While I understand what you're getting at, the end of 2002 is a little past that point - the iPod had already been out for over a year. And really Napster had already ingrained the new idea in people's heads: for a few years in 99-00, we weren't downloading and burning, we were ripping and sharing! And obsessed with getting our whole collections off their individual CDs and into a big beautiful Winamp library!
Admittedly there were still lots of CD players around - portable ones, and hi-fi systems in the average home - so there was lots of reason to still burn CDs. But between Napster and the early MP3 players starting to come out and teasing us with their high price tags for storage space juuuuuuust big enough to be tantalizing but always a bit disappointing, it was pretty clear what direction things would be going.
As noted, derivatives are the exclusive right of the copyright holder. If you meant "transformative", it is unlikely lightly modified code would pass that test in a fair use analysis.
But there's another layer too: DRM can be used to close the "loophole" (in their eyes) of fair use. As long as they place a protection measure of some kind on the code to prevent modification, then bypassing that becomes copyright infringement regardless of purpose. Which, yes, is absurd and unjust and a fairly blatant way of depriving people of their basic right to modify what they own.
But a razor is not an assertion of a fundamental "truth", nor is it a statement that purports to be inherently logically unassailable - a razor is a philosophical principle that one can choose to employ or not, as a means of "shaving off" (thus the name) unlikely explanations and ideas.
There's some evidence of this starting to happen among newer IoT chipmakers - indeed it may prove to be a key way that some fresh silicon startups can shake up the industry a little bit. We can only hope.
I think you're seeing a contradiction that doesn't actually exist. Allow me to rephrase your points:
A) The supposed financial losses caused by piracy have been massively, insanely overstated. The free copying of media is so inevitable to the root technological nature of the internet itself that it frankly can't be stopped, except via means that do widespread and unacceptable collateral damage to free expression, and that help build media company monopolies. Most attempts by companies to aggressively fight piracy bear little in the way of returns, and indeed nowadays just funnel money into a new industry of companies that will play the whac-a-mole game for you, for a fee (and which have zero interest in responsibly deploying things like DMCA notices, exacerbating the collateral damage). Piracy does not "magically increase profits" but it does almost always represent an opportunity to increase profits, not by magic but with a smart business model.
B) But of course businesses need revenue. So for a media business, it's not that they shouldn't "care" about piracy, it just depends on how you define care. They shouldn't be angry about piracy, and go around seeing every pirate as a "lost sale" - they should be excited about their popularity, and see every pirate as a potential sale! It's just a matter of figuring out what to sell them. If all you have to offer is "access to the content", then you have nothing. If you have other things - even something as simple as "the fastest, most convenient access" - then maybe you've got something to work with. But really you want something even more than that. Many good models don't involve worrying so much about access to the content at all, but about scarcities and other selling possibilities around that... but, "consistent, comprehensive access to a whole lot of diverse content" can still be an excellent selling point - it's a huge part of what made Netflix rise to prominence. And now it appears to be disappearing from the industry as streaming services and content makers keep announcing their plans to fragment and go solo. Everyone is trying to walk away with their slice of the pie when they would all be much better off collaborating to make the pie bigger and bigger.
Piracy is neither a positive nor a negative - it simply is. As an indicator, piracy alone doesn't tell you much except that a show is popular; but looked at in combination with other factors and a deeper study of how and why people consume the content they do in the ways they do, it can tell you a lot about how to build a business.
Interesting! Keep me posted. I recently picked up The Turtle Moves and am planning on grabbing a copy of Discworld & The Disciplines (i'm down to very few holes in my extremely comprehensive Discworld collection now) but I'll have to add yours to the list :)
Such laws do not single out classes of people. They prevent discrimination on a given basis - race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. - but offer no one group on any of those spectrums more protections than another. It is just as illegal to refuse service to Christians or heterosexual couples as it is to refuse service to Muslims or gay couples.
iGoogle! That was how I first discovered Techdirt too, along with many other people - and it continued to be a notable source of readers for us up until the pages were discontinued 5ish (I think) years ago.
If we use your definition of censorship - anything that in any way ever on any kind of private forum even slightly obscures any content whatsoever - then... well, fine. In that case, "censorship" is widespread, commonplace, impossible to function without, will never go away, and ultimately not a big deal at all.
So, now that we've made that word completely useless, what *new* term shall we coin for serious and dangerous infringements on people's free speech?
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 10th - 16th
Re: Re: Media Storage
Admittedly there were still lots of CD players around - portable ones, and hi-fi systems in the average home - so there was lots of reason to still burn CDs. But between Napster and the early MP3 players starting to come out and teasing us with their high price tags for storage space juuuuuuust big enough to be tantalizing but always a bit disappointing, it was pretty clear what direction things would be going.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: November 26th - December 2nd
Re:
On the post: Epic Sues 14 Year Old It Accuses Of Cheating In Videogames After He Counternotices a DMCA On His YouTube Video
Re: Why isn't this considered a derivative work?
But there's another layer too: DRM can be used to close the "loophole" (in their eyes) of fair use. As long as they place a protection measure of some kind on the code to prevent modification, then bypassing that becomes copyright infringement regardless of purpose. Which, yes, is absurd and unjust and a fairly blatant way of depriving people of their basic right to modify what they own.
On the post: Why Are People Celebrating Al Franken's Incomprehensible Speech About The Internet?
Re: Typo or new verb?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 143: No Easy Answers: Facebook & The Election
Re: Not Perfect, But...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Hitchen's Razor
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Hitchen's Razor
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: October 1st - 7th
Re: Re: Moore's law
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3227044/internet-of-things/why-chipmakers-are-taking-iot-s ecurity-into-their-own-hands.html
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re: Wait, I thought piracy was a good thing?
I think you're seeing a contradiction that doesn't actually exist. Allow me to rephrase your points:
A) The supposed financial losses caused by piracy have been massively, insanely overstated. The free copying of media is so inevitable to the root technological nature of the internet itself that it frankly can't be stopped, except via means that do widespread and unacceptable collateral damage to free expression, and that help build media company monopolies. Most attempts by companies to aggressively fight piracy bear little in the way of returns, and indeed nowadays just funnel money into a new industry of companies that will play the whac-a-mole game for you, for a fee (and which have zero interest in responsibly deploying things like DMCA notices, exacerbating the collateral damage). Piracy does not "magically increase profits" but it does almost always represent an opportunity to increase profits, not by magic but with a smart business model.
B) But of course businesses need revenue. So for a media business, it's not that they shouldn't "care" about piracy, it just depends on how you define care. They shouldn't be angry about piracy, and go around seeing every pirate as a "lost sale" - they should be excited about their popularity, and see every pirate as a potential sale! It's just a matter of figuring out what to sell them. If all you have to offer is "access to the content", then you have nothing. If you have other things - even something as simple as "the fastest, most convenient access" - then maybe you've got something to work with. But really you want something even more than that. Many good models don't involve worrying so much about access to the content at all, but about scarcities and other selling possibilities around that... but, "consistent, comprehensive access to a whole lot of diverse content" can still be an excellent selling point - it's a huge part of what made Netflix rise to prominence. And now it appears to be disappearing from the industry as streaming services and content makers keep announcing their plans to fragment and go solo. Everyone is trying to walk away with their slice of the pie when they would all be much better off collaborating to make the pie bigger and bigger.
Piracy is neither a positive nor a negative - it simply is. As an indicator, piracy alone doesn't tell you much except that a show is popular; but looked at in combination with other factors and a deeper study of how and why people consume the content they do in the ways they do, it can tell you a lot about how to build a business.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Make more Discworld comments, people.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 17th - 23rd
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Harvard retro
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 17th - 23rd
Re: Re: Re: Harvard retro
Such laws do not single out classes of people. They prevent discrimination on a given basis - race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. - but offer no one group on any of those spectrums more protections than another. It is just as illegal to refuse service to Christians or heterosexual couples as it is to refuse service to Muslims or gay couples.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: September 17th - 23rd
Re: Harvard retro
On the post: Yes, You Can Believe In Internet Freedom Without Being A Shill
On the post: Music Industry Is Painting A Target On YouTube Ripping Sites, Despite Their Many Non-Infringing Uses
Re: Isnt those rippingsites illegal already?
the audio ripping sites would be illegal even if we just read youtube's terms-of-service?
YouTube's terms of service are not the law.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: August 27th - September 2nd
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Turns Twenty!
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: August 6th - 12th
Re: Re: Re: In the last week
So, now that we've made that word completely useless, what *new* term shall we coin for serious and dangerous infringements on people's free speech?
Next >>