectra wants to broadcast some music on it does not give anyone a right to prevent me from recording everything on that spectra, making copies of it, and redistributing it to whomever I want. I think it is in the public interest for public spectra to only contain content that anyone can freely record, copy, and redistribute.
Regarding cableco/telco infrastructure, anyone should either be allowed to compete on the existing infrastructure, offering whatever cable stations that anyone wants to offer (ie: if I or Joe Blow wanted to open up a random cheap cable television station and offer it on some cable service that you or Joe Shmoe wishes to offer, then you or Joe Shmoe should be allowed to provide your own cable service on the existing infrastructure or to build new cable/wired infrastructure and Joe Shmoe should be allowed to broadcast my or Joe Blows station on his service), or to build new wired infrastructure as they see fit. Most local governments restrict both actions and this is unacceptable. Not only does the government effectively grant monopoly power on the information distribution platforms outside the Internet, they grant monopoly power (ie: copy privileges) on the content delivered via that infrastructure. This is not acceptable and these unfortunate circumstances were intentionally created by corporate interests and they want to do the same exact thing to the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
If they don't continue to provide society with goods and services to pay for their property taxes they get their property taken away.
"The don't suffer property taxes because they DO SUFFER term limitations."
They should suffer both. Well, really, they shouldn't have a monopoly on anything to begin with, but if we are to grant one then they should suffer both. Furthermore, they should suffer REASONABLE term limitations, none of this 95 year nonsense. 7 year patents and copy privilege terms max. IP holders shouldn't be allowed to make money off of the work of others, if I go through the work of selling a product you have no right to take some of that money just because some government grants you a patent. You want to make money, sell the product yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
If weblockers were used only for creative commons music, creative commons films, self published books, and linux distros, no one (including the entertainment industries) would give a shit.
If the internet was used only for creative commons music, creative commons films, self published books, and linux distros, no one (including the entertainment industries) would give a shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
By being Opt out our current laws obligate others to be psychic or else face potential damages for accidental infringement. Laws that obligate others to be psychic are not acceptable. Copy privilege should be opt in, one should be required to opt in within a reasonable (no more than 60 day) period of time, and all copy privileged material should be listed on some public directory so that everyone can know what is and what isn't infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Exactly, it creates an obligation for everyone else to enforce your rules and go through the cost of determining what is and what is not infringing and being psychic and having to go through the risk of facing potentially bogus takedowns and bogus accusations and having to fight these accusations. Yet it creates little incentive/obligation for privilege holders to ensure that they even have privileges on the content they claim to have privileges on and on the content that they accuse others of infringing upon. No thanks. If someone wants to have privileges on something they should incur the cost necessary to publicly list what they have privileges on (it should be opt in and listed in a public directory that everyone knows) and to ensure that they do have privileges on what they claim to have privileges on and because they are in a better position (it is cheaper for them) to know what they have privileges on than others, if they falsely claim privileges on something they don't have privileges on (be it by accident or intentionally) they should be punished worse than those who accidentally infringe. But our current laws are backwards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
This happens all the time with physical asset inheritance. What's your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Strawman alert.
"and entitled to the privileges of other creators."
You are not entitled to the air you breath but you have a right to it. Likewise, I have a right to copy and paste and listen to whatever work anyone creates and publicly releases.
"This is a very strange notion of creation with respect to, e.g. art."
No, it's not strange. All throughout most of history art and content was created and copied in most countries. Copy privilege laws are strange and, by and large, the governments that represent the largest portions of the population seem to be against IP laws (ie: China) only to have them forced upon them by countries like the U.S. All throughout history the overwhelming majority of people do not believe in copy privilege laws.
In fact, if your notion of what is right is correct, you should have little problems convincing many people to voluntarily pay you what you demand without any laws in place just on moral principle unless you want to argue that the majority of the population is immoral and that only your moral judgment matters. To that the people should take insult. It should only be a very small minority of people who won't pay what you demand on a voluntarily basis. If it is the case that without laws in place requiring people to pay you what you want that most people won't pay you then that suggests most people don't feel such obligations are strange. The reason why you require enforced laws to force people to pay you is because you otherwise won't get that many people to pay you because most people agree with me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
then that suggests that most people feel the lack of such obligations is not strange.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
No they don't. Nothing ever makes its way to the public domain because copyright keeps getting retroactively extended. This does nothing to promote the progress and only serves to promote corporate profits. The reason for these retroactive extensions, especially with regards to out of print/discontinued works, is simply to prevent previous works from competing with new works. and then you try and sit here and tell me that corporations have no intent to restrict competition and that corporate efforts to control the Internet are not intended restrict competitors? Corporations absolutely have every intent to restrict competitors and corporate efforts to control the Internet are exactly intended to restrict competitors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Working under President Washington, and Aaron Burr and George Clinton before being perhaps inspired by others around him to take up the role of President.
Indeed he eventually decided to take the role of "Patent Examiner #1" when he left the executive chamber. He was very clear in his role as Patent Examiner #1 after leaving the Executive Office, where he said:
When ideas get extended, yet there is no commerce, then it presents a problem and perhaps a certain devistation for the Department of Commerce, which the USPTO falls under.
Thomas Jefferson also said "The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered." -- Thomas Jefferson
A very interesting quote indeed but remember, Mr. Cotton works for XFinity, and not for the customers whom his company serves. I suppose this gives him a thrill up his leg. However, I wonder about him sometimes, and if he's trying to prove something to someone.
It's not hard to imagine that he will not have to be loyal to NBC, but to the future company called XFinity, built upon the ideas of many others before him. But, does he worry that they will undoubtedly work to capsize NBC along with other networks?
So what's the problem? Well, Warren Buffet of course, He's become soft to his new friend, Stephen Burke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
"Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#cite_note-7
These people don't care about the public good, they don't care about the public domain, they don't care about the artist, and they don't care about the constitution. They only care about their own profits and their very own words practically give them away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
You are an idiot. Wealthy parents leave "golden goose" PHYSICAL assets to their children all the time. So again, what is your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
Look at it this way: yearly, he sells a lunch on eBay and plays checkers and tether-ball with Bill Gates and suddenly he's the gold standard, and everyone loves him, equating him to Grandpa. No one asks questions when, in his farmer's accent he says "Well, dem thar ratings agencies... Dem be good business models" when he forgets to disclose that they own 17% of Moody's. Maybe when Berkshire Hathaway invested in Goldman, it was because Goldman needed to buy a ratings agency?
Who knows?! In the world of the uber-rich, up is down and black is white.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Except I never agreed to this "default" agreement and so if a picture that you drew reaches the public I have every right to make copies of it and distribute those copies as I see fit.
Now my elected officials, who are supposed to represent me, may have made this agreement for me on my behalf but I disagree with the agreement currently in place and will seek to elect officials that don't make unfair agreements and will seek to encourage others to also elect officials that make more reasonable agreements than the ones currently in place. and that is the whole point of having these discussions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why is it so difficult to just ignore it? Don't enjoy the picture, don't comment on it, don't acknowledge it.
You walk by other people's yards all day without barbequeueing in them. You see people's lawn furniture and don't take it. You see other people's mailboxes on the street unlocked and don't rifle through them? Why is it so difficult to exercise the same modicum of self control when it comes to a picture?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is it so difficult for you to allow others to copy it?
"Don't enjoy the picture,"
If you don't want others to enjoy and copy the picture then don't release it into the public or don't make the picture in the first place. Why is it so hard not to make the picture in the first place and not to release it in the public? Why is it so hard for you to find another job instead of trying to sell copies of pictures and require the rest of society to enforce these ridiculous laws, restricting our behavior and paying the necessary expenses to enforce them, at the expense of our freedoms and the cost required to enforce them.
and if copy privilege laws are opt in then how are people to know what is and what isn't protected upon opening an E - Mail or receiving a picture from someone?
and if that picture makes its way onto monopolized public airwaves, airwaves that shouldn't exclusively belong to you or anyone to begin with, then everyone should be allowed to make copies of it and do what they want with it or else they should demand that your picture doesn't make its way onto public airwaves and take up spectra for other (ie: Creative commons) pictures that they could copy. and the same applies to monopolized cableco infrastructure just as well in cases when the govt grants the monopolies.
"don't comment on it, don't acknowledge it."
So you want to restrict our freedom of speech and our freedoms to comment on it, especially if the picture is political in nature and we are criticizing it, just to protect your retarded privileges? You want to instate laws that control what we can and can't comment on? No thanks.
"Why is it so difficult to exercise the same modicum of self control when it comes to a picture?"
If you want to exercise this self control, be my guest. No one is stopping you. But you have no right to control others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So many Posts, and no time to address them all....
The problem is that *copyright* has nothing to do with providing income to the writers/painters/musicians/artists. It is the right to *produce* *a* *copy*.
Copyright has historically and in the present world designed to support *publishers* not content producers. A royalty is paid to content producers as a small and mostly insignificant expense in securing the right to *copy* works for as many as 150 years under current law.
Copyright is about the rights of publishers to have monopoly rights in publishing works. Given modern technology and practice, publishers are becoming increasingly unnecessary to the whole process of developing content, copying content, and distributing content.
To the extent that publishers are unnecessary either to content producers or consumers (for which technology allows them to produce and distribute their own content), the need to pass laws to protect publishers is increasingly counter productive.
This isn't about allowing people to download anything willy-nilly. The question that should be asked is why are we passing laws that require various corporations to be paid for any use of content when they are increasingly unnecessary? Why are we blocking the preservation of content just because we cannot find the copyright owners, but at the same time allow corporations to collect royalties which they keep because *they* claim they cannot find the copyright owners?
If we really cared about content producers, we would be passing laws that require auditing of any group that claims to collect royalties for artists. We should pass laws that limit how much such corporations can keep of money collected. We should require copyrights be registered with up to date contact information for acquiring permissions from content producers and to pay content producers directly.
But you are not going to hear about such ideas from Publishers. Because they want to make the argument about *artists* when it is really about the control of content by fat middle men in the process, and for the income of fat middle men in the process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
because people wouldn't buy popcorn at movies any more
NAAAAAAAA poor corn farmers
poor nbc
poor hollywood actors making 20 million a film
poor musicians like drug addict ozzy ( eating steak in a kitchen larger then my house all while claiming to have got ripped off )
poor musician #2 Gene simmons in a mansion with a live in hooker er wife or whatever playboy bunny....
poor lawyers need more work do we at 500$ a hour
POOR ME OH FRAKING MY
POOR SOCIETY with forever like copyrights
patents on drugs products that effectively cause pain and suffering globally
POOR obama and his govt for wanting to make secret undemocratic treaties and it gets leaked by hackers
POOR Afghan govt not getting its own way and threatening to join the Taliban ( P.S. they'd lop his balls off stuff them in his beheaded wifes mouth btw )
poor publishers that arent needed no more cause people can trade online without them
POOR labels that well read the above about publishers
POOR radio lady tha was here a week ago who we dont need adding to the cost of radio and thus get less for more money
poor advertisers that get there ads blocked cause we are sick n tired of tampon commercials
damn doesn't all this whining make you ill
OK THEN all these whiners go away
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@92
Intellectual privileges? Excuse me when is being intellectual a privilege now? I SIR am an intellectual for knowledge i posses no matter its cost or how it was gained , YOU CANNOT under any shape way or undemocratic form tell me otherwise.
YOU are talking like THOUGHT CONTROL, MIND CONTROL and i am NOT A NUMBER I AM A FREE MAN.
I also have a lil song for you.
And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply
So i took my hair up under my hat and went in to ask him why
HE said , you look like a fine upstanding young man i think you'll do,
So i took off my hat and said imagine that HUH me workin for you
woo oh sign sign every where a sign barking up the scenery breaking my mind , do this don't do that can't ya read the sign
and the sign said
anybody caught tresspassing would be shoot on site
so i jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house
HEY WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT
tp put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in
if GOD was here he'd tell ya to your face
man your some kinda sinner
sign sign every where a sign barking up the scenery breaking my mind , do this don't do that can't ya read the sign
na hey you mister cant ya read
ya got to have a certain tie to get a seat
ya cant even watch ya cant even eat
you aint supposed to be here
SIGN SAID YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MEMBERSHIP CARD TO GET INSIDE
umf
and the sign said everybody welcome come in neal down and pray
but when they passed around the plate at the end of it all
i didnt have a penny to pay
SO i got me a pen and paper
AND I MADE UP MY OWN LIL SIGN
I said thank you lord for thinking bout me im alive and doing fine
sign sign every where a sign barking up the scenery breaking my mind , do this don't do that can't ya read the sign
----------------
NOW READ IT
again and again
think hard cause you all sound like fraking business chumps and lawyers not regular folk that have no stake in keeping the crap going
it will fail and it will be replaced by open and free music and entertainment one day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
I mean all your analogies are specious.....
Shareholder dividends = return on investment that is still being held by the company. What did the artist give us that we are still paying them for again?
Stocks in general = limited ownership rights in a company. What part of the artist do we own again? Where can I turn in my music to collect a part of the artists? Oh, yeah I didn't think that would work.
Renting property = exchange of money for continued residence, no pay = no stay. What are we renting from the artists?
Licensing in general = legalized theft via monopoly 'rights'. This one is probably the closest to somewhat being accurate, assuming you agree that you are only 'licensing' the things you buy and you don't actually 'own' them.
Hypocrite much? Yeah, thought so.... TAM is that you in there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
IP royalties = return on investment that is still being held by the company.
Mechanical royalty rates in general = limited ownership rights in a product/company.
Licensing IP = exchange of money for use. No pay = no right to use.
Looks like it's your brain that's "specious".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "unfair" irony
In the former the company needs to continue to contribute to society to stay in business. In the later, it does not.
"Mechanical royalty rates in general = limited ownership rights in a product/company."
So long as the company continues to produce the product, then it's ownership in the production of that product by that specific company (not the production by other companies).
"Licensing IP = exchange of money for use. No pay = no right to use. "
We have a right to use. Sure, we're retards and we delegate our rights to the government and the Intellectual privilege holder but that's what I am seeking to correct, or at least to make the terms more reasonable. Also, in a rental I am using a physical area that you have to pay property taxes on. Where are the property taxes with IP? and, as we've said over, the reason for governing who can control physical property when and how in a particular way is because physical property suffers limitations that intellectual thought does not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]