Entrepreneurs & VCs Tell The White House To Focus On Innovation, Rather Than IP Enforcement
from the a-much-more-useful-plan dept
As promised, below is what I filed today with the White House in their request for comment on the upcoming "Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement." After talking it over with a number of top entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, we decided to file the comment jointly, as a group. Among those signing on to this statement are Evan Williams (Founder of Twitter), Dennis Crowley (Co-founder and CEO of Foursquare) Erik Martin (General Manager of Reddit), Alexis Ohanian (Founder of Reddit & Breadpig), Ian Rogers (CEO of TopSpin), David Ulevitch (Founder & CEO of OpenDNS), Ben Huh (CEO of Cheezburger), Drew Curtis (CEO of Fark) and many others.The key to our filing is to point out that if the White House really wants to deal with infringement, the absolute best way to do so is to encourage and enable greater innovation. Innovation to provide new ways to create, to promote, to distribute and to monetize content has time and time again been shown to be the only consistently successful path to reducing infringement. Legal enforcement has never been shown to be a successful long-term strategy. And that's because infringement is, almost always, a situation where the business models and the services have not yet caught up to what the technology allows, and what the public would like to be able to do. Encouraging new tools and services to close this gap takes away the incentives for infringement.
Unfortunately, most of the focus to date, instead, has been on increasing the power of law enforcement, which actually is counterproductive in that it tends to have massive collateral damage in terms of both potential attacks on free speech, but more importantly by creating chilling effects on the very innovation that is needed to respond to widespread infringement. Similarly, we are equally worried about the nature of attempts at regulatory change (SOPA/PIPA, ACTA, TPP) developed in backrooms with little to no input from the innovation community, which will again lead to stifling of innovation.
If you have not yet filed your own comments with the White House, please do so today before they close comments (either 5pm ET or midnight ET depending on which page you believe -- so I'd assume 5pm to be safe). You just need to go to this form, where you can file a short (2,000 character) comment directly, or you can upload a longer filing if you have more to say. If you want another example beyond what we filed, also check out this detailed filing from CDT. Once all the filings are in, we'll look at highlighting a few of the more interesting ones if we get the chance next week.
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, copyright enforcement, entrepreneurs, innovation, vcs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In other news, the sky is blue, and water is wet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Greedtard cool-aide is not an acceptable answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey AC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey AC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey AC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey AC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey AC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey AC...
I don't endorse copymonopoly infringement, but I don't have any particular sympathy anymore for the alleged losses of price fixing cartels who are so determined to engage in anti-competitive practices, they are subverting democracy and corrupting politicians and laws around the world.
Enough already. In fact too much already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey AC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If smart people wanted to help assholes, we would have already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You, on the other hand, appear to believe that wasting government resources, hindering innovation, holding back useful services... all with no actual impact on infringement... is a good thing? Wow, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
typical freetard..
cant come up with a decend counter argument, to a fair comment, so you attack the person....
just like you've always done.. if you believe governments will stop trying to enforce laws simply because they are hard to enforce, you are living in a dreamworld..
It makes not difference what so ever.. they are probably still laughing at your stupid letter.. I am..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.squidoo.com/dumbcrazylaws
Copyright is one of them. When you try to get 150000 for sharing 3 songs the populace realizes how absurd it is and the industry that pushes for crazy shit like loses all respect with people.
The entertainment industry has cried wolf for EVERY STINKIN new piece of technology that hey have ended up benefiting from.
They blew it with Napster. They had the chance to tap into millions upon millions of kids with a monthly service fee if they had made N legit. But nooooooo.
ITS NOT ABOUT MONEY IT'S ABOUT CONTROLL. (Yeah I know)
IP is a joke. It has been made so by the industry. Life +70. People see that and realize how absolutely asinine that is and don't respect it.
It not about protecting content creators. Its about locking up rights for as long as possible so the corporations can control it.
Its OK. I know YOU obeyed every law of the land this week right?
Didnt j-walk, didnt go over the speed limit, didnt litter, didnt spit, etc, and on and on.
BULLSHIT!!!!
So what Mike advocates and I agree with this whole-heatedly is sensible IP. 5-7 years. If you cant make money or bring something to market within that time, it is time to let someone that can. Peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And if you're actually going to have a discussion with me today, let me ask you again why piracy is not OK. Seems to me you think piracy is fine, hence, no reason to do anything about it, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are correct - there is no reason to have the rights. In fact there are many reasons not to have them. They hurt everyone . This includes the people that appear to benefit from them. I would like to suggest to you that for your own sake you should give up on these rights. THey only do harm to the people that hold them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wromg - it was hurting you by making you waste your energy on that comment - and distracting you from doing something that might have been useful to you!
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um.. douche... it has no bearing on pirates. You can have all the IP and death penalties you want, and piracy still happens.
"they create the property that you guys love so much you're willing to violate other people's rights to get it."
You ass-u-me too much grasshopper. Your ilk look at anyone with alternate views as a pirate, and immediately assume, incorrectly, that we all have BT clients running and are downloading shit all the time. So sad, grasshopper. What a shitty world view.
" How just admit that you can't get enough copyrighted works, and meet somewhere in the middle?"
You need to tell this to the content industry. They went wayyyyyyyyy past middle a long long time ago. We are just struggling to get back to middle. Sheesh indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Creative content was made before copyright ever entered the picture. Ever heard of Shakespeare? Homer? Leonardo da Vinci? Michelangelo? Bach? They didn't need copyright to create works of art and literature and music that we still enjoy today.
Creative content is being made today by artists and creators who want nothing to do with copyright.
The most innovative people and companies today are showing us they don't want or need patents and they are being attacked by those who have them on the stupidest and vaguest ideas.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was wrong - those rights are good for something. They're good for lawyers who are nothing but leeches sucking money and life from innovative companies. They're good for shady middlemen and unethical accountants taking nearly every bit of profit from artists who are trying to creative beautiful new works.
I couldn't care less how innovation hurts the leeches and gatekeepers and vultures who siphon off the money and life from people who actually create things.
How just admit that you can't get enough copyrighted works, and meet somewhere in the middle?
You want to meet somewhere in the middle? Ok, let's roll back every bit of copyright law that came about after 1975. Let's stop granting vague patents, and void out all software and business model patents currently on the books. That's a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, you think patent law should change. Good for you. You can work to make that change happen, just like anyone else. But what you shouldn't do--and what is wrong and immoral to do--is to just say, "Fuck them! I'm going to do what I want, even if it means violating their rights." That attitude, which is clearly the norm on Techdirt (And what glorious pirate leader has made this place so inviting to pirates? Hmmm...), is just selfish and childish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, look, a troll is making stuff up again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because it's not the artists making that decision. It's the legacy content companies that are taking those rights away from the artists in exchange for
If an artist or author wants to create a work and not use copyright, they can.
Really? Every creative work made is automatically under copyright. Since you're the expert, please explain, step by step, how if I write a book, I can opt-out of copyright in its entirety?
But what you shouldn't do--and what is wrong and immoral to do--
You want to bring morals into this? That's a losing fight for you, but I'll play if you want.
How is it moral to deny to everyone in the world an idea or knowledge that costs nothing to duplicate? How is it moral to lock those ideas up, threaten anyone who wishes to use them with financial ruin, just to make a bit of money? How is it moral to shut down the competition over an obvious idea, or on something they came up with entirely on their own?
And Mike is not the "leader" around here. He only created the site. We make out own decisions and have our own views. Stop viewing us as some hive mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
there...FTFY. Maybe now you will understand, but I'm not holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Firstly I will correct your legal mistake, the things you list - (time energy and money) form NO PART of copyright or patent law. "Sweat of the brow" is explicitly excluded whilst time and money are not mentioned. Only "originality" is protected - although the bar is set pretty low.
The belief that an artist has some property rights over their own creation may seem natural at first - but then so did racism to the 18th century mind.
You have to remember that it was not authors who originally pushed for copyright - it was publishers. In fact in its first incarnation authors could not hold a copyright - only publishers could do that.
Copyright is built around the technology of 18th century printing and early 20th century record production. If the technology of cheap personal recording, computers and the internet had come first then there is no way anyone would have thought of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a typical highlight reel from those who try to justify ripping the current situation apart, without first understanding the reality of the situation.
In the days of Sharespeare, what percentage of the population do you think had access to his works? Not today, but back in the day? The answer would often be very small, because of the limited space, the limited number of performances, and yes, that often his work was done for various patrons or financiers.
Many of the great works of art were created under the system of patrons or "the king is paying", but also lead to those works not being available during the artist's lifetime in any meaningful way. A painting may have been made, hung only in a private room inside the kings residence, and not seen until the next generation.
"The most innovative people and companies today are showing us they don't want or need patents and they are being attacked by those who have them on the stupidest and vaguest ideas."
This is actually a pretty twisted perception of the situation, because they are forgetting what they are building their fortunes on. Most of the content out there right now is copyright, and is used as the grist in the mill as it were for these sites to operate. A Youtube or a Reddit would almost certainly not be functional without the copyright material being part of the deal.
You almost never can find a system that isn't working with copyright material to make itself go. Even Twitter in the end is a product of copyright, with many discussions being about music, tv, movies, and celebrities. If you took away those topics of discussion and only allowed the discussion to be about non-copyright items, it would get dull pretty fast.
This also goes a long way to explain why copyright doesn't lock up culture,as is often the claim on Techdirt and similar sites. You can see how these copyright works are a significant part of the discussion, with no piracy or "sharing" required for them to be part of culture.
"You want to meet somewhere in the middle? Ok, let's roll back every bit of copyright law that came about after 1975. Let's stop granting vague patents, and void out all software and business model patents currently on the books. That's a start."
You can roll back the copyright law to 1975 when you roll back tax law to the point before the IRS was created, and so on. It's not going to happen, not any time soon. You can perhaps do so at a point that you can point to a truly better system that works for everyone - not just for you personally.
"They're good for shady middlemen and unethical accountants taking nearly every bit of profit from artists who are trying to creative beautiful new works."
It's really just not true. The artists make the choice to sell their rights for a given amount. If the work happens to be popular, others may make more money from it. However, as it the Techdirt creed, that artist (especially in music) can always go out and perform it live to make money. If the creed is that musicians shouldn't make money selling copies, but should make it performing, why does it matter how much a (dreaded) middleman makes? For that matter, do you even consider the influence of the middle man on the artist having the time and the means by which to create that work? Or are you once again just spewing up the typical Techdirt drekk stuff about all middlemen being bad?
In mentioning patents, you sort of reveal yourself. You have mixed it all up in your head, missing the significant differences in copyright and patent. Mixing them is like adding salt to your coffee and complaining it's not sweet enough. You missed the point entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, you show your biased viewpoint when you make assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you are suggeesting the stand is "We don't mind copyright, as nobody ever bothers to actually enforce it at all, ever"?
You realize that is like saying "We don't want copyright".
It would like saying "We like and support speed limits, providing the police are not allowed to ever write tickets, cannot pull anyone over for speeding, and are never allowed to note your speed in any way shape or form".
In the end, you don't support speed limits, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should be worried about how property rights hurt the people that hold them - it's the story of the rich young man in the Gospel - well explained here:
If being enslaved to physical possessions is bad - how much worse is it to be enslaved to imaginary rights - and in this story we see the kind of stupid and harmful things it leads people to do.
[ 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:
Sorry - but your continued arguing these points demonstrates very clearly to me that you are enslaved
exclude (such as those who create all the awesome movies, music, and other property you guys love so much
[citation needed]
have the incentive to invest time, energy, and money into create great new works.
Frankly I don't believe that much good quality work is ever created because of that so called incentive.
Actually what the rights do is enable non-creative people to control the output of creative people. The spectre of losing that ability is what terrifies these people - and the tenor of your comments suggests to me that you are one of them. If you were an actual creative person you would probably have said so by now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here
Btw I helped to fund their latest - greatest project - which will fill up a good few of those Terabytes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Be careful with your generalizations. Along with a whole lot of people here, I don't pirate at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically true. Taking a dump is creating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Calling it 'pirating other people's property' doesn't make it anymore wrong. It's simply copying or independently coming up/developing with similar/identical ideas and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
In fact, IP itself is theft. IP deprives me of something that exists outside of government, it deprives me of my natural rights for no good reason, for a reason other than the public interest. The true pirates here are the government and IP apologists. Stop pirating and stealing my rights you pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think it's fair to say that the evidence in the submission indicates that the enforcement is not effective. It doesn't stop infringement, and it carries undesirable collateral damage. Let's keep those facts in mind.
When the enforcement does not actually protect that right, the predicate falls apart. What good is a right that cannot be enforced? I would say very little.
I do not speak for Mike, of course, but I think piracy is fine and I'm not afraid to say it. But the point here is that "doing anything about it" doesn't actually do anything about it. I should say there is not much reason to "do anything" if it has no effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's such an extremist view that I think it kills his credibility. Like how he drags out the Constitution to give the FUD some extra gravitas. And how he's hypercritical of any prosecution of any infringer, but he's hardly critical at all the pirate--even when they're obviously punks who knowingly and willingly violate other people's rights for profit. It's just pandering, and frankly it's counterproductive.
I'd be happy to discuss things with him, but if he's going to insist that enforcement never does any good ever and does nothing to curb piracy at all ever, that's not a person who is willing to have a meaningful discussion. He can't prove those things anymore than the other side can prove theirs. I don't claim to be able to prove any of that stuff, and I'm not sure I understand how it matters.
Personally, I see copyright as property, plain and simple. If someone invests time, energy, and money to create something that the market values, then good for them. I like what they produce, I'm happily in that market, and fuck you if you're going to take that property without paying the fee they're asking. If you don't want to pay, you get your copy. Simple. We don't make people defend what they choose to do with their other property. You make a chair, you do whatever you want with that chair and fuck anyone who doesn't like what you're doing (so long as you're not violating their rights, of course). If instead of a chair it's a movie, then same rules apply. Fuck you if you don't like what they do with their movie.
That you guys show such little respect for other people's property is frankly quite disgusting. I mean, here's Mike writing about how those property rights just shouldn't be enforced, 'cause his VC/tech buddies can't make as many millions off of other people's property. Fuck that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See how your obsession has already led you to lose your cool - and credibility - by resorting to expletives.
[ 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:
The drugs will wear off soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I build and sell the same kind of chairs that you sell, that's called competition. How do the same rules apply?
[ 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:
Funny then, that examples of markets that don't have such protections seem to have MORE innovation and MORE competition... Fashion, for example. Lots of people invest time, energy and money to make their own awesome clothes, even though others make copies. And the top fashion designers still make crazy large margins because people want to buy from the *original* maker.
If your chair is good, you'll make money. If you're a shitty chair designer, I could see why you'd be concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The internet's a powerful tool, and a game changer obviously. But if you're going to give the main product away for free, that just means you have to sell other stuff to make up for it. If that works for some, good for them. But I don't see why the folks who want to sell the actual product itself (instead of giving it away) shouldn't be allowed to do so. It takes hundreds of people to make a Hollywood movie. They can't all sell t-shirts and go on the road to make appearances. Nor should they have to. The product they make is one that everyone loves.
It's not some stupid buggy whip (I'm glad you stopped using that analogy so much). They make movies. People want those movies. I want those movies. You want those movies. Just because your VC buddies can invent great machines for storing, watching, sharing, etc. those movies, that doesn't mean we should take away the property rights from those that make the movies.
If my chair is good, I'll sell copies of my chair at whatever price I want and if you don't like it then that's too bad.. It's my chair, not your chair. If you want to make your own chair and market it another way, go for it. If someone else wants to make a chair and give you a copy, good for them and good for you. If I want to sell my chair and not just give it away, that's my right. You and your VC friends don't get to make as much money, but I can live with that.
I support the chair makers and respect their decision as to how to market their chairs. You don't. You don't want them to have a choice about how and when they sell their chairs. And you support those that don't respect other people's decisions with what they do with their chairs. Why? Because you obviously don't think they should even have rights in chairs to begin with, and if they must have those rights, they shouldn't be enforced.
Can you tell me why you think piracy is not OK, 'cause I find it impossible to believe that you actually think that, given your admitted belief that you don't think rightsholders should do anything about the pirates. Why is piracy not OK? Simple, direct question, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you point to where I said they shouldn't be allowed to do so?
No? Right, you can't because I never said they shouldn't be allowed to do so. In fact, you're completely correct that none of the business models I discuss are new. I've said that myself. And many of them do rely on selling the product. So why would you lie and stupidly claim I've argued otherwise?
Oh, I know, because you've set up a strawman in your head who you think I am. And you're wrong. Again.
Can you tell me why you think piracy is not OK, 'cause I find it impossible to believe that you actually think that, given your admitted belief that you don't think rightsholders should do anything about the pirates. Why is piracy not OK? Simple, direct question, Mike.
It's not that they *shouldn't* do anything. They SHOULD. They should figure out WHY people are pirating stuff, and then PROVIDE SOMETHING BETTER. Because THAT is what WORKS. Filing lawsuits doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither is buying a CD, realizing it's crap and returning it for a full refund.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not okay because I don't think it's okay. You're asking a moral question. There is no answer to a moral question other than "that's what I believe." I don't think it's right to ignore the wishes of a content creator.
But that, of course, is entirely separate from what that content creator can do to deal with the fact that many (perhaps most) others have a different moral view on the issue.
Arguing over morals is a waste of time, because it doesn't move the discussion forward.
That's why I don't focus on moral questions, but practical questions. You, apparently, prefer not to do that sort of thing. It makes for silly grandstanding, but nothing useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet the moral questions are the ones tha define right and wrong. If you focus only on the absolutes or right and wrong as "able or not able", you will find yourself facing a very difficult world.
In simple terms, consider traffic. Cars are able to drive on right and left hand side of the road. In fact, in some countries, they drive on the left and not on the right hand side. Which one is right? On a purely "able or not able" both answers are right. But on a moral / social level, you have to pick one of side the road in your area and work with it.
So when you look at law where both sides (legal and illegal) are possible (you can do them, or they can be done) you have to look at the moral aspects as well.
Take another example: Property rights. The ownership of land, as an example, is possible, but it's also somewhat unnatural. The idea that land could be locked away from others, limiting the use seems silly, because it does against our ability as humans to roam. Fenced in properties (you real life walled garden) isn't very natural,is it? Yet as home owners, we all set up and create our own walled gardens. It's not a question of ability, it's a moral question that we allow ownership of land. The rules about not trespassing aren't about ability, they are about moral choices made.
Here's another one: In the US, the right to bear arms is set in the constitution, and considered untouchable. Yet in other countries, possession of a firearm is considered a crime, one which you can go to jail for. Which is right? The answer is both, because they are rules set by MORAL standards, not by subjective ability.
So when you look at the subjective ability to pirate, you fail to consider it's implications in a moral society. In doing so, you ignore the reality of society, and in turn, your conclusions will always fail in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are mistaking my PERSONAL morality for the concept of societal norms and morality within society.
Simply put, your grandparents were taught not to steal. They lived in a world where the streets were safer, shoplifting was negligible, and other petty crimes not such an issue. Today we live in a world where the streets are unsafe, we car our windows and triple lock our doors, and the shrinkage rates in some retail stores is so high, you would think they are loading it out in 40 foot trailers.
Somewhere in there, the morals of society as a whole slipped. We stopped respecting each other, and started to do more for ourselves. Put simply, we figured out what we would get away with, and did it, regardless of the harm. Online piracy is no different. We do online what we would not do in public, quite simply because we can get away with it. The public morals in their area have slipped, there is a lack of respect for those who create, with a nice short term "me, me, me!"mentality as people copy anything they can without any concern at all.
It's not my morality, don't confuse that with the public morals. It's not comparing my personal opinion to yours, it's comparing what we were as a society to what we have become. Do you honestly think that, as a whole, society is better now than it was 30 or 40 years ago?
Side story: When I was a child, we lived in a smaller suburb, and for the most part, people would park their cars and leave the keys in them, or perhaps just slap them under the visor so they wouldn't lose them. You can't do that anymore, because enough people have come to take this as an invitation to "borrow" the cars. For these people, their morals are not high enough to respect the property of others. That's another way to look at the slippage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did, and now, days later... no response. Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will debate you anytime, anyplace, Mikey. When you're ready to have an actual, substantive discussion, where each side actually addresses the other's points, you let me know.
You and I both know that that will *never* happen, because you're a chicken shit manipulator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said, I debate people all the time. You're an anonymous coward who appears to think "debate" is to throw a tantrum and tell me to fuck off and die.
I gave you a chance here to prove you were serious and you proved you're not. I should have listened to my own warnings against giving in to the 2 year old. At least we've now proven you're not serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you brain dead?
Mike did answer your question. From up on this thread:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about the creator's assignees and licensees?
What about the harm done?
Etc.
Etc.
If he thinks the *only* thing about piracy that is not OK is the fact that it goes against the wishes of only some of the parties with a vested interest, then that itself is remarkable.
Is that really the *only* thing you think to be "not OK" with piracy, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not Mike obviously, but your question was answered. Just because it's not the answer what you wish to hear doesn't mean it isn't an answer.
I, however, will respond to these questions:
What about the creator's assignees and licensees?
What about them? That would still fall under going against the creator's wishes since the creator has to assign the rights or license them in the first place.
What about the harm done?
I think before you ask such a question you need to prove that there is such harm. I've been looking for firm, verifiable numbers from reputable sources with clearly defined methods that piracy actually hurts anyone for years. I would love it if you could actually provide that. Until then your question is moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It goes against the creator's wishes. Sure, sometimes it clearly does.
And it's illegal. We all know that.
I want details on why it's wrong. I want Mike to explain to the world why piracy is wrong. The moral reasons. The reasons that have nothing to do with morals. All the reasons.
And if he thinks there are none other than that some people would prefer it if people didn't do it, then I want him to say that that's the *only* reason it's wrong.
This is very important, and it gets to the very heart of what Mike Masnick and Techdirt are all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm saying I haven't seen *proof* of any harm. I try not to come to conclusions without sufficient supporting evidence.
...(and honestly, I've always thought you were one of Mike's sockpuppets)...
Lol. I thank you for the compliment. Having my poor writing skills compared to Mike's is an honor all by itself.
And why would Mike need sockpuppets? He stands behind what he says with his full name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone who can read can see that. I will, now add this to the times that I tried to engage with you and you came back acting like a child.
You have merely confirmed my earlier decision that you are not worthy of engaging with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is the *only* reason you think "piracy is not OK" because it ignores the wishes of some content creators?
Direct question, direct answer. Stop trying to weasel out of answering the question, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Answer the question. Why is it not OK? Are you saying that other than the fact that certain content creators don't like it, it's perfectly fine and dandy?
Answer the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no: The *only* reason piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of content creators.
Which is it, Mike, yes or no?
If yes, then thank you for answering and I will now answer your questions.
If no, then please provide the complete answer.
Shall I warm up the crickets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, as I said, you've shown your true nature here. I'm out. Everyone is free to read the thread and make their own decisions as to who is answering questions and who is being ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One word, yes or no: The *only* reason piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of content creators.
Why won't you answer the question? Why are you running away, again?
Yes or no, Mike?
One word. Please answer the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One word, Mike. Why won't you answer the question? Why are you so scared?
What are you hiding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shall I taunt you with this question in every post of yours from now on? I'm happy to do that if that's what it takes. No more dodging, no more bullshit. Yes or no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. I explained why I have been avoiding interacting with you, because you have not shown yourself capable of adult debate.
2. In an attempt to at least be nice, I answered the one question you posed directly
3. You pretend I have not answered the question, refuse to answer the questions you promised to answer and went right back to demonstrating exactly why I have said it's useless to engage with you.
Let me give you one piece of advice before leaving this thread for good: this isn't a law school where acting like a moron who just discovered the Socratic method is cool. If you act like the total jackass you're acting like in the real world, people will think you're a complete jackass, just like they thought Socrates was a complete jackass.
If you act like a normal human being willing to discuss a topic, rather than someone who wants to show off that you think you're smarter than everyone else, people won't mind talking to you.
But, as it is, all you're demonstrating is that you're not worth wasting time on. I will do so no longer.
I have answered your question and you are acting like a child in response, *exactly* as I predicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One word, yes or no: The *only* reason piracy is not OK is because it ignores the wishes of content creators.
Rather than hem and haw and give excuse after excuse after excuse, just answer the question.
I will never stop asking you, and every time you dodge the question, my resolve grows only stronger.
Yes or no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please respond to the question, so I can know if you've given me a complete answer or not. And if you haven't given me a complete answer, then please do so.
But stop making excuses. Stop running away.
I was ready to leave this thread, but you had to pop in with your stupid response about how I'd abandoned the thread. I am here now, Mike. Why have you run away?
Yes or no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Masnick: "they thought Socrates was a complete jackass."
Besides that, clearly your notion of "discussion" means that anyone disagreeing must first of all make proper obeisance to your self-asserted authority, and outright acknowledge that you're right.
I've READ several of your alleged responses and you only write that you've responded, and you're not going to respond further, and then go into your characteristic high dudgeon mode to divert entirely from the topic.
That's pretty much what you did when you pretended to "engage" me here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brain s-stop-zero.shtml
Plus you threw in some blustering, eventually chided me for using the phrase "sunk (or fixed) costs", when it was your own! After I pointed that out, you mumbled, then RAN OFF.
So, for the record, anyone dropping in should know that I quite independently confirm the AC's outline of Mike's pattern: bluster, obfuscate, "I already answered", divert into arguing over whether answered for a while, then RUN, and refuse to "engage" more on grounds it's his foe who is childish. Sheesh. A classic born-rich smarty-pants who was never really challenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Masnick: "they thought Socrates was a complete jackass."
This is the exact same behavior you exhibit every single day, Blue. But you are even worse. Just about every single one of your comments get rebutted in some way or another and you just continue on like everything you said is indisputable fact.
A classic born-rich smarty-pants who was never really challenged.
As you have shown, it also seems to apply to uneducated, back-water hillbillies who think they already know everything there is to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You still can sell the product itself. (It is called patronage) You cannot tax the copying process.
Please don't confuse copies with "the product".
Copies are NOT the product
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Music and movies will be created without IP. I can do with whatever music that won't allegedly be created without IP, if you want that music funded then find it yourself, with your own money, but don't make me subsidize it by sacrificing my rights to freely copy, modify, and redistribute that which comes my way. It's not my job to subsidize your arbitrary opinion of what constitutes 'good movies'. Follow your own IP principles yourself and fund it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But where oh where are all the works that folks create without copyright? The vast, vast majority of the stuff I consume is copyrighted and sold by those who use copyright as their business model.
If your alternative methods are so superior, then where is the proof? Why don't I have a closet full of works that are just given away for free?
'Cause the good stuff is copyrighted, and you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well the laws says that copyright is the default - and most distributors routinely stamp the marks on everything they handle - however - if you look at the actual artists you will find that many of them are not specially bothered by it.
By the way - copyright is NOT a business model. You can sell copies without enforcing copyright - ask Red Hat about that one for example.
Copyright - as a business model - is a tool for marketeers and middle men to leech off the actual artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's fair competition, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sherlock Homes is public domain, Descartes is public domain, Hun Tsu is public domain, Plato is public domain, Aristoteles is public domain, Sir Isaac Newton publications are public domain, Leibniz is public domain, Lord Kelvin is public domain, Moby Dick is public domain.
Did you know that Thor is public domain?
Or the Greek mythology, Roman History?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You never invested anything into making anything other than self serving laws, lawsuits, patents, and comments you dumb shill.
I don't want your chairs (that you didn't make). No one needs you, you're too dumb to invent anything that someone else can't independently create. If you don't want chairs then don't invent them, see if progress stops and see if anyone else cares. Guess what, no one else cares, no one. Progress will continue without you, to even suggest otherwise is an outright lie and its utterly ridiculous, and I would rather for you to stop selling or designing chairs (and find another job or go homeless, I don't care) than for you to selfishly limit my ability to sell or develop chairs. You have no right and you aren't doing other chair makers, consumers, or anyone any good. Find another job. Adapt or die loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, that's the exact thought process that turned me against copyright.
So, I have a legally purchased DVD of a movie. I want to make a backup copy on my computer so that if the disc get scratched, I can still enjoy my movie. It would also be nice that I don't have to get out the disc and put it in the drive if I wanted to watch it. Can I do those things? Not legally, because some asshole made it illegal to circumvent the copy protection on that disc even if it for a legal use.
So that started me down the path to opposing copyright expansion. Along the way I learned all sorts of new things, and now am full tilt against any copyright. So fuck your overreaching laws, your protectionist attitudes, your cronyism and lobbying. I'll buy content if you offer it in a convenient manner for a reasonable price - but if you insist on stupid terms and restrictions, fuck you, I'll keep my money and get that content without harming anything but your bottom line.
[ 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:
Ahhh, you're the one!
[ 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:
It might surprise you, but people are less inclined to be tolerant of nonsense. Which is why unlike you, they are less forgiving towards copyright that lasts life + 70 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvisiously a troll but I'll bite
Every year we here statistics from the MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, etc about how piracy is on a global rise, but on the other side of things we see a constant rise in global legislature of copyright enforcement. Now I know correlation doesn't equal causation but like global warming, is it not it the best interest of those parties involved not to at least try to at least test the theory out to find out if there is any causality. It's in my personal opinion, that the extreme punishments of copyright infringements have led to a global rebellion of the laws. If you look to behavioral psychology, you'll find proof of the fact that extreme positive punishment will lead to adverse behavior in subjects, so would you expect any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Mike's credibility seems to be just fine. Yours, on the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean sort of like how the **AA stomp on our First Amendment rights when they shut down legitimate websites and issue copyfraud takedown notices? Should we revoke our rights and eliminate every new technology that comes along just to appease monopolistic corporate suits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's difficult to apply copyright where the offender doesn't make any money, and that's how it should be. I'm pretty sure that's how it was meant to be when they first made that law anyways, as Fair Use gets nerfed with these possible new advancements the gatekeepers want.
70 years + life is crazy. How often do people buy a piece of entertainment that is over 20 years old, where the creators got a piece of the pie, and not at a garage sale or antique sale?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Comment
When the British passed the Stamp Act of 1765 American colonists viewed it as a tax on their right to speak freely. The British were unable to enforce this law as it was almost entirely ignored by Americans while colonists, colonial legislatures, merchants protested against it. Today American citizens view copyright law as a tax on their right speak and just as in 1765 Americans tend to ignore copyright law while internet colonists, digital legislatures, and web merchants protest against it. In 1765 if the British authorities had just let colonial representatives into Parliament the Stamp Act in some form may have remained and American Revolution might have been prevented. Today the American government and the legacy media companies driving this legislation will have to let the public into the debate if they want to prevent a digital revolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just submitted mine
http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/08/a-comment-to-us-ip-czar-on-enforcement.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do those entrepreneurs and VC's contribute toward political campaigns? Do they contribute toward the revolving door favor? No? Then buzz off.
Politicians don't care about progress or innovation, they are in office for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix.html
Then go watch the countless other real world examples of how the laughable notion of "IP" hurts society and market competition (which is a good thing just in case you forgot). Or you could just continue with the hypothetical rhetoric that in no way represents reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not correct that the first copyright law was for the benefit of publishers, and authors were precluded from holding copyright. Even a cursory review of the 1790 Act makes this only too clear, which is consistent with the constitutional requirement that it is authors (and inventors in the case of the useful arts) who in the first instance are the beneficiaries of copyright law. As recently as the Stanford v. Roche decision by the Supreme Court in 2011, this fundamental principle (in this case a patent) undergirding Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 was explicitly noted and deemed controlling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Check your facts. I was referring to the very first copyright system - from which the word originated - as operated by the London Company of Stationers in the 16th and 17th centuries - long before the US even existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
True - however the word "copyright" was originally coined in relation to the stationers' copyright - which could only be held by a member of the stationers' guild. The initial assignment to the author was a ploy of the stationers - who realised that (at the time) an author could do nothing with that right - apart from selling it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How much effort and expenditure did "Happy Birthday" take?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually it is difficult - because the underlying facts are not subject to copyright - only the particular expression of those facts. If one person makes a map of a given area that does not prevent someone else from making map of the same area - provided they do not simply copy the first map.
If anything the link is the reverse of what you claim - since the possession of a monopoly enables extravagant and wasteful expenditure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just curious what you mean by your last sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for my last sentence.
Those industries that have grown up under the protection of the copyright monopoly have evolved a culture of high fixed costs because of the lack of financial pressure. Thus the fixed costs don't justify the monopoly - rather they are caused by it.
- I was just referring to the lack of financial pressure that exists when you have a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course if your US centred parochialism makes you look in the wrong place you won't see the true information.
Your 1790 act was plagiarised from the 1709-10 British "Statute of Anne". However that statute was not the first copyright system - although it was the first copyright law in the modern sense. Copyright was invented by the stationers company - see their own website http://copyright-debate.co.uk/?p=184
In its first incarnation copyright was established by entering a record of the work into the register at Stationers' Hall - and only a freeman of the company (ie a publisher) could do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you don't have to look at the world and discover how out of step those laws are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
with his great influence and power the world will change just how you like it in a blink of an eye....
after all Masnick is LISTENED TO in all the right places, people look up to him, respect him, and treat him like the GOD he thinks he is..
When "The Masnick" speaks, people sit up and listen !!!...
/JOKE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]