As Stephen Colbert would say:
"So, Mr. Masnick...
Lawsuits over Intellectual Property, censoring free speech and stifling technology: Good idea? or the Best Idea?
I don't have that one, so I'm just gonna put you down for Good..."
Hasn't anyone read TV tropes! http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards
The whole POINT of this is to show that Megaupload is such a dastardly bunch of seal-clubbing, baby-kicking, puppy-skinning ghouls that even a corporation as EVIL as Google is disgusted by their nazi-like behavior!
You know - like how the Joker (Google) refused to work with Red Skull (Megaupload) the Nazi against Batman (MPAA/RIAA).
What seems to be a big problem in most "modern" industries is recognizing the difference between a consumer and a fan.
Nearly EVERYONE is a consumer of news.
Almost NO ONE is a fan of news itself.
There are vanishingly few people who would willingly pay for free content just because they value supporting the concept of news.
MOST people are a fan of a particular news site or blog. It isn't the news itself, which is just information, but the presentation of that news, the style of the writing, and other qualities that engage us to connect with a particular site.
The bottom line is that most newspapers (and content providers in general) wrongly assume that their CONSUMERS identical to their fans, but most consumers will move elsewhere when a paywall gets erected. A paywall will only be supported by fans of NEWS and locked-in consumers of that particular site (a la WSJ) and discourages all others who can consume news in a variety of formats.
Really?
REALLY? Did you JUST post that?
Without reading ANY of the previous multitude of stories detailing exactly that and working through that argument:
They've covered major acts.
"Show me the small musicians."
They've done that too...
"Show me the middle-layer"
They've done that too...
Just... shut it. read up on the experiment - it has worked for numerous groups in a variety of sizes and situations - the key is finding the SPECIFIC implementation of the truly sensible strategy that is catered to YOUR audience.
Please read up in CwF + RtB and stop making a fool of yourself.
Know-Nothing-Bozo, that dog from "Mostly Harmless?" friggin insanely yapping his head off and every just stands around and laughs.
Oh, and in response to Tom Landry - the MARGINAL COST of music has dropped to zero. Music itself is extremely VALUABLE, but the cost of it's reproduction has changed. Not at all the same as having no value. Tsk. We've covered this before several times...
But this isn't an issue of double jeopardy - there is no question as to the "standard of evidence" - it's an application of law: is providing a tracker service illegal or not? the law was interpereted as saying NO.
Ergo, "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs preponderance isn't an issue - what he did was deemed LEGAL. you would need it overturned on an appeal.
Since it's legal, it isn't infringement, and you wouldn't be able to get him whether civil or criminal.
They would have to attack him for a different charge entirely in order to mount a successful offensive, and I don't quite see how they could do that in such a way as to take down the site itself.
OO! Create disclaimer T-Shirts that specifically state that the team does not endorse this fan T-shirt:
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX University
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX Band
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX Company
in BIG contrasting letters right in the front in order to avoid confusion. That way, nobody can claim false endorsement.
Then we can add an optional clause on the back:
XXX Team/University/Band/Company were/are idiots for punishing their fans.
"Well that's just it, no one cares what YOU prefer. You're just a little kid who makes mash-ups or something and is obviously embittered over the fact that there are artists who are well known, respected, and are able to create art full time whereas you are none of the above and likely never will be."
OOO! We are getting SO CLOSE to Godwins law. I think I saw a post earlier equating one side with giving in to terrorists.
Seriously. What you ACTUALLY PROVIDE is a unique experience and interaction as a comedian, writer, artist, etc. Your "physical product" is just information, and can be freely copied whether you like it or not.
The only reason why people hire Elvis impersonators is that they real King (and the King of Pop now, too, I guess...) is dead, so they settle for a substitute.
I don't hire someone to tell Eddie Izzard jokes, I hire Izzard because he's the CREATIVE SOURCE. If Izzard decides not to, I use a substitute, and tough noogies to him that someone can do his job even if he doesn't like it.
"No one cares what YOU think about copyright. On the other hand, lots of people DO care what the founding fathers thought."
And obviously they had some fallacious ideas - to quote 1776:
"If we give in, Franklin, the future will never forgive us!"
"Who does the future think we are? DEMI-GODS? We're men, no more, no less..."
So the founding fathers placed a CAVEAT in their allowance to monopoly: "TO PROMOTE THE USEFUL ARTS"
They understood that, being falable, it was POSSIBLE THAT THEY WERE WRONG! (*gasp*)
Copyright has been PROVEN time and again to PREVENT the useful arts. I think it is time to invoke the caveat our wise founding fathers included and step into a future where people aren't prevented from expressing creativity because someone else "owns" some miniscule part of it.
"Go back further, the only ones getting entertained was the king and his court, and pretty much nobody else."
Wow. You REALLY don't know your history.
Let's go back further - tribal dances? cave paintings?
Colloseums weren't private.
Theater has a VERY LOOOONG history of being paired with (and subsequently seperated from) religion. Are you aware the the very STRUCTURE of Eastern Orthodox Churches are derived from the traveling THEATER troops who would go from place to place and set up shop in the local town square to perform religious re-enactments of bible scenes?
ENTERTAINMENT HAS NEVER BEEN THE SOLE PURVIEW OF THE WEALTHY. Stop lying to yourself.
If I copy the Picasso and put my name on it, is it worth the same priceless millions?
How about those newer modern art pieces? with the red square on a white canvas?
The value lies in the novelty. My work imitating Picaso, the Rolling Stones, or Robin Williams will NEVER be as valuable as theirs, because it isn't ORIGINAL. Time and again studies have shown that even identical copies are only a poor substitute for the original.
MORE THAN THE PRODUCT ITSELF, the market craves novelty and creativity. It's the reason why we subconciously associate "new" with "better" (in many cases) - the thrill of a different experience. Once that experience becomes commonplace, replications become trite.
Ultimately, the Human Race are junkies looking for their next creative fix. Art, Music, Comedy, Literature, and "News" itself are only ways of satisfying the primal urge to experience something different.
Springsteen built his work on hundreds of musical history and studies in chord progression. He "stole" it and made something new, so we remember and REWARD his newness.
Harper Lee built on the subtleties of the english language, all borrowed and "stolen" as well as literary idioms. His creativity is what we laud.
Picasso's work is "stolen" from the studies of light, shading, and perspective (and non-perspective) that predate him hundreds if not THOUSANDS of years. HOWEVER, he opened whole new vistas of art and ways of experiencing expressions of the world. THAT is hsi granduer and continuing contribution to our society and culture.
Look it up - priceless art IS already only the privilege of the wealthy elite - YOU SHOW ME a middle class or even upper middle class person who owns a Renoir, a Michealangelo, or any widely recognizable piece of art.
POINT to the people with houses under 400k who are the benefactors of major musicians and writers.
Or you can stop trying to delude yourself that we live in world that ISN'T controlled by multimillion dollar media conglomerates that took the place of individual sponsors when they were told they could take rights away from other people.
Ok. so. You just proved that you didn't get it.
Can people replicate your recipe?
OF COURSE.
IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO COPY A RECIPE, EVEN IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT A SECRET.
What they CANNOT copy is your experience and knowledge.
You spent hundreds of hours perfecting a recipe, so you will automatically be FAR ahead of anyone else - though they may try to copy you:
A) you can boast about being the "original."
and
B) your experience and knowledge enables you to make better recipes from scratch with less investment costs.
NO ONE can duplicate your experience even though they may duplicate your product. That gives you an unconquerable edge.
So, people keep trying to copy your recipes, they are FOLLOWERS. and it just forces you to come up with MORE recipes and INNOVATE.
Why do you assume that because you created ONE RECIPE you get the right to abuse the public with your monopoly forever?
There is no singular "best recipe of all types" for cookies, just like there is no "best song of all types" for music or "best clothing design" or "best piece of artwork EVER!"
These myths are precisely the strawmen always placed on a pedistal to be "preserved" through copywrong and artificial monopoly. If you are a creative person, then create, if you can't create, either hire someone else who can or get out of the market before you crash and burn.
Stop dragging the rest of culture down because you want to rest on your laurels and have others feed you grapes and fan you with palm fronds for your all-holy "creativity."
Stop idolizing yourself and get your butt back to work.
I'm pretty darn sure that the was point of capitalizing the word "dynamite" - The author of the comment was aware of the irony of criticizing a Nobel prize given to a patented discovery when tnt was itself patented by Nobel.
What he laments is the concept of something so integral to life itself receiving a patent, while dynamite, while useful, isn't "life giving."
Anyone interested in setting up a patent for discovery of a simple proccess for the manufacture of DHMO?
Perhaps we could petition to setup a legally recognized organization with the ability to determine "fair use."
Basically send in a brief and have it ruled preemptively as fair use before publishing/implementation and therefore exempt.
Admitedly, as an economist I recognize that this places significant friction in what otherwise SHOULD be a rather frictionless process.
HOWEVER, preemptive rulings will shut up those who sue at the drop of a hat. If we implement the right (requirement) of a court to fine those who bring suit against the party who obtained preemptive fair use, it WILL dampen the random suing of individuals by presumptive "rights owners."
Essentially, we can use the "chilling effect" in the opposite manner, where people become reluctant to sue under the presumption that prior fair use was already obtained and thus that they face an automatic fail.
Since the use would be determined by a legal body, there could be no belly-aching about "enabling rampant file-sharing," since it would already be denied in such cases (except in rare circumstance) from fair use.
ON THE OTHER HAND, it would prevent the RIAA, MPAA and various record companies from being so triggerhappy in gunning for derivative works in an attempt to shut them down.
Apparently, you have NO IDEA how a file sharing system even works!
preventing ONE SOURCE (or seed) does NOTHING to stop others from downloading. It merely creates a higher density of connections to the existing files.
No way can this "million download" figure be applied. It's simply impossible.
To say that "no other crimes would have occurred" when it is clear that it IS presently available regardless of any one persons actions is sticking your head in the sand.
I have NO music on my computer anymore. none.
And if I choose to listen to something, it's the wonderful world of (presently) free FM radio.
Try it.
You'd be amazed what you hear once you shut out the noise (and your own voice) and listen.
On another point - Did anyone think to point out that all the songs pirated could have been easily ripped from the radio and digitally cleaned?
In that case, it's already been paid for. By the radio station. The RIAA has no proof that that wasn't the case.
Also, someone should have pointed out to the jury WHO the money would be going TO. Bring in a former label musician and get them to testify how much debt the record companies put them in, and how much they fail to pay their artists by hiding the money from them in subtle fees. Then see if the jury would be so quick to award a bunch of theives their extortion money.
On the contrary - the basic economics of the model
Cutting down on the ability to ACCESS such things merely makes them more scarce, and therefore more valuable.
As a result, the sites can charge more money for their now "scarce" services, and it will encourage more entrants into the market.
Basic economics. Track the perpetrators, not the "drug bust"
If you divide the $3.6 million dollars by the number of violations of copyright since TPB's inception... Fractions of a cent per violation?
Anyone want to use that as a legal defense - that legal precedent sets the penalty of violation to basically under a dollar? Higher penalties are unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment?
How's that for pissing off the RIAA - show up in court, and then concede to write them a check for 42 cents. It'll cost them a thousand times more to investigate and send a letter.
On the post: Who's Still Backing SOPA/PIPA... And Why?
wait... what?
I take that as a divine omen that we should support this bill!
Or bathe ourselves in the intestines of our human sacrifices to the Eldritch gods...
Either way, it's a party!
Though I think the sacrifice might lead to fewer violations of human rights...
On the post: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Would Like To Know What You Think Of Them (Sorta)
"So, Mr. Masnick...
Lawsuits over Intellectual Property, censoring free speech and stifling technology: Good idea? or the Best Idea?
I don't have that one, so I'm just gonna put you down for Good..."
On the post: Wil Wheaton Says Chris Dodd Is Lying About Lost Jobs; Says MPAA Accounting Creates More Losses Than Piracy
Re: Re:
and shared his love of freedom, homebrew, and geek culture with the world.
On the post: Megaupload Indictment Shows That Google Does Actively Police Against Its Ads Showing Near Infringement
You're missing the point!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards
The whole POINT of this is to show that Megaupload is such a dastardly bunch of seal-clubbing, baby-kicking, puppy-skinning ghouls that even a corporation as EVIL as Google is disgusted by their nazi-like behavior!
You know - like how the Joker (Google) refused to work with Red Skull (Megaupload) the Nazi against Batman (MPAA/RIAA).
See? it fits!
On the post: Free Is Not An Aberration; It's Basic Economics
the difference between consumers and fans
Nearly EVERYONE is a consumer of news.
Almost NO ONE is a fan of news itself.
There are vanishingly few people who would willingly pay for free content just because they value supporting the concept of news.
MOST people are a fan of a particular news site or blog. It isn't the news itself, which is just information, but the presentation of that news, the style of the writing, and other qualities that engage us to connect with a particular site.
The bottom line is that most newspapers (and content providers in general) wrongly assume that their CONSUMERS identical to their fans, but most consumers will move elsewhere when a paywall gets erected. A paywall will only be supported by fans of NEWS and locked-in consumers of that particular site (a la WSJ) and discourages all others who can consume news in a variety of formats.
On the post: This Has To Be A Joke: Music Duo Claims It Won't Sell CDs Again Until 'Piracy' Is Stopped
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the future
REALLY? Did you JUST post that?
Without reading ANY of the previous multitude of stories detailing exactly that and working through that argument:
They've covered major acts.
"Show me the small musicians."
They've done that too...
"Show me the middle-layer"
They've done that too...
Just... shut it. read up on the experiment - it has worked for numerous groups in a variety of sizes and situations - the key is finding the SPECIFIC implementation of the truly sensible strategy that is catered to YOUR audience.
Please read up in CwF + RtB and stop making a fool of yourself.
On the post: Billboard Gets Snarky; Not A Believer In CwF + RtB
TAMMY reminds me of...
Oh, and in response to Tom Landry - the MARGINAL COST of music has dropped to zero. Music itself is extremely VALUABLE, but the cost of it's reproduction has changed. Not at all the same as having no value. Tsk. We've covered this before several times...
On the post: Recording Industry May Go After OiNK Admin Again
Re: Re: Double Jeopardy
Ergo, "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs preponderance isn't an issue - what he did was deemed LEGAL. you would need it overturned on an appeal.
Since it's legal, it isn't infringement, and you wouldn't be able to get him whether civil or criminal.
They would have to attack him for a different charge entirely in order to mount a successful offensive, and I don't quite see how they could do that in such a way as to take down the site itself.
On the post: You Can't Be A Fan Of University Of Cincinnati's Sports Teams Unless You've Paid The Proper License
I smell a franchise opportunity...
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX University
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX Band
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX Company
in BIG contrasting letters right in the front in order to avoid confusion. That way, nobody can claim false endorsement.
Then we can add an optional clause on the back:
XXX Team/University/Band/Company were/are idiots for punishing their fans.
Or something.
DIBS! So don't you all be stealing my idea. ;)
On the post: So A Lawyer, A Comedian And An Economist Walk Into A Bar... Copyright, Reputation And Comedy
Re:
OOO! We are getting SO CLOSE to Godwins law. I think I saw a post earlier equating one side with giving in to terrorists.
Seriously. What you ACTUALLY PROVIDE is a unique experience and interaction as a comedian, writer, artist, etc. Your "physical product" is just information, and can be freely copied whether you like it or not.
The only reason why people hire Elvis impersonators is that they real King (and the King of Pop now, too, I guess...) is dead, so they settle for a substitute.
I don't hire someone to tell Eddie Izzard jokes, I hire Izzard because he's the CREATIVE SOURCE. If Izzard decides not to, I use a substitute, and tough noogies to him that someone can do his job even if he doesn't like it.
"No one cares what YOU think about copyright. On the other hand, lots of people DO care what the founding fathers thought."
And obviously they had some fallacious ideas - to quote 1776:
"If we give in, Franklin, the future will never forgive us!"
"Who does the future think we are? DEMI-GODS? We're men, no more, no less..."
So the founding fathers placed a CAVEAT in their allowance to monopoly: "TO PROMOTE THE USEFUL ARTS"
They understood that, being falable, it was POSSIBLE THAT THEY WERE WRONG! (*gasp*)
Copyright has been PROVEN time and again to PREVENT the useful arts. I think it is time to invoke the caveat our wise founding fathers included and step into a future where people aren't prevented from expressing creativity because someone else "owns" some miniscule part of it.
On the post: So A Lawyer, A Comedian And An Economist Walk Into A Bar... Copyright, Reputation And Comedy
Re: Re: Re:
Wow. You REALLY don't know your history.
Let's go back further - tribal dances? cave paintings?
Colloseums weren't private.
Theater has a VERY LOOOONG history of being paired with (and subsequently seperated from) religion. Are you aware the the very STRUCTURE of Eastern Orthodox Churches are derived from the traveling THEATER troops who would go from place to place and set up shop in the local town square to perform religious re-enactments of bible scenes?
ENTERTAINMENT HAS NEVER BEEN THE SOLE PURVIEW OF THE WEALTHY. Stop lying to yourself.
On the post: So A Lawyer, A Comedian And An Economist Walk Into A Bar... Copyright, Reputation And Comedy
Re:
How about those newer modern art pieces? with the red square on a white canvas?
The value lies in the novelty. My work imitating Picaso, the Rolling Stones, or Robin Williams will NEVER be as valuable as theirs, because it isn't ORIGINAL. Time and again studies have shown that even identical copies are only a poor substitute for the original.
MORE THAN THE PRODUCT ITSELF, the market craves novelty and creativity. It's the reason why we subconciously associate "new" with "better" (in many cases) - the thrill of a different experience. Once that experience becomes commonplace, replications become trite.
Ultimately, the Human Race are junkies looking for their next creative fix. Art, Music, Comedy, Literature, and "News" itself are only ways of satisfying the primal urge to experience something different.
Springsteen built his work on hundreds of musical history and studies in chord progression. He "stole" it and made something new, so we remember and REWARD his newness.
Harper Lee built on the subtleties of the english language, all borrowed and "stolen" as well as literary idioms. His creativity is what we laud.
Picasso's work is "stolen" from the studies of light, shading, and perspective (and non-perspective) that predate him hundreds if not THOUSANDS of years. HOWEVER, he opened whole new vistas of art and ways of experiencing expressions of the world. THAT is hsi granduer and continuing contribution to our society and culture.
Look it up - priceless art IS already only the privilege of the wealthy elite - YOU SHOW ME a middle class or even upper middle class person who owns a Renoir, a Michealangelo, or any widely recognizable piece of art.
POINT to the people with houses under 400k who are the benefactors of major musicians and writers.
Or you can stop trying to delude yourself that we live in world that ISN'T controlled by multimillion dollar media conglomerates that took the place of individual sponsors when they were told they could take rights away from other people.
On the post: So A Lawyer, A Comedian And An Economist Walk Into A Bar... Copyright, Reputation And Comedy
Re: Copying is stealing.
Can people replicate your recipe?
OF COURSE.
IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO COPY A RECIPE, EVEN IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT A SECRET.
What they CANNOT copy is your experience and knowledge.
You spent hundreds of hours perfecting a recipe, so you will automatically be FAR ahead of anyone else - though they may try to copy you:
A) you can boast about being the "original."
and
B) your experience and knowledge enables you to make better recipes from scratch with less investment costs.
NO ONE can duplicate your experience even though they may duplicate your product. That gives you an unconquerable edge.
So, people keep trying to copy your recipes, they are FOLLOWERS. and it just forces you to come up with MORE recipes and INNOVATE.
Why do you assume that because you created ONE RECIPE you get the right to abuse the public with your monopoly forever?
There is no singular "best recipe of all types" for cookies, just like there is no "best song of all types" for music or "best clothing design" or "best piece of artwork EVER!"
These myths are precisely the strawmen always placed on a pedistal to be "preserved" through copywrong and artificial monopoly. If you are a creative person, then create, if you can't create, either hire someone else who can or get out of the market before you crash and burn.
Stop dragging the rest of culture down because you want to rest on your laurels and have others feed you grapes and fan you with palm fronds for your all-holy "creativity."
Stop idolizing yourself and get your butt back to work.
On the post: Basic Building Blocks Of Life Patented... But Wins A Nobel Prize
Re: alfred would approve
What he laments is the concept of something so integral to life itself receiving a patent, while dynamite, while useful, isn't "life giving."
Anyone interested in setting up a patent for discovery of a simple proccess for the manufacture of DHMO?
On the post: Permission Culture: Want To Quote A Single Sentence In A Book? Pay Up!
Fair Use idea?
Perhaps we could petition to setup a legally recognized organization with the ability to determine "fair use."
Basically send in a brief and have it ruled preemptively as fair use before publishing/implementation and therefore exempt.
Admitedly, as an economist I recognize that this places significant friction in what otherwise SHOULD be a rather frictionless process.
HOWEVER, preemptive rulings will shut up those who sue at the drop of a hat. If we implement the right (requirement) of a court to fine those who bring suit against the party who obtained preemptive fair use, it WILL dampen the random suing of individuals by presumptive "rights owners."
Essentially, we can use the "chilling effect" in the opposite manner, where people become reluctant to sue under the presumption that prior fair use was already obtained and thus that they face an automatic fail.
Since the use would be determined by a legal body, there could be no belly-aching about "enabling rampant file-sharing," since it would already be denied in such cases (except in rare circumstance) from fair use.
ON THE OTHER HAND, it would prevent the RIAA, MPAA and various record companies from being so triggerhappy in gunning for derivative works in an attempt to shut them down.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million
Re: Re: Re: Re:
preventing ONE SOURCE (or seed) does NOTHING to stop others from downloading. It merely creates a higher density of connections to the existing files.
No way can this "million download" figure be applied. It's simply impossible.
To say that "no other crimes would have occurred" when it is clear that it IS presently available regardless of any one persons actions is sticking your head in the sand.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have NO music on my computer anymore. none.
And if I choose to listen to something, it's the wonderful world of (presently) free FM radio.
Try it.
You'd be amazed what you hear once you shut out the noise (and your own voice) and listen.
On another point - Did anyone think to point out that all the songs pirated could have been easily ripped from the radio and digitally cleaned?
In that case, it's already been paid for. By the radio station. The RIAA has no proof that that wasn't the case.
Also, someone should have pointed out to the jury WHO the money would be going TO. Bring in a former label musician and get them to testify how much debt the record companies put them in, and how much they fail to pay their artists by hiding the money from them in subtle fees. Then see if the jury would be so quick to award a bunch of theives their extortion money.
On the post: Child Porn Blacklist Group Claims Its Approach Is Working, But There Are Lots Of Questions
On the contrary - the basic economics of the model
As a result, the sites can charge more money for their now "scarce" services, and it will encourage more entrants into the market.
Basic economics. Track the perpetrators, not the "drug bust"
On the post: Pirate Bay Loses A Lawsuit; Entertainment Industry Loses An Opportunity
Wait... a little math here...
Anyone want to use that as a legal defense - that legal precedent sets the penalty of violation to basically under a dollar? Higher penalties are unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment?
How's that for pissing off the RIAA - show up in court, and then concede to write them a check for 42 cents. It'll cost them a thousand times more to investigate and send a letter.
On the post: Italian Writer Claims She Owns The Rights To The Benjamin Button Story
Yeah. Original.
This is all bunk.
Next >>