Piracy is the competitor. And please point out exactly what they are stealing from you. Is it the money that is theirs that they weren't going to give you for your poor quality products/services? Is it the money they paid for services that did give them what they want? Is it the money they spent on other forms of entertainment instead of the kind you made? Is it the content *that you still have*?
Heres a homework assignment. Go look at the Top 100 most pirated works of 2012- film, tv, music- no matter. Then report back how many would fall outside of the original copyright limitation span.
14 or 28 years? Nearly all of them, I'm sure. There's a problem with this line of thought. At the time those term lengths were created, the world was a very different place.
For example, the fastest means of communication was a courier riding a fast horse, and they could be carrying little more than a few books worth of information. While the printing press was widespread, it still wasn't exactly cheap to make copies and distribute them.
It would take days for small smounts of information to spread from one side of the country to another, even assuming it was really important information.
Now, I can carry a copy of the sum total of human creativity prior to 1990 or so in a small bag (if not my pocket), and I could transmit it entirely around the world in times ranging from seconds to hours.
Yet copyright term length has moved in the complete oppposite direction from technological progress.
Here's where I get to point out that the "draconian" laws arose due to disrespect of copyright. Not vice versa.
And here's where I'll point out that disrespect for copyright arose out of a failure of the content industry to embrace new business models that new technologies made possible.
Any advantage I may have as a filmmaker will be a direct function of how big a head start I get on Josh.
That right there is exactly how you make your money against me.
Instead of silly release windows, you come out all at once on every service and screen you can get your film on to.
You offer so many reasonable ways for customers to pay for your content, that there's no point to looking for a copy of it on the torrent sites.
By the time I could get my hands on it and make knock-offs, it is already ubiqitous on quality services that people are already using. And those people by and large will choose the legal routes. I may make a few scraps, but if you've positioned yourself well, I wouldn't have a chance.
Of course the market reacts to price. But they react to ease-of-use, quality, availability moreso. You act like price is the ONLY way you can compete.
No, make it so the *everyone* benefits from the system, including the creators, and all the profits and power doesn't go to a few middlemen who corrupt the system as a whole.
You keep your system if you want it - I'll keep pirating until a reasonable system emerges for the content I want. Keep your penalties and strikes - you're only accelerating the emergence of strong cryptography for everyone. Keep your focus on enforcement over providing better services to customers - they'll spend their money elsewhere. Keep heading down that same tunnel - but here's a tip - that's not the light at the end - its the headlamp of the next oncoming train of more disruptive technologies and an arms-race you cannot win.
So, one criticism that you said above is that the anti-copyright side has never offered up solutions. Others have, I have not. I've laid out specifically products/services that would get me to stop pirating (and as stated, Spotify has done so as far as music goes), however I've never laid out the legalislative side, short of "burn it to the ground." Here's my attempt at a framework of a compromise between no copyright and what we have now:
1) All personal copying/format shifting/time shifting is legal, regardless of the method used (i.e. no more anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA).
2) Infringement over filesharing networks by individuals for no monetary gain may be punished in the following way:
a) Fines may not exceed 20 times the fair market value of any individual work, to a maximum of $200 per work, unless the work costs more than $200, in which case that is the maximum fine. Therefore, if someone is sharing a song that can be purchased for $.99 on iTunes, the fine may not exceed $19.80. A rip of a 15-track CD that sells for $15 would cap out at $200. A rip of a DVD that costs $25 would cap out at $200. A $50 video game is again capped at $200. A $300 piece of software - maxed at $300. Collections/anthologies I'm open to some ideas. These are maximum fines - a neutral party may adjust per incident.
b) Administrative costs for each incident may not exceed $50 per incident. If you can figure out a way to prosecute someone sharing 1 song and pay for the cost with $70 in potential fines, go for it.
c) No monkey business in charging someone multiple times for the same file detected at different times. No monkey business charging someone 20 times individually over 20 songs that came from the same CD.
c) No forced disconnections, throttling, etc. of the connection.
d) Due process must be followed. Parties have the right to fully examine all evidence and the methods used to gather it and point out flaws.
e) If the question of who performed the infringement (in the case of multiple people at the same IP address), investigation must be performed to identify the correct person if the proceedings are to continue.
3) A creator may be granted a maximum of 10 years of commercial exploitation of a work under the following conditions:
a) Licenses must be granted to distribute to other commercial entities at fair, reasonable, and non-discrimintory rates. Any process to set those rates for a wide swath of companies must be open, presided over by a neutral body made up of representatives from consumer protection and public advocacy groups as well as content and tech industry reps. No particular side may have enough votes to dominate the body.
b) No forced-windowing. If you want your movie showing in theaters and Netflix wants to stream it at the same time, it happens. You may of course negotiate individually, but I imagine if this system were to come about no one would want to go back.
4) Commercial scale infringement can be prosecuted, but fines and penalties must be reasonable and based on profit or revenue of the infringer. But if 3) happens, this would rarely be necessary. Jail time should be completely off the table.
5) An end to one-sided contracts and shady accounting. I'm not sure how to do this in a sane manner, so I'll leave it for the responsible lawyers to work out.
I'm sure others can expand on some of these ideas.
Congress has a duty to implement those creator rights which are in the Constitution. That's why it was important enough to appear in the constitution. Copyright didn't spring up from a law or bill. It is derived directly from Constitutional mandate.
Bollocks, and you know it. I'll let you reply to nasch^ if you want to keep going down that absurd path.
Responsible companies? If you have the same legal right to sell my movie as I do "responsible companies" acting within the law will buy the rights from you (or someone else) for $10, $100, $1000, $10,000 or even $1 million.
Here's where you always fail to understand where I'm coming from.
You think responsible automatically equals legal, and that illegal automatically equals irresponsible and immoral.
I will not accept that. As Augustine of Hippo said: "An unjust law is no law at all."
The completely one-sided contracts that the labels get musicians to sign by promising them the world, while taking every penny they make through bizarre accounting and turning them into indentured servants, are perfectly fine to you since they're legal. Companies sending out DMCA notices and forcing down content that only has a vague resemblance or brief snippet to a copyrighted work are perfectly fine to you since it is legal. To me, neither of those things are fine - they are unethical and morally reprehensible.
You have gone down the path where your morals have been defined by what an authority (the government) will allow you to get away with if you convince them to pass a law. That's frightening and has led to all sorts of historical excesses. Please get a wider perspective for your own sake.
As we've seen in so many cases where someone is taking credit for someone else's work, the public backlash and bad press would stop responsible companies from doing what you describe. Nearly all ordinary people, when given the chance and in a way that they can accept and afford, will do the right thing.
Copyright infringement and piracy of content happen when you don't give them that chance.
And frankly, if you are unable to exploit that oppurtunity better than I would, then copyright will not help you. Someone smarter is going to come along and exploit it, legally or illegally, regardless of whether you have that exclusive right or not.
Beyond the fact that the Constitution grants rights holders exclusive rights already.
This is why so many of these conversations turn bad. You are knowingly and deliberately mistating facts.
The Constitution does not grant any exclusive rights to creators. It grants Congress the power to enact laws for the purpose of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. There would be no Constitutional issue if Congress decided to abolish copyrights.
I dispute that creators are better off. There's no way I am better off if I have spent five years and $2 million on a movie that you, Josh, have the same right to monetize during my exclusive rights period as I do. That is absurd.
You are better off. You have a far better oppurtunity to exploit your work than I would. You can make a deal with Netflix for them to distribute your movie - or any other company that would pay you so they can distribute it. Responsible companies would only deal with the creator of the work where it is possible, and the public has shown that they are absolutely willing to support the creators by choosing responsible companies to give their money to when it is an attractive option in terms of availability, features, and price. I myself have done so - as I stated above, I can't remember the last time I torrented music since I started paying for Spotify and before that Grooveshark.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 8:50am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why....
So what good are rights if they can't be enforced?
I agree!
Modern technology (the general purpose computer and the internet) has made copyright unenforceable. And in the same manner, they've made it possible for creators to create and distribute for little or no cost, to make a living doing so, and for billions of people to have access to what they've created.
How anyone can possibly see how those things are undesireable is an idea that I cannot fully grasp at an instinctual level.
My position is that it is unethical/immoral to restrict the availability/distribution/use of knowledge/ideas/culture when those things can be copied/distributed/practically used at no/neglible cost.
I see nothing wrong with a company making use of knowledge/ideas/culture and charging for it, as long as they are not in any way preventing others from doing the same.
To me, the internet represents an infinite worldwide public library where everyone should have full and complete access to enrich themselves with every scrap of knowledge and culture the human race has ever produced.
You when ask a moral question, that is my response.
I don't know for absolute certainty if my position is ultimately workable, but I favor those attempts that move us closer and vehemently object to those which move us away from it.
I do believe that the "moral question" you describe needs to be answered in order to move forward.
Why does it *need* to be answered to move forward? What if circumstances make it moot?
If (in general) creators can make a living without requiring exclusivity to what they create, then the answer to whether they should have a right to exclusivity doesn't matter. If both society and creators are better off without an exclusivity right then the concept of fairness does not apply.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Feb 2013 @ 5:44am
Re: Re: Re: So...
I really enjoyed the previous Above the Law story. However this one from Dealbreaker seems lacking. Short is fine, but there's no context or explanation of the reason they're removing the game. There's nothing to indicate what this really means to me/the tech industry/government/whatever.
I'm potentially interested in other content that TD typically doesn't cover - but a story about a random game or app no longer being preloaded on a phone with no wider impact is at beast a 1.5 out of 10 on the interesting scale. The twinkie story was better.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
14 or 28 years? Nearly all of them, I'm sure. There's a problem with this line of thought. At the time those term lengths were created, the world was a very different place.
For example, the fastest means of communication was a courier riding a fast horse, and they could be carrying little more than a few books worth of information. While the printing press was widespread, it still wasn't exactly cheap to make copies and distribute them.
It would take days for small smounts of information to spread from one side of the country to another, even assuming it was really important information.
Now, I can carry a copy of the sum total of human creativity prior to 1990 or so in a small bag (if not my pocket), and I could transmit it entirely around the world in times ranging from seconds to hours.
Yet copyright term length has moved in the complete oppposite direction from technological progress.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And here's where I'll point out that disrespect for copyright arose out of a failure of the content industry to embrace new business models that new technologies made possible.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That right there is exactly how you make your money against me.
Instead of silly release windows, you come out all at once on every service and screen you can get your film on to.
You offer so many reasonable ways for customers to pay for your content, that there's no point to looking for a copy of it on the torrent sites.
By the time I could get my hands on it and make knock-offs, it is already ubiqitous on quality services that people are already using. And those people by and large will choose the legal routes. I may make a few scraps, but if you've positioned yourself well, I wouldn't have a chance.
Of course the market reacts to price. But they react to ease-of-use, quality, availability moreso. You act like price is the ONLY way you can compete.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I guess few people think of it as wrong..."
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep your system if you want it - I'll keep pirating until a reasonable system emerges for the content I want. Keep your penalties and strikes - you're only accelerating the emergence of strong cryptography for everyone. Keep your focus on enforcement over providing better services to customers - they'll spend their money elsewhere. Keep heading down that same tunnel - but here's a tip - that's not the light at the end - its the headlamp of the next oncoming train of more disruptive technologies and an arms-race you cannot win.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You focus on one aspect while failing to understand that they are linked. People want to support the creators they love when given the chance.
I have seen no popular uprising.
I guess few people it as wrong, or at least not that important an issue, or just a business model dispute.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) All personal copying/format shifting/time shifting is legal, regardless of the method used (i.e. no more anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA).
2) Infringement over filesharing networks by individuals for no monetary gain may be punished in the following way:
a) Fines may not exceed 20 times the fair market value of any individual work, to a maximum of $200 per work, unless the work costs more than $200, in which case that is the maximum fine. Therefore, if someone is sharing a song that can be purchased for $.99 on iTunes, the fine may not exceed $19.80. A rip of a 15-track CD that sells for $15 would cap out at $200. A rip of a DVD that costs $25 would cap out at $200. A $50 video game is again capped at $200. A $300 piece of software - maxed at $300. Collections/anthologies I'm open to some ideas. These are maximum fines - a neutral party may adjust per incident.
b) Administrative costs for each incident may not exceed $50 per incident. If you can figure out a way to prosecute someone sharing 1 song and pay for the cost with $70 in potential fines, go for it.
c) No monkey business in charging someone multiple times for the same file detected at different times. No monkey business charging someone 20 times individually over 20 songs that came from the same CD.
c) No forced disconnections, throttling, etc. of the connection.
d) Due process must be followed. Parties have the right to fully examine all evidence and the methods used to gather it and point out flaws.
e) If the question of who performed the infringement (in the case of multiple people at the same IP address), investigation must be performed to identify the correct person if the proceedings are to continue.
3) A creator may be granted a maximum of 10 years of commercial exploitation of a work under the following conditions:
a) Licenses must be granted to distribute to other commercial entities at fair, reasonable, and non-discrimintory rates. Any process to set those rates for a wide swath of companies must be open, presided over by a neutral body made up of representatives from consumer protection and public advocacy groups as well as content and tech industry reps. No particular side may have enough votes to dominate the body.
b) No forced-windowing. If you want your movie showing in theaters and Netflix wants to stream it at the same time, it happens. You may of course negotiate individually, but I imagine if this system were to come about no one would want to go back.
4) Commercial scale infringement can be prosecuted, but fines and penalties must be reasonable and based on profit or revenue of the infringer. But if 3) happens, this would rarely be necessary. Jail time should be completely off the table.
5) An end to one-sided contracts and shady accounting. I'm not sure how to do this in a sane manner, so I'll leave it for the responsible lawyers to work out.
I'm sure others can expand on some of these ideas.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bollocks, and you know it. I'll let you reply to nasch^ if you want to keep going down that absurd path.
Responsible companies? If you have the same legal right to sell my movie as I do "responsible companies" acting within the law will buy the rights from you (or someone else) for $10, $100, $1000, $10,000 or even $1 million.
Here's where you always fail to understand where I'm coming from.
You think responsible automatically equals legal, and that illegal automatically equals irresponsible and immoral.
I will not accept that. As Augustine of Hippo said: "An unjust law is no law at all."
The completely one-sided contracts that the labels get musicians to sign by promising them the world, while taking every penny they make through bizarre accounting and turning them into indentured servants, are perfectly fine to you since they're legal. Companies sending out DMCA notices and forcing down content that only has a vague resemblance or brief snippet to a copyrighted work are perfectly fine to you since it is legal. To me, neither of those things are fine - they are unethical and morally reprehensible.
You have gone down the path where your morals have been defined by what an authority (the government) will allow you to get away with if you convince them to pass a law. That's frightening and has led to all sorts of historical excesses. Please get a wider perspective for your own sake.
As we've seen in so many cases where someone is taking credit for someone else's work, the public backlash and bad press would stop responsible companies from doing what you describe. Nearly all ordinary people, when given the chance and in a way that they can accept and afford, will do the right thing.
Copyright infringement and piracy of content happen when you don't give them that chance.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is why so many of these conversations turn bad. You are knowingly and deliberately mistating facts.
The Constitution does not grant any exclusive rights to creators. It grants Congress the power to enact laws for the purpose of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. There would be no Constitutional issue if Congress decided to abolish copyrights.
I dispute that creators are better off. There's no way I am better off if I have spent five years and $2 million on a movie that you, Josh, have the same right to monetize during my exclusive rights period as I do. That is absurd.
You are better off. You have a far better oppurtunity to exploit your work than I would. You can make a deal with Netflix for them to distribute your movie - or any other company that would pay you so they can distribute it. Responsible companies would only deal with the creator of the work where it is possible, and the public has shown that they are absolutely willing to support the creators by choosing responsible companies to give their money to when it is an attractive option in terms of availability, features, and price. I myself have done so - as I stated above, I can't remember the last time I torrented music since I started paying for Spotify and before that Grooveshark.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why....
I agree!
Modern technology (the general purpose computer and the internet) has made copyright unenforceable. And in the same manner, they've made it possible for creators to create and distribute for little or no cost, to make a living doing so, and for billions of people to have access to what they've created.
How anyone can possibly see how those things are undesireable is an idea that I cannot fully grasp at an instinctual level.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see nothing wrong with a company making use of knowledge/ideas/culture and charging for it, as long as they are not in any way preventing others from doing the same.
To me, the internet represents an infinite worldwide public library where everyone should have full and complete access to enrich themselves with every scrap of knowledge and culture the human race has ever produced.
You when ask a moral question, that is my response.
I don't know for absolute certainty if my position is ultimately workable, but I favor those attempts that move us closer and vehemently object to those which move us away from it.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why does it *need* to be answered to move forward? What if circumstances make it moot?
If (in general) creators can make a living without requiring exclusivity to what they create, then the answer to whether they should have a right to exclusivity doesn't matter. If both society and creators are better off without an exclusivity right then the concept of fairness does not apply.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why....
On the post: One Of The Funniest S#*$r B$@l Ads You'll See This Year Makes Fun Of NFL Trademarks
Re: Re:
On the post: Phone No One Uses Will No Longer Carry Game No One Plays
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, the idea that fashion advice gotten via a tech blog is necessarily good advice may be a hurdle.
On the post: Phone No One Uses Will No Longer Carry Game No One Plays
Re: Re: Re: So...
I'm potentially interested in other content that TD typically doesn't cover - but a story about a random game or app no longer being preloaded on a phone with no wider impact is at beast a 1.5 out of 10 on the interesting scale. The twinkie story was better.
Just constructive (I hope) criticism.
On the post: Dangerous: European Courts Considering Requiring Search Engine Filters Over Embarrassing Content
...
Interesting wording. Perhaps pictures would illustrate their point better.
Next >>