Re: Re: Re: Re: Even opt-out would be an improvement
"The little guy having no venue" is more an artifact of the way that book publishing middlemen worked, or how the record companies worked than anything else, isn't it? It's hardly a result of opt-in copyright before 1976, as far as I can tell.
If we have opt-in copyright, then we've got a way to distinguish "copyright infringement" from some other use, borrowing, mash-up, what have you. And we have a way to distinguish "copyfraud", like those greedheads who print the text of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights on a wallet card and put a (C) on it.
If copyright per se is so valuable, then it will be worth it to file, almost whatever it costs. But one would hope that a small fee would be adequate in this day of electronic tax filing, email and P2P networks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Be careful what you wish for...
Wait: "no market for short stories any more"?
Didn't I already say I bought "Shadows Over Baker Street" because it had "A Study in Emerald" in it? What the sam scratch are you talking about?
"Shadows Over Baker Street": http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Over-Baker-Street-Terror/dp/0345452739 It's full of pretty decent short stories, if you like H.P. Lovecraft types of horror stories, or possibly Sherlock Holmes pastiches. Admittedly, the best story in it is "A Study in Emerald".
I'll bite: from the US Air Force's late '50s "Project Excelsior" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excelsior).
Project Excelsior was all over "space travel" books when I was a kid in the mid to late '60s, and it seems a very prosaic, unimaginative, perhaps even crude test of a parachute system developed to allow high-altitude jet pilots to eject safely.
In short, an obvious, non-unique idea, which occurred to many people many times over the years.
Betamax was a superior technology to VHS. But because VHS had a head start and there fore lots of money behind it VHS ended up prevailing.
Got a citation for that? As in, didn't Betamax come first, and VHS won because it could record a whole movie on a single tape, whereas Betamax tapes were somewhat shorter than a typical movie?
I totally disagree that Gene Simmons should be one of the poster children for showing how you build a business that "competes with free" as Mike writes. Gene Simmons should NOT be any kind of "poster" anything. That dude is ugly. He should not be allowed within view of a poster factory. Barring Gene Simmons posters, and the reproduction of Gene Simmons posters is a copyright I can get behind.
in many cases, corporate policies designed to make sure employees "have fun," can be an "empty shell" or "a tiresome imposition,"
Couldn't this theorem be gemeralized, Professor?
in many cases, corporate policies designed to make sure Category of People Y possess "behaviorally-stated attribute X" can be an "empty shell" or "a tiresome imposition,"
Why, yes, yes it can be truthfully generalized in such a fashion. Corporate Policy in general makes everthing it touches Suck Pretty Hard. We're not entirely sure why this happens, but we know that it does in almost all cases.
The collapse of the Soviet Union taught a lot of agencies a big, big lesson: without a boogie man to scare people with sound bites, you can't get budget.
Therefore, we now have Permanent Floating Boogie Men. Child Porn, Terrorism and Osama bin Laden.
For some reason, this vaguely reminds me of all the fooforaw around Danny Casarolo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Casolaro) and Inslaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inslaw).
If any reporter(s) turn up dead by natural causes, then it will remind me even more.
Radio did *not* originally infringe on "Intellectual Property". People who thought that got laws passed, resulting in that blanket broadcast license, and the people that ASCAP and BMI pay to listen to statistically significant samples of taped radio shows. The sampling determines how to divvy up the blanket license revenue amongst the artists.
Until the laws passed, infringement did not exist.
You have education as a lawyer, and you've worked as a lawyer, haven't you?
I think you should just declare yourself by name, as a lot of the rest of us have. The highfalutin' language coming from "Anonymous Coward" realy causes some cognitive dissonance that I think you should avoid.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think this is the wave of the future
I am not lamenting that ability, or the lack of that ability.
I was just trying to render the idea of "copyrighting an identity" or "copyrighting appearance" absurd. I was postulating some science-fiction consequences of such a copyright. Sorry to be so vague.
It seems to me that combining "DRM" with "Copyrighted appearance" would potentially lead to people invisible to mass-market cameras, and possibly invisible to security cams. What consequences would that have to broader society and/or people's behavior in public?
I mean extending copyright onto "likeness", and using DRM to automagically enforce that copyright. Cameras would just refuse to take pictures of certain people, not unlike Windows Vista and Windows 7 refusing to play certain media on certain output devices.
The "privacy" you cite, which certainly exists, not disputing that, would pale in comparison to the copyright enjoyed by my privileged class. Think of it: security cams that just shut themselves off when a member of this new royalty shows up, papparazi having to pass off very blurry images of celebs/politicians because their cameras would not work when the subjects were in recognizable range.
Should an exception for security cams be put in place, then Best of Mall-Cop "bootleg" tapes that feature images of drunken usually-invisible Lindsay Lohan (or whoever) would have enormous value.
At the risk of going off the rails, this is what we get for having a "pics or it didn't happen" mentality. The advent of mass-market cameras, and mass-market digital cameras in particular, means that photographic evidence of *everything* is available. Just like electronic cash registers ruined checkout clerk's ability to make change, we no longer believe without an accompanying set of digital images.
I think this is, in fact, the wave of the future. At least some people will be allowed to copyright their names, resemblances, etc etc.
I mean, why wouldn't some future extension of DMCA or ACTA allow copyrighting (or something) a person's appearance? Copyright seems to have devolved into the granting of odd, state-supported pivileges to certain narrow, monied classes of people. If the USTR can negotiate something like ACTA, which seems to enshrine the legal concept of "idea is property", why can't they negotiate "appearance is property" as well?
In combination with other legally-imposed burdens like detection of copyright watermarks and DRM-copy-prevention, this could lead to a privileged class of people, celebrities, and billionaires maybe, that could not be digitally photographed. The camera would, via the magic of DRM, refuse to create photos of members of the privileged class. Paparazzi be gone!
This may sound a bit futuristic, so I hereby grant Cory Doctorow a license, free-of-charge and other limitations, to create a sci-fi story around this premise.
That's the same situation that "classified material" falls into. There's very, very few "secrets" of any importance, but there's plenty of career-ending blunders.
Why do you think so many projects are classified, and so many many documents get classified?
Thank you for acknowledging that execution matters, and that the mashups are creative. Spoken like a true gentleman.
But you're missing the point that in another market (desktop PCs) software updates are free: I do, in fact, run Arch linux (http://www.archlinux.org/) on one of my desktop PCs. For free. I do type in "pacman -Syu" once a week or so, and the software packages I've chosen get updated. For free. The Arch linux folks have an enormous documentation site (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page) and very active and helpful on-line forums (https://bbs.archlinux.org/) For free. I've gotten lots of software help from the Arch linux forums and wiki. For free.
Now, tell me why a mashed-up phone, without any limiting IP, would be any different?
On the post: Did The RIAA Really Just Come Out In Support Of 'Opt-In' Copyright? [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even opt-out would be an improvement
If we have opt-in copyright, then we've got a way to distinguish "copyright infringement" from some other use, borrowing, mash-up, what have you. And we have a way to distinguish "copyfraud", like those greedheads who print the text of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights on a wallet card and put a (C) on it.
If copyright per se is so valuable, then it will be worth it to file, almost whatever it costs. But one would hope that a small fee would be adequate in this day of electronic tax filing, email and P2P networks.
On the post: Did The RIAA Really Just Come Out In Support Of 'Opt-In' Copyright? [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Be careful what you wish for...
Didn't I already say I bought "Shadows Over Baker Street" because it had "A Study in Emerald" in it? What the sam scratch are you talking about?
"Shadows Over Baker Street": http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Over-Baker-Street-Terror/dp/0345452739 It's full of pretty decent short stories, if you like H.P. Lovecraft types of horror stories, or possibly Sherlock Holmes pastiches. Admittedly, the best story in it is "A Study in Emerald".
On the post: Did The RIAA Really Just Come Out In Support Of 'Opt-In' Copyright? [Updated]
Re: At odds
If some dork puts a (C) on something not registered, they can be criminally prosecuted!
On the post: Did The RIAA Really Just Come Out In Support Of 'Opt-In' Copyright? [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Be careful what you wish for...
In fact, if you go to his website you'll see a lot of freebies. Among other things:
http://www.neilgaiman.com/p/Cool_Stuff/Short_Stories
So, yes, Gaiman gives away free copies.
On the post: Red Bull Cancels Stunt Dive From Space... Because Someone Sued Then Claiming It Was His Idea
Re: No such thing as a new idea
Project Excelsior was all over "space travel" books when I was a kid in the mid to late '60s, and it seems a very prosaic, unimaginative, perhaps even crude test of a parachute system developed to allow high-altitude jet pilots to eject safely.
In short, an obvious, non-unique idea, which occurred to many people many times over the years.
On the post: Not Being Able To Spy On Everyone Online Is A Feature, Not A Bug
Re: Re: A fair idea
The DCS systems are the ones formerly known as "Carnivore" and mandated by the CALEA.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
Betamax was a superior technology to VHS. But because VHS had a head start and there fore lots of money behind it VHS ended up prevailing.
Got a citation for that? As in, didn't Betamax come first, and VHS won because it could record a whole movie on a single tape, whereas Betamax tapes were somewhat shorter than a typical movie?
On the post: Gene Simmons Says Sue Your Fans, Take Their Homes; So Why Hasn't He?
Please, no posters of Gene Simmons!
I totally disagree that Gene Simmons should be one of the poster children for showing how you build a business that "competes with free" as Mike writes. Gene Simmons should NOT be any kind of "poster" anything. That dude is ugly. He should not be allowed within view of a poster factory. Barring Gene Simmons posters, and the reproduction of Gene Simmons posters is a copyright I can get behind.
On the post: Is Fun No Longer Fun When It's Corporate Fun?
Corporate Policies
Mike writes:
Couldn't this theorem be gemeralized, Professor?
Why, yes, yes it can be truthfully generalized in such a fashion. Corporate Policy in general makes everthing it touches Suck Pretty Hard. We're not entirely sure why this happens, but we know that it does in almost all cases.
On the post: Study Shows That Web Blocking Ignores Real Problems, Doesn't Solve Anything & Is Used As A Political Tool
Re: Well, what do we expect?
Therefore, we now have Permanent Floating Boogie Men. Child Porn, Terrorism and Osama bin Laden.
On the post: Contractual Dispute Leads To Claims Of CIA Using Hacked, Faulty Software To Mistarget Bombs
Danny Casarolo, The Octopus and INSLAW
If any reporter(s) turn up dead by natural causes, then it will remind me even more.
On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past
Re: Re: Re: Re: tip of the iceberg?
On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past
Re: Your list is a little odd
Until the laws passed, infringement did not exist.
On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past
Re: Re: tip of the iceberg?
This has the gestank of conspiracy theory around it.
On the post: A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past
Re:
I think you should just declare yourself by name, as a lot of the rest of us have. The highfalutin' language coming from "Anonymous Coward" realy causes some cognitive dissonance that I think you should avoid.
On the post: Woman Trademarks Her Name, Says No One Can Use It Without Her Permission
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think this is the wave of the future
I was just trying to render the idea of "copyrighting an identity" or "copyrighting appearance" absurd. I was postulating some science-fiction consequences of such a copyright. Sorry to be so vague.
It seems to me that combining "DRM" with "Copyrighted appearance" would potentially lead to people invisible to mass-market cameras, and possibly invisible to security cams. What consequences would that have to broader society and/or people's behavior in public?
On the post: Woman Trademarks Her Name, Says No One Can Use It Without Her Permission
Re: Re: I think this is the wave of the future
The "privacy" you cite, which certainly exists, not disputing that, would pale in comparison to the copyright enjoyed by my privileged class. Think of it: security cams that just shut themselves off when a member of this new royalty shows up, papparazi having to pass off very blurry images of celebs/politicians because their cameras would not work when the subjects were in recognizable range.
Should an exception for security cams be put in place, then Best of Mall-Cop "bootleg" tapes that feature images of drunken usually-invisible Lindsay Lohan (or whoever) would have enormous value.
At the risk of going off the rails, this is what we get for having a "pics or it didn't happen" mentality. The advent of mass-market cameras, and mass-market digital cameras in particular, means that photographic evidence of *everything* is available. Just like electronic cash registers ruined checkout clerk's ability to make change, we no longer believe without an accompanying set of digital images.
On the post: Woman Trademarks Her Name, Says No One Can Use It Without Her Permission
I think this is the wave of the future
I mean, why wouldn't some future extension of DMCA or ACTA allow copyrighting (or something) a person's appearance? Copyright seems to have devolved into the granting of odd, state-supported pivileges to certain narrow, monied classes of people. If the USTR can negotiate something like ACTA, which seems to enshrine the legal concept of "idea is property", why can't they negotiate "appearance is property" as well?
In combination with other legally-imposed burdens like detection of copyright watermarks and DRM-copy-prevention, this could lead to a privileged class of people, celebrities, and billionaires maybe, that could not be digitally photographed. The camera would, via the magic of DRM, refuse to create photos of members of the privileged class. Paparazzi be gone!
This may sound a bit futuristic, so I hereby grant Cory Doctorow a license, free-of-charge and other limitations, to create a sci-fi story around this premise.
On the post: TSA Warns Against Evil Photographers Taking Pictures Of Planes
Re: False Positives
Why do you think so many projects are classified, and so many many documents get classified?
On the post: If There Were No IP Restrictions, What Kind Of Mobile Devices Could You Build?
Re: Re: Glory Be! The Anti-Mike Is Back!
But you're missing the point that in another market (desktop PCs) software updates are free: I do, in fact, run Arch linux (http://www.archlinux.org/) on one of my desktop PCs. For free. I do type in "pacman -Syu" once a week or so, and the software packages I've chosen get updated. For free. The Arch linux folks have an enormous documentation site (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page) and very active and helpful on-line forums (https://bbs.archlinux.org/) For free. I've gotten lots of software help from the Arch linux forums and wiki. For free.
Now, tell me why a mashed-up phone, without any limiting IP, would be any different?
Next >>