I actually heard such an argument about poetry once. People complaining that because this one poet was publishing his poems for free on his website, he was harming other poets. It was ridiculous. But it sounded basically the same as every argument the copyright industry has made over file sharing etc. Whining because their business models which are propped up by the governement using our tax dollars are failing.
Actually copyleft is copyright with different restrictions on the license. e.g. The GPL is copyleft and requires that the source code be made available. Violating this requirement is a violation of copyright law.
Quite honestly, I think that distinction fits very neatly into the current IP system: Parody requires the use of a copyrighted work while satyre does not. Now, some of us think the whole IP system is nothing but a big fat subsidie that politicians are handing out to certain big players with lots of lobbying money, but that's a separate issue.
I'm not a jurist, but my guess is that the use of a specific work is central to parody while it is not to satire. I can make fun of you without using Mickey Mouse. I however can't really make fun of Mickey Mouse without making use of Mickey Mouse.
I'm waiting for sneakernet being the new "#1 threat to music." I suggest posting gards outside of people's doors and shooting them when they try to leave unless they have a music license. Pretty soon, the industry will find out people hum to each other and then Congress will happily bend over and throw us all in solitary confinment to protect "culture." God I'm in a bad mood!
There nothing that can be done honestly. We are pretty much fucked. The best option I can see is to make enough money to drive things like the RIAA members out of business and then have some people I like more be in charge of paying off spineless politicians.
1 this is not a piracy tax. It is to compensate copyright holders for legal private copy exception to copyright law.
2 why compensate them? In fact it got me thinking: copyright is a monopoly on something that would otherwise be common property. I think copyright holders should have to pay a significant fee to the state for that priviledge... Harvesting common resources is som/ething you get charged for. Why not apply that to intelectual products?
Re: Mike, Alot of talk but short on answers ! A model is the exchange for goods and services for money.
"So strawman no.1 shot down, and im sure if you look up that law it will have been repeeled."
Your trust in legislators is quite refreshing. Interestingly enough, there is a law on the book which prohibits people of certain sexual orientations from serving in the military. Now, if that's not dumb, I don't know what is.
"Its a strawman argument, what file sharers do is distribute, they do no promote, sell or produce a product.
And for youre "basic ecomonics" how do you explain how production and promotion and management are done and paid for ?"
Don't you read this blog? File sharers do in fact promote content. They do so by sharing it interestingly enough. On how to make money, there are dozens of examples to be found on this blog ranging from "meet-the-artist" type schemes, to t-shirts, to premium box sets, to concerts etc... That's how the production and management teams get paid. Simple enough.
"Ok, name 5 popular movies that have done that !
You know 5 movies people would actually want to go and see for example, otherwise, you're just building more strawmen."
It is being explained to you that we are here discussing a set of business models which is developping and growing. Not that it is currently established. However, if you want an example where movies are made available for free and people still made money, you got it. Every single movie in the past 5-10 years have been "pirated" widely available online, widely downloaded and their success rate is equivalent with movies before illegal file sharing became popular.
"Sure, Red Hat has a different business model than microsoft, one is a software design company, and the other is a technical support company, using outsourced core product.
But BOTH are the same in that they exchange goods or services of a percieved value (real value if the purchaser likes the product or service) the customer pays his tokens (cash) for the product. That gives RH or MS cash to pay staff and promotion. So they can exchange more stuff for money. And around it goes."
Except that the core item which people get in relation to Red Hat is not the support, it's Linux Red Hat! Which is free content! If linux didn't exist, Red Hat would make 0 money. Also, Linux is created by people who do NOT get remunerated because others buy Linux. Since no-one does! You are building a straw man by saying that there is only one business model: You make stuff and people buy that stuff. That argument is idiotic. Of course people paying for goods and services is central to every business model! But it's thoroughly insufficient as a business model. How do you get others to buy your stuff/services? How do you make your stuff and services? Those are the interesting questions and the truth is there are thousands of different business models ranging from Dell who makes your computer just in time to MySQL who customizes and supports a product they give away for free, to Google who gives away great tools and sells ad space on those tools.
You are quite simply wrong because of all those facts I gave above. Also, you're intelectually dishonest which personnally I consider a significant character flaw. But hey, do what you want. It's a free country.
He was saving. It's called unemployment insurance. And quite honestly, your attitude is idiotic. Who the hell knows what that guy can or cannot do for work, what he has been trying to do etc? Maybe he is not physically capable of being a day laborer. Maybe they don't need inexperienced day laborers. Maybe people aren't being hired to flip burgers in his area.
And this is not about the freedom to fail or succeed on your own. This is about making sure that when you fail, you don't starve. The possibility of starving is a much more significant deterent to entrepreneurship than any taxes and regulations. It's insurance. Everyone pays into a big pool. When your life fails, you get to have some part of the pool so you get a chance to try again. If you don't like it, you can leave the country...
I have used the walking and biking directions which are both in beta and found them tremendously useful. Sure, sometimes, there is a mistake, but most of the time it gets me where I want to go... Instead of calling it worthless, I would say that it does not solve every single one of my routing problems. Which is fine. I don't expect any one tool to completely take care of all my needs.
The guy is an independent. And in France, that does not mean he helps to break ties... It means even the tiny little parties don't want him. It is unlikely that law will even make it into a committee according to informed commentators.
It appears the senator in question was the subject of deffamation on a blog in his home town and he didn't realize there are methods setup so he could sue. He'll be made to realize that he has options and this whole episode will go away. I wouldn't worry about it. (The man admitted he didn't know what Twitter or the iPad are and that he didn't care...)
It appears though that internauts (french internet users) have been pretty active digging up and bringing to the surface every little dirty secret that could be found about that senator. He's probably regretting pissing them off now.
Re: Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy.
the Artist CREATES the ART.
The Artist control any FULL use , 100 %.
Artists have the RIGHT to totally grant ( or not grant) use , AND to control 100 % that use PRIVILEGE -- except for parody and fair use.
That is the Basics of copyright Law.
Honestly, the fact that you received advice should not abolish your judgement. I don't see how that woman can honestly believe that it is anyone's fault but her own for crossing a highway and getting hit by oncoming traffic...
This gives me an idea. How about a NATO-style patent organization? The basic idea is the members do not file patent lawsuits against each other. However, as soon as anyone files a patent lawsuit against any of the members, every member brings their full patent portfolio to bear on the attacker. If business models end up being patentable, you could even start patenting patent-troll business models and sue them for patent infringements.
This is great news. Again, the MPAA is shooting itself in the foot. I for one never watch something from cable without using my DVR first. (with very rare exceptions) Does that mean I will now change my movie-watching habits? You bet! I'm not going to watch anything that comes with a broadcast flag. If they start putting that flag on too much stuff, I'll just cancel cable TV. Libraries and Netflix have DVDs and there are plenty of websites that have the shows I'm looking for legally. What if I can't get a show online legally? Well too bad. I won't watch it. The great news is that unlike some of their other idiotic moves, this one is going to affect a lot of mainstream users. And those users eventually will learn the truth: Movies are just too much of a pain to deal with. Slowly but surely, they are alienating the public. Within a few years, sympathy is going to drop off the map and they are going to disappear. I will dance a jig on their grave.
I can't think of anything polite to say in response to this. But let's give it a try anyways: There is no reason whatsoever why that guy should be talking about something he so obviously does not understand. Quite simply, he's behaving like an ignorant idiot.
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re: not clear what they hope to accomplish
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech
Re: I don't understand.
On the post: A Timeline Of How The Entertainment Industry Made The File Sharing Issue Much Worse For Itself
On the post: Administration Went From Supporting Copyright Exceptions For The Blind... To Working To Block Them
Re:
On the post: A Week After Feds Approve Movie Derivatives Market, Congress Bans It
Re: They've killed off a potential business model too!
On the post: A Week After Feds Approve Movie Derivatives Market, Congress Bans It
On the post: European Advocate General Says Copyright Levy Should Only Be Charged If There's Actual Content Copying
2 why compensate them? In fact it got me thinking: copyright is a monopoly on something that would otherwise be common property. I think copyright holders should have to pay a significant fee to the state for that priviledge... Harvesting common resources is som/ething you get charged for. Why not apply that to intelectual products?
On the post: More And More Lawsuits Filed Against Google Over Street View WiFi Slurping
On the post: The Government And Silicon Valley: Lead, Follow Or Get Out Of The Way?
Re: Mike, Alot of talk but short on answers ! A model is the exchange for goods and services for money.
Your trust in legislators is quite refreshing. Interestingly enough, there is a law on the book which prohibits people of certain sexual orientations from serving in the military. Now, if that's not dumb, I don't know what is.
"Its a strawman argument, what file sharers do is distribute, they do no promote, sell or produce a product.
And for youre "basic ecomonics" how do you explain how production and promotion and management are done and paid for ?"
Don't you read this blog? File sharers do in fact promote content. They do so by sharing it interestingly enough. On how to make money, there are dozens of examples to be found on this blog ranging from "meet-the-artist" type schemes, to t-shirts, to premium box sets, to concerts etc... That's how the production and management teams get paid. Simple enough.
"Ok, name 5 popular movies that have done that !
You know 5 movies people would actually want to go and see for example, otherwise, you're just building more strawmen."
It is being explained to you that we are here discussing a set of business models which is developping and growing. Not that it is currently established. However, if you want an example where movies are made available for free and people still made money, you got it. Every single movie in the past 5-10 years have been "pirated" widely available online, widely downloaded and their success rate is equivalent with movies before illegal file sharing became popular.
"Sure, Red Hat has a different business model than microsoft, one is a software design company, and the other is a technical support company, using outsourced core product.
But BOTH are the same in that they exchange goods or services of a percieved value (real value if the purchaser likes the product or service) the customer pays his tokens (cash) for the product. That gives RH or MS cash to pay staff and promotion. So they can exchange more stuff for money. And around it goes."
Except that the core item which people get in relation to Red Hat is not the support, it's Linux Red Hat! Which is free content! If linux didn't exist, Red Hat would make 0 money. Also, Linux is created by people who do NOT get remunerated because others buy Linux. Since no-one does! You are building a straw man by saying that there is only one business model: You make stuff and people buy that stuff. That argument is idiotic. Of course people paying for goods and services is central to every business model! But it's thoroughly insufficient as a business model. How do you get others to buy your stuff/services? How do you make your stuff and services? Those are the interesting questions and the truth is there are thousands of different business models ranging from Dell who makes your computer just in time to MySQL who customizes and supports a product they give away for free, to Google who gives away great tools and sells ad space on those tools.
You are quite simply wrong because of all those facts I gave above. Also, you're intelectually dishonest which personnally I consider a significant character flaw. But hey, do what you want. It's a free country.
On the post: Guy Charged With Harassment For Sending Email Complaint To Senator Jim Bunning
Re: Re: Planning
And this is not about the freedom to fail or succeed on your own. This is about making sure that when you fail, you don't starve. The possibility of starving is a much more significant deterent to entrepreneurship than any taxes and regulations. It's insurance. Everyone pays into a big pool. When your life fails, you get to have some part of the pool so you get a chance to try again. If you don't like it, you can leave the country...
On the post: EU Politicians Tricked Into Supporting Data Retention On Search Terms... 'For The Children'
On the post: Lawyer Explains Reasoning For Suing Google Over Walking Directions: It Was Dark
Re: The lawsuit is wrong but.....
On the post: French Senator Proposes Outlawing Anonymous Blogging
It appears the senator in question was the subject of deffamation on a blog in his home town and he didn't realize there are methods setup so he could sue. He'll be made to realize that he has options and this whole episode will go away. I wouldn't worry about it. (The man admitted he didn't know what Twitter or the iPad are and that he didn't care...)
It appears though that internauts (french internet users) have been pretty active digging up and bringing to the surface every little dirty secret that could be found about that senator. He's probably regretting pissing them off now.
On the post: Woman Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car
Re: Only with copyright does somebody feel entitled to insist that others not share the things they like and enjoy.
The Artist control any FULL use , 100 %.
Artists have the RIGHT to totally grant ( or not grant) use , AND to control 100 % that use PRIVILEGE -- except for parody and fair use.
That is the Basics of copyright Law.
What makes you say that?
On the post: Woman Sues Google After She Follows Google Maps Directions And Gets Hit By A Car
Re: Re: Re: Roads designed for?
On the post: Effort Underway For Defensive Patent Pool For Open Source Developers
On the post: FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause
prometheefeu.blogspot.com
On the post: Middle School Principal Tells Parents To Ban Facebook And Spy On Text Messages
Next >>