I didn't realize that this seems to achieving cult status. We have Star Trek conventions, now we can have a convention based based on these film clips. The best one gets an iron cross or similar symbol. So who will organize the first convention? Just think of all the memorabilia you could sell!
I've been noticing that ads are appearing in the regular program. While not oppressive it is irritating.
Not stopping the show for some ads would be a good idea. CNBC has scrolling financial screens. When the financial data is not obliterated by the commercial, I tend to stay and watch. When the commercial obliterates the data, I leave.
Like the concept of "safety", there will never be enough "copyright". We seem to constantly need ever greater "safety" laws, "copyright" is following same trajectory.
The simple fact that people have innovated without patents constitutes an ample dynamic demonstration that the theory underlying the need for patents is flawed.
While I can sympathize with the need to grant innovators and content producers with a limit privilege to derive monopoly rents, the "problem" with patent law today is that this limited privilege is morphing into a perceived perpetual property right covering ever greater scope.
Naturally those in favor of so-called intellectual property produce distorted pseudo-scientific proof validating patents as legitimate. Regretfully the court system and the public overall have wrongly acquiesced to "intellectual property" as being real.
An important aspect concerning filtering is third party liability which you discuss a few posts down. We already see too many companies declining to produce products or services because of the bogeyman word "liability".
Beyond the liability issue there is that of the police state. Are we going to end up being a nation were people are mandated by law to spy on their neighbors and turn them in for "infringing" on some obscure special interest group?
vivaelamor, you wrote: "Well, Carbon is a pretty common element too and I think people would take issue with you if you started violating their bodies." Two different issues violating a persons body does not affect the value of carbon.
Your water flask example seems to contrived to be usable as a definition of "theft". Stealing a physical resource, such as water, is considered theft because you are denying them the use of that resources, which I assume they acquired legally and is now their property. However, with intellectual property there is no theft since you are not denying the person the use of the resource. You have simply made another copy. Now, in Star Trek there is the replicator, consequently your strawman would never run out of water in the desert since he could make more!
You are correct concerning the concept of "accessibility". To get Hydrogen in a usable form requires the expenditure of specialized equipment and manpower. Specialized equipment and manpower is also required to deliver Hydrogen. Beyond that, what are you saying????????
While Hydrogen has an "accessibility" issues, I have yet to here of anyone claiming that they own Hydrogen. The resource is therefore technically free for the taking (as far as I know). Try pumping oil as a "free" resource; people will be screaming theft.
One of my major concerns with the lack of competent engineering/scientific/technical expertise concerns the attempts to privatize the spectrum. In short, they are clueless. The RF spectrum, in short, is NOT constrained by "property boundaries". However, the politicians, lawyers, and consultants, out of thin air (pun??), seem to believe they can define "property boundaries".
Re: "ownership" doesn't equal "do whatever I want"
Faulty logic, Yosi. The ability to make phone calls and the physical presence of the phone itself are two different things. The price of phone calls is diminishing. Look at the elimination of many fees, such as long distance. In fact, with Google voice chat one could now say that phone calls are free and that Google has even "eliminated" the need for a physical phone.
Nevertheless, just because you can call for free, logic does not dictate that the phone itself free. Producing a phone (which is a physical product) requires the use of physical resources that have to be paid for. Consequently, phones are not free.
I've had several conceptual problems with some Libertarians. As you point out, no right is absolute; yet some Libertarians seem to take this absolutist view. Not only that but they seldom seem to feel ethically/morally constrained in whatever activity they are doing. It's OK to cheat, after all (they claim) its always the customers responsibility to figure it out, if they don't it's the customer's own fault. This attitude seems to fly-in-the-face of taking responsibility for your actions.
What is perhaps extremely ironic are those ersatz Libertarians who believe in IP. They are all for small government and keeping the government out of one's private life except when it comes to IP. All of a sudden they demand a big government police state to protect their IP!!!!!
As a follow-up, certain property rights, such as water rights evolve out of scarcity. Logically shouldn't it then follow that when a resource becomes infinite its property right dissolves?
Nina has expressed my concern exactly. IP degrades the concept of real property. IP is one of those concepts that has unfortunately gathered legitimacy in the public mind but is in reality fundamentally flawed.
Unfortunately, once a concept such as IP becomes "real" in the public mind it is very difficult to refute.
In theory we live in a capitalistic society. What that means is that no producer is guaranteed revenue from what is produced. Revenue is derived from the fact that customers are willing to pay for the item.
When goods become scarce, the price goes up. Now if the goods become infinite the price should decline. If the goods cost money to produce, then the cost should decline to the cost of production/distribution. If the items cost nothing to produce/distribute, guess what, the price should fall to $0.
People say they want less government intrusion into our lives.
Put all this together, free distributable products.
But what about the copyright toll-both? If you pay royalties based on a percentage of cost and the cost is $0 then the author is getting his/her fair-share royalty payment. After all - being good free market disciples - we wouldn't want to artificially prop-up the cost of a product. Let the free-market establish price.
The RIAA will never have enough. Its about the maximization of every conceivable type/form of revenue generation.
This is similar to the motherhood arguments concerning social issues such as "safety". We will never have enough "safety" since perfect safety is an impossible goal. Nevertheless, people continue to demand that we dedicate ever greater resources to making our personal lives and the world "safe". In a Futurama episode, Fry laments - "If we only had 10,002 hulls" concerning a tanker oil spill. Currently there is even an ad spoofing the hypothetical request to use fire alarms in the forest to warn the wildlife in the name of safety. In the case of the RIAA, ever greater resources need to be devoted to generating revenue and protecting the revenue stream. The RIAA will never be satisfied.
Delaying a movie DVD movie release means less sales and rentals. By the time some of these movies come out, I have forgotten which ones I wanted to watch anyway. Obviously, this demonstrates how transient consumer demand can be.
As a Blockbuster follow-up, were we live they have shortened the rental period and re-imposed the "late" fee which the call something else as an Newspeak attempt to hide what they are doing.
Why is it that credit card companies will sell you "protection", but don't seem to actually implement security features?
It also presents an apparent conflict of interest. You don't get protection unless you pay, but the credit card companies at the same time claim to protect you!!!! Doesn't make sense from the security point of view, but does point to dishonest marketing to make extra $$$.
Anyway, I have noticed some recent simple security measures that could have been implement years ago. The gas pumps now ask for your zip code. Also when a large $$$ purchase was made, we did receive a call from the credit card company verifying our purchase. But overall, I would have to agree based on anecdotal experience that private companies really do NOT care about security.
GOOD POST. I liked the link to The Shirky Principle. Glad to see there is actually a name to this syndrome. When I get home night, I will once again be doing the traditional tossing out of all the junk mail appeals for solving this and that problem.
Just recently, I saw a TV add that looked quite expensive (and on location to-boot) for donations to help some impoverished group. My response, why was the money spent on a glossy tear-jerk TV add when the money could actually have been used to help that group?!?!
Copyright was meant to be for a limited period of time and was originally smaller in scope. It has now been expanded in both time and scope to be essentially, unethical. Do dead people create new content?
The word "authorization" is being unethically applied and even in absurd situations. Do I need the "authorization" of the content owner to burn my physical book? Mike even points to the movie 2012 being sued for using the (virtual) statue of Jesus in Brazil without "authorization". When one sells a product they are transferring the property right for the use of the product to the buyer. The creator of content is not entitled to retain post-sale control.
On the post: Hitler Rants Video About DMCA Takedowns Is Taken Down Itself
Convention - Lets get one on!
On the post: How To Get People To Watch TV Ads: Don't Stop The Program While You Show Them
Ads Encroaching into the Program
Not stopping the show for some ads would be a good idea. CNBC has scrolling financial screens. When the financial data is not obliterated by the commercial, I tend to stay and watch. When the commercial obliterates the data, I leave.
On the post: Canadian Entertainment Industry Begins New Media Campaign For Draconian Copyright Laws
Never Enough
On the post: Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?
Re: Re: Libertarian Stumble Points
On the post: What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wrong?
Anecdotal Proof
While I can sympathize with the need to grant innovators and content producers with a limit privilege to derive monopoly rents, the "problem" with patent law today is that this limited privilege is morphing into a perceived perpetual property right covering ever greater scope.
Naturally those in favor of so-called intellectual property produce distorted pseudo-scientific proof validating patents as legitimate. Regretfully the court system and the public overall have wrongly acquiesced to "intellectual property" as being real.
On the post: U.S. Leaders Should Heed Their Own Advice On Internet Filters
Filtering and Third Party Liability
Beyond the liability issue there is that of the police state. Are we going to end up being a nation were people are mandated by law to spy on their neighbors and turn them in for "infringing" on some obscure special interest group?
How Third Party Liability Can Stifle An Industry
On the post: Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
Your water flask example seems to contrived to be usable as a definition of "theft". Stealing a physical resource, such as water, is considered theft because you are denying them the use of that resources, which I assume they acquired legally and is now their property. However, with intellectual property there is no theft since you are not denying the person the use of the resource. You have simply made another copy. Now, in Star Trek there is the replicator, consequently your strawman would never run out of water in the desert since he could make more!
On the post: Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
While Hydrogen has an "accessibility" issues, I have yet to here of anyone claiming that they own Hydrogen. The resource is therefore technically free for the taking (as far as I know). Try pumping oil as a "free" resource; people will be screaming theft.
On the post: FCC Slowly Realizing Science And Data Are Kind Of Important
Spectrum Wars
On the post: Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?
Re: "ownership" doesn't equal "do whatever I want"
Nevertheless, just because you can call for free, logic does not dictate that the phone itself free. Producing a phone (which is a physical product) requires the use of physical resources that have to be paid for. Consequently, phones are not free.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?
Libertarian Stumble Points
What is perhaps extremely ironic are those ersatz Libertarians who believe in IP. They are all for small government and keeping the government out of one's private life except when it comes to IP. All of a sudden they demand a big government police state to protect their IP!!!!!
On the post: Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?
Re: Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
On the post: Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?
Re: Kinsella / Von Mieses
Unfortunately, once a concept such as IP becomes "real" in the public mind it is very difficult to refute.
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Economics 101
When goods become scarce, the price goes up. Now if the goods become infinite the price should decline. If the goods cost money to produce, then the cost should decline to the cost of production/distribution. If the items cost nothing to produce/distribute, guess what, the price should fall to $0.
People say they want less government intrusion into our lives.
Put all this together, free distributable products.
But what about the copyright toll-both? If you pay royalties based on a percentage of cost and the cost is $0 then the author is getting his/her fair-share royalty payment. After all - being good free market disciples - we wouldn't want to artificially prop-up the cost of a product. Let the free-market establish price.
On the post: RIAA Insists That Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
Its Never Enough, We Always Need More
This is similar to the motherhood arguments concerning social issues such as "safety". We will never have enough "safety" since perfect safety is an impossible goal. Nevertheless, people continue to demand that we dedicate ever greater resources to making our personal lives and the world "safe". In a Futurama episode, Fry laments - "If we only had 10,002 hulls" concerning a tanker oil spill. Currently there is even an ad spoofing the hypothetical request to use fire alarms in the forest to warn the wildlife in the name of safety. In the case of the RIAA, ever greater resources need to be devoted to generating revenue and protecting the revenue stream. The RIAA will never be satisfied.
On the post: Netflix Agrees To Delay Fox And Universal New Releases, Annoy Avatar Fans
Memory Gone
As a Blockbuster follow-up, were we live they have shortened the rental period and re-imposed the "late" fee which the call something else as an Newspeak attempt to hide what they are doing.
On the post: Call Ralph Nader: Companies Don't Care About Identity Theft Because It's Cheaper To Just Clean Up The Mess If It Happens
Credit Card Security
It also presents an apparent conflict of interest. You don't get protection unless you pay, but the credit card companies at the same time claim to protect you!!!! Doesn't make sense from the security point of view, but does point to dishonest marketing to make extra $$$.
Anyway, I have noticed some recent simple security measures that could have been implement years ago. The gas pumps now ask for your zip code. Also when a large $$$ purchase was made, we did receive a call from the credit card company verifying our purchase. But overall, I would have to agree based on anecdotal experience that private companies really do NOT care about security.
On the post: Institutions Will Seek To Preserve The Problem For Which They Are The Solution
Re: Politics
As one congressman put it, every line in the tax code has a special interest supporting it. It will never be fixed.
On the post: Institutions Will Seek To Preserve The Problem For Which They Are The Solution
So True!!
Just recently, I saw a TV add that looked quite expensive (and on location to-boot) for donations to help some impoverished group. My response, why was the money spent on a glossy tear-jerk TV add when the money could actually have been used to help that group?!?!
On the post: Misguided Outrage At NY Times' Ethicist Over Ethics Of Downloading A Book
Re: Re: It isn't that simple
The word "authorization" is being unethically applied and even in absurd situations. Do I need the "authorization" of the content owner to burn my physical book? Mike even points to the movie 2012 being sued for using the (virtual) statue of Jesus in Brazil without "authorization". When one sells a product they are transferring the property right for the use of the product to the buyer. The creator of content is not entitled to retain post-sale control.
Next >>