3) It's not black and white (or red and blue as the case may be). Copyright has always been corrupt, and special interests were its primary authors and have been the biggest beneficiaries, but studying the long history of legislative and judicial discussions about copyright shows that there has been lots of sincere concern for its superior purpose of encouraging creation and benefitting society. Sadly that concern has rarely won out over the greedier interests with the bigger lobbyist guns, and it has never ever been primary over them -- but it is not completely falsified, and I think it would be premature and stubborn to refuse to consider that it might have potential.
PROOF:
Quote from Mansick:
Given the nature of the law and the requirements it places on Google, all of this is somewhat understandable, and would be somewhat excusable but for one thing:
But the buck hardly stops at Google. It doesn't even really land there.
Heh. Not even a quote from Masnick. You are really bad at this "proof" thing.
Not sure what your link is supposed to mean... It is re-iterating my exact point: copyright is an option, something we may choose to define and use in a way that benefits society if we wish.
You can insist that this is a "red/blue pill decision" but I disagree. I think it is more nuanced than that.
Copyright forces us to accept the idea that speech can be property
I think this is just a question of terminology. When I say there is still a potential place for "copyright" in the world, I mean copyright (or some system by another name) wherein we do not "accept the idea" that speech is property, but are choosing to offer certain highly-limited competitive advantages to creators.
I would choose abolition over the absolute disaster that is copyright today. And generally speaking, I believe copyright's impact on the market and on culture should be minimized and carefully targeted. But if the discussion is about what a hypothetical perfect system would look like, I'm not going to rule out the possibility that copyright or something copyright-like could play a meaningful role in it.
I know some people think we are equivocating by criticizing so many aspects of copyright then saying we still support it in theory -- but it's not equivocation, it's a genuine expression of our opinion on what is, ultimately, a rather odd topic to discuss. "Copyright" has been around so long, and undergone so many changes, that it's a rather imprecise term -- there's copyright meaning the basic principle (something I feel to be potentially problematic, but not necessarily useless if employed correctly) and copyright meaning any number of specific copyright schemes that exist around the world today and throughout history (most of which I think are completely, irrecoverably broken)
What we need right now is to stop focusing on how to sell IP and start thinking about how to monetize over it.
Absolutely. And beyond that, I think there's an even more important discussion to be had: how could IP law be reformed to provide a commercial advantage to creators without relying on a strict system of permission & control? I believe it's possible.
One big component could be a shift to a more trademark-like view of copyright -- e.g. the focus is on ensuring that creators & rightsholders have the ability to present themselves as the "official" source and stop others from pretending the same. That combined with a cultural shift that places emphasis on supporting artists (that's not even really a 'shift' -- just the refinement and focusing of an attitude most people already have) would serve a lot of the commercial purposes of copyright while putting control mostly in the hands of creators rather than companies.
Another thing worth considering could be the realm of unfair competition laws. Now, that's a pretty dangerous area, and should be handled with extreme care in a free market economy -- but it could still potentially be a lot better than the near-absolute control of copyright. It would be good to find a way to prevent the sort of ongoing, wholesale copying that could block someone from a market -- e.g. in a hypothetical copyright-free world, how do we stop a publisher with resources from snapping up every indie ebook they see, changing the author's name, and selling them? On the one hand, I think a lot of that could be dealt with via market and cultural forces -- but is there a way to give the creator some sort of legal/economic "first mover" advantage without going as far as saying "you control all usage of your work"?
I don't have answers to all these questions of course -- but it's an area rich for progressive and valuable discussion, and unfortunately it's one we don't get too often enough because the other side of the copyright debate, which is 20+ years behind reality at this point, is holding us back...
While I totally agree with your broader points, if I'm being honest, I think you're putting just a little too much emphasis on my choice to use the term 'intellectual property' (once!) in a post dedicated to criticizing it... Still, you're not wrong! :)
Re: Re: Re: Protection violation? what protection?
you don't get that type of information "by accident" and without 2 WAY communications being involved..
you don't get that kind of information unless you specifically ask for them, and use at least some 'tricks'.
No, that's the exact opposite of the truth.
Do you understand the technological side of what happened? If not, you should read up on it.
The data being collected was random -- it was literally a sampling of whatever bits happened to be flying through the air while the street view car was driving by.
The majority of the data was NOT anything sensitive. It was random snippets of whatever -- a fragment of a webpage here, a tiny piece of a download there, etc.
Nobody -- not a person or a computer -- was even looking at the data. That wasn't its purpose.
i realize now that i misread your answer and gave you a clue that was probably of little help since it's just the /middle/ letter you have wrong... anyway -- think about names of collection societies! :)
And just because some frivolous dmca notices are filed does not make all dmca notices frivolous.
Fair enough. Since you've got it all figured out, please enlighten us: what is the ratio of abuses to legitimate actions beyond which a law is in need of revision? Relatedly, what is the ratio beyond which reporting on the abuses is appropriate?
Sigh. Do you even open your sad little eyes and read anything before shooting your sad little mouth off?
As I believe I have made perfectly clear, I will gladly (in fact eagerly) build a crossword platform if there is sufficient interest. But interactive web development takes time (not that i'd expect you to know that) and my job here at techdirt is not "crossword guy" so it wasn't exactly my top priority when I had no idea how many people in our audience would be interested.
Nice! You nailed most of 'em. Salgoode above is correct about the changes to 3A (note "America" in the clue) and 2D, and the answer to 5D. So between the two of you, you've almost got it! Just 15A left :)
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
Re: Re: Re:
Quote from Mansick:
Given the nature of the law and the requirements it places on Google, all of this is somewhat understandable, and would be somewhat excusable but for one thing:
But the buck hardly stops at Google. It doesn't even really land there.
Heh. Not even a quote from Masnick. You are really bad at this "proof" thing.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can insist that this is a "red/blue pill decision" but I disagree. I think it is more nuanced than that.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re: Copyright should not exist.
I think this is just a question of terminology. When I say there is still a potential place for "copyright" in the world, I mean copyright (or some system by another name) wherein we do not "accept the idea" that speech is property, but are choosing to offer certain highly-limited competitive advantages to creators.
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re: Re: Re:
I know some people think we are equivocating by criticizing so many aspects of copyright then saying we still support it in theory -- but it's not equivocation, it's a genuine expression of our opinion on what is, ultimately, a rather odd topic to discuss. "Copyright" has been around so long, and undergone so many changes, that it's a rather imprecise term -- there's copyright meaning the basic principle (something I feel to be potentially problematic, but not necessarily useless if employed correctly) and copyright meaning any number of specific copyright schemes that exist around the world today and throughout history (most of which I think are completely, irrecoverably broken)
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re:
Absolutely. And beyond that, I think there's an even more important discussion to be had: how could IP law be reformed to provide a commercial advantage to creators without relying on a strict system of permission & control? I believe it's possible.
One big component could be a shift to a more trademark-like view of copyright -- e.g. the focus is on ensuring that creators & rightsholders have the ability to present themselves as the "official" source and stop others from pretending the same. That combined with a cultural shift that places emphasis on supporting artists (that's not even really a 'shift' -- just the refinement and focusing of an attitude most people already have) would serve a lot of the commercial purposes of copyright while putting control mostly in the hands of creators rather than companies.
Another thing worth considering could be the realm of unfair competition laws. Now, that's a pretty dangerous area, and should be handled with extreme care in a free market economy -- but it could still potentially be a lot better than the near-absolute control of copyright. It would be good to find a way to prevent the sort of ongoing, wholesale copying that could block someone from a market -- e.g. in a hypothetical copyright-free world, how do we stop a publisher with resources from snapping up every indie ebook they see, changing the author's name, and selling them? On the one hand, I think a lot of that could be dealt with via market and cultural forces -- but is there a way to give the creator some sort of legal/economic "first mover" advantage without going as far as saying "you control all usage of your work"?
I don't have answers to all these questions of course -- but it's an area rich for progressive and valuable discussion, and unfortunately it's one we don't get too often enough because the other side of the copyright debate, which is 20+ years behind reality at this point, is holding us back...
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re:
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
Re: Re: Re: Protection violation? what protection?
you don't get that kind of information unless you specifically ask for them, and use at least some 'tricks'.
No, that's the exact opposite of the truth.
Do you understand the technological side of what happened? If not, you should read up on it.
The data being collected was random -- it was literally a sampling of whatever bits happened to be flying through the air while the street view car was driving by.
The majority of the data was NOT anything sensitive. It was random snippets of whatever -- a fragment of a webpage here, a tiny piece of a download there, etc.
Nobody -- not a person or a computer -- was even looking at the data. That wasn't its purpose.
Get your facts straight.
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Re: Almost done?
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
Re: Re: Cool
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Re: Almost done?
Measurement is pretty flexible, since there are many two-letter symbols that are types of measurements... *hinthint*
But really, the easiest way is to get 4d and 15d, at which point the answer should be obvious :)
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
Re: Today Bank robbers steal $10 million dollars
On the post: Fox Uses Bogus DMCA Claims To Censor Cory Doctorow's Book About Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
But reporting on them is absurd?
On the post: Fox Uses Bogus DMCA Claims To Censor Cory Doctorow's Book About Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: He should
Fair enough. Since you've got it all figured out, please enlighten us: what is the ratio of abuses to legitimate actions beyond which a law is in need of revision? Relatedly, what is the ratio beyond which reporting on the abuses is appropriate?
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re:
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you STILL not learned how to construct a sentence?
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Almost done?
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re:
As I believe I have made perfectly clear, I will gladly (in fact eagerly) build a crossword platform if there is sufficient interest. But interactive web development takes time (not that i'd expect you to know that) and my job here at techdirt is not "crossword guy" so it wasn't exactly my top priority when I had no idea how many people in our audience would be interested.
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Almost done?
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re: Re: Why not
Next >>