It's very simple:
1. Copyright law's purpose is to ensure a steady income stream to the record labels
2. "Sales" are better when it's the record label doing the selling
3. "Licenses" are better when that's what the purchaser purchases
The only way these can all be true if the record label sells it to you, but you license it to them. So clearly that must be what happens.
Was that so hard ?
On a serious note, I'd love to see their opponents in the two cases bring the record label's lawyers in the other case to the stand...
It really doesn't. It points out that if you're in business, you should be focusing on "how can I best make money?", but too many decision-makers in the entertainment industries have instead decided to focus on "how can I stop piracy?" without first answering (or even asking) questions like "can we stop piracy?", "how much will it cost to stop piracy?", "will stopping piracy result in increased sales?", or "could I make more money by not stopping, or even by encouraging piracy?".
No strawman, just a question. Which is the actual *goal* ?
Yes, stopping piracy may be a means to the end of making more money, but you need to be clear that it isn't a goal in itself, whereas making money *is* the goal. That then leads to the ability to ask sensible questions and to make rational decisions.
How can both be more important than than other ? That's nonsense. Either their both equally important, or one is more important than the other.
If you read the paragraph after that question, you'll see that it explicitly says that stopping piracy may be a way to make more money.
...that the folks at Business Insider are Real Journalists (TM), whereas Techdirt is Just A Blog. Everyone knows that only Real Journalists actually research their stories, because they charge money for them.
Those same assumptions are what justify restricting "making copies" in the first place. "Making copies" in itself isn't really a problem to rightsholders, provided those copies are kept private (indeed, some copyright laws allow the making of private copies). Because the technologies for making copies were expensive at the time the first copyright laws were written, it was reasonable to assume that nobody would go to that time and expense unless they intended to distribute those copies, for profit. Hence "making copies" was added as an exclusive right, but really only because it was a good indicator of "intent to distribute".
Nowadays, of course, we make copies all the time, without even knowing it, so it really is time to change copyright law so that making copies (but not distributing them) isn't one of the exclusive rights granted. Copyright law would be much cleaner, simpler, and more technology-neutral as a result.
Interesting to see that the URL for that story is .../how-did-28-stations-end-up-with-identical-scripts-for-a-story-about-conan-obrien_b28039
Did one of the stations change their script ?
If I design a pizza that uses somebody else's design as a basis, and improve on it on some way, I certainly should be able to claim the new pizza design as my own. Nobody's arguing that the original Pizza Hut pizza design should become mine. Pizza Hut didn't come up with my design, I did. Now, I'll grant you that there's a degree thing here - adding a single olive may or may not constitute something new. Have you listened to any Girl Talk music ? It's definitely not just somebody else's music with a minor addition.
Same for the car analogy - I haven't heard anyone suggest that the Chevy design should become yours because you improve on it - what I have heard is the idea that Chevy should be able to say "no" to your improvement. Personally, I disagree with that, but do agree that they should be given due credit for their contribution. With cars it's actually much easier, in my mind - if I own it, I should be allowed to make any modifications I like to it. Some of these mashups, though, are more likely touring through the scrapyard and finding all sorts of odd bits and pieces of old cars, and putting them together into a sculpture - so what if the parts used were originally designed by various car manufacturers ?
The house analogy - I just can't relate that to the subject at hand at all, sorry. Is somebody asking to deface people's CD collections or something ?
I don't think I want to live in a world where we only have "respectful" art.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but you're pretty clearly wrong that "nobody has ever served as Secretary General of the United Nations". From what I can see, eight people have done exactly that - see https://www.un.org/sg/formersgs.shtml
Interesting. Ultimately a lot of the stuff discussed on Techdirt comes down to values.
People use the word "theft" for copyright infringement - they clearly feel that making an unauthorized copy is just as bad as taking property away from somebody.
I find it interesting that you say that "something for nothing" is "clearly an issue" - that's a pretty extreme position. I feel perfectly entitled to breath for free, for example, and I do feel that people who can't afford to pay for housing or food or water should receive some sort of help.
People have different ideas of the relative importance of freedom of speech and copyrights - to what extent is it ok to restrict people's freedom of speech if doing so helps people protect their copyrights ?
It's also worth pointing out that while we've had general agreement on tangible property rights for an awfully long time (at least in the west), exactly what bundle of rights comprise "copyright" has continually changed since the concept was first invented. This is, of course, partly because there are direct conflicts with freedom of speech and with tangible property rights - copyrights restrict how you can express yourself and what you can do with your property.
And you know what ? If somebody created a machine that produced bread from nothing, so that the cost to produce a loaf was zero, I personally would be celebrating the end of starvation rather than figuring out how we could keep the baking industry alive. Another value judgment, of course. I also suspect that in the long run the people who did decide to restrict the use of the new machine would lose out. So for me, "piracy will always be around" is just a specific instance of "once technology make something possible, there will always be people who use that technology, regardless of what morality or any restrictions you put in place", and that the cheaper the technology is, the more people will use it. I recognize that piracy is cheap and easy, and that it's a gray area morally. I don't do it myself, but I also don't expect any number of laws (or "education campaigns", for that matter) to eliminate it.
As others have pointed out, I didn't say anything about serving stuff to the US.
I'm basically saying that if the US passes laws to effectively cut itself off from the Internet, no doubt the companies that make their money from the Internet will move elsewhere.
...to watch the US for the next decade or so. It could go one of two ways :
Either there's a huge backlash against this kind of thing, the law gets changed, the Internet goes back to being the most amazing communication and free speech tool and the content companies are forced to adapt to it;
Or the media companies continue their slow decline, but the tech companies, led by the Internet-centric ones, gradually move elsewhere to avoid the US laws. Not sure how the US economy copes with that, but it's probably not pretty.
Copyright law in general seems to have all sorts of issues with contracts. The two areas interact so closely and in such strange ways, that things get very complex very quickly. Parts of copyright law explicitly override contracts (e.g. the reversion of copyrights thing), and copyright laws frequently include parts that cannot be overridden by contracts (e.g. moral rights in many countries), and of course contracts frequently override (or attempt to override) copyright law (e.g. "this is a work-for-hire", or "by installing this software you agree that you have no fair use rights").
The whole thing is a complete mess. Lucky lawyers.
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
Of course
1. Copyright law's purpose is to ensure a steady income stream to the record labels
2. "Sales" are better when it's the record label doing the selling
3. "Licenses" are better when that's what the purchaser purchases
The only way these can all be true if the record label sells it to you, but you license it to them. So clearly that must be what happens.
Was that so hard ?
On a serious note, I'd love to see their opponents in the two cases bring the record label's lawyers in the other case to the stand...
On the post: Newspaper Boss Says Newspapers Need More Money... Because New Media Steals & May 'Destroy Civil Society'
To summarise his argument...
'nuff said.
On the post: Is The 'Legislative Solution' To Online Infringement To Create A Content Use Registry?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL
No strawman, just a question. Which is the actual *goal* ?
Yes, stopping piracy may be a means to the end of making more money, but you need to be clear that it isn't a goal in itself, whereas making money *is* the goal. That then leads to the ability to ask sensible questions and to make rational decisions.
On the post: Is The 'Legislative Solution' To Online Infringement To Create A Content Use Registry?
Re: Re: Re: Re: LOL
On the post: Is The 'Legislative Solution' To Online Infringement To Create A Content Use Registry?
Re: Re: Re: LOL
If you read the paragraph after that question, you'll see that it explicitly says that stopping piracy may be a way to make more money.
On the post: It Is Time To Stop Pretending To Endorse The Copyright Monopoly
Re:
On the post: No, Sony Electronics, Nintendo And EA Have NOT Publicly Changed Their Position On SOPA
Bear in mind, though...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Year At Techdirt
So that's as funny as it gets ?
On the post: Chinese Internet Users Relish Irony Of SOPA's Great Firewall Of America
Not that "extraordinary"
On the post: Keith Olbermann, No Longer Afraid Of Corporate Parent Interference, Willing To Talk On Air About PIPA/SOPA
embraced by the Internet ?
On the post: Why The Supreme Court's 'Grokster' Decision Led To More, Not Less, P2P Filesharing
Those assumptions are inherent
Nowadays, of course, we make copies all the time, without even knowing it, so it really is time to change copyright law so that making copies (but not distributing them) isn't one of the exclusive rights granted. Copyright law would be much cleaner, simpler, and more technology-neutral as a result.
On the post: Same Talking, Different Heads: How Not To Localize News
Re: How it happened
Did one of the stations change their script ?
On the post: Why The Internet Has Been Awesome For Both Musical Artists and Fans
Re: Re:
If I design a pizza that uses somebody else's design as a basis, and improve on it on some way, I certainly should be able to claim the new pizza design as my own. Nobody's arguing that the original Pizza Hut pizza design should become mine. Pizza Hut didn't come up with my design, I did. Now, I'll grant you that there's a degree thing here - adding a single olive may or may not constitute something new. Have you listened to any Girl Talk music ? It's definitely not just somebody else's music with a minor addition.
Same for the car analogy - I haven't heard anyone suggest that the Chevy design should become yours because you improve on it - what I have heard is the idea that Chevy should be able to say "no" to your improvement. Personally, I disagree with that, but do agree that they should be given due credit for their contribution. With cars it's actually much easier, in my mind - if I own it, I should be allowed to make any modifications I like to it. Some of these mashups, though, are more likely touring through the scrapyard and finding all sorts of odd bits and pieces of old cars, and putting them together into a sculpture - so what if the parts used were originally designed by various car manufacturers ?
The house analogy - I just can't relate that to the subject at hand at all, sorry. Is somebody asking to deface people's CD collections or something ?
I don't think I want to live in a world where we only have "respectful" art.
On the post: India Wants UN Body To Run The Internet: Would That Be Such A Bad Thing?
Re:
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce So Clueless It Thinks You Have To Be 'Anti-IP' To Be Against E-PARASITE Bill
Aha!
On the post: E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People use the word "theft" for copyright infringement - they clearly feel that making an unauthorized copy is just as bad as taking property away from somebody.
I find it interesting that you say that "something for nothing" is "clearly an issue" - that's a pretty extreme position. I feel perfectly entitled to breath for free, for example, and I do feel that people who can't afford to pay for housing or food or water should receive some sort of help.
People have different ideas of the relative importance of freedom of speech and copyrights - to what extent is it ok to restrict people's freedom of speech if doing so helps people protect their copyrights ?
It's also worth pointing out that while we've had general agreement on tangible property rights for an awfully long time (at least in the west), exactly what bundle of rights comprise "copyright" has continually changed since the concept was first invented. This is, of course, partly because there are direct conflicts with freedom of speech and with tangible property rights - copyrights restrict how you can express yourself and what you can do with your property.
And you know what ? If somebody created a machine that produced bread from nothing, so that the cost to produce a loaf was zero, I personally would be celebrating the end of starvation rather than figuring out how we could keep the baking industry alive. Another value judgment, of course. I also suspect that in the long run the people who did decide to restrict the use of the new machine would lose out. So for me, "piracy will always be around" is just a specific instance of "once technology make something possible, there will always be people who use that technology, regardless of what morality or any restrictions you put in place", and that the cheaper the technology is, the more people will use it. I recognize that piracy is cheap and easy, and that it's a gray area morally. I don't do it myself, but I also don't expect any number of laws (or "education campaigns", for that matter) to eliminate it.
On the post: E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'
Re: Re: It's going to be interesting...
I'm basically saying that if the US passes laws to effectively cut itself off from the Internet, no doubt the companies that make their money from the Internet will move elsewhere.
On the post: E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'
It's going to be interesting...
Either there's a huge backlash against this kind of thing, the law gets changed, the Internet goes back to being the most amazing communication and free speech tool and the content companies are forced to adapt to it;
Or the media companies continue their slow decline, but the tech companies, led by the Internet-centric ones, gradually move elsewhere to avoid the US laws. Not sure how the US economy copes with that, but it's probably not pretty.
On the post: Author Sues Production Company For Copyright Infringement For Changing The Script It Optioned From Him
Copyrights and contracts
The whole thing is a complete mess. Lucky lawyers.
Next >>