UK Government Admits That It Has No Evidence (Zip, Zilch, Zero) To Support Its Claims For Draconian Copyright Law
from the faith-based-policy-making dept
One of our biggest issues with the constant beating of the drum to extend and expand copyright law, is how much of the policy making is totally faith-based. We always go back to the famous speech by Thomas Macaulay in 1841, in which he declared (among other things):The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax. Nay, I am ready to increase the tax, if it can be shown that by so doing I should proportionally increase the bounty. My complaint is, that my honorable and learned friend doubles, triples, quadruples, the tax, and makes scarcely any perceptible addition to the bounty.There is, these days, in the minds of certain policy makers that copyright must be good and more copyright must be better. That the actual evidence suggests otherwise is ignored. Evidence is not even sought. Instead, they take on faith the claims of the legacy entertainment gatekeepers that they need such extensions and expansions. This is why we were so happy to see the Hargreaves report in the UK repeatedly bang home the idea that copyright policy must be evidence based. And while the government claimed that it was effectively supporting the recommendations of the Hargreaves report, it appears that they still have a bit of a blindspot for needing evidence.
The folks at the Open Rights Group filed a Freedom of Information Act request for what evidence the government was using concerning the "scale and nature of infringement of copyright by websites and on the efficacy of different strategies for dealing with it." The response? They had no evidence:
I have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. After a thorough check of the Department’s records, I can confirm that we do not hold the information you are requesting.Instead, the government just repeated the same faith-based talking points:
The creative industries are an important part of the UK’s economy, and they regularly report copyright infringement as a serious problem.Is it really so difficult for the government to provide any evidence other than "these few companies claim it's a problem"?
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: copyright, digital economy act, evidence, faith based, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One word:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other examples of that statement:
The law enforcement is an important part of the US's ability to keep its populace safe, and they regularly report the Bill of Rights as a serious problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other examples of that statement:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other examples of that statement:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am going to regularly report a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's getting old.
The newspaper industries are an important part of the US’s economy, and they regularly report the internet as a serious problem.
The advertising industries are an important part of the US’s economy, and they regularly report DVRs a serious problem.
This is fun, I could do this all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's getting old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's getting old.
And, don't be disingenuous--you know that infringement is subjective enough that all that is required here is for the subject of the statement to be concerned about some form of threatening behavior from the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's getting old.
How do you think it came to be illegal in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just type "torrent" into Google
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just type "torrent" into Google
http://tinyurl.com/5u4doud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just type "torrent" into Google
Listing torrents is worthless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just type "torrent" into Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just type "torrent" into Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just type "torrent" into Google
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/
It absolutely destroys the notion that piracy harms in any way the focking parasites that you call artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems like the anti-copyright types Admit That They Have No Evidence (Zip, Zilch, Zero) To Support Its Claims For killing Copyright Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that there is no evidence to support stronger copyright is in itself, evidence.
As for quoting 160 year old opinion piece, it would seem to point out that this knowledge has been around for a long, long time yet continues to be ignored; mostly by people being paid to ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's okay. Occupy Wall Street will look equally goofy 160 years later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which are? Would they be the copyright protection rackets that block or shut down services I wish to use, the ones that block access to the works I wish to consume, or the ones destroying access to historical culture I wish to access?
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You're one of the idiots who thinks that no artist would create anything if they weren't guaranteed a lifetime+infinity monopoly for their chosen corporation.
Let me guess, your next retort would be to pretend I'm somehow bound to corporate output and anyone not tied to traditional copyright is irrelevant?
"Occupy Wall Street will look equally goofy 160 years later."
I love the way you trolls insert irrelevant political issues as if to pretend you have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can't you be civil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Point, match...PaulT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Occupy Wall Street is part of a much larger movement that's spreading worldwide. Ppl are fed up with the "1%" that keep giving themselves more and more privileges. Israel saw its youngsters go to the streets against the real estate speculation. Egypt went to the streets against the Govt excesses. US went to the streets against the financial market abuses (and how the ppl are paying for said abuses).
Point is, the statement is not goofy. Being 160 years old means nothing. Differential calculus was born back with Newton end Leibniz and it's widely used today, centuries after the discovery just to mention an example. Thomas Macaulay was not concerned with copyright itself but with the real necessity of laws in general. He pointed out that a law that enforces something must be based on evidence rather than any religious, mythical or subjective motives and, wow, 160 years later he's more up to date than ever and you don't even need to add copyright to the mix.
And you seem to be oblivious to the fact that Mike has already said that copyright itself is not necessarily evil or bad and even some TD readers (like me) stated that copyright is a good thing to protect creators from commercial exploitation. I agree that there should be some sort of protection in those cases yes. But current copyright laws are pure and simple abuse. They are bad laws, with few exceptions depending on the country and the portion of the law.
That said, I will repeat what Paul said. You are a Troll. Plain and simple. And you accuse abolitionists of ignoring the benefits (and there are benefits indeed) while you ignore the harms of the current law. And ignore the benefits of a well structured law that allows far use and non commercial sharing. I don't have any evidence other than my own empirical observations of my own habits and the habits of my friends (many of them are file sharers). This empirical observations tell me that the problem is not nearly as bad as MAFIAA paints and that laws need to be reviewed to actually protect the creators (not the distributors) while allowing fair use.
Care to reply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, there are occasional examples of stuff that doesn't work out well (certain recordings stuck in limbo, certain orphan works), but they are small exceptions in a much larger system.
What is often not addressed here as the "good" of the copyright system is how it allows consistent rights for both the content makers and consumers. When you download a song from Itunes, the terms are the same for all music, not a collection of confusing individual contracts and restrictions. Copyright is not only a legal state of affairs, it also helps to define an entire commercial relationship that exists equally for all content produced.
It isn't just about "protection" for the artist, it's also about protection for the consumer, for resellers, for users, for everyone who comes in contact with it.
As for the 160 year old statement, you have to remember it is an opinion. It is hard to compare against scientific discovery, because it is only one man's opinion of things.
Further, the comments themselves show that copyright is not endless, as Mike is using them here without any concern for violating copyright, as they are in the public domain.
You have to sort of stand back and understand all of the implications of copyright before you can change it or rip it apart. Pulling out one stick in a Jenga pile may seem like nothing, but pull out the wrong one, and everything else falls down.
Oh and if you think I am a troll, just don't answer me anymore. Leave me alone, and let me chat with the people who want to chat about such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you can't tell the difference between wholesale plagiarism and the use of a 1 second clip as part of a larger piece says a lot.
"'I couldn't use that music in my movie without paying for it'."
You mean "Rita Sings the Blues"? Nina paid the rights for the music she used, it cost more than the rest of the movie! Her gripe wasn't that she had to pay, but that she had to cut the songs she wanted because what they were asking was unreasonable.
"Most of the harm that gets discussed here just doesn't harm enough people to get excited about."
The "harm" that gets discussed here effects everyone, including you. It's things like patent abuses that drive up the cost of technology, healthcare, and even crops (you've heard of Monsanto, right?).
"Yes, there are occasional examples of stuff that doesn't work out well (certain recordings stuck in limbo, certain orphan works), but they are small exceptions in a much larger system."
Hardly. For instance, there's millions of photos stuck in the "orphan works" limbo because they have no date or authorship information. That limbo would hardly exist if it weren't for automatic copyright and retroactive extensions.
"What is often not addressed here as the 'good' of the copyright system is how it allows consistent rights for both the content makers and consumers."
Yes, it does provide some benefits, and those do get discussed. The benefits don't always outweigh the harm or unintentional side effects that people like you absolutely refuse to address.
"When you download a song from Itunes, the terms are the same for all music, not a collection of confusing individual contracts and restrictions."
iTunes would be a bad example. It's actually a horrible example. Their terms are not the same as those from Amazon, eTunes, or any other online music retailer, and any of those terms are not the same as the blanket copyright terms that are placed on a CD. The terms placed on digital music are nothing but a "collection of confusing individual contracts and restrictions".
"Copyright is not only a legal state of affairs, it also helps to define an entire commercial relationship that exists equally for all content produced."
Except that it's continually being redefined, and without any say from consumers, or even the majority of the artist that it's supposed to protect.
"It isn't just about 'protection' for the artist, it's also about protection for the consumer, for resellers, for users, for everyone who comes in contact with it."
Except that the protections for the "consumer, for resellers, for users, for everyone who comes in contact with it" keep being stripped away.
"As for the 160 year old statement, you have to remember it is an opinion. It is hard to compare against scientific discovery, because it is only one man's opinion of things."
Of course it would be quite "hard to compare against scientific discovery, because" it had had nothing to do with scientific discovery! Since you can't even understand the "160 year old statement", any comments you have about it are worthless.
"Further, the comments themselves show that copyright is not endless, as Mike is using them here without any concern for violating copyright, as they are in the public domain."
No, that only points that before perpetual retroactive extensions, copyrights used to expire.
"You have to sort of stand back and understand all of the implications of copyright before you can change it or rip it apart. Pulling out one stick in a Jenga pile may seem like nothing, but pull out the wrong one, and everything else falls down."
And that's exactly why publishers shouldn't keep monkeying around with it by stripping the rights of others out of it.
"Oh and if you think I am a troll, just don't answer me anymore. Leave me alone, and let me chat with the people who want to chat about such things."
We don't have a problem with chatting about such things, just people who make trolling comments. The fact that you have trouble telling the difference says a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Except that it's continually being redefined"
Please, give me an example of how copyright has be redefined. No, an extention is not a redefinition, it's only an extention. Please show me an example where copyright has been massively changed since inception.
Oh, adding a new area (like software) isn't redefining either. Copyright remained the same, what was subject to it was amended.
The rest, well, all I can say is if you can't get the basics right, the rest of it is sort of moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyrights are not even necessary, if that was true every other business class would need protection why don't they get protection?
Oh that is right they don't need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First of all, the "IP" movement has been redefining copyrighted works as property of the creator rather than exceptions to the property rights of the buyers. The DMCA effectively removed fair use from "protected" digital works. The media corps have been working to abolish the 1st sale doctrine as well, because it reaffirmed the property rights of the buyer. And now they're trying create a 3rd party liability for "contributory infringement" rather than taking on actual infringes as the law requires, and define civil infringements as criminal so that they can have law enforcement seize property without a trail and have the government handle the prosecution for them at the tax payers' expense. I could go on, but I doubt that you even understand enough about copyright to comprehend any of this anyway.
"No, an extention is not a redefinition, it's only an extention."
Lengthening the term from 14 years to 70 years beyond the life of the creator isn't within a sensible definition of a "limited time" as required by the constitution.
"The rest, well, all I can say is if you can't get the basics right, the rest of it is sort of moot."
Have you even read the laws, or studied the history of copyright? I have. I've also been following IP issues since the DMCA was drafted. You, however, can't even make a meaningful rebuttal of the article or any of the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you agree that DMCA has effectively allowed for widespread copyright violation online, giving almost everyone an "out" by being able to just take down violating stuff, but only when they get a notification?
Any changes that have happened have also opened up use that could never have legally existed before.
Fair use wasn't removed - and in fact has continued to expand in the last 20 years.
Contributory infringement is an effect of the internet generation. Legal arguments have to keep pace with those who seek to enrich themselves illegally.
So basically, copyright is still the same as it was. Fair Use has expanded, and DMCA actually made it easier to violate copyright and get away with it. Exactly what is your problem then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair use has been almost vanquished care to show how it expanded in the last 20 years that will be a laugh for sure.
The DMCA also create a powerful censorship tool that is used to censor anything and there is no strong punishment for abusing people can just keep sending false DMCA's there is no jail time, the fine is a joke and you say with a straight face that nothing changed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is, of course, utterly ridiculous.
The only people who have an "out" are the copyright holders, who now have a previously-unheard-of ability to censor material they claim is infringing, without taking anyone to court, paying for lawyers, or having to legally prove that the material actually is infringing. The material is taken down before the alleged infringers are given a chance to respond. And the copyright holders don't have to spend a dime in the process.
The DMCA's notice-and-takedown system applies to third parties, not to infringers. It is onto these third parties that the entire financial cost of copyright enforcement is placed.
And if they don't follow that system, they can be found liable for infringement that they had absolutely nothing to do with. In fact, according to ICE, even if you do follow this system, you can still have your domain seized ex parte and criminal charges filed against you.
As for the actual infringers, they have no more protection than they ever did. The notice-and-takedown system doesn't apply to them, so they can still be sued, or in extreme cases, actually arrested.
The entire DMCA favors one party, and one party only: the copyright holders. Pretending otherwise is pure lunacy. If you actually believe it allows for widespread infringement online, then that says a lot more about you than it does about the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you somehow came to that conclusion, you either can't comprehend anything I said, or didn't even bother reading at all.
"Would you agree that DMCA has effectively allowed for widespread copyright violation online, giving almost everyone an "out" by being able to just take down violating stuff, but only when they get a notification?"
Not even close. You don't even know what the DMCA is, do you? You don't even have a clue about jurisdiction either, or else you would know that the DMCA ONLY applies to the US and has absolutely no baring on the Internet as a whole. Hell, I doubt you even understand what the Internet really is either. But that doesn't matter, because you have yet to comprehend anything else.
"Any changes that have happened have also opened up use that could never have legally existed before."
Restricting and removing rights gives more legal options? Even simple logic eludes you.
"Fair use wasn't removed - and in fact has continued to expand in the last 20 years."
Sorry, but you're going to have to site references to back up your claim, because I doubt that you even comprehend what fair use is.
"Contributory infringement is an effect of the internet generation. Legal arguments have to keep pace with those who seek to enrich themselves illegally."
Lawyers can make any argument they want, but any that are not grounded in law has no merit. "Contributory infringement" is a weak argument from those who can't adapt to a changing market. The market has changed, get over it. You can cry and whine about it all you want, but it's not going to change the market. If you can't adapt to the new market, you die. It's as simple as that.
"So basically, copyright is still the same as it was. Fair Use has expanded, and DMCA actually made it easier to violate copyright and get away with it. Exactly what is your problem then?"
Since you don't understand fair use, the DMCA or even copyright, it's not surprising that you can't see the problem.
Look, you've been a lot of fun, but you really need to understand what you're talking about if you want to debate others without looking like a complete fool. Read the laws. Title 17 of the United States Code is a good place to start. Don't bother replying until you do, because you otherwise have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, adding a new area (like software) isn't redefining either.
Uh huh. "Please, give me an example of how copyright has been redefined - but don't give me these examples of how it has been redefined, because they don't count." Nice.
Still, I'll give you a few examples.
- In the first 200 years of copyright protection, copyright was an "opt-in" system, rather than "opt-out." That changed in 1978.
- Also as of 1978, each of the 106 rights can be transferred and sold separately (through e.g. an exclusive license). Prior to 1978, a copyright could only have a single owner, the "proprietor."
- The 1978 law also created the "four factors analysis" of fair use.
- Prior to 1988, no artist in the U.S. had so-called "moral rights," or droit d'auteur. The Berne Convention Implementation Act gave those rights to visual artists. (Writers, musicians, actors, and so forth do not have these rights.)
- In 1992, the Copyright Renewal Act retroactively made copyright renewal automatic for works registered prior to 1978.
- Prior to 1997, it was not a crime to infringe on copyright unless it was for monetary gain. The NET Act changed that.
- In 1998, the DMCA criminalized circumventing copy-protection mechanisms, even in cases of fair use.
- The DMCA also implemented the notice-and-takedown system, allowing copyright holders to censor allegedly infringing works, without involving the courts (or paying lawyers), and without actually having to prove the material is infringing.
- In 2005, The "ART Act" (part of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act) criminalized filming movies in a movie theater, and early release of movies and software.
It is obvious that copyright is continuously, and incrementally, being redefined. And it is being redefined largely in one direction: away from the public interest, and for the benefit of large media conglomerates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can't copyright math, but software...
Nope! Nothing redefined here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I decide what its worth
Sorry, but the buyer can't make a unilateral decision on what something costs. Neither does the seller. A sale occurs when the buyer and the seller agree.
Oh, if a buyer can make a unilateral decision on what something is worth, then I deem all your $100 bills to be worth $2. Now you must sell them all to me - unless you're going to get all unreasonable and corporate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I decide what its worth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I decide what its worth
I think you're replying to the wrong post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I decide what its worth
In any case, both you and Ed C. have the objections wrong. Best to read it in Nina's own words:
http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html#copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I decide what its worth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only person who benefits from a monopoly is the guy who get the monopoly nobody else benefits that is not hard to understand is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Looks like a typical TD troll tactic to me ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the abolitionists still can't see the benefits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who da fock see a benefit when only one guy holds all the rights and exclude everybody else?
Oh that is right only the guy holding that "benefit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once again, I am amazed at the reality distortion field that surrounds you.
How can you comment on nearly every story posted at Techdirt, many of which contain said evidence, argue against that evidence, and yet somehow think that the evidence doesn't exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's absolutely not faith based. It's clearly and purely profit based. Gate keepers make a lot of money collecting government granted monopoly rents. Every time some of that money slips through their gates without payment, they demand new laws. Every time they feel they deserve a raise, they demand new laws.
Stop trying to pretend that any of this is economically rational and arguing, "Gee, if they only looked at the evidence, they'd see we don't need these laws."
They don't give frick about evidence. They only want free money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death and Taxes
Just like how Death complements life, Copyright complements the greatness of society. But like too much death, too much Copyright will cause much destruction to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Death and Taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Death and Taxes
Maybe because we don't live in a utopia and artists need to eat?
Yes, people are willing to give money to artist, I know I am, but think of how that would play out in *real life*.
Some big corp comes along, sees some person with no money makes a book. The corp strain up makes a copy of that book and sells it everywhere, until every house has a copy. Now, how does that person with no money sell a book that everyone already has? THEY DON'T
People making copies here and there aren't the issue, it's not having the law that opens the doors for a multi-billion dollar corp to swoop in and freely copy less fortunate people's work.
The person making minimum wage needs a way to negotiate with the large corps, and copyright give's them that leverage.
I never said our *current* Copyright is needed, but some form is still important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes
I need to eat too, where's my monopoly?
And no, I don't believe in abolishing copyright,on the contrary, I think copyright should exist at some level.
But check it, the ones that are destroying any chance copyright has in the future are the assholes like the Mafiaa companies and the rest of the cartels.
Reform is badly needed, but unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes
For example, "artists need to eat" - this statement assumes that artists cannot make enough money to eat without copyright. Some points to consider:
1. Copyright does not guarantee income, people can use their money for what they wish
2. Artists can make money without copyright and often do (e.g. fashion industry).
3. Artists have made money since artists became a profession without copyright.
4. Many artists today make their money in ways other than through their art.
5. Income or $ generated through the enforcement of copyright more often benefits market actors other than the artist
6. Economics and income generation in free markets are based on the ability to compete, something demonstrably possibly without copyright; copyright can both support this and also hinder this--artists cannot have it both ways--they cannot lean on copyright to prevent others from infringing unless they themselves are willing to actively avoid infringing on others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes
yeah, and?
they can go get a job like the rest of us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes
Michelangelo? Dead.
Da Vinci? Dead.
Plato? Dead.
Socrates? Dead.
Homer? Dead.
And none of them are eating. They all died because they didn't have copyright to feed them.
Don't you see what you copyright burglars are doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes
Besides what makes you believe you wouldn't get paid even in a free for all world?
Do you actually know how many revenue streams an artist has?
We need governments we don't need granted monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Death and Taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Death and Taxes
Death is a process that balancing life. Death is a requirement of life.
Copyright is a good thing.. in small dosages.
But hey, you sound like a great anarchist that wants to drag us back into hunter-gather systems. I could recommend a few 3rd world countries where your ideas are currently playing out quite well. Feel free to move to one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes
Great job at posting shitty "analogies" to explain things that aren't the same.
And thanks for being an asshole, that makes your argument all the more appealing. Next time I think about how awesome copyright is, I'll think about how people like you confuse death and copyright just because you want to.
Oh, and also thank you for trying to insult the so called "3rd world countries". I guess your world view is stuck in the same century that your view of copyright is.
douche
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes
What's this? A keyboard? me no understand keyboard, me too busy trying to get water out of a rock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Death and Taxes
So then, which came first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Death and Taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Death and Taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They just need to regularly complain that cars are killing their business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Self-delivering goods... :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprised no one has said this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surprised no one has said this...
How come the publishers that published the 9/11 report (a US government document with NO copyright protection ) made a profit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright and royalties
It's wanting to make a living wage to pay the bills and get rewarded for effort, education, skill and talent. Or luck.
Some parts of the music industry was going well under due to people not bothering about copyright.
Hope all you moaning, "Ooooo, we don't need such draconian laws" always remain unpaid for any of your work that appears unacknowledged on the internet ;-0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright and royalties
It's wanting to make a living wage to pay the bills and get rewarded for effort, education, skill and talent. Or luck.
Some parts of the music industry was going well under due to people not bothering about copyright.
Anyone who thinks that is failing because they don't understand business/economics - and not for the reasons they think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright and royalties
When will people wake up and realise that designers and authors should not have to deal with the real world, rather just create culture and get paid! Simple really!
It baffles me that the dull, grey masses do not appreciate the creative energies of artists and designers - it is the very life blood of society!
Without these providers of culture, where would we be? Some monochrome, square, dull world where no one uses color, shapes, music or song. Thats where we will end up if the creative class is not properly cared for!
It is really shortsighted greed that blinds you all to this self evident truth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright and royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright and royalties
Sure. Now... where's the evidence for the need for greater copyright protection? Or even any at all? Not emotion - evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]