That actually is why I immediately strip the DRM from ebooks that I buy. That way I can convert it into the format I prefer for my tablet (which is NOT Kindle) and read wiht the peace of mind that it's not going to get yanked the next time I update my software..
Wait. so you're saying we can only complain about laws that have been passed in our edumicated lifetimes? So are YOU old enough to be able to reprimand Mike for finding fault in a law that's only 36 years old?
Which, of course, means there is no reason to bitch about laws passed in the early years of our country that have to practical purpose, right. I mean, I wasn't around when they passed the laws against sodomy and homosexuality. Most people alive now weren't, so we have no right to try to fix them?
This means the perfect way to have an incredibly bad law passed is to hide it within another less bad law that can hang around until the people who it is most likely to affect can't have 'standing' because they weren't old enough to oppose the law originally?
If that's what you truly believe, you should be living in a country with Sharia laws (or maybe you already do, but sure as shit not in one where the populace is actually supposed to have voice about the legislative process.. especially the right to REPEAL laws..
"Yeah, pretty crazy considering nothing made before 1800 would still be under copyright. There is no way that would be possible. Even a VERY generous life +70 would put the artists dead by 1900 and the copyright expired by 1970."
Actually it wouldn't have even lasted that long. If we're talking about art up to the year 1800, that means the last of that group (late 18th century) would have lived into maybe 1850. But that's only the LAST part of that group, the 20,000 or so years of art prior to that would all be in the public domain.
And as pretty much all printed material published prior to 1923 is in the public domain, even after all of the wacky extensions, all of that artwork should be in the public domain. This is insane!
"Piracy is the same product, without the hassle of going to the store, or ordering online, or waiting for UPS guy to deliver. It's now, it's here, and it's free."
First off, I love how you equate digital and physical products, that was genius and it actually highlights my thought. A pirated product and the legitimate product are usually not the same product. If they were the same product, there probably wouldn't be a market for the pirated one. The product is not just the end result of what the customer receives, it's the entire package. Customers now are used to convenience, and if they can't get it they will move on by finding the more convenient product. That may mean pirating, or it may mean doing without the original product completely and finding an alternative.
"Also, I have to wonder: What are the qualifications for this guy to detail the consumer's mind. Was it an empirical study, or just something he pulled out of his ass? He doesn't appear to have any more qualifications except perhaps as a consumer himself.
"
So, because he's a consumer, he's not qualified to speak to how consumers' thought processes might work in regards to purchases? Who the hell should speak to that, Martians?
Re: Re: Re: Bah. Innovation as defined around here is pretty meh
"It doesn't have to be 100% effective. Apple iTunes built itself with DRM and they succeeded at pushing people to making the legit decision to actually pay. They've since claimed that they're not adding DRM to everything, but I think it's because the complexity of the file system is good enough to deter most people from copying. "
Apple didn't build itself with DRM. They had to have DRM laced music files in order to get the catalogs from the music publishers. They succeeded in spit of DRM not because of it. They were vehemently opposed to DRM and pushed back against the RIAA idiots to get it removed from the entire library.
You should at least get your facts straight if you're going to argue them.
"But, from the viewpoint of what really matters when it comes to internet freedom and innovation, it's yet another sign that the major parties don't want to deal with reality."
That's because politicians don't live in reality. They live in their cosseted existences paid for by those of us who do live in reality.
"Of course, rather than separating out online and in-person speech, what's wrong with just looking at the details of the situation, and making a reasonable assessment as to whether the threat is legitimate or just someone saying something stupid?"
Well, what's wrong is that this would actually force the authorities to, you know, work. That's way too hard for them, but if they just criminalize this, they can arrest more people to make sure they're making their quotas...
I'm starting to think that living with penguins on Antarctica might be the way to go...
On the post: Google To French Media: We May Have To Cut You Off
Re: Re: While they're at it...
On the post: Studio To Amazon Instant Video Customer: Thanks For The $$$. Enjoy Your Blank Screen.
Re:
On the post: Studio To Amazon Instant Video Customer: Thanks For The $$$. Enjoy Your Blank Screen.
Re: Re:
On the post: Studio To Amazon Instant Video Customer: Thanks For The $$$. Enjoy Your Blank Screen.
Re: License Now for only $14.99!
On the post: Just As Key 3D Printing Patents Get Closer To Expiring, Intellectual Ventures Patents 3D Printing DRM
Re:
On the post: Why The Six Strikes Plan Doesn't Mesh With US Law Or Social Norms
I wonder...
On the post: The Copyright Act Explicitly Says Disruptive Innovation Should Be Blocked
Re:
Which, of course, means there is no reason to bitch about laws passed in the early years of our country that have to practical purpose, right. I mean, I wasn't around when they passed the laws against sodomy and homosexuality. Most people alive now weren't, so we have no right to try to fix them?
This means the perfect way to have an incredibly bad law passed is to hide it within another less bad law that can hang around until the people who it is most likely to affect can't have 'standing' because they weren't old enough to oppose the law originally?
If that's what you truly believe, you should be living in a country with Sharia laws (or maybe you already do, but sure as shit not in one where the populace is actually supposed to have voice about the legislative process.. especially the right to REPEAL laws..
On the post: University Requires Students To Pay $180 For 'Art History' Text That Has No Photos Due To Copyright Problems
Re: Re:
Actually it wouldn't have even lasted that long. If we're talking about art up to the year 1800, that means the last of that group (late 18th century) would have lived into maybe 1850. But that's only the LAST part of that group, the 20,000 or so years of art prior to that would all be in the public domain.
And as pretty much all printed material published prior to 1923 is in the public domain, even after all of the wacky extensions, all of that artwork should be in the public domain. This is insane!
On the post: University Of California Won't Give Up: Sues Facebook Over Already Rejected Patents
Re: Tollbooth?
On the post: Don't Focus On Why People Pirate; Focus On Why They Don't Buy
Re:
First off, I love how you equate digital and physical products, that was genius and it actually highlights my thought. A pirated product and the legitimate product are usually not the same product. If they were the same product, there probably wouldn't be a market for the pirated one. The product is not just the end result of what the customer receives, it's the entire package. Customers now are used to convenience, and if they can't get it they will move on by finding the more convenient product. That may mean pirating, or it may mean doing without the original product completely and finding an alternative.
"Also, I have to wonder: What are the qualifications for this guy to detail the consumer's mind. Was it an empirical study, or just something he pulled out of his ass? He doesn't appear to have any more qualifications except perhaps as a consumer himself.
"
So, because he's a consumer, he's not qualified to speak to how consumers' thought processes might work in regards to purchases? Who the hell should speak to that, Martians?
On the post: The Math Says HBO Shouldn't Go Direct, But They Left Innovation Out Of The Equation
Re: Re: Re: Bah. Innovation as defined around here is pretty meh
Apple didn't build itself with DRM. They had to have DRM laced music files in order to get the catalogs from the music publishers. They succeeded in spit of DRM not because of it. They were vehemently opposed to DRM and pushed back against the RIAA idiots to get it removed from the entire library.
You should at least get your facts straight if you're going to argue them.
On the post: Judge Says Sniffing Unencrypted WiFi Networks Is Not Wiretapping
Re: All depends on who's doing the tapping
This judge ruled that sniffing the traffic being transmitted by an open WiFi network wasn't illegal.
Accessing the insecure mount point was a different thing altogether.
On the post: Murder Case Upended After Police Read Phone Texts Without A Warrant
Re: Re: Re: confused
That was my understanding as well.. the fruit of the poisoned tree
On the post: Both Major Parties Are In 'Vigorous' Denial About The Need For Copyright & Patent Reform
Ahem
That's because politicians don't live in reality. They live in their cosseted existences paid for by those of us who do live in reality.
On the post: We Ask The Supreme Court To Clarify If It's Legal For Virginia To Bar Techdirt From Filing Freedom Of Information Requests
Let's all sign up to be 'reporters'
On the post: Twitter To Appeals Court: Just Because Some Tweets Are Public Doesn't Mean Our Users Have No Privacy
Sigh...
On the post: Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver
Re: Re: Re:
Put them in the trunk where they belong!
On the post: MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
Re: Re: What if they offered cars?
On the post: Should Making A Threat On Facebook Be A Crime?
Um...
Well, what's wrong is that this would actually force the authorities to, you know, work. That's way too hard for them, but if they just criminalize this, they can arrest more people to make sure they're making their quotas...
I'm starting to think that living with penguins on Antarctica might be the way to go...
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re:
Next >>