None of the business models proposed on this site address the issue of sheet music or scripts for plays and musicals used by schools, theatres, and orchestras. Without copy protection, there is nothing to support and sustain that creative business.
So these creative businesses didn't exist before the United States had copyright?
Reread my post. I told you that the 9/11 Commission report is a popular title today. This means that your assertion that people don't want old news is wrong. (Of course, the entire history section in bookstores is at least equally as indicative of a public interest in 'old' news.)
In fact, if you read my post, you can see that my comment about keeping it in stock following my assertions that it's a popular title. This means that my comment is a detail, not a supporting fact. In other words, I don't think that it sells well because it's kept in stock. I think that it sells well because people frequently purchase it.
The software matrix that stocks stores in the top three most popular American chains agree, and keep the book stocked.
There aren't any apples, oranges, or outcomes there.
You said: The news interest was what drove the 98% market saturation in the first few days - not the authenticity. After two days, the "news" was no longer "news". People don't want to buy "olds".
I gave you information that showed you were wrong. And your response is to state that your assertion doesn't matter because it's atypical? Huh. That's really funny. :)
Also, all of the people you mentioned have already been paid for their work. The people that will be hurt by this boycott are the people who speculated that this film would make money (which it has) and financed it.
I'm not saying that the financiers don't deserve money (They do!), but the financiers are going to take that money and use it to sue thousands of people, many of whom are likely to be innocent.
You might not be conversant with the sad methods used to 'identify' downloaders, but they're not good. These methods have 'identified' plenty of innocent people, including grandmothers who don't own or know how to use computers, and printers. Yes, printers.
I don't know about you, but my printer can barely print, much less download movies. :)
The extortion letters have already starting arriving, demanding $3,000 or threatening to file suit. Many families will pay out of fear, as opposed to guilt, and many others will waste thousands of dollars seeking legal advice and fighting these suits. And for what? An $8 movie.
I refuse to finance that, so I won't be purchasing (or otherwise watching) The Hurt Locker.
It's not a defense. You can't go to court and say, 'Well, Your Honor, my defense is that it's a monopoly.'. There's no defense about it. It's just a word used to accurately describe this institution.
A monopoly is when there can be no reasonable competition due to restraint of trade or other subversive practices.
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual (or business) has control over a particular product, and can decide the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. That describes copyright to a T.
An illegal monopoly exists when a specific individual (or business) has control over an entire market of products or services. (See Bell Telephone or Microsoft.)
Monopolies over single works, or bodies of work, don't generally fit that definition.
Can someone lose money because there is no copyright? Absolutely.
Only if your business model relies on that kind of protection. There are many business models that don't rely on those protections, which shows that those kinds of protections are not necessary. (I'm not saying that they aren't useful, just not necessary.)
Without that kind of protection, what would prevent a foreign country from manufacturing millions of copies of a DVD...?
That has already happened, despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent to stop it.
That's how the free market works...
A free market is a market without government intervention and regulation. A marketplace that includes government intervention and regulation, like copyright, is not a free market. So, no, this is not how a free market works.
Sigh. Let me explain:
The United States believed that it would be helpful if people had a limited time in which to create and market their works. They thought that this would help promote science and useful arts.
(They also believed that it would be good if voting was restricted to white male landowners.)
Today, the right of limited exclusivity granted by the government has become bloated. It's no longer limited to useful arts and sciences, as is specified in the Constitution, and it is no longer limited in a fixed number of years, as it was originally intended.
Really, it's just bad. It's used as a bludgeon by big companies to stamp out little guys who might make a product that competes with theirs, which is the opposite of promoting useful arts and sciences.
Take, for example, the iPhone. Did you know that so many patents have been granted that it's impossible for anyone else to create a touchscreen telephone? The companies that have are tied up in lawsuits with each other, based on the sorry mess of laws that started with a simple clause in the Constitution, for a simple and clearly defined purpose.
That certainly doesn't promote progress. It impedes it. And that's only one of millions of examples.
Our copyright and patent system is just as outdated and harmful as the idea that only white male landowners should be able to vote. Personally, I think it's time for another amendment.
Now, you keep pasting all of this information from various places on the Internet, so I can so why you're confused. You have to remember that the Internet is international, but this discussion is specific to the United States.
Copyright and patents are different in almost every country, so you have to bone-up on what those things means here, in the U.S., and where those terms come from historically.
Oh, and about those useful arts and sciences that are covered by monopolies here in the U.S.? They exist in other countries, as well, including many, many countries without similar exclusiveness. You know what the difference between their products and ours? We pay more.
Re: Just thought knowing some facts would help you
Also, murder isn't always illegal. It does depend on the methods.
Some examples:
Were you doing it with your bare hands after being attacked on the street, or were you doing it with a gun that you brought with you to your spouse's lover's home?
Did you do it with a government-issued weapon on the field of battle or did you do it with a knife in a bar fight?
Re: Who's definition of copyright is that ? and explain it's implications in legal terms pls
Says who ??
Says the Constitution of the United States of America, which specifically grants a limited monopoly, also known as an exclusive right, to authors and inventors for their works, for the express purpose of promoting the progress of science and useful arts.
You really need to do some research before you continue posting.
The idea isn't to prove that ASCAP isn't worthless.
The idea is to prove that Mike has been ignoring 'the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, providing a very good income source to song writers and original artists, who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living' in order to make ASCAP look bad.
That was the assertion made in the comment that I replied to, that I asked the commenter to prove.
Plagiarizing is different from copyright infringement, but both are okay by Nina. She encourages people to copy her, both by making derivative art and by digitally copying her work and giving it away. So do many other artists.
I agree that supporting artists is a good thing to do, and I do it, too. But (getting away from the main topic) what do you do when there is no intended transaction?
For instance, I'm a huge House MD fan. My whole family is. We've even purchased every season on DVD as soon as it was available (up to pre-ordering Season 6), and we rarely purchase physical media.
Unfortunately for us, this season has been scheduled by a 7-year-old with ADHD and attempting to watch it has been a disaster.
If you miss an ad-supported episode on television, you can watch it on Hulu (also ad-supported), but not until the next episode has been out for at least one day. This means that if you miss one episode on television, you can never catch up.
On top of that, Hulu has no guaranteed date of availability, other than at least eight days after the episode has aired on television. Fox has forbidden Hulu from giving out any more information than that.
You have an alternative. You can purchase the episode from Amazon Video On Demand at least three days after the episode has aired on television. Once again, there is no guaranteed date of availability and Fox has forbidden Amazon from telling you when it will be available to purchase, other than at least three days after the episode aired.
Huh? This is their plan?
Attempting to plan evenings to sit down and watch this with my family has been extremely hard to do, which probably sucks for the actors, writers, techs, and the network, all of whom would like to sell my eyes to advertisers.
This last week, the season finale aired, and I missed it. It was the next day, and it wasn't available on Hulu, Amazon, or anywhere else. I would have gladly paid for it, but it wasn't available. You know what I did? I procured a pirated version.
That doesn't mean that I'm not supporting the writers, the techs, the actors, or the network. In fact, I'm doing more than my share since I've paid for some episodes twice, both on DVD and on Amazon. But the fact remains that I illegally downloaded an episode.
In this case, as is true in many cases, it was not morally wrong to do so. My ethics are perfectly in line there.
Dude, Mike isn't a reporter, and this isn't a news site.
That being said, his posts have a much higher rate of accuracy, and the posters don't cover it up when they're wrong. They add an edit so everyone can see what happened.
So they're not only usually right, they're also honest.
I've seen plenty of investigative type reporting that ignore key elements, approached the issue from a bias perspective and ended up with promoting falsehoods.
That's most reporting today.
I stopped being amazed long ago when I see papers and news chock full of one-sided-ness, like anything on copyright or homeschooling.
It's not even he-said, she-said. It's just he-said.
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So these creative businesses didn't exist before the United States had copyright?
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, if you read my post, you can see that my comment about keeping it in stock following my assertions that it's a popular title. This means that my comment is a detail, not a supporting fact. In other words, I don't think that it sells well because it's kept in stock. I think that it sells well because people frequently purchase it.
The software matrix that stocks stores in the top three most popular American chains agree, and keep the book stocked.
There aren't any apples, oranges, or outcomes there.
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I gave you information that showed you were wrong. And your response is to state that your assertion doesn't matter because it's atypical? Huh. That's really funny. :)
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re:
Lots of countries don't, you know. So... You fail.
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not saying that the financiers don't deserve money (They do!), but the financiers are going to take that money and use it to sue thousands of people, many of whom are likely to be innocent.
You might not be conversant with the sad methods used to 'identify' downloaders, but they're not good. These methods have 'identified' plenty of innocent people, including grandmothers who don't own or know how to use computers, and printers. Yes, printers.
I don't know about you, but my printer can barely print, much less download movies. :)
The extortion letters have already starting arriving, demanding $3,000 or threatening to file suit. Many families will pay out of fear, as opposed to guilt, and many others will waste thousands of dollars seeking legal advice and fighting these suits. And for what? An $8 movie.
I refuse to finance that, so I won't be purchasing (or otherwise watching) The Hurt Locker.
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re:
It's not a defense. You can't go to court and say, 'Well, Your Honor, my defense is that it's a monopoly.'. There's no defense about it. It's just a word used to accurately describe this institution.
A monopoly is when there can be no reasonable competition due to restraint of trade or other subversive practices.
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual (or business) has control over a particular product, and can decide the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. That describes copyright to a T.
An illegal monopoly exists when a specific individual (or business) has control over an entire market of products or services. (See Bell Telephone or Microsoft.)
Monopolies over single works, or bodies of work, don't generally fit that definition.
Can someone lose money because there is no copyright? Absolutely.
Only if your business model relies on that kind of protection. There are many business models that don't rely on those protections, which shows that those kinds of protections are not necessary. (I'm not saying that they aren't useful, just not necessary.)
Without that kind of protection, what would prevent a foreign country from manufacturing millions of copies of a DVD...?
That has already happened, despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent to stop it.
That's how the free market works...
A free market is a market without government intervention and regulation. A marketplace that includes government intervention and regulation, like copyright, is not a free market. So, no, this is not how a free market works.
Sigh. Let me explain:
The United States believed that it would be helpful if people had a limited time in which to create and market their works. They thought that this would help promote science and useful arts.
(They also believed that it would be good if voting was restricted to white male landowners.)
Today, the right of limited exclusivity granted by the government has become bloated. It's no longer limited to useful arts and sciences, as is specified in the Constitution, and it is no longer limited in a fixed number of years, as it was originally intended.
Really, it's just bad. It's used as a bludgeon by big companies to stamp out little guys who might make a product that competes with theirs, which is the opposite of promoting useful arts and sciences.
Take, for example, the iPhone. Did you know that so many patents have been granted that it's impossible for anyone else to create a touchscreen telephone? The companies that have are tied up in lawsuits with each other, based on the sorry mess of laws that started with a simple clause in the Constitution, for a simple and clearly defined purpose.
That certainly doesn't promote progress. It impedes it. And that's only one of millions of examples.
Our copyright and patent system is just as outdated and harmful as the idea that only white male landowners should be able to vote. Personally, I think it's time for another amendment.
Now, you keep pasting all of this information from various places on the Internet, so I can so why you're confused. You have to remember that the Internet is international, but this discussion is specific to the United States.
Copyright and patents are different in almost every country, so you have to bone-up on what those things means here, in the U.S., and where those terms come from historically.
Oh, and about those useful arts and sciences that are covered by monopolies here in the U.S.? They exist in other countries, as well, including many, many countries without similar exclusiveness. You know what the difference between their products and ours? We pay more.
Yay, copyrights and patents!
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Just thought knowing some facts would help you
Some examples:
Were you doing it with your bare hands after being attacked on the street, or were you doing it with a gun that you brought with you to your spouse's lover's home?
Did you do it with a government-issued weapon on the field of battle or did you do it with a knife in a bar fight?
On the post: Instead Of Better Defining Fair Use... Should We Define Unfair Use?
Re: Who's definition of copyright is that ? and explain it's implications in legal terms pls
Says the Constitution of the United States of America, which specifically grants a limited monopoly, also known as an exclusive right, to authors and inventors for their works, for the express purpose of promoting the progress of science and useful arts.
You really need to do some research before you continue posting.
On the post: Is Telling People To Visit A Certain Website A Denial Of Service Attack?
Re: Is it about intent ?
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Telling People To Visit A Certain Website A Denial Of Service Attack?
Re:
In this case, they didn't shut the site down, they just made it a bit slower.
So that's actually a very good analogy. :)
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, drunken pirates are cool.
On the post: Turns Out People Really Like It When The Press Fact Checks, Rather Than Just Reporting What Everyone Said
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Turns Out People Really Like It When The Press Fact Checks, Rather Than Just Reporting What Everyone Said
Re: Re: Calling politicians on lies
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
The idea is to prove that Mike has been ignoring 'the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, providing a very good income source to song writers and original artists, who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living' in order to make ASCAP look bad.
That was the assertion made in the comment that I replied to, that I asked the commenter to prove.
I agree with you about ASCAP. :)
On the post: Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief
Re: Re: Re:
I agree that supporting artists is a good thing to do, and I do it, too. But (getting away from the main topic) what do you do when there is no intended transaction?
For instance, I'm a huge House MD fan. My whole family is. We've even purchased every season on DVD as soon as it was available (up to pre-ordering Season 6), and we rarely purchase physical media.
Unfortunately for us, this season has been scheduled by a 7-year-old with ADHD and attempting to watch it has been a disaster.
If you miss an ad-supported episode on television, you can watch it on Hulu (also ad-supported), but not until the next episode has been out for at least one day. This means that if you miss one episode on television, you can never catch up.
On top of that, Hulu has no guaranteed date of availability, other than at least eight days after the episode has aired on television. Fox has forbidden Hulu from giving out any more information than that.
You have an alternative. You can purchase the episode from Amazon Video On Demand at least three days after the episode has aired on television. Once again, there is no guaranteed date of availability and Fox has forbidden Amazon from telling you when it will be available to purchase, other than at least three days after the episode aired.
Huh? This is their plan?
Attempting to plan evenings to sit down and watch this with my family has been extremely hard to do, which probably sucks for the actors, writers, techs, and the network, all of whom would like to sell my eyes to advertisers.
This last week, the season finale aired, and I missed it. It was the next day, and it wasn't available on Hulu, Amazon, or anywhere else. I would have gladly paid for it, but it wasn't available. You know what I did? I procured a pirated version.
That doesn't mean that I'm not supporting the writers, the techs, the actors, or the network. In fact, I'm doing more than my share since I've paid for some episodes twice, both on DVD and on Amazon. But the fact remains that I illegally downloaded an episode.
In this case, as is true in many cases, it was not morally wrong to do so. My ethics are perfectly in line there.
Think about it. :)
On the post: Turns Out People Really Like It When The Press Fact Checks, Rather Than Just Reporting What Everyone Said
Re:
That being said, his posts have a much higher rate of accuracy, and the posters don't cover it up when they're wrong. They add an edit so everyone can see what happened.
So they're not only usually right, they're also honest.
On the post: Turns Out People Really Like It When The Press Fact Checks, Rather Than Just Reporting What Everyone Said
Re: Great - BUT
That's most reporting today.
I stopped being amazed long ago when I see papers and news chock full of one-sided-ness, like anything on copyright or homeschooling.
It's not even he-said, she-said. It's just he-said.
Next >>