Necessary or sufficient, is there a difference in the context of this article?
Generally speaking, the argument is "without copyright innovation wouldn't exist or would be severely reduced". In other words, it is assumed that copyright is sufficient because it increases innovation, but ALSO necessary because no viable alternative exists.
Mike is disputing both those claims. The lesson to take home: "in lack of copyright there is more innovation, as there is more competition without monopolies". Thus, copyright is neither sufficient (as per the Founding Fathers' writings, because instead of promoting the progress it discourages it), and it's certainly not necessary (because things work more efficiently in its absence).
Let me put it in simple words for you to understand.
- The introduction of web censorship under whatever pretext will inevitably lead to more censorship. It has happened in other "western" countries that have tried it (Sweden, Finland, and Australia off the top of my head) and the same will happen in the US. It's human nature -- the block list *will* be abused for other purposes than copyright in the grand scheme of things. Like the wiretapping laws are abused, like the terrorism laws are abused, like the DMCA law is abused, and so on.
- The suggested block list is at DNS level. The US has been *entrusted* with the DNS for the *entire world*, so tampering with it is clearly abusing that position to impose your political and economic beliefs/problems on everyone else. This makes you look like complete assholes (do you care at this point?), and means only one thing: the US will lose control of the DNS, or the rest of the world will set up its own DNS registry, thus fragmenting the DNS. Fragmented DNS means the same URL may resolve to a different IP address in different countries (that brings problems of its own, including a lot of very confused routers).
- Anyone can set up his own DNS server, so the censorship will be ineffective against anyone who takes ten seconds to change a couple of settings in her browser!
Or maybe they will listen. Introduction of internet censorship in any shape or form can't be a good thing. You are free to disagree with that, but it's your kids that'll pay the price eventually.
Now, let's stop feeding the troll. It's a shitty troll, anyway.
Politicians have nothing to fear AT ALL. Not only are they not fearing for their lives (e.g., like during say the Renaissance), they are not even afraid of losing their political offices. In fact, they've even legalised corrupt politics (i.e., "lobbying" and "campaign donations"), so they can't even technically be exposed or anything like that.
The situation is, quite frankly, pathetic.
But, when will people realise that things don't need to be like this, and are frustrated enough to throw their oppressors out of power? Alas, probably centuries from now.
They make an interesting observation on their blog (http://blog.thetunnelmovie.net/): "while the Pioneer One series has been seen by several hundreds of thousands of viewers, it is also not yet listed on IMDb."
After this passes, how long will it be before China starts sounding like the "land of the free"?
Seriously, aren't Americans really pissed off by something like this? Will people really stop at sending emails to their senators (and getting canned replies) when something like this is passed?
Not that the rest of the west will be any better, mind you. As soon as the US introduces full-on censorship, the rest of the world will follow shortly, because obviously we have no brains of our own. Oh, I do so look forward to "Her Majesty's Great Firewall"...
He has zero understanding of the business side of his profession (and hasn't even tried), and blindly depends on his middlemen.
Imo, he's the worst kind of artist (or any other professional, for that matter) -- he was bred in captivity and can't even imagine surviving outside his little cage and without the scraps of food his masters give him.
If it wasn't for artists like him, file-sharing would be a non-issue that provides creators with new opportunities to reach their audience -- as it should be.
While the contents of the leak aren't that particularly interesting, the personal information of ACS:law's many victims are present in those emails. Apparently a list of over 10k names, addresses, bank details etc has been found (though I haven't looked for it personally).
That's terrible news, because the people on that list may now be set to suffer even more from ACS:law's evil scheme.
On a brighter side, a consumer group has reported ACS to the information commissioner and has announced it's planning to take legal action against them for not following proper data protection procedures.
You did read the *whole* article you linked to, right?
"The effect of Mallinckrodt may have been restricted by the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., which broadly reaffirmed the exhaustion doctrine without mentioning Mallinckrodt. It is too early to state, however, what the impact of Quanta on the Mallinckrodt doctrine will be."
This could end up being one of those legal battles that take years to resolve. Of course, we are talking about Apple here...
The DEA doesn't preclude these lawsuits. It's simply the judge's opinion that if there's an official government-assisted racket going on, these small fry will no longer be necessary.
On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays
Re: Re: Re:
Generally speaking, the argument is "without copyright innovation wouldn't exist or would be severely reduced". In other words, it is assumed that copyright is sufficient because it increases innovation, but ALSO necessary because no viable alternative exists.
Mike is disputing both those claims. The lesson to take home: "in lack of copyright there is more innovation, as there is more competition without monopolies". Thus, copyright is neither sufficient (as per the Founding Fathers' writings, because instead of promoting the progress it discourages it), and it's certainly not necessary (because things work more efficiently in its absence).
On the post: Boy Scout Magazine Says Don't Listen To Legally Burned CDs, As They're Too Similar To Piracy
Their words, not mine.
On the post: Forget Just Copyright, Now People Are Trademarking Music As Well
On the post: Nokia VP Compares Android To Peeing In Your Pants To Stay Warm
On the post: COICA Censorship Bill Shelved... For Now
Re:
- The introduction of web censorship under whatever pretext will inevitably lead to more censorship. It has happened in other "western" countries that have tried it (Sweden, Finland, and Australia off the top of my head) and the same will happen in the US. It's human nature -- the block list *will* be abused for other purposes than copyright in the grand scheme of things. Like the wiretapping laws are abused, like the terrorism laws are abused, like the DMCA law is abused, and so on.
- The suggested block list is at DNS level. The US has been *entrusted* with the DNS for the *entire world*, so tampering with it is clearly abusing that position to impose your political and economic beliefs/problems on everyone else. This makes you look like complete assholes (do you care at this point?), and means only one thing: the US will lose control of the DNS, or the rest of the world will set up its own DNS registry, thus fragmenting the DNS. Fragmented DNS means the same URL may resolve to a different IP address in different countries (that brings problems of its own, including a lot of very confused routers).
- Anyone can set up his own DNS server, so the censorship will be ineffective against anyone who takes ten seconds to change a couple of settings in her browser!
On the post: COICA Censorship Bill Shelved... For Now
Re:
Now, let's stop feeding the troll. It's a shitty troll, anyway.
On the post: Study Shows That Web Blocking Ignores Real Problems, Doesn't Solve Anything & Is Used As A Political Tool
On the post: Even Without COICA, White House Asking Registrars To Voluntarily Censor 'Infringing' Sites
Re: Re: Talk is cheap...
The situation is, quite frankly, pathetic.
But, when will people realise that things don't need to be like this, and are frustrated enough to throw their oppressors out of power? Alas, probably centuries from now.
On the post: Orange Alert: Potentially Habitable Planet Found
;)
On the post: Would IMDB Really Not List A Film Because It Was Distributed Via BitTorrent?
On the post: RIAA Claims That If COICA Isn't Passed, Americans Are 'Put At Risk'
Seriously, aren't Americans really pissed off by something like this? Will people really stop at sending emails to their senators (and getting canned replies) when something like this is passed?
Not that the rest of the west will be any better, mind you. As soon as the US introduces full-on censorship, the rest of the world will follow shortly, because obviously we have no brains of our own. Oh, I do so look forward to "Her Majesty's Great Firewall"...
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To See Whether Or Not AT&T Has 'Personal Privacy' Rights
On the post: Band Claims File Sharers 'Are Going To Hell'
He has zero understanding of the business side of his profession (and hasn't even tried), and blindly depends on his middlemen.
Imo, he's the worst kind of artist (or any other professional, for that matter) -- he was bred in captivity and can't even imagine surviving outside his little cage and without the scraps of food his masters give him.
If it wasn't for artists like him, file-sharing would be a non-issue that provides creators with new opportunities to reach their audience -- as it should be.
On the post: 'Pre-Settlement' Shakedown By ACS:Law Doesn't Seem Quite So Profitable
That's terrible news, because the people on that list may now be set to suffer even more from ACS:law's evil scheme.
On a brighter side, a consumer group has reported ACS to the information commissioner and has announced it's planning to take legal action against them for not following proper data protection procedures.
More here:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-566663
On the post: Spanish Collection Society Threatens Legal Action Against Group That Favors Copyleft & Creative Commons Music
On the post: Law Student Sues Google Over Allegedly Defamatory Blog Posts
On the post: E*Trade Settles Lindsay Lohan's Milkaholic Lawsuit
On the post: Is It Patent Infringement To Reuse Recycled Apple Magsafe Connectors?
Re:
"The effect of Mallinckrodt may have been restricted by the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., which broadly reaffirmed the exhaustion doctrine without mentioning Mallinckrodt. It is too early to state, however, what the impact of Quanta on the Mallinckrodt doctrine will be."
This could end up being one of those legal battles that take years to resolve. Of course, we are talking about Apple here...
On the post: Sorry, But We Don't Just Hand Out Information On Our Commenters
On the post: UK Judge Not Impressed By Mass Copyright Pre-Settlement Campaigns
Next >>