> As a musician, I believe most people would agree
> that copyrights should be protected.
No, a lot of us think that you're confusing the mechanism (copyright) with the goal (musicians getting paid). If you ask the _right_ questions, I think you'd see that most people would agree that "musicians should get paid" and they _wouldn't_ agree with current copyright law, if they actually understood its ramifications.
Whose endgame? Mike _repeatedly_ states that he hopes that all of these megacorps and their execs will "get it", and not write themselves into the corner of history where the dinosaurs found themselves.
The fact is that the subject matter of this blog is (partially at least) "how the megacorps DON'T get it". Your call for balance because "they are megacorps" is a falacious "argument from authority". Your call for balance because these megacorps, in the past, were a useful societal force which produced for us plenty of nice music is a falacious "argument from antiquity".
And the whole point of this post is to point out that Mike _isn't_ demonizing (as in, threatening them with violence, or calling them scum) people with points of view he disagrees with. For another example, in the post about Teller's lawsuit, where Mike disagrees with Teller's choice of action, the worst thing he says about it is that he is "disappointed" and that, even, only about the action itself (Mike doesn't attack Teller personally, for example).
In this light, your argument boils down to: "since Mike isn't a nice cheerleader for *all* points of view, he should expect to be excoriated" --- which makes no sense whatsoever, except possibly if you mean that _everyone_ who wants to publicly state an opinion on the net should expect _someone_ to abuse him, even if it is totally unjustified.
> ... without a organized movement that nobody is organizing?
The German Pirate Party might disagree. And in this day and age, my guess is that it can take a _lot_ less than 50 years for them to grow strong enough to make a difference internationally. The protests against ACTA seem to reflect a growing awareness about these issues.
(And this growth in awareness is partially driven by Techdirt. Thanks, Mike, and all the staff!)
The DMCA proved that it's possible to write a law which makes it illegal to help someone else to do something legal, so I see no reason why one couldn't have a(n equally stupid) law which makes it illegal for people to "conspire" together to run a company which provides service X, even if this service is totally legal.
the Digital Millenium Copyright Act says that circumventing an access restriction is always illegal, regardless of why I do it
Not exactly. The DMCA criminalized helping a third party to circumvent an access restriction for any reason --- circumventing it oneself in order to exercise personal fair use rights is still legal.
Confused? If you aren't, you should be. That part of the law is a total piece of crap.
Trademarks which are not actively enforced have been rescinded by the courts. This leads to all kinds of silly things, like this lawsuit. It is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that D&G's trademark will somehow become genericized, since their product isn't sufficiently unique, nor does it have an overwhelming market share.
I think a first step in that direction, which brands could consider adopting, is a creative process which is kept totally under wraps until a third-party marketing consultant checks out its effectiveness with both the general public, and the sub-population of the artist's fans, using actual evidence derived from exposure/consultation trials.
This might prevent the usual knee-jerk "oh, no, that's not how we see ourselves" we-must-veto-immediately reaction.
I laugh since he is all the time crediting Google for caring about page loading times, and Google also packages small images in the same way: see http://www.google.com/images/nav_logo103.png ...
Take it to the next step --- pre-emptive copyright
Eternal copyright? That's for pikers. Since we all know that only people backed by large corporations can be creative, we should pre-emptively prevent anyone else from even trying to be creative, since they are doomed to infringe on the rights of those corporations.
> Such moral rights are taken very seriously in France, where
> they are automatic, perpetual and cannot be waived (unlike
> in some other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom.)
Oh, even in the UK you have unwaivable rights --- for example, the right of an artist to get resale royalties on his paintings is "unalienable" in the UK.
What I find absurd about such "rights" is that by codifying them, the governments are stripping at least one other "right" from creators --- the right to give one's creations away to someone else or to the general public, with no strings attached. For many creators in the modern era, this right is much more important.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals
> that copyrights should be protected.
No, a lot of us think that you're confusing the mechanism (copyright) with the goal (musicians getting paid). If you ask the _right_ questions, I think you'd see that most people would agree that "musicians should get paid" and they _wouldn't_ agree with current copyright law, if they actually understood its ramifications.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Citation needed?
Whose endgame? Mike _repeatedly_ states that he hopes that all of these megacorps and their execs will "get it", and not write themselves into the corner of history where the dinosaurs found themselves.
The fact is that the subject matter of this blog is (partially at least) "how the megacorps DON'T get it". Your call for balance because "they are megacorps" is a falacious "argument from authority". Your call for balance because these megacorps, in the past, were a useful societal force which produced for us plenty of nice music is a falacious "argument from antiquity".
And the whole point of this post is to point out that Mike _isn't_ demonizing (as in, threatening them with violence, or calling them scum) people with points of view he disagrees with. For another example, in the post about Teller's lawsuit, where Mike disagrees with Teller's choice of action, the worst thing he says about it is that he is "disappointed" and that, even, only about the action itself (Mike doesn't attack Teller personally, for example).
In this light, your argument boils down to: "since Mike isn't a nice cheerleader for *all* points of view, he should expect to be excoriated" --- which makes no sense whatsoever, except possibly if you mean that _everyone_ who wants to publicly state an opinion on the net should expect _someone_ to abuse him, even if it is totally unjustified.
On the post: Mobile Phones Might Not Interfere With Planes, But They Sure Can Interfere With Pilots
Obligatory
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re:
The German Pirate Party might disagree. And in this day and age, my guess is that it can take a _lot_ less than 50 years for them to grow strong enough to make a difference internationally. The protests against ACTA seem to reflect a growing awareness about these issues.
(And this growth in awareness is partially driven by Techdirt. Thanks, Mike, and all the staff!)
On the post: Another Error By US Officials May Kill Megaupload Prosecution
Look at the DMCA
On the post: Did The Publisher's Own Insistence On DRM Inevitably Lead To The Antitrust Lawsuit Against Them?
Re: Re:-D
On the post: The Rise Of Geek-Focused Online Video Networks
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homemade Hardcovers: Yet Again, Anti-Circumvention Interferes With Fair Use
Phinney is confused, understandably
Confused? If you aren't, you should be. That part of the law is a total piece of crap.
On the post: Does Trademark Law Have Room For A Sense Of Humor? Dolce & Gabbana Sue Dolce & Banana
Encouraged by bad law
On the post: Yet Another Copyright Troll Case Kicked Out Of Court, With Excellent Reasoning From The Judge
Re: Re:
On the post: Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave
Streisand, here we come
Rather a small consolation to the teacher, though.
On the post: Thinking Of Copyright As Property Is As Natural As Thinking Of Smells As Property
This story is also "copied"
On the post: FAA Admits That It's Going To Rethink Whether You Can Use Kindles & Tablets On Takeoff & Landing
Classic Penny Arcade strip
On the post: The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process
Step by step
This might prevent the usual knee-jerk "oh, no, that's not how we see ourselves" we-must-veto-immediately reaction.
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
And who does it exactly the same way? Google
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
Internet remix
Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me...
On the post: Reductio Ad Absurdum: Eternal Copyright Is Crazy... But What About Today's Copyright Term?
Re: Take it to the next step --- pre-emptive copyright
On the post: Reductio Ad Absurdum: Eternal Copyright Is Crazy... But What About Today's Copyright Term?
Take it to the next step --- pre-emptive copyright
On the post: One More Copyright Infringement, And HADOPI Must Disconnect Itself From The Net
Unwaivable "rights"
> they are automatic, perpetual and cannot be waived (unlike
> in some other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom.)
Oh, even in the UK you have unwaivable rights --- for example, the right of an artist to get resale royalties on his paintings is "unalienable" in the UK.
What I find absurd about such "rights" is that by codifying them, the governments are stripping at least one other "right" from creators --- the right to give one's creations away to someone else or to the general public, with no strings attached. For many creators in the modern era, this right is much more important.
On the post: Techdirt Deemed Harmful To Minors In Germany
Re: Fun fact!
A quick edit of /etc/hosts fixed that.
Next >>