I'm going to see if I can fix this post for... and free of charge no less!
If I live alone in a big (house), is it better for "society" if you take my house from me and give it to a family of 5?
Sure, it's better for those 5 people. But you've also just enacted Communism, and that's worked so well everywhere it's been tried.
Taking away Copyright is EXTREMELY different, which is why I used a nonsensical example to make sure I've got your attention.
Words on paper aren't some magic thing that has no value. Neither are bits on a hard drive or music on a recording. They're the result of my time and energy, exactly the same way my car is the result of the time and energy expended by the design team and manufactures that built it.
Everything that you build, buy, or create is the result of exactly two things: time and energy, and no expression of time or energy is inherently more valuable to society than another, except for works covered under copyright which are the only ones that have to be continuously paid for or licensed even after they are actually sold.
People who try to maximize Copyright are basically saying that one of form of work is more valuable than another - that the work I put in to writing a book is more valuable than the work someone else put into building my car.
People who say that society's rights to my work are more important than my rights to my work are basically saying that all idea belongs to everyone, since all ideas available to the public are the result of their public expression and presentation.
We've seen that the only effective, long term system of economy is a well-regulated open market, one where individual rights are paramount, and even the government cannot take someone's property without due compensation.
So my point is that you have to protect the individual's rights first. When you take away one person's rights, you take away the rights of anyone and therefore everyone. Since copyright is inherently a restriction on every individual's rights aside from the copyright holder's, there is strong evidence to show this limitation to individual's rights is grossly disproportionate in favor of the single copyright holder and therefore a detriment to the rest of society.
Also, the show is aired on SciFi (still refuse to spell it the new way), but I'd recommend firing up your favorite torrent client and surf the pirate bay... Since the show was a space western about smugglers it's a little more fitting ;)
Actually anyone with an antennae can have free TV service. You pay for it by watching ads called commercials. There are many people just like myself that only receive TV this way. If the networks close down and move to a subscription model through cable, then there are a lot of other people just like myself who will simply live without them. The end.
I'm not sure if the Steam example would be infringing under this ruling. They already have the distribution rights for the games they are selling, and in their contract there is probably a provision that allows them this right based on their DRM scheme. While it's not intrusive, Steam is DRM, and these are exactly the types of digital rights they are trying to manage.
While I do think this ruling is atrocious, the example doesn't really fit because Redigi is a third party to the transaction and attempts to be a broker between two end users for a fee. They never had any distribution rights, so technically copies they make would be infringing. The law currently does not keep up with the reality of the current technological climate, but a conservative reading of it would come to this result.
I think this brings up a bigger issue though that will eventually bite the labels in the ass. If first sale doctrine does not apply here, the traditional reasoning behind this is because you are purchasing a license and the license is nontransferable. As seen by the recent Eminem ruling, a license commands a substantially higher royalty rate than a sale, typically on the order of 50% vs 8% respectively. While they claimed this was a special deal they reached with Eminem it seems like Chuck D and some others have begun a class action proceed (which I think techdirt has covered in the past) to try and test this theory. It seems that in the labels shortsightedness they continue to help set precedent that will go against them in that case. I can think of no way to drive them out of business faster than having to pay out 50% of all the revenue they've generated from digital sales.
In addition to Joe's response, the point is actually moot since nothing will probably ever enter the public domain ever again if the industry has their way.
I would tend to agree with you to a point. Once they have your cash, whether the game is terrible or broken no longer matters... you aren't getting a refund. The fact that anyone would give EA any money at all amazes me, but giving it to them before even seeing the product is insane.
Where I disagree is ever paying 50-60 bucks for a game in the first place. There are simply too many good games that can be played for free or at a reasonable price on Steam/GOG to even consider dropping that kind of cash for the "new shiny thing". Too many people fall into that category, but at least for EA, it seems like every new game they release loses more customers than they gain, so hopefully after a few more like this they'll just be gone for good.
I'm not following your logic... Mike clearly is showing empathy to the victims. The victims in this case are obviously private individuals sharing for non-commercial purposes now facing potential jail time and/or a fine of over 21k. Any moron in a hurry can see this punishment is beyond disproportionate, completely out of touch with reality, and the very definition of draconian.
As was requested below, why don't you present your interpretation of what he said, why you describe Mike's interpretation as "pulled some quotes out of context and twisted their meaning", and present the merits of why you feel your interpretation to be correct. I would think that if Mike was actually going to respond, this would be the minimum amount of effort you would need to display to initiate a serious conversation. Even if he doesn't respond, there are plenty of us here that wouldn't mind having a rational discussion which you have proven you are capable of. The ball is in your court...
The best line in the article was the end of the quote: " it is not surprising that as the law evolves to disrespect the public domain, that the public would grow to disrespect copyrights" Once the maximalists get past this "all your cultures are belong to us" mentality, and some real discussion opens up about bringing some balance back to copyrights, then maybe, just maybe, these cries to respect copyright won't fall upon deaf ears. Until then, the bilateral contract between rightsholders and rightsgrantors has been rendered null and void due to repeated breach of unilateral changes to a 2 party deal.
It's a "cheap shot" (and maybe that isn't the best terminology) on for profit companies because typically these call-outs are being done to shame those receiving the compensation. If you are the head of a privately owned company and you can be profitable and receive an exuberant salary then congratulations to you, you've figured out how to run a business and get rich off of it. If you're the head of a publicly owned company and can be profitable and receive an exuberant salary then you've convinced your shareholders and board that you are worth that excessive compensation, and again, congratulations to you.
While I agree that such salaries may be unjustified and completely excessive, it's not the same thing as claiming to run a charity non-profit while receiving a multimillion dollar salary. When a non-profit finds ways to produce additional income they are completely hypocritical in not taking that additional income and putting to work for their stated mission, whatever that purpose may be. Making the CEO wealthy is a complete contradiction to the purpose of setting up the non-profit in the first place, and it is hypocritical, shameful, and downright wrong.
Again, don't think I support such ridiculous compensation packages, but it just isn't the same thing. Telling someone that they got rich off of successfully running a business is not an insult, it's a success story. Ethical issues and scaling aside, this is the American dream. Getting rich off the back of a charity organization is disgusting and is something you should be punished for, not rewarded.
While I actually think it's a bit of a cheap shot to repeatedly show CEO salaries...
Mike, I would tend to agree with you on this when the shots are being taken at for-profit businesses, but when the institution is claiming to be a tax-exempt charity I think we actually need a lot more of this type of transparency. It is absolutely disgusting that the CEO of a non-profit is making a multi-million dollar salary! How many people could have been provided with medical care if that CEO took a salary draw that was reasonable? Now based on those chargemaster numbers that salary would have only covered a few paper cuts and maybe a splinter or two, but the principle remains the same. It's clear that the government will do nothing to remedy this situation, so maybe a little more disclosure of hospital admins pulling in several millions while people's children are dying because they can't afford treatment might spark enough public outcry to force some true reform.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Enforcer Degban Publishes Some Info-less Graphics Stating Atlanta Is File Sharingest Place On Earth
Re: Re:
On the post: Anti-Piracy Enforcer Degban Publishes Some Info-less Graphics Stating Atlanta Is File Sharingest Place On Earth
Re:
To make the smuggling routes between them more efficient.
Why are there so many places in the ocean (real pirating pirates?)?
Yes, really real piraty pirating pirates, like Pirate Mike Masnik!!!1!
Why is Spokane in Idaho
Shhhh... no ones supposed to know!
Why is it that pirates only pirate in small cities?
Duh... they're easier to sail in and out of withdrawing as much attention... I feel like you aren't paying attention around here anymore :P
On the post: Med Express Sues Marginally Dissatisfied Customer For Posting Accurate Feedback On eBay
Re:
On the post: When You Sign Away Your Copyright To A Publisher, What If They Hold You Hostage Over It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I live alone in a big (house), is it better for "society" if you take my house from me and give it to a family of 5?
Sure, it's better for those 5 people. But you've also just enacted Communism, and that's worked so well everywhere it's been tried.
Taking away Copyright is EXTREMELY different, which is why I used a nonsensical example to make sure I've got your attention.
Words on paper aren't some magic thing that has no value. Neither are bits on a hard drive or music on a recording. They're the result of my time and energy, exactly the same way my car is the result of the time and energy expended by the design team and manufactures that built it.
Everything that you build, buy, or create is the result of exactly two things: time and energy, and no expression of time or energy is inherently more valuable to society than another, except for works covered under copyright which are the only ones that have to be continuously paid for or licensed even after they are actually sold.
People who try to maximize Copyright are basically saying that one of form of work is more valuable than another - that the work I put in to writing a book is more valuable than the work someone else put into building my car.
People who say that society's rights to my work are more important than my rights to my work are basically saying that all idea belongs to everyone, since all ideas available to the public are the result of their public expression and presentation.
We've seen that the only effective, long term system of economy is a well-regulated open market, one where individual rights are paramount, and even the government cannot take someone's property without due compensation.
So my point is that you have to protect the individual's rights first. When you take away one person's rights, you take away the rights of anyone and therefore everyone. Since copyright is inherently a restriction on every individual's rights aside from the copyright holder's, there is strong evidence to show this limitation to individual's rights is grossly disproportionate in favor of the single copyright holder and therefore a detriment to the rest of society.
On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
On the post: Fox Sends Cease & Desist Letters To Firefly Fans Selling Jayne Hats, Because Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: You know this song...
Also, the show is aired on SciFi (still refuse to spell it the new way), but I'd recommend firing up your favorite torrent client and surf the pirate bay... Since the show was a space western about smugglers it's a little more fitting ;)
On the post: Hilarious And Ridiculous: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits
Re: Re:
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Very bad ruling
While I do think this ruling is atrocious, the example doesn't really fit because Redigi is a third party to the transaction and attempts to be a broker between two end users for a fee. They never had any distribution rights, so technically copies they make would be infringing. The law currently does not keep up with the reality of the current technological climate, but a conservative reading of it would come to this result.
I think this brings up a bigger issue though that will eventually bite the labels in the ass. If first sale doctrine does not apply here, the traditional reasoning behind this is because you are purchasing a license and the license is nontransferable. As seen by the recent Eminem ruling, a license commands a substantially higher royalty rate than a sale, typically on the order of 50% vs 8% respectively. While they claimed this was a special deal they reached with Eminem it seems like Chuck D and some others have begun a class action proceed (which I think techdirt has covered in the past) to try and test this theory. It seems that in the labels shortsightedness they continue to help set precedent that will go against them in that case. I can think of no way to drive them out of business faster than having to pay out 50% of all the revenue they've generated from digital sales.
On the post: EA Labels President: DRM Is A Failed Strategy, But SimCity Didn't Have Any DRM
Re: Re: Ginger.jpg
On the post: EA Labels President: DRM Is A Failed Strategy, But SimCity Didn't Have Any DRM
Ginger.jpg
Anyone know the number to a good cleaning service that can get the bits of my skull of the walls and carpet?
On the post: True Purpose Of DRM: To Let Copyright Holders Have A Veto Right On New Technologies
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Six Strikes Is Just 'Soft SOPA'
Re: Clearly, Minion Cushing is pro-piracy.
On the post: No, Sim City Debacle Doesn't Mean Gamers Need A Bill Of Rights
Re: TotalBiscuit said it the best...
Where I disagree is ever paying 50-60 bucks for a game in the first place. There are simply too many good games that can be played for free or at a reasonable price on Steam/GOG to even consider dropping that kind of cash for the "new shiny thing". Too many people fall into that category, but at least for EA, it seems like every new game they release loses more customers than they gain, so hopefully after a few more like this they'll just be gone for good.
On the post: Bizarre Legal Threat Of The Day: Confused Zoo Owner Threatens Popehat Over... Well... Just Read It
From the producers of The Carreon Affair...
Directed by Teri Bull...
Pretenda Law presents: Ken Matherne, Ass Clown of the year!
Keep it up, Ken. There's a lot of 2013 left, and you better make sure you solidify your title strong and early!
On the post: System Used By New Six Strikes CAS, Falsely Identifies Game Mods As NBC TV Shows
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Japanese Law Enforcement Uses New Copyright Law To Arrest 27 File Sharers
Re:
On the post: Why Does The Entertainment Industry Insist That It Can Veto Any Innovation It Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NJ Gubenatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against Six Strikes: ISP Shouldn't Decide What You Can Download
Re: Re:
The best line in the article was the end of the quote: " it is not surprising that as the law evolves to disrespect the public domain, that the public would grow to disrespect copyrights" Once the maximalists get past this "all your cultures are belong to us" mentality, and some real discussion opens up about bringing some balance back to copyrights, then maybe, just maybe, these cries to respect copyright won't fall upon deaf ears. Until then, the bilateral contract between rightsholders and rightsgrantors has been rendered null and void due to repeated breach of unilateral changes to a 2 party deal.
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Re: Re:
While I agree that such salaries may be unjustified and completely excessive, it's not the same thing as claiming to run a charity non-profit while receiving a multimillion dollar salary. When a non-profit finds ways to produce additional income they are completely hypocritical in not taking that additional income and putting to work for their stated mission, whatever that purpose may be. Making the CEO wealthy is a complete contradiction to the purpose of setting up the non-profit in the first place, and it is hypocritical, shameful, and downright wrong.
Again, don't think I support such ridiculous compensation packages, but it just isn't the same thing. Telling someone that they got rich off of successfully running a business is not an insult, it's a success story. Ethical issues and scaling aside, this is the American dream. Getting rich off the back of a charity organization is disgusting and is something you should be punished for, not rewarded.
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Mike, I would tend to agree with you on this when the shots are being taken at for-profit businesses, but when the institution is claiming to be a tax-exempt charity I think we actually need a lot more of this type of transparency. It is absolutely disgusting that the CEO of a non-profit is making a multi-million dollar salary! How many people could have been provided with medical care if that CEO took a salary draw that was reasonable? Now based on those chargemaster numbers that salary would have only covered a few paper cuts and maybe a splinter or two, but the principle remains the same. It's clear that the government will do nothing to remedy this situation, so maybe a little more disclosure of hospital admins pulling in several millions while people's children are dying because they can't afford treatment might spark enough public outcry to force some true reform.
Next >>