I think that if any ToS or EULA came with an audio version as read by Richard Dreyfuss, I would be more likely to actually understand them and make an informed decision.
I am sorry. This is not an example of an unregulated market. This is regulatory capture. This is AT&T getting regulation passed that kills competition.
In a true free market, WiscNet would have been able to continue with AT&T having to offer a better product to get customers. That is not what is happening here.
Now that it has been said out loud, there is no way the FTC would rule against something that is "For the Children" that is how 90% of legislation is passed. The other 10% is "To stop terrorists" So when someone comes out saying that this merger will help fight terrorists, we know we have a 100% chance of it being approved.
First sale only applies to copies already in circulation. What that does not allow is an increase in the supply.
Let's go with the video game aspect. How many working Apple II's and Commodore 64's are there? Not as many as there were during their actual life span. If someone wanted to play games from those days, they would have to find a working computer, then find the games they wanted to play. Both are not easy feats. Both can be simply overcome by the use of emulators and digital copies of the games. But since those games are still under copyright, neither the emulator nor the digital copies of the games can legally be made.
Now, since most of the games made in those days were made by companies that no longer exist either through various mergers or general failure, it is difficult to impossible to track down the copyright owners. In a large number of cases the actual copyright owner does not know they own the copyright.
So for all intents and purposes, these games are "orphaned"
This applies to all media. The actual useable supply of first sale covered copies dwindles as time goes on. It is a known fact that books can be damaged beyond repair. It is a known fact that cds become scratched or cracked. Same for all physical medium we stored copyrighted works on. If there is no person known who controls the copyright to a work, how can we make new copies of a work?
Did you even hear the news about the massive jazz library that was found, but can't be made available because of poor orphaned work laws and poor copyright laws in general?
There is also the case with recent materials such as video games. There are thousands of old video games for old systems such as the Apple II and the Commodore 64 that have no clear copyright owner which makes it difficult for people to find and make available these games.
If we simply went back to an opt-in copyright, the photographers would have nothing to worry about.
If they want their photographs protected by copyright, they could simply submit them, pay the fee and they would be covered. Anyone who wanted to use their work would be able to do a quick search for the photo in the US Copyright office and be able to get all the information they need to contact the copyright holder.
There would be no widespread "stealing" of photos because there would be no reason to.
Come now. He is not completely off base with number 1 there.
The creators of works are completely free to charge what they want for people to view and/or enjoy their work. If I write a short story, I am perfectly within my rights to charge people $1 million to read it once.
Now the problem lies with the public's willingness to accept that price. If the public feels that my story is not worth $1 million, they will either ignore or pirate my work.
So while they artist is able to charge whatever they want, they hold the responsibility to charge the rate the public is willing to pay. Which kind of goes against his other points.
You seem to misunderstand what the Constitution is. It is not a list of things the government allows us to do. It is a list of things the citizens allows the government to do. Huge difference. Simply because the government has decided otherwise, and that the people through their general apathy, does not change that fact.
On the subject of US Law, that is meant to uphold those measures the Constitution protects. Simply because the government has decided it does not like its little box, and the people through their general apathy allows, does not change that fact.
I think a total dismantling would be a good thing.
Think about it. If you have a dishwasher that doesn't clean your dishes, what do you do? You replace it or stop using it.
If you have a car that barely runs and you're lucky if it gets you where you are going, what do you do? You replace it.
Same for just about anything in your life. If it does not provide the good or service you expect, you replace it.
Sure you could probably repair those things but often the same issues or new issues come up. This was the reason I bought a new care rather than try to maintain my old one. I got tired of repairing new problems every 3 months.
So it should go without saying that if the FDA is not protecting us from bad medicine and food and is actually increasing the cost of medical care in the US, we should replace it or just get rid of it entirely.
I got one of those requests once. This prince in Nigeria asked me to send him a $5000 processing fee in order to get my $50 million inheritance. I'm still waiting for that inheritance to come.
but it won't be long before we see more politicians seeking ways to "do something" about Bitcoin by falsely painting it as something evil, just because some people use it for illegal purposes.
That is the point isn't it? We should outlaw any new technology if it allows some people to use it for illegal purposes. That is the reason the US even has a gun debate today. Because some people use guns to kill people, we should not be allowed to own guns.
Same for DVRs, VCRs, Modchips etc, because some people use them for illegal purposes we should ban the use of them for all people.
Why bother enforcing laws and punishing those who actually commit crimes when we can ban the technology that allows for crimes to take place to begin with.
We would have a whole lot fewer piracy and money laundering problems if we just banned the internet. After all, the majority of child porn is transferred over the internet. Same for piracy and money laundering. Just get rid of the internet and all these problems would simply vanish.
While we are at it, we should probably ban the private ownership of automobiles because some people use them in drive by shooting, to run people over and for quick getaways from burglaries.
We should also ban the use of motor fuels and other flammable substances because people can use them for arson.
Don't even get me started on the use of the written word. People use that all the time to communicate criminal activity. No one should be allowed to communicate through written means.
Also gatherings of people. We should ban people from gathering together in a single space because they might be colluding to commit crimes. Gatherings should be limited to 2 people max, but that should only be done with competent police supervision to prevent any kind of collusion to commit crime.
Finally, we need to ban privacy in all its forms so that people will have no avenue to hide their crimes or plans and means to commit crime. If people have no privacy they will have no time to commit crime.
I always liked the score of follows/following. A person who is following 4000 with only 100 followers is less influential than someone with the reverse.
Of course that is still pretty meaningless. But oh well.
I do think it is far better to have a quality social media presence, which you are advocating, over a quantity presence, which these people are advocating.
As a web developer, having internet access revoked would kill my livelihood.
As a former political candidate, it would have killed my political potential and free speech rights.
As a current pundit and blogger, it would definitely violate my free speech rights.
All this and I don't have to be the person who actually infringed. It could have been my kid, my wife, a friend or a coworker. Anyone who used my internet connection would result in me being kicked off the internet and thus violating my rights.
On the post: How Did The iTunes Terms Of Service Become A Cultural Phenomenon All Its Own?
He is an awesome actor.
On the post: Wisconsin Kills WiscNet, Because The Only Good Infrastructure Is AT&T Infrastructure
Re: Free Market? What a joke!
In a true free market, WiscNet would have been able to continue with AT&T having to offer a better product to get customers. That is not what is happening here.
On the post: Dumb Arguments: AT&T - T-Mobile Merger Would Be Good For The Children
For the Children
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's go with the video game aspect. How many working Apple II's and Commodore 64's are there? Not as many as there were during their actual life span. If someone wanted to play games from those days, they would have to find a working computer, then find the games they wanted to play. Both are not easy feats. Both can be simply overcome by the use of emulators and digital copies of the games. But since those games are still under copyright, neither the emulator nor the digital copies of the games can legally be made.
Now, since most of the games made in those days were made by companies that no longer exist either through various mergers or general failure, it is difficult to impossible to track down the copyright owners. In a large number of cases the actual copyright owner does not know they own the copyright.
So for all intents and purposes, these games are "orphaned"
This applies to all media. The actual useable supply of first sale covered copies dwindles as time goes on. It is a known fact that books can be damaged beyond repair. It is a known fact that cds become scratched or cracked. Same for all physical medium we stored copyrighted works on. If there is no person known who controls the copyright to a work, how can we make new copies of a work?
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
Re: Citation?
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
Re: Re: Re:
Did you even hear the news about the massive jazz library that was found, but can't be made available because of poor orphaned work laws and poor copyright laws in general?
There is also the case with recent materials such as video games. There are thousands of old video games for old systems such as the Apple II and the Commodore 64 that have no clear copyright owner which makes it difficult for people to find and make available these games.
It is a real problem and needs a real solution.
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
Re: Re:
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
Re: Citation?
http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/orphan-works
http://www.apanational.com/i4a/pages/Inde x.cfm?pageID=3864
http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185
http://asmp.org/articles/orphan-works.html
On the post: How Out Of Control Copyright Law Is Keeping Millions Of Books & Images Away From Scholars
If they want their photographs protected by copyright, they could simply submit them, pay the fee and they would be covered. Anyone who wanted to use their work would be able to do a quick search for the photo in the US Copyright office and be able to get all the information they need to contact the copyright holder.
There would be no widespread "stealing" of photos because there would be no reason to.
On the post: Publishers Realizing It's Silly To 'Fight Piracy'
Re: Re: Conflate, Conflate, Conflate
The creators of works are completely free to charge what they want for people to view and/or enjoy their work. If I write a short story, I am perfectly within my rights to charge people $1 million to read it once.
Now the problem lies with the public's willingness to accept that price. If the public feels that my story is not worth $1 million, they will either ignore or pirate my work.
So while they artist is able to charge whatever they want, they hold the responsibility to charge the rate the public is willing to pay. Which kind of goes against his other points.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: US Constitution not International law.
On the subject of US Law, that is meant to uphold those measures the Constitution protects. Simply because the government has decided it does not like its little box, and the people through their general apathy allows, does not change that fact.
On the post: SWAT Team Raids Home To Recover Student Loan [Updated: Or Not]
There has been an update to the story
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/08/dept-of-education-swat-team-up
On the post: NJ Supreme Court Can't Comprehend That Everyone Can Be A Journalist
Re:
On the post: FDA's Pharma-First Focus Driving Medical Device Tech Away From The US
Re:
Think about it. If you have a dishwasher that doesn't clean your dishes, what do you do? You replace it or stop using it.
If you have a car that barely runs and you're lucky if it gets you where you are going, what do you do? You replace it.
Same for just about anything in your life. If it does not provide the good or service you expect, you replace it.
Sure you could probably repair those things but often the same issues or new issues come up. This was the reason I bought a new care rather than try to maintain my old one. I got tired of repairing new problems every 3 months.
So it should go without saying that if the FDA is not protecting us from bad medicine and food and is actually increasing the cost of medical care in the US, we should replace it or just get rid of it entirely.
On the post: Homeland Security Appears To Be Stalling On FOIA Requests Concerning Domain Seizures
They asked for money first?
On the post: Senator Schumer Says Bitcoin Is Money Laundering
That is the point isn't it? We should outlaw any new technology if it allows some people to use it for illegal purposes. That is the reason the US even has a gun debate today. Because some people use guns to kill people, we should not be allowed to own guns.
Same for DVRs, VCRs, Modchips etc, because some people use them for illegal purposes we should ban the use of them for all people.
Why bother enforcing laws and punishing those who actually commit crimes when we can ban the technology that allows for crimes to take place to begin with.
We would have a whole lot fewer piracy and money laundering problems if we just banned the internet. After all, the majority of child porn is transferred over the internet. Same for piracy and money laundering. Just get rid of the internet and all these problems would simply vanish.
While we are at it, we should probably ban the private ownership of automobiles because some people use them in drive by shooting, to run people over and for quick getaways from burglaries.
We should also ban the use of motor fuels and other flammable substances because people can use them for arson.
Don't even get me started on the use of the written word. People use that all the time to communicate criminal activity. No one should be allowed to communicate through written means.
Also gatherings of people. We should ban people from gathering together in a single space because they might be colluding to commit crimes. Gatherings should be limited to 2 people max, but that should only be done with competent police supervision to prevent any kind of collusion to commit crime.
Finally, we need to ban privacy in all its forms so that people will have no avenue to hide their crimes or plans and means to commit crime. If people have no privacy they will have no time to commit crime.
Problems of the world have been solved.
On the post: Activity Is Not Influence
Of course that is still pretty meaningless. But oh well.
I do think it is far better to have a quality social media presence, which you are advocating, over a quantity presence, which these people are advocating.
On the post: French Court Says Merely Having The Word 'Torrent' In Your Domain Means You Are Encouraging Infringement
Re: Not
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110603/00214214533/entertainment-industry-lawyer-public-domai n-goes-against-free-market-capitalism.shtml
You are the dirty rotten thief.
On the post: UN Report On Human Rights Condemns Three Strikes As Civil Rights Violation
As a web developer, having internet access revoked would kill my livelihood.
As a former political candidate, it would have killed my political potential and free speech rights.
As a current pundit and blogger, it would definitely violate my free speech rights.
All this and I don't have to be the person who actually infringed. It could have been my kid, my wife, a friend or a coworker. Anyone who used my internet connection would result in me being kicked off the internet and thus violating my rights.
On the post: Malaysian Man Required To 'Retract' Defamatory Tweet 100 Times On Twitter; Streisanding The Whole Thing
Re: Public Relations
Next >>