Yes, I would be able to figure out what he wanted. And I would also be terrified that a judge with such an obviously vague grasp on technology is in any way related to a case with so many technological issues at play.
The word "retrieve" was used because he is being ordered to remove posts he's made on the internet as well as retrieve any actual documents that he's put in the hands of third parties. That choice of words does not reflect the judge's grasp of the technology. Give it up. So desperate to find anything wrong with this order... Not focusing on the underlying issues that actually matter... Hurts to read techdirt today...
So, how can one expect this poor guy to retrieve all of the copies?
He is not being being ordered to retrieve all of the copies, including the ones that it would be impossible for him to retrieve. That would make no sense. The fact that it would make no sense is your first clue that maybe you should look into what the judge actually did order rather than take someone else's word for it.
If it's impossible for him to retrieve, then it's impossible for him to retrieve. It cracks me up you guys think the judge is ordering the impossible. Focusing on the choice of the word "retrieve" is silly. If the judge ordered you to "retrieve" your post from Facebook, would you know what the judge wanted? Of course you would.
Damn Joe.... I was with you 100% until you tossed in "....shows how desperate you are". Why do people insist on taking things to a personal level? If Mike is wrong, and in this case he may be, why not just argue the point instead of insulting him or anyone else...
I don't think for one second that Mike is "wrong" on accident.
"shall retrieve [..] any information [..] which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to [...] any third parties."
Nope, the paraphrase seems pretty accurate.
I agree it's an accurate paraphrase. It's just wrong to use quotation marks unless you're actually quoting something. Regardless, the point is that whatever posts Hotz made on the internet are retrievable, and that's all the judge is ordering him to retrieve. If someone else copied Hotz's posts and posted them elsewhere, that's not Hotz's problem. The whole point of this article is "Look how dumb the judge is!" I don't think the judge looks dumb at all. Hotz is being ordered to take down the posts that he made. That's all.
I'm hoping someone can expand on what you've said here because it doesn't sound right to me.
You are saying it's requisite for judges to give legally binding orders to people without scrutiny or judgement on their part, just because a plaintiff asks them to? And that it is okay for judges to hand down orders that are literally impossible?
That doesn't make sense...
This whole article is FUD and the judge didn't order anything that was impossible. I highly recommend going to the source rather than believing Mike's take on things. I often find that Mike has misrepresented the truth. The judge ordered Hotz to retrieve the information from places where he posted it. Facebook is such a place. Nothing impossible about that.
To read techdirt properly, you need a hefty dose of skepticism.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how all of that makes any sense.
You've mentioned this before, and I have the feeling you're trying to make an Equal Protection argument. It may seem unfair that jailbreaking an iPhone is legal while doing the same with a PS3 is not. The fact is, the legislature may proceed one step at a time in its regulation of such things. Equal protection does not mean that every single device that can be jailbroken must be regulated all at once. "It is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the genus be eradicated or none at all." Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949). There simply is no Equal Protection violation here.
Furthermore, the judge has ordered Hotz to "retrieve the code" that has been distributed.
You're misquoting the judge. Are you doing so intentionally? The judge said: "It is further ordered that Defendant Hotz . . . shall retrieve any Circumvention Devices or any information relating thereto which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to the Defendants or any third parties."
This means that he needs to remove the information from places where he posted it, like YouTube. It DOES NOT mean that he has to remove all copies of it from the internet. That would be stupid. The judge understands the technology just fine, as do the lawyers who drafted the words the judge signed off on. The fact that you have to misquote the judge and draw conclusions that just aren't there shows how desperate you are.
I like it though... it gives us fodder for debate.
hat tools would I need to confirm that you are not a pirate Sir?
Will you give me free access to your domicile and records?
Would you allow me to keep following you everywhere so I can be sure you are not evading the law?
If you have prima facie evidence or probable cause and a court issues a subpoena or a warrant, go right ahead and look around.
By your own admission you believe pirates are a minority, and the intent of the campaign against piracy was to reduce it to low levels, is that not paradoxical? after all if it is low, why it is a problem then if the goal was reached already, why more enforcement is needed?
The goal isn't to make pirates a minority, the goal, as I stated, is to minimize piracy. There is no paradox. Piracy can still be decreased.
One thing I never see you talking about is the impact of others factors on sales and revenue, it is really only piracy that reduces income?
You're right. I don't really have anything intelligent to say about those things, so that's why I keep quiet. I read techdirt to learn about things like that.
Yeah, but shutting down websites, banning books, blocking the creation of new songs... all due to "copyright"? That's just fine and dandy with you?
And all of those things were done against people who were intentionally violating the rights of others. I'd ask you if you're OK with people intentionally violating other people's rights, but I already know the answer.
The ruling focuses on how the law violates the Commerce Clause in regulating interstate commerce (which state governments are not allowed to do). It doesn't directly discuss the privacy issues . . . .
That's not exactly true--states can regulate interstate commerce, but only under certain conditions. Article I, section 8, clause 3, the Commerce Clause, grants Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states. The Constitution is silent as to what states may or may not do in the absence of congressional legislation. The doctrine that has evolved over the years is that the Commerce Clause implies a restriction that prohibits a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. This is known as the Dormant Commerce Clause.
This judge in this case is saying that the Act is likely to be a facially discriminatory state law. The judge didn't use the word, but this is "protectionism" where a state erects a barrier to trade in order to protect in-state interests at the expense of out-of-state interests. Such laws are invalid unless the state can prove the discrimination is necessary to promote a legitimate state interest. While collection of tax is a legitimate state interest, the state failed to show that this interest could not be met by some other reasonable alternative.
The privacy issue is an interesting one, but since the judge found a likelihood of the law being impermissibly discriminatory on its face, it wasn't necessary to discuss that issue.
All because some farmer wanted to grow wheat to use privately, and the government wanted to stop him from doing that.
Google farmer, wheat, commerce clause.
I don't have to google it... you're talking about Wickard v. Filburn. Wickard doesn't apply here though, since that was a regular commerce clause case, and this one's a dormant commerce clause case. The feds aren't a party to this case.
Fine by me. Look, if people can actually make more money by giving their works away for free, then I'm all for it. I think the reality is that those sort of alternative business models may work for some, but they don't necessarily work for everyone. I don't see blockbuster movies from the likes of James Cameron being made without copyrights anytime soon.
What these lawsuits show is how silly it is to try and enforce the law, how much time and effort we would have if we tried to enforce it completely.
We're only seeing the beginning of the enforcement of copyright laws against p2p users. I doubt lawmakers will see enforcement as silly anytime soon. I see no reason to think that lawmakers won't give rights holders better tools to protect their rights.
The fact is that you can't enforce copyright law without a policeman looking over the shoulder of everyone who is typing at a computer. At best you will make piracy invisible - but you can't stop it. Every measure the authorities could use to stop piracy already has a countermeasure waiting in the wings for when it is needed.
I don't think anyone in the history of the copyright wars has ever thought that piracy can be stopped 100%. I don't know why people on "your side" of the debate even bring up the point. Of course it will never totally be stopped. The goal is to minimize it. Every measure the authorities use pushes piracy further underground. That's the whole point.
You can force pirates to encrypt their content and disguise it as other traffic but all that will do is waste everyone's time and money.
The harder it is to pirate, the less people will do it. Again, that's the point of combating the pirates. It may seem like a waste of time and money to you, but to people who believe in IP laws and rights, it's money well spent.
I agree with you that these lawsuits don't tell us anything we didn't know already - but they do bring it into sharper focus.
The lawsuits bring into sharper focus the uphill battle that rights holders have to protect their rights. It shines light on the need for lawmakers to give rights holders better tools to combat those who just take what they want.
Their attitude will change - instead of being a casual thing they will see it as a challenge to outsmart the authorities.
And the harder it is to outsmart the authorities, the less people will bother doing so.
Surprisingly few actually. Even fewer amongst those who have given the subject some thought.
If so many people are pro-piracy, then why don't more people do it?
Well I'm not sure about that. The number who rely on piracy as a major source of entertainment is relatively small, whilst the number who absolutely never pirate is probably zero beyond the age of about 10. (As witnessed by the fact that many who scream about piracy have been caught doing it themselves.) In between there are many people who do it occasionally, with varying frequency.
We ll, in my experience I am often surprised at the people who think piracy is OK (for them) (including for example police officers...). I've never met anyone who thought it wrong enough never to do it who didn't have a personal stake in copyright.
The people I hang out with are generally of the opinion that while one person's piracy doesn't cause much harm, in the aggregate, piracy is harmful.
Never met anyone who believed that in real life. All the creative people I know do it because they are driven - money is an afterthought, copyright even more so. I remember a music teacher at my sons school, talking about a particularly talented pupil and saying. "You don't have to encourage him to compose - sometimes it is difficult to stop him composing!" The Beatles are on record for saying "We didn't think music could be owned - we thought it was just out there..."
Really? There are examples of people incentivized to create by copyright all around you. As I recall, the Beatles sold their music rather than gave it away for free. I'm sure Paul McCartney likes the mansion his copyrights bought him.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. If even a tiny bit of your creation is based on someone else's work you will find it almost impossible to get clearance to give it away. Ask Nina Paley.
Nina Paley is free to give away her own expressions, she just can't give away the expressions of others. If she chooses to use other people's expressions, then she has to play by those people's rules.
Plus all the measures against filesharing are breaking the distribution networks of those who want to give their work away. DRM measures built into computers and game consoles often make independent development unnecessarily difficult. Try writing a PS3 game and giving it away.
My understanding from Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) is that I could write a PS3 game and give it away if I want to.
On top of that you will find many copyright advocates complaining about people who give their work away - because they are undermining the cartel. In this vein the BSA has complained about open source and the music rights societies have complained about musopen.
I'm sure whenever anyone threatens the status quo, the status quo will be upset. This seems unremarkable to me, nor does it change the fact that people can give away their works for free if they choose to do so.
I wouldn't mind that choice if it was a real one.
It is a real choice. I can create an original work and give it for free. No one can stop me.
Unfortunately many copyright advocates are not like you. They are hell bent on stopping people giving stuff away even if they legally can.
Which they can't, so the point is moot.
The reason is that they realise correctly that it really is an all or nothing situation. At present 90% plus of recent material is copyrighted "all rights reserved". Therefore if you want to re-use something you have to seek out a licence to do so.
Don't forget fair use. And don't forget that only the unique expression is protected--the ideas are not.
This makes it difficult for free distributors because they have to plaster their output with cc notices to make their point. If the situation were to reverse - so that "free" became the default then life would be impossible for those who want to maintain copyright - since they would have to assume the whole burden of policing it.
Whether or not copyright is the default does not change the fact that people can give their works away for free if they so wish.
When 100,000 are being sued for breaking a law in approximately a year (and those lawsuits are only coming from a few companies) it indicates that the law is broken. 100,000 people all deciding to do something suggests that it is not considered wrong or bad, and thus we should be questioning whether the law is set up correctly.
Separately, in this case, the fact that very few of those 100,000 will actually have a lawsuit go through, and that this entire game is being setup to shake people down for money should trouble you quite a bit.
Of course, if you think "the law is the law and that's ok" then I can see why you wouldn't be troubled by this. But I'd like to think you're not that kind of person.
These lawsuits don't tell us anything we don't already know about the number of people who pirate stuff on the internet. It's not like anyone reading the headlines is saying to themselves, "Oh wow! That many people are pirates?" If anything, I think the vast number of pirates reflects how poorly our copyright laws are being enforced. These lawsuits aren't a call for less copyright laws, they are a call for better enforcement of the laws we already have.
I doubt that many pirates consider themselves to be doing the world a favor with their piracy. I think they do it because their friends are doing it, it's easy, and hardly no one's getting busted. Once people start to get busted, I think that attitude will change.
While you may not value our copyright laws, the fact is, many people do. The number of people who don't pirate is much bigger than the number of people who do. This suggests to me that the copyright laws are not as out-of-whack with the social norms as you seem to be suggesting they are.
Perhaps more people understand that copyright laws in fact do incentivize the creation of works than you give them credit for. And you know what the beautiful thing is? If people want to give away their creations for free, they can do so right now.
People can try out your business models all day long within the system we already have. I like people to have the choice of copyrighting, of not copyrighting, of selling, or of giving it away for free. I like that people have that choice. You apparently do not.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The word "retrieve" was used because he is being ordered to remove posts he's made on the internet as well as retrieve any actual documents that he's put in the hands of third parties. That choice of words does not reflect the judge's grasp of the technology. Give it up. So desperate to find anything wrong with this order... Not focusing on the underlying issues that actually matter... Hurts to read techdirt today...
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re:
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is not being being ordered to retrieve all of the copies, including the ones that it would be impossible for him to retrieve. That would make no sense. The fact that it would make no sense is your first clue that maybe you should look into what the judge actually did order rather than take someone else's word for it.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The judge is not ordering the impossible. Give it up, Bernie.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re:
I don't think for one second that Mike is "wrong" on accident.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re:
"shall retrieve [..] any information [..] which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to [...] any third parties."
Nope, the paraphrase seems pretty accurate.
I agree it's an accurate paraphrase. It's just wrong to use quotation marks unless you're actually quoting something. Regardless, the point is that whatever posts Hotz made on the internet are retrievable, and that's all the judge is ordering him to retrieve. If someone else copied Hotz's posts and posted them elsewhere, that's not Hotz's problem. The whole point of this article is "Look how dumb the judge is!" I don't think the judge looks dumb at all. Hotz is being ordered to take down the posts that he made. That's all.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you ever used Facebook or YouTube? It's just as easy to remove your own post as it is to post it in the first place.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re:
You are saying it's requisite for judges to give legally binding orders to people without scrutiny or judgement on their part, just because a plaintiff asks them to? And that it is okay for judges to hand down orders that are literally impossible?
That doesn't make sense...
This whole article is FUD and the judge didn't order anything that was impossible. I highly recommend going to the source rather than believing Mike's take on things. I often find that Mike has misrepresented the truth. The judge ordered Hotz to retrieve the information from places where he posted it. Facebook is such a place. Nothing impossible about that.
To read techdirt properly, you need a hefty dose of skepticism.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
You've mentioned this before, and I have the feeling you're trying to make an Equal Protection argument. It may seem unfair that jailbreaking an iPhone is legal while doing the same with a PS3 is not. The fact is, the legislature may proceed one step at a time in its regulation of such things. Equal protection does not mean that every single device that can be jailbroken must be regulated all at once. "It is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the genus be eradicated or none at all." Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949). There simply is no Equal Protection violation here.
Furthermore, the judge has ordered Hotz to "retrieve the code" that has been distributed.
You're misquoting the judge. Are you doing so intentionally? The judge said: "It is further ordered that Defendant Hotz . . . shall retrieve any Circumvention Devices or any information relating thereto which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to the Defendants or any third parties."
This means that he needs to remove the information from places where he posted it, like YouTube. It DOES NOT mean that he has to remove all copies of it from the internet. That would be stupid. The judge understands the technology just fine, as do the lawyers who drafted the words the judge signed off on. The fact that you have to misquote the judge and draw conclusions that just aren't there shows how desperate you are.
I like it though... it gives us fodder for debate.
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Will you give me free access to your domicile and records?
Would you allow me to keep following you everywhere so I can be sure you are not evading the law?
If you have prima facie evidence or probable cause and a court issues a subpoena or a warrant, go right ahead and look around.
By your own admission you believe pirates are a minority, and the intent of the campaign against piracy was to reduce it to low levels, is that not paradoxical? after all if it is low, why it is a problem then if the goal was reached already, why more enforcement is needed?
The goal isn't to make pirates a minority, the goal, as I stated, is to minimize piracy. There is no paradox. Piracy can still be decreased.
One thing I never see you talking about is the impact of others factors on sales and revenue, it is really only piracy that reduces income?
You're right. I don't really have anything intelligent to say about those things, so that's why I keep quiet. I read techdirt to learn about things like that.
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And all of those things were done against people who were intentionally violating the rights of others. I'd ask you if you're OK with people intentionally violating other people's rights, but I already know the answer.
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The court in the Salinger case didn't buy the parody argument. They saw right through it as a post hoc rationalization.
Sampling of a loop could be fair use, assuming it's not the heart of the work that's being sampled.
Then you better believe people can stop you.
The First Amendment doesn't give you the freedom to make other people's speech, so I don't see the problem.
And you should be outraged about that.
Why would I be outraged? The party doing the copying isn't having their rights violated. The party being copied is. You seem to have things backwards.
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I tell you what, get everyone but Cameron to give their stuff away, and then we'll talk. :)
On the post: Colorado Not Allowed To Demand All Purchase Info From Companies
That's not exactly true--states can regulate interstate commerce, but only under certain conditions. Article I, section 8, clause 3, the Commerce Clause, grants Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states. The Constitution is silent as to what states may or may not do in the absence of congressional legislation. The doctrine that has evolved over the years is that the Commerce Clause implies a restriction that prohibits a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. This is known as the Dormant Commerce Clause.
This judge in this case is saying that the Act is likely to be a facially discriminatory state law. The judge didn't use the word, but this is "protectionism" where a state erects a barrier to trade in order to protect in-state interests at the expense of out-of-state interests. Such laws are invalid unless the state can prove the discrimination is necessary to promote a legitimate state interest. While collection of tax is a legitimate state interest, the state failed to show that this interest could not be met by some other reasonable alternative.
The privacy issue is an interesting one, but since the judge found a likelihood of the law being impermissibly discriminatory on its face, it wasn't necessary to discuss that issue.
On the post: Colorado Not Allowed To Demand All Purchase Info From Companies
Re: Funny
Google farmer, wheat, commerce clause.
I don't have to google it... you're talking about Wickard v. Filburn. Wickard doesn't apply here though, since that was a regular commerce clause case, and this one's a dormant commerce clause case. The feds aren't a party to this case.
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine by me. Look, if people can actually make more money by giving their works away for free, then I'm all for it. I think the reality is that those sort of alternative business models may work for some, but they don't necessarily work for everyone. I don't see blockbuster movies from the likes of James Cameron being made without copyrights anytime soon.
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're only seeing the beginning of the enforcement of copyright laws against p2p users. I doubt lawmakers will see enforcement as silly anytime soon. I see no reason to think that lawmakers won't give rights holders better tools to protect their rights.
The fact is that you can't enforce copyright law without a policeman looking over the shoulder of everyone who is typing at a computer. At best you will make piracy invisible - but you can't stop it. Every measure the authorities could use to stop piracy already has a countermeasure waiting in the wings for when it is needed.
I don't think anyone in the history of the copyright wars has ever thought that piracy can be stopped 100%. I don't know why people on "your side" of the debate even bring up the point. Of course it will never totally be stopped. The goal is to minimize it. Every measure the authorities use pushes piracy further underground. That's the whole point.
You can force pirates to encrypt their content and disguise it as other traffic but all that will do is waste everyone's time and money.
The harder it is to pirate, the less people will do it. Again, that's the point of combating the pirates. It may seem like a waste of time and money to you, but to people who believe in IP laws and rights, it's money well spent.
I agree with you that these lawsuits don't tell us anything we didn't know already - but they do bring it into sharper focus.
The lawsuits bring into sharper focus the uphill battle that rights holders have to protect their rights. It shines light on the need for lawmakers to give rights holders better tools to combat those who just take what they want.
Their attitude will change - instead of being a casual thing they will see it as a challenge to outsmart the authorities.
And the harder it is to outsmart the authorities, the less people will bother doing so.
Surprisingly few actually. Even fewer amongst those who have given the subject some thought.
If so many people are pro-piracy, then why don't more people do it?
Well I'm not sure about that. The number who rely on piracy as a major source of entertainment is relatively small, whilst the number who absolutely never pirate is probably zero beyond the age of about 10. (As witnessed by the fact that many who scream about piracy have been caught doing it themselves.) In between there are many people who do it occasionally, with varying frequency.
Got any cites for that? According to this article, the vast majority of people are not pirates: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/how-many-internet-pirates-are-there-anyway.ars
We ll, in my experience I am often surprised at the people who think piracy is OK (for them) (including for example police officers...). I've never met anyone who thought it wrong enough never to do it who didn't have a personal stake in copyright.
The people I hang out with are generally of the opinion that while one person's piracy doesn't cause much harm, in the aggregate, piracy is harmful.
Never met anyone who believed that in real life. All the creative people I know do it because they are driven - money is an afterthought, copyright even more so. I remember a music teacher at my sons school, talking about a particularly talented pupil and saying. "You don't have to encourage him to compose - sometimes it is difficult to stop him composing!" The Beatles are on record for saying "We didn't think music could be owned - we thought it was just out there..."
Really? There are examples of people incentivized to create by copyright all around you. As I recall, the Beatles sold their music rather than gave it away for free. I'm sure Paul McCartney likes the mansion his copyrights bought him.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. If even a tiny bit of your creation is based on someone else's work you will find it almost impossible to get clearance to give it away. Ask Nina Paley.
Nina Paley is free to give away her own expressions, she just can't give away the expressions of others. If she chooses to use other people's expressions, then she has to play by those people's rules.
Plus all the measures against filesharing are breaking the distribution networks of those who want to give their work away. DRM measures built into computers and game consoles often make independent development unnecessarily difficult. Try writing a PS3 game and giving it away.
My understanding from Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) is that I could write a PS3 game and give it away if I want to.
On top of that you will find many copyright advocates complaining about people who give their work away - because they are undermining the cartel. In this vein the BSA has complained about open source and the music rights societies have complained about musopen.
I'm sure whenever anyone threatens the status quo, the status quo will be upset. This seems unremarkable to me, nor does it change the fact that people can give away their works for free if they choose to do so.
I wouldn't mind that choice if it was a real one.
It is a real choice. I can create an original work and give it for free. No one can stop me.
Unfortunately many copyright advocates are not like you. They are hell bent on stopping people giving stuff away even if they legally can.
Which they can't, so the point is moot.
The reason is that they realise correctly that it really is an all or nothing situation. At present 90% plus of recent material is copyrighted "all rights reserved". Therefore if you want to re-use something you have to seek out a licence to do so.
Don't forget fair use. And don't forget that only the unique expression is protected--the ideas are not.
This makes it difficult for free distributors because they have to plaster their output with cc notices to make their point. If the situation were to reverse - so that "free" became the default then life would be impossible for those who want to maintain copyright - since they would have to assume the whole burden of policing it.
Whether or not copyright is the default does not change the fact that people can give their works away for free if they so wish.
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re:
Separately, in this case, the fact that very few of those 100,000 will actually have a lawsuit go through, and that this entire game is being setup to shake people down for money should trouble you quite a bit.
Of course, if you think "the law is the law and that's ok" then I can see why you wouldn't be troubled by this. But I'd like to think you're not that kind of person.
These lawsuits don't tell us anything we don't already know about the number of people who pirate stuff on the internet. It's not like anyone reading the headlines is saying to themselves, "Oh wow! That many people are pirates?" If anything, I think the vast number of pirates reflects how poorly our copyright laws are being enforced. These lawsuits aren't a call for less copyright laws, they are a call for better enforcement of the laws we already have.
I doubt that many pirates consider themselves to be doing the world a favor with their piracy. I think they do it because their friends are doing it, it's easy, and hardly no one's getting busted. Once people start to get busted, I think that attitude will change.
While you may not value our copyright laws, the fact is, many people do. The number of people who don't pirate is much bigger than the number of people who do. This suggests to me that the copyright laws are not as out-of-whack with the social norms as you seem to be suggesting they are.
Perhaps more people understand that copyright laws in fact do incentivize the creation of works than you give them credit for. And you know what the beautiful thing is? If people want to give away their creations for free, they can do so right now.
People can try out your business models all day long within the system we already have. I like people to have the choice of copyrighting, of not copyrighting, of selling, or of giving it away for free. I like that people have that choice. You apparently do not.
Next >>