Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright matters to those who make their money from copyrighted items; others not so much.
ALL businesses live or die by ad revenue, that is, the revenue that advertising brings in.
The problem when making your money via ad revenue is that sooner or later you are likely to be replaced by a different company going after your audience.
Attracting eyeballs in order to sell ads is a constantly churning business. It was more secure when only a few publications owned the presses or the airwaves. But when the Internet allows for unlimited places to place ads, you don't really have many barriers of entry to protect your business. The minute you amass an audience big enough to generate substantial ad revenue, someone else will come along and go after that same audience. That audience isn't likely to be loyal to anyone delivering ads.
There is a growing third party, those who do use copyright but see the current system as problematic or even irrevocably broken. Modern copyright has primarily been crafted by big publishers, for big publishers. Anything that benefits the actual creators or the public is being increasingly marginalized.
I think there is room for reform, too. But actually having that happen given the way politics works seems unlikely. I anticipate that we're more likely to see the business models and the court decisions adjust before the laws change.
To get laws passed in Congress you need a consensus or a time when one party dominates both the Senate and the House. Right now no one anticipates either in the near future.
Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
But it sounds like public didn't exert much influence on this issue. The politician speaking said that they would care, but we've had copyright laws since then anyway.
I"m not speaking for or against the laws. I'm just saying that when the public riots or throws politicians out of office, it isn't about copyright laws.
Let's say you offer to get rid of copyright laws but don't enable people to have enough food to feed their families. Guess which issue they will care about most?
You don't have to worry about global warming. It is impossible that anything can be done to stop it. 15 years of hand-wringing has not changed the rise of CO2 concentration in the slightest. The only hope would be the wholesale adoption of nuclear power over coal-fired power plants, and that won't happen.
We still need to deal with the economic impacts of it. For example, more extreme weather means more costs unless we redesign lifestyles to prepare for it.
Copyright matters to those who make their money from copyrighted items; others not so much.
If your business revolves around copyrighted items, it matters to you. Either you are trying to hang on to copyright or you're trying to get rid of it.
But for the rest of the world, there are far more pressing issues (e.g., health, safety, jobs, distribution of natural resources).
Now, as part of a larger economic revolution that attempts to democratize ownership and eliminates both big government and big corporations, yes, it plays a role. And as part of a global revolutionary movement, it is important. But that means the goal is not only to get rid of copyright, but also to get rid of the big corporations (e.g., Google) that might benefit from its elimination.
I just tried to post a link and got another one of those "will be held in moderation" notices. So I'll try again without the link.
What I said was that hoping the Congress will pass anything might be wishful thinking.
I'll drop the link and just give you the article info and the quote without the active link.
"The 112th Congress Was The Least Effective And Most Disliked In History" in Business Insider by Walter Hickey, Dec. 31, 2012:
"The U.S. Congress passed 219 bills that were signed into law in the 112th session, a dizzying low compared to the 111th Congress (383 bills) and the 110th (460 bills), according to MSNBC.
"For a remarkable comparison, Harry Truman's 'Do-nothing' Congress passed 906 bills from 1947-1948.
"U.S. history professor Daniel Feller told NPR that 'I think you'd have to go back to the 1850s to find a period of congressional dysfunction like the one we're in today.'"
For a remarkable comparison, Harry Truman's 'Do-nothing' Congress passed 906 bills from 1947-1948.
U.S. history professor Daniel Feller told NPR that 'I think you'd have to go back to the 1850s to find a period of congressional dysfunction like the one we're in today.'"
Now we get you bozos trying to distract from the real issues with "oh the horror! copyright is too long!", when everyone knows that no one gives a flying fuck about something copyrighted 70 years ago; It's all recent stuff that you want to exploit.
I agree that the average person/voter really doesn't care about copyright. It's not a problem for them. Therefore, I can't see them rising up to demand changes.
I suppose that's good in that perhaps Congress can slip the changes in with little protest, but we'll have to see how that plays out. Would it actually be possible for both liberals and conservatives to work together to reform copyright? Seems unlikely, though maybe if enough lobbying money is thrown their way, they might.
Copyright certainly isn't a passion of mine. I don't really care what is done one way or the other. I'm much more interested in sustainability and global warming issues. I don't think I am all that atypical in that copyright is down pretty far on my list of priorities.
In the recent US v. Jones case, where a warrantless GPS device was used for a number of weeks, it presented a stunning example of the privacy implications of current technology (as was discussed primarily in the concurring opinion). Luckily, the prospect of the FBI tracking all of our cars by GPS devices under our car is highly improbable – if nothing else from a resources perspective – but it's not difficult to imagine a near future world where traffic cameras, aerial vehicles, or even satellites with sophisticated software could analyze and database where our cars have been every single day at every minute – all without a warrant. This may or may not be a Fourth Amendment search/seizure, but it certainly can be addressed through legislative action as was done with ECPA in an earlier time.
People who only focus on what government does with data are ignoring what private companies are doing to collect, sell, and target consumers with that data.
I think the split thinking is often intentional because many people working for private companies still want to be able to do this. There is big money in big data. I see focusing on government only as a diversionary tactic to keep them out of data collection, therefore giving private companies more opportunities to profit from it.
You have gun manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, and military weapons manufacturers who make products that can kill people, whether or not they are used for that purpose. At any rate, they products are often marketed for as a form of self-defense.
But on the other hand, you have tech companies that are developing new forms of data collection, new forms of warfare which don't require killing people, and new products (like drones). These allow for self-defense that might prevent loss of life. Heading off a problem is better than having to kill someone to stop the problem.
So if you believe that business should be allowed to be work fairly unfettered by laws, you will see the new tech companies looking for ways to disrupt the old companies working in the same spheres. If new technology reduces the need for guns, bullets, and bombs, lots of people will be happy about it, though not necessarily those who want to sell guns, bullets, and bombs.
Yes, I know gun owners don't necessarily own guns for self-defense. But if those who don't want to own guns can find ways to feel safe without guns, then the market for guns stays as a sport market more than a self-defense market, which I think is what lots of people would like to see because it lessens the use of guns as weapons.
The push forward of technology may turn guns into something that is viewed along with horse ownership, something a group of people enjoy but not something most people think about purchasing.
As I have pointed out a number of times on Techdirt, private companies are monitoring people already. All the complaints about government monitoring don't address that issue.
Gun control via monitoring may be one time when private companies can do something government can't because they won't be dealing with the politics. And if private companies can actually do something to identify people who might shoot innocent people and then prevent that from happening, there will be people who will pay to have that done.
The fight to prevent gun control via laws does open the door for gun monitoring via private data collection and use. I am imagine that the data gathering won't single out gun owners and only collect info on them, but if identifiable patterns develop which predict dangerous use of guns, that info can be used to target those individuals.
At any rate, do you see what I am saying? If you stop governments from monitoring citizens, but private companies do it anyway, it is being done. That info might not be turned over to government, but if it is turned over to private citizens who use it to protect themselves, it is being used.
Here. I think we'll have more systems like this as a counter to the lack of gun control. People may get to keep their guns and conceal them, but there will be more monitoring of what happens within certain perimeters.
At Disney Parks, a Bracelet Meant to Build Loyalty (and Sales) - NYTimes.com: "Did you buy a balloon? What attractions did you ride and when? Did you shake Goofy’s hand, but snub Snow White? If you fully use MyMagic , databases will be watching, allowing Disney to refine its offerings and customize its marketing messages."
I said that I thought private company info gathering about gun ownership was probably going to move ahead before anything is done by politicians and laws.
And the more I think about it, the more I am pondering some tech solutions. The answer would not come from asking gun owners and gun manufacturers for cooperation, but by developing systems that provide protection to those who don't want to carry guns but still want to feel safe.
The advantage, too, is that those who oppose government monitoring might be less likely to complain about private companies doing it.
Here's one technology I can see being used by private businesses to begin monitoring more citizens. The advantage of private monitoring is that they don't have to wait until a crime is committed or have to obtain search warrants. If their intelligence data indicates the potential for a crime, there might be ways for private companies to keep an eye on people without running afoul of any laws. As I mentioned before, companies are profiling people all the time as it is.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I won't even use Facebook on my phone
Sorry to burst your bubble but your data has been stored and will remain there forever for them to use, even if you delete the account.
I've at least pulled it out so it can't be used publicly. Facebook was displaying info that I had indicated shouldn't have been displayed, and when Facebook kept doing it, I had to delete it. Now there is much less on my Facebook page. Each time it changes its privacy policy, I take out more info.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright matters to those who make their money from copyrighted items; others not so much.
The problem when making your money via ad revenue is that sooner or later you are likely to be replaced by a different company going after your audience.
Attracting eyeballs in order to sell ads is a constantly churning business. It was more secure when only a few publications owned the presses or the airwaves. But when the Internet allows for unlimited places to place ads, you don't really have many barriers of entry to protect your business. The minute you amass an audience big enough to generate substantial ad revenue, someone else will come along and go after that same audience. That audience isn't likely to be loyal to anyone delivering ads.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're talking politics and what citizens care about. Copyright isn't an issue that citizens riot about. Food can be.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: [B&W copyright arguement]
I think there is room for reform, too. But actually having that happen given the way politics works seems unlikely. I anticipate that we're more likely to see the business models and the court decisions adjust before the laws change.
To get laws passed in Congress you need a consensus or a time when one party dominates both the Senate and the House. Right now no one anticipates either in the near future.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Copyright matters to those who make their money from copyrighted items; others not so much.
I won't disagree with you on that.
But as an aside, I'd also say that about online companies based solely on ad revenue. Too many start-ups fall back on this.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re:
But it sounds like public didn't exert much influence on this issue. The politician speaking said that they would care, but we've had copyright laws since then anyway.
I"m not speaking for or against the laws. I'm just saying that when the public riots or throws politicians out of office, it isn't about copyright laws.
Let's say you offer to get rid of copyright laws but don't enable people to have enough food to feed their families. Guess which issue they will care about most?
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re:
Ah, but would the Republican Party want to give it to him as opposed to other Republican candidates?
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re:
We still need to deal with the economic impacts of it. For example, more extreme weather means more costs unless we redesign lifestyles to prepare for it.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re: Re:
Refusing to support bills is different than getting a new one passed. Congress is better at saying no than it is in implementing change.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Copyright matters to those who make their money from copyrighted items; others not so much.
But for the rest of the world, there are far more pressing issues (e.g., health, safety, jobs, distribution of natural resources).
Now, as part of a larger economic revolution that attempts to democratize ownership and eliminates both big government and big corporations, yes, it plays a role. And as part of a global revolutionary movement, it is important. But that means the goal is not only to get rid of copyright, but also to get rid of the big corporations (e.g., Google) that might benefit from its elimination.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re:
What I said was that hoping the Congress will pass anything might be wishful thinking.
I'll drop the link and just give you the article info and the quote without the active link.
"The 112th Congress Was The Least Effective And Most Disliked In History" in Business Insider by Walter Hickey, Dec. 31, 2012:
"The U.S. Congress passed 219 bills that were signed into law in the 112th session, a dizzying low compared to the 111th Congress (383 bills) and the 110th (460 bills), according to MSNBC.
"For a remarkable comparison, Harry Truman's 'Do-nothing' Congress passed 906 bills from 1947-1948.
"U.S. history professor Daniel Feller told NPR that 'I think you'd have to go back to the 1850s to find a period of congressional dysfunction like the one we're in today.'"
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re: Re:
112th Congress Was Least Effective, Most Disliked Ever - Business Insider: "The U.S. Congress passed 219 bills that were signed into law in the 112th session, a dizzying low compared to the 111th Congress (383 bills) and the 110th (460 bills), according to MSNBC.
For a remarkable comparison, Harry Truman's 'Do-nothing' Congress passed 906 bills from 1947-1948.
U.S. history professor Daniel Feller told NPR that 'I think you'd have to go back to the 1850s to find a period of congressional dysfunction like the one we're in today.'"
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Re:
I agree that the average person/voter really doesn't care about copyright. It's not a problem for them. Therefore, I can't see them rising up to demand changes.
I suppose that's good in that perhaps Congress can slip the changes in with little protest, but we'll have to see how that plays out. Would it actually be possible for both liberals and conservatives to work together to reform copyright? Seems unlikely, though maybe if enough lobbying money is thrown their way, they might.
Copyright certainly isn't a passion of mine. I don't really care what is done one way or the other. I'm much more interested in sustainability and global warming issues. I don't think I am all that atypical in that copyright is down pretty far on my list of priorities.
On the post: Techdirt Interview With Derek Khanna, Author Of The RSC 'Fix Copyright' Policy Briefing
Data collection by private companies
People who only focus on what government does with data are ignoring what private companies are doing to collect, sell, and target consumers with that data.
I think the split thinking is often intentional because many people working for private companies still want to be able to do this. There is big money in big data. I see focusing on government only as a diversionary tactic to keep them out of data collection, therefore giving private companies more opportunities to profit from it.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: The more I think about it
You have gun manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, and military weapons manufacturers who make products that can kill people, whether or not they are used for that purpose. At any rate, they products are often marketed for as a form of self-defense.
But on the other hand, you have tech companies that are developing new forms of data collection, new forms of warfare which don't require killing people, and new products (like drones). These allow for self-defense that might prevent loss of life. Heading off a problem is better than having to kill someone to stop the problem.
So if you believe that business should be allowed to be work fairly unfettered by laws, you will see the new tech companies looking for ways to disrupt the old companies working in the same spheres. If new technology reduces the need for guns, bullets, and bombs, lots of people will be happy about it, though not necessarily those who want to sell guns, bullets, and bombs.
Yes, I know gun owners don't necessarily own guns for self-defense. But if those who don't want to own guns can find ways to feel safe without guns, then the market for guns stays as a sport market more than a self-defense market, which I think is what lots of people would like to see because it lessens the use of guns as weapons.
The push forward of technology may turn guns into something that is viewed along with horse ownership, something a group of people enjoy but not something most people think about purchasing.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: The more I think about it
As I have pointed out a number of times on Techdirt, private companies are monitoring people already. All the complaints about government monitoring don't address that issue.
Gun control via monitoring may be one time when private companies can do something government can't because they won't be dealing with the politics. And if private companies can actually do something to identify people who might shoot innocent people and then prevent that from happening, there will be people who will pay to have that done.
The fight to prevent gun control via laws does open the door for gun monitoring via private data collection and use. I am imagine that the data gathering won't single out gun owners and only collect info on them, but if identifiable patterns develop which predict dangerous use of guns, that info can be used to target those individuals.
At any rate, do you see what I am saying? If you stop governments from monitoring citizens, but private companies do it anyway, it is being done. That info might not be turned over to government, but if it is turned over to private citizens who use it to protect themselves, it is being used.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: The more I think about it
At Disney Parks, a Bracelet Meant to Build Loyalty (and Sales) - NYTimes.com: "Did you buy a balloon? What attractions did you ride and when? Did you shake Goofy’s hand, but snub Snow White? If you fully use MyMagic , databases will be watching, allowing Disney to refine its offerings and customize its marketing messages."
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
The more I think about it
And the more I think about it, the more I am pondering some tech solutions. The answer would not come from asking gun owners and gun manufacturers for cooperation, but by developing systems that provide protection to those who don't want to carry guns but still want to feel safe.
The advantage, too, is that those who oppose government monitoring might be less likely to complain about private companies doing it.
Here's one technology I can see being used by private businesses to begin monitoring more citizens. The advantage of private monitoring is that they don't have to wait until a crime is committed or have to obtain search warrants. If their intelligence data indicates the potential for a crime, there might be ways for private companies to keep an eye on people without running afoul of any laws. As I mentioned before, companies are profiling people all the time as it is.
Infographic Domestic Drone Use - Business Insider
On the post: Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?
Re: Re: Peaked
So I closed my Facebook account | NORTH : a brand agency in portland oregon
On the post: People Freak Out About Privacy On Facebook, But Ignore Widespread Government Surveillance
Social media and privacy will become yet a bigger issue
On the post: Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: I won't even use Facebook on my phone
I've at least pulled it out so it can't be used publicly. Facebook was displaying info that I had indicated shouldn't have been displayed, and when Facebook kept doing it, I had to delete it. Now there is much less on my Facebook page. Each time it changes its privacy policy, I take out more info.
Next >>