Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
Did you actually READ what I posted?
The church, which magically existed in ancient Egypt controlled things there? Guilds controlled things in ancient China, India or Persia? Are you completely off your rocker?
Yes, authors, artists, actors, musicians, architects and more existed and created massively before copyright (and patents) existed. Often they just tossed it out there, mostly they were paid by patrons to create or were employed to do other things and did their creative stuff on the side. In many cases they made sure they were paid before doing anything.
After, say, publication, they had no control over how many copies were circulated, to whom, or at what price and at good or horrid quality.
Our current IP laws suck the big one because they've become so corrupted from their original purpose(s). As for us being more innovative if I had the time or space I'd challenge that assertion on a number of grounds. Not that we aren't but the reason for it is less IP laws but the effect of two world wars, the cold war, the space race and the basic and simple reason that innovation today is built on much, much more knowledge that ever existed before.
(I'd also point out how that would bring us back to the evil Web, even more evil search engines and the increased ability for scientists, researchers and others to actually access far more of that ocean of knowledge that they ever could have before.)
Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
"...you're blessed with a saintly virtue that comes to you naturally. Everyone who disagrees with you, though, must be evil and filled with hate and ignorance because only your views are correct."
Actually I was born with my nice shiny halo that lights the darker regions and corners of the house. Now that that's out of the way.
You bring a lot of this on yourself, bob, by inventing history that doesn't exist, somehow seeing Kickstarter as some odd form of DRM when I can legally download the product(s) of a Kickstarter project whether or not I contributed to it, make copies of it all over my hard disk and the known universe without circumventing anything. Insisting that fans pay their "fair share" as if that means something even if the end product is crap which means that I pay MSRP on everything rather than take part in a free market where things like demand and quality have nothing to do with the price in cash when I pay it. If that means the artist is eating hotdogs tonight that's what it means.
No, you're not evil. Ignorant yes, evil no. Desperate at times to make your point to the point where your agruments become circular. "Insert Mike's post topic here", "bob's posts repeating everything he's ever posted without so much as a new thought", "if all else fails bring up 'Big Search'" as if search engines are all evil themselves, and on it goes.
Speaking of search engines and libraries when will you ever learn that the results of a search engine query are the web analogue of a card catalogue? Just because you don't like the result of the search doesn't change it. It's on the "shelf" somewhere on the Web. In that sense Google's no different than Yahoo or Bing. For advertising as both Microsoft and Yahoo are in the display ad placement biz Google, in reality, is absolutely no different that Yahoo or Bing.
There, stick that in our pipe and smoke it. Instead of whatever it is you're smoking now.
Likely it's because the ad agency involved as posted it to YouTube. What better place to put your catalogue when someone is looking for a record of the agency's work?
Particularly when the ad is an award winner which SuperBowl, World Cup and Olympics ads frequently are.
Now, if we could stop fighting (and blaming) old colonial wars on everything wrong in Africa and pay attention some 50 years after to what's actually going on there it would be nice. ;-)
"Throughout history, the countries that do the best job strengthening property rights-- within reason-- end up with the most prosperity."
Now I already knew that your grasp of history is spotty at best and made up at worst. This is a beautiful example of made up. Copyright, as originally envisioned, was a response to the invention of the movable type press and the explosion of books that followed. (Note, no copyright at that point.) Nor did it have much of anything to do with author's rights it was put in place for publishers who were busy bankrupting themselves when the Statue of Anne was passed. Of course, you're free to make history up if you like but please, please stop passing it off here as fact.
Onto IP, whose altar you worship at. As there was no copyright at the time would you be so kind as to explain the outbreak of invention, creation and authorship of the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, Persians, peoples of the Indian subcontinent and, most importantly, Chinese when Intellectual Property laws didn't exist. And the continued advances in all areas by the Byzantines and Arabs after the fall of the western Roman Empire based in Rome and the "Dark Ages" which followed. All these were quite prosperous.
(There were more but Mike would kill me if I outlined it all globally.)
And since when did the RIAA, as an organization share development costs of artists or technology during its existence. Outside of their dreams and too much reading and believing their own propaganda. I'll give the MPAA some credit for forcing technological change early on. Most of that, incidentally, by ignoring or willfully violating patents and copyrights.
"why don't you go to Somalia and see how all of that freedom to innovate is working out there." I'm going to make the silly assumption that you do realize there's a genocidal civil war going on there which doesn't exactly encourage innovation in anything but coming up with better and deadlier small arms and explosives.
As long as you take pot shots at the British Library and British Museum I'm also going to make the idiotic assumption that you know the Smithsonian in Washington DC also "nicked" stuff back in the day when that was acceptable. And that there's this monument in the US Capital that was "nicked" from Egypt without asking permission or paying for it.
The worst thing is that "fair use" or "fair dealing" has nothing what all to do with "nicking" content. But you're more than happy to adopt the IP extremist view that it does. Creators still get paid -- that is if you view publishers, record companies and today's movie companies as creators rather than what they really are which is marketers. Some damned good at it.
Publishers are born and they die every day. Paper based ones are having a hard time of it now because people, it seems, would rather read ebooks or on line. Go figure, eh? Gotta be piracy, I guess.
You are right on one score. Content will be created just as it was before copyright existed. Invention will continue just as it did before patents existed. At periods it will explode just as it did before the legal framework around copyright and patent law existed.
I'd advise that you get stuffed though I know you already stuffed full of something. I just don't want to know what it is because it still reeks.
We all know that from time immemorial that libraries have been tawdry thieves of others works.
The Library of Alexandria went up in flames not because of a religious disagreement but because Moses' descendants objected so strongly to the fact that a thousand years later they weren't getting the royalty payments they so richly deserved from his works known as the Pentateuch (or the first 5 books of the Bible) as they were the centre of Torah and this crazy bunch of nuts who were saying an executed rebel and criminal from Nazareth, of all places, was the Messiah, had also stolen.!
Well, do tell us who you are. If you're so well informed and connected certainly it wouldn't be hard to come out of that smelly diaper closet you inhabit and enlighten us with your wisdom under your real name.
One of those Beatles wrote a song about how badly they were screwed by their publisher "Northern Songs Ltd" which EMI/Capitol set up after they got around to signing them. And considering their record sales, concert attendance and popularity they could have been paid a tenth of a pittance and ended up wealthy on that alone. And you did notice that first chance The Beatles had they set up their own label and distribution.
Oh yeah, George Harrsion's song was "Only A Northern Song". Listen to it sometime.
It was Northern Songs that sold The Beatles entire songbook catalogue to Micheal Jackson over the objections of Yoko, Paul, George and Ringo who had put in a better bid on it.
The reality was and is that an artist signing with a major label is basically forced to sign over copyright to their material and agree on the label's choice of publisher unless the artist has a past where they've controlled both and become successful by recording and publishing as independents. Something many do now.
So, until O Wise One Giggling, you have the balls to post under your own name you won't mind if we continue to think of you as as a clueless ignoramus.
The main question is what good does this do for any of us, including Motorola and MS. Add that to the best of my knowledge no one in a position to do so (which isn't the ITC) has ruled on the validity of MS's patent. At this point who knows?
Like a large number of software patents, perhaps the majority of them, MS's could be meaningless and invalid.
Motorola paid license fees for using the patent in question for a long time which doesn't look good on them but, like many others perhaps they recognized that the patent system in the USA is such a mess it's cheaper to pay the license fee than to challenge the validity of a patent.
Longer term is will mean that patents and patent law are held in the same level of disregard or contempt that copyrights and copyright law are now. While I see the theoretical usefulness of both copyright and patent law in practice they're fast becoming welfare and retirement schemes for lawyers, companies that refuse to adapt to the real world around them or by those who, used to wining every time out in the past, can't buy a win now. (I'm looking at you Microsoft.)
Surely this is the kind of behaviour that the framers of the US Constitution had in mind when they included copyright and patent right? Surely the free market exists now for large companies who have never really had to compete in an open market or who are still insisting it's the 1980's.
These two have their hands so firmly wrapped around each other's throats that neither can breathe. If it's not about this it's about video standards or Wi-Fi or something else.
It's not that I'm the least bit concerned about what they do to each other it's what the patent war between the pair of them may do for the rest of us. Rather TO the rest of us.
This ruling only applies to Motorola handsets and not Android handsets from other makers so Androd will continue to fly of the shelves while MS sill lags far, far behind every other major player in the smart phone field.
I keep remembering when Lotus insisted on the dongle in order to use Lotus 1-2-3. It didn't work consistently or if it wobbled loose from the parallel port it was attached to suddenly the program stopped working.
I don't think it too a month before people at the office started to load up a cracked copy that worked just fine, thank you, without the silly dongle thanks to FidoNet. The user could have the dongle attached so it looked "legit" but it didn't do much of anything.
I don't know if Lotus sold so much as one extra copy of 1-2-3 to anyone other than big and medium sized businesses.
DRM is a total pain in the ass that adds little or no value which encourages cracking the DRM in order to have a consistently working program.
What's curious here is that Rosenthal refers to his clients in first second and third person at various points in his friendly little note. Often, in the same sentence though that may not be the case because the syntax and punctuation is so bad that it's impossible to tell where one sentence really begins and if it ever really ends.
Still, "my clients", "us", "we" and "they" or "them" sort of leaves me wondering who the hell he's talking about.
If he has an monetary interest in the production then all that I come away from here is "A fool is his own lawyer in court". Old saw, largely true and wonderfully illustrated here!
"New' compared to radio and tv of course. No one was sharing music on the net 20 years ago. "
Bullshit.
I can remember people sharing music on places like Compu$pend, Fidonet and others as well as film clips, pictures and all of those goodies. All crappy, all taking half the night to download or upload BUT they were sharing stuff. And that was 30 years ago in the late 1980s through to the first ISP's appearing in the early 1990s (20 years ago) where pictures,music and everything else you can imagine was being passed around. Usenet was, and still is, full of that kind of stuff.
And you probably wouldn't be at all surprised, even if morally outraged (which you do SO well) that it was mostly porn and warez, right?
When it's a label's own publicity people or A&R people uploading to a side or seeding a torrent to get publicity it's hard to claim that it's without the label's consent Given that has been going on for decades in modified form where radio stations are supplied free copies of music as publicity in the hopes of being added to the play list and are often given away at some point by the station or its employees sounds similar to the mp3 whizzing around the universe.
"Thirty-third caller with the correct answer will win! Hurry and call now 1-888-DJS-COOL!"
Technically recording music on cassettes and passing it around or mixing it for dances or just to listen to in the cassette eater in most cars was copyright infringement. It was just never enforced via lawsuit and other ways available then and now.
The same occurs for VCR recordings and those who recorded stuff like every episode of programs like Doctor Who or a Star Trek series and tucked them away. Those copyright infringers are responsible for the recovery of "lost episodes" after the BBC and NBC disposed of the masters. Similar situations exist for other programming of that period.
As for recording cassettes for my car to say it's difficult to play a LP and listen to it is understatement I never thought the "content"/"copyright"/entertainment" industry would never object even if they did find out. By the letter of the law what I did WAS infringement, of course. But I'd paid for the LP and I wasn't going to destroy it figuring out a rig to listen to it in an Austin Mini-Cooper SS.
Pre-IP maximalist days, well before TCP/IP was even the distant glimmer of a network protocol I could pick up, free of charge a couple of Seattle radio stations in Vancouver and listen to music that didn't need regional licensing as it does today. Oh, and the music was free even if the used car lot ads were driving me bonkers. Welcome back to the world of AM Top 40 radio. It isn't so much how the programming was paid for or licensing fees were paid it was that the music arrived on my little Japanese transistor radio arrived there utterly and totally free of any charge to ME. The same applies to television programming in the United States and Canada. We don't have BBC style licensing.
As for television I could watch the latest edition of an American program on an American station out of Bellingham or Seattle without silly notices about it not being available in my area. Canadian stations competed by showing the program a day or two ahead of the US stations/networks in the area. Again, no charge to me.
I could record off air, which I did from time to time some of the middle of the night stuff like Wolfman Jack and that kind of stuff and time shift it to the following day. Or, if a friend was interested give the tape to him. No cost, other than the tape to either of us. At 16 we didn't know the niceties of copyright way back in the middle 60s nor would we have cared.
By the time the 80s rolled around I could record anything I wanted when I wanted and where even if cassettes of the day were the equivalent of mp3s today. Sonic junk.
So the notion that just because the Internet is "new" and it was around in the 80s, by the way, doesn't mean "new" conditions apply just because you and Sonny Bono and Disney say they do.
Contempt for copyright, and in some circles it's become that and more ever widening circles, comes from the ever increasing terms, the ever increasing penalty costs which are rarely granted and when they are seem to apply to 15 year old high school girls and people who have never had an internet connection in their lives. Keeping in mind that the *AA's are screaming bankruptcy while their revenues and profits have been increasing annually.
Rarely does the contempt include the artists, mind, because most of us have been around the block a few times enough to know that the creative accounting used by the "content" industry is designed to keep the pay away from the talent long enough and far enough to ensure that only the biggest of the big actually DO get paid and even then probably not all they ought to be. Even acts held in wide contempt like Nickleback and Van Halen. Ok, widespread critical contempt.
Copyright as it's currently structured IS irrelevant. At least in the sense of doing what it was supposed to do when it originally appeared on the scene. (See Statute of Anne or Statue of Anne, whichever appeals to you more. ;-))
The analogy with municipal parking regs is dead on. As is the comparison to parking meters. (which are there to make money not regulate parking as honest parking officials will tell you.)
Laws that can only be unevenly enforced if an when they are enforced at all are, in plain language, irrelevant.
On the post: US Gov't Tells Developing Nations That Patents & High Prices Are Good For The Health Of Their Citizens
Re:
And that the only way for MS to beat Google is to DCMA them to death.
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
Re: Re:
I have a good supply of barf bags if anyone needs some. ;-)
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
The church, which magically existed in ancient Egypt controlled things there? Guilds controlled things in ancient China, India or Persia? Are you completely off your rocker?
Yes, authors, artists, actors, musicians, architects and more existed and created massively before copyright (and patents) existed. Often they just tossed it out there, mostly they were paid by patrons to create or were employed to do other things and did their creative stuff on the side. In many cases they made sure they were paid before doing anything.
After, say, publication, they had no control over how many copies were circulated, to whom, or at what price and at good or horrid quality.
Our current IP laws suck the big one because they've become so corrupted from their original purpose(s). As for us being more innovative if I had the time or space I'd challenge that assertion on a number of grounds. Not that we aren't but the reason for it is less IP laws but the effect of two world wars, the cold war, the space race and the basic and simple reason that innovation today is built on much, much more knowledge that ever existed before.
(I'd also point out how that would bring us back to the evil Web, even more evil search engines and the increased ability for scientists, researchers and others to actually access far more of that ocean of knowledge that they ever could have before.)
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
Actually I was born with my nice shiny halo that lights the darker regions and corners of the house. Now that that's out of the way.
You bring a lot of this on yourself, bob, by inventing history that doesn't exist, somehow seeing Kickstarter as some odd form of DRM when I can legally download the product(s) of a Kickstarter project whether or not I contributed to it, make copies of it all over my hard disk and the known universe without circumventing anything. Insisting that fans pay their "fair share" as if that means something even if the end product is crap which means that I pay MSRP on everything rather than take part in a free market where things like demand and quality have nothing to do with the price in cash when I pay it. If that means the artist is eating hotdogs tonight that's what it means.
No, you're not evil. Ignorant yes, evil no. Desperate at times to make your point to the point where your agruments become circular. "Insert Mike's post topic here", "bob's posts repeating everything he's ever posted without so much as a new thought", "if all else fails bring up 'Big Search'" as if search engines are all evil themselves, and on it goes.
Speaking of search engines and libraries when will you ever learn that the results of a search engine query are the web analogue of a card catalogue? Just because you don't like the result of the search doesn't change it. It's on the "shelf" somewhere on the Web. In that sense Google's no different than Yahoo or Bing. For advertising as both Microsoft and Yahoo are in the display ad placement biz Google, in reality, is absolutely no different that Yahoo or Bing.
There, stick that in our pipe and smoke it. Instead of whatever it is you're smoking now.
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
You don't want to know :)
On the post: TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement
Re: Makes Me Wonder...
Particularly when the ad is an award winner which SuperBowl, World Cup and Olympics ads frequently are.
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
Re: Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
The bit the Brits had is now a separate, even if it is diplomatically unrecognized country of Somaliland which is actually quite prosperous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland
Now, if we could stop fighting (and blaming) old colonial wars on everything wrong in Africa and pay attention some 50 years after to what's actually going on there it would be nice. ;-)
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
Now I already knew that your grasp of history is spotty at best and made up at worst. This is a beautiful example of made up. Copyright, as originally envisioned, was a response to the invention of the movable type press and the explosion of books that followed. (Note, no copyright at that point.) Nor did it have much of anything to do with author's rights it was put in place for publishers who were busy bankrupting themselves when the Statue of Anne was passed. Of course, you're free to make history up if you like but please, please stop passing it off here as fact.
Onto IP, whose altar you worship at. As there was no copyright at the time would you be so kind as to explain the outbreak of invention, creation and authorship of the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, Persians, peoples of the Indian subcontinent and, most importantly, Chinese when Intellectual Property laws didn't exist. And the continued advances in all areas by the Byzantines and Arabs after the fall of the western Roman Empire based in Rome and the "Dark Ages" which followed. All these were quite prosperous.
(There were more but Mike would kill me if I outlined it all globally.)
And since when did the RIAA, as an organization share development costs of artists or technology during its existence. Outside of their dreams and too much reading and believing their own propaganda. I'll give the MPAA some credit for forcing technological change early on. Most of that, incidentally, by ignoring or willfully violating patents and copyrights.
"why don't you go to Somalia and see how all of that freedom to innovate is working out there." I'm going to make the silly assumption that you do realize there's a genocidal civil war going on there which doesn't exactly encourage innovation in anything but coming up with better and deadlier small arms and explosives.
As long as you take pot shots at the British Library and British Museum I'm also going to make the idiotic assumption that you know the Smithsonian in Washington DC also "nicked" stuff back in the day when that was acceptable. And that there's this monument in the US Capital that was "nicked" from Egypt without asking permission or paying for it.
The worst thing is that "fair use" or "fair dealing" has nothing what all to do with "nicking" content. But you're more than happy to adopt the IP extremist view that it does. Creators still get paid -- that is if you view publishers, record companies and today's movie companies as creators rather than what they really are which is marketers. Some damned good at it.
Publishers are born and they die every day. Paper based ones are having a hard time of it now because people, it seems, would rather read ebooks or on line. Go figure, eh? Gotta be piracy, I guess.
You are right on one score. Content will be created just as it was before copyright existed. Invention will continue just as it did before patents existed. At periods it will explode just as it did before the legal framework around copyright and patent law existed.
I'd advise that you get stuffed though I know you already stuffed full of something. I just don't want to know what it is because it still reeks.
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
The Library of Alexandria went up in flames not because of a religious disagreement but because Moses' descendants objected so strongly to the fact that a thousand years later they weren't getting the royalty payments they so richly deserved from his works known as the Pentateuch (or the first 5 books of the Bible) as they were the centre of Torah and this crazy bunch of nuts who were saying an executed rebel and criminal from Nazareth, of all places, was the Messiah, had also stolen.!
On the post: Band Protests As A Copyright Troll Sues Its Fans
Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
One of those Beatles wrote a song about how badly they were screwed by their publisher "Northern Songs Ltd" which EMI/Capitol set up after they got around to signing them. And considering their record sales, concert attendance and popularity they could have been paid a tenth of a pittance and ended up wealthy on that alone. And you did notice that first chance The Beatles had they set up their own label and distribution.
Oh yeah, George Harrsion's song was "Only A Northern Song". Listen to it sometime.
It was Northern Songs that sold The Beatles entire songbook catalogue to Micheal Jackson over the objections of Yoko, Paul, George and Ringo who had put in a better bid on it.
The reality was and is that an artist signing with a major label is basically forced to sign over copyright to their material and agree on the label's choice of publisher unless the artist has a past where they've controlled both and become successful by recording and publishing as independents. Something many do now.
So, until O Wise One Giggling, you have the balls to post under your own name you won't mind if we continue to think of you as as a clueless ignoramus.
On the post: ITC Sides With Microsoft Over Patent; Motorola Android Phones Could Be Banned
Re:
Like a large number of software patents, perhaps the majority of them, MS's could be meaningless and invalid.
Motorola paid license fees for using the patent in question for a long time which doesn't look good on them but, like many others perhaps they recognized that the patent system in the USA is such a mess it's cheaper to pay the license fee than to challenge the validity of a patent.
Longer term is will mean that patents and patent law are held in the same level of disregard or contempt that copyrights and copyright law are now. While I see the theoretical usefulness of both copyright and patent law in practice they're fast becoming welfare and retirement schemes for lawyers, companies that refuse to adapt to the real world around them or by those who, used to wining every time out in the past, can't buy a win now. (I'm looking at you Microsoft.)
Surely this is the kind of behaviour that the framers of the US Constitution had in mind when they included copyright and patent right? Surely the free market exists now for large companies who have never really had to compete in an open market or who are still insisting it's the 1980's.
On the post: ITC Sides With Microsoft Over Patent; Motorola Android Phones Could Be Banned
Re:
It's not that I'm the least bit concerned about what they do to each other it's what the patent war between the pair of them may do for the rest of us. Rather TO the rest of us.
This ruling only applies to Motorola handsets and not Android handsets from other makers so Androd will continue to fly of the shelves while MS sill lags far, far behind every other major player in the smart phone field.
On the post: Crysis 3 Studio Reminds You It Still Owns Your Copy Of The Original Crysis
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think it too a month before people at the office started to load up a cracked copy that worked just fine, thank you, without the silly dongle thanks to FidoNet. The user could have the dongle attached so it looked "legit" but it didn't do much of anything.
I don't know if Lotus sold so much as one extra copy of 1-2-3 to anyone other than big and medium sized businesses.
DRM is a total pain in the ass that adds little or no value which encourages cracking the DRM in order to have a consistently working program.
On the post: Techdirt Threatened With Defamation Suit Over Story On Feds Getting Royalty In Movie From Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer
Still, "my clients", "us", "we" and "they" or "them" sort of leaves me wondering who the hell he's talking about.
If he has an monetary interest in the production then all that I come away from here is "A fool is his own lawyer in court". Old saw, largely true and wonderfully illustrated here!
On the post: Techdirt Threatened With Defamation Suit Over Story On Feds Getting Royalty In Movie From Mexican Drug Cartel Money Launderer
Re:
On the post: How Copyright Extension Undermined Copyright: The Copyright Of Parking (Part I)
Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit.
I can remember people sharing music on places like Compu$pend, Fidonet and others as well as film clips, pictures and all of those goodies. All crappy, all taking half the night to download or upload BUT they were sharing stuff. And that was 30 years ago in the late 1980s through to the first ISP's appearing in the early 1990s (20 years ago) where pictures,music and everything else you can imagine was being passed around. Usenet was, and still is, full of that kind of stuff.
And you probably wouldn't be at all surprised, even if morally outraged (which you do SO well) that it was mostly porn and warez, right?
Not New. You FAIL, again.
On the post: How Copyright Extension Undermined Copyright: The Copyright Of Parking (Part I)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Blame Game
"Thirty-third caller with the correct answer will win! Hurry and call now 1-888-DJS-COOL!"
On the post: How Copyright Extension Undermined Copyright: The Copyright Of Parking (Part I)
Re: Re: Bit what about the lost episodes?
The same occurs for VCR recordings and those who recorded stuff like every episode of programs like Doctor Who or a Star Trek series and tucked them away. Those copyright infringers are responsible for the recovery of "lost episodes" after the BBC and NBC disposed of the masters. Similar situations exist for other programming of that period.
As for recording cassettes for my car to say it's difficult to play a LP and listen to it is understatement I never thought the "content"/"copyright"/entertainment" industry would never object even if they did find out. By the letter of the law what I did WAS infringement, of course. But I'd paid for the LP and I wasn't going to destroy it figuring out a rig to listen to it in an Austin Mini-Cooper SS.
On the post: If You're In Silicon Valley, Come Talk With Rep. Jason Chaffetz About How We Prevent Another SOPA
Re: Re:
On the post: How Copyright Extension Undermined Copyright: The Copyright Of Parking (Part I)
Re:
As for television I could watch the latest edition of an American program on an American station out of Bellingham or Seattle without silly notices about it not being available in my area. Canadian stations competed by showing the program a day or two ahead of the US stations/networks in the area. Again, no charge to me.
I could record off air, which I did from time to time some of the middle of the night stuff like Wolfman Jack and that kind of stuff and time shift it to the following day. Or, if a friend was interested give the tape to him. No cost, other than the tape to either of us. At 16 we didn't know the niceties of copyright way back in the middle 60s nor would we have cared.
By the time the 80s rolled around I could record anything I wanted when I wanted and where even if cassettes of the day were the equivalent of mp3s today. Sonic junk.
So the notion that just because the Internet is "new" and it was around in the 80s, by the way, doesn't mean "new" conditions apply just because you and Sonny Bono and Disney say they do.
Contempt for copyright, and in some circles it's become that and more ever widening circles, comes from the ever increasing terms, the ever increasing penalty costs which are rarely granted and when they are seem to apply to 15 year old high school girls and people who have never had an internet connection in their lives. Keeping in mind that the *AA's are screaming bankruptcy while their revenues and profits have been increasing annually.
Rarely does the contempt include the artists, mind, because most of us have been around the block a few times enough to know that the creative accounting used by the "content" industry is designed to keep the pay away from the talent long enough and far enough to ensure that only the biggest of the big actually DO get paid and even then probably not all they ought to be. Even acts held in wide contempt like Nickleback and Van Halen. Ok, widespread critical contempt.
Copyright as it's currently structured IS irrelevant. At least in the sense of doing what it was supposed to do when it originally appeared on the scene. (See Statute of Anne or Statue of Anne, whichever appeals to you more. ;-))
The analogy with municipal parking regs is dead on. As is the comparison to parking meters. (which are there to make money not regulate parking as honest parking officials will tell you.)
Laws that can only be unevenly enforced if an when they are enforced at all are, in plain language, irrelevant.
Have fun. I just did. :)
Next >>