While Bieber may be a total airhead and the type of manufactured super-star that I don't consider worthy of my time of day, there *is* actually a lesson to be learned here.
When even Bieber doesn't understand copyright law (and it's his job), how can we expect the typical 16-year-old to know any better?
Somehow I don't think voting makes people *more* gullible.
Propaganda spreading through the media, intentional lack of coverage of important issues by the media, inordinately expensive election campaigns that overshadow real choice, disillusionment and apathy because people's political representatives always ignore their concerns, the economy going down the drain... these are things that turn people into "I don't care" sheep.
According to the linked article, the figurine is "holding the iPhone incorrectly, in the supposed "death grip" that causes signal loss on the iPhone 4."
That, to me, sounds like the beginning of a parody defense.
Apple scared them off on trademark and copyright grounds. Perhaps the word "iPhone" is trademarked, but I doubt they have trademarks on Jobs's likeness, or copyrights on something like a 2x2mm iPhone... All in all, Apple seems to be using the courts to terrorise a produce out of existence, just because it doesn't like it.
"This is a slippery slope for the US to start travelling. If we start tagging people or organizations as terrorists when clearly they are not in fact, it turns into the proverbial abuse of power and witch hunt that we have all seen occur throughout history via authoritarian regimes."
Don't the words "national security" ring a bell? We all hear them way too often in recent years.
Actually, I welcome you to stick filetype:torrent in your google search box. And oh noes, Google is now TPB. It's even caching the .torrent index files.
It won't be long before this fight is brought to Google's front door, and like in Viacom vs YouTube, they'll be forced to defend themselves. Had they stood up for TPB, at least they'd have taken the offensive and might have even landed a preemptive strike.
The finished product doesn't need to be "supported" because it's already created and published! But, if the published work is of good enough quality, people will certainly want to support the authorship of more works from the same creator.
In other words, the creator will stay employed by his fans, and will not sit back, indefinitely receiving rents on what has already been created.
If you think about it, this system encourages the creation of works of exceptional quality, as quantity and barely-good-enough quality won't cut it any more. That means no more movie sequels that should never have been made, because the market will send a very clear signal by not funding their production.
I'm not anti-copyright per se, but I think the above, if workable, is an almost utopian solution to the problems of supporting creativity and funding new works that does away with the need for copyright and all impossibility of its enforcement.
The real scarcity in creative work is not the infinitely copyable finished product, but the creativity itself.
In other words, creatives can sell their time and effort for sponsorship from their fans. In practice, think something like kickstarter.com but on a much larger scale.
Mike, never before has there been a troll more pathetic than Darryl, and there's a bit of popular wisdom about trolls and not feeding them that I think is very much pertinent in this instance.
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." --Helen Keller
I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with what you are proposing.
Simply put, I think it's unworkable because it tries to support the old-world publishers. They are greedy and will ask for exorbitant licensing fees (we are all familiar with "industry math"), the majors will try (and succeed) to take everything, giving nothing to the independents (random sampling favours the publishers who hold 90% of copyrights; traffic analysis and self-reporting can easily be faked if publishers start downloading their own content en masse).
IMO the very heart of the problem are the over-sized old-world publishing industries, who have become parasitical and increasingly redundant middlemen in the content producer-consumer relationship. For everyone else to go forward (consumers, creators, the internet etc), those old-world publishers need to be put in check. For that to happen, governments need to grow a pair and roll back the copyright expansion starting from the latest Acts and going backwards. Initially some jobs will be shed, some balance sheets will shrink, but as most economists will attest, ultimately the benefits will outweigh the losses.
tl;dr:
A modern publishing medium like the internet is in direct competition with the old-world publishing. For the internet to survive, the incumbents need to take the back seat and that means throwing out all the legislation put in place for the sake of the incumbents.
Ok, let me remind everyone that this is a resolution, which is not legally binding in any way. Parliament has allowed ACTA to be voted on, but has not approved it yet.
It looks like this is mainly the doing of the conservatives and the Christian Democrats (who in my estimation are neither Christians nor Democrats, but certainly have the vices of both).
If you'll sing it for me in person every time I give you a sandwich, you have a deal. If you want a sandwich every time someone plays a recording of your song, you can bugger off.
No, you make me sandwiches for life + 70 years and I'll sing you a song. See, you must compensate my one-off effort again and again for eternity minus a day.
I beg to differ, as your point is easily refutable: you calling it an "asset" doesn't make it property.
You may feel that you "own" it by valuating it and putting it down as something that can be monetised, but legally it's not property, and with the changing tides against patents and copyrights it's debatable whether it will ever be allowed to become real property.
While it would be easy for an accountant to group a bunch of these as intangible assets on the balance sheet, the laws behind them are very different.
Debt due and mortgages are technically contractual agreements. Goodwill is a natural monopoly that a business enjoys on its reputation.
Copyrights and patents stand out from the rest as a government-granted monopolies.
While a business's mortgages and goodwill cannot typically have any diminishing effect on my civil liberties, copyrights and patents can and are being abused to stifle speech and ideas. The question that needs to be answered is whether these monopolies are ethical and necessary.
If patents and copyright are property, why does the Constitution introduce them separately from tangible property? Why does it introduce them conditionally? Because patents and copyright are not the same as property.
Property implies exclusion, however it is a logical fallacy to say that exclusion implies property.
Moreover, the exclusion relating to property is an innate one, borne not only from law but chiefly out the scarcity of physical possession. The objects of copyrights and patents cannot be possessed as they are not subject to physical limits, hence any exclusion is purely artificial.
If patents and copyright are not property, and they are artificial and practically unenforceable, are they at least necessary? As things are looking, they most likely aren't. But if people realise that's the case, IP lawyers such as yourself would be out of a job, and that's why you feel the need to assert they are god-given rights. Now, who bears the greatest bias, you or Mike?
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
On the post: YouTube Sensation Justin Bieber Blocked From Uploading His Own Music To YouTube By Copyright
When even Bieber doesn't understand copyright law (and it's his job), how can we expect the typical 16-year-old to know any better?
On the post: Mainstream Press Seems To Think Fighting For Civil Liberties Is Childish
Re: I couldnt agree more!
Propaganda spreading through the media, intentional lack of coverage of important issues by the media, inordinately expensive election campaigns that overshadow real choice, disillusionment and apathy because people's political representatives always ignore their concerns, the economy going down the drain... these are things that turn people into "I don't care" sheep.
On the post: Hurt Locker Producers Demand Sanctions Against Lawyer Offering DIY Legal Kits
On the post: Apple Forces Removal Of Steve Jobs Action Figure
That, to me, sounds like the beginning of a parody defense.
Apple scared them off on trademark and copyright grounds. Perhaps the word "iPhone" is trademarked, but I doubt they have trademarks on Jobs's likeness, or copyrights on something like a 2x2mm iPhone... All in all, Apple seems to be using the courts to terrorise a produce out of existence, just because it doesn't like it.
On the post: Trolling As An Ecommerce Strategy? Online Store Increases Google Rank Via Obnoxious (Perhaps Criminal) Service
On the post: Obama 'Considering Legal Action' Against Wikileaks
Re:
Don't the words "national security" ring a bell? We all hear them way too often in recent years.
On the post: As The Pirate Bay Guys Lose Their Appeal, When Does Google Regret Not Coming To Their Defense?
Re:
It won't be long before this fight is brought to Google's front door, and like in Viacom vs YouTube, they'll be forced to defend themselves. Had they stood up for TPB, at least they'd have taken the offensive and might have even landed a preemptive strike.
On the post: How Do You Measure The 'Benefits' Of Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Music tax vs blanket license
In other words, the creator will stay employed by his fans, and will not sit back, indefinitely receiving rents on what has already been created.
If you think about it, this system encourages the creation of works of exceptional quality, as quantity and barely-good-enough quality won't cut it any more. That means no more movie sequels that should never have been made, because the market will send a very clear signal by not funding their production.
I'm not anti-copyright per se, but I think the above, if workable, is an almost utopian solution to the problems of supporting creativity and funding new works that does away with the need for copyright and all impossibility of its enforcement.
On the post: How Do You Measure The 'Benefits' Of Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Music tax vs blanket license
In other words, creatives can sell their time and effort for sponsorship from their fans. In practice, think something like kickstarter.com but on a much larger scale.
On the post: How Do You Measure The 'Benefits' Of Copyright?
Re: Re: From the "that makes sense" Dept.
On the post: TSA's Failure Based On The Myth Of Perfect Security
On the post: How Do You Measure The 'Benefits' Of Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Music tax vs blanket license
Simply put, I think it's unworkable because it tries to support the old-world publishers. They are greedy and will ask for exorbitant licensing fees (we are all familiar with "industry math"), the majors will try (and succeed) to take everything, giving nothing to the independents (random sampling favours the publishers who hold 90% of copyrights; traffic analysis and self-reporting can easily be faked if publishers start downloading their own content en masse).
IMO the very heart of the problem are the over-sized old-world publishing industries, who have become parasitical and increasingly redundant middlemen in the content producer-consumer relationship. For everyone else to go forward (consumers, creators, the internet etc), those old-world publishers need to be put in check. For that to happen, governments need to grow a pair and roll back the copyright expansion starting from the latest Acts and going backwards. Initially some jobs will be shed, some balance sheets will shrink, but as most economists will attest, ultimately the benefits will outweigh the losses.
tl;dr:
A modern publishing medium like the internet is in direct competition with the old-world publishing. For the internet to survive, the incumbents need to take the back seat and that means throwing out all the legislation put in place for the sake of the incumbents.
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
It looks like this is mainly the doing of the conservatives and the Christian Democrats (who in my estimation are neither Christians nor Democrats, but certainly have the vices of both).
On the post: How Do You Measure The 'Benefits' Of Copyright?
Re: Music tax vs blanket license
On the post: How Do You Measure The 'Benefits' Of Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Do You Measure The 'Benefits' Of Copyright?
Re: Re:
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
Re:
You may feel that you "own" it by valuating it and putting it down as something that can be monetised, but legally it's not property, and with the changing tides against patents and copyrights it's debatable whether it will ever be allowed to become real property.
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
Re: Re: Re:
Debt due and mortgages are technically contractual agreements. Goodwill is a natural monopoly that a business enjoys on its reputation.
Copyrights and patents stand out from the rest as a government-granted monopolies.
While a business's mortgages and goodwill cannot typically have any diminishing effect on my civil liberties, copyrights and patents can and are being abused to stifle speech and ideas. The question that needs to be answered is whether these monopolies are ethical and necessary.
On the post: Just Calling Something Property, Doesn't Make It Property
Re: Intellectual property is property
Property implies exclusion, however it is a logical fallacy to say that exclusion implies property.
Moreover, the exclusion relating to property is an innate one, borne not only from law but chiefly out the scarcity of physical possession. The objects of copyrights and patents cannot be possessed as they are not subject to physical limits, hence any exclusion is purely artificial.
If patents and copyright are not property, and they are artificial and practically unenforceable, are they at least necessary? As things are looking, they most likely aren't. But if people realise that's the case, IP lawyers such as yourself would be out of a job, and that's why you feel the need to assert they are god-given rights. Now, who bears the greatest bias, you or Mike?
Next >>