What they mean by "pirated" is "not government approved" teaching materials. Can't teach those kids anything that might lead them to question those in power. Being able to hide behind the laws those pesky western countries want is just bonus points.
While I doubt anyone reading is naive enough to believe that the justice system is about find out the truth - isn't that what it supposed to be about?
Previous comments say there is a large amount of inaccurate, out-of-context and biased information on the net. I don't dispute that. But in the courts, there is just as much inaccurate, out-of-context and biased information entered in as evidence or given as testimony. I would put forth the idea that it is easier to determine the actual correct information from the net than it is to determine from what a juror is given in court. How a juror determines what evidence is valid in court has always been a factor when given conflicting evidence.
Why are juries told to only consider evidence as presented in court? Because it is assumed that what is presented in court is more reliable than other sources. That may have been true hundreds of years ago (thousands for much of it) when the structure of the courts was formed - but it isn't any longer.
It is time for the justice system to evolve and be disrupted by emerging technology.
Mike, please don't say that these cyber bullying laws do nothing. You're giving the politicians too much credit.
Please say that they make the problem worse because they don't stop bullying, but instead have unintended consequences. Depending on how they're written they could:
- stop anonymous speech (and make it harder for those being bullied to speak out against the bully without fear of repercussion)
- hurt freedom of speech/expression in other ways, such as political protest or consumer rights
- open innocent people up to ridiculous lawsuits because they called someone a name online
- further dilute the rule of law by making everyone criminals when they do perfectly reasonable things
I'm no expert in audio editing, but is not having the original tracks such a huge issue? If it was a popular song, it should be easy enough to get copies from somewhere - even if the only legal way is to search the used market and find a CD/tape of them. Manually run the scene through a reverse waveform of them and tweak as needed.
Obviously, none of the above should even be necessary, but find some way around the overreaching rightsholders and show them how powerless they are.
I think the reason that some of the commenters complain is that they are still stuck in the Broadcast mentality of the pre-Internet. Despite the fact they can comment on articles and that you (Mike) respond frequently, and that there are genuine discussions about a range of topics, some still expect to be able to file Techdirt into a particular category. They tune in to ESPN expecting sports, but instead get something they think should be on Home&Garden because they don't understand the nature of a conversation, who it meanders to other topics.
And for the record, I enjoy a wider content base if the articles are interesting or thought provoking (and on Techdirt, they almost always are).
Despite being slow, there are significant advantages to an always-on connection that handles a small amount of data constantly.
If you had the choice between connecting up to your city's water system, or instead building a water tank and having a truck come by to fill it once a month, which would you choose?
You invest in Microsoft. Ok, so do you know how much Microsoft spends on patenting stuff? How much on lawyers fees to file the patents? How much on suing other companies using those patents that is not recouped in settlements or awards? How much on being sued by other companies with equally obvious patents that should not have been granted in the first place?
Unless you know that stuff, I'd say you missed a big step in researching your stock pick. All that money could have been spent on innovating their current products or developing new ones.
It is just technobabble. I saw this yesterday and am just as confused. Some pretty obvious questions are not being asked.
The idea seems to be that the content can be copied by anyone, and you need some key to actually listen/watch it. So you can 'share' the content but if you share the key, someone can 'steal' it from you by not giving it back. It supposedly does not need an internet connection to work. It supposedly isn't controlled by any single company, so you don't have to worry about specific servers going dark.
1) How is this different from half a dozen previous DRM systems that use encrypted data and a key to play it?
2) How can you stop the key from being copied, as it also is just data?
3) How can you keep track of who is in 'possession' of the key without an internet connection?
4) How is this even remotely "friendlier" DRM? It seems worse than most of the systems we already have to deal with.
Being my family's 'computer person' as well as having worked on various help desks for computers, printers, an ISP, etc., I understand the basic idea. Anyone who has worked on a help desk for a length of time has voiced this opinion at some point, usually after dealing with a person who has (yet again) lowered the bar (further) for all of humanity. The average day of dealing with the end users will drive anyone to go on a killing spree.
But as with most ideas that are thought of when you're angry, it's a bad idea.
We can hope that over time, with a combination of better user interface design, some people learning how to be self sufficient, and people who haven't grown up with computers dying off, we won't have to ever seriously consider this.
Interesting that the push to expand broadband (and therefore use of the internet) is highlighting how corrupt the political system pushing it in the first place is.
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if it is possible for some of these independent labels to go after RIAA on anti-trust grounds?
1) RIAA members make up the bulk of music sales (I think). 2) By having the organization (RIAA) that is controlled by the major labels, they are de facto colluding.
3) The organization is actively trying to stomp out alternative distribution methods that are one of the independents key marketing efforts.
I don't know if that sounds thin to a lawyer (it sounds pretty obvious to me), but at least it highlights the issue.
What you call a double-standard is not. Measuring the effectiveness of hypnosis is much more difficult than measuring the placebo effect. Placebo effects are most frequently measured in double-blind studies of other drugs where neither the doctors directly interacting with the patients nor the patients themselves know whether they are receiving the real drug or a placebo.
Hypnotism requires the patient to be aware they are being hypnotized and the doctor to actually perform it. Pretty difficult to do a real *double-blind* study of hypnosis when the patients and doctors both know who is being hypnotized.
Now, I do not doubt that hypnosis can be effective for some mental illnesses, just as deep relaxation and other stress relief methods are. But you just try setting up a real study with adequate control groups to measure it definitively.
You can't watch a show on standard primetime TV without being bombarded with 3 or more ads about the latest drugs that solve problems X, Y and Z. Magazines have a pharma ad every few pages (sometimes spanning multiple pages because they have so much fine print).
Tell people that they *NEED* this thing enough and they start thinking they do (even if they don't). It has worked for religions, governments, consumer goods, and anything else you can think of for millennia.
I agree. It cannot be mandated, but having a single universal rating system is good. The TV rating system is fine, but the video game system is more detailed. While it has generalizations such as the anyone/teen/mature/adults-only, it also has descriptive ratings that distinguish between simple blood or far more 'gore.'
"It's in trying to come up with better names that l came to believe that Pirate Party is as good, or better, than any."
Agree.
It is not the first time that a fledgling political party has named itself with a word that has significant negative connotations. 'Tory' was originally a term for outlaws, and 'Whig' was originally an insult.
I would disagree that their focus is narrow, because as you point out, it effects everything. They have a very specific viewpoint, but since that viewpoint effects everything, it can be a big gain - at least in a coalition style government (as opposed to the US two-party government), because they can get behind many proposals that are beneficial to the end consumer as opposed to whichever entrenched incumbent.
First, as to being called a Marxist - you're the one arguing for government supported monopoly rights (copyright), whereas in this instance, I'm the one arguing for a free market with no regulation. Please think about that one before trying to call someone else a communist.
As to evidence, I gave one specific example of a few guys making a full length quality film, out of their home. Movie is called Primer. It won one of the Sundance awards. I own the DVD. IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/
I also gave a second example of a low-budget film that became that year's summer blockbuster and is one of the highest grossing films (even before accounting for inflation). The first Star Wars movie.
Everything else I would say other commenters have covered.
William is awesome. I only have one significant disagreement with anything he said, despite being of the opinion that copyright causes more net harm than good.
That last question applies to me. I have gone from accepting copyright as reasonable (in 1909 terms, pre-1976/DMCA issues), to disagreeing that copyright is necessary at all.
We have already seen many examples that prove that you don't need hundreds of millions to make either excellent movies or music - especially as the cost of production/distribution has dropped to very little as technology has advanced. Mike regularly lists successes of this here.
We have music of equivalent (and many would say better) quality being made by small groups or individuals in their homes or with no major label backing. Same with movies - although not as many yet, there have been some excellent ones (anyone else love Primer? a full length film made by a couple guys running off a few computers in his kitchen).
And let's not forget a summer blockbuster from 1977 made with a paltry budget of $11million (~$40m in today's terms) with a cast of no-names that influenced entire generations and most sci-fi after it (Star Wars).
And even without those big successes, we still don't need copyright. Every music album and movie doesn't need to be a blockbuster/chart topper. We're entering a point where more music than ever before is being created - there are fewer top stars making millions and many more average musicians making a living wage (making music that is just as good or better). The same will happen with movies. And video games (already happening to an extent). And TV shows. And whatever other legacy industry is still hung up on copyright as their business model opposed to serving their customer's needs.
Does whether we have a single currency or hundreds really matter? I have, in the past month, made purchases seamlessly in both euros and GB pounds from a US bank account (US dollars) debit/credit card.
So long as the conversion process is easy, and the transaction cost is not unbearable for both large and small transactions, I think the question is pretty pointless.
On the post: China Cracks Down On Pirated Teaching Materials?
What they mean
On the post: Jurors Required To Sign Promises Not To Google Details Of Case
Truth
Previous comments say there is a large amount of inaccurate, out-of-context and biased information on the net. I don't dispute that. But in the courts, there is just as much inaccurate, out-of-context and biased information entered in as evidence or given as testimony. I would put forth the idea that it is easier to determine the actual correct information from the net than it is to determine from what a juror is given in court. How a juror determines what evidence is valid in court has always been a factor when given conflicting evidence.
Why are juries told to only consider evidence as presented in court? Because it is assumed that what is presented in court is more reliable than other sources. That may have been true hundreds of years ago (thousands for much of it) when the structure of the courts was formed - but it isn't any longer.
It is time for the justice system to evolve and be disrupted by emerging technology.
On the post: Anti-bullying Laws Don't Work Offline; Why Do Politicians Think They'll Work Online?
Stop saying...
Please say that they make the problem worse because they don't stop bullying, but instead have unintended consequences. Depending on how they're written they could:
- stop anonymous speech (and make it harder for those being bullied to speak out against the bully without fear of repercussion)
- hurt freedom of speech/expression in other ways, such as political protest or consumer rights
- open innocent people up to ridiculous lawsuits because they called someone a name online
- further dilute the rule of law by making everyone criminals when they do perfectly reasonable things
or more.
On the post: Werewolf TV Show Blocked From DVD Release Due To Music Licensing
Audio editing
Obviously, none of the above should even be necessary, but find some way around the overreaching rightsholders and show them how powerless they are.
On the post: The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion
Broadcast vs Conversation
And for the record, I enjoy a wider content base if the articles are interesting or thought provoking (and on Techdirt, they almost always are).
On the post: Sneakernet, Pigeonet And The Meaninglessness Of Judging Broadband By Silly Stunts
Re: yeah, but what about latency?
Bandwidth =/= latency.
Despite being slow, there are significant advantages to an always-on connection that handles a small amount of data constantly.
If you had the choice between connecting up to your city's water system, or instead building a water tank and having a truck come by to fill it once a month, which would you choose?
On the post: Google Working On Micropayment Scheme To Help Newspapers Commit Suicide Faster
Re: Careful Google
On the post: Waste Of Money: Pro-Linux Group Has To Buy Microsoft Patents
Re: Money wasted, money earned
You invest in Microsoft. Ok, so do you know how much Microsoft spends on patenting stuff? How much on lawyers fees to file the patents? How much on suing other companies using those patents that is not recouped in settlements or awards? How much on being sued by other companies with equally obvious patents that should not have been granted in the first place?
Is a good use of their money patenting page-up and -down keys? http://techdirt.com/articles/20080821/033453.shtml Or what about adding .com to the end of something? http://techdirt.com/articles/20080626/0203581527.shtml (LOL, didn't an Isreali company just patent that as well, story yesterday) Or on patenting selecting 7 out of 10 things? http://techdirt.com/articles/20061220/091622.shtml Does what the spend and 'profit' from those useless patents make up for having to pay for suits like http://techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0140246031.shtml and http://techdirt.com/articles/20090811/2330285852.shtml and http://techdirt.com/articles/20090720/0256495602.shtml ?
Unless you know that stuff, I'd say you missed a big step in researching your stock pick. All that money could have been spent on innovating their current products or developing new ones.
On the post: Bad Ideas: Trying To Make Content More Like Physical Property
Technobabble
The idea seems to be that the content can be copied by anyone, and you need some key to actually listen/watch it. So you can 'share' the content but if you share the key, someone can 'steal' it from you by not giving it back. It supposedly does not need an internet connection to work. It supposedly isn't controlled by any single company, so you don't have to worry about specific servers going dark.
1) How is this different from half a dozen previous DRM systems that use encrypted data and a key to play it?
2) How can you stop the key from being copied, as it also is just data?
3) How can you keep track of who is in 'possession' of the key without an internet connection?
4) How is this even remotely "friendlier" DRM? It seems worse than most of the systems we already have to deal with.
On the post: Yet Another Call For A 'Computer User's License'
Understand
But as with most ideas that are thought of when you're angry, it's a bad idea.
We can hope that over time, with a combination of better user interface design, some people learning how to be self sufficient, and people who haven't grown up with computers dying off, we won't have to ever seriously consider this.
On the post: Minnesota Governor Pushes Connected Nation Before Panel He Appointed Has Its Say
Re: Re: Can someone explain to me..
Perhaps a rather good unintended consequence.
On the post: Label That Embraces BitTorrent Upset About Lawsuits Against Useful Services
Re: A Small Wish
1) RIAA members make up the bulk of music sales (I think). 2) By having the organization (RIAA) that is controlled by the major labels, they are de facto colluding.
3) The organization is actively trying to stomp out alternative distribution methods that are one of the independents key marketing efforts.
I don't know if that sounds thin to a lawyer (it sounds pretty obvious to me), but at least it highlights the issue.
On the post: The Placebo Effect: Things Pharma Prefers You Not Worry About
Re: Stupid double standards
Hypnotism requires the patient to be aware they are being hypnotized and the doctor to actually perform it. Pretty difficult to do a real *double-blind* study of hypnosis when the patients and doctors both know who is being hypnotized.
Now, I do not doubt that hypnosis can be effective for some mental illnesses, just as deep relaxation and other stress relief methods are. But you just try setting up a real study with adequate control groups to measure it definitively.
On the post: The Placebo Effect: Things Pharma Prefers You Not Worry About
Re: Placebo getting stronger
You can't watch a show on standard primetime TV without being bombarded with 3 or more ads about the latest drugs that solve problems X, Y and Z. Magazines have a pharma ad every few pages (sometimes spanning multiple pages because they have so much fine print).
Tell people that they *NEED* this thing enough and they start thinking they do (even if they don't). It has worked for religions, governments, consumer goods, and anything else you can think of for millennia.
On the post: FCC To Study Single Rating System For Movies, Video Games, TV & Music
Re: This could be a good idea
On the post: Could The Pirate Party Become A Legitimate Political Force?
Re: Re:
Agree.
It is not the first time that a fledgling political party has named itself with a word that has significant negative connotations. 'Tory' was originally a term for outlaws, and 'Whig' was originally an insult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory#History_of_the_term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_( United_States)#Name
I would disagree that their focus is narrow, because as you point out, it effects everything. They have a very specific viewpoint, but since that viewpoint effects everything, it can be a big gain - at least in a coalition style government (as opposed to the US two-party government), because they can get behind many proposals that are beneficial to the end consumer as opposed to whichever entrenched incumbent.
On the post: Interview With William Patry: Understanding How The Copyright Debate Got Twisted
Re: Getting money
First, as to being called a Marxist - you're the one arguing for government supported monopoly rights (copyright), whereas in this instance, I'm the one arguing for a free market with no regulation. Please think about that one before trying to call someone else a communist.
As to evidence, I gave one specific example of a few guys making a full length quality film, out of their home. Movie is called Primer. It won one of the Sundance awards. I own the DVD. IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/
I also gave a second example of a low-budget film that became that year's summer blockbuster and is one of the highest grossing films (even before accounting for inflation). The first Star Wars movie.
Everything else I would say other commenters have covered.
On the post: Interview With William Patry: Understanding How The Copyright Debate Got Twisted
Large Investments
That last question applies to me. I have gone from accepting copyright as reasonable (in 1909 terms, pre-1976/DMCA issues), to disagreeing that copyright is necessary at all.
We have already seen many examples that prove that you don't need hundreds of millions to make either excellent movies or music - especially as the cost of production/distribution has dropped to very little as technology has advanced. Mike regularly lists successes of this here.
We have music of equivalent (and many would say better) quality being made by small groups or individuals in their homes or with no major label backing. Same with movies - although not as many yet, there have been some excellent ones (anyone else love Primer? a full length film made by a couple guys running off a few computers in his kitchen).
And let's not forget a summer blockbuster from 1977 made with a paltry budget of $11million (~$40m in today's terms) with a cast of no-names that influenced entire generations and most sci-fi after it (Star Wars).
And even without those big successes, we still don't need copyright. Every music album and movie doesn't need to be a blockbuster/chart topper. We're entering a point where more music than ever before is being created - there are fewer top stars making millions and many more average musicians making a living wage (making music that is just as good or better). The same will happen with movies. And video games (already happening to an extent). And TV shows. And whatever other legacy industry is still hung up on copyright as their business model opposed to serving their customer's needs.
And we'll be better off, too.
On the post: No Surprise Here: Pirate Bay Acquisition Falling Apart
http://gizmodo.com/5342388/ahoy-cloned-pirate-bay-site-sets-sail
On the post: Moving To A Single Currency... Or Lots Of Local Currencies?
Does it matter?
So long as the conversion process is easy, and the transaction cost is not unbearable for both large and small transactions, I think the question is pretty pointless.
Next >>