Whenever Joe demands that you state your position on copyright, we can just refer him to this...
"The key point that I kept raising over and over again is that fighting over the claims that infringement is somehow "bad" totally miss the point. It is happening. And if it is happening, bemoaning that it was undermining traditional business models (that had their own problems for culture, free speech and, importantly, for artists themselves) was a silly waste of time. Wouldn't we have been better served looking to understand what new things were being enabled, and how those might be used to encourage more creativity and innovation."
This pretty much defines everything that makes Techdirt valuable.
Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
NASA wastes its money doing science stuff like researching climate change.
Trump would rather funnel that money into a military he can directly boss around dictator style and make a big show of how the U.S. is better than everyone (even though one of the things that made us better than everyone was NASA)
I doubt budget cuts were a big concern in 1947 when the Air Force was officially created, and they had largely operated independently of the Army during WWII. It made sense to reorganize the post-war military. It makes no sense now.
By that argument, why limit the term of copyright at all? Why not just let the estate (or whatever company ultimately ends up owning the copyright) keep it for eternity? After all, that house you compared copyright to never reverts back to public ownership.
> If you finally have a bestseller but die soon after.
Copyright isn't there to make sure the artist can make as much money as possible or to support their family after their deaths. Copyright is merely supposed to give you an incentive to create.
An author might invest sweat equity in creating something, but their ownership of the right to make use of it is at the expense of the public and culture at large. That's why they don't have complete and total ownership of the creation, and that's why it's not a retirement plan, even though some people depend on it as such.
> Even on a bestseller, some of those royalties may not arrive until a decade or more later.
That's more of a problem with the publishing industry than a problem with copyright.
This analogy is terrible and doesn't take into account the purpose of copyright.
Copyright isn't a retirement plan. It's not a pension.
It's a pact the government makes with creators that that says we will temporarily let you control copies of your work so that you can try to earn a living from it (although it's not required that you earn anything) because society considers that valuable.
Copying is a natural act that all people do. Copyright is a government imposed restriction on that act for the benefit of culture (not the benefit of creators). It's an incentive for you to create, not an end-of-life financial plan.
You take that money you earn off copyright and put it into a retirement plan for your family, or build your house with it, but saying it should belong to your heirs the same way a house does is damaging to culture (read the above article) and denying it to the rest of the world.
Just because some people (the lucky few whose IP is actually valuable) see it as a gravy train that doesn't stop until long after they're dead doesn't mean that why copyright exists or should exist. And sadly all the non-valuable IP has been drug along with it, making a century's worth of culture inaccessible.
If you registered a pre-1978 copyright, it would likely be in the public domain by now. Automatic copyright changed all that by retroactively extending the life of copyright beyond what it was when you registered it.
If Cannes was about the streaming business, or cable business, or broadcast business - maybe. But it's about the cinema exhibition business. If a movie isn't going to exhibit in French cinemas, why should Cannes consider it? Just because people think it's good? Most of the people that think the latest Netflix film is the best thing ever hasn't probably seen half of the Palm d'Or winners of the last 20 years to even compare the quality.
The law wasn't created by Cannes. Cannes changed their own rules to comply with the law. They simply want the competition films to receive a theatrical release. Protectionist? Yes. But it's the law that's horrible, not Cannes.
No question the French law is to blame here, and Cannes should urge a changing of the law, but they're right to deny Netflix for not wanting to comply with the law.
Netflix says, "We want our films to be on fair ground with every other filmmaker”
They are on fair ground with every other filmmaker.
All the other filmmakers (some of whom don't have cushy Netflix distribution deals) have to comply with the French law. Netflix is the one that wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
But you could say the same thing about cable producers like HBO and Showtime and AMC and Hallmark. They are subscriber based just like Netflix, and should be competing with them in the home distribution market, not movie studios in the cinema distribution market, which is what Cannes is all about.
They're two different businesses, which is my whole argument. The fact that both make feature length movies doesn't mean they're the same. The audience might not see the difference because for them it's all funneled to the same viewing device and they don't see how it's all bought and paid for and how much money and effort went behind making audiences decide to watch this over that, but from a business perspective it's apples and oranges.
On the post: Ajit Pai Does Something Right, Will Reform Stupid Utility Pole Rules To Speed Up Fiber Deployment
On the post: Listen To Stephen Fry Perfectly Analogize The Moral Panics Around Facebook To The Ones Over The Printing Press
"The key point that I kept raising over and over again is that fighting over the claims that infringement is somehow "bad" totally miss the point. It is happening. And if it is happening, bemoaning that it was undermining traditional business models (that had their own problems for culture, free speech and, importantly, for artists themselves) was a silly waste of time. Wouldn't we have been better served looking to understand what new things were being enabled, and how those might be used to encourage more creativity and innovation."
This pretty much defines everything that makes Techdirt valuable.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Loses Latest Round In Extradition Fight, Will Try To Appeal Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What an extreme, Nazi point of view.
On the post: China Censors John Oliver Because President Xi Looks A Bit Like Winnie The Pooh
Re: Re:
On the post: House Dumps Trump's Immigration Bill, Deep-Sixing A Sizable Increase In Border Surveillance
On the post: Ajit Pai Rushes To Weaken Media Ownership Cap To Aid Sinclair... While Under Investigation For Being Too Cozy With Sinclair
On the post: President Trump Directs Pentagon To Create A 'Space Force' In What Is Surely Not Any Kind Of Distraction From Crying Children
Re: Astro Nuts
Trump would rather funnel that money into a military he can directly boss around dictator style and make a big show of how the U.S. is better than everyone (even though one of the things that made us better than everyone was NASA)
On the post: President Trump Directs Pentagon To Create A 'Space Force' In What Is Surely Not Any Kind Of Distraction From Crying Children
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Calls Out Cops For Altering Interrogation Transcript To Hide Suspect's Request For A Lawyer
Re:
The U.S. isn't corrupt, it's unjust.
On the post: Copyright Once Again Hiding Important Cultural Artifacts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eternal Copyright
On the post: Copyright Once Again Hiding Important Cultural Artifacts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eternal Copyright
Copyright isn't there to make sure the artist can make as much money as possible or to support their family after their deaths. Copyright is merely supposed to give you an incentive to create.
An author might invest sweat equity in creating something, but their ownership of the right to make use of it is at the expense of the public and culture at large. That's why they don't have complete and total ownership of the creation, and that's why it's not a retirement plan, even though some people depend on it as such.
> Even on a bestseller, some of those royalties may not arrive until a decade or more later.
That's more of a problem with the publishing industry than a problem with copyright.
On the post: Copyright Once Again Hiding Important Cultural Artifacts
Re: Re: Eternal Copyright
Copyright isn't a retirement plan. It's not a pension.
It's a pact the government makes with creators that that says we will temporarily let you control copies of your work so that you can try to earn a living from it (although it's not required that you earn anything) because society considers that valuable.
Copying is a natural act that all people do. Copyright is a government imposed restriction on that act for the benefit of culture (not the benefit of creators). It's an incentive for you to create, not an end-of-life financial plan.
You take that money you earn off copyright and put it into a retirement plan for your family, or build your house with it, but saying it should belong to your heirs the same way a house does is damaging to culture (read the above article) and denying it to the rest of the world.
Just because some people (the lucky few whose IP is actually valuable) see it as a gravy train that doesn't stop until long after they're dead doesn't mean that why copyright exists or should exist. And sadly all the non-valuable IP has been drug along with it, making a century's worth of culture inaccessible.
On the post: Copyright Once Again Hiding Important Cultural Artifacts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eternal Copyright
On the post: Netflix Bows Out Of Cannes After Festival Tells Streaming Services To Get Off Its Lawn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix Bows Out Of Cannes After Festival Tells Streaming Services To Get Off Its Lawn
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix Bows Out Of Cannes After Festival Tells Streaming Services To Get Off Its Lawn
Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix Bows Out Of Cannes After Festival Tells Streaming Services To Get Off Its Lawn
Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix Bows Out Of Cannes After Festival Tells Streaming Services To Get Off Its Lawn
Netflix says, "We want our films to be on fair ground with every other filmmaker”
They are on fair ground with every other filmmaker.
All the other filmmakers (some of whom don't have cushy Netflix distribution deals) have to comply with the French law. Netflix is the one that wants to have its cake and eat it too.
On the post: Cannes Bans Netflix Films From Competition Because The Internet Is Bad (Or Something)
Re: TV and Film what's the diff
On the post: Cannes Bans Netflix Films From Competition Because The Internet Is Bad (Or Something)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
They're two different businesses, which is my whole argument. The fact that both make feature length movies doesn't mean they're the same. The audience might not see the difference because for them it's all funneled to the same viewing device and they don't see how it's all bought and paid for and how much money and effort went behind making audiences decide to watch this over that, but from a business perspective it's apples and oranges.
Next >>