Sorry everyone, we are indeed having some weird site issues this morning... we're getting it sorted out as quickly as possible. Things should be back to normal soon!
Heh, yeah, I've been trying to figure that out all morning... I think the answer is "whoever has the better lawyer"
There's a really weird question here as to whether you can infringe on something that's unauthorized... Even if you set aside the s.115 conditions, it's hard to figure out.
Say we forget s.115 and talk about, as an example, an unauthorized remix of a recording -- highly creative but not to the degree of being transformative (still rooted firmly in core aspects of the original work), so simply an infringing derivative work.
If someone comes along and copies it exactly, but gets authorization. Is there a copyright in the remix for them to violate? Probably not, since the unauthorized derivative work is not recognized... But -- what if the original remixer settles the licenses after the fact, and the original remix becomes legal? Is the second remixer now infringing on the first? If not, does that mean the second remixer could have simply downloaded the original remix, gotten appropriate licenses, and claimed it as their own -- all perfectly legally? Would the first remixer now be infringing on the second because they got their licenses later, even though they created first? That would be rather bizarre... Conversely, if the second remixer becomes an infringer on the first, what exactly was the status of the first remix before that? Was it put into the public domain and then taken out? That's weird too...
Re: If you've tried Kim Dotcom's new Mega service, you know that apart from solid design and an impressive amount of free storage, it's pretty underwhelming.
i meant "underwhelming" simply in the sense of "not revolutionary". Given a lot of the chatter about the service, many where expecting to be most thoroughly whelmed by it -- that didn't really come to pass
Whether one wants to call it censorship, moderation, or just cleaning up the forum, it still blocks an opinion.
It's detrimental to the idea behind an open discussion.
I understand where this sentiment comes from, but I'm afraid I don't see how it makes any sense when you follow it through.
It's impossible to have productive conversations, in any forum and on any topic, if every conversation is a free-for-all.
If you organized a conference to have an open discussion about daffodils, would it be wrong to turn away someone who wanted to deliver a keynote about screwdrivers? Would that be detrimental to your "open discussion", or would it simply be keeping things on topic? I think most would agree that it's okay to "moderate" a particular forum in order to keep things relevant.
Now, what if they wanted to deliver a keynote about how daffodils suck and this whole conference is stupid? It's on topic. Is it wrong to deny them access to your forum?
Now what if you say: sure, come give your speech. We'll give you a room and a mic. But if the attendees close the door to your room and just walk past it, that's their decision, and we're not going to force them to listen -- anyone can still open the door and walk in if they want.
Is that wrong? Because that's basically what happens here in the comments.
Yes, you seem to be mostly calm today. Only a matter of time before the switch gets flipped again (is this a sober/drunk thing? my guess has always been that you have a substance abuse problem of some sort, though I guess it could also be a bad marriage or just a psychological condition), and you'll back to being a blithering asshole like you were in your first few comments on this thread. I'm glad you have found some people to humour you until then, I guess, but I won't be one of them.
To anonymously bash a dead guy and all his supporters? Yeah, pretty cowardly. Even Westboro Baptist Church lowlifes have the conviction to show their faces.
So much for the Techdirt commitment to free speech and right to anonymity. Like most of their ideals "it depends".
Apparently you do not understand said "commitment"
I absolutely believe Joe has the right to say whatever he wants, and to choose to do it anonymously.
He does not have the right to be free from judgement by others for that choice.
Is that so hard to understand? The entire point of freedom is that other free people will judge you for your choices, rather than a government forcing you into a particular choice. It does not mean you will not be judged at all.
When you are able to write your own notice, you should consider the non-copyright notice I wrote for Dark Helmet's ebooks:
You are free to obtain, consume, modify, adapt, remix, translate, parody, satirize, lend, sell, broadcast, reproduce, or otherwise use this work as you see fit for personal or commercial purposes. If you simply plan to reproduce and sell copies of the work on a commercial scale, I encourage you to contact me about partnership opportunities, which could include things like official endorsement, help with your marketing push, and exclusive new content. If you choose not to contact me or I feel you are operating in bad faith, I reserve the right to name and shame you in public.
Bottom line, any financing option that excludes banks while the banking industry controls the flow of capital in the entire economy is doomed.
Yes, that's the *bottom line* of the economy -- but it's silly to suggest that means alternate funding models are doomed. You might as well say garage sales are doomed -- after all I don't go through a bank to give some cash to my neighbour for a rocking chair.
All money comes from banks, as you clearly know, but it still gets passed around later. Private funding is not "doomed" because, ultimately, the money still came from a bank at some point, whether it's a $10 kickstarter pledge or a $10-million private investment. That's the astonishing thing about the fractional reserve banking economy -- people can earn and save and trade lots of money, but at the end of the day, though there may be fifty degrees of separation between their money and the bank, it's still all somehow contributing to the system whereby all money eventually flows back to the bank as loan payments.
Kickstarter is no more doomed for "excluding" banks than lakes are doomed for "excluding" the ocean
I don't see what makes you think I don't want anyone to make money. That's exactly the opposite of what I want.
Yes I am speaking from a consumer perspective -- by talking about how to compete with piracy, which the industry claims is one of the biggest things hurting it financially. As I pointed out, the issue is not that people want everything for free -- it's perfectly possible to charge money and still beat piracy, but only if you start tackling this problem of access and availability.
The current fragmentation of content is an issue -- it's as if you had to sign up with 3 different cable providers just to get all the channels you want (look at how upset people get when even one popular network disappears from their single cable provider).
I'm not saying things need to be free. I'm certainly not saying there should be no competition. I'm not even saying that exclusive deals should disappear entirely. I'm simply saying that it's in all these providers' best interest (financial and business interest) to make it easy for people to pay a reasonable price for all the content they want in a simple, seamless manner. They are rushing to hungrily slice up the pie before its finished -- they should recognize that there's value in working together to make the pie even bigger.
Btw. the prices here are about €10 for both Netflix and HBO, but Netflix offers a month for free and no binding.
Interesting... the article I read said 7.99 for Netflix, but I suppose there is probably some variation across the four countries covered by HBO Nordic.
weren't you trying to convince us that HBO was a real contender yesterday? Because they were betting against us cord cutters catching on?
Er, no. I was saying that's what they are trying to do, and that it might work for a little while since cable still has some momentum, but I concluded that it's a silly strategy.
gah, ok, thread confusion made me think this was a response to my comment :P still, i think it applies as we were having more or less the same conversation
You keep accusing me of not getting it, which makes me think you don't read Techdirt very often.
We expend a great deal of time scrutinizing and criticizing those folks who shuttle back and forth between the highest offices of government and the highest offices of corporate power, analyzing and mobilizing against the laws they write, dissecting the business decisions they make... Fighting to create a healthy ecosystem for innovation and creativity is the whole point of Techdirt.
It seems like the only point you are trying to make is "optimism is foolish"—but that's only true of the most simplistic optimism. I'm well aware of the scale of the challenge here—and I remain optimistic in the face of it.
Many, many things... it's a complex topic. If I were to attempt to sum up my views on copyright, it would go something like this:
There is absolutely a fundamental injustice to a system that places restrictions on the sharing of culture, because I do not believe people have an innate right to control their creations beyond the initial decision to share those creations with anothe person. I do however think that (a) there are ways of respecting creators that I personally see as morally correct (e.g. properly attributing people in most circumstances, finding ways to support the creative endeavours of people whose output you regularly enjoy) and (b) there is a valid economic argument for offering creators some kind of commercial advantage when it comes to their own work. However, with regards to (b), I think there are ways to accomplish this that do not stem from fundamentally incorrect notions of "ownership" and "control" and instead properly frame things as incentives granted by society for the purpose of supporting an economically healthy creative culture. I do not know precisely what form such a system would take.
You have a lot more faith in the complexity of the system making it immune to central control than I do. Through a combination of making it technically harder to circumvent without getting caught and building the social pressure to conform, they can get what they want
The thing is, certain industries have been pouring endless resources into developing new technological means of control for years now, all to no avail. Every iPhone is jailbroken; every DRM is cracked; every movie is pirated. Technological efforts have never made a dent.
As for the social battle, it's been ongoing forever. Before the VCR was strangling women, home taping was killing music, and way back in the 30s evil robots were eating musicians. But none of these social campaigns have succeeded in holding back technology or reducing piracy.
However, it's true that there is a culture clash—copyright policy has bred the "ownership culture" we discuss so much here, and it's a very bizarre thing. Many people believe in its values (a creator's innate control and moral authority) without realizing that their normal daily behaviour with regards to media actually subverts those values (a true believer would triple-check every YouTube video they watch for legitimacy). This is something that's beginning to change, sometimes in unexpected ways, and it's definitely important for those of us who understand the necessary sea change to make sure our voice is a part of that conversation.
I am not sure you share that view.
Then I think you should pay closer attention to what we write about here :)
The internet is such a fundamentally different type of network than anything which has come before that I actually think it is indeed immune to control.
Nevertheless, you're not wrong -- lots of people are still doing everything they can to lock it down. But that's precisely my message to such entities: doing so ensures piracy will continue to flourish.
I don't think VanDerWerff intended to say that such shows are going to go away -- simply that, at the moment, we are still on this side of the tipping point, where the folks with the money to fund such shows are the same folks trying to prop up and protect the old model. But, as he says, the tipping point is almost here -- and then it will be Netflix or someone like that funding the next Game of Thrones (still a far more expensive undertaking than Arrested Development, no matter how much those actors' salaries have gone up over the past few years)
You seem to have missed the point (in addition to missing the author).
We already have people trying to use laws and technology to lock down the internet and make it behave the way they want it to -- that's been going on for years. And it's ineffective and breeds lots and lots of piracy.
Not sure what to make of your "wouldn't object" comment.
On the post: Broken Copyright: Jonathan Coulton Is Actually Infringing Copyright, But Glee Is Not
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Broken Copyright: Jonathan Coulton Is Actually Infringing Copyright, But Glee Is Not
Re: But wouldn't that mean...
There's a really weird question here as to whether you can infringe on something that's unauthorized... Even if you set aside the s.115 conditions, it's hard to figure out.
Say we forget s.115 and talk about, as an example, an unauthorized remix of a recording -- highly creative but not to the degree of being transformative (still rooted firmly in core aspects of the original work), so simply an infringing derivative work.
If someone comes along and copies it exactly, but gets authorization. Is there a copyright in the remix for them to violate? Probably not, since the unauthorized derivative work is not recognized... But -- what if the original remixer settles the licenses after the fact, and the original remix becomes legal? Is the second remixer now infringing on the first? If not, does that mean the second remixer could have simply downloaded the original remix, gotten appropriate licenses, and claimed it as their own -- all perfectly legally? Would the first remixer now be infringing on the second because they got their licenses later, even though they created first? That would be rather bizarre... Conversely, if the second remixer becomes an infringer on the first, what exactly was the status of the first remix before that? Was it put into the public domain and then taken out? That's weird too...
Ah, copyright :)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: If you've tried Kim Dotcom's new Mega service, you know that apart from solid design and an impressive amount of free storage, it's pretty underwhelming.
On the post: TechCrunch Admits That Using Facebook Comments Drove Away Most Of Their Commenters
Re: Re:
It's detrimental to the idea behind an open discussion.
I understand where this sentiment comes from, but I'm afraid I don't see how it makes any sense when you follow it through.
It's impossible to have productive conversations, in any forum and on any topic, if every conversation is a free-for-all.
If you organized a conference to have an open discussion about daffodils, would it be wrong to turn away someone who wanted to deliver a keynote about screwdrivers? Would that be detrimental to your "open discussion", or would it simply be keeping things on topic? I think most would agree that it's okay to "moderate" a particular forum in order to keep things relevant.
Now, what if they wanted to deliver a keynote about how daffodils suck and this whole conference is stupid? It's on topic. Is it wrong to deny them access to your forum?
Now what if you say: sure, come give your speech. We'll give you a room and a mic. But if the attendees close the door to your room and just walk past it, that's their decision, and we're not going to force them to listen -- anyone can still open the door and walk in if they want.
Is that wrong? Because that's basically what happens here in the comments.
On the post: A Week Later: Reflecting On Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you seem to be mostly calm today. Only a matter of time before the switch gets flipped again (is this a sober/drunk thing? my guess has always been that you have a substance abuse problem of some sort, though I guess it could also be a bad marriage or just a psychological condition), and you'll back to being a blithering asshole like you were in your first few comments on this thread. I'm glad you have found some people to humour you until then, I guess, but I won't be one of them.
On the post: A Week Later: Reflecting On Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Week Later: Reflecting On Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you do not understand said "commitment"
I absolutely believe Joe has the right to say whatever he wants, and to choose to do it anonymously.
He does not have the right to be free from judgement by others for that choice.
Is that so hard to understand? The entire point of freedom is that other free people will judge you for your choices, rather than a government forcing you into a particular choice. It does not mean you will not be judged at all.
On the post: A Week Later: Reflecting On Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Week Later: Reflecting On Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Best to retain some level of culpable deniability when being this huge of an asshole, I guess...
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Smashwords forces you to be horrible
When you are able to write your own notice, you should consider the non-copyright notice I wrote for Dark Helmet's ebooks:
You are free to obtain, consume, modify, adapt, remix, translate, parody, satirize, lend, sell, broadcast, reproduce, or otherwise use this work as you see fit for personal or commercial purposes. If you simply plan to reproduce and sell copies of the work on a commercial scale, I encourage you to contact me about partnership opportunities, which could include things like official endorsement, help with your marketing push, and exclusive new content. If you choose not to contact me or I feel you are operating in bad faith, I reserve the right to name and shame you in public.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Works for hire"
Yes, that's the *bottom line* of the economy -- but it's silly to suggest that means alternate funding models are doomed. You might as well say garage sales are doomed -- after all I don't go through a bank to give some cash to my neighbour for a rocking chair.
All money comes from banks, as you clearly know, but it still gets passed around later. Private funding is not "doomed" because, ultimately, the money still came from a bank at some point, whether it's a $10 kickstarter pledge or a $10-million private investment. That's the astonishing thing about the fractional reserve banking economy -- people can earn and save and trade lots of money, but at the end of the day, though there may be fifty degrees of separation between their money and the bank, it's still all somehow contributing to the system whereby all money eventually flows back to the bank as loan payments.
Kickstarter is no more doomed for "excluding" banks than lakes are doomed for "excluding" the ocean
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: 'Works for hire"
Yes I am speaking from a consumer perspective -- by talking about how to compete with piracy, which the industry claims is one of the biggest things hurting it financially. As I pointed out, the issue is not that people want everything for free -- it's perfectly possible to charge money and still beat piracy, but only if you start tackling this problem of access and availability.
The current fragmentation of content is an issue -- it's as if you had to sign up with 3 different cable providers just to get all the channels you want (look at how upset people get when even one popular network disappears from their single cable provider).
I'm not saying things need to be free. I'm certainly not saying there should be no competition. I'm not even saying that exclusive deals should disappear entirely. I'm simply saying that it's in all these providers' best interest (financial and business interest) to make it easy for people to pay a reasonable price for all the content they want in a simple, seamless manner. They are rushing to hungrily slice up the pie before its finished -- they should recognize that there's value in working together to make the pie even bigger.
On the post: HBO's One Attempt At A Standalone Digital Service Sucks
Re: Limiting content? Heck they all do that here
Interesting... the article I read said 7.99 for Netflix, but I suppose there is probably some variation across the four countries covered by HBO Nordic.
On the post: HBO's One Attempt At A Standalone Digital Service Sucks
Re:
Er, no. I was saying that's what they are trying to do, and that it might work for a little while since cable still has some momentum, but I concluded that it's a silly strategy.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
We expend a great deal of time scrutinizing and criticizing those folks who shuttle back and forth between the highest offices of government and the highest offices of corporate power, analyzing and mobilizing against the laws they write, dissecting the business decisions they make... Fighting to create a healthy ecosystem for innovation and creativity is the whole point of Techdirt.
It seems like the only point you are trying to make is "optimism is foolish"—but that's only true of the most simplistic optimism. I'm well aware of the scale of the challenge here—and I remain optimistic in the face of it.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
Many, many things... it's a complex topic. If I were to attempt to sum up my views on copyright, it would go something like this:
There is absolutely a fundamental injustice to a system that places restrictions on the sharing of culture, because I do not believe people have an innate right to control their creations beyond the initial decision to share those creations with anothe person. I do however think that (a) there are ways of respecting creators that I personally see as morally correct (e.g. properly attributing people in most circumstances, finding ways to support the creative endeavours of people whose output you regularly enjoy) and (b) there is a valid economic argument for offering creators some kind of commercial advantage when it comes to their own work. However, with regards to (b), I think there are ways to accomplish this that do not stem from fundamentally incorrect notions of "ownership" and "control" and instead properly frame things as incentives granted by society for the purpose of supporting an economically healthy creative culture. I do not know precisely what form such a system would take.
You have a lot more faith in the complexity of the system making it immune to central control than I do. Through a combination of making it technically harder to circumvent without getting caught and building the social pressure to conform, they can get what they want
The thing is, certain industries have been pouring endless resources into developing new technological means of control for years now, all to no avail. Every iPhone is jailbroken; every DRM is cracked; every movie is pirated. Technological efforts have never made a dent.
As for the social battle, it's been ongoing forever. Before the VCR was strangling women, home taping was killing music, and way back in the 30s evil robots were eating musicians. But none of these social campaigns have succeeded in holding back technology or reducing piracy.
However, it's true that there is a culture clash—copyright policy has bred the "ownership culture" we discuss so much here, and it's a very bizarre thing. Many people believe in its values (a creator's innate control and moral authority) without realizing that their normal daily behaviour with regards to media actually subverts those values (a true believer would triple-check every YouTube video they watch for legitimacy). This is something that's beginning to change, sometimes in unexpected ways, and it's definitely important for those of us who understand the necessary sea change to make sure our voice is a part of that conversation.
I am not sure you share that view.
Then I think you should pay closer attention to what we write about here :)
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
Nevertheless, you're not wrong -- lots of people are still doing everything they can to lock it down. But that's precisely my message to such entities: doing so ensures piracy will continue to flourish.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re:
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: The Other Solution
We already have people trying to use laws and technology to lock down the internet and make it behave the way they want it to -- that's been going on for years. And it's ineffective and breeds lots and lots of piracy.
Not sure what to make of your "wouldn't object" comment.
Next >>