... whilst very funny, are, I suspect, frightening close to the actual thought process of the people buying our laws.
There's probably an internet meme photo you could insert here if that's your thing...
Now the next interesting figure to see would be how much is spent, in total, on anti-piracy "enforcement" and work out how much new content could have been created instead.
Hell, it'll probably even pay for a couple of those $200m movies...
Are you really endorsing this kind of shit or do you just have a broken record?
If so I'm guessing you also bought the cassette, CD and MP3 to avoid any allegations of format shifting?
"You now recognise that analogue scarcities don't translate to digital abundances.
Snore."
Well, ok, you can ignore that if you like, I wouldn't recommend it.
"People breaking the law with new technology is seriously the OLDEST STORY IN THE WORLD."
Yep, about 5 minutes older than legacy industries whining to their representative.
"aaand why do you describe the situation as "near-infinitely abundant"?"
Because once you have a digitised file that's what it is! Limited only by global storage space that is, as close as is relevant, to infinite.
"Ignoring of course, the rather dystopian wishful thinking on your part."
I would argue that this distopian vision is the one that is framed by the idea of regressive legislation every time a new technology comes to market.
I started writing a "manifesto" for what the content industry could do to sort out their business model and remain relevant but I was initially concerned that it was taking me so long to write that they'd adapt before I finished it.
I'm now more concerned that they might completely lock down the web before I get chance to publish it... http://www.yamdac.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/manifesto-for-content-industry.html
I'm assuming that this is an anti-freetard rant? It's a bit confused, but I'll approach it in that regard.
So, one step at a time:
"Everything should be free."
Right, let's find the people who are saying that please?
"Please come clean my house for free. Thanks."
That would be a service that is discrete, as opposed to a product that is near-infinitely abundant.
"Oh wait, you can't because cleaning can't be digitized?"
This is progress. You now recognise that analogue scarcities don't translate to digital abundances.
"You've chosen to live in a society. Deal with it."
Umm, we are, we're not the ones trying to throttle the communication mechanisms of that society. That, last time i looked, would be the legacy industries discovering that they are unable to deal with society.
Surely even you recognise the sheer idiocy of this statement "that the Greek ISPs should take technical measures to make it impossible for their subscribers to access Web sites through which illegal posting and exchange of works can take place."?
Impossible to access any websites through which illegal exchange of works can take place also eliminates the sites that allow exchange of legal works.
Surely, surely, you can see that this is an over-reaching and detrimental step?
Right, so the politicians get a kicking for trying to censor the web via SOPA/PIPA and their response is to give more funds to a body that censors the web.
This may be cause and effect but it sure doesn't answer the question of why tax dollars are being allocated to protect an industry that is failing to adapt.
I used to think that but I'm increasingly thinking that there might be a better way of doing things that gets rid of copyright altogether.
But maybe not, I might just be getting confused by how badly the current laws have twisted it away from its original purpose.
Either way I agree with you about non-commmercial sharing.
"Censorship is when the government stops you from circulating your OWN opinions, not when it stops you from repeating someone else's without their permission. There's a big difference."
Umm, no. The source of the opinions has sweet fuck all to with whether blocking that speech is censorship. A news site may report nothing but opinions pieces from other people, but if you take it down without any kind of adversarial hearing it's censorship.
"The irony is that pirate sites do more to shut off artists from making a living than any government censorship. These pirate sites are the real censors."
Right, you know that this is a complete non-sequitur don't you? Even if pirate sites were stopping someone making a living, that's not censorship.
">> Do you give to charity?
No. Does it make me evil? Of cause not, but you seems to think so."
Not at all, just giving an example of where people in the real world put profit second. No evil was implied in the writing of this post.
">> The Indian government obviously made a decision that they considered the lives of their populace more important than Bayer's profits.
Oh, how cute of them. Since Bayer's profits are going to US, it's easy choice, isn't it? Will you excuse me if I value profits of my $company (not US-based, don't worry) more that lives of entire Africa?"
Yes, yes it is an easy choice. I'm afraid you'll have to clarify your point for me though. As for valuing your company profits over all the lives in africa, actually I won't excuse you for that, it feels horrifically inhumane to me.
">> Research and licensing are sunk costs
Did you already offered your services to Bayer as genius economist? If they refused, that's probably because your explanation makes no sense. How is your business doing?"
My business is doing fine thanks, if you'd like to explain why you think my statement about those being sunk costs is wrong we can continue the discussion. Or you can continue to make petty insults instead of coherent arguments.
Either way is good with me.
">> Are Patents the best way of promoting progress?
No, but this is irrelevant question. Companies use patents to recoup huge certification costs. Don't like this process - fight to lower qualification barriers first."
My understanding was that this post was about how US uses mechanisms like the TPP to export its IP laws (that are developed by vested interests), the IP in this question is a patent, hence it seems relevant to the discussion.
">> Is recouping a company's costs more important than saving lives?
Yes. Welcome to real world, not all lives are equally valuable.
Don't like it - why not start your own pharma company and we'll see how that will work?"
"Real world" is a variable thing though isn't it? Do you give to charity? If so you're implicitly deciding that a proportion of your profit is worth less than the lives that it might save. The Indian government obviously made a decision that they considered the lives of their populace more important than Bayer's profits. Something that potentially affects over a billion people seems fairly real world to me.
Besides which, isn't starting their own pharma company exactly what Cipla and Natco have done?
">> so I'm not sure how much they would have recouped on this in India anyway?
You're so smart! Call Bayer's CEO immediately and give your valuable advise. Hint for you: annual salary is irrelevant here. What's relevant is annual salary _of target population_. If annual salary here (doesn't matter where) is ~$3000/month, does it mean that BMW should close the shop?"
You're very aggressive this morning, have I offended you? Apologies if so. The BMW analogy isn't really a very good one though is it? Manufacturing costs of a BMW compared to a Tata are very different. Research and licensing are sunk costs, Bayer might find that if they reduced their profit-per-course to something that competes with the generic market they might have an target population of around a billion people rather than just the tiny percentage at the top of the salary scale. They might not of course, I'm sure they've done the maths, so they've decided to pay some lawyers instead and people will die if they win.
All of which does tend to reinforce the idea of the whole Evil Big Pharma thing.
On the post: In Which I Debate The UK Publisher's Association Boss Who Attacked The British Library
repeated.
for an hour.
On the post: Is Photographing A Meal 'Taking Intellectual Property Away' From A Chef?
The comments here...
There's probably an internet meme photo you could insert here if that's your thing...
On the post: How Much Would It Cost To Pre-Screen YouTube Videos? About $37 Billion Per Year...
Hell, it'll probably even pay for a couple of those $200m movies...
On the post: Don't You Dare Show Olympic Spirit In The UK
Re:
If so I'm guessing you also bought the cassette, CD and MP3 to avoid any allegations of format shifting?
On the post: Director Sues Paramount And Universal After Both Deny Knowing Who Holds The Rights To His Film
Re: Re: Possession is 9/10 of the law
On the post: Which is Worse -- Sharing With Attribution, Or Plagiarism Without?
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
On the post: Greece Stares Into the Abyss; Meanwhile, Local Music And Audiovisual Collecting Society Gets Court Order To Block Web Sites
Re: Re: Re:
Snore."
Well, ok, you can ignore that if you like, I wouldn't recommend it.
"People breaking the law with new technology is seriously the OLDEST STORY IN THE WORLD."
Yep, about 5 minutes older than legacy industries whining to their representative.
"aaand why do you describe the situation as "near-infinitely abundant"?"
Because once you have a digitised file that's what it is! Limited only by global storage space that is, as close as is relevant, to infinite.
"Ignoring of course, the rather dystopian wishful thinking on your part."
I would argue that this distopian vision is the one that is framed by the idea of regressive legislation every time a new technology comes to market.
On the post: No, The RIAA Is Not Asking For $72 Trillion From Limewire (Bad Reporters, Bad)
Re:
I'm now more concerned that they might completely lock down the web before I get chance to publish it...
http://www.yamdac.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/manifesto-for-content-industry.html
On the post: Greece Stares Into the Abyss; Meanwhile, Local Music And Audiovisual Collecting Society Gets Court Order To Block Web Sites
Re:
So, one step at a time:
"Everything should be free."
Right, let's find the people who are saying that please?
"Please come clean my house for free. Thanks."
That would be a service that is discrete, as opposed to a product that is near-infinitely abundant.
"Oh wait, you can't because cleaning can't be digitized?"
This is progress. You now recognise that analogue scarcities don't translate to digital abundances.
"You've chosen to live in a society. Deal with it."
Umm, we are, we're not the ones trying to throttle the communication mechanisms of that society. That, last time i looked, would be the legacy industries discovering that they are unable to deal with society.
On the post: Greece Stares Into the Abyss; Meanwhile, Local Music And Audiovisual Collecting Society Gets Court Order To Block Web Sites
Re: Re: Re:
Impossible to access any websites through which illegal exchange of works can take place also eliminates the sites that allow exchange of legal works.
Surely, surely, you can see that this is an over-reaching and detrimental step?
On the post: Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
Re: Hollywood $$$
On the post: Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
Re: Re: Authority?
This may be cause and effect but it sure doesn't answer the question of why tax dollars are being allocated to protect an industry that is failing to adapt.
On the post: Greece Stares Into the Abyss; Meanwhile, Local Music And Audiovisual Collecting Society Gets Court Order To Block Web Sites
Re: Re:
On the post: You're Only Making Things Worse For Yourself (And Us Too), Media Industries (Part II)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish copyright
But maybe not, I might just be getting confused by how badly the current laws have twisted it away from its original purpose.
Either way I agree with you about non-commmercial sharing.
On the post: Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood
Re: This is not censorship
Umm, no. The source of the opinions has sweet fuck all to with whether blocking that speech is censorship. A news site may report nothing but opinions pieces from other people, but if you take it down without any kind of adversarial hearing it's censorship.
"The irony is that pirate sites do more to shut off artists from making a living than any government censorship. These pirate sites are the real censors."
Right, you know that this is a complete non-sequitur don't you? Even if pirate sites were stopping someone making a living, that's not censorship.
"You can keep repeating that it's censorship, but that doesn't make it true."
You might want to swat up on this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship?s=t&ld=1031
On the post: Which Would You Rather Have: The Planet, Or A Patent?
Re: Re: If you think we have problems now, just wait...
On the post: Generics Drive Down Drug Prices In India, TPP Trying To Stop That
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Does it make me evil? Of cause not, but you seems to think so."
Not at all, just giving an example of where people in the real world put profit second. No evil was implied in the writing of this post.
">> The Indian government obviously made a decision that they considered the lives of their populace more important than Bayer's profits.
Oh, how cute of them. Since Bayer's profits are going to US, it's easy choice, isn't it? Will you excuse me if I value profits of my $company (not US-based, don't worry) more that lives of entire Africa?"
Yes, yes it is an easy choice. I'm afraid you'll have to clarify your point for me though. As for valuing your company profits over all the lives in africa, actually I won't excuse you for that, it feels horrifically inhumane to me.
">> Research and licensing are sunk costs
Did you already offered your services to Bayer as genius economist? If they refused, that's probably because your explanation makes no sense. How is your business doing?"
My business is doing fine thanks, if you'd like to explain why you think my statement about those being sunk costs is wrong we can continue the discussion. Or you can continue to make petty insults instead of coherent arguments.
Either way is good with me.
On the post: Generics Drive Down Drug Prices In India, TPP Trying To Stop That
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but this is irrelevant question. Companies use patents to recoup huge certification costs. Don't like this process - fight to lower qualification barriers first."
My understanding was that this post was about how US uses mechanisms like the TPP to export its IP laws (that are developed by vested interests), the IP in this question is a patent, hence it seems relevant to the discussion.
">> Is recouping a company's costs more important than saving lives?
Yes. Welcome to real world, not all lives are equally valuable.
Don't like it - why not start your own pharma company and we'll see how that will work?"
"Real world" is a variable thing though isn't it? Do you give to charity? If so you're implicitly deciding that a proportion of your profit is worth less than the lives that it might save. The Indian government obviously made a decision that they considered the lives of their populace more important than Bayer's profits. Something that potentially affects over a billion people seems fairly real world to me.
Besides which, isn't starting their own pharma company exactly what Cipla and Natco have done?
">> so I'm not sure how much they would have recouped on this in India anyway?
You're so smart! Call Bayer's CEO immediately and give your valuable advise. Hint for you: annual salary is irrelevant here. What's relevant is annual salary _of target population_. If annual salary here (doesn't matter where) is ~$3000/month, does it mean that BMW should close the shop?"
You're very aggressive this morning, have I offended you? Apologies if so. The BMW analogy isn't really a very good one though is it? Manufacturing costs of a BMW compared to a Tata are very different. Research and licensing are sunk costs, Bayer might find that if they reduced their profit-per-course to something that competes with the generic market they might have an target population of around a billion people rather than just the tiny percentage at the top of the salary scale. They might not of course, I'm sure they've done the maths, so they've decided to pay some lawyers instead and people will die if they win.
All of which does tend to reinforce the idea of the whole Evil Big Pharma thing.
On the post: How Copyright Would Make The 'Singularity' Infringement If It Ever Arrived
Funny?
Very good.
Next >>