You do realize that it is the courts' job to interpret laws right? I mean, that is basic Civics 101 stuff here. Congress writes bills. President Signs them into law. The Courts interpret the laws. Basic stuff here.
Have you ever been to Kickstarter? I know of no project being successfully funded without the creator having some way of verifying their ability to the public. Whether that is previous work in a related field that shows they are capable of creating what they are asking money for, or enough work done on the current project to show that they can actually do what they are saying the can. People are not stupid and don't just blindly throw their money around. They make intelligent decisions on what to invest in.
Have you not visited Kickstarter? Most successful Kickstarters come from people who have creating things in the past that show off what they can do. Others have enough created for what they want money for to show off what they are doing. I have yet to see anything from an unknown with nothing to show get successfully funded.
Why should I provide you further links when you are commenting on a story that provides exactly what you are asking for. In this very story, Mike points out that copyright that actually encourages learning is a good thing. Unfortunately, modern copyright does no such thing and is harming education.
In a free market, we would be able to jailbreak our video game consoles and smart phones. In a free market we would be able to format shift our DVDs to use on our smartphones. In a free market we would be free to read our eBooks on as many devices we own as we wanted.
Large content creators like those represented by the RIAA and MPAA don't want a free market. They want complete control over the entertainment market.
Zachary, the public ALWAYS has the power to NOT BUY.
And that is what a large majority of them are doing. Not buying the stuff.
That does NOT give them the ability to STEAL content.
They don't need anything to give them the "ability" to steal. They have that "ability" from birth. I think what you meant to say is the "right" to steal. However, that doesn't make your comment any more correct as copyright infringement does not equal theft. Theft and copyright infringement are very different things. It would help you if you took the time to learn that distinction.
If the public is watching the movies illegally that just proves that the public WANTS big budget movies instead of YouTube videos.
I don't see how that prove what you say it does. For example (now this is just my experience) I have a Netflix subscription, watch Hulu and enjoy a number of shows found only on Youtube. Am I an outlier or part of a new generation of content consumers? You decide. There is room for both.
That said, the ideas proposed on Techdirt are not that people don't want big budget movies and shows. I don't see anyone contesting that fact. What we are saying is that the market has shifted, but the creators of those shows and movies have not shifted with the market. They are being left behind. People want to watch movies and shows online on any device, yet very few content creators will allow it. The fact that many consumers resort to copyright infringement to do that is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that those consumers are underserved. The best way to fight such infringement is to actually serve your consumers.
Obviously you are such a leftist that youre economic viewpoint borders on communism.
Obviously, you are a judgmental and ignorant person. You don't know me, yet you feel comfortable claiming otherwise.
Again I ask you WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING. It is relevant to your viewpoint.
Again, I ask, how is that relavent? Until you can actually explain why my profession is relavent to the discussion at hand, I have no reason to tell you what it is. While you are busy explaining why my profession is relavent, perhaps you could tell me what you do for a living and how your profession is relavent to the discussion.
There is a saying, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you won't have to look at him on Saturdays and Sundays." Thanks for spoiling the fun. ;)
Mike is always, ALWAYS, suggesting ways in which copyright could be more balanced. Every article that he writes about some new abusive law cooked up by the MPAA or the RIAA, he always includes a section on why such a law is 1) unnecessary 2) abusive to the public and 3) fails to meet the constitutional requirement that it promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Just because you don't agree with the conclusion doesn't mean that the truth is not true.
I think if the choice came down to "keep copyright as it is and where it seems to be going" and "abolish copyright altogether" than the latter is the better choice.
However, those are not the only choices available nor does Mike ever say it is. There is a way to rewrite copyright in a balanced fashion that reduces the abuses on both sides of the debate. That is what Mike is advocating for. A balanced copyright. Such a version of copyright cannot be made if the beneficiaries of copyright law (the public) are blocked for the table.
My complaint is that YOU do not have the right to dictate to other people how THEY should be releasing their content.
Yet many content "creators" feel they have the right to decide what technologies get made and which ones can be adopted by the public. I think that is a bit of a contradiction there.
That said, the markets do have the power and the right to dictate the way the markets shape. Sure, companies and people that are used to the old ways can rant and rave about these market shifts, they will not be able to stem the tide of market change. That is what we are seeing now. The market is shifting and the legacy content companies are struggling to swim their way back to the "safety" of the old way of doing things. Too bad they will die trying.
Ha. studio funding is better than crowd funding? Seriously? With studio funding, there is a very high risk on the studio side that what you are producing will not be able to find a market and make money. With crowd funding that risk is minimized as the market determines if it wants the product before it is even made.
On either side, the risk to the consumer that the product will suck is pretty much the same. However, with crowd funding, the consumer gets to choose who gets to make the products they want, which minimizes that risk as the consumer gets to choose the best producer, or the one they think is best.
I find it interesting that anyone could consider gender to have such an impact on patents and innovation. Does it really matter if a woman files a patent when the patent is held by a faceless corporation?
That would only be for manufacturing or commercial ventures. For private use and installation, you are still exempt. Unless the EPA is feeling very petty, which it is known to do on many occasions.
On the post: Breaking: Appeals Court Sends Viacom-YouTube Case Back To District Court, Future Of Safe Harbors Still Uncertain
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court: Bundling Cable Channels Together Isn't Anticompetitive
Re:
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How that is anti-copyright is beyond me.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Large content creators like those represented by the RIAA and MPAA don't want a free market. They want complete control over the entertainment market.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re: Re:
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that is what a large majority of them are doing. Not buying the stuff.
That does NOT give them the ability to STEAL content.
They don't need anything to give them the "ability" to steal. They have that "ability" from birth. I think what you meant to say is the "right" to steal. However, that doesn't make your comment any more correct as copyright infringement does not equal theft. Theft and copyright infringement are very different things. It would help you if you took the time to learn that distinction.
If the public is watching the movies illegally that just proves that the public WANTS big budget movies instead of YouTube videos.
I don't see how that prove what you say it does. For example (now this is just my experience) I have a Netflix subscription, watch Hulu and enjoy a number of shows found only on Youtube. Am I an outlier or part of a new generation of content consumers? You decide. There is room for both.
That said, the ideas proposed on Techdirt are not that people don't want big budget movies and shows. I don't see anyone contesting that fact. What we are saying is that the market has shifted, but the creators of those shows and movies have not shifted with the market. They are being left behind. People want to watch movies and shows online on any device, yet very few content creators will allow it. The fact that many consumers resort to copyright infringement to do that is not the problem. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that those consumers are underserved. The best way to fight such infringement is to actually serve your consumers.
Obviously you are such a leftist that youre economic viewpoint borders on communism.
Obviously, you are a judgmental and ignorant person. You don't know me, yet you feel comfortable claiming otherwise.
Again I ask you WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING. It is relevant to your viewpoint.
Again, I ask, how is that relavent? Until you can actually explain why my profession is relavent to the discussion at hand, I have no reason to tell you what it is. While you are busy explaining why my profession is relavent, perhaps you could tell me what you do for a living and how your profession is relavent to the discussion.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re:
If at first Google doesn't provide an answer, rephrase your question. I love it.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because you don't agree with the conclusion doesn't mean that the truth is not true.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, those are not the only choices available nor does Mike ever say it is. There is a way to rewrite copyright in a balanced fashion that reduces the abuses on both sides of the debate. That is what Mike is advocating for. A balanced copyright. Such a version of copyright cannot be made if the beneficiaries of copyright law (the public) are blocked for the table.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet many content "creators" feel they have the right to decide what technologies get made and which ones can be adopted by the public. I think that is a bit of a contradiction there.
That said, the markets do have the power and the right to dictate the way the markets shape. Sure, companies and people that are used to the old ways can rant and rave about these market shifts, they will not be able to stem the tide of market change. That is what we are seeing now. The market is shifting and the legacy content companies are struggling to swim their way back to the "safety" of the old way of doing things. Too bad they will die trying.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On either side, the risk to the consumer that the product will suck is pretty much the same. However, with crowd funding, the consumer gets to choose who gets to make the products they want, which minimizes that risk as the consumer gets to choose the best producer, or the one they think is best.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Freakonomics Obsession With Patents Strikes Again: Says If More Women Got Patents The Economy Would Grow
On the post: Video Showcases The Many Perfectly Legitimate Reasons To Jailbreak A Device
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>