The experience of the Vancouver Winter Olympics illustrates that scalping went up which was why the auction idea died so quickly.
In the end nothing stopped scalpers and I have ask why we're sidetracked onto scalping when the bulk of the price for an event ticket these days, other than what the artist charges are ticket "administration" fees that are more than I pay the scalper once I deduct the ticket fee extortion.
There is a levy on blank DVDs as there are on blank CDs.
Commercial releases don't have the levy, true, but that doesn't make up for the fact that it appears that out of about 32 million people in this country 31.99999999 million of us are criminals, thieves and pirates.
Law, both criminal and civil, in a free society exists at the pleasure of and to the tolerance of that society. That is one of the pillars of a free society and has been central in the development of law courts independent of government.
We see this in action in the American DCMA in the, hopefully stillborn , Bill C-32 before the Canadian House of Commons right now, in revisions to Criminal Codes, court rulings (precedence) and so on.
None of this means that once a law or legal concept has passed its time that it is guaranteed to continue into perpetuity. Well, the Hollywood lobbies and their allies in other countries might like that to be the case but that doesn't justify it.
None of this means that current copyright (or patent) laws need to remain as they are and protect who they protect in future. It's only marginally arguable that creators are protected as the laws and interpretations of the laws exits while it's far from arguable that the recording, publishing and other businesses feeding off the creators do.
And that's the crux of the argument.
And no, we can't and won't live without law because we need some way or organizing society and ways to protect ourselves from some of the violent impulses of others (though you'd be hard pressed to convince a large number of Canadians that our sentencing and parole practices come close to doing that) known as criminal law and to organize trade known as civil law.
None of that is immutable. And as, elsewhere, you've added religious beliefs into the mix here what do you think was the major argument between Jesus and the Pharisees as they agreed on many other things? Jesus's major disagreement with them, and it was huge, was they they honoured the letter of the Law without honouring it's spirit or intent.
I suspect that's a major issue here.
Not that the AC you're responding to isn't several kinds of idiot but I get more and more convinced of that as this debate goes forward. Some regard copyright (and patents) as something that has always been there and must, in it's current form, always be there.
Others want to trash it entirely.
Some of us would rather see it reformed to take into account the current state of technology and take into account creators limited rights and societies overarching rights. And allow the current crop of "middle men" to either live or die as they will. I view myself as in that category, by the way.
Seems to me that we're all to busy yelling at each other to actually take the time to listen to those few voices of calm that do exist in all three groups.
Plots and stories are two different things. Please don't confuse them.
And I do believe it's a skill with value. Huge societal value otherwise before publishing we humans wouldn't have gathered around those who could develop, tell and enhance the stories as they moved from village to village, city to city telling them or playing the music. All without Polygram or Random House!
I've done more than try it, I've done it and continue to. Nothing officially published because in the areas I do it in I consider it morally abhorrent to add a copyright to most of them and should I it's a version of Creative Commons.
Yeah, it's hard. Then anything worth it is, right? You get out what you put in, right?
BTW, I think the number 55 for complete stores is a little low but I'll accept your figure.
I wasn't commenting, one way or another, on law rather what we humans do in reality.
If I don't like the music I'm not likely to buy a "license" am I? Ergo I'm buying the music with, under law, the secondary baggage of a license to actually listen to it. Or maybe not depending on the mood Mojo Bone is in or MCA, Warner, Polygram, Sony and so on are in.
Being human should I find the license unreasonably cumbersome I'll do what I damned well please with it. Burn a copy for my car, remix with other music I like for my mp3 player (yes, I know the sonic equivalent of compressed trash), play it at some event for my church in honour of someone and so on. In this last case despite it being off-license, let us say, it may actually sell one or two more CDs. It often does.
"for personal use, which includes, I kid you not, sharing, in some limited ways, with your friends." Not at all familiar with Canadian copyright law are you? And the fact that in the case stated above it's a public performance of the music which, last time I looked, required a payment to someone like CAPAC, ASCAP or BMI which I've failed to do.
"No person or entity has such a perpetual monopoly; what the law grants to the author is a limited monopoly."
One that under current law can extend to 170 years or so and counting; nowhere but up. You also ignore the minor fact that unless you're a well known, top selling novelist or musician you end up signing your copyright away to the publisher, rights collection 'collectives' and so on and, depending on their mood, may never see much more dime of it.
In some cases the creator can end up actually owing one or more of these generous agencies money!
The point I'm making is that the argument about copyright as it stands is less about what the person who creates it gets than about the uncomfortable fact that most of it goes to anyone BUT the creator.
"What the law specifically excludes, is setting up a server with tens of thousands of music files, and giving them away while charging $ for advertisers on your site."
Outside of the fact that file sharing sites rarely, if ever, store the music on their servers what they do is store torrent files of a few hundred KB length. Nor do the sites themselves give the songs away. Or torrent files, for example, for hundreds or thousands of other perfectly legitimate and unarguably legal uses.
Should the advertising money earned be the problem then that's another problem with another solution rather than the "where I need a fly swatter I'll rather use the equivalent of the USS Kentucky's entire nuclear arsenal".
You still haven't refuted the central point that all humans are creative by nature so why a select group should be granted monopoly protection over creations that borrow, lift, plagiarize and outright steal from other's creations including all that came before them in their field.
We all create but it's arguable that any of us create anything that is totally, completely unique and original. What we do create is a riff on something(s) that came before and express it differently. This applies to all human activities.
What you wish to protect is a system, as it's currently functioning, that protects only the "middle man" in a technological culture that is rapidly losing it's need for the middle man. And it's desire to reward that middle man for the creations of someone else up to about 170 years (assuming one could write "A Day In The Life" seconds after birth) or longer with a monopoly. The reference to the length increasing is because that is the aim of the "middle man" if not the creator themselves.
What you wish to protect is a collection of industries that have grown up around and feed off the creations of others, there's no other way of describing the recording industry and increasingly publishing industry, while returning to the vast majority of them a pittance if anything. In short the "middle man".
These industries have nothing at all to do with the impulse to create, in fact, they often appear to block it, though defenders such as yourself will insist that they have everything to do with the impulse to create.
If remittance directly to the creator is a problem then that's what we need to address for the good of the creator not the good of a long list of "middle men" between the creator and those who enjoy the creations who are no longer technologically required and who no longer have the confidence of those wishing to enjoy said creations to do so fairly for both the creators and themselves, not to mention the broader culture.
As for resale there have been moves by these self same "middle men" to find a way to collect on that too both in ACTA and in the current proposed revisions to Canadian copyright.
The supporters of this bill don't seem to realize that copyright is supposed to be about "promoting the progress," not about "protecting an industry."
Or in this case incumbants in the industry not even the industry as a whole.
Of course if these designers would come up with something that real humans with real bodies could wear. Oh darn, there I go again wishing for something that will never happen. :-)
What photos I can find seem to point at Boeing 737 as the aircraft and it certainly uses fail safe, duplicate process, hardened unix as the OS for on board systems.
It seems the ground computer was, at least, partially at fault for the incident and there's more than just malware to explain it. As for the OS on the ground, it could be anything from Win95 to the flavours of Linux used by such people as the NASA, NATO, various militaries including the US and Canada.
It's possible, very remotely possible that a trojan or other form of malware could get into one of many onboard computers in a modern commercial aircraft. It certainly would take more than a USB key!
As for the ground computer there isn't enough information in the article that Pangolin linked as to the OS what security measures were in place and who had access and so on to tell.
From what I can see and infer from the article I'd guess the OS was Windows, not Vista I hope, or a well known variety of Linux. Both can fairly easily armoured against such attacks or installations. The fact that there was a 24 hour or more lag from the time a failure was logged on that machine till it was analyzed concerns me as well as it indicates lax procedures.
That said, I can see how Pangolin comes to the conclusions he does and would add another one:
(a) Almost criminally lax processes and procedures in analysis of the logs.
"they even drive cars by your home and take pictures."
Well, I can see in Europe why this might bother people because it stops the security cameras blanketing large cities like London, Paris and Berlin from taking pictures of all the comings and goings from a residence in the off chance of of them may be "the terrorists" or may harm "the children".
Heck. One of them might escape the long arm of the law, you know!
What I'm saying is that before you worry about Google and why and what it's doing what it is I'd be more concerned about governments. At least data Google collects isn't frequently found on laptops in accessible condition in the McDonald's nearest the Pentagon, or the Tim's outside the DND HQ in Ottawa or patient records that end up in the dumpster a couple of blocks from a hospital. (Not real incidents but near enough.)
I'd say, off hand, that Google does a much better job protecting data than big brother.
Inventive and creative activity in humans has existed since we have which means long before copyright and patents existed.
The Bible's content was written before copyright existed, so was the Quran, so were the holy books of the Hindu's. Chaucer wrote before anyone had heard of copyright as did Homer.
Archemedies developed a lot of the things that were later used in the Industrial Revolution to create the machines we take for granted today, each and every one of them before copyright or patents. (Most of those containing devices and technologies Archemedies developed and subsequently patented.) Not a one of them patented.
We have all benefited from another's creativity and do so every single day of our lives.
Software wasn't patentable until the 1990s and most people in the business would argue then and would still argue now that the evidence is in that it has slowed the innovation and creativity that marked the development of software up to that point. Naturally corporate lawyers and CEOs publicly disagree with the conclusion though many privately agree.
Software was and still is copyrighted even using the GPL.
At some point, though, patents and copyright deny economies and cultures of their due having supported the creator by granting a limited monopoly in the first place and get sick and tired of it being renewed and extended long beyond its usefulness or need. And it's society that grants both and can take both away. Please remember that.
Globally copyright needs a good long look at, in fact.
That said, I'm sure, in spite of effusiveness that no one foresaw a time when copyright would extent to the ridiculous limits that it has now while the 1998 enactment certainly saw that and must have seen the possible divisions that would be created. All the signs and technical ability to foresee the ease of distribution that we now have. For example, Bittorrent existed then as much of a pain as it was then.
All that said, there needs to be a realistic look at what the concept of copyright is supposed to entail. Does it entail the protection of multinationals with incomes that exceed the GNP of small nations and probably some states in the US or does it entail the protection of creators in the sense of making sure they actually get paid. (For example looking at provisions that protect creators from pressure/ requirement to hand over their copyrights to media companies so that they may actually have real control over their works.)
Remember too, that the top of the slippery slope began when Disney (see multinationals above) panicked when the copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire and their Representative Sonny Bono introduced legislation to extend copyright in order to preserve Disney's trade mark on Mickey beginning the lengthening of copyright monopolies to near permanency.
With respect, I'll disagree with your removal of supply and demand from copyrighted works as you can copyright all you want but if there's no demand you're not making a dime which is where this post started off in the confusion of copyright as a monopoly and copyright as an absolute assurance of an income. I suspect you've strayed to the latter rather than the former.
Given as you say, the massive change in ease of distribution of works now for me the central question of copyright is do we protect the publishers, industry associations, recording companies, newspapers and others that technology and society seem to be demanding be allowed to fail so that other distribution channels can take their place in the largely, to my mind, misguided notion that we're protecting authors, song writers, performers and others who do the actual creating. That's the first question to my way of thinking.
The second has to be the length of time copyright exists which now seems in danger of stretching into infinity in order to protect the industries mentioned above while they do little for the "artist"/"creator" their PR has invented.
Even if the Disney's of the world vanish and copyright reduced to a decade something will rise up to take their place. Disney may have to become a theme park operator but that's really what they do best now.
We're already seeing a shift in the 4th Estate from hot lead and newsprint to Internet based journals even if how that's going to be supported is uncertain. The market is there as we humans crave news/gossip so it's certain that even if dailies and weeklies fail something will take their place.
Part of the reality is that consumers of copyrighted items tend to see those industries as the bad guys and most are sophisticated enough to separate the what the potentially dying industries call the "artist" or "creator" from the reality of who the artist and creator really is. And have realized that the real artist and creator is as abused and exploited as the consumer has been.
So we're back to the basic question of what purpose does copyright (and patents) serve. To give the creator some small time of monopoly to earn back their input and maybe a little more from what they've done or to continue supporting industries that technology, like it or not, has made obsolete.
One of these situations of "they're dead but they won't lie down".
Of course this means uncertainty for those who create while industries wither and die and others take their place but where is it written that creators are to be isolated from what the rest of us experience daily?
If you're suggesting protection of the movie studios, record companies and other media properties that refuse to adapt and run to politicians for protection while nothing else changes, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It denies reality and they need to be reminded that De Nile is a river in Africa not useful state of mind.
If, on the other hand, you're proposing a close look at copyright and what it's stated goal has been regardless of the future of the current media giants then I'm with you. At least at the start cause we'll have items to disagree on as we go.
Right now the option, particularly with ACTA slowly coming at us seems to be almost open war between the media giants and consumers with the creators stuck in the middle.
The same bunch that promised to repeal the GST when Chretien became PM?
From the NDP? Oh, I forgot, they have about as much chance of getting elected to government federally as a polar bear. Less maybe. Outside of back door "coalition" deals, of course.
When they get in provincially they tack right so hard and fast they can't see the letters CCF anymore because they lost it in the curvature of the earth.
Just in case, you want to have a look Canadian patent and copyright laws are often more intrusive than those of our American neighbours.
Reality check time. The difference, other than attitude and platitude between the Tories and Grits in power is, well, nada. Though the CBC adores Jack Layton for some strange reason.
Reality check #2. If American IP law is "mental" then our IP laws require we get locked in the rubber room forthwith.
Sorry, AC, but hammers and songs/books/poetry exist in the same world. They all need to be created or improved in the real human world.
And, no, the ratio of fixed to marginal cost of music, books, music, poetry, Mickey Mouse and so on is not close to or anywhere near infinity. Nowhere near it.
"Moreover, it's pretty easy to assess the utility of a hammer, and make a guess of its value."
I'd hazard a guess you don't use hammers much or you'd know what a crock you just spewed. (Or tools of many kinds, judging by your lack of understanding.)
What kind of hammer? Or do you see hammers as some general purpose dollar store hammer that'll break in a few uses? Hammers and mallets appear to do the same thing but they really don't and are used for vastly different things. Hammers used to bang a nail into wood are different that what one would use on metal to shape or modify the object are different (hint, the heads are different).
Actually for a really good hammer I'd pay (and have) more than $10 cause I need a tool that lasts and that I can use without damaging what I'm working on or me.
"But what if I offered you the same hammer for $1, as long as you'd promise to never loan it out? Would you still loan it out?"
I wouldn't touch the thing because it's likely a piece of crap. I might suggest a sunless place you might want to store it in, though.
"Each song, book, or movie is a new invention, and you can't just look at it and assess how good it is"
They are? Each of the examples you give build on everything that came before not appear to the 'creator' out of thin air, totally original in every respect and 'new'.
Hard to make your argument by the time one gets to Rocky 33 or Star Wars 109, isn't it?
And I take it that you're aware that there are a limited number of plots available to novelists and short story writers. If memory serves it's about 7.
I don't think I've ever encountered a piece of music that is totally and completely original, including solos and jams. The writer and musician carry around bits and pieces of different songs, breaks, solos and so on that stick in their minds and honest ones, at least, admit that these things make their way into compositions and concerts.
"If a song cost $10,000 to make"
Please provide me with detailed accounting if you don't mind. Use fully auditable double entry accounting that would be acceptable to auditors in any business but motion pictures and recording where the accounting processes are, let me see, 'creative'.
Oh, and by the bye, if you wanted to charge ten grand for a song you wouldn't sell any would you? At any time in human history. Copyright or no copyright.
The minor little detail you miss in your rant is that humans buy songs not licenses. We buy albums not licenses.
The analog to the "real" world as opposed to fantasy creative world you live in is that every time a craftsman/woman/person picks up a tool they create. Every time someone changes how a garden is planted or rearrange it they create.
I use my hammer(s) to create something that wasn't there before. I use my tools to create something that didn't exist before in the physical world.
Often out of my head, quite often because I'm not aware of a set of plans for a given situation or, at least, plans I wouldn't have to modify to such an extent that they barely resemble the plans I started with.
But I'm not fool enough to even begin to think that with all my skills and knowledge of what to do with my tools that I ever, ever create something unique in human history or that I'm not building on the skills and talents of others who came before me or that I've encountered.
At the end of the day I sell or donate my creations to someone who can do with them what they will. I don't license the damned things. I wouldn't make much of a living if I did. I'm as good as my last creation in the physical world and if I'm not then I won't be doing that kind of work much longer.
Neither I or my family unto the 500th generation will live off the proceeds of that.
I wouldn't have it any other way. It keeps me sharp and improving my skills and talents because I know there's not much of a tomorrow if I don't.
By the way, my tools include my guitar(s), piano, keyboards and my voice and I do pretty good with them. So much so that I'm constantly pressured to join choirs and other such things but for now I'm happy just using them for relaxation and re-creation (not misspelled, btw). Note that I'm saying their tools because, in reality, they are. Tools which make sounds that when joined together create this thing we humans called music.
And my music library is in excess of 1000 LPs, 78's, CDs and mp3s (total aural junk as mp3 format is) so I have bought music. And, I'VE NEVER BOUGHT A DAMNED LICENSE I'VE BOUGHT MUSIC.
Yes, the artist deserves to be paid, I'm not saying anything different nor is anyone here.
BUT, as with the "tools" you look down your long regal nose at, there are fixed costs to creating music. The instruments don't have to be bought each time a song is created, the recording studio hasn't run out and bought new consoles and other equipment to record it, new CD manufacturing plants haven't been built to burn it, the distribution channels haven't changed nor the promotional channels. These are fixed costs not variable costs of input.
The only variable cost I see is where the "artist" has to sit down and put a song together (or a symphony, screenplay, poem, novel or what have we) and write it down or chart it. Perhaps (almost always, in fact) a bit of rehearsal with other musicians to get the sound right.
That sounds suspiciously like the variable costs I incur when I'm looking at a blank piece of lawn and create a garden from that with my tools.
Almost all humans are creative and are creating all the time. So what gives "Creators" of songs (and so on) the right to a perpetual monopoly of income on their (mostly) empirical creations whereas what I create, if I've done it right lasts years if not generations yet I pass it on by sale or donation once and it's no longer in my control.
I daresay that the home, garden or whatever will be seen and remembered long after your song is long forgotten and collecting dust somewhere or has been lost even if the copyright is still in effect.
We both created. We both got renumeration in one form or another. Done, over with. Move on to something new.
I'll freely acknowledge those who shared their knowledge or inspired me to create what I did.
Brown (and you, it seems) won't. At that point you and Brown have crossed the line (actually 18 lane freeway at rush hour) into blatant plagiarism demanding for yourself what you refuse to acknowledge those whose work you borrowed or inspired you.
As for copyright I have no real problem with the concept as long as it's temporary (say 7 years, to pull something out of my hat) before it moves into the public domain.
(In this post for creator read recording, movie studio or publishers who demand a creator's copyright be assigned to them and whose only creative burst after is to find ways of not paying the author, songwriter, band and so on and invent terms like piracy out of thin air.)
I can point to my creations and say "I did that". Can you?
On the post: Insider's View: How Grandstanding State Attorneys General Make Life Miserable For Law Abiding Tech Companies
Not much, I think
On the post: Bob Dylan Gets Around Service Fees & Scalpers With A Simple Plan: Pay Cash At The Door
Re: Re: Festival seating
In the end nothing stopped scalpers and I have ask why we're sidetracked onto scalping when the bulk of the price for an event ticket these days, other than what the artist charges are ticket "administration" fees that are more than I pay the scalper once I deduct the ticket fee extortion.
On the post: Sense Of Entitlement? TV Show Creator Wants A Cut Of Hulu IPO Proceeds
Re: Re:
On the post: Sense Of Entitlement? TV Show Creator Wants A Cut Of Hulu IPO Proceeds
Re: Re: Umm,
Commercial releases don't have the levy, true, but that doesn't make up for the fact that it appears that out of about 32 million people in this country 31.99999999 million of us are criminals, thieves and pirates.
On the post: Warner Bros. Upset About Harry Popper Condoms
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now I know what condom I find that in. LOL
Didn't know that existed but I still can't see how anyone could confuse a package of condoms with a Harry Potter book or movie. :)
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Oh, please
We see this in action in the American DCMA in the, hopefully stillborn , Bill C-32 before the Canadian House of Commons right now, in revisions to Criminal Codes, court rulings (precedence) and so on.
None of this means that once a law or legal concept has passed its time that it is guaranteed to continue into perpetuity. Well, the Hollywood lobbies and their allies in other countries might like that to be the case but that doesn't justify it.
None of this means that current copyright (or patent) laws need to remain as they are and protect who they protect in future. It's only marginally arguable that creators are protected as the laws and interpretations of the laws exits while it's far from arguable that the recording, publishing and other businesses feeding off the creators do.
And that's the crux of the argument.
And no, we can't and won't live without law because we need some way or organizing society and ways to protect ourselves from some of the violent impulses of others (though you'd be hard pressed to convince a large number of Canadians that our sentencing and parole practices come close to doing that) known as criminal law and to organize trade known as civil law.
None of that is immutable. And as, elsewhere, you've added religious beliefs into the mix here what do you think was the major argument between Jesus and the Pharisees as they agreed on many other things? Jesus's major disagreement with them, and it was huge, was they they honoured the letter of the Law without honouring it's spirit or intent.
I suspect that's a major issue here.
Not that the AC you're responding to isn't several kinds of idiot but I get more and more convinced of that as this debate goes forward. Some regard copyright (and patents) as something that has always been there and must, in it's current form, always be there.
Others want to trash it entirely.
Some of us would rather see it reformed to take into account the current state of technology and take into account creators limited rights and societies overarching rights. And allow the current crop of "middle men" to either live or die as they will. I view myself as in that category, by the way.
Seems to me that we're all to busy yelling at each other to actually take the time to listen to those few voices of calm that do exist in all three groups.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Plots
And I do believe it's a skill with value. Huge societal value otherwise before publishing we humans wouldn't have gathered around those who could develop, tell and enhance the stories as they moved from village to village, city to city telling them or playing the music. All without Polygram or Random House!
I've done more than try it, I've done it and continue to. Nothing officially published because in the areas I do it in I consider it morally abhorrent to add a copyright to most of them and should I it's a version of Creative Commons.
Yeah, it's hard. Then anything worth it is, right? You get out what you put in, right?
BTW, I think the number 55 for complete stores is a little low but I'll accept your figure.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: minimal
We humans buy music, not licenses.
I wasn't commenting, one way or another, on law rather what we humans do in reality.
If I don't like the music I'm not likely to buy a "license" am I? Ergo I'm buying the music with, under law, the secondary baggage of a license to actually listen to it. Or maybe not depending on the mood Mojo Bone is in or MCA, Warner, Polygram, Sony and so on are in.
Being human should I find the license unreasonably cumbersome I'll do what I damned well please with it. Burn a copy for my car, remix with other music I like for my mp3 player (yes, I know the sonic equivalent of compressed trash), play it at some event for my church in honour of someone and so on. In this last case despite it being off-license, let us say, it may actually sell one or two more CDs. It often does.
"for personal use, which includes, I kid you not, sharing, in some limited ways, with your friends." Not at all familiar with Canadian copyright law are you? And the fact that in the case stated above it's a public performance of the music which, last time I looked, required a payment to someone like CAPAC, ASCAP or BMI which I've failed to do.
"No person or entity has such a perpetual monopoly; what the law grants to the author is a limited monopoly."
One that under current law can extend to 170 years or so and counting; nowhere but up. You also ignore the minor fact that unless you're a well known, top selling novelist or musician you end up signing your copyright away to the publisher, rights collection 'collectives' and so on and, depending on their mood, may never see much more dime of it.
In some cases the creator can end up actually owing one or more of these generous agencies money!
The point I'm making is that the argument about copyright as it stands is less about what the person who creates it gets than about the uncomfortable fact that most of it goes to anyone BUT the creator.
"What the law specifically excludes, is setting up a server with tens of thousands of music files, and giving them away while charging $ for advertisers on your site."
Outside of the fact that file sharing sites rarely, if ever, store the music on their servers what they do is store torrent files of a few hundred KB length. Nor do the sites themselves give the songs away. Or torrent files, for example, for hundreds or thousands of other perfectly legitimate and unarguably legal uses.
Should the advertising money earned be the problem then that's another problem with another solution rather than the "where I need a fly swatter I'll rather use the equivalent of the USS Kentucky's entire nuclear arsenal".
You still haven't refuted the central point that all humans are creative by nature so why a select group should be granted monopoly protection over creations that borrow, lift, plagiarize and outright steal from other's creations including all that came before them in their field.
We all create but it's arguable that any of us create anything that is totally, completely unique and original. What we do create is a riff on something(s) that came before and express it differently. This applies to all human activities.
What you wish to protect is a system, as it's currently functioning, that protects only the "middle man" in a technological culture that is rapidly losing it's need for the middle man. And it's desire to reward that middle man for the creations of someone else up to about 170 years (assuming one could write "A Day In The Life" seconds after birth) or longer with a monopoly. The reference to the length increasing is because that is the aim of the "middle man" if not the creator themselves.
What you wish to protect is a collection of industries that have grown up around and feed off the creations of others, there's no other way of describing the recording industry and increasingly publishing industry, while returning to the vast majority of them a pittance if anything. In short the "middle man".
These industries have nothing at all to do with the impulse to create, in fact, they often appear to block it, though defenders such as yourself will insist that they have everything to do with the impulse to create.
If remittance directly to the creator is a problem then that's what we need to address for the good of the creator not the good of a long list of "middle men" between the creator and those who enjoy the creations who are no longer technologically required and who no longer have the confidence of those wishing to enjoy said creations to do so fairly for both the creators and themselves, not to mention the broader culture.
As for resale there have been moves by these self same "middle men" to find a way to collect on that too both in ACTA and in the current proposed revisions to Canadian copyright.
On the post: Warner Bros. Upset About Harry Popper Condoms
Re: Re:
On the post: Newsweek Explains Why Fashion Designers Don't Need Copyright
Or in this case incumbants in the industry not even the industry as a whole.
Of course if these designers would come up with something that real humans with real bodies could wear. Oh darn, there I go again wishing for something that will never happen. :-)
On the post: Warner Bros. Upset About Harry Popper Condoms
Warner Bros is spending money wisely here? No.
On the post: Is Malware To Blame For Plane Crash That Killed 154?
Re: Idjits
It seems the ground computer was, at least, partially at fault for the incident and there's more than just malware to explain it. As for the OS on the ground, it could be anything from Win95 to the flavours of Linux used by such people as the NASA, NATO, various militaries including the US and Canada.
On the post: Is Malware To Blame For Plane Crash That Killed 154?
As for the ground computer there isn't enough information in the article that Pangolin linked as to the OS what security measures were in place and who had access and so on to tell.
From what I can see and infer from the article I'd guess the OS was Windows, not Vista I hope, or a well known variety of Linux. Both can fairly easily armoured against such attacks or installations. The fact that there was a 24 hour or more lag from the time a failure was logged on that machine till it was analyzed concerns me as well as it indicates lax procedures.
That said, I can see how Pangolin comes to the conclusions he does and would add another one:
(a) Almost criminally lax processes and procedures in analysis of the logs.
On the post: German Photographer Plans To Add Back In Buildings That Opt-Out Of Google Street View
Re: Not digging the pro-google stance either
Well, I can see in Europe why this might bother people because it stops the security cameras blanketing large cities like London, Paris and Berlin from taking pictures of all the comings and goings from a residence in the off chance of of them may be "the terrorists" or may harm "the children".
Heck. One of them might escape the long arm of the law, you know!
What I'm saying is that before you worry about Google and why and what it's doing what it is I'd be more concerned about governments. At least data Google collects isn't frequently found on laptops in accessible condition in the McDonald's nearest the Pentagon, or the Tim's outside the DND HQ in Ottawa or patient records that end up in the dumpster a couple of blocks from a hospital. (Not real incidents but near enough.)
I'd say, off hand, that Google does a much better job protecting data than big brother.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Copyright.
The Bible's content was written before copyright existed, so was the Quran, so were the holy books of the Hindu's. Chaucer wrote before anyone had heard of copyright as did Homer.
Archemedies developed a lot of the things that were later used in the Industrial Revolution to create the machines we take for granted today, each and every one of them before copyright or patents. (Most of those containing devices and technologies Archemedies developed and subsequently patented.) Not a one of them patented.
We have all benefited from another's creativity and do so every single day of our lives.
Software wasn't patentable until the 1990s and most people in the business would argue then and would still argue now that the evidence is in that it has slowed the innovation and creativity that marked the development of software up to that point. Naturally corporate lawyers and CEOs publicly disagree with the conclusion though many privately agree.
Software was and still is copyrighted even using the GPL.
At some point, though, patents and copyright deny economies and cultures of their due having supported the creator by granting a limited monopoly in the first place and get sick and tired of it being renewed and extended long beyond its usefulness or need. And it's society that grants both and can take both away. Please remember that.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re:
That said, I'm sure, in spite of effusiveness that no one foresaw a time when copyright would extent to the ridiculous limits that it has now while the 1998 enactment certainly saw that and must have seen the possible divisions that would be created. All the signs and technical ability to foresee the ease of distribution that we now have. For example, Bittorrent existed then as much of a pain as it was then.
All that said, there needs to be a realistic look at what the concept of copyright is supposed to entail. Does it entail the protection of multinationals with incomes that exceed the GNP of small nations and probably some states in the US or does it entail the protection of creators in the sense of making sure they actually get paid. (For example looking at provisions that protect creators from pressure/ requirement to hand over their copyrights to media companies so that they may actually have real control over their works.)
Remember too, that the top of the slippery slope began when Disney (see multinationals above) panicked when the copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire and their Representative Sonny Bono introduced legislation to extend copyright in order to preserve Disney's trade mark on Mickey beginning the lengthening of copyright monopolies to near permanency.
With respect, I'll disagree with your removal of supply and demand from copyrighted works as you can copyright all you want but if there's no demand you're not making a dime which is where this post started off in the confusion of copyright as a monopoly and copyright as an absolute assurance of an income. I suspect you've strayed to the latter rather than the former.
Given as you say, the massive change in ease of distribution of works now for me the central question of copyright is do we protect the publishers, industry associations, recording companies, newspapers and others that technology and society seem to be demanding be allowed to fail so that other distribution channels can take their place in the largely, to my mind, misguided notion that we're protecting authors, song writers, performers and others who do the actual creating. That's the first question to my way of thinking.
The second has to be the length of time copyright exists which now seems in danger of stretching into infinity in order to protect the industries mentioned above while they do little for the "artist"/"creator" their PR has invented.
Even if the Disney's of the world vanish and copyright reduced to a decade something will rise up to take their place. Disney may have to become a theme park operator but that's really what they do best now.
We're already seeing a shift in the 4th Estate from hot lead and newsprint to Internet based journals even if how that's going to be supported is uncertain. The market is there as we humans crave news/gossip so it's certain that even if dailies and weeklies fail something will take their place.
Part of the reality is that consumers of copyrighted items tend to see those industries as the bad guys and most are sophisticated enough to separate the what the potentially dying industries call the "artist" or "creator" from the reality of who the artist and creator really is. And have realized that the real artist and creator is as abused and exploited as the consumer has been.
So we're back to the basic question of what purpose does copyright (and patents) serve. To give the creator some small time of monopoly to earn back their input and maybe a little more from what they've done or to continue supporting industries that technology, like it or not, has made obsolete.
One of these situations of "they're dead but they won't lie down".
Of course this means uncertainty for those who create while industries wither and die and others take their place but where is it written that creators are to be isolated from what the rest of us experience daily?
If you're suggesting protection of the movie studios, record companies and other media properties that refuse to adapt and run to politicians for protection while nothing else changes, I'm sorry but I have to disagree. It denies reality and they need to be reminded that De Nile is a river in Africa not useful state of mind.
If, on the other hand, you're proposing a close look at copyright and what it's stated goal has been regardless of the future of the current media giants then I'm with you. At least at the start cause we'll have items to disagree on as we go.
Right now the option, particularly with ACTA slowly coming at us seems to be almost open war between the media giants and consumers with the creators stuck in the middle.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: proof the usa is mental about IP
The same bunch that promised to repeal the GST when Chretien became PM?
From the NDP? Oh, I forgot, they have about as much chance of getting elected to government federally as a polar bear. Less maybe. Outside of back door "coalition" deals, of course.
When they get in provincially they tack right so hard and fast they can't see the letters CCF anymore because they lost it in the curvature of the earth.
Just in case, you want to have a look Canadian patent and copyright laws are often more intrusive than those of our American neighbours.
Reality check time. The difference, other than attitude and platitude between the Tories and Grits in power is, well, nada. Though the CBC adores Jack Layton for some strange reason.
Reality check #2. If American IP law is "mental" then our IP laws require we get locked in the rubber room forthwith.
Sad but true. I'm afraid.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down
(As guilty as I am at times of making rude, occasionally incoherent comments though , I pray, never being close minded about it.)
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re:
And, no, the ratio of fixed to marginal cost of music, books, music, poetry, Mickey Mouse and so on is not close to or anywhere near infinity. Nowhere near it.
"Moreover, it's pretty easy to assess the utility of a hammer, and make a guess of its value."
I'd hazard a guess you don't use hammers much or you'd know what a crock you just spewed. (Or tools of many kinds, judging by your lack of understanding.)
What kind of hammer? Or do you see hammers as some general purpose dollar store hammer that'll break in a few uses? Hammers and mallets appear to do the same thing but they really don't and are used for vastly different things. Hammers used to bang a nail into wood are different that what one would use on metal to shape or modify the object are different (hint, the heads are different).
Actually for a really good hammer I'd pay (and have) more than $10 cause I need a tool that lasts and that I can use without damaging what I'm working on or me.
"But what if I offered you the same hammer for $1, as long as you'd promise to never loan it out? Would you still loan it out?"
I wouldn't touch the thing because it's likely a piece of crap. I might suggest a sunless place you might want to store it in, though.
"Each song, book, or movie is a new invention, and you can't just look at it and assess how good it is"
They are? Each of the examples you give build on everything that came before not appear to the 'creator' out of thin air, totally original in every respect and 'new'.
Hard to make your argument by the time one gets to Rocky 33 or Star Wars 109, isn't it?
And I take it that you're aware that there are a limited number of plots available to novelists and short story writers. If memory serves it's about 7.
I don't think I've ever encountered a piece of music that is totally and completely original, including solos and jams. The writer and musician carry around bits and pieces of different songs, breaks, solos and so on that stick in their minds and honest ones, at least, admit that these things make their way into compositions and concerts.
"If a song cost $10,000 to make"
Please provide me with detailed accounting if you don't mind. Use fully auditable double entry accounting that would be acceptable to auditors in any business but motion pictures and recording where the accounting processes are, let me see, 'creative'.
Oh, and by the bye, if you wanted to charge ten grand for a song you wouldn't sell any would you? At any time in human history. Copyright or no copyright.
The minor little detail you miss in your rant is that humans buy songs not licenses. We buy albums not licenses.
The analog to the "real" world as opposed to fantasy creative world you live in is that every time a craftsman/woman/person picks up a tool they create. Every time someone changes how a garden is planted or rearrange it they create.
I use my hammer(s) to create something that wasn't there before. I use my tools to create something that didn't exist before in the physical world.
Often out of my head, quite often because I'm not aware of a set of plans for a given situation or, at least, plans I wouldn't have to modify to such an extent that they barely resemble the plans I started with.
But I'm not fool enough to even begin to think that with all my skills and knowledge of what to do with my tools that I ever, ever create something unique in human history or that I'm not building on the skills and talents of others who came before me or that I've encountered.
At the end of the day I sell or donate my creations to someone who can do with them what they will. I don't license the damned things. I wouldn't make much of a living if I did. I'm as good as my last creation in the physical world and if I'm not then I won't be doing that kind of work much longer.
Neither I or my family unto the 500th generation will live off the proceeds of that.
I wouldn't have it any other way. It keeps me sharp and improving my skills and talents because I know there's not much of a tomorrow if I don't.
By the way, my tools include my guitar(s), piano, keyboards and my voice and I do pretty good with them. So much so that I'm constantly pressured to join choirs and other such things but for now I'm happy just using them for relaxation and re-creation (not misspelled, btw). Note that I'm saying their tools because, in reality, they are. Tools which make sounds that when joined together create this thing we humans called music.
And my music library is in excess of 1000 LPs, 78's, CDs and mp3s (total aural junk as mp3 format is) so I have bought music. And, I'VE NEVER BOUGHT A DAMNED LICENSE I'VE BOUGHT MUSIC.
Yes, the artist deserves to be paid, I'm not saying anything different nor is anyone here.
BUT, as with the "tools" you look down your long regal nose at, there are fixed costs to creating music. The instruments don't have to be bought each time a song is created, the recording studio hasn't run out and bought new consoles and other equipment to record it, new CD manufacturing plants haven't been built to burn it, the distribution channels haven't changed nor the promotional channels. These are fixed costs not variable costs of input.
The only variable cost I see is where the "artist" has to sit down and put a song together (or a symphony, screenplay, poem, novel or what have we) and write it down or chart it. Perhaps (almost always, in fact) a bit of rehearsal with other musicians to get the sound right.
That sounds suspiciously like the variable costs I incur when I'm looking at a blank piece of lawn and create a garden from that with my tools.
Almost all humans are creative and are creating all the time. So what gives "Creators" of songs (and so on) the right to a perpetual monopoly of income on their (mostly) empirical creations whereas what I create, if I've done it right lasts years if not generations yet I pass it on by sale or donation once and it's no longer in my control.
I daresay that the home, garden or whatever will be seen and remembered long after your song is long forgotten and collecting dust somewhere or has been lost even if the copyright is still in effect.
We both created. We both got renumeration in one form or another. Done, over with. Move on to something new.
I'll freely acknowledge those who shared their knowledge or inspired me to create what I did.
Brown (and you, it seems) won't. At that point you and Brown have crossed the line (actually 18 lane freeway at rush hour) into blatant plagiarism demanding for yourself what you refuse to acknowledge those whose work you borrowed or inspired you.
As for copyright I have no real problem with the concept as long as it's temporary (say 7 years, to pull something out of my hat) before it moves into the public domain.
(In this post for creator read recording, movie studio or publishers who demand a creator's copyright be assigned to them and whose only creative burst after is to find ways of not paying the author, songwriter, band and so on and invent terms like piracy out of thin air.)
I can point to my creations and say "I did that". Can you?
Jerk.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: lets see
Next >>