You'll love his talk of/by/4 as well as that of Jack Abramoff in figuring out the system.
Basically, the returns on favorable legislation are phenomenal. For every $1 spent on legislation, the company gains $220 in tax savings. A 22,000% return. Why wouldn't you want to do it? This is the problem that Larry Lessig is noting that we have to fight. Everyone wants to fight the system, but getting to the root of the problem is to fight the corruption that allows this in the first place.
I should also point out that it is equally tricky to highlight SOPA, and then point out how much an individual has raised "during their career", especially without giving relative numbers to work from - such as showing their total fund raising over their career, and how much that is on average of each year of said career
You're making this way too easy for the people like me, the OCD crowd to expose that very thing, with pretty pictures too.
But this is why people invented Maplight, where you can look at that very thing in minute detail.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Let's pull up a real work example. I write a book for the US market for $50. However, no one wants to buy it at that price. The piracy signals a market failure, which copyright law will not fix. Further, why should I be worried about another sure making money? Those sites still can't sell the scarcities that I could. A site can't sell a book tour. It can't sell an author's time for a fan. These are the types of things espoused when discussing new business models not needing copyright law changes.
For Lessig, the ONLY reason that he created CC licensing is because copyright is so long in the tooth. Change or remove copyright as a barrier and the need for alternatives disappears.
Finally, if you can point to where copyright law has helped out artists, it may alleviate confusion. I haven't seen many assists make money unless they were already established by their labels. I have seen stories about copyright hindering artists not helping. All copyright does is prop up labels over their artist's concerns.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Without copyright, I'd be left with nothing (I mean sites like CD Baby and Discmakers could sell my music without my permission).
I would beg to differ. Musicians get promotion from CD Baby and Discmakers. You have a chance to gain an audience from places like that. In my view, the technology is now there that you have an abundance of material to negotiate terms with people, but copyright won't do that for you.
Let's take a moment and ask what exactly copyright can do. We have a Copyright Board who always increases fees. We have ASCAP and BMI who enforce copyright for the top 20% of artists. We have consumers being thrown in jail for a civil offense. Further, copyright is so problematic, that it is encroaching on the lives of regular consumers.
For businesses, they have to pay the fees for licensing as determined by a copyright board that always hears complaints from trade industries for control. But we should instead ask, is that control over copying really needed?
From all that I've seen, I'm not convinced. There's too many variables that can make piracy less attractive in all markets. Movies and Music - build cyberlockers and streaming sites with minimal ads.
Gaming - less DRM, extra free content, and consumer oriented products and sales.
Writing - As the late Anne McCaffrey has stated, keep writing until soeone pays you.
I know that people have an abject fear of their work proliferating and they aren't paid as a result. But all evidence shows that even if someone pays only .01 cent to you, they will pay if you make it enticing enough. I argue that technology is the greatest anti-copyright that we have.
The VCR created more sales than ever before.
The MP3 player created new digital markets.
The DVD spawned TiVo and the DVR.
And as the internet slowly takes over for the analog era, I would say that copyright will be less and less needed other than a footnote of who made what.
The law can't take away what people feel is alright to them. Judging from the reaction of SOPA, copyright goes against what people actually want. Let's remember, copyright has almost always been a censorship tool. It's a footnote of the 1st Amendment. If it doesn't meet the requirements in Article 1 Section 8, it is not meeting the circumstances to which is was created.
Thomas Jefferson must have hated the compromise on copyright...
The worst part about it is, as we finally found out, the government isn’t doing this for the people, but instead is just pushing forward what they are told to like good little bought officials.
With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. . . The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and claws after he shall have entered."
Seeing as how Karl did put up posts in regards to 103 that you did not respond, merely stating you are "not inclined, except on very limited occasions, to respond to comments/questions when they are presented in a manner that would require a treatise to formulate what I believe to be a thoughtful response," I see no point in posting parts of 102 that you will merely dismiss. I already see the problem of an AG not having a clear paper trail in allowing a site to have a hearing before being taken down. They could send a snail mail to another country but in the interim, the site is taken down in two days. That makes no sense. But it's up to you to read the parts of it because I have no faith that you'll actually respond to the posts here.
"I am more than willing to get down and talk about specifics, but it is impossible to do so without those specifics being identified and explained."
Again, this was done. You ignored them by saying it's not specific enough. First you asked for a car, then you ask for a hood ornament. Now you're asking for a spark plug. You keep changing your demands to detract from ever having to argue your point.
However, for a site that engages in extensive analysis of studies, polls, economics with reference to specific sections thereof, it does not seem at all unreasonable to ask that the same be done for bill pending in Congress.
Guess what? The public has said they don't WANT this bill. The technology industry doesn't want to lose the 230 safe harbors of the DMCA. The ones that don't want to debate are Lamar Smith and the MPAA, who have provided the language of this bill.
Seriously, I have been trying to truly understand many of the arguments made, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the arguments when they are basically generic in nature.
I find that highly debatable given how you have yet to substantiate your claims.
Without specificity, however, I am left with trying to guess what is being said and why.
"When I mentioned what I believed to be broad generalizations concerning the bills pending in Congress, I did so because by my reading of the bills they did not reflect the generalizations being attributed to the them. The devil is always in the details, and one must analyze such language to determine if a generalization is correct or not"
You're really full of it. You have said nothing substantial for your argument, merely dismissing people who have actually told you the problems of Sections 102, 103, and 106 respectively. When the law was presented in the other thread, you had NOTHING to say. People have given you the benefit of the doubt multiple times to engage in conversation with you. Yet here you stand, making the same cryptic statements in another thread instead of engaging in conversation or clarifying your meanings.
What I do not get is the attitude of those who see nothing wrong with consuming something without paying for it.
Who says people are consuming without paying for it? Haven't you ever heard of alternatives?
I see a lot of attempts to rationalize why those who deliberately do these acts are doing nothing wrong, but their rationalizations ring hollow.
So you get it, but you don't really get it... Fascinating...
I happen to believe otherwise, i.e., that there is much more involved in an ordered and just society than merely economics, and that there are a host of other considerations that are equally important and relevant.
Such as what...? Morality in copyright law? If people don't pay for a product they shouldn't get it nor find a suitable alternative for a song, movie, or game from another vendor that suits their needs?
The release windows made sense in a world without the internet. Now, the MAFIAA want to control everything. It's amazing how the labels continue to believe that their old habits can bring about new profits.
Everyone has seen the act, they know the charades. They can support the artists through various scarcities.
Artists still sell CDs in concerts. That's a scarcity that helps the artist's bottom line.
Tshirts and live concerts, are a scarcity. Even on Youtube, the result is not the same as live. I've heard this on this site, and I'm glad Mike repeats it enough that it's easier for others to learn from. Find and sell the scarcities that make you money.
And yet, the RIAA continues to fight against piracy, criminalizing customers and showing people how to do it wrong. All you can do is watch them flounder as the world moves away from them and their dying business model. Next thing you know, the US Copyright Group is going to represent them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
Honestly, copyright does more harm than good. My stance may be a little measured, but if you were to take away copyright law, then there would be a great growth in innovation and cultural output.
I still believe that copyright is a socio-economic barrier to knowledge and learning, but I believe the AC is trying to get to the root of the problem by abolishing copyright.
Wow, you're not even trying. Anything to add other than attacks on people like, idunno, an attack on the position of why people think google is am ultimate scapegoat?
On the post: RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight
Re: The important paragraph
On the post: Some Data On How Much The Big Media Firms Are Donating To SOPA/PIPA Sponsors
Re: Republic Lost
Basically, the returns on favorable legislation are phenomenal. For every $1 spent on legislation, the company gains $220 in tax savings. A 22,000% return. Why wouldn't you want to do it? This is the problem that Larry Lessig is noting that we have to fight. Everyone wants to fight the system, but getting to the root of the problem is to fight the corruption that allows this in the first place.
On the post: Some Data On How Much The Big Media Firms Are Donating To SOPA/PIPA Sponsors
Re: Re:
You're making this way too easy for the people like me, the OCD crowd to expose that very thing, with pretty pictures too.
But this is why people invented Maplight, where you can look at that very thing in minute detail.
On the post: Some Data On How Much The Big Media Firms Are Donating To SOPA/PIPA Sponsors
Re:
On the post: Colbert Takes On SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
For Lessig, the ONLY reason that he created CC licensing is because copyright is so long in the tooth. Change or remove copyright as a barrier and the need for alternatives disappears.
Finally, if you can point to where copyright law has helped out artists, it may alleviate confusion. I haven't seen many assists make money unless they were already established by their labels. I have seen stories about copyright hindering artists not helping. All copyright does is prop up labels over their artist's concerns.
On the post: Royal Society Claims 1671 Copyright On Newton Letter (Copyright Law Born 29 Years Later)
Re: the English language
On the post: 'Pro-Artist' Gatekeepers Continue To Separate Artists From Their Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Colbert Takes On SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
I would beg to differ. Musicians get promotion from CD Baby and Discmakers. You have a chance to gain an audience from places like that. In my view, the technology is now there that you have an abundance of material to negotiate terms with people, but copyright won't do that for you.
Let's take a moment and ask what exactly copyright can do. We have a Copyright Board who always increases fees. We have ASCAP and BMI who enforce copyright for the top 20% of artists. We have consumers being thrown in jail for a civil offense. Further, copyright is so problematic, that it is encroaching on the lives of regular consumers.
For businesses, they have to pay the fees for licensing as determined by a copyright board that always hears complaints from trade industries for control. But we should instead ask, is that control over copying really needed?
From all that I've seen, I'm not convinced. There's too many variables that can make piracy less attractive in all markets. Movies and Music - build cyberlockers and streaming sites with minimal ads.
Gaming - less DRM, extra free content, and consumer oriented products and sales.
Writing - As the late Anne McCaffrey has stated, keep writing until soeone pays you.
I know that people have an abject fear of their work proliferating and they aren't paid as a result. But all evidence shows that even if someone pays only .01 cent to you, they will pay if you make it enticing enough. I argue that technology is the greatest anti-copyright that we have.
The VCR created more sales than ever before.
The MP3 player created new digital markets.
The DVD spawned TiVo and the DVR.
And as the internet slowly takes over for the analog era, I would say that copyright will be less and less needed other than a footnote of who made what.
The law can't take away what people feel is alright to them. Judging from the reaction of SOPA, copyright goes against what people actually want. Let's remember, copyright has almost always been a censorship tool. It's a footnote of the 1st Amendment. If it doesn't meet the requirements in Article 1 Section 8, it is not meeting the circumstances to which is was created.
On the post: Just John's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Thomas Jefferson must have hated the compromise on copyright...
With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. . . The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and claws after he shall have entered."
Jefferson was a BAMF.
On the post: The Pirate Party Effect: German Greens Scramble To Draw Up Digital Policies To Hold On To Voters
Re: Democrats Should Read This
The Republican Party is bought and paid for.
If the US could vote for two new parties, we'd have the same problems.
Until we fix this and this, we won't have a major party worth a damn.
On the post: The Value Is In The Relationship, Not The MP3 File
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am more than willing to get down and talk about specifics, but it is impossible to do so without those specifics being identified and explained."
Again, this was done. You ignored them by saying it's not specific enough. First you asked for a car, then you ask for a hood ornament. Now you're asking for a spark plug. You keep changing your demands to detract from ever having to argue your point.
However, for a site that engages in extensive analysis of studies, polls, economics with reference to specific sections thereof, it does not seem at all unreasonable to ask that the same be done for bill pending in Congress.
Guess what? The public has said they don't WANT this bill. The technology industry doesn't want to lose the 230 safe harbors of the DMCA. The ones that don't want to debate are Lamar Smith and the MPAA, who have provided the language of this bill.
Seriously, I have been trying to truly understand many of the arguments made, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the arguments when they are basically generic in nature.
I find that highly debatable given how you have yet to substantiate your claims.
Without specificity, however, I am left with trying to guess what is being said and why.
Which would be well and good if there wasn't already a lot of material on why this is bad. I can show how gamers feel about it. The regular people hate the fact that it's censorship. Here is another explanation. There is no small amount of detailed arguments against this bill.
To say that there are not enough cogent arguments against this greatly debated bill is to be misleading.
On the post: The Value Is In The Relationship, Not The MP3 File
Re: Start with why
On the post: The Value Is In The Relationship, Not The MP3 File
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're really full of it. You have said nothing substantial for your argument, merely dismissing people who have actually told you the problems of Sections 102, 103, and 106 respectively. When the law was presented in the other thread, you had NOTHING to say. People have given you the benefit of the doubt multiple times to engage in conversation with you. Yet here you stand, making the same cryptic statements in another thread instead of engaging in conversation or clarifying your meanings.
Mike has said it.
Karl has said it.
Now I'm going to say it.
You're full of shit.
On the post: The Value Is In The Relationship, Not The MP3 File
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who says people are consuming without paying for it? Haven't you ever heard of alternatives?
I see a lot of attempts to rationalize why those who deliberately do these acts are doing nothing wrong, but their rationalizations ring hollow.
So you get it, but you don't really get it... Fascinating...
I happen to believe otherwise, i.e., that there is much more involved in an ordered and just society than merely economics, and that there are a host of other considerations that are equally important and relevant.
Such as what...? Morality in copyright law? If people don't pay for a product they shouldn't get it nor find a suitable alternative for a song, movie, or game from another vendor that suits their needs?
On the post: 'Pro-Artist' Gatekeepers Continue To Separate Artists From Their Fans
Re: The lesson of the day...
The release windows made sense in a world without the internet. Now, the MAFIAA want to control everything. It's amazing how the labels continue to believe that their old habits can bring about new profits.
Everyone has seen the act, they know the charades. They can support the artists through various scarcities.
Artists still sell CDs in concerts. That's a scarcity that helps the artist's bottom line.
Tshirts and live concerts, are a scarcity. Even on Youtube, the result is not the same as live. I've heard this on this site, and I'm glad Mike repeats it enough that it's easier for others to learn from. Find and sell the scarcities that make you money.
And yet, the RIAA continues to fight against piracy, criminalizing customers and showing people how to do it wrong. All you can do is watch them flounder as the world moves away from them and their dying business model. Next thing you know, the US Copyright Group is going to represent them.
On the post: Colbert Takes On SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're cheering on piracy again. Not recognizing the problem.
I still believe that copyright is a socio-economic barrier to knowledge and learning, but I believe the AC is trying to get to the root of the problem by abolishing copyright.
On the post: As We Complain About SOPA & PIPA, Don't Forget The DMCA Already Has Significant Problems
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.
On the post: Royal Society Claims 1671 Copyright On Newton Letter (Copyright Law Born 29 Years Later)
Re: Re: Can we just end this crap already?
On the post: As We Complain About SOPA & PIPA, Don't Forget The DMCA Already Has Significant Problems
Re: Re: Re: Yes, Mike, we know the only parts of DMCA that you like is that which promotes symbiotic grifting.
On the post: Colbert Takes On SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>