This is the attitude I was initally complaining about:
A man gets nailed by the DCMA for up to 10 years for modding his (and others) gaming console for money. Your response: Well, he *did* break the law-- that's what he gets.
So, sitting on the jury of this guys trial, you'd say "guilty" because he broke a bad law? I'd go for jury nullification, myself. That's the difference in our attitudes.
So, am I misreading your attitude? If so, sorry for wasting your time, because besides that, we appear to agree.
Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
I think you may not understand the word scrutiny.
No where did I read that copyright protections should be abolished, only that they should be monitored like any other goverment sanctioned monopoly.
Also, you seem to contradict yourself here:
The suggestion that copyright as a *concept* ought be subject to antitrust analysis is, therefore, completely asinine.
None of that is to say that certain private entities haven't utilized copyright in a way that has created an antitrust problem.
It stands to reason that if "certain private entities" have used copyright protection in an antitrust fashion then copyrght should be subject to antitrust analysis.
Personally, I'm amazed it hasn't been looked into before. You have the Labels who buy up all the rights to all these songs, but their prices never compete. Ever. If they did, their prices would go down. In fact, when iTunes opened up tiered pricing, most of the popular songs jumped to $1.29.. regardless of which major label held the rights to the songs. Wouldn't economics say that one savvy businessman would leave his prices alone to draw more customers to buy his product? CD prices have only started to drop to make buying them at all more attractive, not competition between major Labels. Isn't price fixing illegal?
Luckily, even if your hard drive fails, since you only bought the rights to listen to a local copy of the songs and not the actual songs, and your rights didn't fail, you can just email the appropriate Label and they'll gladly allow you to re-download your songs.
So, your counter-argument is the summary of an unpublished report paid for by the industry about a single section of the music industry in a single section of the world?
..and you have the gall to judge someone for treating semi-related posts as facts?!
(oh sorry, infringe and avoid paying the market price).
There is no "market price" in a monopoly, because there is no competition. In fact, if the monopoly on games were removed, you'd be lucky to get $5 for a game, I'd bet. (The cost of shipment, packaging, and blank media)
Furthermore, for entirely digital transactions (with no packaging, shipping, or media costs) infringing is actually to pay market price. (aka, $0)
Knowing is half the Battle. Not being a douche is the other half. You're now halfway there. :)
Ummm...don't know what "attitude" you are reading into my statement, but it's purely in your mind.
I didn't mean attitude as in "Oh no he didn't! Aw, snap!" I meant the attitude as in "Well, someone wrote it on paper and told me I have to do it, and even though I know it's broken, I'm going to do it anyway." Aka, "Baa.."
Civil disobedience is one thing, but creating an enterprise to knowingly break the law for financial gain is another entirely.
..how?
the number of modded devices is in the tens of thousands or less
The wonderful thing about living in a republic is that the minority is protected from the majority. Furthermore, a law that is unjust but only applies to a few is not less unjust. A law that said you, Bob, were not allowed to mod your xbox would not be less unjust.
My path (certainly not the only one) is to engage my Congressional representatives
Call me jaded, but I've written off any help from my "representatives". I just don't have the kind of cash required to get their attention.
Oh, and just to be clear: When I type "I'm really annoyed at this attitude when it comes to unjust laws" I don't mean you, specifically, I mean anyone with that attitude. Yours just happened to be the comment I replied to.
So.. you think that there's nothing wrong with this law suit? You *honestly* believe that the guy who made a statue and put it out for the entire word to see should be compensated for a someone taking a 2 dimentional picture of it and putting it on the cover of a book?
C'mon now.
However, back to my original question:
Remove the bull, replace it with a white cover with Arial lettering with the book name and the authors name in simialr sizes in black print, and see how well it sells.
I don't see anywhere where I said "No picture." I said "A different picture." Hint: The answer is "Probably not."
Along the same lines, do you feel that a blank book with this picture on the cover would sell? What about the book is valuable? The cover or the content? (Another hint: I throw away dust covers, they annoy me-- which happens to be where the picture usually is.)
So, re-recording a song without changing it is making something new that deserves protection, but remixing a bunch of songs together changing them drastically is not creative and does not deserve protection?
The CD still has to be in the drive. At least, when I tried it asked me for the CD. Copying to the HD means faster load times, not play without a CD. I'd *love* to not need the CD, but I would instantly turn into a pirate, and the game industry would collapse within the week.
Again, I am not saying the DMCA is RIGHT with a capital R, just that it is the law.
I'm really annoyed at this attitude when it comes to unjust laws.
How do you think getting a law changed *really* works? Do people quietly obey an unjust law until their representative changes it for them? No, of course not. People ignore the law until it becomes ridiculous to attempt to enforce it (because doing so would criminalize the majority of the population) and THEN it is changed.
If a law is clearly unjust, I feel that we, as citizens, have a duty to ignore the law until it can be changed to reflect the demands of the population.
So, yes there is something wrong with many laws, and we shouldn't stand for it, regardless of what those in control have written on paper.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It isn't a legal issue.
I was going to ignore your troll, but something caught my eye:
I say "nobody gave it to me, I went to get it myself".
No, actually, someone offers it up on whatever method you use (Kazaa, bittorrent, usenet, etc) in much the same fashion as a GIFT. They are giving it away for free. Then someone else accepts that gift, and may in return offer it up for others.
Far up the chain, chances are someone BOUGHT that CD and ripped it to their computer, and then gave it away.
So, to sum it up: Someone buys a CD and rips it, and then gives away a copy. Someone else gives away a copy of a copy. Etc, etc.
So, when does theft come in, exactly? I'm waiting to be enlightened.
If by "the mob" you mean "consumers" then yes, they do indirectly dictate business models. That is exactly how it works. Everyday more and more consumers are making the decision that digital copies are not worth buying. Note: People are still buying tickets to concerts in record numbers. The only part of the music industry that is taking a hit is record sales. Turns out people don't want plastic discs anymore. In other news, 8-track sales are down, too.
Also, do you mean to tell me that no musicians will every make any more music ever if we don't have copyrights? What about before copyrights? You DO know that copyrights haven't been around forever, right?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on the side of the table where musicians have to actually work for their pay, instead of doing it ONCE and getting paid for each copy of it. You want to make music as your job, go out and do it everyday. I do my job everyday, and no one thinks I shouldn't. In this day and age, paying for a digital *copy* of anything is foolish. It costs next to nothing to make that copy. So little in fact that people are willing to do it themselves instead of going out to find someone to do it for them.
On the post: No Freedom To Tinker: Arrested For Modding Legally Purchased Game Consoles
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, but c'mon...
This is the attitude I was initally complaining about:
A man gets nailed by the DCMA for up to 10 years for modding his (and others) gaming console for money. Your response: Well, he *did* break the law-- that's what he gets.
So, sitting on the jury of this guys trial, you'd say "guilty" because he broke a bad law? I'd go for jury nullification, myself. That's the difference in our attitudes.
So, am I misreading your attitude? If so, sorry for wasting your time, because besides that, we appear to agree.
On the post: And Of Course: Twitter Sued For Patent Infringement In Texas
Re: Mikey is doing his regular patent-pissing routine
Not that you'd know, you probably don't even have a patent.
***I trolled angry dude!***
On the post: Rep. Lofgren: A Real Antitrust Issue That Needs Scrutiny Is Copyright
Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
No where did I read that copyright protections should be abolished, only that they should be monitored like any other goverment sanctioned monopoly.
Also, you seem to contradict yourself here:
The suggestion that copyright as a *concept* ought be subject to antitrust analysis is, therefore, completely asinine.
None of that is to say that certain private entities haven't utilized copyright in a way that has created an antitrust problem.
It stands to reason that if "certain private entities" have used copyright protection in an antitrust fashion then copyrght should be subject to antitrust analysis.
Personally, I'm amazed it hasn't been looked into before. You have the Labels who buy up all the rights to all these songs, but their prices never compete. Ever. If they did, their prices would go down. In fact, when iTunes opened up tiered pricing, most of the popular songs jumped to $1.29.. regardless of which major label held the rights to the songs. Wouldn't economics say that one savvy businessman would leave his prices alone to draw more customers to buy his product? CD prices have only started to drop to make buying them at all more attractive, not competition between major Labels. Isn't price fixing illegal?
On the post: Once Again: The Music Industry Does Not Equal The CD Business
Re:
..wait, what? They don't let you? How odd.
On the post: Once Again: The Music Industry Does Not Equal The CD Business
Re:
..and you have the gall to judge someone for treating semi-related posts as facts?!
Classy.
On the post: Once Again: The Music Industry Does Not Equal The CD Business
Correction:
straight?
On the post: Copyright Fight Over Famous Wall Street Bull Statue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
Citation, please. (That's my polite way of saying I think you're making that up.)
Also, if he took the picture, wouldn't he be the owner of that picture? It's not like the actual statue was glued to the cover.
Still seems like fair use to me.
On the post: No Freedom To Tinker: Arrested For Modding Legally Purchased Game Consoles
Re: Re: Re: Re: talking head.
There is no "market price" in a monopoly, because there is no competition. In fact, if the monopoly on games were removed, you'd be lucky to get $5 for a game, I'd bet. (The cost of shipment, packaging, and blank media)
Furthermore, for entirely digital transactions (with no packaging, shipping, or media costs) infringing is actually to pay market price. (aka, $0)
Knowing is half the Battle. Not being a douche is the other half. You're now halfway there. :)
On the post: No Freedom To Tinker: Arrested For Modding Legally Purchased Game Consoles
Re: Re: Re: Makes no sense
FYI
On the post: No Freedom To Tinker: Arrested For Modding Legally Purchased Game Consoles
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, but c'mon...
I didn't mean attitude as in "Oh no he didn't! Aw, snap!" I meant the attitude as in "Well, someone wrote it on paper and told me I have to do it, and even though I know it's broken, I'm going to do it anyway." Aka, "Baa.."
Civil disobedience is one thing, but creating an enterprise to knowingly break the law for financial gain is another entirely.
..how?
the number of modded devices is in the tens of thousands or less
The wonderful thing about living in a republic is that the minority is protected from the majority. Furthermore, a law that is unjust but only applies to a few is not less unjust. A law that said you, Bob, were not allowed to mod your xbox would not be less unjust.
My path (certainly not the only one) is to engage my Congressional representatives
Call me jaded, but I've written off any help from my "representatives". I just don't have the kind of cash required to get their attention.
Oh, and just to be clear: When I type "I'm really annoyed at this attitude when it comes to unjust laws" I don't mean you, specifically, I mean anyone with that attitude. Yours just happened to be the comment I replied to.
On the post: Copyright Fight Over Famous Wall Street Bull Statue
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's in public view!
C'mon now.
However, back to my original question:
Remove the bull, replace it with a white cover with Arial lettering with the book name and the authors name in simialr sizes in black print, and see how well it sells.
I don't see anywhere where I said "No picture." I said "A different picture." Hint: The answer is "Probably not."
Along the same lines, do you feel that a blank book with this picture on the cover would sell? What about the book is valuable? The cover or the content? (Another hint: I throw away dust covers, they annoy me-- which happens to be where the picture usually is.)
On the post: The Borderless Internet And Jurisdictional Disputes: A Growing Problem
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Fight Over Famous Wall Street Bull Statue
Re: Re: It's in public view!
Are you saying that if there was a different picture on the cover the book wouldn't sell?
Because, as I'm sure you can see, that's asinine. Looks like fair use to me.
On the post: Copyright Conundrum: Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?
Re:
I don't get it, still.
On the post: No Freedom To Tinker: Arrested For Modding Legally Purchased Game Consoles
Re: Xbox mod --> xbox 360
On the post: No Freedom To Tinker: Arrested For Modding Legally Purchased Game Consoles
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, but c'mon...
I'm really annoyed at this attitude when it comes to unjust laws.
How do you think getting a law changed *really* works? Do people quietly obey an unjust law until their representative changes it for them? No, of course not. People ignore the law until it becomes ridiculous to attempt to enforce it (because doing so would criminalize the majority of the population) and THEN it is changed.
If a law is clearly unjust, I feel that we, as citizens, have a duty to ignore the law until it can be changed to reflect the demands of the population.
So, yes there is something wrong with many laws, and we shouldn't stand for it, regardless of what those in control have written on paper.
On the post: Judge Orders Facebook To Reveal Source Code In Patent Dispute
Re: Wait, what?
On the post: Judge Orders Facebook To Reveal Source Code In Patent Dispute
Re:
I know *I* haven't "often wondered about Facebook's APIs" so who is this "We" you're speaking of? You and the mouse in your pocket?
On the post: Tenenbaum Dinged $22,500 Per Song; $675,000 Total
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It isn't a legal issue.
I say "nobody gave it to me, I went to get it myself".
No, actually, someone offers it up on whatever method you use (Kazaa, bittorrent, usenet, etc) in much the same fashion as a GIFT. They are giving it away for free. Then someone else accepts that gift, and may in return offer it up for others.
Far up the chain, chances are someone BOUGHT that CD and ripped it to their computer, and then gave it away.
So, to sum it up: Someone buys a CD and rips it, and then gives away a copy. Someone else gives away a copy of a copy. Etc, etc.
So, when does theft come in, exactly? I'm waiting to be enlightened.
On the post: Tenenbaum Dinged $22,500 Per Song; $675,000 Total
Re: Re: Out of Sync
Also, do you mean to tell me that no musicians will every make any more music ever if we don't have copyrights? What about before copyrights? You DO know that copyrights haven't been around forever, right?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on the side of the table where musicians have to actually work for their pay, instead of doing it ONCE and getting paid for each copy of it. You want to make music as your job, go out and do it everyday. I do my job everyday, and no one thinks I shouldn't. In this day and age, paying for a digital *copy* of anything is foolish. It costs next to nothing to make that copy. So little in fact that people are willing to do it themselves instead of going out to find someone to do it for them.
Just my thoughts.
Next >>