That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform
from the so-that's-how-that-works dept
So, late Friday, we reported on how the Republican Study Committee (the conservative caucus of House Republicans) had put out a surprisingly awesome report about copyright reform. You can read that post to see the details. The report had been fully vetted and reviewed by the RSC before it was released. However, as soon as it was published, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report. They succeeded. Even though the report had been fully vetted and approved by the RSC, executive director Paul S. Teller has now retracted it, sending out the following email to a wide list of folks this afternoon:From: Teller, PaulThe idea that this was published "without adequate review" is silly. Stuff doesn't just randomly appear on the RSC website. Anything being posted there has gone through the same full review process. What happened, instead, was that the entertainment industry's lobbyists went crazy, and some in the GOP folded.
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 04:11 PM
Subject: RSC Copyright PB
We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday....
Paul S. Teller
Executive Director
U.S. House Republican Study Committee
Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov
http://republicanstudycommittee.com
Frankly, if they wanted to win back the youth vote, this was exactly how not to do it. If you just look through the comments on our post on the original, or through the Twitter response to this report, there were tons of people -- many of whom were lifelong Democrats -- claiming that they would switch parties if the GOP stuck with this. Instead, they folded like a cheap card table in less than 24 hours.
In the long run, that's going to hurt the GOP, because the people who were suddenly interested in supporting the GOP will assume that any such effort is subject to a similar bait-and-switch. Meanwhile, this leaves open an opportunity for the Democrats as well. The Republicans just came close to becoming the party that actually listened to what was important to young people today -- and they quickly changed their mind. The Democrats can sweep in and take the issue since apparently it's there for the taking. All they have to do is be willing to tell some Hollywood lobbyists to pipe down.
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 reform, gop, lobbyists, rsc
Companies: mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
invoke the boogeyman and the grand conspiracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hypocrisy, thy name is AC. (As in the AC I'm replying to.)
You guys are too cute though. You can't attack the points made so you point imaginary fingers at Google and try to dismiss it, the moment it gets knocked down by unknown people and for unknown (hardly) reasons you start laughing at the conspiracy others see.
But the points raised in the report are valid nonetheless, and it's rather obvious that copyright reform is coming. It's only a matter of time. Recent actions, on the part of people like you, over the past year or two have finally woken people up, and not just us "commoners" but people with the power to radically reform copyright, or remove it entirely.
I see your comment and read it for what it is, fear. You were shaking in your boots yesterday. And you're shaking in your boots today. In the end, I think people get what they deserve. And those in the various industries have had their way too long and they're going to get a serious slap in the face/dose of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm glad they saw the light and didn't co-sign the work of an eager beaver moonlighting for Google and big tech. Something tells me the kid who came up with "Joe The Plummer" for Congress needed some help on his homework - unfortunately for him he got duped by Uncle Google before checking with his own party...
youch, but slaptastic!
carry on gents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alienate them how, by forcing them to actually work for a living, like our founding fathers intended, instead of leeching off the glorified corporate welfare system that copyright has become?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you go girls! grrrrrr... freehadist pillow fight at mikes!
do you guys do anything other then whine how unfair it is that you don't get free milk and cookies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as the RSC retracting their report, big deal. It wasn't as if it were a bill to be considered in the House. The damage has already been done. As of yesterday, we have a scathing report, written in Washington, with regards to copyright and people are going to be citing it left, right and center.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but it's inevitable: there's going to be a major push for copyright reform and there's nothing you can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
on other hand, you're right, the damage has been done and now everyone can see just how desperate and bat shit crazy you guys are to stand be behind a report the people who published it are running from.
yup, damage done, agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, copyright reform is going to happen -- it will have to in order for progress to be made. Our government can only dance around the issue for so long before it boils over. You see, there's something you seem to be ignoring and that is our national budget and debt. The government won't be able to keep subsidizing your little corporate welfare system (copyright) forever. There's going to be a breaking point.
Oh, and I could say the same to you: "why don't you go fishing and stop wasting your time here...?" Hoisted by your own pertard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
what you fail to realize is the copyright protects the individual from exploitation by the corporation - you're fighting for exploitation, copyright fights against it.
and that is why you have been, and will continue to lose. no copyright reform has happened. lessig has lost across the board, barlow is a nut job for whom even google's own chief economist disagree's with...
you've slowed the adoption of proper enforcement of existing laws, but that's it. eventually your feudal ways will subside to rational thought and much of this is just about awareness anyway.
common, good people know theft when they see it. why not support the people running legal businesses? why do you insist on rewarding criminals?
http://thetrichordist.com/2012/11/05/madison-avenue-and-media-piracy-are-online-ad-networks-the- birth-of-skynet/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Voted funny for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
copyright is pro-choice for the individual, you are fighting to take that choice away from the individual denying them liberty.
copyright is pro-choice for the individual, you are pro-exploitation for the corporation/s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was originally designed that way but today is only used by the corporations to fuck the little guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was originally designed that way but today is only used by the corporations to fuck the little guy.
Actually it was always designed for the corporations. Originally it was the London Company of Stationers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was very sure I had that correct, more or less.
I'll need to chew on some wikipedia tonight, but the above poster is correct: This issue is too big to ignore, people are going to demand that this government-enforced monopoly over ideas end.
If the government DOESNT do that, then we ALL know what the situation will quickly turn into.
The Latinos and other hardworking family-oriented citizens will realize that the GOP is NOT standing for the ability for any individual and his family to gain a better place in the world under his own power, sweat, blood, and tears.
That they are just spinning their wheels.
The hippies and communists and other Democrats will realize that their government wont actually come between the corporations that matter to protect the hardworking working class, much less themselves.
Buying votes by stealing from the middle class (thus preventing them from breaching the inter-class barrier) and giving to the poor, thus making them suck on the government's titty..
The entire thing will undoubtedly collapse.
If not, well, the silly masquerade dance will be finally over, and everyone will realize we all have collars, and there wont be a damned thing we can about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Can I recommend this site to you.
http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/index.php
It has all the original historical documents - a real goldmine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One point I think is raised by your response - and it's an important one - is the explicit role of state censorship in the granting of monopoly powers to publishers. The Stationer's copyright was meant as a cooperative agreement between Elizabeth's court and the increasingly powerful Stationers' Co. Note the early terms of disagreement between what can properly be called an IP lobbying group and the Elizabethan grant of charter: the proposal was rejected because "there is great abuse in the printers of books...whereby arises great disorder by publication of unfruitful, vain, and infamous books and papers." Some of our constitutional language is derived from the later Statute of Anne, and it's remarkable, in some ways, how little the statutory rationale and implementation of copyright has changed, historically - though the focus of protection shifts somewhat to the author, the end user has never had rights associated directly to the "advancement of the arts" and in fact is limited by these monopoly rights (see also coyo's comments below).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you don't like record labels, fine, any wrong doing should be unacceptable including by the likes of the pirate bay and google. two (or more) wrings don't make a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how is copyright pro-liberty, pro-individual, pro-choice?
If I write something down right now on a piece of paper, or take a photograph with a camera, I automatically have copyright over it. I cannot opt out. I can reduce the scope of my copyright over it by using a CC license, but they depend on copyright in order to work. So no, copyright is NOT pro-choice.
Pro-liberty? How? I am not at liberty to copy certain things, even things where the copyright holder is unknown.
Pro-individual? What does that even mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just let me know when The Pirate Bay starts negotiating contracts with artists, pays them advances, and is accountable for wrong doing.
You are so blinded by your own greed that you are willing to sacrifice your own independence, freedom and liberty to chase it into oblivion.
wow, just wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OK, let us know when TPB is a record label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're an idiot if you think that power to the RIAA and MPAA would result in independence, freedom, liberty or choice. But what would you know? You've got a hurricane head up your ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice bit of double speak there, AC. White is black, war is peace, ignorance is bliss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This new IP-max lobbyist propaganda line is the more ridiculous thus far. Cut the chase and make it "freedom is slavery" directly. You publishers will save time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup, amazing ain't it? Do a Google search. So this is why Martin Luther King's estate are suing anyone who copies or distributes the 'I have a dream' speech without a license - because it's a civil rights issue!
Whereas slavery takes away all the liberties of a few, copyright takes away a few liberties from us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last time I checked, a person without copyright is still a person, can still vote, make money, eat, sleep, drink, work, ETC like the rest of us.
If anything, copyright is ANTI-Liberty.
But, you and your kind don't see it that way, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NO, it was created to protect universities and publishers from people making illegal copies of their works, just like it is now..
to be a 'government monopoly' that would mean that no one but the government would be able to copyright material and profit from their work..
you can do it, so can I, so how can that be defined as a monopoly ?? and what has it got to do with the government..
the Government is simply upholding the laws, it's what governments do. !
if you steal things (you probably do), you may not be stealing off the GOvernment, but it will be the Government that puts you in prison for breaking the law, not the person who you stole off.
so I guess the Government does have a monopoly on enforcing the laws, and making the laws, as you are not allowed to do that yourself.. but as for the laws themselves, they are not a monopoly, not do they serve to protect a monopoly..
they are just laws, things you are not allowed to do, theft is just one of said laws.
how's your educational system going in the US, as were not seeing a big improvement !!!!
is that really your level of understanding, or are you just acting stupid ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moreover, "because it's the LAW!!!" is not a valid argument either. Remember the "Rule of Thumb"? Or the law saying that you could own a person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have all day, so let me make this very brief.
Your idea that "government monopoly" means that the government uses their guns and laws to ONLY give themselves complete control over something (such as an idea) is silly.
Copyright is about granting complete unilateral control of ideas to whoever pays the most money for that idea, or gets their stupid paper in the copyright office faster.
The assumption on your part is that a government monopoly only counts of the government ITSELF occupies the tepid waters under their guns.
This is not correct.
If government, by way of the "power invested in them" *snerk* allows any organization to seize control of ideas, this doesnt ONLY include themselves, could be any organization that meets their criteria, whatever that may be.
In the end, it makes the GOP look extremely shallow and cowardly.
ALSO: Anyone who argues that copyright actually empowers the individual is deluded. The copyright law is DELIBERATELY too complicated for any single individual to manage, even with a team of fucking copyright lawyers.
This argument is laughable. You're a freaking clown.
No, it is very clear to me, after listening to EFF, and many other organizations that focus on such things, that the situation is mostly power struggles over ideas (which cannot REALLY be controlled) between multibillion dollar megacorporations.
BTW, not even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates combined can match the wealth of those international corporations, including the media conglomerates which hold 99.98% of all copyright holdings.
It is pure folly to propose that anyone has even a teeny tiny sliver of hope to go from rags to riches enough to make a tiny freaking DENT in the power of those massive corporations, which, btw, are OWNED overwhelming by OTHER corporations.
The GOP, by selling out like little pansies to the armies of lawyers of these organizations to enforce their little fiefdoms strikes me as a bunch of pansy career politicians who dont stand for anything, dont give a damn about their country, much less the international society and culture.
Supposedly, the GOP was about business, individual liberties, self-determination, but now? It's just a farce.
The Democrats are no better, BTW. The Democratic party has the worst track record for dragging this country into war over random crap. So much for peace-loving rationalist who want a better "equal" chance for all humans.
Everyone in politics is a goddamned sellout, Fullstop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A problem some Americans have w/ Copyright is that it is anti-Capitalistic. Patents & Copyrights artificially makes sure there isn't market competition on certain things. Artificially making sure there isn't competition is otherwise called a Monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
the government does not have a monopoly on copyrighted material, the person who created the work has a monopoly on it (if he chooses to exercise it or not), the creator can enforce the copyright of his work, the government cannot, (unless the creator or owner of said copyright lays charges to uphold the law). the laws that GOvernments are duty bound to uphold and enforce.
so once you understand what 'granted' means, and that it is not the general term "copyright" that you have, but a SPECIFIC COPYRIGHT of YOUR WORK, and as it is your work you have a monopoly on it..
it's a government GRANTED monopoly, on a work by someone who owns the copyright for that particular work, not a "government monopoly", that (as I said before) is just stupid.. im sure even you dont want to be seen as stupid.. ... then again... you might.. !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means "given, NOT earned".
So, copyright, by all sense of free market capitalism...
SHOULD NOT EVEN EXIST!
Thank you, David Kaye's Beast Wars Megatron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but their is a virtual infinate amount of competition, im sure even you can buy more than 1 book, or 1 movie, or 1 painting or song.
im sure even you know there is competition between the millions of different copyright holders, so how can that be a monopoly again ??
so if I write a book, can I still copyright it if someone else has written another book allready and has it copyrighted ???
NO, only a stupid moron would think that is how it works....
what were you saying again ???? oh yea..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: Re:
Also, please for the love of all that is holy and unholy, LEARN HOW TO FUCKING WRITE. I hate reading your rants, it's an assault on my brain. I look at your comments and I literally hear every English teacher I've ever had start to weep.
Also, don't go calling others a "stupid moron" when that same thing applies to you. If not more so.
A monopoly is very much what copyright is. But to save you time here's what constitutes a monopoly.
"A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry)."
That others are able to produce works is irrelevant. And largely a talking point you're only bringing up to attempt to put a spin on the definition of "monopoly".
The point is moot anyway though, you repeating yourself over and over isn't going to change the definition of a monopoly, nor will it make copyright any less of a government granted monopoly.
And oh yeah, other sources and sites have reported on the issue, with substantially more credibility than yourself and a handful of AC trolls, and all have already stated what Mike has. That industry lobbyists hit the Republicans hard with demands to pull the insanely sensible report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah yes, the "let's just assume our opponent on the other side of the debate is a criminal" approach to debating. What proof do you have that he is a thief?
[ 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:
> puts you in prison for breaking
> the law, not the person who you
> stole off.
> how's your educational system
> going in the US, as were not
> seeing a big improvement !!!!
> is that really your level of
> understanding, or are you just
> acting stupid
Says the guy who can't even put together a proper sentence. It's "stole from", not "stole off", genius. And that's just one of your imaginative errors. When you learn to speak and write properly, get back to us with your criticisms of our school system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: Re:
Wrong. In this case, grammar *is* the substance. The AC claimed that many of our posts showed we were stupid and the American education system is a joke. Pointing out his poor language skills is a direct response and refutation of his point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed, copyright is an abortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, not true at all on either point. If copyright protected artists from exploitation then please explain the 'work for hire' stipulation practically every (non-music) artist is under, giving corporate entities sole ownership of their work? Explain the nasty attempt by the RIAA to slip in a provision which would change a musical recording into a 'work for hire,' thus granting major labels full ownership? When it comes to exploiting artists and musicians, the corporations wrote the book.
"and that is why you have been, and will continue to lose. no copyright reform has happened. lessig has lost across the board, barlow is a nut job for whom even google's own chief economist disagree's with..."
As I said, it's only a matter of time (and nothing to do with Lessig nor Barlow). We're going to have to make some serious concessions to our budget. Blowing huge wads of cash on the copyright welfare system is on that list.
"you've slowed the adoption of proper enforcement of existing laws, but that's it. eventually your feudal ways will subside to rational thought and much of this is just about awareness anyway."
There's nothing feudal about copyright lasting for 14 years.
"common, good people know theft when they see it. why not support the people running legal businesses? why do you insist on rewarding criminals?"
Keeping copyright locked up for over 100 years is theft of the public domain. It was never meant to last for so long.
You're attempting to dictate morals to me, a practicing Catholic, so let me tell you a little something about immoral behavior. When companies blatantly bribe our politicians into lengthening the lifespan of laws just to suit their greedy ambitions, then turn around and rob artists of both due pay (which is to defraud them) AND the rights to their work, THAT is what we consider THEFT. God gives freely to us, who do not truly deserve it, all that we need to survive. So how is it that you people have villanized normal citizens for doing completely normal things? What position are you in to talk down on others? Why is somebody who shares music with his friends or lets a friend borrow or copy a film no better than a common thief in your eyes, yet when corporations get fat off other people's work, you turn a blind eye?
Go ahead, I await your reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They generally have a much more nuanced and well-thought-out view compared to Protestant churches.
I am glad to see a true Catholic on here. There are far too many among the Catholic community who dont even attend their sacraments or practice very basic elements of their faith.
Kudos to you for being authentic, genuine, and firm in your faith.
To add to the above guy's commentary, Copyright has a very long history, and was originally pushed into law to prevent ordinary individuals from being able to print what he pleased.
It went downhill from there.
If you believe that any artist of any kind under the employ of any members of MPAA or RIAA actually own any of their work, are fairly compensated, or generally contribute anything meaningful to society, I'd suggest you go to the local library and ready up on the history of copyright.
If you think that individuals running independent publishers will really be hurt by the repeal and abolishment of copyright (and other intellectual property bullcrap) then you probably dont understand what culture even IS.
What artists produce is not any product. It's not a piece of paper, it's not a plastic disk. What artists produce cannot be measured by a ruler. What artists produce are new ideas and culture.
That is a SERVICE.
Let me repeat, what ANY artist, of any kind, produces, is actually a Service.
I am confident that independent publishers will be nimble enough to realize this and provide a facilitative role between content creators and innovators and their many, many fans.
Those who are touched by your art, if it contributes anything worthwhile to society at all, will be compensated by the loyalty of your fans.
If you dont have even a single fan, you really should consider switching careers. Seriously.
To spell it out for anyone who's confused by this, if you have zero fans, it means you contribute nothing noteworthy to society whatsoever, and to EXPECT and DEMAND payment of something no one gives a shit about is extremely precious, coming from a worthless good-for-nothing wannabe artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a practicing Catholic, I believe in due compensation for work, and that includes for everybody. (It is wrong to discriminate.) However, what I am against is this incessant bribery that is occuring in Washington, as is evidenced by this article, as well as their habit of locking down culture solely for the sake of a few corporates' financial gain.
Copyright should be, as the now-retracted report specified, reformed to its original state. Within that period of time, it would be only just to fairly compensate artists for said works. Then it would serve the common good.
However, I believe that copyright in its current form has mutated into a wholly abusive tool for corporations to exploit others' works and, as such, no longer is about promoting the sciences and useful arts. It's solely about profit and control for a select few individuals.
I'm not going to justify things like downloading movies, music, games/software and literature which somebody is trying to make a living from -- they ought have that right reserved. But if copyright were shortened to 14 years, people would, and in fact already should, have access to their culture without the risk of litigation or being thrown off the internet.
If I make a mix CD for a friend, for example, that's not theft -- that's called generosity. By no means do I have to share or give anything to anyone, yet if I choose to, who are these people to label me a thief? Now there is a difference between sharing something with a friend and handing it out for the entire world to grab for free. I don't agree with that. But what I do in my private life with the stuff I own (yes, OWN, not LICENSED) is really none of their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to be clear, when I say that copyright should be shortened, that has nothing to do with my faith -- it's just personal opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
copyright protect the individual from corporate exploitation, without it, there would be no record contracts, no publishing deals, no advances and marketing paid to artists and on their behalf.
you guys have been smelling your own farts for so long that it's warped your feeble minds into a backasswards understanding of copyright law - and that is why you, lessig barlow and the whole boat of clowns fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
copyright protect the individual from corporate exploitation, without it, there would be no record contracts, no publishing deals, no advances and marketing paid to artists and on their behalf."
What a way to completely ignore everything that was said.
Basically, you're admitting that you're in favor of a system wherein a few wealthy people exploit our culture for their own financial gain, because that's exactly what copyright does. If you're so concerned about "protecting the artists," tell me, what are you doing about the corporates who take away ownership of their works, game the system and cheat them out of their fair wages?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a admittedly non-practising, but Dutch Protestant baptised person, I do take offense to this. Such slander has NO place in this discussion whatsoever, and it's a detraction to your whole argument painting a large segment of the Christian religion with such a wide brush.
I do agree with parts of your comment, but you'd do better by not insulting people from a different religion in a discussion where faith doesn't even come into play!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "Blind Faith and Emotion before reason" types.
[ 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:
[ 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:
Worst. Porno. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It basically is the same as "Freetard," in other words, the person who throws this silly insult is saying that you refuse to pay for anything, including valid services of art creation, and the implication is that you're a communist of some kind, and very cheap and shiesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny you bring up communism as they're infamous for being very forceful with their views.
[ 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:
Laugh. He's hilarious. Look at this baffoon.
Anyway. The GOP is NOT about government monopoly on ANYTHING.
The GOP is about business, not specifically BIG business, they are about ALL business, including that of actual cultural contributors.
The GOP, as Lincoln founded it, was about the ability to earn a better life for yourself, and your family.
Obviously, with the existence of the MPAA and RIAA, entrepreneuralism is pretty much crushed underneath companies that just wont die. Their death is long overdue.
What they probably don't realize is that all members of the MPAA and RIAA are a bunch of zombies, and eventually, some guy with a shotgun will make very short work of them.
Meanwhile, I'll sit here with my wine cooler and artisan bread, and commission and patron some artists directly, outside of any publisher's control.
The big publishers can sit on a Thor greased with pure capsaicin oil and rotate till Hell freezes over.
If you don't know what a Thor is, you probably should not open a new tab, and search google images for "thor toy" without safe search enabled.
It's about time the GOP returned to their traditional roots for once, instead of parading around like a bunch of westboro baptists trying to convert the masses at gunpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These guys at the MPAA/RIAA are sucking so much blood, I'm surprised they have not contracted some strange blood-borne epidemic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really funny to see how delusional you are in thinking you somehow have the upper hand in this just because you publicly managed to humiliate one of your former well-respected sources. Well done, jr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dont think that such a HUGE and highly detailed and well-thought out release by this conservative organization would be at all in any way an accident.
They were bullied into retracting their position (which originally was very surprisingly free-market for the party that has normally been very socially-conservative and fiscally-liberal, despite what they claim.
This WAS a very refreshing reminder that the republican party was originally a party representing individual liberty, individual self-determination, and the freedom to pursue happiness as an individual.
The party as a whole has largely devolved from their original Lincoln origins into a bunch of extremely loud churchpeople forcing their own extremely brittle anxieties and insecurities into national policy over what WAS a great nation of revolutionaries.
So much for the American Dream, so much for individual liberies and self-determination. So much for small government and free markets.
Back to government-enforced monopolies on freaking IDEAS.
Thank you very much, Ye Grande Olde Party.
What a bunch of sellouts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Plummer" for Congress
Plummer? Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Worked for Romney after he lost the election. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably something along the lines of 'You see this paper, which lists the various donations your organization's members, including yourselves, receive from us? Now look at this paper. Do you notice how while there are many zeros in the first paper, there's only one in the second?'
Keep in mind the past actions of the *AA's when challenged, they don't really do 'subtle' in these kinds of situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The RSC was DEFINITELY shown numbers. They were shown the amounts of the cancelled campaign donations, and they definitely believed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RSC "debunked numbers"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Getting deceived would at least be more honorable than getting blackmailed or bribed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"All they have to do is be willing to tell some Hollywood lobbyists to pipe down."
Honestly, Obama should do exactly that now that he doesn't need anything from Hollywood to win his next election. Kind of stinks that we always seem to need to wait for someone to stop campaigning in order to take a stand for the people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"
"Recently, I've had a chance to read letters from award winning writers and artists whose livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy. One letter that stuck out for me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to 'be a golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon.' This just isn't right." - US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke
maybe check in with the vice president while you're at it
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20008454-501465.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"
I was going to say maybe someone should write to Secretary Locke and point out the gaffe, but he no longer holds that post. He is now Ambassador to China. His replacement stepped down. The current (acting) Secretary of Commerce is Rebecca Blank, Locke's former adviser and (apparently) co-author of the "IP and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus" report which was criticized here (click) earlier this year. Has anyone here made any effort whatsoever to transmit critical points of view to specific people in the Obama administration? Waiting for Republicans to do it doesn't seem like it's going to be very productive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"
If these artists or authors were really any good, their fans would rally to ensure their livelihood.
Instead, they take their sense of entitlement and beg the fucking government to stop people from trying their stuff and deciding it's crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"
Because that is suspiciously what this sounds like.
So much for the so-called Democratic Party. Where's the Pirate Party when you need them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"
hang on, bad argument there. That songwriter wasn't actually [I] saving [/I] up for retirement. He was hoping that he would do a job [I] once [/I] and that society would provide for his retirement without any significant effort on his part at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link to the original report?
Is there a copy of the report still available online anywhere?
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Link to the original report?
Still searching...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?hamegos6hnp3tmb
Keep circulating the tapes, so to speak...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
Their blog post is here:
http://keionline.org/node/1592
with a direct link to the pdf here:
http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/rsc_policy_brief_--_three_myths_about_copyright_la w_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--_november_16_2012.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
*sighs* What a bunch of pansy cowardly sellouts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:007A9589E1FB84AFE546264ACEFEBA0A0E1A852B&dn=rsc_policy_brief_--_t hree_myths_about_copyright_law_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--_november_16_2012.pdf&tr=udp%3a//t racker.openbittorrent.com%3a80/announce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rsc.jordan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rsc _policy_brief_--_three_myths_about_copyright_law_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--_november_16_2012.pd f
and
http://archive.is/j625
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
Then dont, they didn't, read masnicks original article again, and find out who wrote it, and who they are..
get some facts in you,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Link to the original report?
The solution to that is simple - create a FOIA request for the document.
Bonus points: Buy a domain that is generic enough to cover all FOIA type stuff and compare/contrast the original document along with the FOIA responses. Tracking how responses change over time should be informative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Link to the original report?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link to the original report?
http://j.mp/SD3ulX (Lauren's Blog)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link to the original report?
There you are. Courtesy of the Massachusetts Pirate Party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stand Firm
It is the time for the people to take control again. The RIAA and MPAA assume that the SOPA backlash was "orchestrated." No it wasn't. MPAA and RIAA we, your customers, HATE YOUR FUCKING GUTS!!! Get it.
WE WANT REASONABLE COPYRIGHTS BACK AND WE WANT IT NOW!!
I still buy digital media, and I still buy DVDs and I still go to movies, but am very close to telling the RIAA and MPAA to fuck of and die. If the don't cut this shit out, I'm just going to stop dealing with them and everything they sell altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
no, they took it down because it's nonsense and they realized it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
You sully capitalism's name by claiming that a government-enforced monopoly is in ANY way a capitalist approach to ANYTHING.
You fail at understanding anything about capitalism.
Capitalism is not about being in indentured servitude to an extremely tiny population of individuals.
Ahem:
Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Other elements central to capitalism include competitive markets and capital accumulation.
You can thank me later.
What a shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
Did you post to the wrong thread?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
Then if they want to claim copyright they have to show the original work which WAS written by govt and therefore not copyrightable in that sense (pure fair use defence for public interest) though they are then admitting that copyright is fallacious by actually claiming they own a copyright on a govt property that they also claim doesn't exit.
Would very much back the whole premise and reason for the report in first place. The Govt and your political parties (and esp the **AA's) are in a lose-lose situation here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
> they have to show the original work
> which WAS written by govt and therefore
> not copyrightable
It wasn't written by the government. It was authored by the Republican Party, which *does* make it copyrightable and *doesn't* make it subject to a FOIA request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
It never happened, You're getting sleepy.. sleepy.. forget!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
what dont you get,,, IT"S NOT A FUCKING GOVT REPORT, it's an OP ED from two laywers, from two seperate uni's..
IT"S A FUCKING SUGGESTION,, NOT A REPORT..
masnick would have you believe that, but as usual if you read between the lines, or the actual lines you see it's just bullshit...
opinion peice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
Feel better now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
Nowhere in the actual policy brief does it even mention those two universities.
It had the RSC and the House of Representatives front and center, and searching for your supposed law professor's names within the document turned up absolutely nothing.
All professors cite and attribute their work. Why would this policy brief be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
Let's say this WAS merely a suggestion by copyright law professors.
It's a damned thorough and informed policy brief.
Even if the Republicans in the House did NOT originally publish this from the house of representatives under their own name, which is questionable, it may turn the GOP completely around by making their party relevant again.
I say demand the Republican Representatives show some freaking backbone, and break through Democratic Filibuster and force a majority vote to shove this through.
It's a damned good policy, all things considered.
I would PREFER Total Abolishment of ALL intellectual property (including logos!), but this is a lot better than I'd ever hope to see in the Congress in 20 years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
There was indeed an opinion piece authored by the two lawyers on Nov 7.
Mike's previous post opened by mentioning it and saying there hasn't been much else of note ... until the RSC report (or Policy Brief or whatever you want to call it) that was covered at length. It was this RSC document which is at issue, here, not the op-ed.
How does that crow taste?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
Why not issue a FOIA for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
Because it's not subject to FOIA. It was produced by Republican Party, not the government. It's not a government document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Post the report as a petition to the Whitehouse
That actually seems like an excellent suggestion. Though perhaps some of the reforms should be divided and presented separately to reduce potential controversy. But what do I know, I'm just a Canuck from the Great White North..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Post the report as a petition to the Whitehouse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stand Firm
So I'll say it again, kill copyright. Force them to give up the product-oriented business model for the service model it truly is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stand Firm
I showed bit torrent to a colleague at work. He said 'This is so easy, I would happily pay for a service as good as this this?'
There is money to be made in providing a service, they are just too lazy and stubborn to bother doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stand Firm
Competent content creators (artists, studios, musicians, bands, authors, etc) can rely on their fans to support them. Most musicians do NOT make any money from CD sales, they make most of their living via merch and concert ticket sales.
That is common knowledge.
If you are geniunely a valid contributer to society and culture, SOMEONE who benefits from your contribution to culture will say, "TAKE MY MONEY, TAKE IT!" if you are doing a good enough job. If NOT, well, find another career path!
Geniune contributions to culture and society will not be negatively affected by the abolition of copyright (a government-enforced monopoly on freaking IDEAS), but in fact, many contributers to society would actually be greatly assisted by doing away with the terror and control of copyright-holders over valid artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stand Firm
Not only that - but also you can't have just a little bit of copyright. The history of the last 300 years proves it. Once you have copyright then you have people who make money from it and have time on their hands to lobby for more.
Look at the publishing industry. Originally the members of London Company of Stationers were printers - but over time they devolved the messy business of actual printing over to others and became publishers - a business whos primary activity is not the mechanical process of reproduction or even publicity, but rather the holding and trading of copyrights.
You can observe a similar transition with the record industry. In my youth the record companies actually pressed record and had reputations based on the quality of their manufacture. In those days the letters RIAA usually referred to a standard frequency equalisation curve agreed on by the record companies to ensure that all records would play on all equipment. Now they have little to do with any of the mechanical processes - these were devolved to specialists through the 70's, 80's and 90's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stand Firm
#inconvenienttruths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
Here's a perfectly valid sentence that is correct and cannot be disputed
"Most musicians don't make much money from tape cassette sales because you (more than likely) don't have a cassette player and thus, don't want tapes".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
#respondingtoidioticdoltstryingtolookgoodbyputtingcooltagsattheendoftheiruninformedpost
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
So, no, it's not people "stealing music online"; it's horrible industry practice.
#inconvenientertruths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stand Firm
#coldhardfact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
which is... pretty much inevitable in a plutocratic republic (which is what the US has, and is pretty much what it's Always had. plus or minus however much 'bureaucracy' replaces one or the other term.)
aristocrats, plutocrats... either way it's the elite who care more about their power and status (wealth is simply a way of measuring this) than about the nation or public. (at least aristocracy Usually goes along with some vague idea that they should try to do what they think is best for the country rather than just using rabid 'patriotism' as a pubic justification for their nonsense. even if it doesn't actually result in any better behaviour.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
slaptastic adventures continue... just keep on following Lessig and Barlow right off that cliff...
http://thetrichordist.com/2012/05/01/effs-john-perry-barlow-is-wrong/
http://thetrichordist.c om/2012/05/08/larry-lessig-is-wrong/
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And your proof for this claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And if you're persistent, Lowery will threaten you personally.
I'd really love for some population of TD commenters to decend on trichordist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no - it just says a lot more about the tin foil hat fiction on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Liberal, conservative, it doesn't matter - if you want to hold office, you need a metric fuckton of money, and Big Content will give its money to whoever supports their copyright agenda regardless of political affiliation.
And, of course, if you don't... NO MONEY FOR YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOR ROHAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOR ROHAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOR ROHAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FOR ROHAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only a matter of time before "ads funded by Hollywood money" goes up against "actually giving the voters what they want" and loses. The only question is, who's going to seize the opportunity?
Will Republicans, teetering on the edge, take the dive? Will Democrats, ever paying lip service to progressive ideals, finally put their money where their mouths are? Or will an independent party step into the spotlight, as the Republican party once did?
Only time will tell. But mark my words, the political landscape is changing, and changing for the better. Let's all look forward to the day when politicians who provide good results do better than politicians who spend a fortune on advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People don't fear change -- they WANT change. They're sick and tired of business as usual, all the smoke and mirrors, lies and corruption. They realize that nothing is going to get any better unless things change for the better and soon.
Our government cannot afford to waste time, money (our tax dollars) and resources in order to protect this corporate monopoly. It's a huge waste, and for what? Just so that a few wealthy corps can leech off copyright? Get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it's in the best interest of the people, by the people, for the people... you might be young, fit and healthy so it is not in your best interest to ensure a good health system, but you will not allways be young, fit and healthy, and not everyone is young etc either...
thats probably why your country is such a mess !!! if you dont care about anything except what you want !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate Party versus Ninja Party! Go!
Instead of Republican and Democrat...
Ninja versus Pirate!
The Ninja Party represents the Shoguns, in other words, the Founding Principles, Free-Markets, Powerful Military, etc.
It's basically a blend between the best of the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party combined.
Ninja Party versus the Pirate Party!
The Party Party represents pure unadulterated direct electronic democracy, a very thin and transparent government, and complete and total enforcement of honesty in all aspects of government (except extremely severe cases of national security, but even then, there's a shorter limit on withholding such information)
When you completely replace the dynamic between the Republicans and Democrats with the Ninjas and Pirates, you have a complete refutation of the validity of the current hegemony.
What do you guys think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
References
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: References
[emphasis added]
This is what apparently happened. Is it done in the open? No, like SOPA, this stuff is done in secret with only industry interests invited. The industry knows that their disproportionate representation is not appreciated by the public. But, in all likelihood, Hollywood was definitely behind it. 99.999 percent chance. It's predictable. Everyone knows it, even you, and pretending that you think it's not true, or has a reasonable chance of not being true, only makes you look foolish and gullible or ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: References
We have different definitions of "know" I guess. If by "know" you mean "believe" then yes I believe that is (most likely) what happened. If you mean "know" as in having access to concrete and convincing evidence, then no I don't know it, and I doubt you do either. Though if you do, please share your evidence, because I think everyone should see it so we know (there's that word again) what happened.
pretending that you think it's not true, or has a reasonable chance of not being true, only makes you look foolish and gullible or ignorant.
What's foolish is your assumptions. Read what I said again, and tell me how you came to the conclusion that I think it's not true, or doesn't have a reasonable chance of being true.
Asking for evidence of a claim is completely different from stating a belief in the opposite of that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: References
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100630/14391410029.shtml
Even more recent evidence exists of this
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121115/16194521069/california-puc-cracks -down-innovative-ride-sharing-operations-as-another-batch-taxi-drivers-sue-uber.shtml
(among all the other examples of how competing taxi-cab companies have faced resistance in other states for self-serving anti-competitive purposes).
The list goes on and on and on. The evidence is a very long long history of corporate control over government, that is evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: References
You simply can't be reasonable with totally unreasonably people. They understand nothing except for absolutes. Anything less gives them the upper hand. They want to set the rules, then that's how we play the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: References
it was only a study paper, not a policy statement, it was not written by this group it was written by an academic, in copyright law. It's a suggestion paper, again, not a policy paper..
all political parties develop or acquire papers and perspecitve of the "other side' of the argument, it helps them to develop their own policies, and ways to counter critisms..
that does not mean they intend to adopt that paper or report, it's a 'counter argument' or alternate perspective, and a different analysis.. but NOT a POLICY and a goal.
Masnick knows this, he also knows that Hollywood would not even bother to say anything in relation to this, it's the REPS after all, there was no lobbying in this case..
but Masnick NEEDS someone to blame, he might as well use "hollywood" as much as anyone else..
yes, it's true Masnick got an instant hard on when he first read it, and could not contain himself, but thats just what he does..
if you take masnicks word for anything, or believe that he is unbiased and not an appoligist for pirites, that is your problem..
most can see through the thin vail of his.... lies.. we accept him and his comments for what they are..
A sometimes amusing read, but not facts or real information, but a look into how 'the masnick' sees the world... and how he has managed to convince 10 or so people his idea's are 'godly', not bad after so many years, what 1 or 2 converts a year !!!!!.. nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: References
By just jumping in and shitting on Mike without backing up anything, you are not contributing to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: References
it was written, by Chris Sprigman not the reps,.,
MASNICK SAID SO !!!!!
who is Chris Sprigman you ask ??? well firstly he is not a part of the RSC...
Chris Sprigman teaches intellectual property law, antitrust law, competition policy and comparative constitutional law. His scholarship focuses on how legal rules affect innovation and the deployment of new technologies.
"
University of virginia school of law..
ok,, ill shit on you instead, next time read the freaking article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: References
it was written, by Chris Sprigman not the reps,.,
MASNICK SAID SO !!!!!
Reading fail. It was NOT written by Sprigman. I mentioned TWO separate things. 1. was an op ed by Sprigman and Raustiala. 2. was the RSC report. They are entirely different items.
The RSC paper was written by the Republican Study Committee and is an official "policy brief."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
Anyway, nice to see that blockhead Masnick playing the hapless Charlie Brown to Republican Lucy holding the football for him to kick. Good Grief... another spectacular, embarrassing flop for the (ahem) journalist Mike Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
I have multiple sources that have confirmed. No doubt at all as to what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
Hollywood has tons of lobbyists. These lobbyists have a clear purpose, and are ever-present in DC and connected to congresscritters.
The GOP via RSC puts out a paper that suggests copyright reform in the direction that the Hollywood lobbyists don't want.
The lobbyists have, many many times in the past, lobbied against the positions taken in the RSC paper.
Now, the question:
If the RSC paper drops, would the Hollywood lobbyists
a) do nothing
b) raise a big stink, make a bunch of emergency phone calls, and let their voices be heard loud and clear by the GOP congresscritters?
Any fool with a brain can see that the lobbyists would jump on answer (b). It is specifically THEIR JOB to do just that. They have done it over and over in the past.
It's like finding a dog shit in your back yard after leaving your dog fenced in their all day. Where did that dog shit come from? Hmmmm. Lemme see. The dog shits back there every other day. We've seen him do it on occasion. He still eats. He had motive, access, and time. I'm gonna take the mental leap and say the dog did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
I'll continue to be curious about why the paper was put out if the GOP knew they'd get a negative reaction from Hollywood lobbyists. The most plausible is the official explanation (that not everyone signed off on it) but not everyone seems to buy that. Another possibility is that whoever okayed this doesn't care about Hollywood lobbyists and was willing to take the risk of irritating them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: References
Professor, UCLA School of Law and UCLA International Institute
Director, UCLA Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations
UCLA Law faculty since 2000
thats the other guy who wrote the paper, it's simply an academic paper, not a paper produced by RSC..
again,, MASNICK SAID SO, facts are facts.. (except if you dont care to find them out)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: References
"Right after the Presidential election last week, Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala penned an opinion piece suggesting that one way the Republicans could "reset", and actually attract the youth vote,"
notice the two authors, and the fact it is ONLY AN OPINION PIECE SUGGESTION,,,,, that ONE WAY...
it's also not about copyright or rights, it's about
"RESET" AND ACTUALLY ATTRACT VOTES"
oh well nice try,, but just like patent laws, no prize for seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: References
"Right after the Presidential election last week, Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala penned an opinion piece suggesting that one way the Republicans could "reset", and actually attract the youth vote,"
So it was not a piece about "here's what the other side thinks", as you claimed.
Masnick knows this, he also knows that Hollywood would not even bother to say anything in relation to this, it's the REPS after all, there was no lobbying in this case..
Now, got any evidence for this one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: References
if not more...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: References
Unless it all came out of that asshole you call a mouth, darryl. Or is it the mouth you use as an asshole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: References
The RSC report: completely different document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: References
I can't reveal my sources, but I 100% absolutely stand by the story. It's what happened, and I know that without a doubt based on what I've been told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't let this report die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let this report die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let this report die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't let this report die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't let this report die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let this report die.
I look forward to the day you are all dead and gone.
I hate the MAFIAA.
No hope in Politicians.Sick of both Parties in a big way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as copyright goes, since the maximalists continue to refuse to even consider the least possibility of compromise, then I will return them the favor. At this point, I'm unwilling to even except reform. The ONLY acceptable "reform" I am willing to concede to at this point is the complete and utter abolishment of copyright.
And I will stick to that principle as long as they retain their current leadership. When new leadership takes over (across the board, not just a person here or there), then maybe I will be willing to consider different options, but I am no longer willing to negotiate with these people, ever.
Thank you, copyright industry, thank you, for being so utterly unreasonable that you continue to turn what were some of your strongest supporters into some of your toughest critics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They have to die eventually right? I mean it's not like they've made some kind of unholy bargain to live forever and... oh crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investment Bankers are the 0.05%
The top 0.05% are those with true power and ability to shut the door firmly in the faces of everyone beneath them.
The top 0.05% are composed entirely of international investment bankers, just so everyone knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My first reaction was that the term 'gutless wonders' applied here to the committee members.
Then more sober reflection kicked in, and common sense told me that the term 'campaign dollars' is considerably more likely to be at the root of the reports retraction.
No matter how the retraction was worded, the committee has to know that they can only come out of this, at best, looking like back-boneless twits.
And, after stunts like this, politicians still wonder why so many of them are so often held in such low regard!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was thinking more like fucking wimps or just plain assholes, and then thinking that maybe that was too kind as well.So, after more thought, I decided there wasn't any words to describe the contempt that I have for these gutless,back-boneless, fucking assholey, wimpy twit wonders.
I'll never ever vote republican again...ever!Never ever again...really!never ever...Did I say never?...ever!!Not even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Say you have a house that's been recently lit on fire. Standing in front of the house is someone who is a known pyromaniac and arsonist covered in soot and smelling strongly of smoke. At his feat are several mostly empty cans of gasoline and other accelerants. Clutched in his hands are a box of matches and a lighter.
Now, given all this, while he might not be the one who is responsible, you'd have to be pretty dense not to at least place heavy odds on him being the one who lit the blaze.
[ 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:
I agree, but (not to beat a dead horse or anything) that isn't what Mike said. He said, "However, as soon as it was published, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report." Did he intend "apparently" to mean "presumably" or "I am guessing"? Because that's certainly not how I read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't feel that it's much of a stretch to make that inference. However, even if it turns out not to be true, I feel no sympathy for those who were (theoretically) falsely accused. IIRC, Congress is exempt from FOIA. They've rigged the laws to make sure we can't know what they're doing to us behind closed doors. Once they change that, then they can bitch about false accusations of
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it's just dew. ;-)
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
VERY GOOD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just keep doing what we've done best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just keep doing what we've done best.
yes, please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just keep doing what we've done best.
How about we keep it front and center simply because it looks at copyright with some fucking common sense.
Why, exactly, are you attempting to suppress it? Based on the fury of comments I see, this report scares you doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just keep doing what we've done best.
It can happen.
The copyright cartel may have just done a Streisand on this, bringing to far more people's attention a dry reform proposal that would otherwise have come and gone, noticed as remarkable only by the interested.
The elite copyright vampires just got a tad sunburnt by some fool opening the Overton window, and now they'll do a purge to ensure it doesn't happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just keep doing what we've done best.
Nobody cares. This was no different than if you or Masnick or Lessig or some other weirdo zealot posted some idiot freehadist manifesto and it accidentally slipped through onto a site before being reviewed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just keep doing what we've done best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just keep doing what we've done best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the RIAA and MPAA don't seem to realize is that the damage has been done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
oh you're wrong, they've seen how much damage has been done to the GOP and the Freehadists by the GOP and Freehadists!
[ 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:
Well, if I'm going to be called a freehadist, I'll be one with pride!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. House GOP Conservative Caucus prepares & releases report on copyrights.
2. Predictable Hollywood explosion occurs (MPAA/RIAA).
3. One of their big talking points is and has been "Why are you guys trying to create an issue where none really exists? We're the victims here." Not saying it's right, but that's one of the lines the lobsters get paid to push.
4. So, the report gets taken down and the House GOP Conservative Caucus makes sure (absolutely sure) that the emails 'explaining' the move go out far and wide. There's a reason for doing that.
5. Now, one of several things will happen:
--- No reaction to the emails. Then the RIAA/MPAA are proven correct, and it's a non-starter.
--- Some/moderate response (some blowback). Ok, the MPAA/RIAA 'lobsters' are trying to sell us a line and this thing really isn't a dead end/blind alley.
--- Developing/Substantial/serious response (increasing blowback). Not only are the MPAA/RIAA 'lobsters' are trying to sell us a line, the whole copyright issue is a political 'growth medium' and it's something we really need to get on top of. Bingo!!
Look at it from the viewpoint of using the internet to perform market research....
You want to make a difference? - Take the time to contact your Congresscritter over this issue. Almost all of them have email accounts on their website. But,as a piece of advice, KEEP IT PROFESSIONAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I had assumed they had little to lose with this because they weren't benefiting from Hollywood money. But if this puts them on the wrong side of that, and if it isn't enough to win them a whole new voting block, I'm not sure what they have gained politically.
Now if the Republicans actually want to become libertarians (and all that entails, including dropping support of social behavior regulations, corporate welfare programs, and massive military spending), that would be a much bigger change for them.
As I have said, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. The timing seems unusual, given there isn't an election around the corner and it's not the most pressing issue to be solved in Washington right now. However, if the Republicans plan to embrace every issue young voters are interested in, that will mean replacing lots of current Republican politicians with an entirely new generation of them. Can we expect vastly different stories to be featured on Fox News now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here it is too
http://rapponthis.blogspot.com/2012/11/111712-republicans-house-report-on.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot
I mean, if they can be pressured this easily to just take down a report/declaration, the idea that they'd stand firm and actually vote for something like this is laughable.
Hopefully the democrats pick up on the fact the GOP just painted a massive bulls-eye on their chest, and take the shot by picking up and running with what the republicans just so hastily dropped. Or someone in the republican party realizes how something like this could drastically help the party out, assuming they passed it.
Honestly I don't care who gets it done, as long as it gets done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about shooting yourself in the foot
Not likely, the Democrats seem to be pretty thoroughly owned by Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about shooting yourself in the foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citation to this statement of fact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How I Imagine it Going Down...
Here's what I think happened; Republican Party realized that "donations" from Hollywood were a bit lackluster this past election cycle. Repub.s decide to send a bit of a message, "Hey, nice government granted 'temporary' monopoly you got there, would sure be a shame if one of the major political parties were to realize what a crock it is."
Hollywood quickly rushes a suitcase or several of filthy lucre to a few key leaders and BAM! Turns out "Oops, turns out we based our research on numbers not approved by the guys paying our bills. Nevermind."
And thus the (so-called) balance of politics is restored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How I Imagine it Going Down...
You might be onto something there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How I Imagine it Going Down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How I Imagine it Going Down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How I Imagine it Going Down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How I Imagine it Going Down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuff like this makes the reasons why I won't buy major label damaged goods all the more apparent.
While it was nice to hope there was a glimmer of wisdom coming out of Washington where usually it means you are lucky to get a benefit because it aligns with what a major corporation wants and when it more often gets cut off at the knees before happening, it means it was against a major monied lobby group, this again shows why I don't want my money going to them to fund these sorts of actions.
It does show Washington is very much aware of what is happening even while they play dense about it. It just shows how bad corruption there really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are actively, willfully malicious and deceitful.
They KNOW what the correct course of action actually is, and yet they STILL eat from the dogbowls set out by the largest members of the lobbyist groups.
Just goes to show, doesnt it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Current copyright law provides no real incentive to create anything new. Just ask Hollywood. (Robocop, Evil Dead, Little Shop of Horrors, Spiderman, Batman...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so how do filmmakers tour? photographers should sell t-shirts?
wow, just wow... I am loving how out of touch with reality you girls are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't falsely label people. I don't hate artists, I'm simply not fond of artists and corporations leeching off a system. If copyright lasted 14 years, artists would have to work to make a living, as was stated. This would lead to far more original works.
"so how do filmmakers tour? photographers should sell t-shirts?"
Frankly, this has nothing to do with that ...unless of course you prefer that they keep "milking the same old cow."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
how do photographer tour? should they go town to town taking pictures and selling t-shirts.
the gaps in logic around here are truly astounding, and that is why this turd got retracted in one of the fastest "policy" boomerangs we've ever seen.
a jr intern goes off half-cocked and you take it as gospel, thank god the adults got home just in time to maybe save some face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"a jr intern goes off half-cocked and you take it as gospel, thank god the adults got home just in time to maybe save some face."
You mean to say that the corporate lobbyists pulled their strings in order to get their way. All that matters to them is that they continue to monopolize culture in order to satiate their greed. What good could possibly come out of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, there would still be cinema theatres. Theatres sell a scarce resource: the seat. There are only so many screens and so many seats in the theatre, that its simple, basic economics to charge to be allowed to sit in a particular seat for two hours. There will more than likely always be a demand for theatres (at least, until the holodeck is invented).
Photographers? Perhaps they can try new ways of monetizing their work. Instead of selling easily copyable copies of photographs, perhaps they can work commissions, i.e. highly skilled photographers can charge to take beautiful looking shots or teach classes/workshops on photography...hang on, that's what they already do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any source to back this "unchecked intern" your assertion up you've been hammering throughout this comment thread ? Man up shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Basically, those who endorse the behavior of the RIAA and similar organizations are people who harbor the delusion that the bridge trolls at the RIAA will maybe, possibly, give the speaker a place at the table of the blessed.
This wont happen. Even pretending that the RIAA are remotely redeemable human beings is a severe pathological delusion.
The naked truth is that the RIAA's singular justification is to support artists, but none of the supposed artists are actually producing anything of worth, and those REAL artists who do are snuffed out by the system.
You'd have to be willfully ignorante to even consider the possibility that the RIAA is in any shape or form a justifiable organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why would a photographer print t-shirts when he or she can do photography for others freelance, or post his or her images on a blog, and accept donations to continue.
You arent going to confuse this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Talk about out of touch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact that you think this sort of confusion could occur makes you an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, not buying it.
As someone who writes in his free time, I can tell you this, if someone takes my ideas and runs with them, all the more to them.
If they can do it better, good job.
If not, that means that I'm better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If those things satisfied the same goals, maybe, but they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
well, I guess if even trent reznor finds the value in signing back with a major label they can't be all that bad, can they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most of the independent artists don't go around suing their fans and ruining the internet.
"well, I guess if even trent reznor finds the value in signing back with a major label they can't be all that bad, can they?"
If labels are so beneficial, why do so many artists get into disputes with their labels about stuff like royalties being withheld? Why do artists refer to label deals as "indentured servitude"? Why are so many established artists activating their termination clauses, active starting next year? I could go on all day.
[ 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:
at least record labels offer contracts via consent, negotiate terms, and pay the artists - the pirate bay does none of this. so to claim that somehow artists are better off without any compensation is absolutely false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Contracts matter jack shit if the personnel you are dealing with are as unreasonable as the RIAA. But going by the addled state your industry chowder-soaked brain is in you couldn't tell the difference between a compliment and a kick to the face, can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's really no need to digress into ad hominems. It's immature. Let's try to have a civilized discussion.
I'm out for now. See you guys later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes - contracts, like in every other civilized business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You pretty much get a "take it or leave it" decision, especially if you are a mediocre artist.
Also, since the labels control nearly all (known) channels of distribution, many artists dont see much of a choice but to take the terms given to them.
Artists who are a cut above the rest do not need labels, because they are good enough to promote themselves.
BTW, The Pirate Bay has begun promoting early adopters of the service-oriented model of professional artistry (which was actually the original model, before recording was technically possible, as patrons of the arts and various commissions would fund great artists).
If you are a pathetic whiny mediocre artist, practice, practice, practice, and get genuinely good at your trade.
If you play your cards right, and work like the rest of us, you will surely earn a retirement. Just remember to manage your investment portfolio.
If you're the kind of artist who does not like to work for a living, there's always the time-honored trade of panhandling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To our knowledge, the RIAA - precious enforcers and protectors of artists - have never come down hard on labels for reneging on contracts. Labels have NEVER been punished for it. The presence of contracts has NEVER been a guarantee of fairness.
Now how about you wrap that debunked argument of yours around yourself, and jump off a skyscraper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't use The Pirate Bay for anything, nor any other torrent site, so this is pointless.
As far as record label deals are concerned, really, they only benefit established artists, not the newcomers, and even then they rook them all in so many ways. The internet provides the best alternative to a label deal. The only caveat is that musicians have to handle a bit more work, e.g. self-promotion, and compete in a much broader market, but that's how it goes. Beggars can't be choosers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the truth is, if the internet were working for musicians there'd be a robust new middle class of professional musicians, fact is, there isn't - and worse, there are 45% less professional musicians today than in 2002.
it's just common sense and math.
http://thetrichordist.com/2012/05/22/why-arent-more-musicians-working-professionally/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I speak of established musicians, yeah, it just so happened that most of them were established way back when the major labels ruled the roost, before the internet really took off. But now all they've got are their Lady Gagas and Justin Biebers -- hardly what I consider quality music. The contemporary artists' back catalogs aren't worth a penny, sorry to say.
Fortunately there's a lot more artists to choose from thanks to the internet, even if quality varies drastically between them. Established or not, here's the key benefit: they get to keep 100% of their profit or close and determine their own career. As was said previously, they need to work in order to promote themselves. But let's say that an artist sells 700 albums at $10 a pop plus a tour, merch, mechanicals, etc. That's $7,000 just for the albums + whatever else they make. So that's a definite plus.
BTW, in a recent Billboard article I read, it explained how independent artists factor in over 30% of all profits per year, but even that figure isn't 100% accurate as they don't survey everyone on the market. I wish I had the article in question on hand but I'm too tired to go dig it up (*note* it's not too difficult to find).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
sorry, you're wrong - it's just facts - and despite everything you've said, where is this new booming middle class of empowered professional musicians?
I know things like facts, reason and logic hurt you so very badly.
[ 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:
Here, how about this: it is a fact that idiots like you have been screaming that piracy has killed the music industry since the invention of home taping. The music industry isn't dead.
Therefore, you're a complete psychopath.
[ 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: Re:
They've had our culture locked up for decades. Had copyright remained as it was always supposed to be (14 years), there would be an abundance of original works, people would have access to older works and the government wouldn't need to spend our tax dollars working to protect this busted corporate welfare system. Instead, here comes a remake of Robocop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With the advent of the Internet providing such a ridiculously EASY circumvention of their precarious control, many large labels are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
There is NEVER a "company too large to fall"
LET THEM ALL GO BANKRUPT!
[ 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:
Yeah, because that doesnt sound suspiciously like a barrel of RIAA shills at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the site of David Lowery, former front-man for Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker. It exists mainly to rant against the Internet in general, and Google in particular, under the flimsy excuse of "protecting artists' rights."
You may remember Lowery from when Techdirt wrote a critique of a Facebook post he made (loosely outlining a talk he gave). Where, in response, Lowery went ballistic, threatened to sue, pulled the Facebook post, and continued to pollute the comments section of nearly every story with off-topic ad hominems for days. You probably also remember him from his attempts to public shame an NPR intern for admitting to sharing music.
Occasionally he has "guest posts" from the likes of Chris Castle, the copyright lawyer behind the equally-ridiculous Music Technology Policy, or from whichever disgruntled artist he can dig up (so far just Gavin Castleton, Chris Whitten, and Zack Hemsey). I actually debated Castleton in the comments section here (as did others). He also regularly links to laughably inaccurate sites like Pop Up Pirates.
So, generally he's trying to be a clearing-house for copyright maximalist propaganda. But an RIAA shill he's not, unless you think being a musician on a major label makes you an "RIAA shill."
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FYI, this article is completely wrong. I debunked it in the comments section here.
In case you don't want to follow the link, here's the relevant section:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy strawman!
[ 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: Re:
Do you even know what a strawman is? "Strawman" doesn't mean "wrong". Go look it up if you're confused.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd ask how your mind works but I already know...
GIGO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If only it were a Libertarian Party candidate versus a Pirate Party candidate.
For anyone who isnt on the up and up about these two groups,
The Libertarian Party more resembles the traditional GOP as opposed to so-called neo-conservativism, or social conservatism.
The Libertarian Party believes government should be as small, local, and minimal as possible, and leave everything possible to the free markets. Just as the Internet is self-regulated, so can the free markets self-regulate in a similar manner. We do not need a paternalistic police state dictating our every breath.
On the other corner is the Pirate Party!
The Pirate Party believes in extremely transparent, open, and accessible government, to the point of involving every concerned citizen in direct electronic democracy, a modern version of the greco-roman model, where citizens directly participated in decision-making.
The Pirate Party also has an extremely firm stance on intellectual property of any kind, absolute abolishment, but if it cant get that, then very significant reform.
Knowledge of any significant kind, from the training for skilled labor, to higher mathematics, science and engineering should be provided (by the government) for free to all people.
This knowledge would be provided by way of a neutral Internet. This network neutrality would be enforced by the national government as part of inter-state trade regulation.
Although I have a few minor implementation disputes with the Pirate Party, I would vastly rather see the Pirate Party gain majority in senate and the supreme court, then continue with this charade with the Republicans and Democrats.
Good luck to both parties, Libertarian (Ninja) and Pirate (Direct Electronic Democrat), may the best candidate win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
libertarian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: libertarian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: libertarian
When copyright protects dead grandmothers and their families from getting sued by the RIAA, you let me know. Don't you get tired of an existence where your mouth is your asshole, you gasping waste of space?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: libertarian
I get legal threats from Disney, that's what happens.
So...how does copyright protect me from the corporation again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we're pro-choice, you are pro-exploitation without choice.
learn the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I got some ocean front property in Alberta for sale for you.
"we're pro-choice, you are pro-exploitation without choice."
And if anyone believes that, I'll sell you some attack squirrels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where exactly is this anger you speak of?
"copyright protects the individual from exploitation by given the individual the power to negotiate..."
Yes, you "negotiate" with a record label to either give them the copyright to all your work, or walk away with nothing. That's some awesome "protection from exploitation" right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Locking up ideas stifles progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Locking up ideas stifles progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Locking up ideas stifles progress
Bribing a politician is, in and of itself, illegal and unethical. Yet because of a semantics game -- calling political cash "free speech" -- they continue to get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Locking up ideas stifles progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy come, easy go.
They are stuck between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea on this one when sure 15 million people or more would support copyright reform but their funds come from the MPAA and RIAA.
I would say don't be sad when this may be a first small step but it won't be the last. People will keep pushing because they know we need copyright reform which means it will pop up in other forms over the next few years.
If anyone should be afraid then that should be Chris Dodd when SOPA & PIPA are dead, ACTA is in a coma, then CETA and TPP(A) are in our sights. It is like Chris Dodd can't get much done these days already where this copyright reform document appearing in the House is going is going to give that guy nightmares.
Yes the MPAA and RIAA would totally freak out. To go ahead with this copyright reform would undo years of their work and bring fairness to the system. We can all see how screwed copyright law is and one day someone has to fix it. Heroes are in the making already so lets give them our support. We also welcome them to look facts and not the fantasy that usually comes out of the RIAA/MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy come, easy go.
I say let's give the MPAA a taste of how that feels. Let's keep pushing our representatives to look at copyright reform. Don't let up. Keep pushing until the MPAA has to deal with copyright reform issues in Congress more often than we have to deal with SOPA/PIPA/ACTA legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BTW...
Hollywood got ITS start from infringing on patents and copyright of Thomas Edison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> alienating all of the important
> innovative music, film, authors,
> photographers and other creators
Don't know if you've been keeping up, but the vast majority of those people are liberal Democrats who aren't gonna vote for Republicans anyway.
There's nothing to alienate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh jeez
Why do people always just HAVE to feed the trolls, even the obvious ones?
Back on topic: I was developing Republican sympathies due to the report, but that has now been fully cured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retracted Republican Assessment of Copyright Law
http://issuu.com/lokimonday/docs/three_myths_about_copyright_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
opinion piece, not about copyright, but about getting votes, not written by the Reps, but written by two academics,,,...
OPINION PIECE,,, SUGGESTING ONE WAY
NOT a policy statement, not agreed upon, not supported by any politician, just a scummy opinion piece from some teachers who want to ensure tenure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First three words in the document.
RSC Policy Brief
Sorry, NOT an opinion.
You fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BULLSHIT, RSC did not 'put out a report',
Do you think a report and an opinion peice is the same thing ??
Who put out this opinion peice ???
the RSC ??? NO... idiot..
Chris Sprigman and Kal Raustiala penned an opinion piece
who is Shris and Kal ???? we'll they dont work for the RSC, they both are teachers in University..
is it a report... NO
it is an opinion peice ?? ... YES
is it a suggestion ?? ... YES
has it been ratified, agreed upon, supported or promoted by anyone in the RSC ???? .... NO
Is it a "REPORT" from the RSC ??? NO, not a report, and not from the RSC..
masnick magically turned it into something it never was, and never was intended for. Why, because masnick does these things, he is not one for letting the truth get in his way. (either that or he expects his readers to be as willfully blind as he seems to think you are)..
but it was coming up to the weekend and he had to get SOME page hits. or his Google overlords would not be too happy with him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard.
Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, sorry...
That would make you homeless.
I guess even shills need to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amusing Republican bashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amusing Republican bashing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berne Convention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Berne Convention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Berne Convention
No, actually the Berne Convention mandates 50 years after death.
But that is the really unique part about this proposal, it wouldn't limit copyright to less than what is required in Berne, it simply provides incentives not to keep the copyright that long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Berne Convention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Berne Convention
We do not need copyright or patent law. It is counterproductive to have such laws exist at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can one expect?
It also does not help when the MPAA has an political old crony, Chris Dodd, running it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you actually have any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions that the trade groups "went ballistic" and that the report had been "fully vetted" by the RSC?
Or are you seriously this much of a desperate foaming-at-the-mouth zealot that you actually just made up the whole scenario?
I dare you to answer honestly (and I know that you can't/won't).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What proof do YOU have that they weren't calling in like crazy?
...
That's what I thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The trolls are foaming at the mouth so much, they couldn't be arsed to confirm if anyone had already confirmed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democrats won't swoop in to save the day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Democrats won't swoop in to save the day
Perhaps before we look into copyright reform, we need to reconsider checks and balances in politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in case you want to send a note to the RSC...
curtis.rhyne@mail.house.gov
derek.Khanna@mail.house.gov
brad.watson@mail.house.gov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Freehadist?"
I don't think I can let this word go by easily.
I am somebody who thinks of the religious, theocratic threat from Islam as a very serious danger to humanity as they have proven themselves in the ongoing civil wars in the Middle East and Asia, let alone the attacks on civil society in other countries around the world, such as East Timor, Spain, Nigeria, the USA and UK etc. And that secular values must be defended against with force against Orwellian, totalitarian, God-mandated regimes. This includes a very likely justified fight against Saddam Hussein and the military that enslaves North Korea. I am with the faction of the Left that stems back all the way to the 30's - the bunch that would proudly declare that "fascism means war" and that if there are ever any "just wars" in this world, it must be against all forms of totalitarianism that treat 1984 as a grand inspiration instead of a dire warning.
So, having said that, let me make this very clear: the use of the word "freehadist" as a means to compare the odd kid who does the equivalent of buying a DVD from ebay and selling it again for the same price as a religious fascist bent on death and destruction is a FUCKING DISGRACE. I have no choice but to treat with contempt those who compare your every day common-sense-minded person with theocrats. It is an absolute insult to everyone who ever questioned the idea of copyright and a filthy, revolting slander.
It is something I will not have said. And neither should anyone else here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Freehadist?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/01250519456/free-culture-is-response-to-ethical-f ailings-old-entertainment-industry.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A sure sign of commitment
On the day when a politician refuses to accept a bribe or bow to a threat and instead publicizes the attempt, that's the day when I'll be happy about supporting a politician. Until then, politicians will remain in my estimation somewhere below the morality and trustworthiness of the proverbial used car salesman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have not bought Music or Movies in 15 years. I visit the Library, yes I'm a "frehadist"
the *AA's and Hollywood only get pennies of my monies
I have nothing on My PC that is not mine
I do not watch TV I do sometimes listen to radio in cars but thats all the Music I hear
Keep up the good works folks but still at some point you WILL die off.
I really hope I live to see the day the US president is voted into office with only 10 thousand votes, the young in America will not care for the MSM propaganda in the near future, they HAVE the internet.
Knowledge is power, the internet if full of Knowledge..
and is the true Power of the Future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
considers adequate review and reasonable recommendations.
That way they have to expose their real position and face
the real consequences. Do not let them just hope this issue
will go away if they ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does this work?
How cab the self interest of a small group of profiteurs get a whole nation to suffer, while they swim in money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How does this work?
After that, it's diamonds, gold, caviar and wine from there.
The bottom line? There's not a damned thing you can do to actually BECOME a plutocrat. The chances of you or I becoming a multi-billionare is somewhat less than your chances of being struck by a meteorite, struck by a lightning bolt, and bitten by a rabid red fox with unusual facial markings all on the same day.
In other words, the concept that you can somehow work hard and earn your place among plutocracy is cute but it's cruel to allow people to continue believing that.
There is an extremely powerful multi-layered class barrier, including a labyrinth of tax breaks, tax credits, tax rebates, and other fiscal snowjobbery, many many shibboleths and specialized peacock signalling and cultural secrets and calling cards that prevent anyone from joining the ranks of the truly powerful multi-billionare plutocratic elite, even assuming you somehow won a multi-billion-dollar lottery ticket. Nearly all of that would vanish instantly as taxes, and the rest would drain out as debt and of that, the rest will leech out in various ways.
The plutocrats are here to stay, ladies and gentlemen, unless we have a very organized global cultural and economic revolution that does away with every last layer of their social, economic, and memetic control.
I hope that helped to explain how multi-billion-dollar plutocratic top 0.005% manage to maintain power so easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supporting musicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supporting musicians
Can't afford to get tickets though, and most of the concerts are pretty far away. =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
change.org petition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
change.org petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/paul-teller-and-the-republican-study-committee-rsc-republis h-and-stand-behind-their-policy-brief-on-copyright-law#
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they'll vet and issue it again
expect the report to reissue shortly with no substantive change. It will remain as a remarkable document that sets the Republicans apart from the Democrats, leaving the party as the standard bearer for forward looking technology policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they'll vet and issue it again
So they will be pushing for major patent reform, too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy of the RSC Policy Brief
Just scroll down to nearly the bottom of the page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RSC Brief
I thought that leaving a link to the report would've, in some way, encouraged a reasonably informed debate. What I have seen since that post (~180 posts ago) is something of a very bad morning on FOX news. From Religious arguments to endorsing political parties, it's somewhat of a storm what this comment wall has become.
The Policy Brief, as it is known, has actual endorsement of RSC members; is well researched; and soundly based on factual evidence - statistically speaking.
As a collector of copyright royalties, I encourage... nay, I applaud theft of my "brainy stuff". If its going to promote expansion, innovation, and stimulation of the Sciences and Arts, HELL YA, everybody take!!! I'm going to get paid regardless.
I've seen posts on election results, outright anger, opinions that truly belong to Rush Limbaugh, and I've seen this start off - meaning with the article itself, from a coherent base to a ceaseless ramble going off on tangents that lose the point completely.
This brief espouses reform for copyright in both Science and Art. This means that instead of waiting lifetimes for innovation, people will actually get the chance to use their very expensive educations - if it's in science (possibly art) to take someone's idea and make it better, more "useful to Society", to quote what several posts have attempted in defining Art.
There is alot of hate here for "Pirates". In fact piracy of... "music software has broken down boundaries even further. Not only can people hear and experience a wider range of inspirational existing music, but now musical creation has become more widely available.
Just as there are those whose musical stasis prompts them to ask questions about who the next "Dylan" or "Led Zeppelin" or "Beatles" will be, there are those who wonder how today's severely fractured market and wealth of distractions will ever produce another 25-million-album seller like Michael Jackson (or even $35K a year). Those that blame this lack of multimillionaire chart dominators solely on piracy, rather than on underlying cultural shifts, economic woes, a multitude of new distractions and other disruptions are merely settling for a convenient whipping boy, rather than actually working on fixing their problems." From TechDirt directly...
It's not just the Music industry, but it covers the entire spectrum; Movies; Books (in fact all media); Broadcast (all of it), and I could make a list of 20 more copyrightable forms - including all forms of caching, storage, and having something posted on YouTube.
The point is that this is a start. Australia has been and is looking at copyright reform - although they have some way of going about it, it's being looked at - that is a start. EU has been looking at it - that's a start.
The MPAA is not as powerful as they once were. In the last three years the major movie studios cut their payments to the MPAA in half. The RIAA however, has seen 40% in staff cutbacks, the MPAA has managed to keep the same number of employees; they work for lower average salaries. It is the MPAA who has the stable lobbying budget.
The bigger picture is fair use.
The bigger picture is who controls what, and how they're/it is going to do it - and, for the most part, that 'what' is the internet... because, quite simply put - EVERYTHING IS ON, OR WILL BE ON THE INTERNET!
Look at the continuing success of failing Bills and Acts in both Europe and North America. By at least "taking a look" at copyright and the reformations it needs, means that leaders are paying attention - they see in some degree, that creativity and innovation is being yolked through domineering, copyright/patent infringing teams lawyers and the corporations they serve, and these things have to change - if anything is to advance societal goals... "contribute".
Copyright includes even linking to sites now - although that is being constantly tested and examined. Civil and Criminal cases are being brought against individuals for just this very thing. Officials are actually trying to extradite people for copyright violation because of linking to websites. However, a ruling stating that "watching a video that someone else uploaded are not infringing on the reproduction right under copyright" is a great place to start when looking at copyright.
You see, that is the bigger picture. This Brief is just a start, but it begs the address of the overwhelming question of fair use. If it takes destroying a "Corporate Monopoly Castle" one brick at a time, then that's the way it has to be done. The internet has altered the landscape of use, usage, and the definitions of right and wrong, where it concerns not violating the copyright owner’s exclusive rights that it simply cannot be ignored.
I quote yet another article from TechDirt; "The archives of Baseball Digest 'the oldest and longest-running journal of matters baseball-related,' which has been published continuously since 1942. For various reasons (sounds like they didn't renew...) the issues from 1942 until 1964 are in the public domain. Everything after that... not so much." Baseball, perhaps America's greatest past-time, is a victim... go ahead... take a look when you have the time.
Copyright Law Is Keeping Useful Info Off Wikipedia, the world's fifth largest website, and it all falls under the buzz-word "Piracy". Piracy finds its way into just about every legitimate avenue on the Internet. Afterall, what is copyright violation if it's not Piracy? It's like calling someone a Socialist if they believe in Universal Healthcare - do you even know what Socialism is? Piracy = Communism... again... meaning just what?
Copyright infringement can’t be considered theft in the same way that stealing a Book from a Library or Bookstore, or a CD/DVD from a store shelf is theft. If you copy the song, download a PDF Title, or say... Magazine, you have it, and so does its creator. Even MPAA’s CEO, Chris Dodd, has admitted that the days when piracy was associated with theft and copyright infringement had gone.
Limits and definitions need to be defined, if not re-defined, because the current system simply will not stand up to the incredible evolution of today's innovators and creators. The current copyright laws are stiffling these very things. If I let you in on a little secret that Cold-fusion is actually Ambient-fusion and that I have it, I should now own that idea, but do you think that I'll get a copyright for publishing, or even the patent for the discovery? Not a chance. The Gov't is probably already stalking my ISP just to see if I can back this claim up.
Hard media will be here forever, but the internet is where the innovation and creativity is occurring, and this is what is being debated here. Copyright of IDEAS... do you owe someone for something? Are you owed?
In my opinion, the Leaders are paying attention to the Citizens, and attention, even if it is long overdue, is appreciated.
The Brief is about Science and Art, and what loosely constitutes fair use. That is my interpretation... don`t shoot the messenger.
I would like to finish with thanking Mike Masnick for the continual TechDirt posts I receive through their daily eMails. There is alot of `TechDirtery`included in my post. You`re a good man Mike, and a great writer... Cheers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A recent update
Update: A spokesman for the RSC comments:
"On issues where there are several different perspectives among our members, our Policy Briefs should reflect that. This Policy Brief presented one view among conservatives on U.S. copyright law. Due to an oversight in our review process, it did not account for the full range of perspectives among our members. It was removed from the website to address that concern.
"I know some want to point fingers elsewhere, but the simple fact is that we screwed up, we admitted it, and we hope people will now use this opportunity to engage in polite and serious discussion of copyright law."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A recent update
Also from that article:
So, it appears Mike was correct. The brief was vetted; then pulled, at least in part (if not mostly), because "industry lobbyists" went ballistic about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A recent update
But I'm curious which lobbyists that might be. Seems like Hollywood lobbyists wouldn't have much sway with Republicans. What about more right-leaning news organizations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A recent update
It depends what you mean by "Hollywood." If you include companies like Comcast, Time Warner, and News Corp, then they do give more money to Democrats. (Yes, even News Corp.)
However, if you are talking about the MPAA, then not so much. In 2012, their PAC gave roughly $46K to Republicans, and $43K to Democrats.
Of course, that's just contributions to Congresspeople directly; they spend far, far more on lobbying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
Well, it will be interesting to see who influences whom as this plays out. My voting interests are primarily aligned with sustainability issues, so unless the Republicans draft some innovative policies there, I won't be voting for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A recent update
I just can't see how the movie and music trade groups would have so much influence with Republicans if the Republicans were fully behind this but then pulled it in response to pressure from Hollywood. The politics don't seem to add up (I don't know where the lobby money falls).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A recent update
You're wrong if you think Hollywood doesn't have much sway with Republicans. Very, very wrong. SOPA was introduced by... a Republican (and given to them by the MPAA). Previous copyright bills, including the awful "INDUCE" Act were introduced by Republicans.
One of the MPAA's top VPs last job... was on John McCain's presidential elections.
Thinking that the MPAA doesn't have sway with Republicans is simply wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
Given this, I'm curious why the report on copyright was even put forth by anyone at the Republican Study Committee. Surely they knew there would be a reaction. Was it a slip-up, were they testing the waters, were they hoping to get it out there with minimal notice (there have been more pressing issues to deal with in Congress right now), or is this a sign that this Republican group has fragmented and will split on this and perhaps other issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
Many wealthy individuals in Hollywood skew democrat, true. However, Fox news would have you believe it's 100%, because there's nothing better for viewership than a boogeyman.
Meanwhile, the big corporations, their chief executives, lawyers, MBAs, lobby groups, etc. skew GOP. They want less union power, more pro-IP legislation, and more international IP protection. This is generally seen as "pro business" and thus right wing.
Despite what Fox News wants to portray, Hollywood is not some liberal bastion. It is a mixed bag, like much of the nation. It probably has more voters that skew left, but the money goes to both parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
That's what I continue to expect from the GOP. This one paper or even a major push to reform copyright alone wouldn't change that. I am interested in IP issues to the extent that they are part of a much larger movement, which is best explored over at the P2P Foundation. I see major economic and sustainability issues that will need to be solved with more global cooperation and new forms of community organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A recent update
Awesome, thanks. Now we can continue hating them. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A recent update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A recent update
Man, being honest sucks, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A recent update
Go blow up your dick in a dynamite factory; you clearly don't need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A recent update
Huh? No, I have my sources and I stand by it 100% and the Ars Technica story confirms what I know as well. So, nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A recent update
LOL! You're such a fanatic that I don't think you remember how to be reasonable.
Ars reported: "The source told us content industry lobbyists exerted pressure on RSC leadership to repudiate the memo."
You reported: "the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report"
Where did you get "ballistic" and "demanding"? You made that part up, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
If you can't challenge the substance of the story any more, attack his word choice. If that fails, maybe you can go after his punctuation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
You got us there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A recent update
I stand by the story. I've heard from enough sources about what happened. Sorry that you don't like that it makes your friend look bad. But, thems the breaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh-huh
I'm sorry, but considering the behavior and policies of the Republican party for the past 33 years, if they want something from me they're going to have to pay cash.
No checks, no IOUs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Khanna on the paper
"I didn't retract anything - I wrote it - and I stand by it."
So please send him (derek.khanna@mail.house.gov) your support, encouragement, and praise!
You may wish to contact the others to send them your disappointment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derek Khanna on the paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derek Khanna on the paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Derek Khanna on the paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Derek Khanna on the paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Derek Khanna on the paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're just mad someone managed to post some sense which your paymasters couldn't pull in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hit a nerve
Obviosuly, we're on the right path here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hit a nerve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The starry-eyed author just got a reality check: now he knows big business doesn't give a crap about his facts or his idealism, and he knows his party isn't going to stick up for him if he challenges corporate authority.
Likewise, the GOP establishment just got a wake-up call about the younger generation, which doesn't blindly accept the status quo when it comes to intellectual property, and which actually considers the public interest to be worth the party's consideration. The old guard must recognize that these upstarts have not only infiltrated party ranks, but are on the verge of exerting an unwelcome influence on policy; something has to be done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the other sad thing is it shows that the guy in charge, Paul S. Teller, Executive Director, U.S. House Republican Study Committee, is a gutless arsehole that needs replacing as soon as possible. the excuses he has used to get the 'report' pulled are pathetic and just shows who is in charge of him!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans supported by banks, wall st., big corp.
Democrats supported by banks, wall st., big corp, big media, hollywoodland.
I never see demos picking this up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
When will you people learn that to 'innovate' is to create and to create and earn a living, you need to protect your property, your intellectual property rights and your copyright and patents.
Canada have just realised this and now have awarded the photographers in Canada to finally own the copyright to their own works... this is a huge forward step for Canada, bringing it in-line with most other countries.
http://twoeyesopen.ca/wp/canadian-copyright/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
If the only way you can protect anything is to sue the wrong people and treat paying customers as thieves, you don't deserve the protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright
not less !!!!!!!
also governments did not make up IP, IP is what you KNOW, or know how to do.
before there was copyright and patent laws, you had to keep your development secret, but it you believe there were not industrial spys back when... then you are living in a dream world..
exactly the same problems and issues were present then as are now, therefore patent and copyright was developed to help counter that...
they system now does work far better than no system at all, and without a system of protection (that still occurs today, especially mility IP) it's secrecy that is employed.
remove copyright and patent laws, and everything will be lock down so tightly that you will never be able to work out how they do it..
sealed units, encripted and protected code, potted electronics, shaved IC's so you cannot know what they are, locked PLCC's.. all the things the military have to do now to ensure protection of IP..
we're lucky to have laws to protect our knowledge and idea's.
because if you have to live your life relying on the knowledge and idea's of others, you might as well check out of life.
or
do you really believe what you know is of no value to you ??
I know for a fact that I know a great deal of things that can and has made me a great deal of money, just from what I know..
you have a right to bear arms to protect your house and property, do you not think you should have the right to protect what you know ?? your IP.... ????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
From the point that modern copyright convention was upheld nothing has entered the public domain. Books, filmstrips have rotted beyond repair. For fuck's sake, you live in a country where culture is invasively more expensive and harder to get than most developed places. And to think, not only do you consider this a problem, but you also consider this commendable of all things. Culture is clearly wasted on a little poop stain like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
Not saying it doesn't help, I wasn't commenting on that either way. Proven not to be neccessary, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
Hi Demon.
If you a referring to me countering your emotional plea full of falsehoods, half-truths and faith-based statements that you were trying pass off as "facts" on the other article, well that's not "abuse" my friend, it's called a debate.
Like they say: Don't show up to a gunfight with a knife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
That is just factually not correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright
Yeah. This DemonLee guy spouted off a whole list of factually incorrect stuff back on the original article too.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copyright-law-destro ys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml#c2240
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright
but some do,, we all dont flip burgers.
what he said is factually correct, and is why such systems are in place and have been for much longer than you or me will walk this green earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright
Maybe he should take lessons from out_of_the_ass instead, and parrot average_joe. Then the three of them can have a menage a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You all are freehadist's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all are freehadist's
Also, if you want to be taken seriously, ditch the stupid rhetoric like freehadists, and the personal insults, and the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is immoral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all are freehadist's
When your enforcement stops involving such ridiculous records of collateral damage, such as demanding takedowns of videos because of singing birds of all things, maybe people won't think you're a stuck-up industry cocksucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all are freehadist's
Personally, I think you should go fuck yourself and come back when you are in a better mood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all are freehadist's
it is clear that masnick has never been a player in the game, but likes to think he has his fingers on the pulse..
if fact, he has his fingers in the pie..
So masnick, all your work is exactly what big hollywood wants to be able to exploit the little guy, you SHOULD be trying to help the little guy..
Is it because you Mr Masnick are yourself a failed phot ??
how is allowing apple to steal off samsung or samsung stealing off apple going to help you or me ??
we dont get more products, we dont get more IP (they are after all using the SAME IP), therefore there is a REDUCTION in innovation, not an increase..
if you force people to abide by patent and copyright, they cannot just steal and give us yet ANOTHER version of the same thing.. NO, they have to innovate SOMETHING DIFFERENT to compete..
so what you want is give the big companies and big media a free hand to steal others material, instead of developing their own..
so we dont get more products with new and innovative technologies, we get one company making something and every other company copying it, the CONSUMER gets many different versions of the same thing,, too bad if you wanted a choice !!!!!!
I guess we are just lucky you are so bad at your job and ineffective.. but it does explain why you have gained so little support for your cause considering the time and effort you have expended on it..
(you might work hard, but you dont work smart).
it is also due to everything you do is a copy of someones else's work.. you virtually NEVER create an original work, you cut and paste, and comment..
are you capable of original thought, or are you simply guided by google search ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You all are freehadist's
When has copyright enforcement been anything but the RIAA and MPAA suing children, grandmothers, and a long list of the wrong people?
How about this, darryl; walk down your Australian streets and loudly proclaim that you support stronger copyright enforcement, the limiting of culture going into your country, the licence for patent holders to sue anyone without limit. We'll see how much support you garner then, you shitstain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link to the Republican Copyright Report
http://archive.org/details/RscThreeMythsAboutCopyrightLaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On big corporations bullying little guys
Google v Doogle: school dropout ready for legal battle with internet's Goliath | World news | The Guardian: "Google declined to answer questions about Doogle directly. Julie Taylor, a spokeswoman for the company in South Africa, said: 'We can't comment on individual cases, but we are passionate about protecting the reputation of our brand as an objective and fair provider of search results. We simply ask our users not to shorten, abbreviate or create acronyms out of Google trademarks.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's good to know that fellow freedom fighters such as myself are fighting the masnick regime on this frontier known as the internet to keep mike hitler from blitzkrieging innocent artists and starting the new google reich in his name and gassing innocent content creators in the pirate ovens
INVISIBLE GOOGLES WATCH YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP, ALWAYS KEEP YOUR THIRD EYE OPEN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
lol! +1 for insanely over the top Nazi reference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll drop cable in response to their permanent placement of their head in their asses. I was on the edge of that anyway; cable's full of commercials anyway now.
There's so much to do in life; without being burdened my Hollywood and it's wallet-leeching mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIN BIG ON YOUR LOTTERY GAMES WITH THE HELP OF DR AMBER
Dr Amber lottery spells is simply the best you can come by on the internet. I won huge on my lottery game with his help and I know you can win big too. Email him at: amberlottotemple @ yahoo . com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]