Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
The fact that something is easy to do doesn't mean it's not wrong to do it. Yes, tools clearly exist that allow many people to obtain copies of works. Copies they did not pay for, though copyright law grants to the author the legal right to control such copying for a certain period of time.
Which I don't agree with, and is generally up for debate here at Techdirt. Just because it's the law doesn't mean I should agree with or respect it. I should do so based on the merits of the law, not on its mere existence.
Suffice to say, selling someone a capability they can already do themselves is fundamentally bad business. They don't deserve money for copies if they had no or little hand in creating the copies in the first place. If they're business is based on selling copies, then it's a bad business model as I can do that myself.
the difference between that and "stealing" is so negligible as to be not worth considering"
Apart from both the quite clear legal implications and economic implications of course. Continue to ignore them at your peril.
You have circumvented someone else's right to charge.
No, I've circumvented they're belief that they're entitled to money for copies they didn't create. They can still charge however much they like, the issue is that I don't need to go to them to get the copies to begin with.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the pro-copying lobby if its proponents actually did something constructive and perhaps sent the content owner a check for the reduced amount they felt was "fair" for the copy they took
And where was this copy taken from exactly? It didn't exist before I created it. Is there a copy warehouse that I stole from?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
Well, actually, the inteded purpose was to have entertainment content seen/heard by THOSE WHO PAID to do so.
Doesn't matter what the intended purpose was. You're selling people a capability they can provide for themselves.
And the fact that nobody entered into a transaction by downloading via BitTorrent is exactly the problem. Not sure why you seem to present that as supporting anything.
You stated:
In your analogy, the vendor is not engaging in a transaction with anybody at all, and arguably sprayed the perfume in the air for its intended purpose - to be smelled by those nearby.
Your own logic goes against your argument.
I don't see how the fact a vendor has chosen a dumb business model somehow JUSTIFIES people stealing what he's trying to sell.
File sharing does not equal stealing. They've chosen a dumb business model by selling something people can already provide themselves, access to a work, which has become a commodity. When downloading you create a new copy, not remove one from someone elses possession. Technology has reached the point where you don't need middle men to press CD's and DVD's for your convenience to view content when you want, we now have the capability to do that ourselves.
It's more like you're dumb for trying to run a movie theatre when various ways to recreate the experience at home are cheap and widely available. Not quite there yet, but it's getting closer all the time, and undoubtedly has led to some decrease in theatre attendance over the years as the home experience has improved.
Why would you base your business on access when people can access works without you?
In your analogy, the vendor is not engaging in a transaction with anybody at all, and arguably sprayed the perfume in the air for its intended purpose - to be smelled by those nearby.
Since when did anyone engage in a transaction when downloading via bittorrent? Arguably when they released the digital versions of music and films, they did so for its intended purpose - to be seen and heard by others.
"Just because anyone can use an invention after the limited monopoly is over does not mean that anyone is capable of building or using. Sounds like you are saying that you have less than average skill in the art."
What? I'm saying you neglect that the "quid pro quo" you speak of in patent law doesn't exist.
"The patent system is not perfect, no one is arguing that. Try working on your reading comprehension."
Which is in itself controlled by the law. Then we can continue debating whether guns should or should not be illegal, in the same way Techdirt debates whether the patent system should exist.
Except that you missed the fact that disclosure doesn't work as the language used is regularly made so vague as to be pointless, whilst granting patents on things that shouldn't be patentable at the same time.
Then we can debate whether guns should or should not be illegal, in the same way we can debate whether the patent system serves any good by allowing such extortion by granting patents.
You forget that when and whether patents are granted are in themselves choices.
Ignoring various prior posts and studies posted on Techdirt, of course. Don't forget to ignore the links to the right on the front page under "Popular Posts".
Re: Re: Basically they are parasites on those instances.
Moral Principle of control over an image of a public figure who's image was changed enough to qualify for transformation work under copyright law?
Seriously, there is no moral principle here. It's an issue of AP clawing privileges it doesn't deserve over an image no one cared about until someone drastically changed it. AP is using this because it's seen a lucrative licensing opportunity and ways to scam money out of art down the road.
Why do you assume it's only a success if volume of software for sales is maintained? The entire point is that new, more efficient models don't require selling of the software upfront in the first place. Nor is it an idea entirely the realm of belief or theory, it's fact.
hat I am suggesting is that soon technology will allow everyone to be a music creator.
No it won't. It'll give the possibility for that, but it's still dependant on time, interest and knowledge (of which you need the prior 2 at least to begin with).
It will be very hard for most musicians to make a living wage.
No they won't if they find new business models and the role of a musician still carries some expertise others don't have or won't be able to easily recreate, especially when you're looking for or to create entirely new songs.
Why be a fan who consumes music when you can be a rock star who makes music?
Maybe because I don't have the time, knowledge, nor inclination to do so.
Try harder. Use your famous "bootstrapping" argument, or even better, refer to Mike as The Masnick. You could talk about how bitorrent is the most inefficient thing out there, you have so much choice in your back catalogue you really should make use of it more.
Perhaps you could do that greatest hits album idea? That one I mentioned where you can then complain that no one is buying it because of piracy. You could do it so it had nothing unique about it and had no advertising, then claim it had nothing to do that. You should've made millions regardless.
No, it shows Viacom was a bitter idiot in turning down that money and instead deciding to spend money on expensive legal action where their actions have continually shown them to be incompetent, especially when they had previously been explicitly trying to buy Youtube so they could use it for their content. Now Google wants to pay them to have content on there? How can we do that! We might have to actually compete with others on content!
But keep making crap up. Perhaps you'd be more successful if you want back to talk of bootstrapping.
On the post: CSIRO Wants To Expand Its WiFi Tax: Sues Mobile Operators
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents, Guns and P2P
But keep the faith. If you believe it enough, maybe it'll be true.
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
Which I don't agree with, and is generally up for debate here at Techdirt. Just because it's the law doesn't mean I should agree with or respect it. I should do so based on the merits of the law, not on its mere existence.
Suffice to say, selling someone a capability they can already do themselves is fundamentally bad business. They don't deserve money for copies if they had no or little hand in creating the copies in the first place. If they're business is based on selling copies, then it's a bad business model as I can do that myself.
Apart from both the quite clear legal implications and economic implications of course. Continue to ignore them at your peril.
No, I've circumvented they're belief that they're entitled to money for copies they didn't create. They can still charge however much they like, the issue is that I don't need to go to them to get the copies to begin with.
And where was this copy taken from exactly? It didn't exist before I created it. Is there a copy warehouse that I stole from?
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
Doesn't matter what the intended purpose was. You're selling people a capability they can provide for themselves.
You stated:
On the post: Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
Since when did anyone engage in a transaction when downloading via bittorrent? Arguably when they released the digital versions of music and films, they did so for its intended purpose - to be seen and heard by others.
On the post: CSIRO Wants To Expand Its WiFi Tax: Sues Mobile Operators
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents, Guns and P2P
What? I'm saying you neglect that the "quid pro quo" you speak of in patent law doesn't exist.
"The patent system is not perfect, no one is arguing that. Try working on your reading comprehension."
After you.
On the post: CSIRO Wants To Expand Its WiFi Tax: Sues Mobile Operators
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents, Guns and P2P
On the post: CSIRO Wants To Expand Its WiFi Tax: Sues Mobile Operators
Re: Re: Re: Patents, Guns and P2P
On the post: CSIRO Wants To Expand Its WiFi Tax: Sues Mobile Operators
Re: Re: Re: Patents, Guns and P2P
You forget that when and whether patents are granted are in themselves choices.
On the post: Writer Splits From Murdoch's Times Of London To Avoid Being Hidden Behind The Paywall
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignoring various prior posts and studies posted on Techdirt, of course. Don't forget to ignore the links to the right on the front page under "Popular Posts".
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: Re: Re: Basically they are parasites on those instances.
On the post: Chipping Away At Fair Use: Judge Suggests AP Would Win Obama Hope Poster Case
Re: Re: Basically they are parasites on those instances.
Seriously, there is no moral principle here. It's an issue of AP clawing privileges it doesn't deserve over an image no one cared about until someone drastically changed it. AP is using this because it's seen a lucrative licensing opportunity and ways to scam money out of art down the road.
On the post: How Depressing Must Your Job Be If Its Focus Is On Breaking What The Technology Allows
Re: Re:
That's called planning ahead.
On the post: And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion
So no, he's not making things up.
On the post: Time To Live In Reality: People Are Going To Copy; So Build A Better Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.canonical.com/
http://www.digium.com/en/
http://www.zimbra.com/partners/
http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/partners/sugarcrm-partners.html
Find a fair few more here as part of the "open source 50":
http://www.thevarguy.com/the-open-source-50
On the post: Time To Live In Reality: People Are Going To Copy; So Build A Better Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.redhat.com/
http://www.alfresco.com/
http://www.novell.com/home/
http:/ /www.apache.org/
On the post: Time To Live In Reality: People Are Going To Copy; So Build A Better Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Amanda Palmer And OK Go Get Together To Celebrate Being Dropped From Their Record Labels
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate
No it won't. It'll give the possibility for that, but it's still dependant on time, interest and knowledge (of which you need the prior 2 at least to begin with).
No they won't if they find new business models and the role of a musician still carries some expertise others don't have or won't be able to easily recreate, especially when you're looking for or to create entirely new songs.
Maybe because I don't have the time, knowledge, nor inclination to do so.
On the post: Amanda Palmer And OK Go Get Together To Celebrate Being Dropped From Their Record Labels
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why we can't extrapolate
Perhaps you could do that greatest hits album idea? That one I mentioned where you can then complain that no one is buying it because of piracy. You could do it so it had nothing unique about it and had no advertising, then claim it had nothing to do that. You should've made millions regardless.
On the post: Viacom Execs Wanted Badly To Buy YouTube; Cited Tons Of Legit Content And Possibilities
Re: Re: Re:
But keep making crap up. Perhaps you'd be more successful if you want back to talk of bootstrapping.
Next >>