Unfortunately, My State of Vermont, and he calls himself a democrat.
I get pork barrel politics. I don't like it, but I get it. When a politician pushes for pork barrel for their constituents, to win favor and votes, I get it. What I don't get is that Vermont isn't known for Copyright Industries. Is this really what the Vermont constituency wants their elected officials doing or is this just another example of corruption?
A small administrative fee, say, $75,000 per notice, should do the trick.
Even making it $75 would do the trick. If these guys had to pay anything, they'd use it less than they currently are. Right now there is no penalty at all for doing the wrong thing, and $75 could be more justifiable for being a "fee" for service.
If we must take a guess based on what information we have here, assuming that they condone or tolerate piracy is more reasonable than assuming they condemn it.
You're assuming based on facts not in evidence and you are expecting us to believe you. For example, Lamar Smith, one of the most vocal "copyright infringement must stop" folks and the one behind SOPA copied photographs without permission for his website. Unless you have something to show us about these three being vocal about going easy on copyright infringement, you are making a more wild assumption than Glyn did. If there is one thing I know based on years of watching politicians, it is that they tend to push rules on others that they don't want to enforce on themselves, and those who don't tend to stand out (and some call them "Boy Scouts" as though it was a derogatory term.)
Yeah, the reason why most people avoid "Music CDs". There is no fundamental difference between music CDs and other CDs, but you pay an additional tax on music CDs that you don't pay on other CDs. I had a friend who once bought Music CDs for everything, including backing up his own documents off of a hard drive. He didn't like MP3s, because he had a golden ear and preferred listening to music on vinyl. He told me that music CDs were supposed to be higher quality than regular CDs, because they charged more for them, and that is why he used them.
I am not missing this fact. In this particular case, we're talking major networks. Unlike cable channels, they do not rely on subscriber fees. They rely much more heavily on advertiser funding.
But we are talking about DISH network, which has to pay carriage fee for retransmission of major networks. Therefore, DISH customers are already paying for these networks regardless to whether the networks rely on a subscription fee or advertiser funding.
One can't help but wonder if this isn't payback from Sony for "Don't Download This Song".
I don't think Sony has enough intelligence to have any malice towards Al for that song. Its sarcasm is far too subtle for them, and they probably figured he was just echoing their sentiments that downloading the song is evil and hurts the artists.
I seen Al several times in concert, and he has done far worse than "Don't Download this Song" on the road. If you do get a chance to see him in concert (he doesn't seem to travel to Asia much unfortunately,) I recommend it. I am still amazed at how much effort he puts into his costumes even on the road, and how quickly he changes into them (he does have breaks during the concert, but they usually are the Face to Face with Weird Al type stuff which aren't that long (usually bits and pieces about 30s to 1m in length.)
Amazon.com does carry most of his albums, including the aforementioned "best of" albums that he hates. I am not sure if they are available to you in Asia, but you might be able to figure out a proxy to allow you to buy them and get them to you.
Restore copyright period to its original span of 14 years.
No disagreement here. Or switch to property-tax based copyright, which will allow companies to hold on to copyrights until they are no longer profitable for them and start costing them...then the item becomes public domain and anyone can put it in the bargain bin (or on the internet.) Companies still make a killing publishing works of Shakespeare, which is in the public domain.
Mickey doesn't expire. He takes the "Youth Elixir" from the "copyright Fountain" and gets a few decades more. It's said Disney has mastered the art of refining the elixir and the next time Mickey drinks he'll get a millennium extension and some lawyers will manage to pass down the wealth into the next 10 generations.
I'd be ok with that. If the copyright maximalists want to treat intellectual property like real property, then I think it should be real property and taxed accordingly. I pay ~$3000 a year in property tax, based on 1% of the sale price of the property. They should be charged 1% (or more) of the gross profits per year, with a minimum of $125,000 per year (based on the maximum penalty for infringement.) The money will go into paying for court costs and enforcement, with a new system in the Library of Congress which maintains a list of what items are still in copyright, the cost of licensing, and who to contact. Anyone who doesn't pay loses their copyright forever (it enters the public domain immediately, just like you failing to pay your property tax means the property receives a lein and eventually gets a default and foreclosure.) The artist can assign the property to a publisher, but if the publisher does not pay the bills, the artist can take the property back and pay the bill, or can allow the property tax to not be paid and the work to become public domain (with appropriate limits and the usual paperwork, like extensions to property tax payments and maybe even a one time grace and a per year discount if you are actually publishing the material, like some of us get when we pay for property taxes on a first home.)
That way Mickey never expires, and the public gets a chance to view/read/listen to material which the publisher no longer believes they can capitalize on.
Pirate Pay is a Russian company, beyond the reach of US law enforcement. Another one of the unintended consequences of SOPA's demise.
How would an American law possibly effect a Russian company? Not that SOPA would have helped since clearly those who bought SOPA (and are now upset that their money wasn't well spent,) are the same ones who are paying Pirate Pay to do what they're doing now. I suspect that if American financial organizations stopped processing the Russian companies' payments, they'd just switch to a foreign payment processor who doesn't have any requirement to follow SOPA.
Funny you should say that. I remember in 2006 when I became a fan of "Weird Al" Yankovic music. I wanted to have original copies of his CDs.
Fortunately, I have all of his CDs (unfortunately, even the ones that he was not responsible for and didn't like (Food Album, Best of 1 & 2),) but I feel your pain. I've seen the same with other artists I've been interested in.
And now we have talk that Al has to fight Sony to get his royalties.
What kills me is that Al is a really smart and creative guy, but Sony is exactly the opposite. I wrote him once to tell him that I was trying to show a friend one of his music videos on Youtube that I liked, but due to me being on a Android tablet, Sony blocked me from viewing it. The labels like to claim that every download is a lost sale, but in this case, not having access to the video definitely resulted in a lost sale (although we were able to find it uploaded by someone else and were able to play it, and he ended up buying the album.) I got a nice email back from him explaining that it was Sony's decision and he didn't like it either, but was happy I was able to find the material elsewhere and it resulted in a sale. If I was Al, I'd be looking for another label who cared. Maybe there just isn't one and it would be better for him to just go independent.
Of course, nothing I said contradicts all your other points though...they got rich living off of the very well they now want to prevent anyone else from drinking from.
You had me till Lion King, silverscarcat. Disney shamelessly stole it from Yoshihiro Shimizu (Kimba the White Lion) and they knew it. And Shimizu was the better, he didn't sue them. Had the roles been reversed, however, I have no doubt that Disney would have bankrupted Shimizu and buried him and his relatives in debt for a thousand years.
I already told you, can you not read? By forcing you to create your own ideas instead of copying others. Why copy a Disney character, why not make your own, like many thousands of other animators.
Because copying is how we learn. When I was a baby, I learned how to speak by listening to others speak, and then copying them. When I was a kid in elementary school, I learned how to write by copying what my teacher wrote. When I was a teenager, I learned how to be a person by copying my friends. When I became an adult I learned to be an adult by copying what other adults did. Sure, at each step I made it my own, but I got there by copying others.
One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.
- T.S. Eliot, "Philip Massinger", The Sacred Wood, New York: Bartleby.com, 2000.
It's like the ColbertPAC, but with less truthiness, I guess. Still, if it is what is needed, I'm all for it. Maybe TechdirtPAC could give out medals for being awesome too (although I already got my e-mail for being awesome, so I'm good.) /s
How does using copyright as a sledgehammer to smash anyone who is being creative foster more creativity? Please, we are dying to know. It is almost like saying soldiers create new life by killing people during war.
Just report and move on I say. I'm no fan of reporting people/flagging comments, but in his case I'd say it's perfectly acceptable.
I prefer to use the report button for spam and overly offensive comments, but the fact that he keeps spamming his (or if not his, someone who he is friends with,) shill blog might hit my spam quota. I don't have a problem with anyone speaking their mind (and I'll fight anyone who tries to prevent them from speaking.) And so long as they are civil and on-topic, I appreciate them speaking their mind, even if I don't agree with them.
I don't believe this one is the same guy, the other guy doesn't post links and plays the "you don't know who I am" card. I believe this guy was the one just posting random quotes from artists from that (trichord) site yesterday. Not good at the whole internet thing, but at least yesterday the quotes were mildly apropos even if they were old, and cherry-picked (and at least in one case, easily disproved.)
You could cut copyright to 35 years tomorrow, and the amount of piracy would change very little. Duration of copyright just isn't an issue here. It is at best the red herring you would like everyone to look at, the "outrageous" thing that you can get people to focus on, while ignoring the elephant in the room.
I hate to agree with you, but you are right with this. Having copyrights longer than 20 years has done more to hurt old works than help new works. How many works have disappeared into obscurity because no publisher wanted to continue printing them and no potential reader knew they existed. I am not against copyright, unlike some others here, and I believe it has its place still. But bringing the copyright back into a practical duration will do far more to help older works that disappear into obscurity.
Just think how many new readers/viewers/listeners there would be if those who locked away old books/videos/music into vaults where nobody could access them and appreciate them. Sure, these books/videos/songs could be found in a library, but would you rather introduce a new audience to a work by telling them they have to go to a library, or by placing it on the largest, most accessible library in the world that we call the Internet?
A)You are not guaranteed to receive the signal for CBS, ABC etc,
Cable and satellite don't even guarantee you'll receive the signal. They make an effort to fix the problem, but I know of at least two friends who bought satellite, and eventually had to cancel it because the company couldn't provide the signal to them they paid for. One was blocked by a mountain, and the other was blocked by stupid HOA rules which mandated where satellite receivers could be placed. Both received refunds, but it took a lot of work to get them taken care of. When my cable went out and I contacted the cable company about it, they eventually fixed it (someone illegally spliced into the cable and knocked me offline.) I never got a refund for the lost signal (nor did I expect one,) and was told that I was pretty much SOL until they fixed it.
B) Since the digital conversion, a lot of people who received the signal before, no longer can. If you subscribe to cable or sat, then you have to pay to receive those channels, making them no longer free.
Absolutely agree here, digital conversion has been difficult all around. What I thought took the cake was that while US broadcasters had to switch to digital, foreign broadcasters did not have that problem. So where I am now, some channels come in analog, while others come in digital. And when analog signals bleed into the digital channels, bad things happen.
On the post: Senator Leahy Wants To Give At Least $5 Million To State Department To 'Combat Piracy'
Re: Re:
I get pork barrel politics. I don't like it, but I get it. When a politician pushes for pork barrel for their constituents, to win favor and votes, I get it. What I don't get is that Vermont isn't known for Copyright Industries. Is this really what the Vermont constituency wants their elected officials doing or is this just another example of corruption?
On the post: Fox Issues DMCA Takedown To Google Over SF Chronicle Article... Claiming It Was The Movie 'Chronicle'
Re: Re: Re:
Even making it $75 would do the trick. If these guys had to pay anything, they'd use it less than they currently are. Right now there is no penalty at all for doing the wrong thing, and $75 could be more justifiable for being a "fee" for service.
On the post: Which is Worse -- Sharing With Attribution, Or Plagiarism Without?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy of politicians?
You're assuming based on facts not in evidence and you are expecting us to believe you. For example, Lamar Smith, one of the most vocal "copyright infringement must stop" folks and the one behind SOPA copied photographs without permission for his website. Unless you have something to show us about these three being vocal about going easy on copyright infringement, you are making a more wild assumption than Glyn did. If there is one thing I know based on years of watching politicians, it is that they tend to push rules on others that they don't want to enforce on themselves, and those who don't tend to stand out (and some call them "Boy Scouts" as though it was a derogatory term.)
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A new first
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
Yeah, the reason why most people avoid "Music CDs". There is no fundamental difference between music CDs and other CDs, but you pay an additional tax on music CDs that you don't pay on other CDs. I had a friend who once bought Music CDs for everything, including backing up his own documents off of a hard drive. He didn't like MP3s, because he had a golden ear and preferred listening to music on vinyl. He told me that music CDs were supposed to be higher quality than regular CDs, because they charged more for them, and that is why he used them.
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Excuses
But we are talking about DISH network, which has to pay carriage fee for retransmission of major networks. Therefore, DISH customers are already paying for these networks regardless to whether the networks rely on a subscription fee or advertiser funding.
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think Sony has enough intelligence to have any malice towards Al for that song. Its sarcasm is far too subtle for them, and they probably figured he was just echoing their sentiments that downloading the song is evil and hurts the artists.
I seen Al several times in concert, and he has done far worse than "Don't Download this Song" on the road. If you do get a chance to see him in concert (he doesn't seem to travel to Asia much unfortunately,) I recommend it. I am still amazed at how much effort he puts into his costumes even on the road, and how quickly he changes into them (he does have breaks during the concert, but they usually are the Face to Face with Weird Al type stuff which aren't that long (usually bits and pieces about 30s to 1m in length.)
Amazon.com does carry most of his albums, including the aforementioned "best of" albums that he hates. I am not sure if they are available to you in Asia, but you might be able to figure out a proxy to allow you to buy them and get them to you.
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Re:
No disagreement here. Or switch to property-tax based copyright, which will allow companies to hold on to copyrights until they are no longer profitable for them and start costing them...then the item becomes public domain and anyone can put it in the bargain bin (or on the internet.) Companies still make a killing publishing works of Shakespeare, which is in the public domain.
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re:
I'd be ok with that. If the copyright maximalists want to treat intellectual property like real property, then I think it should be real property and taxed accordingly. I pay ~$3000 a year in property tax, based on 1% of the sale price of the property. They should be charged 1% (or more) of the gross profits per year, with a minimum of $125,000 per year (based on the maximum penalty for infringement.) The money will go into paying for court costs and enforcement, with a new system in the Library of Congress which maintains a list of what items are still in copyright, the cost of licensing, and who to contact. Anyone who doesn't pay loses their copyright forever (it enters the public domain immediately, just like you failing to pay your property tax means the property receives a lein and eventually gets a default and foreclosure.) The artist can assign the property to a publisher, but if the publisher does not pay the bills, the artist can take the property back and pay the bill, or can allow the property tax to not be paid and the work to become public domain (with appropriate limits and the usual paperwork, like extensions to property tax payments and maybe even a one time grace and a per year discount if you are actually publishing the material, like some of us get when we pay for property taxes on a first home.)
That way Mickey never expires, and the public gets a chance to view/read/listen to material which the publisher no longer believes they can capitalize on.
On the post: Network Analysis Reveals Apparent (And Legally Questionable) Attack On Torrent Networks
Re: Re: What about the TOS
How would an American law possibly effect a Russian company? Not that SOPA would have helped since clearly those who bought SOPA (and are now upset that their money wasn't well spent,) are the same ones who are paying Pirate Pay to do what they're doing now. I suspect that if American financial organizations stopped processing the Russian companies' payments, they'd just switch to a foreign payment processor who doesn't have any requirement to follow SOPA.
On the post: Network Analysis Reveals Apparent (And Legally Questionable) Attack On Torrent Networks
Re: Re: Re:
Well, maybe he downloaded a cracked copy of d3 from uTP.
If not, how is the DRM treating you because I've heard pretty constant complaints from those stupid enough to buy it that the DRM sucks?
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re:
Fortunately, I have all of his CDs (unfortunately, even the ones that he was not responsible for and didn't like (Food Album, Best of 1 & 2),) but I feel your pain. I've seen the same with other artists I've been interested in.
And now we have talk that Al has to fight Sony to get his royalties.
What kills me is that Al is a really smart and creative guy, but Sony is exactly the opposite. I wrote him once to tell him that I was trying to show a friend one of his music videos on Youtube that I liked, but due to me being on a Android tablet, Sony blocked me from viewing it. The labels like to claim that every download is a lost sale, but in this case, not having access to the video definitely resulted in a lost sale (although we were able to find it uploaded by someone else and were able to play it, and he ended up buying the album.) I got a nice email back from him explaining that it was Sony's decision and he didn't like it either, but was happy I was able to find the material elsewhere and it resulted in a sale. If I was Al, I'd be looking for another label who cared. Maybe there just isn't one and it would be better for him to just go independent.
On the post: Another Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Millions Of Rickrolls (Briefly)
Re: Re: Re: Troll them hard!
Seconded. It has been a long time since that move was played successfully. You sir, win 100 Internets. Please use them wisely.
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, nothing I said contradicts all your other points though...they got rich living off of the very well they now want to prevent anyone else from drinking from.
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You had me till Lion King, silverscarcat. Disney shamelessly stole it from Yoshihiro Shimizu (Kimba the White Lion) and they knew it. And Shimizu was the better, he didn't sue them. Had the roles been reversed, however, I have no doubt that Disney would have bankrupted Shimizu and buried him and his relatives in debt for a thousand years.
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because copying is how we learn. When I was a baby, I learned how to speak by listening to others speak, and then copying them. When I was a kid in elementary school, I learned how to write by copying what my teacher wrote. When I was a teenager, I learned how to be a person by copying my friends. When I became an adult I learned to be an adult by copying what other adults did. Sure, at each step I made it my own, but I got there by copying others.
One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.
- T.S. Eliot, "Philip Massinger", The Sacred Wood, New York: Bartleby.com, 2000.
On the post: Now Is The Time To Tell Your Senator That Privacy Is Awesome And CISPA Is Not
Re:
It's like the ColbertPAC, but with less truthiness, I guess. Still, if it is what is needed, I'm all for it. Maybe TechdirtPAC could give out medals for being awesome too (although I already got my e-mail for being awesome, so I'm good.) /s
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does using copyright as a sledgehammer to smash anyone who is being creative foster more creativity? Please, we are dying to know. It is almost like saying soldiers create new life by killing people during war.
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Much better than part 1
I prefer to use the report button for spam and overly offensive comments, but the fact that he keeps spamming his (or if not his, someone who he is friends with,) shill blog might hit my spam quota. I don't have a problem with anyone speaking their mind (and I'll fight anyone who tries to prevent them from speaking.) And so long as they are civil and on-topic, I appreciate them speaking their mind, even if I don't agree with them.
I don't believe this one is the same guy, the other guy doesn't post links and plays the "you don't know who I am" card. I believe this guy was the one just posting random quotes from artists from that (trichord) site yesterday. Not good at the whole internet thing, but at least yesterday the quotes were mildly apropos even if they were old, and cherry-picked (and at least in one case, easily disproved.)
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re:
I hate to agree with you, but you are right with this. Having copyrights longer than 20 years has done more to hurt old works than help new works. How many works have disappeared into obscurity because no publisher wanted to continue printing them and no potential reader knew they existed. I am not against copyright, unlike some others here, and I believe it has its place still. But bringing the copyright back into a practical duration will do far more to help older works that disappear into obscurity.
Just think how many new readers/viewers/listeners there would be if those who locked away old books/videos/music into vaults where nobody could access them and appreciate them. Sure, these books/videos/songs could be found in a library, but would you rather introduce a new audience to a work by telling them they have to go to a library, or by placing it on the largest, most accessible library in the world that we call the Internet?
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Liar Liar, Plants for Hire...
Cable and satellite don't even guarantee you'll receive the signal. They make an effort to fix the problem, but I know of at least two friends who bought satellite, and eventually had to cancel it because the company couldn't provide the signal to them they paid for. One was blocked by a mountain, and the other was blocked by stupid HOA rules which mandated where satellite receivers could be placed. Both received refunds, but it took a lot of work to get them taken care of. When my cable went out and I contacted the cable company about it, they eventually fixed it (someone illegally spliced into the cable and knocked me offline.) I never got a refund for the lost signal (nor did I expect one,) and was told that I was pretty much SOL until they fixed it.
B) Since the digital conversion, a lot of people who received the signal before, no longer can. If you subscribe to cable or sat, then you have to pay to receive those channels, making them no longer free.
Absolutely agree here, digital conversion has been difficult all around. What I thought took the cake was that while US broadcasters had to switch to digital, foreign broadcasters did not have that problem. So where I am now, some channels come in analog, while others come in digital. And when analog signals bleed into the digital channels, bad things happen.
Next >>