special-interesting (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 9:47am
So, the Supreme Court makes a decision on privacy issues and a rubber-stamp of bureaucracy (sounds familiar) makes the day for now and maybe for all time but... with voter support anything is possible. Thats right legislation combined with public awareness (of the privacy issues in this case) can save the day.
Fear is what drives privacy issues. Fear of basic human nature to take advantage... of any advantage especially individual privacy. If the local bully had access to your private information like where and what you hid under your bed mattress be it cash, gold or dirty magazines they would either steal it (because they would know your habits enough to get away with it), ransom the embarrassing details of your life or more likely reveal all the silly details at the next social gathering to your friends. (such is the mindset of a bully)
Keep in mind that bullies like to occupy official offices of power if only because of the opportunities to keep bullying. The often heard phrase “tough on criminals” is dubious when one considers what and who are criminals. Its human nature to take advantage of any situation so that is why we should force laws to be at a minimum and any law regulating a life style should not exist.
“if the law were otherwise, an enterprising plaintiff would be able to secure a lower standard for Article III standing simply by making an expenditure based on a nonparanoid fear.”
Paranoia (not always a bad thing) is what provides us with some motivation for defending ourselves from overt forms of surveillance will ultimately take advantage of us. Every foreign country with overt internal surveillance complains about the fact that they do not worry so much about corporate or foreign spies as much as the government spies. Seems like the government spies sold the intel to other corporations or foreign spies for cash. (go figure) Opportunity (crimes of) fosters rampant corruption through the 'just because we can' type of attitude. In EVERY communist regime it became a money making enterprise to sell your corporate info to the highest bidder. (just ask the KGB, don't expect a straight forward answer)
Appeasement of privacy rights is a risk that exceeds giving ones PIN # away with the bank account number on a public website.
“it's unlikely that Congress will do its job and step in to fix this.” Your are right Mike about the current batch of politicians not being able to do anything about this.
Key phrase “current batch of politicians”...
The present administration seems only to rubber-stamp the bureaucracy he leads and Bushi boy or dubya (or “panic boy” with a penchant for overreaction IMHO is possibly the worst?) in the line of culpable presidents with lack of respect for the citizenry. With the exception of Carter, who had his own follibles, this can be traced back to Nixon's “War on Drugs” which started off the latest purge of “people who would not vote for them”. Its not really a new thing related to “just because we can”.
Prohibition of alcohol was before that and its resulting gangland war resembles our present gang problems so much its like dejavu for anyone old enough to actually remember. (which is why our being able to share cultural items such as a movie or song on Al Capone's Chicago gangland murders would be nice.)
Nixon was, most likely, a certifiable paranoid lunatic (and I do mean in the clinical sense of insanity) and can easily be imagined as frothing at the mouth for any citizen who did not vote for him. Watergate was his legacy trademark of this as he even spied on his political opponents campaign offices. The citizens? Bill of Rights? Out the window. No one can tell me that criminalization of using drugs helped not ever one of the victims of such laws. Not even one! The average victim rots in some jail cell with job lost (at the expense of taxpayers) or sits in the gutter, along with their kids, after some debilitating fine was levied. A person who uses drugs needs help not hurting.
Drug usage, sharing of commercially produced media and whatever parking ticket level offenses trumped up with ridiculous jail terms and life crippling fines can be described as war on, what others would consider, indecent lifestyles. The “lifestyle wars” can be summed up as a purge of voters they did not like.
Anyone might not like what you say, do, personal habits or how you live but making such and such opinion the basis of legal intervention sounds more like an attack on ones race or class.
Which brings me to the topic of: How to recognize a candidate that respects your life(style) (want to say privacy but its more expansive than that). If your candidate says:
“I want to be tough on crime!” forget this candidate because he will most likely be a stooge for the private prison system and encourages prison terms for non violent (parking ticket level) offenses.
“Its for the children” you can count on legislation that chains your to the bedside because it to risky to get up and the kids will be taken to a huge facility where brainwashing (that they did them a favor) will be implemented.
“copyright extension will provide profits” for who and at what expense to culture based on public domain.
Fill in the blank here with your local candidates buzz line. War on terror, Drug Dealers, Unlicensed home food caterers making cookies to take to school (for real!), etc.
It will take years to replace the current batch of politicians with sane unbiased people and many mistakes will be regretted along the way and this assumes the public at large will actually be paying attention to cultural issues over corporate and runaway government agencies dogma.
This is one of the most unpleasant essays I have written. -throws up- blech I apologize if any spew landed on anyone.
Cutting the (cable) cord is becoming a popular option as the Internet enters mainstream use. (comment #2) I think both of you can be correct at the same time) current cable use still makes cramcast (and the like) a lot of money but its good they offer Internet connections for future business viability. It would be wise if the bandwidth and band-volume (download volume. Nice to separate that isn't it?) increased but I suspect overt manipulation of band-volume to force one side or the other.
Want to say smart TV channels will adapt but because of the band-volume limits will (for now) want to put up an antenna for local content. Cable has always been a false promise to me (they said there would be no commercials. Hahaha) Although I do miss MythBusters.
Firefly was a loss... and wow does TV/Cable programming battles for time slots constituent shooting themselves in the figurative foot(s)? (thanks #19)
For my part... Go, GO Cablevision. Yayyyyy. (waves 'individual choice' flags)
special-interesting (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:50pm
Comment #7 (thanks for the observation) fulfills my sarcastic side because neutral is only assumption of good. But aside from that... kudos for whatever reason.
In trying to encourage this decision of neutrality, in favor of fair use, I will advance that this is the second in rapid procession of good edicts emanating from the WH. (The first was the Executive Order for publicly funded research to enter public domain.)
Furthermore it is the second time I have recognized some sort of free will in the present administration.. (not a compliment but its a good thing when in the right direction) Points given for not toeing the corporate line and not rubber stamping bureaucracy.
special-interesting (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:57pm
Doesn't this belong under the heading of “Just Because They Can?” (they will do it over and over again)
These events would be hilarious on an afternoon soap opera and would make J.R. proud. (cultural reference: Dallas “who shot J.R.”) Its another effort of industry to take advantage of whatever tools are available to get ahead of the competition.
Silverscarcat is one up on me pointing our the concept of 'locking up' culture. (a recurrent theme of this site) Of which would be nice to explore a bit by suggesting it makes a profitable, if ruthless, business model. By eternal suppression of cultural items such as books, movies, songs, software (patents), etc. the media industry can force themselves to be the middlemen of culture charging whatever prices such a monopoly would allow. It is this kind of copyright abuse that robs your bookshelf and Family Archive of new and creative works. (In addition to all the works removed from public domain.)
Being a middleman of culture also provides opportunities to play an audience's awareness of culture like a conductor oversees an orchestra. Want to blame anyone about modern culture? (point, point.) Its tempting to place all the blame here on present media firms but each is forced by shareholders and a 'culture of profitable business'. If it weren't for the damage to our cultural awareness it would be fine.
Beyond the obvious propaganda opportunities this business model offers. (I can't stomach that much corruption in one day so will stick with the obvious, unfair, business advantage.) one can see that it removes the opportunity's of the current audience to make derivative works within their lifetimes. Then it is a viable business option to crate a remake of a movie every 10-20 years or so. Thus reinterpreting the culture surrounding that story and reselling it at the same time. (how soon will another remake of The Blob pop up?)
How many Hobbit stories were quashes by the family of Tolkien? How many Batman stories were wiped away by, the figure of, Batman being trademarked? (Trademark is another abused law. Raise the cost of it dramatically or find another way to stop a firm from trademarking everything. Disney? hahaha) Fan Fiction is a wonderfully diverse field that explores characters in ways the original author could or would not. How many plays, videos, band performances, live events of any kind using whatever cultural references have been eliminated form the repertoire of live actors and musicians. Translation or Scanslation groups? What whole sectors of profitable activities have been wiped out by political clout. How much GDP has been lost to... the middlemen of culture?
Note: Satire has been used for centuries in comedy and see no reason why some modern 20th century court found it was not fair use. (there has got to be 10k examples of its historical use in newspaper political comics and literature) Another way in which law is used to edit culture.
Many of the tools used by media firms cement their cultural middleman status are based on hardware (and now software?) and the formats they use. Patent law is also rife with abuse. All of this affects how much and how fast the public domain grows. Sadly the concept and value of the public domain is does not enter into political debate.
At the moment the present batch of politicians only view the public domain as meat for the omnivorous corporate donor (special interest groups) animals that devour anything if only because they need to satisfy the stockholders (rights-holders?) insatiable appetites. Please notice I never mentioned actors and artists etc.
Mentioned was “after a century of these examples” which brings to my point of the propaganda like editing possibilities that being a middleman of culture gives. Surely in every movie they make is an underlying meem that their way of business is just and valid. The unmentioned and unanswered question is why is the concept of public domain vacant from the political and public vocabulary?
It seems a director/producer's self justification claim is solely based on an over 100 million gross.
Innovation can be a wonderful thing in that it makes our lives easier, better, longer and leaves time for more fun. It also has the benefit of bringing monopolies down to earth. I encourage any idea that leads to the expansion of our shared culture. Many times innovation has succeeded by eliminating the middleman and we can only hope... (silence)
My punch line is another reference to 'cigarette arguments' because even if the firms involved feel they have no choice in their actions... they know the consequences to public domain and the culture we need to be able to share. Grim Reaper Shinigami Inc. would be proud of them and might consider contracting them as media reps.
The 'tying up culture' business model is another example of how the elimination of the entire copyright amendment would simplify our lives and remove the cultural middlemen who profit by such behavior. I am in favor of some type of author protection for a term much less that the life of the audience but don't call it copyright! Call it something else, because it seems, the entire copyright law has been corrupted and its to late to be saved.
We can work on trademark law and dump software patents if we can.
I always seem late to the party but thanks for leaving me some strongly media laden drinks, hardware based sushi and a light format salad. (and don't forget the satirical dessert) I have in mind, every time is start one of my essays, something short, possibly humorous and definitely sweet but am amazed at how it grows from that. (and turns out completely different)
special-interesting (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:28pm
The obvious is being obscured by the obvious free (industrial) speech uproar...
from the experience over the years of preparing hundreds of bids on various trades both as an employee and business owner I can tell anyone that getting an advantage over your competitors, however slight, is of the utmost importance. Especially on government jobs where it is not always understood that before the lowest cost bid, is even considered, the job specifications must be met.
Thats right. If the competitor does not meet the job specs you can bid what you want! You can see right away the competitive advantage this gives when your opposition bidders cannot even read the 'Technical Manuals' for whatever reason. From the view point of a contractor the DMCA take-down or the technical specs was brilliant industrial espionage or even sabotage. If it weren't for the (this is just one good example) widespread abuse of copyright one might ever cheer them on.
This is related to technical certification of your firm for the required technology and techniques necessary in the performance of the contract.
Even if the DMCA take-down notice gave a time advantage of even just a few successful contracts it would be tantamount to fraudulent behavior. Suppression of vital construction information technology documents would give a HUGE advantage to the select few who were on the inside. This technique is not limited to the Metal Fabrication Industry it is an industry wide problem as some of the other posts have pointed our examples in the medical field. (thank you post #28)
Not totally unrelated are the cost of publishing the standards themselves. To purchase a copy of the ANSI, even only for your industry, is a substantial investment. Example: ISO 14000 Environmental Management Systems Collection cost from the ANSI site $448usd and there are 44000+ standards.
and thats only collection 1. Is this a monopoly itself? I don't really know but I do wonder at the profit margins and availability of universal standards. Am getting out of my range of knowledge here... but in my old age my lack of trust might borderline on cynicism. Probably worth looking into all by itself. Of course somehow there are real costs involved but where is the dividing line between a good awesome profit margin and extortion? Am not completely against this business model but...
Fair warning. (look out for that truck!) or “Don't get hit by your own industrial stupidity”
I feel that copyright abuse goes too far because it reaches into my bookshelf and I am for abolishing the copyright act in its entirety if only because of the damage to American Cultural Heritage (insert History if you want) by industry abuse regardless of collateral damage. If you don't want this then your industry had better start supporting real copyright reform. (30 year limit, is probably, to much) If you want to argue with me here is my chain of logic: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/14191722072/six-strikes-officially-begins-monday.shtml#c25 58 but please stick to the topic of, public, (not necessarily American) culture as off topic comments just make my pillow fluffier. Its only my opinion but your business model (whatever, who cares) is NOT more important than the public becoming aware of its history and itself. (a cultural meem? But, I get ahead of myself.)
Mostly all I hear is “the court decides this or that about whatever”. Its almost irrelevant to the, unbelievably vitally important, (Yes that much.) underlying issue of 'eternal copyright'.
Again, all the comments were very helpful. (#69 hilarious!)
On the post: Supreme Court Effectively Says There's No Way To Challenge Warrantless Wiretapping
Fear is what drives privacy issues. Fear of basic human nature to take advantage... of any advantage especially individual privacy. If the local bully had access to your private information like where and what you hid under your bed mattress be it cash, gold or dirty magazines they would either steal it (because they would know your habits enough to get away with it), ransom the embarrassing details of your life or more likely reveal all the silly details at the next social gathering to your friends. (such is the mindset of a bully)
Keep in mind that bullies like to occupy official offices of power if only because of the opportunities to keep bullying. The often heard phrase “tough on criminals” is dubious when one considers what and who are criminals. Its human nature to take advantage of any situation so that is why we should force laws to be at a minimum and any law regulating a life style should not exist.
“if the law were otherwise, an enterprising plaintiff would be able to secure a lower standard for Article III standing simply by making an expenditure based on a nonparanoid fear.”
Paranoia (not always a bad thing) is what provides us with some motivation for defending ourselves from overt forms of surveillance will ultimately take advantage of us. Every foreign country with overt internal surveillance complains about the fact that they do not worry so much about corporate or foreign spies as much as the government spies. Seems like the government spies sold the intel to other corporations or foreign spies for cash. (go figure) Opportunity (crimes of) fosters rampant corruption through the 'just because we can' type of attitude. In EVERY communist regime it became a money making enterprise to sell your corporate info to the highest bidder. (just ask the KGB, don't expect a straight forward answer)
Appeasement of privacy rights is a risk that exceeds giving ones PIN # away with the bank account number on a public website.
“it's unlikely that Congress will do its job and step in to fix this.” Your are right Mike about the current batch of politicians not being able to do anything about this.
Key phrase “current batch of politicians”...
The present administration seems only to rubber-stamp the bureaucracy he leads and Bushi boy or dubya (or “panic boy” with a penchant for overreaction IMHO is possibly the worst?) in the line of culpable presidents with lack of respect for the citizenry. With the exception of Carter, who had his own follibles, this can be traced back to Nixon's “War on Drugs” which started off the latest purge of “people who would not vote for them”. Its not really a new thing related to “just because we can”.
Prohibition of alcohol was before that and its resulting gangland war resembles our present gang problems so much its like dejavu for anyone old enough to actually remember. (which is why our being able to share cultural items such as a movie or song on Al Capone's Chicago gangland murders would be nice.)
My post on how sharing culture is important and how it allows us as citizens to learn that war is a bad thing: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130212/17065121955/dirty-deeds-french-national-library-privatizes -public-domain-part-2.shtml#c162
Nixon was, most likely, a certifiable paranoid lunatic (and I do mean in the clinical sense of insanity) and can easily be imagined as frothing at the mouth for any citizen who did not vote for him. Watergate was his legacy trademark of this as he even spied on his political opponents campaign offices. The citizens? Bill of Rights? Out the window. No one can tell me that criminalization of using drugs helped not ever one of the victims of such laws. Not even one! The average victim rots in some jail cell with job lost (at the expense of taxpayers) or sits in the gutter, along with their kids, after some debilitating fine was levied. A person who uses drugs needs help not hurting.
Drug usage, sharing of commercially produced media and whatever parking ticket level offenses trumped up with ridiculous jail terms and life crippling fines can be described as war on, what others would consider, indecent lifestyles. The “lifestyle wars” can be summed up as a purge of voters they did not like.
Anyone might not like what you say, do, personal habits or how you live but making such and such opinion the basis of legal intervention sounds more like an attack on ones race or class.
Which brings me to the topic of: How to recognize a candidate that respects your life(style) (want to say privacy but its more expansive than that). If your candidate says:
“I want to be tough on crime!” forget this candidate because he will most likely be a stooge for the private prison system and encourages prison terms for non violent (parking ticket level) offenses.
“Its for the children” you can count on legislation that chains your to the bedside because it to risky to get up and the kids will be taken to a huge facility where brainwashing (that they did them a favor) will be implemented.
“copyright extension will provide profits” for who and at what expense to culture based on public domain.
Fill in the blank here with your local candidates buzz line. War on terror, Drug Dealers, Unlicensed home food caterers making cookies to take to school (for real!), etc.
It will take years to replace the current batch of politicians with sane unbiased people and many mistakes will be regretted along the way and this assumes the public at large will actually be paying attention to cultural issues over corporate and runaway government agencies dogma.
This is one of the most unpleasant essays I have written. -throws up- blech I apologize if any spew landed on anyone.
On the post: Cablevision Files Antitrust Suit Against Viacom For Forced Bundling Of Crappy TV Channels
My middlemen of culture post (quite acidic): http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130224/22344422088/why-does-entertainment-industr y-insist-that-it-can-veto-any-innovation-it-doesnt-like.shtml#c795
Cutting the (cable) cord is becoming a popular option as the Internet enters mainstream use. (comment #2) I think both of you can be correct at the same time) current cable use still makes cramcast (and the like) a lot of money but its good they offer Internet connections for future business viability. It would be wise if the bandwidth and band-volume (download volume. Nice to separate that isn't it?) increased but I suspect overt manipulation of band-volume to force one side or the other.
Want to say smart TV channels will adapt but because of the band-volume limits will (for now) want to put up an antenna for local content. Cable has always been a false promise to me (they said there would be no commercials. Hahaha) Although I do miss MythBusters.
Firefly was a loss... and wow does TV/Cable programming battles for time slots constituent shooting themselves in the figurative foot(s)? (thanks #19)
For my part... Go, GO Cablevision. Yayyyyy. (waves 'individual choice' flags)
On the post: Obama Administration Decides Not To Fight Against Fair Use For Public Universities
In trying to encourage this decision of neutrality, in favor of fair use, I will advance that this is the second in rapid procession of good edicts emanating from the WH. (The first was the Executive Order for publicly funded research to enter public domain.)
Furthermore it is the second time I have recognized some sort of free will in the present administration.. (not a compliment but its a good thing when in the right direction) Points given for not toeing the corporate line and not rubber stamping bureaucracy.
Cautious Kudos for Obama.
On the post: Why Does The Entertainment Industry Insist That It Can Veto Any Innovation It Doesn't Like?
These events would be hilarious on an afternoon soap opera and would make J.R. proud. (cultural reference: Dallas “who shot J.R.”) Its another effort of industry to take advantage of whatever tools are available to get ahead of the competition.
Silverscarcat is one up on me pointing our the concept of 'locking up' culture. (a recurrent theme of this site) Of which would be nice to explore a bit by suggesting it makes a profitable, if ruthless, business model. By eternal suppression of cultural items such as books, movies, songs, software (patents), etc. the media industry can force themselves to be the middlemen of culture charging whatever prices such a monopoly would allow. It is this kind of copyright abuse that robs your bookshelf and Family Archive of new and creative works. (In addition to all the works removed from public domain.)
Being a middleman of culture also provides opportunities to play an audience's awareness of culture like a conductor oversees an orchestra. Want to blame anyone about modern culture? (point, point.) Its tempting to place all the blame here on present media firms but each is forced by shareholders and a 'culture of profitable business'. If it weren't for the damage to our cultural awareness it would be fine.
Beyond the obvious propaganda opportunities this business model offers. (I can't stomach that much corruption in one day so will stick with the obvious, unfair, business advantage.) one can see that it removes the opportunity's of the current audience to make derivative works within their lifetimes. Then it is a viable business option to crate a remake of a movie every 10-20 years or so. Thus reinterpreting the culture surrounding that story and reselling it at the same time. (how soon will another remake of The Blob pop up?)
How many Hobbit stories were quashes by the family of Tolkien? How many Batman stories were wiped away by, the figure of, Batman being trademarked? (Trademark is another abused law. Raise the cost of it dramatically or find another way to stop a firm from trademarking everything. Disney? hahaha) Fan Fiction is a wonderfully diverse field that explores characters in ways the original author could or would not. How many plays, videos, band performances, live events of any kind using whatever cultural references have been eliminated form the repertoire of live actors and musicians. Translation or Scanslation groups? What whole sectors of profitable activities have been wiped out by political clout. How much GDP has been lost to... the middlemen of culture?
Note: Satire has been used for centuries in comedy and see no reason why some modern 20th century court found it was not fair use. (there has got to be 10k examples of its historical use in newspaper political comics and literature) Another way in which law is used to edit culture.
Many of the tools used by media firms cement their cultural middleman status are based on hardware (and now software?) and the formats they use. Patent law is also rife with abuse. All of this affects how much and how fast the public domain grows. Sadly the concept and value of the public domain is does not enter into political debate.
At the moment the present batch of politicians only view the public domain as meat for the omnivorous corporate donor (special interest groups) animals that devour anything if only because they need to satisfy the stockholders (rights-holders?) insatiable appetites. Please notice I never mentioned actors and artists etc.
Mentioned was “after a century of these examples” which brings to my point of the propaganda like editing possibilities that being a middleman of culture gives. Surely in every movie they make is an underlying meem that their way of business is just and valid. The unmentioned and unanswered question is why is the concept of public domain vacant from the political and public vocabulary?
It seems a director/producer's self justification claim is solely based on an over 100 million gross.
Innovation can be a wonderful thing in that it makes our lives easier, better, longer and leaves time for more fun. It also has the benefit of bringing monopolies down to earth. I encourage any idea that leads to the expansion of our shared culture. Many times innovation has succeeded by eliminating the middleman and we can only hope... (silence)
My punch line is another reference to 'cigarette arguments' because even if the firms involved feel they have no choice in their actions... they know the consequences to public domain and the culture we need to be able to share. Grim Reaper Shinigami Inc. would be proud of them and might consider contracting them as media reps.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/02462421991/undisclosed-uspto-employees-write-rep ort-saying-uspto-does-great-job-handling-software-smartphone-patents.shtml#c381
The 'tying up culture' business model is another example of how the elimination of the entire copyright amendment would simplify our lives and remove the cultural middlemen who profit by such behavior. I am in favor of some type of author protection for a term much less that the life of the audience but don't call it copyright! Call it something else, because it seems, the entire copyright law has been corrupted and its to late to be saved.
We can work on trademark law and dump software patents if we can.
My thread of logic is here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/14191722072/six-strikes-officially-begins-monday.shtml#c25 58 which basically says “culture (and cultural awareness) will grow when copyright is less that the lives of the audience”.
I always seem late to the party but thanks for leaving me some strongly media laden drinks, hardware based sushi and a light format salad. (and don't forget the satirical dessert) I have in mind, every time is start one of my essays, something short, possibly humorous and definitely sweet but am amazed at how it grows from that. (and turns out completely different)
On the post: Sheet Metal And Air Conditioning Contractors Use Bogus Copyright Takedown To Block Publication Of Federally Mandated Standards
from the experience over the years of preparing hundreds of bids on various trades both as an employee and business owner I can tell anyone that getting an advantage over your competitors, however slight, is of the utmost importance. Especially on government jobs where it is not always understood that before the lowest cost bid, is even considered, the job specifications must be met.
Thats right. If the competitor does not meet the job specs you can bid what you want! You can see right away the competitive advantage this gives when your opposition bidders cannot even read the 'Technical Manuals' for whatever reason. From the view point of a contractor the DMCA take-down or the technical specs was brilliant industrial espionage or even sabotage. If it weren't for the (this is just one good example) widespread abuse of copyright one might ever cheer them on.
This is related to technical certification of your firm for the required technology and techniques necessary in the performance of the contract.
Even if the DMCA take-down notice gave a time advantage of even just a few successful contracts it would be tantamount to fraudulent behavior. Suppression of vital construction information technology documents would give a HUGE advantage to the select few who were on the inside. This technique is not limited to the Metal Fabrication Industry it is an industry wide problem as some of the other posts have pointed our examples in the medical field. (thank you post #28)
Not totally unrelated are the cost of publishing the standards themselves. To purchase a copy of the ANSI, even only for your industry, is a substantial investment. Example: ISO 14000 Environmental Management Systems Collection cost from the ANSI site $448usd and there are 44000+ standards.
http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO+14000+Collection+1
and thats only collection 1. Is this a monopoly itself? I don't really know but I do wonder at the profit margins and availability of universal standards. Am getting out of my range of knowledge here... but in my old age my lack of trust might borderline on cynicism. Probably worth looking into all by itself. Of course somehow there are real costs involved but where is the dividing line between a good awesome profit margin and extortion? Am not completely against this business model but...
Fair warning. (look out for that truck!) or “Don't get hit by your own industrial stupidity”
I feel that copyright abuse goes too far because it reaches into my bookshelf and I am for abolishing the copyright act in its entirety if only because of the damage to American Cultural Heritage (insert History if you want) by industry abuse regardless of collateral damage. If you don't want this then your industry had better start supporting real copyright reform. (30 year limit, is probably, to much) If you want to argue with me here is my chain of logic: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/14191722072/six-strikes-officially-begins-monday.shtml#c25 58 but please stick to the topic of, public, (not necessarily American) culture as off topic comments just make my pillow fluffier. Its only my opinion but your business model (whatever, who cares) is NOT more important than the public becoming aware of its history and itself. (a cultural meem? But, I get ahead of myself.)
Mostly all I hear is “the court decides this or that about whatever”. Its almost irrelevant to the, unbelievably vitally important, (Yes that much.) underlying issue of 'eternal copyright'.
Again, all the comments were very helpful. (#69 hilarious!)
Last is best!
Next >>