Copyright is a privilege to start off with. Congress doesn't have to give it to you. You don't have a right to a copyright. Current law allows you to get it, but it could be taken away from you. That privilege congress gives you is the ability to exclude others from copying and distributing what you have a copyright over. In order to give you that privilege, congress has to take away rights from others.
Further, if you tried to stop me from making copies of and/or distributing copies of works in the public domain, then your conduct would not be immunized from liability. But if you have a copyright on the works I am copying/distributing, then that same conduct is immunized from liability. Your own definitions support that.
Copyright is a privilege, not a right. In order to even have copyrights, you must remove the rights of others to copy and distribute works. But with a copyright you are given "the legal freedom to do or not do a given act", that act in this case is to stop me from copying and distributing your copyrighted works. You can't stop me from doing it with someone else's copyrighted works. If I were selling a bunch of bootlegged DVDs that you didn't own a copyright onn, and you took them from me, you would be liable for theft. If the copyright holder did the same, I'm sure they would be immunized. Why? Because it's a privilege they get. The privilege to exclude.
So my right to free speech permits me to exclude you from it? I don't think you know what you're talking about. Copyright is a privilege to engage in excluding others from copying. You can keep people from copying your stuff, or you can let them copy all they want. That's a privilege, and when you exercise that privilege, you are actually taking away the natural rights of others.
Copyright isn't a right you are granted. It's a right taken away from everyone else so that you can have exclusivity in copying and distribution. Everyone is free to copy and distribute what ever they want, until copyright comes in, and then suddenly their rights are removed.
Copyright isn't the granting of a right to a single individual/entity; it is the removal of rights from all but a single entity.
AS has been shown time and time again, no matter how much you might want to think there's a difference, there is no practical difference between streaming and downloading. In order for a stream to play, the stream must be downloaded. Sometimes there are minor technical hurdles used to prevent someone from keeping a copy of a stream, but nothing that isn't easily worked around. Streaming is merely a form of downloading. If downloading can be a felony, then streaming already can be a felony.
It automatically took the lede from every AP story. As described by AP’s Standards Editor, the lede is “meant to convey the heart of the story.” A lede is a sentence that takes significant journalistic skill to craft. There is no other single sentence from an AP story that is as consistently important from article to article –- neither the final sentence nor any sentence that begins any succeeding paragraph in the story.
So quoting the most important part of a work is now automatic copyright infringement?
Darth Vader: Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.
Luke Skywalker: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!
Darth Vader: No. I am your father.
Oh NO! I just infringed on The Empire Strikes Back. I'll go turn myself in now.
Instead of getting your information from a pcmag, you might want to try getting information about law directly from the source. In order for downloading to be a criminal offence there are certain requirements. You can read them yourself.
Is it possible that downloading could be criminal (which is necessary for it to be a felony)? I suppose. Is it usual? No. In fact, I haven't heard of a single case where the downloader was convicted of a felony, though I don't rule out the possibility.
Furthermore, she insists that DRM is a required part of a functioning copyright system.
I agree. It is a required part. The part it plays should be as follows:
You can have copyright, or you can have DRM. Pick one.
Copyright requires that your works become part of the public domain at the end of the term (I hold out hope that someday that will actually happen), while the other is an attempt to keep that from happening (see DMCA anti-circumvention clause). So any functioning copyright system needs to mention DRM as a part of the law. You get one or the other, but not both. If you choose DRM and it gets cracked, too bad.
That's the first thing I thought of when I heard him say scroogled. If politicians had to wear logos of who finances them NASCAR style (lobbying, campaign, or otherwise) , this guy has got to have a Microsoft logo that would take up his whole suit coat. He might as well be wearing a Sounders FC jersey.
I've said it before and it remains true. Ask any one, be it economist, politicians, businessman, or layman, and they will tell you that monopolies are bad for the economy, for consumers, and for the free market. Change the word to copyright or patent and suddenly a lot of them will trip over themselves telling you how awesome and necessary they are, and how they are foundational properties of a free market.
I think jackn needs to learn to thread mode. I was confused by an earlier post of his where it looked like he was replying to the article, but I think he was really replying to bob.
The only way to have low upfront costs and bundle the real price into the monthly bill is to prevent people from taking the phone to a different provider
Look, if I'm a provider, and get someone to sign a two year agreement to pay me monthly for two years, and they take the phone provided in that contract and go to another carrier, I don't freaking care. That's actually in my interest. Why? Because now they are still paying me (remember the contract?) but not using my services. That's got to be the phone carriers wet dream. Get people to sign contracts to pay you and not have to provide any service because they go elsewhere while still paying you.
No one is talking about renting, no one is talking about doing away with contracts. The phone company can continue offering two year contracts with unlocked phones. Phone locking has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanism you and the phone company agree upon to finance the phone.
Oh you proved me wrong. Now with all of the correct numbers you've given me, I can do the math correctly now. Thank you ever so much for providing such useful data.
No one is denying that she's spending $30,000/year on DMCA notices, nor is anyone denying that her DMCA notices are legit. We are simply wondering if she has the data that shows that she's not spending unnecessarily on DMCA notices.
Is piracy happening? Sure, we all believe that.
Is spending money on making it stop worth it? Well, we have some examples of piracy not making a difference, some where it helps, but all the people who claim it hurts don't want to show us their data.
Uhm, whether you buy your phone outright or pay for it monthly, you are still being told that you are buying it. The problem doesn't lie in the financing, it lies in the fact that manufacturers are telling you that you are buying it, but treating it as if you are just renting it.
That's great bob. No one here is arguing against renting. It has it's uses. Thank you for knocking that strawman down for us. We were all so terribly afraid of getting straw in our panties, but you have heroically saved us all.
Now, if you would like, the rest of us are talking about the property rights being taken away for things we are told that we are buying, but are really being treated as if we're just renting them.
I'd like to do your 5th grade math, but I need to know how many DMCA notices $30,000/year buys you. I also need to know how many links are taken down with one notice. I also need to know how many downloads are prevented by one taken down link. I also need to know how many prevented downloads equals a lost sale. I also need to know how many lost sales are made by not being able to download first. Averages are fine. Please do provide. Until you do, I'll provide my own assumptions.
Assume one DMCA notice costs $1.
Assume one DMCA notice takes down one link.
Assume one taken down link prevents 10 downloads.
Assume 100 prevented download equals 1 gained sale.
With those assumptions, she sent 30,000 DMCA notices on 30,000 links, which prevented 300,000 downloads (which BTW, is more than the number of households in Seattle). Since 300,000 downloads were prevented, she gained 3,000 sales. Each movie is $3.99, so she gained $11,970, for a loss of $18,030, not to mention all of the sales she lost due to preventing a willing buyer from previewing the movies. In fact, she would need to prevent 7,519 downloads that equate to lost sales before breaking even. Not downloads; downloads that equate to lost sales.
Since she's willing to do this and to make the claim that if she doesn't she will go broke, then surely she has the data to back that up.
On the post: Appeals Court Wants More Copyright Defendants To Stand Up For Their Fair Use Rights
Re: Re: Re: 7 seconds and NOT crucial is FINE. That IS "fair use".
On the post: Leaked! MPAA Talking Points On Copyright Reform: Copyright Is Awesome For Everyone!
Re: Re: Re:
Further, if you tried to stop me from making copies of and/or distributing copies of works in the public domain, then your conduct would not be immunized from liability. But if you have a copyright on the works I am copying/distributing, then that same conduct is immunized from liability. Your own definitions support that.
Copyright is a privilege, not a right. In order to even have copyrights, you must remove the rights of others to copy and distribute works. But with a copyright you are given "the legal freedom to do or not do a given act", that act in this case is to stop me from copying and distributing your copyrighted works. You can't stop me from doing it with someone else's copyrighted works. If I were selling a bunch of bootlegged DVDs that you didn't own a copyright onn, and you took them from me, you would be liable for theft. If the copyright holder did the same, I'm sure they would be immunized. Why? Because it's a privilege they get. The privilege to exclude.
On the post: CISPA Sponsor Tweets, Then Deletes, About How Much More Lobbying Dollars Have Come From Pro-CISPA Groups
Re: Re:
On the post: Leaked! MPAA Talking Points On Copyright Reform: Copyright Is Awesome For Everyone!
Re:
Copyright isn't a right you are granted. It's a right taken away from everyone else so that you can have exclusivity in copying and distribution. Everyone is free to copy and distribute what ever they want, until copyright comes in, and then suddenly their rights are removed.
Copyright isn't the granting of a right to a single individual/entity; it is the removal of rights from all but a single entity.
On the post: Copyright Office Boss Admits Copyright Law Is Broken And Needs A Rethink... But Still Focused On Bad Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sorry Fair Use, Court Says News Clipping Service Infringes On AP Copyrights
On the post: Copyright Office Boss Admits Copyright Law Is Broken And Needs A Rethink... But Still Focused On Bad Ideas
Re: Re: Re:
Is it possible that downloading could be criminal (which is necessary for it to be a felony)? I suppose. Is it usual? No. In fact, I haven't heard of a single case where the downloader was convicted of a felony, though I don't rule out the possibility.
On the post: Copyright Office Boss Admits Copyright Law Is Broken And Needs A Rethink... But Still Focused On Bad Ideas
You can have copyright, or you can have DRM. Pick one.
Copyright requires that your works become part of the public domain at the end of the term (I hold out hope that someday that will actually happen), while the other is an attempt to keep that from happening (see DMCA anti-circumvention clause). So any functioning copyright system needs to mention DRM as a part of the law. You get one or the other, but not both. If you choose DRM and it gets cracked, too bad.
On the post: Copyright Office Boss Admits Copyright Law Is Broken And Needs A Rethink... But Still Focused On Bad Ideas
Re:
On the post: Rep. Gohmert's Record For Stunning Technological Ignorance Is Broken By... Rep. Gohmert
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congressman Already Claims That He Needs To Overturn Supreme Court Ruling In Kirtsaeng
On the post: The Fight Isn't About Unlocking Mobile Phones, But Whether You Actually Own What You Bought
Re: Re:
On the post: The Fight Isn't About Unlocking Mobile Phones, But Whether You Actually Own What You Bought
Re: Re: Re: Re: And why do we care if we own it?
On the post: The Fight Isn't About Unlocking Mobile Phones, But Whether You Actually Own What You Bought
Re: Re: Re: And why do we care if we own it?
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is piracy happening? Sure, we all believe that.
Is spending money on making it stop worth it? Well, we have some examples of piracy not making a difference, some where it helps, but all the people who claim it hurts don't want to show us their data.
On the post: The Fight Isn't About Unlocking Mobile Phones, But Whether You Actually Own What You Bought
Re:
On the post: The Fight Isn't About Unlocking Mobile Phones, But Whether You Actually Own What You Bought
Re: And why do we care if we own it?
Now, if you would like, the rest of us are talking about the property rights being taken away for things we are told that we are buying, but are really being treated as if we're just renting them.
On the post: The Fight Isn't About Unlocking Mobile Phones, But Whether You Actually Own What You Bought
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 19th, 2013 @ 1:24pm
On the post: Indie Film Distributor Spends Half Her Profits Sending DMCA Takedowns, But Is It Worth It?
Re: Re: Re:
Assume one DMCA notice costs $1.
Assume one DMCA notice takes down one link.
Assume one taken down link prevents 10 downloads.
Assume 100 prevented download equals 1 gained sale.
With those assumptions, she sent 30,000 DMCA notices on 30,000 links, which prevented 300,000 downloads (which BTW, is more than the number of households in Seattle). Since 300,000 downloads were prevented, she gained 3,000 sales. Each movie is $3.99, so she gained $11,970, for a loss of $18,030, not to mention all of the sales she lost due to preventing a willing buyer from previewing the movies. In fact, she would need to prevent 7,519 downloads that equate to lost sales before breaking even. Not downloads; downloads that equate to lost sales.
Since she's willing to do this and to make the claim that if she doesn't she will go broke, then surely she has the data to back that up.
Next >>