I'm really not sure why we get bent out of shape about this stuff any more.
fact: the content industry will always push for more
fact: the distribution channel for media has merged with the communications platform
fact: homo sapiens have an intense NEED to share and communicate.
The content industry wants more money and that's just fine, but trying to have governments legislate things that run contrary to human nature tends to be a losing battle. Alcohol is legal because humans like to consume alcohol, and regardless of the health and safety issues, it is viewed as something that should be legal. Sharing is an even more powerful need that we have hardwired into us. We all saw what happened on 1/18 and we will probably see more activity like that as the content industry seeks to restrain our ability to use the technology available to us.
There are a number of industries that have been impacted by the free flow of information over the internet. They simply adapt and move forward. Why is it that the content industry is having such a hard time understanding this?
They can push for all the laws they want but they are fighting against their customers. Its a no win situation for them. They can try to fight the global internet and their customers to the death...OR they could adapt their business model to the current realities of technology.
I'm really not sure what bob is talking about, but he seems to be saying that if the market was to shift the way it already has, then the US would devolve into a 3rd world country.
Rhetoric like that certainly qualifies him to be employed by one of the AA's. Because we know that if people could somehow share digital media any way they wanted, then anarchy would ensue.
"In other words, what's the business model for the carriers if people use more data but aren't billed for it? I can't imagine that more usage without more income has much appeal for the carriers."
I'm not sure how old you are, but it sounds like you don't remember how the phone used to work. You could place a local call and stay on for hours for one monthly fee. Yep, all the usage you wanted for one fee. Reconcile that with your statement.
The business model for the carriers has always been to make an abundant resource seem scarce. Maybe you didn't notice the death of the long distance telephony market.
Maybe the studios just don't realize that it's called YOU Tube.
More and more people are watching TV on the web and so they are naturally going to be drawn in to new services. The fact that creative people no longer need to wait for the network gods to acknowledge them should be a hint to the networks. Get in while its new and start making deals with all these creators.
"I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed."
Actually you are correct. The consumer does not have the right to decide how someone else's work should be distributed. Unfortunately that isn't the argument. That's what this post is all about. Arguing about the correct thing.
The problem is that the communications network merged with the distribution network of the content industry, and there are two separate groups of laws that are meant to deal with each network. Now they are in conflict, which is unfortunate, but civil liberties have to trump monopolies.
As for the laws, we have a King Solomon situation. The content industry is happy to split the baby in half to get it's way. The only reasonable solution is to accept that things have changed and the content industry will have to adapt to the change and create new business models while the old laws about copyright infringement are altered to allow sharing on a mass scale.
To answer the original question, there is no valid reason for the consumer to decide how someone else's work is distributed, but the consumer didn't decide, the technology changed and allowed the consumer to choose. You cannot put the Djinni back in the bottle.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that Erin is using copyright law in the way it's supposed to be used.
We hear a lot about companies and artists going after individuals for personal uses of media and how that causes unimaginable losses to the economy, but thats just attacking customers. Besides promoting science and the arts, I think we all have a gut feeling that copyright is designed to prevent large scale commercial infringement that actually harms the artists.
While I believe, like many others, that the copyright system is severely broken, Erin's case is exactly what it is designed to prevent or make reparations for.
As for the person who mentioned that he did work back in 2003 and that he doesn't expect to get paid for it, that is why the length of copyright should be changed. Erin deserves copyright on her work, but not for her life +70 years or whatever it is now. 10 years seems an arbitrary yet fair amount of time for an artist to maximize profits before allowing work to enter the public domain.
For the most part (99%), aren't text books supposed to be factual? How exactly is copyrighting facts supposed to be useful?
I thought the purpose of higher education was to educate, to pass on knowledge. It seems that that knowledge is now owned by someone. If you are paying the University then why pay for the books other than the fact that they are made of paper and that requires a cost. What about digital books?
Is the factual information in Wikipedia copyrighted ? This is just getting more and more bizarre.
This debate doesn't matter. We can go around and around about the current system and its purpose, but it doesn't really matter.
The fact is that the laws that govern copyrights and patents were written centuries ago for a different point in human evolution. Technologically we were not moving as fast as we are now nor were we as interconnected.
As we saw in the SOPA protest, there is a sleeping giant out there and it can wake up if prodded hard enough. Children are growing up on the web now and don't really care about archaic laws that don't fit the real world ( yes there is a world outside of the court system ).
So if you are an IP maximalist with the law on your side, go ahead and keep prodding the giant. We've seen it's reaction and I'm sure the next few times it wakes up, it won't be as pleasant.
If the legislators in AZ can tell doctors that gestation begins before conception then it makes sense that being a jerk on the internets should be illegal.
They make sure they are in tight with as many of the local churches as possible and they state how they will uphold and fight for morality when elected. They promise a return to family values and anything else the congregation wants imposed on all the sinners and evil doers. Remember that faith doesn't require rationality (but rather abhors it).
Then that highly energized and motivated group goes out and votes.
Your comment was extremely rational and well written. That said, morality does not really care about rationality. In other words, the smart thing to do or the common sense thing to do will never be done if it conflicts with the moral thing to do.
Close the window, change the channel, turn away. People amaze with the sheer stupidity of acting as if they are forced to watch things they don't like. We don't need geotargeting, we need education on how to use a damn off switch.
On a totally unrelated note, I'm here to give the RIAA a heads up. Listen closely.
I was chatting with a mate about nothing in particular and he mentioned he had downloaded a bunch of new music last night. So naturally I asked "Where did you get it?" He told me he ripped it from YouTube, then told me about YouTube downloader (which made me feel old and out of touch).
So yeah, the RIAA wins. File sharing music is pretty much dead. With Spotify and YouTube we have all the "free" music we need. While the RIAA was busy dicking around with Congress, the internet community was busy innovating around them. You guys were so busy trying not to step over dollars to pick up pennies that everyone else scooped up the majority of the pennies. Well done!
Seems that you can keep ratcheting up the enforcement, as people will just innovate around it. Soon you will have no other option but to directly oppose the 4th Amendment if you want to find those "illegal" files since they will just be copies (yes copies) of legal content on the web.
On the post: Are New Streaming Royalty Rates A Way To Backdoor DRM Into Copyright Law?
It doesn't really matter
fact: the content industry will always push for more
fact: the distribution channel for media has merged with the communications platform
fact: homo sapiens have an intense NEED to share and communicate.
The content industry wants more money and that's just fine, but trying to have governments legislate things that run contrary to human nature tends to be a losing battle. Alcohol is legal because humans like to consume alcohol, and regardless of the health and safety issues, it is viewed as something that should be legal. Sharing is an even more powerful need that we have hardwired into us. We all saw what happened on 1/18 and we will probably see more activity like that as the content industry seeks to restrain our ability to use the technology available to us.
On the post: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
well well well
I say we go with the son of a copyright maximalist and use his words since they sound so much more correct.
No longer shall I call it infringement, but rather Copyright Bullshit.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Lazy Bastards
There are a number of industries that have been impacted by the free flow of information over the internet. They simply adapt and move forward. Why is it that the content industry is having such a hard time understanding this?
They can push for all the laws they want but they are fighting against their customers. Its a no win situation for them. They can try to fight the global internet and their customers to the death...OR they could adapt their business model to the current realities of technology.
On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?
Re: Market realities?
Rhetoric like that certainly qualifies him to be employed by one of the AA's. Because we know that if people could somehow share digital media any way they wanted, then anarchy would ensue.
.....still waiting.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: How do they charge more?
I'm not sure how old you are, but it sounds like you don't remember how the phone used to work. You could place a local call and stay on for hours for one monthly fee. Yep, all the usage you wanted for one fee. Reconcile that with your statement.
The business model for the carriers has always been to make an abundant resource seem scarce. Maybe you didn't notice the death of the long distance telephony market.
On the post: The Rise Of Geek-Focused Online Video Networks
Duh
More and more people are watching TV on the web and so they are naturally going to be drawn in to new services. The fact that creative people no longer need to wait for the network gods to acknowledge them should be a hint to the networks. Get in while its new and start making deals with all these creators.
On the post: Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?
Re:
Actually you are correct. The consumer does not have the right to decide how someone else's work should be distributed. Unfortunately that isn't the argument. That's what this post is all about. Arguing about the correct thing.
The problem is that the communications network merged with the distribution network of the content industry, and there are two separate groups of laws that are meant to deal with each network. Now they are in conflict, which is unfortunate, but civil liberties have to trump monopolies.
As for the laws, we have a King Solomon situation. The content industry is happy to split the baby in half to get it's way. The only reasonable solution is to accept that things have changed and the content industry will have to adapt to the change and create new business models while the old laws about copyright infringement are altered to allow sharing on a mass scale.
To answer the original question, there is no valid reason for the consumer to decide how someone else's work is distributed, but the consumer didn't decide, the technology changed and allowed the consumer to choose. You cannot put the Djinni back in the bottle.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
A weird day at TechDirt
We hear a lot about companies and artists going after individuals for personal uses of media and how that causes unimaginable losses to the economy, but thats just attacking customers. Besides promoting science and the arts, I think we all have a gut feeling that copyright is designed to prevent large scale commercial infringement that actually harms the artists.
While I believe, like many others, that the copyright system is severely broken, Erin's case is exactly what it is designed to prevent or make reparations for.
As for the person who mentioned that he did work back in 2003 and that he doesn't expect to get paid for it, that is why the length of copyright should be changed. Erin deserves copyright on her work, but not for her life +70 years or whatever it is now. 10 years seems an arbitrary yet fair amount of time for an artist to maximize profits before allowing work to enter the public domain.
On the post: Open Textbook Startup Sued For Allegedly Copying 'Distinctive Selection, Arrangement, and Presentation' Of Facts From Existing Titles
Ok Im confused
I thought the purpose of higher education was to educate, to pass on knowledge. It seems that that knowledge is now owned by someone. If you are paying the University then why pay for the books other than the fact that they are made of paper and that requires a cost. What about digital books?
Is the factual information in Wikipedia copyrighted ? This is just getting more and more bizarre.
On the post: Yes, Copyright's Sole Purpose Is To Benefit The Public
The Sleeping Giant
The fact is that the laws that govern copyrights and patents were written centuries ago for a different point in human evolution. Technologically we were not moving as fast as we are now nor were we as interconnected.
As we saw in the SOPA protest, there is a sleeping giant out there and it can wake up if prodded hard enough. Children are growing up on the web now and don't really care about archaic laws that don't fit the real world ( yes there is a world outside of the court system ).
So if you are an IP maximalist with the law on your side, go ahead and keep prodding the giant. We've seen it's reaction and I'm sure the next few times it wakes up, it won't be as pleasant.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
BOO FUCKIN' HOO
No, it's both. You extort money from them which is a bribe to do their bidding.
Listen to how stupid that sounds coming from a Senator. "I'm not participating THAT crime, I'm participating in THIS one."
On the post: Arizona Politicians Scramble To Adjust Internet Censorship Bill After The Internet Mocks Them For Being Clueless
Re: Guess it makes sense now
On the post: Arizona Politicians Scramble To Adjust Internet Censorship Bill After The Internet Mocks Them For Being Clueless
Ummmm
They make sure they are in tight with as many of the local churches as possible and they state how they will uphold and fight for morality when elected. They promise a return to family values and anything else the congregation wants imposed on all the sinners and evil doers. Remember that faith doesn't require rationality (but rather abhors it).
Then that highly energized and motivated group goes out and votes.
On the post: Why Do Publishers Treat Customers As Crooks With Scolding Copyright Notices?
LMAO
THANK YOU
On the post: NYTimes Columnist Stirs Up A Controversy That Will Only Drive Human Trafficking Further Underground
Re: Well put...
On the post: Geotargeting And The Slippery Slope To Fragmenting The Internet With Localized Censorship
OR ...
Don't look at things that offend you!
Close the window, change the channel, turn away. People amaze with the sheer stupidity of acting as if they are forced to watch things they don't like. We don't need geotargeting, we need education on how to use a damn off switch.
On the post: New York Times Adapts Open Source Mini-Game For Some Meta-Journalism
Huh?
On the post: Video Showcases The Many Perfectly Legitimate Reasons To Jailbreak A Device
Re: smh
On a totally unrelated note, I'm here to give the RIAA a heads up. Listen closely.
I was chatting with a mate about nothing in particular and he mentioned he had downloaded a bunch of new music last night. So naturally I asked "Where did you get it?" He told me he ripped it from YouTube, then told me about YouTube downloader (which made me feel old and out of touch).
So yeah, the RIAA wins. File sharing music is pretty much dead. With Spotify and YouTube we have all the "free" music we need. While the RIAA was busy dicking around with Congress, the internet community was busy innovating around them. You guys were so busy trying not to step over dollars to pick up pennies that everyone else scooped up the majority of the pennies. Well done!
Seems that you can keep ratcheting up the enforcement, as people will just innovate around it. Soon you will have no other option but to directly oppose the 4th Amendment if you want to find those "illegal" files since they will just be copies (yes copies) of legal content on the web.
On the post: Video Showcases The Many Perfectly Legitimate Reasons To Jailbreak A Device
Coincidence
On the post: Judge Smacks Down Lawsuit From HuffPo Volunteers, Says 'They Got What They Paid For'
But..but...
See? He does support piracy.
Next >>