Hell yeah it's a monopoly. Today Microsoft has 94% of the desktop OS market, while Apple has a puny 5% and Linux a pathetic 1% (catering to niches at best).
It would be disingenuous to suggest they don't have total and unwavering control of the market, and that's what's usually called a monopoly.
I just realised that an ISP tax sounds terribly similar to the Microsoft tax, and I expect it will lead to many of the same problems.
There is simply no way to buy a PC from a major OEM without also paying a hefty price for a Microsoft OS, despite the fact that many users may not need that expensive software and want to use an alternative OS. This system is tolerated because it supposedly reduces piracy, but it has the troubling side-effect of indefinitely supporting Microsoft's dangerous monopoly.
If ISPs are forced to charge a tax on each internet connection, the distribution of the received funds will favour the major labels and artists, at the detriment of the minor ones. It will essentially destroy all competition and indefinitely support the profits of the biggest content providers. A point will likely come when no main ISP will be able to provide tax-free internet, much in the same way that no main OEM can provide tax-free PCs, even though there are a lot of people like me who don't really consume any content -- pirated or otherwise.
There is a lot of IP whose value is exactly zero (e.g., recordings from the 1920s that will never be recirculated). Of course that would mean, the tax due would also be exactly zero, so it provides no incentive to release that IP to the public domain.
A better system would have a tax proportional not to the declared value of the IP (which would also be impossible because of tricks like RIAA accounting), but to the time since the IP was published, payable yearly or every term of some fixed duration (e.g., 5 years) when the copyright requires renewal.
This would force a lot of orphan works and dead IP into the public domain, because eternal IP hoarding would become a lot costlier.
"the Yankees made it clear that the family still owns the copyright on the letters (correct)"
Aren't the letters in the public domain? According to TFA, they were written in 1949, they obviously bear no copyright mark, and any copyrights were not in any way renewed in the 1970s.
Of course that applies for published works, and I don't really know about unpublished works.
"According to the legal filing, Red Bull is guilty of defrauding Mr. Hogan by illegally drawing from his technical ideas regarding the project and of using his original plans to create publicity and marketing around a similar stunt."
You are telling me you made a website that claims is about fighting fraud (totally looks legit, btw), but you are not actually denying that you are a scammer. You, sir, are a pro.
Worthless junk such as the works of Homer, Shakespeare, the bible, Poe, Kipling, Kafka, Dickens, Austen, Wilde, Carrol, A.C. Doyle, Verne, H.G. Wells, Victor Hugo and countless others that clearly have no value next to the mass-marketed shite pumped out by the Disney channel today.
And let's not forget that there'd be a LOT more stuff in the public domain had copyright not been extended in the ridiculous and unfair ways it has been.
"Google has really done is shown that it is possible to do"
Unfortunately, I think it's shown quite the opposite. We know the technology exists, but legally and socially we are not ready yet.
When all those authors are screaming and kicking because people are reading their books, as will their "estates" for the next 150 years, you can imagine what sort of problems a national digital library would have.
Two problems, in order of severity.
- Publication requirements. Authors should be obliged to submit digital copies of their books for archiving, as well as hard copies, at a level of quality that would allow them to be reprinted.
- Copyright length. It lasts way too long, on some occasions longer than the physical media will survive, on all occasions much longer than digital media will (without copying). Either limit the length, or allow libraries to copy freely for archiving purposes.
We desperately need to start repealing the copyright extension acts, but that will not happen while authors and other artists continue with their mentality of entitlement and their desire to control published works (note that "control" and "published" basically form an oxymoron). We could blame the publishing industries with their lobbyists and lawyers, but the truth of it is, as long as we have artists who allow themselves to be taken advantage of, the longer we'll be stuck with the status quo and worse.
Which is the greater evil, using anonymity or a false identity?
If the comments here are to be believed, you are a con man posing as an inventor, and you are out to steal the money of the people you claim to represent.
IIRC, China is currently at 3rd place in international patent filings after Japan and the US.
They are just a lot less litigious than the US, which shows they aren't innovating to monopolise, but to compete. Of course, RJR wouldn't understand a system like that.
On the post: Choruss Goes From Vaporware To Nowhere
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would be disingenuous to suggest they don't have total and unwavering control of the market, and that's what's usually called a monopoly.
What's your definition of a monopoly?
On the post: Choruss Goes From Vaporware To Nowhere
There is simply no way to buy a PC from a major OEM without also paying a hefty price for a Microsoft OS, despite the fact that many users may not need that expensive software and want to use an alternative OS. This system is tolerated because it supposedly reduces piracy, but it has the troubling side-effect of indefinitely supporting Microsoft's dangerous monopoly.
If ISPs are forced to charge a tax on each internet connection, the distribution of the received funds will favour the major labels and artists, at the detriment of the minor ones. It will essentially destroy all competition and indefinitely support the profits of the biggest content providers. A point will likely come when no main ISP will be able to provide tax-free internet, much in the same way that no main OEM can provide tax-free PCs, even though there are a lot of people like me who don't really consume any content -- pirated or otherwise.
On the post: Gene Simmons Now Wants To Throw 'Anonymous' In Jail
On the post: Microsoft Massively Expands Program To Freely License Software To Nonprofits In Countries With Authoritarian Regimes
Re: Re: Link, paywall, boom
Mike usually says he'll link to a non-paywalled source, if he can find one.
Such as this one:
http://www.tech24.org/241microsoft-to-give-free-licensed-software-for-nonprofit-organizations. html
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are still confused
On the post: Would Copyright Work Better If It Was Treated More Like Property?
Re: Re: Re: Oh please...
A better system would have a tax proportional not to the declared value of the IP (which would also be impossible because of tricks like RIAA accounting), but to the time since the IP was published, payable yearly or every term of some fixed duration (e.g., 5 years) when the copyright requires renewal.
This would force a lot of orphan works and dead IP into the public domain, because eternal IP hoarding would become a lot costlier.
On the post: Yankees Claiming Copyright To Block Memoir Involving 60 Year Old Letters From A Young George Steinbrenner
Aren't the letters in the public domain? According to TFA, they were written in 1949, they obviously bear no copyright mark, and any copyrights were not in any way renewed in the 1970s.
Of course that applies for published works, and I don't really know about unpublished works.
On the post: Red Bull Cancels Stunt Dive From Space... Because Someone Sued Then Claiming It Was His Idea
"According to the legal filing, Red Bull is guilty of defrauding Mr. Hogan by illegally drawing from his technical ideas regarding the project and of using his original plans to create publicity and marketing around a similar stunt."
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
On the post: Denying The Public Domain Has A Very Real Cost
Re:
And let's not forget that there'd be a LOT more stuff in the public domain had copyright not been extended in the ridiculous and unfair ways it has been.
On the post: Why Aren't We Creating A National Digital Library?
Unfortunately, I think it's shown quite the opposite. We know the technology exists, but legally and socially we are not ready yet.
When all those authors are screaming and kicking because people are reading their books, as will their "estates" for the next 150 years, you can imagine what sort of problems a national digital library would have.
Two problems, in order of severity.
- Publication requirements. Authors should be obliged to submit digital copies of their books for archiving, as well as hard copies, at a level of quality that would allow them to be reprinted.
- Copyright length. It lasts way too long, on some occasions longer than the physical media will survive, on all occasions much longer than digital media will (without copying). Either limit the length, or allow libraries to copy freely for archiving purposes.
We desperately need to start repealing the copyright extension acts, but that will not happen while authors and other artists continue with their mentality of entitlement and their desire to control published works (note that "control" and "published" basically form an oxymoron). We could blame the publishing industries with their lobbyists and lawyers, but the truth of it is, as long as we have artists who allow themselves to be taken advantage of, the longer we'll be stuck with the status quo and worse.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
If the comments here are to be believed, you are a con man posing as an inventor, and you are out to steal the money of the people you claim to represent.
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone has to be original.
So you are more than one person?
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfroging
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Betamax v. VHS - All Marketing
On the post: Why Imitation Gets A Bad Rap... And Why Companies Need To Be More Serious About Copying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leapfrogging
They are just a lot less litigious than the US, which shows they aren't innovating to monopolise, but to compete. Of course, RJR wouldn't understand a system like that.
Next >>