Oh my, I'd forgotten that I was paying NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX for their broadcast television channels. Oh right, I'm not, and they've been making money for quite a long time.
I have at least similar, if not the same, software. It will stream to as many things as I connect to it with my username and password. I even had my PC stream from itself over the internet to test it when I first set it up. Exactly the same idea as Amazon's service, except that my music is hosted on my personal machine instead of on their servers.
That's why you go with open source. Not sure if it's a "vector for viruses and other illicit code"? Check the source files, and see exactly what it's doing. Can't figure it out or find someone else who can? Don't run it if you don't trust it.
You're making a couple assumptions here that I take issue with.
1.) People are rational. If someone had the legal right to physically harm me for any reason at all, I would treat people no differently than I do now. I would, however, be eternally on my guard for people having a bad day and looking to take it out on someone, people who overreact to minor offenses, and whack jobs who just like hurting people.
2.) People have similar resources and capabilities. If the law were changed as you say, I would be a lot more careful around people physically stronger than me, and they would have a lot less reason to care. Under your hypothetical scenario, if I insulted Arnold Schwarzenegger I would most likely not be having kids. But what incentive would I have not to insult the little old lady down the street, ignoring any moral compunctions I might have?
3.) The abolition of anti-violence laws would save money. Let's see how the economy does when we get rid of laws keeping people civil and the next day half the workforce doesn't show up to work and the hospital systems are overwhelmed with thousand upon thousands of grievous injuries resulting from physical altercations sparked off by a silly insult.
Your argument is similar to one where instead of seat belts we should have sharp metal spikes mounted on the steering column of every vehicle. Sure, in an ideal world it might make people drive more carefully and cut down on the amount of enforcement needed, but do you honestly believe that's going to happen?
I agree. Any time someone tries to argue with me that the death penalty exists for moral reasons, I look them in the eyes and say two words: "death penalty". Though of course, the response to that is usually something along the lines of "Well that's ok, because we should kill people who kill people because it's wrong to kill people."
So make copyright a choice the creator has to consciously make if they want it. Things can default to the public domain, unless the creator specifically applies for copyright protections. That would make a lot of things easier for a lot of people.
The entire point of this article is that it is NOT the government's problem whether copyright ensures the artist can recoup costs. Even if it were, life plus 70 years is entirely ridiculous. I can't find any numbers right now, but I know at some point a book will make back what it took to produce, and past that anything more is pure profit. Could the majority of books recoup costs in 5 years? 10? If anyone knows of some research they could post, that would be great.
Copyright is about protecting the interests of the people, not creators. Content creators complain about the "entitlement" problem they see people as having, where we feel that eventually their works should add something to society. Do they not suffer the same entitlement problem for feeling that their work, even if it took them 3 years to create, should by law be a nest egg for them, their children, and perhaps their grandchildren, depending on how long they live?
Where he got them, no doubt the mp3s Tennenbaum downloaded were "there specifically so that [they] could be downloaded and listened to". Whoever had put them there just didn't have the right to do so.
I'm really surprised nobody's pointed out yet that Silverlight isn't Netflix software, it's made by Microsoft.
Saying that installing Silverlight to watch Netflix is DRM is the same as saying that installing Flash to watch Youtube is DRM. Netflix could just as easily have implemented their streaming in Flash, at which point you would undoubtedly have seen no need to install anything additional.
On the post: Feds Seize Poker Websites; Founders Indicted
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Does The Entertainment Industry Seek To Kill Any Innovation That's Helping It Adapt?
Re: What Spotify and Hulu actually do...
On the post: Amazon Insists No Licenses Needed For Cloud Player, Google Thinking Of Skipping Licenses As Well
Re: Re:
On the post: DRM Accused Of Sending Personal Info To Help With Licensing Shakedown
Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re:
1.) People are rational. If someone had the legal right to physically harm me for any reason at all, I would treat people no differently than I do now. I would, however, be eternally on my guard for people having a bad day and looking to take it out on someone, people who overreact to minor offenses, and whack jobs who just like hurting people.
2.) People have similar resources and capabilities. If the law were changed as you say, I would be a lot more careful around people physically stronger than me, and they would have a lot less reason to care. Under your hypothetical scenario, if I insulted Arnold Schwarzenegger I would most likely not be having kids. But what incentive would I have not to insult the little old lady down the street, ignoring any moral compunctions I might have?
3.) The abolition of anti-violence laws would save money. Let's see how the economy does when we get rid of laws keeping people civil and the next day half the workforce doesn't show up to work and the hospital systems are overwhelmed with thousand upon thousands of grievous injuries resulting from physical altercations sparked off by a silly insult.
Your argument is similar to one where instead of seat belts we should have sharp metal spikes mounted on the steering column of every vehicle. Sure, in an ideal world it might make people drive more carefully and cut down on the amount of enforcement needed, but do you honestly believe that's going to happen?
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is about protecting the interests of the people, not creators. Content creators complain about the "entitlement" problem they see people as having, where we feel that eventually their works should add something to society. Do they not suffer the same entitlement problem for feeling that their work, even if it took them 3 years to create, should by law be a nest egg for them, their children, and perhaps their grandchildren, depending on how long they live?
On the post: Tenenbaum Appeal Heard: Is It Okay To Make Someone Pay $675,000 For Downloading 30 Songs?
Re: Re:
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
Saying that installing Silverlight to watch Netflix is DRM is the same as saying that installing Flash to watch Youtube is DRM. Netflix could just as easily have implemented their streaming in Flash, at which point you would undoubtedly have seen no need to install anything additional.
Next >>