Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the look-what-we-have-here... dept
For most of the past two weeks I've been extremely busy, travelling around to a bunch of different countries, meeting with policy makers, content creators and industry folks talking about creativity, innovation and (a bit) of copyright policy. It's been a fascinating experience, and I'll try to write up some thoughts on the whole thing once the fog in my brain known as jetlag finally subsides. However, as such, I've been a little less involved in the direct posting to Techdirt over the past couple weeks, and so I got to be surprised by new stories almost as much as anyone else here (well, okay, sometimes I peeked ahead of time...). Given that, I thought that perhaps I'd write up this week's "favorites" posts, from more of a spectator standpoint than usual.- Glyn Moody's post on what trade agreements are really about once again helped to shine some light on how corporations are basically using the trade agreement process to route around national legislatures to get policies in place that favor them. It's a huge scam, and I'm amazed that legislatures, in particular, haven't stood up stronger for their own powers concerning regulating commerce.
- Tim Cushing has been doing a great job over the past few weeks highlighting the overreactions to the Boston Bombings, but none seemed quite as ridiculous as Senator Dan Coats announcement that we need to start watching loners more carefully. I'm thinking that it might make more sense to pay attention to grandstanding politicians.
- Leigh had a post about politicians behaving badly in Canada, using convoluted copyright claims to try to stifle criticism. Once again, we see how copyright can be used for censorship.
- Tim Geigner's great analysis of how fans and Douglas Adams' estate have encouraged derivative works rather than freaking out about them is a worthwhile read, as we keep hearing about various estates trying to lock up the works of creators, rather than being a part of continued creation and creativity.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Jet Lag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SABAM is suing ISP's to force them to pay 3.4% of their revenues because they offer full access to pirate content :)
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/103890/rightsholders-sue-isps-for-selling-internet-access/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From the article:
'Since 2000, revenue generated from copyright levies imposed on physical media have declined by 54 percent, Sabam said. This “huge loss” has not been compensated by collections from online services like iTunes, YouTube and Spotify, it added.'
So the money they leech away from levies on physical purchases is decreasing(surprise surprise, that's what happens with the increasing shift to digital media consumption and purchasing), and they aren't getting as much money as they want from the digital services, so they believe that they are owed whatever it takes to make up the difference.
Honestly, with actions like that, the dictionary entry for sense of entitlement needs to be changed to 'Sense of entitlement: see 'collection agencies'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical
You say we shouldn't blame bit torrent for piracy, yet you are willing to blame copyright for people being idiots. By your scale, bit torrent should have been trashed long ago because some people use it poorly. Blinders on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Typical
Techdirt logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typical
Until then you're bullshitting as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
It's pretty much the exact same thing. Bit Torrent and copyright are both tools, and when misused, cause harm. Trashing copyright for those who misuse it is about the same as trashing bit torrent because it's used by pirates. You guys would laugh at the latter, but support the former. How silly is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
I will say it again. SILENCE SPEECH. As in, restrict internet access, cut it off entirely, delete Youtube videos and channels.
Speech is the foundation of a free democratic society. Anything that silences speech is far worse than something that spreads more speech, whether legal or illegal.
I don't give a crap if a song or movie is leaked early. That just means, at worst, some potential lost sales. What is far far worse is the silencing of speech. The removal of ownership rights over real (not imaginary) property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
And that's what the public wants.
The Public > than any individual artist
Also, the artists that take advantage of this are the ones benefitting.
" Bit Torrent and copyright are both tools, and when misused, cause harm."
Kindly name how BT has been misused. It provides for the progression of culture and the arts even if the artist doesn't agree.
But copyright? It stifles and harms speech, commentary, and discussion of arts and sciences.
" Trashing copyright for those who misuse it is about the same as trashing bit torrent because it's used by pirates."
False dichotomy. Discussing the criticisms of our copyright laws allows for people to promote how they can indeed be better without digressing into a nanny state or making bad decisions on what's important in society.
I'd rather have more criticism and art than artists that control what society can produce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
It's pretty much the exact same thing. Bit Torrent and copyright are both tools, and when misused, cause harm. Trashing copyright for those who misuse it is about the same as trashing bit torrent because it's used by pirates. You guys would laugh at the latter, but support the former. How silly is that?
Not silly whatsoever. Nor is it even a close comparison.
Your "artist rights", as you put it, are important. Just not anywhere near as important as the rights of Free Speech. Not even in the same universe important, let alone in the same ballpark important. Your "right" to monetize your creations falls many miles short of the basic human right to Free Speech.
That's just the way it is. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Anybody can use bittorrent to distribute a work without incurring bandwidth cots, or having distribution limited by bandwidth. It tends to bring a creators decision back to the only decision they need to make, is this work worth releasing into the wild, or should it be kept private and possibly be reworked. When a work finds fans, they will where possible support the original creator.
Copyright is a mechanism of control, and effectively only a license to sue. Its traditional use has been as a means of a publisher gaining control over works, and paying the creator as little money as they can get away with. Copyright is locking up culture via extreme interpretation of derivative works, asking for licenses for quotes, and orphan works which cannot be used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
For someone going by "horse with no name" you seem dead set against anything anonymous. What, did someone put you in a stable, play you music and didn't pay for the privilege?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
Dammit! You damn freetards out there! Why the hell am I suddenly so popular? My work was never distributed via a major publisher, so why.. WHY.. is everyone wanting to know about me?!!? I wanted to remain obscure and irrelevant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typical
No, we're blaming:
1. idiots for abusing copyright.
2. copyright for being so easy and open for abuse.
I don't know if you can see the subtle differences there, or does your job rely on you not seeing those differences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's why you're so stupid.
First, he's not being paid. Thus it's impossible for him to name any companies.
Two, even if he were...he wouldn't just come out and admit it. That would kinda ruin the point of it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, provide some evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who's paying him to lobby against creator's rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can't actually prove mike wrong so you attack the messanger instead of trying to debate the points raised.
Further, copyright is not and should not be about "creator protections", it should be about promoting the progress of the sciences.
It is the creator's responseablity to ensure his or her own profitablilty, not the goverment's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
.
Yup, absolutely zero. No one is paying me to post here.
Now then, who's paying for all these overseas anti-copyright trips Mike Masnick is making, hmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'll grant that same creadabilty to MPAA/RIAA shills on the off chance they do fact based analysis of copyright instead of what would benefit their paymasters most
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep conning yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How's that crow taste, average_joe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why don't you go first? Comments like yours don't come from people who don't have vested interests. Are you an actual creator? Or are you just part of the industry that leeches off creators?
Besides, copyright's primary purpose is supposed to be to benefit society as a whole, not simply as "creator's protections". So if there's evidence that the harm to society is greater than the benefit (and there demonstrably is), then everyone should be speaking out against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you coming to Taiwan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]