Do you? Good analogies compare things that are actually analogous with each other.
Comparing a $10 expenditure that requires about 14 seconds of thought with something like U2 marketing their next album for millions of dollars is not a good analogy. It's lame.
I did read it, and I thought it was pretty funny. U2 granted Apple a license for millions of dollars. That's not giving it away for free.
You are being purposely obtuse now. Apple is obviously embracing free as some part of their business plan by paying for and then giving away the music for free. By accepting Apple's cash for doing this, U2 is also embracing "free" as a part of their business model.
If I buy you a beer at a bar, the bar has not embraced "free." Give me a break.
That's a lame analogy. Buying someone a beer is nowhere near a multi-million dollar music deal.
Techdirt Logic: U2 gets paid millions of dollars by Apple, yet this shows they've embraced "free." Priceless.
Did you actually read through the article, AJ?
You (just like Bono) are misunderstanding the nature of "free". The fact that that Apple paid them upfront doesn't change the fact that "free" is part of the business model that paid them.
I still find it funny that U2 feels they own the history of the Irish people , like they actually created the stories they use as lyrics , a message to U2 you may sing about it , but the stories are part of culture.
Wait, are you saying that people in Ireland still can't find what they're looking for because the streets have no names?
I don't know -- to my ears both what the article said and what you're saying are in agreement with each other.
I agree. I was going to respond to Anon's comment myself - but I got all sidetracked looking up the history of the CAFC and trying to determine what the mindset of Congress was at the time. I wasn't very successful.
The principal reason for the CAFC was to bring clarity and consistency to the way the courts handled patent cases.
And that experiment has failed...hard. What we have now is good 'ole boys club that is seriously hindering innovation. The question is: why are you fighting to keep it that way?
The word on the street is Masnick and his monkeys are paid puppets for some of the worlds biggest invention thieves.
The word I heard on the street is that Mr. Riley and his astroturf organizations are not exactly on the up and up. "Slimy" is the word that comes to my mind. Here's some examples:
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
Nice ad hom. But anyways, it's not "unreported" (you found the info didn't you?).
Secondly, Mike has always held that no sponsor or partner has ever or will ever be given editorial control over Techdirt. In Mike's own words:
...because I say what I think. The editorial content of this site has never been for sale, nor will it ever be. Because the only way I survive in this business is with my reputation. Source
Thirdly, that's a real flimsy connection there anyways. Mike partnered with someone who does business with some big companies who sometimes are patent suit defendants. That's kind of like my wife's sister's friend's nephew's neighbor.
It's that he replaced them with customized versions that mimic the originals with the name "Purrari" in the same logo type instead of "Ferrari" on them.
I'm still not seeing how that is a problem at all. That might constitute a trademark infringement if he sold it, but I think that would be stretching the law a bit if you ask me. It's not like he's mass producing them.
It does remind me of a time in my youth where a friend had an ex-roommate abandon a car in his driveway. We changed it from a FORD to DORF with a claw hammer and some glue.
Search a phone (ie, look at the documents on it) yes, but look at a phone to make sure it wasn't on a call (open line) or that the last call wasn't to the swat team... I am thinking that wasn't the court's ruling at all.
And you would be wrong in your thinking there. In Riley v. California SCOTUS specifically rejected the suggestion that the police can look through call logs:
We also reject the United States’ final suggestion that officers should always be able to search a phone’s call log, as they did in Wurie’s case. The Government relies on Smith v. Maryland,... which held that no warrant was required to use a pen register at telephone company premises to identify numbers dialed by a particular caller. The Court in that case, however, concluded that the use of a pen register was not a “search” at all under the Fourth Amendment. .... There is no dispute here that the officers engaged in a search of Wurie’s cell phone. Moreover, call logs typically contain more than just phone numbers; they include any identifying information that an individual might add, such as the label “my house” in Wurie’s case.
The ruling makes it fairly clear - the police can inspect a phone to make sure it isn't concealing a weapon and that's it:
Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon—say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.
Not if The number Zero is achieved by illegal activity. I am not bemoaning anything, especially not a price point conditioned by someone breaking the law. Why should anyone have to compete against someone breaking the law. Is that fair? Should we discuss in terms of equity or legality or morals? A justification for why they are breaking the law is a justification for ILLEGAL activity.
When studying the economics of a situation, it really doesn't matter if it's illegal, fair or moral. It only matters if it exists. Period. Full stop.
Only a fool would discount economic statistics just because they involve something that is against the law. You would be doing yourself a major disfavor by not utilizing all the data available.
Just so you know, I am not arguing for or trying to justify piracy at all. I am a realist who understands that it exists and has not been diminished by increased enforcement of copyright laws one bit. There obviously is a large swath of the general public who don't feel piracy is immoral. The only thing that actually seems to decrease piracy is providing the consumers the product when they want it, how they want and where they want it.
I am of the copyright reform camp who believes that copyright no longer promotes the progress of anything anymore and is seriously damaging our culture as a result. I do not wish my grandchildren (and yes I have grandchildren right now) and their children to have to live in world where everything is locked up behind copyright forever.
I believe most of society doesn't think art or creative works have value because they can click on a link on the internet and get it for free.
I believe you are wrong. As nasch pointed out, if those works held no value to anyone, they never would be clicked on on the first place. You seem to be bemoaning about the optimal price point, which is somewhere in between where you value your work and what your customer is willing pay.
The law says otherwise.
Right. And my original question was if the majority of society decided that copyright wasn't benefiting society as a whole and decided change the law, would you personally be on board with that.
Which begs the question if they had value before, ie a vinyl record, because the format has changed does it mean it has less value? No. That would imply that the value of a vinyl record lay in the vinyl itself, which we both know is not true. Technology does not make ideas or expression any less valuable but many would make that argument. Is that yours? Is your argument against copyright the creator is not entitled to monetarily gain from his/her creation because technology has made it less expensive to distribute? If that is the case then should all computer programs be free? Copyright does benefit a select few, generally the creator or someone who has PAID the creator to own the expression of the idea. Should you or anyone else have it for nothing? If it has no value why do you want it? if you want it why are you not willing to pay for it?
You seem to be building up a strawman argument here, just so you can knock it down. It really doesn't matter how much YOU value your work, what really matters how much your customer is willing to pay for it. If that number happens to be zero for infinitely reproducible items, so be it. You either need to capitalize in other ways or stop producing the work. No one owes you a living just because you produced some art.
If you really wanted to begin to restore my respect of copyright, you could start by lowering copyright length to reasonable time frames, so that the Public Domain get replenished, as it was with the original bargain between the creators and the public.
If we did a survey and found that an overwhelming percentage of the population didn't view failing to pay federal income tax as immoral would you then advocate eliminating federal income tax?
If you are asking me that question, then the answer is unequivocally yes. Laws are supposed to represent the morals of the society that they govern.
All of the things you mention are accepted by the majority of our society as necessary rules to maintain our way of life as a whole. But views do change and as a result, laws change (or more likely, stopped being enforced, but remain on the books for no real good reason).
I don't necessarily see copyright in the same company as the other things you mention though. Copyright seems only to benefit a select few these days, in my humble opinion.
It doesn't seem like you wish our laws to represent society's morals, but more like you wish our laws to represent what YOU think is moral. That's not really a good way run a government, is it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The other side of the story
I get very skeptical and skittish when someone proposes to mess with our constitution. Patents were mandated by our founding fathers.
Revising and/or eliminating the patent system would not mess with our Constitution one bit.
Patents are not mandated by the Constitution at all. The Copyright/Patent Clause is included in the list of enumerated powers that the Constitution grants Congress and gives specifics for the means to achieve the goal of [promoting] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and that's it.
If Congress decided tomorrow that the patent system no longer promotes "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" it would be completely within their power to eliminate it. There's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to have a patent system.
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you? Good analogies compare things that are actually analogous with each other.
Comparing a $10 expenditure that requires about 14 seconds of thought with something like U2 marketing their next album for millions of dollars is not a good analogy. It's lame.
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Re: Re:
You are being purposely obtuse now. Apple is obviously embracing free as some part of their business plan by paying for and then giving away the music for free. By accepting Apple's cash for doing this, U2 is also embracing "free" as a part of their business model.
If I buy you a beer at a bar, the bar has not embraced "free." Give me a break.
That's a lame analogy. Buying someone a beer is nowhere near a multi-million dollar music deal.
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re:
Did you actually read through the article, AJ?
You (just like Bono) are misunderstanding the nature of "free". The fact that that Apple paid them upfront doesn't change the fact that "free" is part of the business model that paid them.
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re:
Interesting view. Care to elaborate why you think this true?
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re:
Wait, are you saying that people in Ireland still can't find what they're looking for because the streets have no names?
On the post: CAFC: The Rogue Patent Court, Captured By The Patent Bar, Needs To Go Away
Re: Re: Misstatements abound
I agree. I was going to respond to Anon's comment myself - but I got all sidetracked looking up the history of the CAFC and trying to determine what the mindset of Congress was at the time. I wasn't very successful.
On the post: CAFC: The Rogue Patent Court, Captured By The Patent Bar, Needs To Go Away
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
And that experiment has failed...hard. What we have now is good 'ole boys club that is seriously hindering innovation. The question is: why are you fighting to keep it that way?
The word on the street is Masnick and his monkeys are paid puppets for some of the worlds biggest invention thieves.
The word I heard on the street is that Mr. Riley and his astroturf organizations are not exactly on the up and up. "Slimy" is the word that comes to my mind. Here's some examples:
http://ronaldjriley.blogspot.com/
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
Nice ad hom. But anyways, it's not "unreported" (you found the info didn't you?).
Secondly, Mike has always held that no sponsor or partner has ever or will ever be given editorial control over Techdirt. In Mike's own words:
Thirdly, that's a real flimsy connection there anyways. Mike partnered with someone who does business with some big companies who sometimes are patent suit defendants. That's kind of like my wife's sister's friend's nephew's neighbor.
On the post: The Battle For The Internet's Next Round: Internet Slowdown Day
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: so-call ed
This may be true, but the US is second only to China in number of users.
More importantly though, is the fact that well over half of internet sites are hosted within the US or are using a domain name (.com, .net, ,org, etc...) controlled by the US.
Thinking that this issue isn't important because you don't reside in the US is a mistake, in my opinion.
On the post: Huffington Post Finally Removes Most Articles About Fake Email Inventor; Meanwhile, Ayyadurai Threatens To Sue His Critics
I guess HuffPo removed that one now too. All I get is a 404 error.
On the post: Ferrari 'DRM:' Don't Screw With Our Logos And We'll Let You Know If It's OK To Sell Your Car
Re: Re: Re:
I'm still not seeing how that is a problem at all. That might constitute a trademark infringement if he sold it, but I think that would be stretching the law a bit if you ask me. It's not like he's mass producing them.
It does remind me of a time in my youth where a friend had an ex-roommate abandon a car in his driveway. We changed it from a FORD to DORF with a claw hammer and some glue.
On the post: Ferrari 'DRM:' Don't Screw With Our Logos And We'll Let You Know If It's OK To Sell Your Car
Re: Re:
kenichi tanaka reads an article, doesn't comprehend it and then makes a silly, uninformed comment about it.
Par for the course.
On the post: Counter-Strike Player's Twitch Stream Captures His Own SWATting... And Some Questionable Police Behavior
Re: Re: Re:
And you would be wrong in your thinking there. In Riley v. California SCOTUS specifically rejected the suggestion that the police can look through call logs:
The ruling makes it fairly clear - the police can inspect a phone to make sure it isn't concealing a weapon and that's it:
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re:
Lol. Yes he did. Mike said:
The "why" is because it goes against what Mike feels is moral. Not sure what else you want.
It's like asking someone WHY they don't like the taste of peanut butter. Both are stupid questions.
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re:
Oh well. It's not like I really thought Mike would discuss things frankly. Sadly, that's not how he rolls.
Do you mean except for the comments where Mike explained why he personally feels that what this guy did was immoral?
Sadly, some people comment before reading the entire thread, but I guess that's how they roll.
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When studying the economics of a situation, it really doesn't matter if it's illegal, fair or moral. It only matters if it exists. Period. Full stop.
Only a fool would discount economic statistics just because they involve something that is against the law. You would be doing yourself a major disfavor by not utilizing all the data available.
Just so you know, I am not arguing for or trying to justify piracy at all. I am a realist who understands that it exists and has not been diminished by increased enforcement of copyright laws one bit. There obviously is a large swath of the general public who don't feel piracy is immoral. The only thing that actually seems to decrease piracy is providing the consumers the product when they want it, how they want and where they want it.
I am of the copyright reform camp who believes that copyright no longer promotes the progress of anything anymore and is seriously damaging our culture as a result. I do not wish my grandchildren (and yes I have grandchildren right now) and their children to have to live in world where everything is locked up behind copyright forever.
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe you are wrong. As nasch pointed out, if those works held no value to anyone, they never would be clicked on on the first place. You seem to be bemoaning about the optimal price point, which is somewhere in between where you value your work and what your customer is willing pay.
The law says otherwise.
Right. And my original question was if the majority of society decided that copyright wasn't benefiting society as a whole and decided change the law, would you personally be on board with that.
Which begs the question if they had value before, ie a vinyl record, because the format has changed does it mean it has less value? No. That would imply that the value of a vinyl record lay in the vinyl itself, which we both know is not true. Technology does not make ideas or expression any less valuable but many would make that argument. Is that yours? Is your argument against copyright the creator is not entitled to monetarily gain from his/her creation because technology has made it less expensive to distribute? If that is the case then should all computer programs be free? Copyright does benefit a select few, generally the creator or someone who has PAID the creator to own the expression of the idea. Should you or anyone else have it for nothing? If it has no value why do you want it? if you want it why are you not willing to pay for it?
You seem to be building up a strawman argument here, just so you can knock it down. It really doesn't matter how much YOU value your work, what really matters how much your customer is willing to pay for it. If that number happens to be zero for infinitely reproducible items, so be it. You either need to capitalize in other ways or stop producing the work. No one owes you a living just because you produced some art.
If you really wanted to begin to restore my respect of copyright, you could start by lowering copyright length to reasonable time frames, so that the Public Domain get replenished, as it was with the original bargain between the creators and the public.
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are asking me that question, then the answer is unequivocally yes. Laws are supposed to represent the morals of the society that they govern.
All of the things you mention are accepted by the majority of our society as necessary rules to maintain our way of life as a whole. But views do change and as a result, laws change (or more likely, stopped being enforced, but remain on the books for no real good reason).
I don't necessarily see copyright in the same company as the other things you mention though. Copyright seems only to benefit a select few these days, in my humble opinion.
It doesn't seem like you wish our laws to represent society's morals, but more like you wish our laws to represent what YOU think is moral. That's not really a good way run a government, is it?
On the post: NSA Makes Metadata (Including Info On Americans) Available To Domestic Law Enforcement Via 'Google-Like' Search
Re:
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re:
Just curious here. Suppose we did a survey and found that an overwhelming percentage of the population didn't view violating copyright as immoral.
Would you then advocate eliminating copyright?
On the post: Guy Claims Patent On Photographing People In Races And Then Selling Them Their Photos; Sues Photography Company
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The other side of the story
Revising and/or eliminating the patent system would not mess with our Constitution one bit.
Patents are not mandated by the Constitution at all. The Copyright/Patent Clause is included in the list of enumerated powers that the Constitution grants Congress and gives specifics for the means to achieve the goal of [promoting] the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and that's it.
If Congress decided tomorrow that the patent system no longer promotes "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" it would be completely within their power to eliminate it. There's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to have a patent system.
Next >>