you always confuse work with the cost of use. the work to build a hotel only takes months, but they charge for the use of the room every night for years.
The owners of the hotel are charging you for all of the services which go along with using the room, not some abstract concept of "use of the room". The owners pay people every day to run the hotel, just like they paid people to build the hotel. Through their employees, the hotel owners are providing a service every day in return for payment. How does this relate to an artist receiving payment, in near-perpentuity, for work they did years ago?
The RIAA has been going around claiming that radio promoting its music is a "kind of piracy", while at the same time claiming it's somehow illegal for radio stations not to play RIAA music.
Besides the fact that the RIAA pushing a performance tax is hypocritical -- see above -- it seems like a rather bad business move. The last time I checked, the radio business wasn't doing so great. They don't have a lot of extra money to pay to the RIAA. But maybe the RIAA knows this and are just trying to grab as much money as they can before the whole system collapses.
2. Jumping to the statement that it's ironic that Arnold wants to stop kids from buying violent video games b/c he was in violent movies during his acting days is a smokescreen argument with no basis in logic.
Assuming that you're replying to me, if you read my comment carefully, you'll notice that I didn't make an argument that the situation was ironic, just that many people would see it as ironic.
If the people of California feel that this is an issue and would like this law, then as a public servant it's up to Arnold to fight for it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that politicians shouldn't fight for the causes which are important to their constituents, but there are broader principles at play. While many Californians may thinks think that this is a good idea, it doesn't mean that the majority do or, even if there is a majority, that it wouldn't be an unconstitutional encroachment of civil liberties.
what I'm saying is that The Terminator was not aimed at children just like violent video games are not.
Maybe that's what you meant to say, but what you appeared to be saying to me was that Terminator was not aimed at children, but violent video games are. In reference to your insulting "READ FIRST!", maybe you should take your own advice and read your posts before submitting them to ensure they clearly say what you really mean.
by that logic, with the arrival of xxx movies the cinema wasnt for children anymore. instead of just making them stay home, a system was put in place to rate movies and keep the children from walking in without a parent or adult to accompany them. all the states are asking is for the same sort of process for video games. it seems pretty logical, no?
IANAL so I don't know all of the legal impications, but because both the MPAA and the ESRB ratings systems are voluntary, it looks to me that they already have the same sort of process.
oh yeah, the slam at arnold is typical of the masnick, knowing that the movies weren't made available to children, but still using it has a slam. not a very good example is it?
I think most people would see at least a bit of irony in someone who starred in violent movies campaining against violent video games regardless of the technical details.
@Mike: I don't think The Terminator was aimed at children when it was made.
No more so than violent video games rated for adults are aimed at children. You seem to be implying that just because it's a video game, that it must be "aimed" at children. It's silly to have to say this at this point in history, but "Video games aren't just for kids any more." If a parent fails to realize that games are no longer all like Pac Man and Asteroids and that many are targeted to an adult audience, then that's their fault.
Isn't Redbox based on vending machines which only have enough space to store the more popular movie titles? (I've never seen a Redbox machine, so I don't know.) If this is the case, then it would seem to me that you'd need a vending machine as big as, well...as big as a Blockbuster store to carry enough hard-to-find movies to make it worthwhile.
That being said, there's a red herring in the post. Even if a court decides that tweets aren't copyrightable, you could still infringe copyright with a tweet.
I believe Mike was just saying that even if you took the argument to an absurd level -- by questioning whether the tweet itself could by copyrighted -- that "there's nothing in the tweet that is held as a copyright by someone else", not that a tweet couldn't necesarilly contain copyrighted material.
As for your serial tweeting a book idea, it sounds similar to an argument I've heard before that BitTorrent isn't a copyright violation if you only have small sections of a copyrighted work at any given time.
The part of the bill that's getting the most attention in India is that it would create an additional right for content creators, which they would hold onto, rather than having the right transferred over to the producers and record labels.
So...what exactly is this additional right? That seems rather pertinent as to whether this right is "good" or "bad".
In the same way gyms hope 80 percent of their members do not ever cross the door.
I think the point of Carlo's post isn't that operators sell a product that they hope most people won't use to its maximum. That's a normal part of many business models, including gyms. The point is that the operators sell this product and then bitch when some people use it to its maximum. If the operators have done a poor job of estimating how many customers are going to be "bandwidth hogs" and have to change their prices accordingly, then fine...go ahead. Shit or get off the pot. Either raise your prices or shut the hell up about it already.
But all other things aren't equal. Increased risk diminishes the present value of future returns the further into the future you go giving less incentive to invest now for a return in the future.
OK. Was that meant to contradict something I said? Because I don't see how your statement above is at odds with anything that I've said. Of course the longer you look into the future, the more inaccuracy there is going to be. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But that doesn't change the general principle that the longer you have to recoup your investment, the more value you'll place on it. How much more value for how long, now that's the question.
Increases the incentice for their first succesful work, not necessarily their most beneficial and impactful to society. To weight the system in such a way effectively assumes that an artists first major succesful work is indeed their most beneficial to society, with little incentive need afterwards to create more.
I think this would apply moreso to copyright than to patents, but you make a good point. However, I think you can factor out the effect of either the first-time author or the repeat author. Take two hypothetical book negotions...
Agent F represents an unpublished author. The book is very good, but the subject matter doesn't match what's currently popular. The publisher wants to buy it, but it will be a risk.
Agent R represents an author of several books in a series, every one of which has been on the best seller list.
Now, obviously Agent F is going to be starting the negotiations at a much smaller amount than Agent R, but in both cases, the NPV comes into play. It's just that the NPV of Agent F's author's book is lower. But all other things being equal, the longer that the publisher knows that they'll be able to recoup their investment, the more worth they'll place on the publishing rights and, the more willing they'll be to paying more. And, the more money people get from doing something, the more incentive there is to do it.
Your argument that higher NPV leads to greater output is unsupported.
Well, this isn't exactly my argument. In what situation the NPV would have a meaningful effect is up for debate. In general, I think it makes logical sense that the more money that a company thinks it can make from a property, the more they'll pay for it. At the heart of it, that's really all I'm saying. To apply this to copyright, if you want back in time to when extending the copyright duration was first proposed, I think my argument would have made a lot of sense. But if you're trying to use the argument to justify extending it beyond life plus 70, then no. I don't think it would be as effective as most other arguments.
PS: Sorry for threadjacking your contribution to TD, Greg. :-)
Where is the evidence that NPV leads to the creation of more works and/or progresses the art?
I'm not a researcher or an expert in this field. What I know about coyright, patents, trademarks, and the like come mostly from reading TechDirt. My assertion is based on a logical argument based on what I believe.
For the record, I'm not saying that our current copyright system is without flaws or that it's the best way to achieve the goal of promoting the progress or even that promotion of the progress can't happen in the absense of copyright.
What I am saying is that, to the extent that you believe that copyright provides a monetary incentive to create new works, because of the principle of NPV, that the incentive is increased based on a longer copyright duration.
Now, how long does this effect have a meaninful effect and what does the curve look like? Again, I don't have these hard facts. I personally believe that it's less than what current copyright law dictates, but the actual monetary incentives aren't based on my opinion. They're based on the opinions of the corporations cutting the checks. And if they think that it's beneficial to them to have a term of life plus 70, I think that logically means that they'll pay extra for that right. (If I were an agent, this is the argument I'd make, anyway.) And if they'll pay more, there is more monetary incentive.
I think copywrong length exposes and thus condemns the true intent of copywrong laws
The true intent? Do you mean the original intent? If so, that you really think that the founding fathers were part of a conspiracy and they created copyright in such a way that it would be corrupted over time so that big content providers could sue girl scouts for singing campfire songs, then I think you may want to get a new tinfoil hat.
The fact is that 95 year copywrong laws for corporations and the lifetime of an artist plus 70 years for individuals is absurd.
I agree, but I fail to see how your rant relates to my original point. I never said that "life plus 70" was the best term for copyright. What I said was that a longer copyright duration can provide for more monetary incentive to create based on the principle of NPV. Where is the real sweet spot where the benefits to society are balanced by the benefits of the individual artist? I'm not sure, but I agree wholeheartedly that it's less that "life plus 70". But, just because the net effect may be negative, it doesn't mean that there aren't positive effects.
In terms of hard evidence, to be honest, I don't have any. That's why I come to TD, to read about the hard evidence. However, from memory, I don't think that most the studies referenced on TD indicate that the principle of copyright can't (directly) lead to the creation of more works. It's my understanding that many of the problems with copyright indicated in the studies deal with implementation i.e. the lengths of copyright, the levels of enforcement, the deviations from the original intent, etc.
I think it's fair to say that if TechDirt has an official position on copyright, it's that it needs to be reformed, not scrapped. So, while copyright as it's currently implemented may, on the whole, not be fulfilling the promise of effectively promoting the progress, I don't think that this damns the general principle of copyright.
Leonardo da Vinci was incredibly prolific, and is tremendously valued as a contributor to our culture, precisely because he did produce so much.
Yes, da Vinci is recongized as one of the most important artists/inventors of all time. However, does that fact that a single man contributed the works of art and science make them intrinsically more valuable to society? I don't think so, at least not to any appreciably amount. Sure, you have to admire the greatness of a person who is so prolific, but if ten different people made the same contributions, the benefit to society would be pretty much the same.
Now, from the standpoint of incentivizing new works i.e. the part of the analysis before the works are created (not their net worth to society after creation), I can see where having that level of genius concentrated in one person would make more future works likely. If you painted the Mona Lisa, odds are you're going to get another commision.
So, while the affect may not be as much as for existing artists as new artists, I still think that my original argument, that there is a positive effect on the incentive to create new works from longer copyright durations, is valid.
On the post: RIAA Gets AFL-CIO To Support Performance Tax: Payments In Perpetuity For A Small Amount Of Work
Re:
The owners of the hotel are charging you for all of the services which go along with using the room, not some abstract concept of "use of the room". The owners pay people every day to run the hotel, just like they paid people to build the hotel. Through their employees, the hotel owners are providing a service every day in return for payment. How does this relate to an artist receiving payment, in near-perpentuity, for work they did years ago?
On the post: RIAA Gets AFL-CIO To Support Performance Tax: Payments In Perpetuity For A Small Amount Of Work
Squeezing blood from a turnip
Besides the fact that the RIAA pushing a performance tax is hypocritical -- see above -- it seems like a rather bad business move. The last time I checked, the radio business wasn't doing so great. They don't have a lot of extra money to pay to the RIAA. But maybe the RIAA knows this and are just trying to grab as much money as they can before the whole system collapses.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re:
Assuming that you're replying to me, if you read my comment carefully, you'll notice that I didn't make an argument that the situation was ironic, just that many people would see it as ironic.
If the people of California feel that this is an issue and would like this law, then as a public servant it's up to Arnold to fight for it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that politicians shouldn't fight for the causes which are important to their constituents, but there are broader principles at play. While many Californians may thinks think that this is a good idea, it doesn't mean that the majority do or, even if there is a majority, that it wouldn't be an unconstitutional encroachment of civil liberties.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: READ FIRST!
Maybe that's what you meant to say, but what you appeared to be saying to me was that Terminator was not aimed at children, but violent video games are. In reference to your insulting "READ FIRST!", maybe you should take your own advice and read your posts before submitting them to ensure they clearly say what you really mean.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
IANAL so I don't know all of the legal impications, but because both the MPAA and the ESRB ratings systems are voluntary, it looks to me that they already have the same sort of process.
oh yeah, the slam at arnold is typical of the masnick, knowing that the movies weren't made available to children, but still using it has a slam. not a very good example is it?
I think most people would see at least a bit of irony in someone who starred in violent movies campaining against violent video games regardless of the technical details.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: The Terminator
No more so than violent video games rated for adults are aimed at children. You seem to be implying that just because it's a video game, that it must be "aimed" at children. It's silly to have to say this at this point in history, but "Video games aren't just for kids any more." If a parent fails to realize that games are no longer all like Pac Man and Asteroids and that many are targeted to an adult audience, then that's their fault.
On the post: Redbox Follows Netflix's Lead, Delays Fox and Universal DVD Releases by 28 Days
Re: I could work
On the post: Twitter Taking Down Tweets Over Bogus DMCA Claims
Re: A Interesting Red Herring
I believe Mike was just saying that even if you took the argument to an absurd level -- by questioning whether the tweet itself could by copyrighted -- that "there's nothing in the tweet that is held as a copyright by someone else", not that a tweet couldn't necesarilly contain copyrighted material.
As for your serial tweeting a book idea, it sounds similar to an argument I've heard before that BitTorrent isn't a copyright violation if you only have small sections of a copyrighted work at any given time.
On the post: India Introduces Draft Copyright Amendments; Some Good, Some Bad
So...what exactly is this additional right? That seems rather pertinent as to whether this right is "good" or "bad".
On the post: If Flat-Rate Mobile Data Plans Are So Bad, Why Do Operators Keep Launching New Ones?
Re: World of Warcraft
I think the point of Carlo's post isn't that operators sell a product that they hope most people won't use to its maximum. That's a normal part of many business models, including gyms. The point is that the operators sell this product and then bitch when some people use it to its maximum. If the operators have done a poor job of estimating how many customers are going to be "bandwidth hogs" and have to change their prices accordingly, then fine...go ahead. Shit or get off the pot. Either raise your prices or shut the hell up about it already.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
OK. Was that meant to contradict something I said? Because I don't see how your statement above is at odds with anything that I've said. Of course the longer you look into the future, the more inaccuracy there is going to be. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But that doesn't change the general principle that the longer you have to recoup your investment, the more value you'll place on it. How much more value for how long, now that's the question.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
I think this would apply moreso to copyright than to patents, but you make a good point. However, I think you can factor out the effect of either the first-time author or the repeat author. Take two hypothetical book negotions...
Agent F represents an unpublished author. The book is very good, but the subject matter doesn't match what's currently popular. The publisher wants to buy it, but it will be a risk.
Agent R represents an author of several books in a series, every one of which has been on the best seller list.
Now, obviously Agent F is going to be starting the negotiations at a much smaller amount than Agent R, but in both cases, the NPV comes into play. It's just that the NPV of Agent F's author's book is lower. But all other things being equal, the longer that the publisher knows that they'll be able to recoup their investment, the more worth they'll place on the publishing rights and, the more willing they'll be to paying more. And, the more money people get from doing something, the more incentive there is to do it.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Well, this isn't exactly my argument. In what situation the NPV would have a meaningful effect is up for debate. In general, I think it makes logical sense that the more money that a company thinks it can make from a property, the more they'll pay for it. At the heart of it, that's really all I'm saying. To apply this to copyright, if you want back in time to when extending the copyright duration was first proposed, I think my argument would have made a lot of sense. But if you're trying to use the argument to justify extending it beyond life plus 70, then no. I don't think it would be as effective as most other arguments.
PS: Sorry for threadjacking your contribution to TD, Greg. :-)
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
I'm not a researcher or an expert in this field. What I know about coyright, patents, trademarks, and the like come mostly from reading TechDirt. My assertion is based on a logical argument based on what I believe.
For the record, I'm not saying that our current copyright system is without flaws or that it's the best way to achieve the goal of promoting the progress or even that promotion of the progress can't happen in the absense of copyright.
What I am saying is that, to the extent that you believe that copyright provides a monetary incentive to create new works, because of the principle of NPV, that the incentive is increased based on a longer copyright duration.
Now, how long does this effect have a meaninful effect and what does the curve look like? Again, I don't have these hard facts. I personally believe that it's less than what current copyright law dictates, but the actual monetary incentives aren't based on my opinion. They're based on the opinions of the corporations cutting the checks. And if they think that it's beneficial to them to have a term of life plus 70, I think that logically means that they'll pay extra for that right. (If I were an agent, this is the argument I'd make, anyway.) And if they'll pay more, there is more monetary incentive.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
The true intent? Do you mean the original intent? If so, that you really think that the founding fathers were part of a conspiracy and they created copyright in such a way that it would be corrupted over time so that big content providers could sue girl scouts for singing campfire songs, then I think you may want to get a new tinfoil hat.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
I agree, but I fail to see how your rant relates to my original point. I never said that "life plus 70" was the best term for copyright. What I said was that a longer copyright duration can provide for more monetary incentive to create based on the principle of NPV. Where is the real sweet spot where the benefits to society are balanced by the benefits of the individual artist? I'm not sure, but I agree wholeheartedly that it's less that "life plus 70". But, just because the net effect may be negative, it doesn't mean that there aren't positive effects.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
In terms of hard evidence, to be honest, I don't have any. That's why I come to TD, to read about the hard evidence. However, from memory, I don't think that most the studies referenced on TD indicate that the principle of copyright can't (directly) lead to the creation of more works. It's my understanding that many of the problems with copyright indicated in the studies deal with implementation i.e. the lengths of copyright, the levels of enforcement, the deviations from the original intent, etc.
I think it's fair to say that if TechDirt has an official position on copyright, it's that it needs to be reformed, not scrapped. So, while copyright as it's currently implemented may, on the whole, not be fulfilling the promise of effectively promoting the progress, I don't think that this damns the general principle of copyright.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Yes, da Vinci is recongized as one of the most important artists/inventors of all time. However, does that fact that a single man contributed the works of art and science make them intrinsically more valuable to society? I don't think so, at least not to any appreciably amount. Sure, you have to admire the greatness of a person who is so prolific, but if ten different people made the same contributions, the benefit to society would be pretty much the same.
Now, from the standpoint of incentivizing new works i.e. the part of the analysis before the works are created (not their net worth to society after creation), I can see where having that level of genius concentrated in one person would make more future works likely. If you painted the Mona Lisa, odds are you're going to get another commision.
So, while the affect may not be as much as for existing artists as new artists, I still think that my original argument, that there is a positive effect on the incentive to create new works from longer copyright durations, is valid.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Agreed, but no more than if another author created a work of equal worth.
Next >>