"the right to free speech expanding in all directions" - really ? Perhaps this is some strange usage of the word "expanding" that I wasn't previously aware of...
I bet we get exactly the same crap here in Canada.
My gf laughs when I shout things about the FBI not having jurisdiction in Canada. I'm not sure whether she thinks it's funny that I get annoyed by those warnings or that I'm naive enough to think that the FBI *don't* have power here...
I don't think anyone is asking for any control over "how someone else's work is distributed". Create whatever you want and decide whether to keep it to yourself or to distribute it in some way, maybe to try to make some money - that's fine.
The question is not about "distribution", but about *redistribution* - what level of control you should have over it after having decided to distribute it.
It's quite an indictment of the state of copyright law today that a copyright expert can claim that the copyright status of a particular work is "unknowable" - not "unknown", mind you, but "unknowable". So he believes that it is not possible to determine whether this work is copyrighted or not (let alone who owns any copyright that it may be subject to).
One of the fundamentals of any law is certainty - it should never be "unknowable" whether an act is legal or not.
Well over time they've broadened "IP" to the point where it affects basically everyone. I'm actually surprised that "IP-intensive industries" contribute as little as 35% of GDP.
After all, the "percentage of homes where people need to worry about whether what they're doing is legal under the Copyright Act" has increased from 0% to 100% in under 50 years.
... before politicians realise that "don't break the Internet" is as important a rule for them to live by as "don't break TV" , but they will get there. Keep educating.
Actually, I think it all comes down to what results you look at.
People on one side tend to do what you did - see "somebody got something without paying for it", whereas people on the other side tend to see "nobody has any less than they started with".
Then the two sides go on to look either at the "unpaid for benefits" that the infringer obtained or the "losses that the rightsholder suffered" in order to decide how bad the act was. That's why you end up with the one side saying "he has songs that would cost him thousands of dollars to buy and he hasn't paid a dime" while others say "if he hadn't downloaded them, he just would have done without, plus he paid to go to three concerts last year - this is just advertising".
"the more you need specialists to designate and separate the wheat from the chaff, who is worth listening to, who is worth promoting and marketing. That's what record companies have traditionally done."
If I'm an up-and-coming musician, this would have me running into the arms of a record company, so they can decide whether I'm worth marketing or not.
I guess I *could* make that decision myself, but better to leave it to the experts. They should use it for a slogan or something - "Sign up to a record label. We can decide whether you're worth listening to !"
Right. So what they need to do is to change people's opinions so that they prefer the "legitimate" sites.
Two obvious ways to do that - education (oh, wait, they've been trying that for the last decade or so, and it hasn't worked), and improving the legitimate sites.
So I conclude that I completely agree with the RIAA's quest here - they should improve their products to the point where they can compete with the "bad" sites, hence making them more popular and moving them higher in Goggle's search results.
The fact that so many people turn to piracy *despite it being illegal* is a great indication of just how superior a product it is. Some of that is no doubt price, but there are many other advantages that make the illegality worth the risk.
but in the absence of copyright, there's nothing to license in the first place! It's only because the Copyright Act grants you a monopoly that you get to choose who gets a copy.
If you say in court "you don't have a license for that file", the first thing you're going to asked for is to prove that you hold the copyright, otherwise you don't have a case.
On the post: Federal Appeals Court Rejects Illinois' Eavesdropping Law As Likely Violating The First Amendment
where does he live ?
On the post: Senator Leahy Still Insisting That SOPA/PIPA Are 'Needed'
seems to me...
On the post: ICE & FBI Hatch Ingenious Plan To Make DVD Piracy Warnings Longer
Re: U.S.-only?
My gf laughs when I shout things about the FBI not having jurisdiction in Canada. I'm not sure whether she thinks it's funny that I get annoyed by those warnings or that I'm naive enough to think that the FBI *don't* have power here...
On the post: Confused Jury Says Google Infringed On Oracle's Copyright, Sorta, But Maybe Not
Re:
On the post: French Voters Warned To Stay Off Social Media Lest They 'Crash The Election'
Worth Noting
On the post: Ridiculous White House Report Pretends Getting Copyrights, Patents & Trademarks Means You Benefit From Them
Re:
Difficult to find a movie, to use as an example, I'll admit :-)
On the post: Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?
Re:
The question is not about "distribution", but about *redistribution* - what level of control you should have over it after having decided to distribute it.
On the post: Report Shows MPAA 'Experts' Seriously Misrepresented The Uses Of Hotfile
Useful
One of the fundamentals of any law is certainty - it should never be "unknowable" whether an act is legal or not.
On the post: Ridiculous White House Report Pretends Getting Copyrights, Patents & Trademarks Means You Benefit From Them
Re: "IP-Intensive"
After all, the "percentage of homes where people need to worry about whether what they're doing is legal under the Copyright Act" has increased from 0% to 100% in under 50 years.
On the post: CISPA Authors Launch Twitter Account To Preach False Merits Of The Bill
It'll take a few more years, probably...
On the post: NYTimes OpEd Explains Why Infringement Isn't Theft
Re:
People on one side tend to do what you did - see "somebody got something without paying for it", whereas people on the other side tend to see "nobody has any less than they started with".
Then the two sides go on to look either at the "unpaid for benefits" that the infringer obtained or the "losses that the rightsholder suffered" in order to decide how bad the act was. That's why you end up with the one side saying "he has songs that would cost him thousands of dollars to buy and he hasn't paid a dime" while others say "if he hadn't downloaded them, he just would have done without, plus he paid to go to three concerts last year - this is just advertising".
On the post: Canada's New Copyright Bill: The Good, The Bad and The Undecided
Re:
The webpage at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/au-ns/faq/index-eng.asp even suggests doing so - "You can submit your concerns to your Member of Parliament."
Protests might be a little different.
Ask through your chain of command.
On the post: Chris Dodd: The Internet Developed Because Of Strict Copyright Enforcement
We should come up with Bill names for them
How about the "Shackle the Internet Forever, Finally Act" (STIFF) ?
On the post: RIAA Still Doesn't Get It: Hopes SOPA Opposition Was A 'One-Time Experience'
Interesting marketing...
If I'm an up-and-coming musician, this would have me running into the arms of a record company, so they can decide whether I'm worth marketing or not.
I guess I *could* make that decision myself, but better to leave it to the experts. They should use it for a slogan or something - "Sign up to a record label. We can decide whether you're worth listening to !"
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
Re: That's how search engines already work
Two obvious ways to do that - education (oh, wait, they've been trying that for the last decade or so, and it hasn't worked), and improving the legitimate sites.
So I conclude that I completely agree with the RIAA's quest here - they should improve their products to the point where they can compete with the "bad" sites, hence making them more popular and moving them higher in Goggle's search results.
On the post: Who Cares If Piracy Is 'Wrong' If Stopping It Is Impossible And Innovating Provides Better Solutions?
Superior vs illegal
On the post: Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley... And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It
Hollywood is pro-Internet ?
Hmmm. The phrase "actions speak louder than words" comes to mind. Or, of course "[citation needed]".
On the post: Dutch Government: Make European Copyright Exceptions More Flexible
Special 301 list here they come...
"Don't even think about copying *that* part of our copyright law"
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re: Re: Re:
If you say in court "you don't have a license for that file", the first thing you're going to asked for is to prove that you hold the copyright, otherwise you don't have a case.
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Re: Of course
Next >>