Re: Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
Correct! A copyright is not the intellectual property covered by the copyright. They are two distinct things.
Though, just to be facetious, a copyright is in fact property. Not only can the work can be sold, but the copyright to the work itself can also be sold.
My books, CDs, and DVDs ARE my property. I bought them. They're mine.
Before that, they belonged to the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retailer, who did in fact pay taxes on them. (That's why there are always sales at the end of the 4th quarter to minimize inventory taxes.)
Not every aspect of an analogy must be equivalent. That's why is an analogy, and not simply the same, exact, identical thing. Or to go the dictionary route, property: he right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership : rights of property.
Some land may be property, but not all property is land.
We're doing it wrong. Here's a great article on how Israel handles security at their airports. Note the emphasis on training PEOPLE as opposed to buying and trusting multi-million dollar machines to do the job.
We're doing it wrong. Here's a great article on how Israel handles security at their airports. Note the emphasis on training PEOPLE as opposed to buying and trusting multi-million dollar machines to do the job.
We're doing it wrong. Here's a great article on how Israel handles security at their airports. Note the emphasis on training PEOPLE as opposed to buying and trusting multi-million dollar machines to do the job.
In most proceedings the prosecution has X number of "peremptory" challenges and so does the defense. (Varies by locale, but in civil cases it's usually three.)
So... if you're of the firm opinion that all RIAA employees should be shot, you'll probably be dismissed by the prosecution. On the flip side, if you "know" that all file-sharers are nothing but thieves, the defense will probably toss you out.
What remains -- or is supposed to remain -- is a group of people willing to listen to BOTH sides of the argument and make a fair and impartial decision.
Which you can't do if you're mind is already made up.
"The National Transportation Safety Board reported that the flight impacted at 563 miles per hour (906 km/h) at a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The impact left a crater eight to ten feet deep, and 30 to 50 feet wide. All 44 people died. The plane fragmented upon impact."
Ever seen what's left of a steel-bodied reinforced car after it hits a tree at a measly 55mph?
Now image a large aluminum tube hitting the ground at ten times that speed...
Everyone is missing the point. Why? Because the story is flat-out wrong.
The publisher is NOT pricing the ebook higher than the print version.
The primary example from the article is Ken Follet's 985-page opus, Fall of Giants. It sells from Amazon at $19.99 as an ebook, And it's $19.39 as a print book. Thus the ebook is slightly more expensive.
But wait. The $19.39 price for the print edition is Amazon's DISCOUNTED sale price. The PUBLISHER'S list price is $36. So in reality, the ebook is 45% off the publisher's retail price.
The PUBLISHER did, in fact, price the ebook at nearly half the price of the print edition. Good for them.
AMAZON, however, made a choice. and CHOOSE to discount the physical book's price below that of the publisher's ebook price.
The question is why? Loss-leader? Make it up the difference in shipping charges? Or perhaps it's publicity, as everyone and their kid brother (including Mike) is blogging and writing about the discrepancy. "Greedy publishers are pricing ebooks higher than the print version!"
Let's lynch the bastards! Yar!
Or does AMAZON, currently the largest seller of ebooks and electronic reading devices, and owner of the largest ebook reader platform, have something to gain from forcing down price points???
Think about it.
(And Mike, please try not to miss the real story next time, okay?)
Let me rewite that sentence, "Because the patents on the drugs that make up most of its revenue are all set to expire soon, and their pipeline of new drugs is pretty far behind."
Given the time it takes to develop and test a new drug, it's more than possible that their "pipeline" would be behind anyway.
No Mr. Coward, ALL polls are not designed to elicit a particular response. Well-designed polls attempt to minimize the bias you so readily assign to them.
What Mike seems to be saying is that everyone with a vested interest in a subject always manipulates the results. In short, everyone always lies.
Of course, if you don't have an interest in the subject, you probably wouldn't be sponsoring a poll on it, now would you?
Another rationalization: I can't have the way I want it, at the price I want it, at the time that I want it.
So that makes downloading it okay.
Not saying that all of those things you mentioned are okay, or that we shouldn't complain about them and try to get things changed... we should. Just that they're not a valid justification for theft.
If, according to Mike, economic forces drive the price of "infinite goods" (translation: easily copied goods) down to zero... then yes, it works out that people want something for nothing.
You can say, "economic forces", but that's just people choosing how to spend their dollars.
In thise case, they want the value (listen to music, watch movie, read book). But they don't want to pay for it. It's there. It's easily copied. There are no immediate negative consequences. So they do so.
Insert whatever argument or rationalization you wish (greed, entitlement, "the man", whatever), the net effect is the same.
Without this, the sound bites on BOTH sides of the fence are meaningless.
While the poll may be biased, without access to all of the questions we don't know one way or another. Mike sets up a few biased examples of his own, then continues on to assume that this poll was in fact "designed to elicit a particular response."
Ditto. I already have roughly 4,000 songs in iTunes, many from iTunes and Amazon, but most from legally purchased CDs. At roughly $1 a song, that's $4K even before we get to the 100 or so movies (purchased), 250 or so audiobooks (Audible), various TV seasons (iTunes), and so forth.
That's easily $5K right there. So for the same amount I could have a disk with EVERYTHING???
There are plenty of good independent bands and labels out there. But since you "already steal everything [sic] and anything i want without paying an extra penny", I suppose you don't care to support them either.
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
Re: Re: copyright is not property, but what is copyrighted **IS**..
Though, just to be facetious, a copyright is in fact property. Not only can the work can be sold, but the copyright to the work itself can also be sold.
Both are considered to be property under the law.
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
Re:
Before that, they belonged to the manufacturer, the distributor, and the retailer, who did in fact pay taxes on them. (That's why there are always sales at the end of the 4th quarter to minimize inventory taxes.)
Not every aspect of an analogy must be equivalent. That's why is an analogy, and not simply the same, exact, identical thing. Or to go the dictionary route, property: he right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership : rights of property.
Some land may be property, but not all property is land.
On the post: TSA Defending Its Groin Grabbing Or Naked Image Security Techniques
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-both er
On the post: TSA Does Full Grope Search On Screaming Three Year Old [Update]
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-both er
On the post: If You Don't Get Every Detail Of Your TSA Detention Exactly Right, The TSA May Publicly Shame You
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-both er
On the post: COICA Back Up For A Vote This Week, So Universal Music Ramps Up Astroturf Campaign
Coincidence? Probably not. They're just going to use this to reinforce how bad things are in the recording industry (Err. I mean the music industry).
On the post: Jammie Thomas Verdict: This Time It's $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... if you're of the firm opinion that all RIAA employees should be shot, you'll probably be dismissed by the prosecution. On the flip side, if you "know" that all file-sharers are nothing but thieves, the defense will probably toss you out.
What remains -- or is supposed to remain -- is a group of people willing to listen to BOTH sides of the argument and make a fair and impartial decision.
Which you can't do if you're mind is already made up.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Verdict: This Time It's $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would also tend to wonder at the wisdom of admitting at a legal proceeding that you're a filesharer.
Especially at this one...
On the post: British Air Boss Points Out That Removing Your Shoes At Airport Security Is Silly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
On the post: British Air Boss Points Out That Removing Your Shoes At Airport Security Is Silly
Re: Re: Wel, Duh.
Ever seen what's left of a steel-bodied reinforced car after it hits a tree at a measly 55mph?
Now image a large aluminum tube hitting the ground at ten times that speed...
On the post: China's Main Newspaper Complains That The iPad Is Too Damn Legal
Mike is right. The iPad would be much more powerful if it allowed you to steal whatever you want, whenever you wanted it!
On the post: Ebook Publishers Never Learned: DRM & Ridiculous Prices
Re: Why publishers don't care (A Guess)
The publisher is NOT pricing the ebook higher than the print version.
The primary example from the article is Ken Follet's 985-page opus, Fall of Giants. It sells from Amazon at $19.99 as an ebook, And it's $19.39 as a print book. Thus the ebook is slightly more expensive.
But wait. The $19.39 price for the print edition is Amazon's DISCOUNTED sale price. The PUBLISHER'S list price is $36. So in reality, the ebook is 45% off the publisher's retail price.
The PUBLISHER did, in fact, price the ebook at nearly half the price of the print edition. Good for them.
AMAZON, however, made a choice. and CHOOSE to discount the physical book's price below that of the publisher's ebook price.
The question is why? Loss-leader? Make it up the difference in shipping charges? Or perhaps it's publicity, as everyone and their kid brother (including Mike) is blogging and writing about the discrepancy. "Greedy publishers are pricing ebooks higher than the print version!"
Let's lynch the bastards! Yar!
Or does AMAZON, currently the largest seller of ebooks and electronic reading devices, and owner of the largest ebook reader platform, have something to gain from forcing down price points???
Think about it.
(And Mike, please try not to miss the real story next time, okay?)
On the post: Eli Lilly's Reliance On Patents May Be Its Downfall
Given the time it takes to develop and test a new drug, it's more than possible that their "pipeline" would be behind anyway.
On the post: Anti-Violence Video Game Group Conducts Study Getting Parents To Ask For Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: Re: Re:
What Mike seems to be saying is that everyone with a vested interest in a subject always manipulates the results. In short, everyone always lies.
Of course, if you don't have an interest in the subject, you probably wouldn't be sponsoring a poll on it, now would you?
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re:
So that makes downloading it okay.
Not saying that all of those things you mentioned are okay, or that we shouldn't complain about them and try to get things changed... we should. Just that they're not a valid justification for theft.
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re:
You can say, "economic forces", but that's just people choosing how to spend their dollars.
In thise case, they want the value (listen to music, watch movie, read book). But they don't want to pay for it. It's there. It's easily copied. There are no immediate negative consequences. So they do so.
Insert whatever argument or rationalization you wish (greed, entitlement, "the man", whatever), the net effect is the same.
On the post: Google Is Destroying The Economy Because It Believes In Efficiency?
Re:
The correct answer to any article with a question for a title is to consider the facts and make your own decision.
On the post: Anti-Violence Video Game Group Conducts Study Getting Parents To Ask For Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re:
While the poll may be biased, without access to all of the questions we don't know one way or another. Mike sets up a few biased examples of his own, then continues on to assume that this poll was in fact "designed to elicit a particular response."
Again, no data, just assumptions and rants.
On the post: Canadian Recording Industry Claims That Canadian Copyright Proposal Is A $5k License To Infringe
Re:
That's easily $5K right there. So for the same amount I could have a disk with EVERYTHING???
Where do I sign up?
On the post: Canadian Recording Industry Claims That Canadian Copyright Proposal Is A $5k License To Infringe
Re: Subject
Next >>