You've found one reason which I've never seen before why this legislation makes no sense economically (assuming it is supposed to benefit artists as a whole).
you will see that real people who deal in Australian art agree with Mike that it is damaging simply because fewer people will buy art as an investment (or even agree to market art for artists who choose to have a lifestyle which makes locating them difficult).
before posting. The comments section includes interesting information from various people who make a living from Australian art, about the relatively recently passed Australian version of this (the Australian version is less forceful than the EC one, in that artists can opt-out --- although they have to do it on a sale-by-sale basis).
Since you're a troll and won't probably bother to read them, let me summarize: Mike is right, you are wrong. How surprising!
(Partially) because, of course (this being Techdirt), Lego has been successfully impeding competitor's market penetration via litigation.
Once it was technically difficult to manufacture interlocking plastic bricks to the necessary tolerances, but I think that's much less of a challenge now. Frankly I think that the most important factor is the brand recognition that Lego has (I suppose that's the analogue of CwF for physical products?).
> until we figure out the perfect formula for Soylent Green
Didn't we just figure this out in another comment thread? Where someone suggested we make the major ingredient all the congresscritters who are no longer looking out for the public good?
The RFC which discusses the organization of the top level domains notes that .com and the other national TLDs, even if administered by the US, were intended to be "international in nature" and not reserved for use by the US. The only such TLD which is currently reserved for US use is the .gov domain. The fact that the US decided not to set up a "normal" .us DNS hierarchy and exclusively use the non-national TLDs does not necessarily mean that those TLDs are somehow "domestic".
So someone might anyway claim that a .com domain was "foreign", if there existed other evidence that it could be associated with parties outside the US (i.e., is its main userbase non-US? Is it run by an entity not located in the US? Are the servers it uses not located in the US?).
Why on earth did you add emphasis where you did but totally ignore the part which said:
Even though the original intention was that any educational
institution anywhere in the world could be registered under the EDU
domain
The RFC is stating: .com is designed to be international, but as of 1993 the US has decided to use it exclusively for their commercial entities registration, as is their right. It doesn't say that no other countries could/should follow in the (silly) footsteps of the US and also forgo having national subdomains for commercial entities, using .com instead.
The fact that, as of 1993, many more US entities used the Internet, and therefore the .com domain, compared with other countries, probably didn't surprise the people who wrote that RFC, nor did the subsequent expansion of international use of the net. Their observations in the RFC do not seem to have any bearing on whether .com should currently be considered international rather than meant for US use.
> a lot of stores just use the radio, which is public and free
Nope, AFAIK it's only free for non-commercial use, if you are a store/bar/restaurant/waiting room/... you have to pay the collection agencies (ASCAP/BMI in the US).
There has even been a case where the UK collection agency wanted money for one of a supermarket's employees singing in public while working.
Actually, the real victims of piracy are the independent artists who don't have deep pockets and who depend on earning a decent living from their hard work.
As Nina Paley pointed out on another post, the vast majority of artists aren't going to be able to make a decent living from their art, alone. The relatively few indies who are close to that can still probably benefit from the increased exposure which piracy gives them (compared to the number of actual lost sales caused by piracy).
But to be honest, neither you nor I can be so certain about the effects of increased piracy. Most of the actual research done, however, seems to back the side which claims that the artists aren't as strongly affected by piracy as one would think from a naive count of downloads.
Given Adrian Johns’s personal stand on copyright which you can find in this interview on Copygrounds, I find it surprising that you find Patry's book more extreme. My impression is that Patry's vision of a balanced copyright would give creators more rights than what Johns talks about.
Of course, I suppose there doesn't have to be a lot of correlation between the contents of the books and their visions of balanced copyright. I still find it surprising.
if I composed a bunch of songs and never released them to the public, society as a whole would own those songs? That doesn't make any sense.
It probably doesn't make sense to you because you've chosen to put up a strawman? If I take a rock I own and throw into the ocean so it will never be useful, even to myself, do I really own it afterwards?
Presumably the songs in your example were recorded in some way, even if they weren't distributed. I agree with you that your personal thoughts are yours only (in fact this is an assumption in a well-known philosophical argument which attempts to justify dualism). The minute that the songs were recorded in a way that could enable society to use them if their creator were to suddenly die or otherwise abandon them, or they were communicated to even one other person, it then makes sense to believe that they "belong" to society --- i.e., that any restraint on their use would be artificial.
Perhaps it is more clear if I point out that it is possible to own physical property without being aware that you own it. In the same way, the songs could be thought to belong to society even if they haven't been distributed yet.
When I consider what people call "intellectual property", it seems clear to me (except possibly for trademarks) that if the works in question are property in any sense, they are owned by society as a whole. The "time-limited, government-backed intellectual monopoly" is more succinctly characterized as a special form of usufruct (unfortunately this concept is foreign to common law).
When the masses were only consumers of content, and copyright was a matter which only concerned commercial businesses, the fact that "fair use" was only a zombie was reasonable.
The problem is, how can the labels keep a straight face when they berate infringers to "think of the artists", when they themselves are constantly searching for new ways to screw them over?
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Interesting
If you read the comments at URL
http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artist-resale-royalty-harmonisation-and.html
you will see that real people who deal in Australian art agree with Mike that it is damaging simply because fewer people will buy art as an investment (or even agree to market art for artists who choose to have a lifestyle which makes locating them difficult).
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Think first, post later (if at all)
http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artist-resale-royalty-harmonisation-and.html
before posting. The comments section includes interesting information from various people who make a living from Australian art, about the relatively recently passed Australian version of this (the Australian version is less forceful than the EC one, in that artists can opt-out --- although they have to do it on a sale-by-sale basis).
Since you're a troll and won't probably bother to read them, let me summarize: Mike is right, you are wrong. How surprising!
On the post: DailyDirt: Modern Toys, Not Just For Boys
Re: Re: Gah. Lego.
Once it was technically difficult to manufacture interlocking plastic bricks to the necessary tolerances, but I think that's much less of a challenge now. Frankly I think that the most important factor is the brand recognition that Lego has (I suppose that's the analogue of CwF for physical products?).
On the post: Small Entertainment Web Site Fears SOPA Will Cause It To Shut Down... But ICE Can Already Shut It Down
Re: Not necessarily
Ooops. Meant: ".com and the other non-national TLDs"
On the post: DailyDirt: Growing Food Safely
Such a short memory
Didn't we just figure this out in another comment thread? Where someone suggested we make the major ingredient all the congresscritters who are no longer looking out for the public good?
Darn, can't find it now...
(NB: this comment is 100% sarcasm)
On the post: Small Entertainment Web Site Fears SOPA Will Cause It To Shut Down... But ICE Can Already Shut It Down
Not necessarily
So someone might anyway claim that a .com domain was "foreign", if there existed other evidence that it could be associated with parties outside the US (i.e., is its main userbase non-US? Is it run by an entity not located in the US? Are the servers it uses not located in the US?).
On the post: Facebook Fails In Its Argument That Faceporn Is Under US Jurisdiction For Using A .com
Look at the date
The RFC is stating: .com is designed to be international, but as of 1993 the US has decided to use it exclusively for their commercial entities registration, as is their right. It doesn't say that no other countries could/should follow in the (silly) footsteps of the US and also forgo having national subdomains for commercial entities, using .com instead.
The fact that, as of 1993, many more US entities used the Internet, and therefore the .com domain, compared with other countries, probably didn't surprise the people who wrote that RFC, nor did the subsequent expansion of international use of the net. Their observations in the RFC do not seem to have any bearing on whether .com should currently be considered international rather than meant for US use.
On the post: D.C. Libraries Offering Free, DRM-Free MP3 Downloads From Sony Music
Not legal in US or UK
Nope, AFAIK it's only free for non-commercial use, if you are a store/bar/restaurant/waiting room/... you have to pay the collection agencies (ASCAP/BMI in the US).
There has even been a case where the UK collection agency wanted money for one of a supermarket's employees singing in public while working.
On the post: Just John's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Cineverse reference?
Gasp! Could it be? Is Just John not just Just John but actually... Captain Copyright Crusader?
On the post: Royal Society Claims 1671 Copyright On Newton Letter (Copyright Law Born 29 Years Later)
Museum shop/bookstore
(C) 20XX Museum of Ancient Art or Other Old Stuff
copyright notices on postcards faithfully depicting 2-D public domain artwork in the museum shop/bookstore.
On the post: As SOPA/PIPA Still Loom, Techies Already Creating Workarounds
BTC, FTW?
Inexorably leading to (more of) the SAME act : "Stop Alternative Monetary Expedients"...
On the post: As We Complain About SOPA & PIPA, Don't Forget The DMCA Already Has Significant Problems
Stego
On the post: As We Complain About SOPA & PIPA, Don't Forget The DMCA Already Has Significant Problems
Evidence, please?
But to be honest, neither you nor I can be so certain about the effects of increased piracy. Most of the actual research done, however, seems to back the side which claims that the artists aren't as strongly affected by piracy as one would think from a naive count of downloads.
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re: Moral Panic
Of course, I suppose there doesn't have to be a lot of correlation between the contents of the books and their visions of balanced copyright. I still find it surprising.
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
Re: Re: It's an usufruct
Presumably the songs in your example were recorded in some way, even if they weren't distributed. I agree with you that your personal thoughts are yours only (in fact this is an assumption in a well-known philosophical argument which attempts to justify dualism). The minute that the songs were recorded in a way that could enable society to use them if their creator were to suddenly die or otherwise abandon them, or they were communicated to even one other person, it then makes sense to believe that they "belong" to society --- i.e., that any restraint on their use would be artificial.
Perhaps it is more clear if I point out that it is possible to own physical property without being aware that you own it. In the same way, the songs could be thought to belong to society even if they haven't been distributed yet.
On the post: Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
It's an usufruct
On the post: How 'Playing It Safe' Cripples Fair Use
Re: Fair Use never lived to be killed off.
Things have changed. A lot.
On the post: How Sirius' Move Towards 'Direct Licensing' Is Bad For Artists
Re: Hrm?
Next >>