To take it a step further, shouldn't we consider that copyright law as it was originally intended was enacted to control only the actions of corporations (ie. the publishers) and not of individuals? In other words, there was no conflict with the rights of natural persons like there is today. Today's copyright law is an abomination.
I don't see Mike pushing anything. Mike even copied the original article's qualification that this is "based on the EU Commission's own figures", which is factually correct, and actually is the entire point.
Those figures have already been accepted as truth by the politicians who passed this extension. Therefore, a reinterpretation of those same figures should be equally true... right?
Either you accept that the Commission's numbers are true, which also makes the 1 billion figure true and accept that the copyright extension was a mistake as it will have a negative impact, or you accept that the Commission's numbers are false, which also makes the 1 billion figure false, and also accept that the copyright extension was a mistake as it was based on flawed evidence.
You can't have it both ways, but either way Techdirt is correct in pointing out that the copyright extension was a mistake.
This is categorically NOT the same as taking a random report by the MPAA and accepting it as truth. That's not good science. This is the same as taking an MPAA report and predicating your conclusions on its findings in order to disprove the original report.
Thanks for pointing out that the Commission's numbers, which were used to pass this copyright extension, were complete and utter bullshit. There's a good reason those numbers were being qualified as the Commission's own, which is because lawmakers were taking those numbers for granted even though they are "potential sales" bullshit.
The argument of the original paper, which you obviously haven't read, is that given that that money (however much it is) is just distributed by and large to foreign labels, we have a direct LOSS for the consumer who would access the same stuff for free if copyright were allowed to expire (And of course, sales price is what the consumer pays, which is why it makes sense to look at the sales price in this case). In other words, if the copyrights were allowed to expire, it would result in savings for the public and the money being wasted in paying the four majors could be used elsewhere in the European economy in places where it could actually improve people's lives (like food and clothes).
Moreover, it's pointed out that in coming up with those numbers, the Commission pretended that the extension wouldn't have other extraneous costs for the consumer, such as for example enforcement costs, which again is clearly bullshit.
Just bought this and it's an absolutely great game, highly recommended! (and it's Flash-based, so it runs beautifully on Linux)
Just picture this:
A guy is being carried off by a giant flying shark screaming "Tell my wife I said AHHHH ARGHHHHHH MY LEGS AAGHHHHHHH!!!"
Also, this project was successful on Kickstarter, so this dev is really trying to embrace the internet in a big way. Totally worth supporting their work, I think.
This brings back memories of the SCO lawsuits. They were claiming copyright over POSIX interfaces that were derived from ye olde Unix, weren't they? They thought they owned things like identifier names and other basic API stuff...
The trolls are here because you feed them. Stop feeding them.
If they don't go away, it'll become clear they aren't here to satiate some sadistic need for troll-food, but they are being paid to astroturf. In that case, click "report" and move on.
The cellular service in this context is a means of *publication*. Just like you are currently using the net to post your comments on Techdirt, the protesters were using the net to publish their own opinions. If the government cut you off from the internet for the explicit reason of stopping you from publishing your comments, is it a free speech issue or not?
On the post: Criticize The Better Business Bureau... And They'll Pull Your Accreditation
Re: quis custodiet custodiens?
On the post: Full List Of Sites The US Air Force Blocked To Hide From Wikileaks Info; Includes NY Times & The Guardian
Re: OLPC.com
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Where do you stand?
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: How does that even make sense?
On the post: UK Politician Pushing For Its Own Version Of PROTECT IP
Re:
On the post: The Cost Of Copyright Extension In Europe: 1 Billion Euros Paid By The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those figures have already been accepted as truth by the politicians who passed this extension. Therefore, a reinterpretation of those same figures should be equally true... right?
Either you accept that the Commission's numbers are true, which also makes the 1 billion figure true and accept that the copyright extension was a mistake as it will have a negative impact, or you accept that the Commission's numbers are false, which also makes the 1 billion figure false, and also accept that the copyright extension was a mistake as it was based on flawed evidence.
You can't have it both ways, but either way Techdirt is correct in pointing out that the copyright extension was a mistake.
This is categorically NOT the same as taking a random report by the MPAA and accepting it as truth. That's not good science. This is the same as taking an MPAA report and predicating your conclusions on its findings in order to disprove the original report.
On the post: The Cost Of Copyright Extension In Europe: 1 Billion Euros Paid By The Public
Re: Re: Re:
The argument of the original paper, which you obviously haven't read, is that given that that money (however much it is) is just distributed by and large to foreign labels, we have a direct LOSS for the consumer who would access the same stuff for free if copyright were allowed to expire (And of course, sales price is what the consumer pays, which is why it makes sense to look at the sales price in this case). In other words, if the copyrights were allowed to expire, it would result in savings for the public and the money being wasted in paying the four majors could be used elsewhere in the European economy in places where it could actually improve people's lives (like food and clothes).
Moreover, it's pointed out that in coming up with those numbers, the Commission pretended that the extension wouldn't have other extraneous costs for the consumer, such as for example enforcement costs, which again is clearly bullshit.
On the post: Indie Game Developer Posts Game on Pirate Bay, Sees Positive Results
Just picture this:
A guy is being carried off by a giant flying shark screaming "Tell my wife I said AHHHH ARGHHHHHH MY LEGS AAGHHHHHHH!!!"
Also, this project was successful on Kickstarter, so this dev is really trying to embrace the internet in a big way. Totally worth supporting their work, I think.
On the post: If A Kid Grabs Your Camera In The Street And Snaps Some Photos, Who Owns The Copyright
On the post: Debate Time: Ubisoft Says DRM Is Needed, Valve Says No It Isn't.
Re: Re: Here's a very good opinion piece about the subject.
On the post: Rep. Conyers Wants To Clarify Termination Rights Under Copyright Law
Re: Leaves me cold
Who benefits when people sue each other? The lawyers. This guy works for them.
On the post: NYC Arrests Stop Dead Chinese From Infringing
On the post: What What (In The Butt)? What What (Fair Use Doesn't Need A Trial)?
On the post: Side Show In Oracle, Google Patent Fight: Are API's Covered By Copyright?
On the post: First Year Associate Fired After Telling Partners He Had A 'Superior Legal Mind' Sues Firm For $77 Million
Re:
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Re:
If they don't go away, it'll become clear they aren't here to satiate some sadistic need for troll-food, but they are being paid to astroturf. In that case, click "report" and move on.
Internet 101. Seriously.
On the post: FCC Investigating Whether BART Cell Service Shut Off Was A Violation Of Federal Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Open Source Exploitative?
Re:
Next >>