I think this is where you and I are going to fundamentally disgree. When stating your principles I don't think you can put a price on them - especially if there's an absence of data supporting that price. At the moment we can see how innovation works in IP-protected industries and we can see how it works in those without. What we have no data for is how it might have worked if those situations were reversed, so I would argue that we should work of what we know until such time as data comes up that challenges that.
Personally I have a number of questions and challenges with the arguments put forward, but overall I think the principles (and that's what this is about) are right.
As for terrorism, i think you're trying to apply your own definition here. The 7th of July bombers in the UK were all british. Terrorism is generally in terms of provoking a state of fear in order to induce an ideological change. It doesn't matter if it's one native person or a group of foreigners.
This argument starts from a presumption of copyright though. It is an argument of entitlement. If you sell me a physical object then as soon as I've bought it, I own it and can start doing whatever the hell I like to it and with it. It's mine, until i break it, give it away or sell it on.
Yet if you sell me a dvd, particularly one with any kind of region block or DRM, then that's it. I can't do anything with it other than play what has been prescribed. Hell, in some cases I can only play it in certain ways or on certain devices.
The copyright owner's restrictions trump what I can do with an object I bought. That feels like a bad thing, it feels like I've bought a bicycle but I can only use one brand of tyres, or I can't change the saddle to one I know is more comfortable for me.
Wind back a few hundred years and that restriction might have been for a few years and then I'd be able to do what I want with it - that's not so bad. If it takes someone a few years to write a book (and it generally does) then I can see that a few years of copyright would be a fair return.
But it's not like that. I've bought the bike and I can't change the saddle until long after I'm dead?
That feels like a bad thing.
Copyright is a restriction on the purchaser's or public's rights in order to stimulate the generation of new works. So why does it continue long after death? Why should the estate of a creator continue to apply that restriction when the creator is long gone?
* goes off to check who Neal Stephenson is *
* wonders why he's never heard of him before *
Ah, I can see why you'd be disappointed. I'm afraid I'm a poor subsitute, and not even related.
* heads off to look at Neal Stephenson on amazon *
I'm curious as to what part of their best interests you think the people are working against? The right not to be censored? The right to access? Openness? Innovation? Privacy?
Which of those is against our own best interests?
At what point does the mass killing of civilians for political purposes become terrorism then? This wasn't an assassination of a political figure. Nor was it someone breaking down and bringing a gun into a crowded bar. It was a deliberate action designed to bring about panic and terror for a political agenda.
Fair call, it would be nice to see it everywhere. Some places that just isn't going to happen though, either because it's illegal or because (unlike the US and the UK) it is a genuine police state.
I think I mentioned the US and the UK primarily because these are countries where this should be allowed and yet we see regular cases of it not being. We should be able to hold outselves up as a model to repressive states and regimes.
If this were a french or german language blog I'm sure we'd see plenty of examples in Europe and elsewhere and I'd have led with those countries.
Good blog here: http://www.bemuso.com/?p=373 talking about why DIY doesn't have to mean doing EVERYTHING by yourself.
Actually this is a good example of where the majors can really help, if they were so keen on screwing people the whole while.
"I give praise to him for his drive and determination."
This! It's a fairly frequently quoted thing but I'm going to repeat it, most people who are successful at one thing would have found a way to be successful at anything. If they're lucky they'll hit on to something they love doing, but either way, these people will make it work.
It is an interesting one isn't it? Without knowing anything else about the case it's hard to see exactly what the problem is here.
Also, it's hard to argue with the stats-as-facts argument - if they're not facts then they're not very good stats.
Players physical features I can understand the reasoning on though.
that 99c which would be a days wage for about 40% of the globe?
Once again, no-one cares what a product costs to produce.
A reasonable price is what your customers are willing to pay. If you can't provide a product at that price then you need to change your business model or find a new business.
I'm slightly curious as to whether you're lumping the shysters and rip-off artists in with the pirates or the legacy industries though?
"The constant drumbeat around here is that vast public []want everything for free and they're happy to let anyone but the real creators make money."
Bob, read back on the comments, not just this thread, but practically every thread here.
The constant drumbeat around here is "make your content available without DRM, without senseless regional windows and at a reasonable price and we will gladly pay for it."
We know it costs money to create stuff, hell most of us do it to one extent or another anyway, and we're happy to contribute to artists who are creating stuff (hence all the kickstarter and pledge stories).
What people are unhappy about is the constant over-reach of legacy industries and their attempts to set back technological progress.
There are a few people who readily admit to pirating stuff sure, but these fall into 2 predominant camps:
a) those who are unserved by a decent legal alternative
and
b) those who are pirating just to stick two fingers up at the legacy industries.
Only one of these is a lost sale. The good news is that it's the one that's easy to address.
If the idea was to maximise sales rather than minimise copying you might meet with more success. Not only that, you'd be able to massively reduce your lobbying budget and hugely improve your public image.
"He ignores and purposefully omits the parts of the law that he doesn't like when discussing the law" - I just don't see where you're getting that. The fact that the supreme court made that decision has been brought up here loads of times, including by Mike, and no-one is suggesting that that's not the law. What a number of people are suggesting is that it was the wrong decision. The supreme court may be the ultimate ruling authority but it doesn't mean it's automatically right - that way lies divine right.
Out of curiousity, do you accept that those who think copyright is out of kilter have resonable grounds to fear further expansion of both duration and coverage?
Horse in the race? These guys own the stables. And they're bitching because some people have decided that they'd rather go to the dog racing instead...
"I can only point out that you're worrying that there is such a plan but without offering one iota of proof that anyone is actually planning this."
This is true, I have no proof, but I have precedent: the 1790 Act, the 1831 Act, the 1909 Act, the 1962-74 acts, the 1976 act and the 1998 act.
The facts of what is happening is that copyright terms are being expanded with an increasing frequency.
On the post: Drew Stephenson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Personally I have a number of questions and challenges with the arguments put forward, but overall I think the principles (and that's what this is about) are right.
As for terrorism, i think you're trying to apply your own definition here. The 7th of July bombers in the UK were all british. Terrorism is generally in terms of provoking a state of fear in order to induce an ideological change. It doesn't matter if it's one native person or a group of foreigners.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Funny
Yet if you sell me a dvd, particularly one with any kind of region block or DRM, then that's it. I can't do anything with it other than play what has been prescribed. Hell, in some cases I can only play it in certain ways or on certain devices.
The copyright owner's restrictions trump what I can do with an object I bought. That feels like a bad thing, it feels like I've bought a bicycle but I can only use one brand of tyres, or I can't change the saddle to one I know is more comfortable for me.
Wind back a few hundred years and that restriction might have been for a few years and then I'd be able to do what I want with it - that's not so bad. If it takes someone a few years to write a book (and it generally does) then I can see that a few years of copyright would be a fair return.
But it's not like that. I've bought the bike and I can't change the saddle until long after I'm dead?
That feels like a bad thing.
Copyright is a restriction on the purchaser's or public's rights in order to stimulate the generation of new works. So why does it continue long after death? Why should the estate of a creator continue to apply that restriction when the creator is long gone?
On the post: Drew Stephenson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
* wonders why he's never heard of him before *
Ah, I can see why you'd be disappointed. I'm afraid I'm a poor subsitute, and not even related.
* heads off to look at Neal Stephenson on amazon *
On the post: Drew Stephenson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Which of those is against our own best interests?
At what point does the mass killing of civilians for political purposes become terrorism then? This wasn't an assassination of a political figure. Nor was it someone breaking down and bringing a gun into a crowded bar. It was a deliberate action designed to bring about panic and terror for a political agenda.
On the post: Drew Stephenson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
I think I mentioned the US and the UK primarily because these are countries where this should be allowed and yet we see regular cases of it not being. We should be able to hold outselves up as a model to repressive states and regimes.
If this were a french or german language blog I'm sure we'd see plenty of examples in Europe and elsewhere and I'd have led with those countries.
On the post: Drew Stephenson's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re:
Actually this is a good example of where the majors can really help, if they were so keen on screwing people the whole while.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Well Well Well quit the comments...
This! It's a fairly frequently quoted thing but I'm going to repeat it, most people who are successful at one thing would have found a way to be successful at anything. If they're lucky they'll hit on to something they love doing, but either way, these people will make it work.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Funny
Good to see more and more of these efforts working.
On the post: EA Settles Price Fixing Lawsuit For $27 Million; NFL Monopoly Left Intact
Re:
Also, it's hard to argue with the stats-as-facts argument - if they're not facts then they're not very good stats.
Players physical features I can understand the reasoning on though.
On the post: Are The Courts Finally Trying To Bring Some Balance Back To Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: The public is filled with creators
Once again, no-one cares what a product costs to produce.
A reasonable price is what your customers are willing to pay. If you can't provide a product at that price then you need to change your business model or find a new business.
I'm slightly curious as to whether you're lumping the shysters and rip-off artists in with the pirates or the legacy industries though?
On the post: Are The Courts Finally Trying To Bring Some Balance Back To Copyright?
Re: The public is filled with creators
Bob, read back on the comments, not just this thread, but practically every thread here.
The constant drumbeat around here is "make your content available without DRM, without senseless regional windows and at a reasonable price and we will gladly pay for it."
We know it costs money to create stuff, hell most of us do it to one extent or another anyway, and we're happy to contribute to artists who are creating stuff (hence all the kickstarter and pledge stories).
What people are unhappy about is the constant over-reach of legacy industries and their attempts to set back technological progress.
There are a few people who readily admit to pirating stuff sure, but these fall into 2 predominant camps:
a) those who are unserved by a decent legal alternative
and
b) those who are pirating just to stick two fingers up at the legacy industries.
Only one of these is a lost sale. The good news is that it's the one that's easy to address.
On the post: NZ Copyright Industry Claims New 'Three Strikes' Law Halved Movie Infringements After One Month: So What?
Re: The Emperor's new clothes
On the post: NZ Copyright Industry Claims New 'Three Strikes' Law Halved Movie Infringements After One Month: So What?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Out of curiousity, do you accept that those who think copyright is out of kilter have resonable grounds to fear further expansion of both duration and coverage?
On the post: Legacy Artists Sign Letter Demanding ISPs & Search Engines Pitch In To Return Them To Their Former Glory
Re:
On the post: Legacy Artists Sign Letter Demanding ISPs & Search Engines Pitch In To Return Them To Their Former Glory
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Legacy Artists Sign Letter Demanding ISPs & Search Engines Pitch In To Return Them To Their Former Glory
Re:
On the post: Humble Bundle Expands Beyond Video Games; Offers Awesome Pay What You Want Music Package
Re: Re:
On the post: Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true, I have no proof, but I have precedent: the 1790 Act, the 1831 Act, the 1909 Act, the 1962-74 acts, the 1976 act and the 1998 act.
The facts of what is happening is that copyright terms are being expanded with an increasing frequency.
Next >>