"I was trying to see things from EMI's point of view."
Agreed, and you did a great job explaining the purpose of EMI's actions. But I was merely pointing out that in the grand scheme of things, their current actions are nothing more than a sand castle built to withstand a tsunami.
People always lose jobs during transitional periods. But that's a good thing. The fact that these jobs are lost really means that no one was willing to pay someone to perform the work. Those types of jobs should disappear.
Young guy: Have you heard the news, there's this new thing called radio. They're going to play and promote our music for free. People will start buying our music by the bushel.
Old idiot: Free?! So they're not paying us anything?
Young guy: No, you don't get it. They're giving us free advertising. People across the nation will hear our label's music and will buy it. We'll make a fortune!
Old idiot: I don't know, we'd better have the lawyers file a lawsuit against this "radio." It sounds like they're leaching off of our hard work.
Young guy: No, you're still not getting it. Right now no one is hearing our music. We have to spend a fortune promoting our artists to get the word out, but these radio folks will do it for free. We'll make more money if we let them play it.
Old idiot, on phone to legal department: Have you guys heard about this new thing called radio? I want you guys to sue them into the ground. In fact, sue the individual owners personally too, because they're just as guilty.
"how is this a more beneficial reaction than selling the kid a cheap license to use their trademark or whatever and having fun with this whole thing?"
Great idea, I totally agree, but the problem is that attorneys cannot bill their clients for "having fun with this whole thing." And that's the root of this problem, as far as I'm concerned.
Because the whole notion is so utterly absurd, I was going to write a satirical piece about this very topic a couple of years ago. I decided it was only a matter of time before it actually came true so I dropped it.
"the olympic committee thinks they can control everything"
They think that because it's true, all governments so far have allowed them control everything. Any government that would stand up to them would be blacklisted. So out of fear they all bend over and take it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
"Easy...
Only because the people who are coming into your shop are ignorant. Their are easy cracks and work-arounds to eliminate the nagging. In other words, the DRM does not stop people from using the software for free. The fact that some people are too ignorant to bypass the DRM does not mean the DRM is secure.
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
"Unbroken DRM: DirecTV signal (finally)"
The use of finally shows that even if you're right, it is only temporary.
"XM/Sirius satellite radio"
Because it ain't worth the time to hack. I rented a car for a couple of weeks with an XM radio in it. I sounded like crap. Flat, nearly mono. While my MP3 player and FM radio sounded fantastic.
"There has been a ton of publicity about the young woman..."
For once the use of the word "ton" was not hyperbole. I was shocked at how much press this instance received. I would like to hope that it will lead to some real change, but it won't.
From now one do the right thing and simply shoplift the DVD. That's only a misdemeanor offense without any jail time.
"even Buffer's own lawyer seems confused about it"
I've said it before, very few lawyers take IP classes in law school. But yet, they're still allowed to practice copyright and trademark laws. (Patent lawyers must pass the patent bar.)
ISPs claim that net neutrality laws would stop them from innovating and forming partnerships. They're right.
So Comcast, for example, should be able to form partnerships and offer a high speed access from those partnerships to its users.
They would do that with a multi-tiered approach. Comcast could offer for example a 6 Mbps internet service with a 10 Mbps service for "trusted partners" or some other term.
The ISP would get to innovate and make partnerships, the customer would get the internet he paid for, and no one would be shut out of access to the customer, so websites would still be allowed to innovate and get new readers/subscribers/etc, without paying the ISP for the privilege.
"The right to be free from a government-imposed viewpoint, including the viewpoint of content-neutrality, is precisely what the First Amendment has been interpreted to protect..."
What you're forgetting is that cable companies and ISPs all use our right-of-ways. That is, their cables go over our land but they pay us nothing for the privilege. In other words, it is not a free market.
If Comcast truly worked out all the deals necessary to run its cables across my land, my neighbor's land, and everyone else's land, in a free market and paid actual free market prices, I'd agree with you. But once the government gives them a break, and they willingly take that break, suddenly they can no longer rest on being free and independent from the government.
The phone company survives without getting to decide who gets to call whom? Are their first amendment rights being violated?
The problem is the word neutral. I don't think ISPs should have to be neutral. If Comcast wants to make a deal with Netflix for super-fast streaming movies, it should be allowed to do so.
The real problem is network discrimination. ISPs should not be allowed to discriminate against websites and services.
So for a real world example, if I pay for a 6 Mbps service from Comcast, Comcast should not be allowed to throttle any website lower than what I'm paying for. It simply makes no sense for me to pay for a service and have the ISP throttle it below what I'm paying for.
Well, I'm going to get serious for moment and respond to this argument:
Is it a law you trot only when there's already been an accident and you want *something* to charge an idiot driver with? Or do you want something that might actually be effective in preventing accidents? Frankly, I don't all that much care if people do stupid, dangerous things that only harm themselves - but I damn well *do* care what they do when they share the road with me.
Back in the 70s nearly everyone drunk alcohol and drove. Now, most people are aware that drinking and driving is bad and most people do not do it. What caused this change in attitude among drivers?
Was it dramshop lawsuits against the producers and servers of alcohol? Did that cause people to decide drinking and driving was a bad idea? Not even a little bit. Those lawsuits shifted the blame away from the drivers, leaving them off the hook for the vast majority of damages.
What caused the mental shift were tough laws against the perpetrators of the dangerous condition, the drunk drivers. After a few of your buddies serve prison time for drunk driving, your eyes tend to open a bit to reality.
So in this instance, exactly how does holding phone companies liable for people yakking on their phones, stop people from yakking on their phones?
On the post: Openness? Transparency? Not When Biden Gets To Hang With Entertainment Industry Lobbyists: Press Kicked Out
They were probably going to discuss the ACTA treaty.
On the post: Vimeo Sued For Lip Dub Videos
Re: Re: Re:
Agreed, and you did a great job explaining the purpose of EMI's actions. But I was merely pointing out that in the grand scheme of things, their current actions are nothing more than a sand castle built to withstand a tsunami.
On the post: Vimeo Sued For Lip Dub Videos
Re:
People always lose jobs during transitional periods. But that's a good thing. The fact that these jobs are lost really means that no one was willing to pay someone to perform the work. Those types of jobs should disappear.
On the post: Vimeo Sued For Lip Dub Videos
News from August 31, 1920...
Young guy: Have you heard the news, there's this new thing called radio. They're going to play and promote our music for free. People will start buying our music by the bushel.
Old idiot: Free?! So they're not paying us anything?
Young guy: No, you don't get it. They're giving us free advertising. People across the nation will hear our label's music and will buy it. We'll make a fortune!
Old idiot: I don't know, we'd better have the lawyers file a lawsuit against this "radio." It sounds like they're leaching off of our hard work.
Young guy: No, you're still not getting it. Right now no one is hearing our music. We have to spend a fortune promoting our artists to get the word out, but these radio folks will do it for free. We'll make more money if we let them play it.
Old idiot, on phone to legal department: Have you guys heard about this new thing called radio? I want you guys to sue them into the ground. In fact, sue the individual owners personally too, because they're just as guilty.
Young guy: Face palms in disbelief.
On the post: North Face Didn't Get The Message; Sues South Butt
Re: Re:
Great idea, I totally agree, but the problem is that attorneys cannot bill their clients for "having fun with this whole thing." And that's the root of this problem, as far as I'm concerned.
On the post: ASCAP Now Demanding License From Venues That Let People Play Guitar Hero
Re: Re: I guess i am lost
Agreed, and if there's a stable within listening distance, those horses better pay up too!
On the post: ASCAP Now Demanding License From Venues That Let People Play Guitar Hero
On the post: Vancouver Art Gallery Ordered To Remove Anti-Olympics Mural
Re: not surprising..
They think that because it's true, all governments so far have allowed them control everything. Any government that would stand up to them would be blacklisted. So out of fear they all bend over and take it.
On the post: Vancouver Art Gallery Ordered To Remove Anti-Olympics Mural
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
Only because the people who are coming into your shop are ignorant. Their are easy cracks and work-arounds to eliminate the nagging. In other words, the DRM does not stop people from using the software for free. The fact that some people are too ignorant to bypass the DRM does not mean the DRM is secure.
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
On the post: Microsoft DRM Locks You Out Of Your Own Documents
Re: Re: Re: categorically discounting drm is stupid
The use of finally shows that even if you're right, it is only temporary.
"XM/Sirius satellite radio"
Because it ain't worth the time to hack. I rented a car for a couple of weeks with an XM radio in it. I sounded like crap. Flat, nearly mono. While my MP3 player and FM radio sounded fantastic.
On the post: Prosecutors Come To Their Senses; Drop Charges Against Girl Arrested For Incidental 'New Moon' Filming
For once the use of the word "ton" was not hyperbole. I was shocked at how much press this instance received. I would like to hope that it will lead to some real change, but it won't.
From now one do the right thing and simply shoplift the DVD. That's only a misdemeanor offense without any jail time.
On the post: Let's Get Ready To Ruuuuuuuuumble... About The Difference Between A Copyright And A Trademark
I've said it before, very few lawyers take IP classes in law school. But yet, they're still allowed to practice copyright and trademark laws. (Patent lawyers must pass the patent bar.)
On the post: Book Publishers Starting To Delay eBook Releases -- Taking Bad Ideas From Hollywood
Oh yeah, that's going to put a stop to piracy!
On the post: Politicians Investigating Leaks Sites... Not Leaks
Nope, these politicians are perfectly focused on protecting their campaign financiers.
On the post: Cable Lobbyist Says Net Neutrality Violates The First Amendment
Re: Re:
ISPs claim that net neutrality laws would stop them from innovating and forming partnerships. They're right.
So Comcast, for example, should be able to form partnerships and offer a high speed access from those partnerships to its users.
They would do that with a multi-tiered approach. Comcast could offer for example a 6 Mbps internet service with a 10 Mbps service for "trusted partners" or some other term.
The ISP would get to innovate and make partnerships, the customer would get the internet he paid for, and no one would be shut out of access to the customer, so websites would still be allowed to innovate and get new readers/subscribers/etc, without paying the ISP for the privilege.
On the post: Cable Lobbyist Says Net Neutrality Violates The First Amendment
Re: Wait.. .no, this makes sense
What you're forgetting is that cable companies and ISPs all use our right-of-ways. That is, their cables go over our land but they pay us nothing for the privilege. In other words, it is not a free market.
If Comcast truly worked out all the deals necessary to run its cables across my land, my neighbor's land, and everyone else's land, in a free market and paid actual free market prices, I'd agree with you. But once the government gives them a break, and they willingly take that break, suddenly they can no longer rest on being free and independent from the government.
The phone company survives without getting to decide who gets to call whom? Are their first amendment rights being violated?
On the post: Cable Lobbyist Says Net Neutrality Violates The First Amendment
The real problem is network discrimination. ISPs should not be allowed to discriminate against websites and services.
So for a real world example, if I pay for a 6 Mbps service from Comcast, Comcast should not be allowed to throttle any website lower than what I'm paying for. It simply makes no sense for me to pay for a service and have the ISP throttle it below what I'm paying for.
On the post: Woman Sues Sprint Over Driving While Yakking Death
Re:
Back in the 70s nearly everyone drunk alcohol and drove. Now, most people are aware that drinking and driving is bad and most people do not do it. What caused this change in attitude among drivers?
Was it dramshop lawsuits against the producers and servers of alcohol? Did that cause people to decide drinking and driving was a bad idea? Not even a little bit. Those lawsuits shifted the blame away from the drivers, leaving them off the hook for the vast majority of damages.
What caused the mental shift were tough laws against the perpetrators of the dangerous condition, the drunk drivers. After a few of your buddies serve prison time for drunk driving, your eyes tend to open a bit to reality.
So in this instance, exactly how does holding phone companies liable for people yakking on their phones, stop people from yakking on their phones?
Next >>