I should add to this, most states in the US have a way for citizens to propose laws and constitutional amendments. These proposals bypass the states' legislatures and go directly to the people to vote on. If passed, they become law/part of the state constitution.
I don't really see how what Finland is doing is different from that.
What I find interesting here is another wonderful contradiction of Techdirt.
No contradictions to be found here.
Here we have a situation where pretty much Mike is crying out for new laws, preferring strong privacy protections. Essentially, the law hasn't caught up to the idea of smart phones, and he wants them to address it and to tighten restrictions.
The law hasn't caught up with how to protect the privacy of someone who carries around their entire life in a convenient pocket sized computer. I think that is an important area to focus on creating narrowly defined protections for citizens' privacy.
Yet, on the other hand, where the law doesn't handle online abuses of copyright or trademarks very well, he is against any new law that would cover the new situation and tighten restrictions.
No. He is against new laws and enforcements that shatter the current protections for citizens' privacy and security. If a law was proposed that did not have severe consequences for privacy and security rights of citizens, I am sure Mike would be more willing to consider it. However, no recent law has been able to show that it does not harm privacy and security rights of citizens.
The key issue you fail to understand is that people's privacy and security trumps your right to have a monopoly.
Actually, it does. If one day Congress comes to the realization of just how flawed the DMCA is and decides to repeal or roll it back to something sane, ACTA would prevent them from doing so. Why? Because many of the provisions in the DMCA are codified by ACTA. That is certainly a hindrance on Congresses power to manage copyright law.
Lego did not lose its patents. Its patents expired. Big difference. The reason it does not count under copyright is because the bricks are utilitarian in nature. However, the actual model kits and instructions are probably covered by copyright.
Of course, I have no real idea what this discussion has to do with the topic at hand.
They are not forcing them to drop all adult content, just certain kinds that depict possibly illegal activities. They are fine with erotica as long as it stays away from bestiality, incest, rape and under-age.
While the whole thing is horrible, there is still some leeway.
I thought that meant they would be ending their own terrorist recruitment programs. After all, the US FBI has recruited more terrorists than any other organization in the US.
I live in a town of roughly 7000 people. We have a local paper that reports on a lot of stuff that happens here and surrounding communities. The next town over with a population of 5000 has a paper as well. I find it really hard to believe that a city the size of LA has only 1 paper to its name and if that one fails all news will fail with it.
1) We have the theatrical release.
2) The movie is made for purchase/viewing on a variety of platforms 3 months later.
Now let's look at bad windowing:
1) The theatrical release.
2) The pay per view release 3 months later.
3) The DVD release with rental embargo 1 month later.
4) Rental embargo is lifted 2 months later.
5) iTunes release 4 months later.
6) Hulu/Netflix/Whatever streaming release 2 years later.
You will notice the difference here. In the first example we are capturing the vast majority of the market as quickly as possible. In the second example we are stretching out the time it takes for certain segments of the market to get the product. The longer it takes for the streaming market to get the product, the more likely they are to pirate rather than wait or buy.
Add to these windows regional restrictions and you have amplified the problem to a factor of 10.
How is abused? Let's see - everything from Marcus quality remix artists to piracy and beyond.
I see you still have your unhealthy infatuation with Marcus. You might want to get that checked out.
Now, how exactly are remix artists harming the market for the original work? Are you saying that a person will listen to a remix, catch a 10 second guitar riff and decide that is enough of the original to never need to hear it? If that is the case, then the problem is not with the remix.
Knock off DVDs, I wil lgive you that because you are right. They are breaking the law. They don't have my support.
Dotcom, however, was providing a valuable service to a vast number of artists. He was providing them a way to give their art away and make money from it. Was Dotcom's service used for infringemnet as well? Sure, but so is the VCR, the DVR, the Computer, the Cassette tape, the MP3 player, Youtube, Veoh etc. All those services were found to be legal because they had substantial non-infringing uses. To say that Megaupload does not is to be willfully blind.
I greatly object to the idea that consumers should rule the world. They are part of the deal, but certainly not the leaders.
Then you have no idea how economics and markets work. The consumers are the rulers of the market. Without them, the market fails. To say that copyright is different is again to be willfully ignorant and blind.
Copyright was designed as a means to increase the public culture, not to enrich corporations and the great-great-great-grandchildren of an artist. It was designed to bring more cultural works to the public. Current copyright has moved far from that original purpose.
Fair use should be more clearly defined - but certainly not to the extent that EFF / Google is pushing for. Sorry, but I think the limit of fair use has already been reached.
Sure you think fair use has already been reached, but a large number of people in the world, the majority of consumers by the way, feel otherwise. When it is legal to rip your cd to your computer and your iPhone, but not your DVD people find that absurd. When it is legal to loan out a physical copy of a work but not a digital copy, people think that is absurd. There is a growing number of people who have been raised on digital technologies. These people are going to be the ones to influence public policy. You might want to get used to it.
Regardless of what you want to believe, social mores and norms are brought about by what the rising generations find acceptable. By what the rising generations do. Sure the dying generations can try to fight it, but the will eventually die and the new generations will take over. Copyright will be the same.
Honestly, it's worth addressing repeatedly.
And you are wrong every time.
Copyright cases (especially online ones) are a freaking joke. There are more thickets than almost any patent puzzle Mike tries to whip up, what with discovery against the ISP, and all that goes with that, and then the debate over jurisdiction, the fight to get the evidence, to get it into court, to seat a jury, and to go through the whole process, only to have a the judge decide that a jury of the defendants peers "made a mistake". Why do you think that Thomas, Tanenbaum, and cases of that ilk are dragging along for years, which widespread copyright violation goes on?
The only reason those cases are dragging on for years is because the copyright holders are not satisfied with the judge's decisions. The judge rightfully thinks that $1.5million for 24 songs is insane, but the RIAA want to continue to push for it. Eventually the whole thing is going to collapse. But to say that the courts are not stacked in the favor of the copyright industry completely ignores what actually happens.
Take Veoh for instance. The site was ruled to be legal many many times, however, Universal kept pushing until it completely broke Veoh. When a massive corporation can use the courts as a blunt instrument to kill a legal service, or to unfairly punish a person, the nyes it is stacked in the copyright industry's favor.
You say that the list proposed here is silly, but your list is even more so.
1 - Curb Abuses of Copyright Material
What abuses? Please provide some examples of how copyrighted material is abused. What I see on a daily basis is copyright holders lashing out at fair use of their works. These fair uses do not harm the original market in anyway, but the copyright holders don't want any part of it. Educational use, personal use, research use, all of them are considered on the same level as flat out copyright infringement.
2 - Ensure Openness in International IP Negotiations
Funny you list that but lash out at Techdirt every time we point out an instance where such negotiations are done behind closed doors. SOPA/PIPA, done behind closed doors with no transparency. ACTA/TPP, done behind closed doors with no transparency.
When we actually ask for transparency and an open dialog, we are called liars and thieves.
3 - more clearly define "fair use", without giving the shop away
Except that has never been asked for by your side. Every three years US citizens have to beg for fair use exemptions that they otherwise would have had if it weren't for the DMCA. Every three years the copyright holders rant and rave about how simple fair uses such as allowing educators to use copyrighted material in class presentations and lesson plans will somehow be the death of the industry. If you want an open dialog about fair use, it would help that you stop actively trying to kill such uses.
4 - Reduce Copyright Abuse and misuse of copyright content
This is just a rehash of point one.
5 - Shorten the time required to bring a copyright case to court
Court cases are already stacked in the favor of the copyright holder. Why do you need more power than you already have? Copyright holders are already immune to any recourse for falsely sending DMCA notices. SOPA would have expanded the protections for copyright holders to let them have their way with no consequences. There is no reason to expand that to the further detriment of the consumer.
The goal of this Blueprint effort is to bring more balance back to copyright and bring it more inline with its stated purpose of enriching the public domain.
Please provide some actual arguments on how these 5 listed blueprints will actually be harmful to the copyright industries.
Too bad the hurdles put in place by the Berne Convention, WIPO and WTO are preventing real reform in the length of copyright. While the 50 year term for corporate copyright is acceptable, the life+50 years proposed for individual copyright is still far too long.
You are right. It is a huge burden. Of course they could do the easy thing and make the content available to the public in a format and a timeframe the customer wants. That would far easier and make the content producer a lot more money.
I would say yes. Why? Because the apology does not fix the fact that the article in question was unable to be found through Google for an entire month. Harm was done and they need to be reminded that their actions caused it and they need to fix it.
bob is right on that last one. Kickstarter approves all campaigns run on their site. They do reject quite a few. If the project does not meet these guidelines, it wil be rejected:
On the post: Finnish Act Lets The Public Send Bills To Parliament, Volunteer Group Makes It Easy
Re: Re:
I don't really see how what Finland is doing is different from that.
On the post: Finnish Act Lets The Public Send Bills To Parliament, Volunteer Group Makes It Easy
Re:
On the post: Court Confirms Police Don't Need A Warrant To Do A Limited Search Of A Mobile Phone
Re:
No contradictions to be found here.
Here we have a situation where pretty much Mike is crying out for new laws, preferring strong privacy protections. Essentially, the law hasn't caught up to the idea of smart phones, and he wants them to address it and to tighten restrictions.
The law hasn't caught up with how to protect the privacy of someone who carries around their entire life in a convenient pocket sized computer. I think that is an important area to focus on creating narrowly defined protections for citizens' privacy.
Yet, on the other hand, where the law doesn't handle online abuses of copyright or trademarks very well, he is against any new law that would cover the new situation and tighten restrictions.
No. He is against new laws and enforcements that shatter the current protections for citizens' privacy and security. If a law was proposed that did not have severe consequences for privacy and security rights of citizens, I am sure Mike would be more willing to consider it. However, no recent law has been able to show that it does not harm privacy and security rights of citizens.
The key issue you fail to understand is that people's privacy and security trumps your right to have a monopoly.
On the post: Obama Administration: ACTA Is Binding & Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads About TPP
Re:
On the post: Game Developer Takes 7-Year-Old Kid's Lego Design And Puts It Into The Game As A Birthday Present
Re:
Of course, I have no real idea what this discussion has to do with the topic at hand.
On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors
Re:
While the whole thing is horrible, there is still some leeway.
On the post: FBI Preaches Dangers Of 'Cybercrime' To The Choir
Re: FBI Decides To Do Their Job
I thought that meant they would be ending their own terrorist recruitment programs. After all, the US FBI has recruited more terrorists than any other organization in the US.
On the post: Dear Big Newspapers: Keep Putting Up Silly Paywalls And Clear The Internet Field For Us 'Newcomers'
Re:
On the post: Feds Continue Crackdown On Poker... By Seizing The Wrong Bodog Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoa. I knew prostitution was legal in Nevada, but I didn't know they had machines for it now.
On the post: Funny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' Structure
Re:
Let's take a look at some good windowing.
1) We have the theatrical release.
2) The movie is made for purchase/viewing on a variety of platforms 3 months later.
Now let's look at bad windowing:
1) The theatrical release.
2) The pay per view release 3 months later.
3) The DVD release with rental embargo 1 month later.
4) Rental embargo is lifted 2 months later.
5) iTunes release 4 months later.
6) Hulu/Netflix/Whatever streaming release 2 years later.
You will notice the difference here. In the first example we are capturing the vast majority of the market as quickly as possible. In the second example we are stretching out the time it takes for certain segments of the market to get the product. The longer it takes for the streaming market to get the product, the more likely they are to pirate rather than wait or buy.
Add to these windows regional restrictions and you have amplified the problem to a factor of 10.
On the post: New Platform Launched To Crowdsource Better Internet-Related Regulation... With Expert Help
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see you still have your unhealthy infatuation with Marcus. You might want to get that checked out.
Now, how exactly are remix artists harming the market for the original work? Are you saying that a person will listen to a remix, catch a 10 second guitar riff and decide that is enough of the original to never need to hear it? If that is the case, then the problem is not with the remix.
Knock off DVDs, I wil lgive you that because you are right. They are breaking the law. They don't have my support.
Dotcom, however, was providing a valuable service to a vast number of artists. He was providing them a way to give their art away and make money from it. Was Dotcom's service used for infringemnet as well? Sure, but so is the VCR, the DVR, the Computer, the Cassette tape, the MP3 player, Youtube, Veoh etc. All those services were found to be legal because they had substantial non-infringing uses. To say that Megaupload does not is to be willfully blind.
I greatly object to the idea that consumers should rule the world. They are part of the deal, but certainly not the leaders.
Then you have no idea how economics and markets work. The consumers are the rulers of the market. Without them, the market fails. To say that copyright is different is again to be willfully ignorant and blind.
Copyright was designed as a means to increase the public culture, not to enrich corporations and the great-great-great-grandchildren of an artist. It was designed to bring more cultural works to the public. Current copyright has moved far from that original purpose.
Fair use should be more clearly defined - but certainly not to the extent that EFF / Google is pushing for. Sorry, but I think the limit of fair use has already been reached.
Sure you think fair use has already been reached, but a large number of people in the world, the majority of consumers by the way, feel otherwise. When it is legal to rip your cd to your computer and your iPhone, but not your DVD people find that absurd. When it is legal to loan out a physical copy of a work but not a digital copy, people think that is absurd. There is a growing number of people who have been raised on digital technologies. These people are going to be the ones to influence public policy. You might want to get used to it.
Regardless of what you want to believe, social mores and norms are brought about by what the rising generations find acceptable. By what the rising generations do. Sure the dying generations can try to fight it, but the will eventually die and the new generations will take over. Copyright will be the same.
Honestly, it's worth addressing repeatedly.
And you are wrong every time.
Copyright cases (especially online ones) are a freaking joke. There are more thickets than almost any patent puzzle Mike tries to whip up, what with discovery against the ISP, and all that goes with that, and then the debate over jurisdiction, the fight to get the evidence, to get it into court, to seat a jury, and to go through the whole process, only to have a the judge decide that a jury of the defendants peers "made a mistake". Why do you think that Thomas, Tanenbaum, and cases of that ilk are dragging along for years, which widespread copyright violation goes on?
The only reason those cases are dragging on for years is because the copyright holders are not satisfied with the judge's decisions. The judge rightfully thinks that $1.5million for 24 songs is insane, but the RIAA want to continue to push for it. Eventually the whole thing is going to collapse. But to say that the courts are not stacked in the favor of the copyright industry completely ignores what actually happens.
Take Veoh for instance. The site was ruled to be legal many many times, however, Universal kept pushing until it completely broke Veoh. When a massive corporation can use the courts as a blunt instrument to kill a legal service, or to unfairly punish a person, the nyes it is stacked in the copyright industry's favor.
On the post: New Platform Launched To Crowdsource Better Internet-Related Regulation... With Expert Help
Re: Re: Re:
1 - Curb Abuses of Copyright Material
What abuses? Please provide some examples of how copyrighted material is abused. What I see on a daily basis is copyright holders lashing out at fair use of their works. These fair uses do not harm the original market in anyway, but the copyright holders don't want any part of it. Educational use, personal use, research use, all of them are considered on the same level as flat out copyright infringement.
2 - Ensure Openness in International IP Negotiations
Funny you list that but lash out at Techdirt every time we point out an instance where such negotiations are done behind closed doors. SOPA/PIPA, done behind closed doors with no transparency. ACTA/TPP, done behind closed doors with no transparency.
When we actually ask for transparency and an open dialog, we are called liars and thieves.
3 - more clearly define "fair use", without giving the shop away
Except that has never been asked for by your side. Every three years US citizens have to beg for fair use exemptions that they otherwise would have had if it weren't for the DMCA. Every three years the copyright holders rant and rave about how simple fair uses such as allowing educators to use copyrighted material in class presentations and lesson plans will somehow be the death of the industry. If you want an open dialog about fair use, it would help that you stop actively trying to kill such uses.
4 - Reduce Copyright Abuse and misuse of copyright content
This is just a rehash of point one.
5 - Shorten the time required to bring a copyright case to court
Court cases are already stacked in the favor of the copyright holder. Why do you need more power than you already have? Copyright holders are already immune to any recourse for falsely sending DMCA notices. SOPA would have expanded the protections for copyright holders to let them have their way with no consequences. There is no reason to expand that to the further detriment of the consumer.
The goal of this Blueprint effort is to bring more balance back to copyright and bring it more inline with its stated purpose of enriching the public domain.
Please provide some actual arguments on how these 5 listed blueprints will actually be harmful to the copyright industries.
On the post: New Platform Launched To Crowdsource Better Internet-Related Regulation... With Expert Help
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120223/20250117858/if-you-want-to-compe te-with-free-this-is-what-you-need-to-know.shtml
On the post: New Platform Launched To Crowdsource Better Internet-Related Regulation... With Expert Help
On the post: New Platform Launched To Crowdsource Better Internet-Related Regulation... With Expert Help
Re:
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Company That Issued Bogus Takedown Says It Was All A Mistake, Apologizes
Re:
On the post: Kickstarter Likely To Provide More Funding Than The National Endowment For The Arts In 2012
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another Paywall
http://www.kickstarter.com/help/guidelines?ref=footer
Next >>