What I would add of substance though is the mention he made of investment. The connection to the banking system should not be overlooked. Much of the commentary I see in the copyleft world concerning how investment is not really an issue misses the point that, for entertainers themselves and for the distributors who have a vested interest in the current model, nothing is really possible under copyleft that let's them borrow directly from the bank with anywhere near the regularity that they can, now, under a strict IP regime.
The banks require something close to a sure thing to lend. This money is new money into the economy, as opposed to people giving money or investing directly. This gives any person or entity who has credit worthy of a bank loan an advantage when seeking market share.
That's why, to me, the ultimate solution is minimal or no IP, with the usual caveats that attribution be increased in importance so that the creators and artists themselves get appropriate recognition in the hopes of being able to sell their talents to a willing sponsor.
I will say that I had Netflix, and then they decided to up the price on their combined package. I wanted both the streaming AND the blue ray, and they punked me, so I dropped them.
So no, whatever it is you are responding to, Netflix is not the answer for me.
This particular response was not aimed at you, but at silverscarcat.
Sorry, the nature of threaded conversations can be confusing, but it looks to me like I did indeed reply to the correct person and you misread who it was intended for.
I think you do share my view on copyright. I am still utterly unconvinced that technology is what is going to push us through to a more open society though. You say that this has been ongoing, and that the technology keeps being "broken", but the percentage of people who make use of all of these hacks is, at least as far as I can see, vanishingly small. And it is precisely the overreaction of the powerful to this tiny minority that tends to eventually get them what they want.
I don't know... all a matter of persepctive I suppose. Thanks for your time though. It was refreshing to get some one on one time with the person who wrote the stuff being promoted by a particular outlet.
I do read you guys, more apparently than you know, and have been reading for over a year before I suddenly went spastick with posting on your comments section. =)
Have you not seen them illegalizing tech itself when it outpaces their ability to regulate?
I just do not think you are quite getting what is at stake for these people. They are not now, nor have they ever been, all about progress. They are about control. For a number of reasons, some of them perhaps legitimate, but none of them convincing to me, they see danger in too much freedom, and perhaps especially freedom of people to choose what sorts of ideas they are regularly exposed to.
Nor is this a mysterious, black suited "they". The folks who shuttle back and forth between the highest offices of government and the highest offices of corporate power are an openly identifiable group of folks.
What DO you think of copyright? I guess that's the core of my objection. You have a lot more faith in the complexity of the system making it immune to central control than I do. Through a combination of making it technically harder to circumvent without getting caught and building the social pressure to conform, they can get what they want I think unless people's values can be made to change such that they understand that the very core of the current system - the right to demand people buy from a certain source by law - is unjust.
And again, I am not seeing the commitment I would like to see from folks to changing that paradigm.
I mean, no one owes me that, but I think it is the true root of the problem, and I am not sure you share that view.
I also tend to get the idea that as technology useful for subversion advances, so too does the technology useful for opression. Still, it seems we are fast approaching a point where one person can do enough to be a real thorn in the side of the government without a lot of cooperation with other people. Just... not using THIS method.
Because the government and large corporations have been doing such a poor job of doing away with your privacy and anonymity?
People keep trying to treat the internet like a private room. What you're really doing is shouting across the continent on a shared communication line. Scary or not, a reasonable person should have about the same expectation of privacy on the internet that they have sitting in a restaurant. Privacy rights, ultimately, are not going to stand up to this even if we had good faith bargaining partners across the table in the distribution industry.
LOL, I did miss the author didn't I? So humiliating.
My point is that this battle is not at an end, and that it has been fought before, and lost, by people wanting freer and more open access. The internet is not immune to this. It's just taking them longer.
The real issue is copyright law itself, and anything short of either a complete destruction of copyright or a sharp curtailment of it to something on the line of a handful of years is not going to help. And I don't see enough people with the political will to insist on that, even here on Techdirt.
To me this is not entirely accurate. The things MIT and JSTOR did to limit his access were not, strictly speaking, authorization denials until JSTOR just shot off access to MIT. It is more JSTOR's fault than Aaron's that they did not have the technology in place to deal with what he did. He did not "hack", he just rather expertly violated the terms of service. His method of violating those terms was purposefully misconstrued by the prosecution in spite of the fact that neither MIT nor JSTOR had any interest in pursuing the matter.
Now, whether or not this law would have helped keep the prosecutor for finding some OTHER Federal Law to harass him with, I don't know, but a correct reading of the events would lead to a correct outcome with this law as I currently understand it.
It's hard to say complex, important things in a little quip, isn't it? I totally agree with you. It's damned difficult to get that message out to folks in a way that doesn't cause their minds to skip past to the next saucy bit of entertainment though.
On the post: Is The US IP System Really 'The Envy Of The World'?
Re: Red Meat for the True Believers
On the post: Is The US IP System Really 'The Envy Of The World'?
Red Meat for the True Believers
What I would add of substance though is the mention he made of investment. The connection to the banking system should not be overlooked. Much of the commentary I see in the copyleft world concerning how investment is not really an issue misses the point that, for entertainers themselves and for the distributors who have a vested interest in the current model, nothing is really possible under copyleft that let's them borrow directly from the bank with anywhere near the regularity that they can, now, under a strict IP regime.
The banks require something close to a sure thing to lend. This money is new money into the economy, as opposed to people giving money or investing directly. This gives any person or entity who has credit worthy of a bank loan an advantage when seeking market share.
That's why, to me, the ultimate solution is minimal or no IP, with the usual caveats that attribution be increased in importance so that the creators and artists themselves get appropriate recognition in the hopes of being able to sell their talents to a willing sponsor.
Color me a fanatic, but down with copyright.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Hehe
;-)
Yeah, I already got called on that. Sorry....
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Hehe
;-)
Yeah, I already got called on that. Sorry....
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: The Other Solution
I'm not sure I understand.
I will say that I had Netflix, and then they decided to up the price on their combined package. I wanted both the streaming AND the blue ray, and they punked me, so I dropped them.
So no, whatever it is you are responding to, Netflix is not the answer for me.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
Sorry, the nature of threaded conversations can be confusing, but it looks to me like I did indeed reply to the correct person and you misread who it was intended for.
=)
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
I think you do share my view on copyright. I am still utterly unconvinced that technology is what is going to push us through to a more open society though. You say that this has been ongoing, and that the technology keeps being "broken", but the percentage of people who make use of all of these hacks is, at least as far as I can see, vanishingly small. And it is precisely the overreaction of the powerful to this tiny minority that tends to eventually get them what they want.
I don't know... all a matter of persepctive I suppose. Thanks for your time though. It was refreshing to get some one on one time with the person who wrote the stuff being promoted by a particular outlet.
I do read you guys, more apparently than you know, and have been reading for over a year before I suddenly went spastick with posting on your comments section. =)
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
I just do not think you are quite getting what is at stake for these people. They are not now, nor have they ever been, all about progress. They are about control. For a number of reasons, some of them perhaps legitimate, but none of them convincing to me, they see danger in too much freedom, and perhaps especially freedom of people to choose what sorts of ideas they are regularly exposed to.
Nor is this a mysterious, black suited "they". The folks who shuttle back and forth between the highest offices of government and the highest offices of corporate power are an openly identifiable group of folks.
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans To Introduce 'Aaron's Law' To Stop Bogus Prosecutions Under The CFAA
Re: Re: Re:
Ok I hear ya. I hear ya....
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Solution
And again, I am not seeing the commitment I would like to see from folks to changing that paradigm.
I mean, no one owes me that, but I think it is the true root of the problem, and I am not sure you share that view.
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans To Introduce 'Aaron's Law' To Stop Bogus Prosecutions Under The CFAA
Re: Contract Law
Secondly, sometimes the government does need to be able to prosecute without the express written permission of the victim.
There really are no easy solutions. Much of our trouble these days is the apathy common to all of humanity. I don't have a handy solution for that.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Preach it Brother!
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: The Other Solution
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: The Answer
I also tend to get the idea that as technology useful for subversion advances, so too does the technology useful for opression. Still, it seems we are fast approaching a point where one person can do enough to be a real thorn in the side of the government without a lot of cooperation with other people. Just... not using THIS method.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: The Other Solution
People keep trying to treat the internet like a private room. What you're really doing is shouting across the continent on a shared communication line. Scary or not, a reasonable person should have about the same expectation of privacy on the internet that they have sitting in a restaurant. Privacy rights, ultimately, are not going to stand up to this even if we had good faith bargaining partners across the table in the distribution industry.
Which we don't.
On the post: Dear HBO, Disney, Netflix Et Al: Fragmenting Online TV Lets Piracy Keep Its Biggest Advantage
Re: Re: The Other Solution
My point is that this battle is not at an end, and that it has been fought before, and lost, by people wanting freer and more open access. The internet is not immune to this. It's just taking them longer.
The real issue is copyright law itself, and anything short of either a complete destruction of copyright or a sharp curtailment of it to something on the line of a handful of years is not going to help. And I don't see enough people with the political will to insist on that, even here on Techdirt.
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans To Introduce 'Aaron's Law' To Stop Bogus Prosecutions Under The CFAA
Re: Irony
Now, whether or not this law would have helped keep the prosecutor for finding some OTHER Federal Law to harass him with, I don't know, but a correct reading of the events would lead to a correct outcome with this law as I currently understand it.
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans To Introduce 'Aaron's Law' To Stop Bogus Prosecutions Under The CFAA
Re:
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Plans To Introduce 'Aaron's Law' To Stop Bogus Prosecutions Under The CFAA
Re:
Next >>