Re: Re: Meta-view: similarly, pontificate here as much as you can,
And you see no problem with that? You don't see a problem with a person's elect representative, you know the person elected to represent the people in their district, is not actually reading mail and only bothers to do key word searches and send canned responses?
Honestly, I don't mind a bit of snark from either side of the debate, as long as it can be backed with some facts and substance. That however, seems to be lacking in this "high road" discussion.
I wrote a letter to my Senator recently and received a form letter response that had zero to do with my actual letter.
What many Senators and Congressmen do is do a quick keyword search of mail, and send a form letter if that keyword search returns a result that has a prewritten form letter.
In this case, the letter probably mentioned ICE a few times and thus that flagged the letter as dealing with immigration.
For another example, I wrote that same Senator about the Protect IP act and have not received any response, but both of my letters about the PATRIOT Act have been responded to in a matter of days with form letter responses.
In the end, this shows that our elected representatives have no intention of actual representing those who elect them. They might as well have a big sign stating, "Unless you plan on donating the my next campaign, I don't give a crap what you have to say."
Now. Imagine if these head phones were listed as a model that Razer actually produced and the listing photo was a photo from Razer's own website, how would you have determined that they were counterfeit before purchase?
Answer, you wouldn't be able to until you bought it.
ebay, much like YouTube, does not have the man power, knowledge or ability to spot and remove all possible counterfeit objects. It is just no humanly possible. They are not experts in the products of every company in the world. But that is what idiots like you expect them to be.
Idiots like you don't actually care about stopping counterfeits. Idiots like you only care about forcing 3rd parties to do your work for you, because you know full well that attempting to stop all counterfeits and piracy would bankrupt any organization that attempts it.
Not sure if I can be of much help, but here is how I see the aspect of culture from a music perspective and the related entities within.
Songwriter - this person creates the cultural object, in this case the song.
Performer - one avenue of sharing the cultural object. They perform the song to the public.
Label - another avenue of sharing the cultural object. They advertise and distribute copies of the culture.
RIAA - Their primary objective is to limit the sharing of the cultural object through the use of Copyright law and the legal process. This seems to be antithetical to the other involved parties.
First, I'd like to know what exactly the RIAA can do to our Culture?
Honestly, I think the best thing the RIAA and other similar organizations can due for culture is to shrivel up and die. They have no goal but to stop the free flow of culture.
Second, I'd like to know how sharing our Culture will prevent whatever it is that they are doing.
I don't think that sharing will directly change or counter what the RIAA is doing. What it will do is eventually wear down the governments of the world and result in a change to copyright laws.
I remember reading a comparison between media piracy and land squatters. Early in the days of the US people would squat in land that had no clear ownership. This land was theoretically owned by the respective state and federal governments. Yet people still moved onto those lands and started living. Early on, the government tried to evict these people and stop people from living in them. But this eventually became impossible to enforce.
This lead the US government to create homesteading laws. Under these laws, people were allowed to move onto public lands free of charge as long as they did something productive with them.
I can see copyright law going in a similar direction.
Culture is a nice idea, a grand concept. But culture in and of itself doesn't fit well into our society. We don't have the luxury of the government paying artists to produce.
There is so much wrong with this statement it makes my head hurt.
Culture is what created our society to begin with. Take the US for example. Muc h of today's social mores and norms come from a Puritan Christian heritage (whether that is for the better of society is another discussion) It was only through the sharing of that culture that a free society that was free to express religious beliefs was born. That is culture.
Let's look at folk lore. The tales of John Henry, Danial Boon, Paul Bunyan etc. These were all stories shared and shared until they became a part of the US's unique identity in the world. Each of these started as a work of fiction by a single person. Yet each of these have moved to what could conceivably be called the mythology of the United States. This is culture.
Even today we have our culture being expanded upon by other writers and artists. The works of Mark Twain, Poe, Disney, Stan Lee etc etc. These are all a part of our culture, whether the copyright holders want them to be or not. Things don't have to be a part of the public domain to be a part of culture. Why do you think day care centers use Disney artwork in their decor? Its not because they are trying to steal from Disney. It is because they want to bring the culture of the children they care for, into the grounds so that those children will be more comfortable. It is a part of the cultural upbringing of those children.
Culture material (music, movies, books, whatever) is not anti-rivalrous. Rather, culture is what it is. Someone quoting Shakespeare today doesn't make me go to see a play tomorrow.
Much like rivalrous goods, some culture isn't valued by some individuals. I personally hate the idea of owning a Ford Mustang, yet many people in the US value such ownership very highly. Same for aspects of culture. Some people value references to Shakespeare more than others while others value references to Monty Python.
You not liking some aspect of the collective culture of the society you live in, does not automatically mean that that culture has no value for all involved.
The value to the population/public only increases when that information is no longer a secret.
With secrets, the value is entirely held by the person with the power. So it is not valuable in the same sense that culture is valuable. This is much like how copyright and patents work. They are meant to add an artificial secret layer on top of a public culture. These works have value and increase in value the more they are shared, but that threatens the power of the copyright/patent holder.
As a secret, there is not value only power, which is a form of value granted, but not in the same way as culture. Once the secret is unmasked and the information becomes a part of culture and can be shared, that is when it becomes anti-rivalrous as Nina explains.
That is why she said secrets held power rather than value.
You would be a very powerful person if you were the only person who could cure all types of cancer. Once that secret gets out, you lose your power while the secret itself gains value as it becomes a part of culture.
Are you not familiar with how these camera's work? They work exactly how you describe. The camera contractor processes all the photos, sends them to the police department. the Police Department sends out the tickets, the people pay, the police gives a percentage of the fine to the camera contractor as a commission on the work.
It is all quite clever. Makes a ton of money for the police department and the contractor. The police are happy because they get money without having to have boots on the ground. The camera contractor is happy because they get money from the suffering of others. Only the tax paying people are unhappy because they have a huge increase in the number of fines issued each year.
I better be careful then. My hobby of installing Free Open Source Software on in store demo computers is pretty darn risky. I better be careful. Someone might consider Fire Fox or Libre Office to be malicious software, especially if I enable automatic reporting when installing the software.
Context shouldn't matter. As long as the t-shirt designer can show evidence that the design is a part of a public domain work, she should be in the clear. That headshot is not part of an overall copyrighted work. It is part of a public domain work.
It does sort of make sense, but it also really doesn't.
This t-shirt producer took a public domain work, the movie poster, and chopped it into pieces. Then she took those pieces and made t-shirts out of them.
I really don't see that as being any different than taking individual chapters of the original public domain book and printing them in different printings of a periodical.
Each piece is still a part of the public domain.
Of course all this trouble would have been avoided had we not extended copyright terms to obscene lengths.
The last movie I went to see was at the newest theatre in OKC. The Warren. One of the things they decided to do to make theatre going more appealing was to roll the whole date experience into a single location.
People would normally go out to eat, go see a movie and then go for dessert. At the Warren, you can do all that in one place, in balcony seating.
On the post: Rep. Anna Eshoo (From Silicon Valley!) Thinks PROTECT IP Is About Immigration?
Re: Re: Meta-view: similarly, pontificate here as much as you can,
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re:
On the post: Pro-IP Blogger Feels Raising The Level Of Debate Means Locking Up Your Comments And Throwing Around The Word 'Freetard'
Re:
On the post: Rep. Anna Eshoo (From Silicon Valley!) Thinks PROTECT IP Is About Immigration?
It makes perfect sense...
What many Senators and Congressmen do is do a quick keyword search of mail, and send a form letter if that keyword search returns a result that has a prewritten form letter.
In this case, the letter probably mentioned ICE a few times and thus that flagged the letter as dealing with immigration.
For another example, I wrote that same Senator about the Protect IP act and have not received any response, but both of my letters about the PATRIOT Act have been responded to in a matter of days with form letter responses.
In the end, this shows that our elected representatives have no intention of actual representing those who elect them. They might as well have a big sign stating, "Unless you plan on donating the my next campaign, I don't give a crap what you have to say."
On the post: EU Court Disagrees With Pretty Much Every Other Court; Says Ebay May Be Liable For Third Party Trademark Infringement
Re:
Answer, you wouldn't be able to until you bought it.
ebay, much like YouTube, does not have the man power, knowledge or ability to spot and remove all possible counterfeit objects. It is just no humanly possible. They are not experts in the products of every company in the world. But that is what idiots like you expect them to be.
Idiots like you don't actually care about stopping counterfeits. Idiots like you only care about forcing 3rd parties to do your work for you, because you know full well that attempting to stop all counterfeits and piracy would bankrupt any organization that attempts it.
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: Support?
Songwriter - this person creates the cultural object, in this case the song.
Performer - one avenue of sharing the cultural object. They perform the song to the public.
Label - another avenue of sharing the cultural object. They advertise and distribute copies of the culture.
RIAA - Their primary objective is to limit the sharing of the cultural object through the use of Copyright law and the legal process. This seems to be antithetical to the other involved parties.
First, I'd like to know what exactly the RIAA can do to our Culture?
Honestly, I think the best thing the RIAA and other similar organizations can due for culture is to shrivel up and die. They have no goal but to stop the free flow of culture.
Second, I'd like to know how sharing our Culture will prevent whatever it is that they are doing.
I don't think that sharing will directly change or counter what the RIAA is doing. What it will do is eventually wear down the governments of the world and result in a change to copyright laws.
I remember reading a comparison between media piracy and land squatters. Early in the days of the US people would squat in land that had no clear ownership. This land was theoretically owned by the respective state and federal governments. Yet people still moved onto those lands and started living. Early on, the government tried to evict these people and stop people from living in them. But this eventually became impossible to enforce.
This lead the US government to create homesteading laws. Under these laws, people were allowed to move onto public lands free of charge as long as they did something productive with them.
I can see copyright law going in a similar direction.
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re:
There is so much wrong with this statement it makes my head hurt.
Culture is what created our society to begin with. Take the US for example. Muc h of today's social mores and norms come from a Puritan Christian heritage (whether that is for the better of society is another discussion) It was only through the sharing of that culture that a free society that was free to express religious beliefs was born. That is culture.
Let's look at folk lore. The tales of John Henry, Danial Boon, Paul Bunyan etc. These were all stories shared and shared until they became a part of the US's unique identity in the world. Each of these started as a work of fiction by a single person. Yet each of these have moved to what could conceivably be called the mythology of the United States. This is culture.
Even today we have our culture being expanded upon by other writers and artists. The works of Mark Twain, Poe, Disney, Stan Lee etc etc. These are all a part of our culture, whether the copyright holders want them to be or not. Things don't have to be a part of the public domain to be a part of culture. Why do you think day care centers use Disney artwork in their decor? Its not because they are trying to steal from Disney. It is because they want to bring the culture of the children they care for, into the grounds so that those children will be more comfortable. It is a part of the cultural upbringing of those children.
Culture material (music, movies, books, whatever) is not anti-rivalrous. Rather, culture is what it is. Someone quoting Shakespeare today doesn't make me go to see a play tomorrow.
Much like rivalrous goods, some culture isn't valued by some individuals. I personally hate the idea of owning a Ford Mustang, yet many people in the US value such ownership very highly. Same for aspects of culture. Some people value references to Shakespeare more than others while others value references to Monty Python.
You not liking some aspect of the collective culture of the society you live in, does not automatically mean that that culture has no value for all involved.
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: Re: Re: Secrets lose their value...
With secrets, the value is entirely held by the person with the power. So it is not valuable in the same sense that culture is valuable. This is much like how copyright and patents work. They are meant to add an artificial secret layer on top of a public culture. These works have value and increase in value the more they are shared, but that threatens the power of the copyright/patent holder.
As a secret, there is not value only power, which is a form of value granted, but not in the same way as culture. Once the secret is unmasked and the information becomes a part of culture and can be shared, that is when it becomes anti-rivalrous as Nina explains.
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: Re: I'll treasure this, for when I think MY writing wanders,
On the post: Culture is Anti-Rivalrous
Re: Secrets lose their value...
You would be a very powerful person if you were the only person who could cure all types of cancer. Once that secret gets out, you lose your power while the secret itself gains value as it becomes a part of culture.
On the post: Legal Technicality Forces Houston To Turn Its Redlight Cameras Back On, Even Though It Wants Them Off
Re:
It is all quite clever. Makes a ton of money for the police department and the contractor. The police are happy because they get money without having to have boots on the ground. The camera contractor is happy because they get money from the suffering of others. Only the tax paying people are unhappy because they have a huge increase in the number of fines issued each year.
On the post: Judge Drops Key Claim In MPAA's Case Against Hotfile: Cyberlocker Didn't Directly Infringe
Re:
Judge Drops Key Claim in MPAA's Case Against Hotfile
Emphasis mine.
The judge dropped a KEY claim. Mike made that quite clear to everyone except you. Sorry.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
If this is unlawful hacking...
On the post: Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright
Re: Re: Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...
On the post: Wikileaks Can Receive Visa & Mastercard Donations Again... But Visa Doesn't Understand Why
Re:
On the post: Wizard Of Oz Court Ruling Suggests Moviemakers Can Reclaim Parts Of The Public Domain And Put It Under Copyright
Re: It DOES make sense...sorta...
This t-shirt producer took a public domain work, the movie poster, and chopped it into pieces. Then she took those pieces and made t-shirts out of them.
I really don't see that as being any different than taking individual chapters of the original public domain book and printing them in different printings of a periodical.
Each piece is still a part of the public domain.
Of course all this trouble would have been avoided had we not extended copyright terms to obscene lengths.
On the post: Theater Owners Still Oblivious To The Fact That They Can Compete With Home Viewing
Some theatres are doing quite well
People would normally go out to eat, go see a movie and then go for dessert. At the Warren, you can do all that in one place, in balcony seating.
http://www.warrentheatres.com/moorediner.asp
It is a great idea and the people here love it.
While other theatres in the area are struggling, this one is booming with business every weekend.
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re:
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re:
Next >>