"If they're not making a living because people have redefined the license to mean what they want it mean, so they won't have to pay for it--that is simply stealing."
Its the content producers that have been stealing from the consumer by depriving the consumer of the property rights that normally would accrue to them when they buy the content. Furthermore, as new technologies have emerged, such as being able to copy a CD onto an MP3 device, the content producers claim that this fair use by the consumer is somehow unauthorized.
Finally, if someone can not make a living because of technological/business reasons, to bad. The auto industry has been laying off workers because less workers are needed to produce a car (technology) and cars are not selling (business).
To justify copyright, we usually hear assertions such as:
1. "What if it cost $500,000 to create an album of music."
2. An author wants to produce a work of fiction. It takes her 1 year to do so.
In theory, we live in a free-market system. If you produce a product and their is no market for it, too bad. You threw the dice and lost. It is not the intent of the free-market system to guarantee someone a lively-hood.
I would even advocate that if you are a true artist, you wouldn't even be motivated by money. Yes, that is a bit extreme, but there are people who are willing to produce with no expectation of making money.
My point - if you can't make money with your art you will need to find another method of making money to pay for your living expenses.
Regretfully, the law is unfair and should be repealed. When a person buys a good, they are entitled to property ownership rights and the seller losses their property rights.
True, you can't duplicate the loaf of bread. Nevertheless, the analogy holds. I would advocate that if in infinite good exists there can be NO property right to that good. A property right emerges from the physical scarcity of that good where one can have a clear and defined property boundary.
The company is deriving revenue from selling hardware and support. Some of that money goes to the software developer. What the software developer is doing is enhancing the value of the hardware and the ability of the company to provide service to its customers.
-------------------------
With start-up companies, of course you have to develop the software for "free". Customers won't give you money in advance of the product. Actually, a lot of start-ups go to venture capital firms to get funding so they aren't really doing product (software) development for "free" anyway.
"and you never know if your new disk will even play."
Eliminate the DRM and reliability issue should be solved. DRM "costs" the industry. Eliminate the cost of DRM and the price of the DVD could be reduced to promote sales. Mass market products require mass market solutions.
One thing this country ignores is that you can only sell so much. Even if new stuff is coming out, people are less inclined to buy. In part, this may also be do to the availability of movie rentals and on demand viewing.
It amazes me how the worker bees are watched by management to assure that they are not ripping off the company. A minor slip-up and they are fired. Yet when management looses $$$ billions of the company's money, they are not held accountable, and they still get paid $$$ millions. A clear double standard.
I bet the heads of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were paid while waiting for their private jet(s) to "boot-up" and "shut-down".
Mike wrote "The one thing I keep coming back to as a solution is to put in place some aspect of radical transparency on pretty much all aspects of financial instruments, both on the debt side and the equity side."
Transparency as a solution, to a degree, is a red-herring like piracy. Transparency is easy to talk about, everyone can agree with, and makes for good sound bites. Nevertheless, transparency is somewhat of an oxymoron since ever more innovative complex products designed to game the system are anything but transparent. Nevertheless, I would agree that radical transparency is a must.
My take on a solution to our credit crisis is cultural. We have a schizophrenic culture. Our corporate executives are supposed to be leaders, responsible, have a social conscious, and work for the benefit of the company they work for. The reality is quite different. If their leadership proves faulty they do not take responsibility for their failures. Instead of working for the benefit of the corporation they are working for their own aggrandizement. If their entire industry is failing, instead of having a social conscious to work together to save the industry they demand golden parachutes for themselves and let the system fail.
It consistently amazes me that those who want to preserve the effective operation of the free market system seldom demand that executives, when they fail, be held accountable.
He writes: "For starters, computers were instrumental in creating financial products that were so complex that we now don't know how to value them. Then, they also aided and abetted the disaster by giving a veneer of statistical respectability to financial assumptions that, had they been put into plain English, would have been met with the scorn they deserve."
This may be very unpopular, but we can minimize investing risk by simply prohibiting these "innovative" financial instruments. I agree that theoretically anything can be modeled, the problem is that at some point hard assets are simply being turned in "virtual" assets that are devoid of any real value. Limits do exists. Destructive engineering is great in the lab, but in real life do we want to destroy the economy to uncover the limits?
One of the irritating come-ons is the IQ question. I answered it for the novelty. The next screen was the come-on and they never even disclosed if I answered the question correctly or not. I have been a basket case ever since.
Like the poll "Which Internet Concern Worries You The Most?" Maybe TechDirt,as a novelty feature, could have a wall-of-shame poll for the most irritating disingenuous adds.
Now if we can rid ourselves of those pesky Netflix ads.
The New York Times quotes Alan Greenspan "“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform."
History teaches us that regulation can be counter productive but history also teaches that the free market periodically becomes unbalanced too and crashes. Power corrupts absolutely whether you are a government bureaucrat or a corporate executive. To selectively structure "facts" to claim that a certain aspect of our economy, such as regulation, is bad while conveniently overlooking equally egregious failures of the free market is not a very scientific inquiry.
NYT wrote "“It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.” (emphasis added)
Good article, it correctly reviews regulatory shortcomings. But there is also an underlying logical disconnect that can be paraphrased as: "Since police have not eliminated crime, the police are ineffectual and should be disbanded." Clearly, even if regulatory oversight is imperfect it may be better that the alternative.
The alternative; we are currently experiencing. The collapse of many of our financial institutions was the direct result of unfettered capitalism. We have already seen many internet providers abuse their "freedom" to act without regulatory oversight. Comcast for example under the pretense of "traffic shaping" has arbitrarily blocked (delayed, held-up, whatever) mail (packet) delivery. By analogy do we really want the post office to arbitrarily throw our mail in the trash because it is simply too inconvenient to deliver or a competitor may benefit???
This post correctly points out the shortcomings of regulation. What bothers me with those opposed to net-neutrality is that they never seem to want to guarantee that they would conform to net neutrality concepts. Instead they insist on hiding behind the tired mantra of "flexibility" which opens the door to arbitrary and capricious actions, witness our financial meltdown. If they do not want regulation, why aren't the anti-net-neutrality advocates not offering any guarantees as an alternative to regulation? The implied conclusion is that they are not being honest in disclosing what they will do and that they want the unilateral power to do whatever they want whenever they want and without consequences. To paraphrase Tim, the results of unfettered corporate power could be very different from what the consumer has been lead to expect concerning net neutrality. A middle ground needs to be worked out.
The copyright law has been changed to deprive the consumer of their property rights to the use of content that they have legally bought. Furthermore, the content industry is continuing this deprivation of consumer rights by asserting that the consumer has no rights to the use of content. The very concept of "sale" is being eliminated and being replaced by "license".
"There's no reason why ISPs should be involved.". Quite true. The ISPs should be limited to delivering the mail. They should have no implicit right to inspect the mail or to make any assessment as to its legitimacy. As TechDirt has noted, the ISP should not be the content industry's police force.
On the post: Creation Does Not Equal Ownership
Redefining License Terms
Its the content producers that have been stealing from the consumer by depriving the consumer of the property rights that normally would accrue to them when they buy the content. Furthermore, as new technologies have emerged, such as being able to copy a CD onto an MP3 device, the content producers claim that this fair use by the consumer is somehow unauthorized.
Finally, if someone can not make a living because of technological/business reasons, to bad. The auto industry has been laying off workers because less workers are needed to produce a car (technology) and cars are not selling (business).
On the post: Creation Does Not Equal Ownership
Re: Re: Re: You can't duplicate a loaf of bread
1. "What if it cost $500,000 to create an album of music."
2. An author wants to produce a work of fiction. It takes her 1 year to do so.
In theory, we live in a free-market system. If you produce a product and their is no market for it, too bad. You threw the dice and lost. It is not the intent of the free-market system to guarantee someone a lively-hood.
I would even advocate that if you are a true artist, you wouldn't even be motivated by money. Yes, that is a bit extreme, but there are people who are willing to produce with no expectation of making money.
My point - if you can't make money with your art you will need to find another method of making money to pay for your living expenses.
On the post: Creation Does Not Equal Ownership
Re: Re: Cost is irrelevant
On the post: Creation Does Not Equal Ownership
Re: You can't duplicate a loaf of bread
On the post: Creation Does Not Equal Ownership
Cost is irrelevant
The post is about the nature of ownership, cost has nothing to do with it.
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Copyright Is Not A Welfare System For Musicians
Perpetual Welfare
On the post: You Don't Have To Sell Software
The Software Developer is not Working for Free
-------------------------
With start-up companies, of course you have to develop the software for "free". Customers won't give you money in advance of the product. Actually, a lot of start-ups go to venture capital firms to get funding so they aren't really doing product (software) development for "free" anyway.
On the post: Hollywood's DVD Cash Cow Starting To Falter
Re: what..not piracy?
Eliminate the DRM and reliability issue should be solved. DRM "costs" the industry. Eliminate the cost of DRM and the price of the DVD could be reduced to promote sales. Mass market products require mass market solutions.
On the post: Hollywood's DVD Cash Cow Starting To Falter
Market Saturation Anyone?
On the post: Companies Sued For Not Paying For Time Spent Booting Up A Computer
This is work Related Time
I bet the heads of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were paid while waiting for their private jet(s) to "boot-up" and "shut-down".
On the post: Suckers And Transparency: Preventing Another Financial Crisis
Radical Transparency
Transparency as a solution, to a degree, is a red-herring like piracy. Transparency is easy to talk about, everyone can agree with, and makes for good sound bites. Nevertheless, transparency is somewhat of an oxymoron since ever more innovative complex products designed to game the system are anything but transparent. Nevertheless, I would agree that radical transparency is a must.
My take on a solution to our credit crisis is cultural. We have a schizophrenic culture. Our corporate executives are supposed to be leaders, responsible, have a social conscious, and work for the benefit of the company they work for. The reality is quite different. If their leadership proves faulty they do not take responsibility for their failures. Instead of working for the benefit of the corporation they are working for their own aggrandizement. If their entire industry is failing, instead of having a social conscious to work together to save the industry they demand golden parachutes for themselves and let the system fail.
It consistently amazes me that those who want to preserve the effective operation of the free market system seldom demand that executives, when they fail, be held accountable.
On the post: It Makes No Sense For The President To Not Use Email
Perfect Sense for a Lawyer
No email, minimal chance of exposure. Plausible deniability.
On the post: Suckers And Transparency: Preventing Another Financial Crisis
Computing Our Way Into The Collapse
He writes: "For starters, computers were instrumental in creating financial products that were so complex that we now don't know how to value them. Then, they also aided and abetted the disaster by giving a veneer of statistical respectability to financial assumptions that, had they been put into plain English, would have been met with the scorn they deserve."
This may be very unpopular, but we can minimize investing risk by simply prohibiting these "innovative" financial instruments. I agree that theoretically anything can be modeled, the problem is that at some point hard assets are simply being turned in "virtual" assets that are devoid of any real value. Limits do exists. Destructive engineering is great in the lab, but in real life do we want to destroy the economy to uncover the limits?
On the post: Classmates.com Sued After Guy Realizes His Classmates Weren't Really Looking For Him
The IQ Question Thingy
Like the poll "Which Internet Concern Worries You The Most?" Maybe TechDirt,as a novelty feature, could have a wall-of-shame poll for the most irritating disingenuous adds.
Now if we can rid ourselves of those pesky Netflix ads.
On the post: A History Lesson For Those Advocating Network Neutrality Laws
Re: Re: Re: The Converse Arguement
History teaches us that regulation can be counter productive but history also teaches that the free market periodically becomes unbalanced too and crashes. Power corrupts absolutely whether you are a government bureaucrat or a corporate executive. To selectively structure "facts" to claim that a certain aspect of our economy, such as regulation, is bad while conveniently overlooking equally egregious failures of the free market is not a very scientific inquiry.
On the post: A History Lesson For Those Advocating Network Neutrality Laws
Re: Re: The Converse Arguement
Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
NYT wrote "“It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.” (emphasis added)
On the post: A History Lesson For Those Advocating Network Neutrality Laws
The Converse Arguement
The alternative; we are currently experiencing. The collapse of many of our financial institutions was the direct result of unfettered capitalism. We have already seen many internet providers abuse their "freedom" to act without regulatory oversight. Comcast for example under the pretense of "traffic shaping" has arbitrarily blocked (delayed, held-up, whatever) mail (packet) delivery. By analogy do we really want the post office to arbitrarily throw our mail in the trash because it is simply too inconvenient to deliver or a competitor may benefit???
This post correctly points out the shortcomings of regulation. What bothers me with those opposed to net-neutrality is that they never seem to want to guarantee that they would conform to net neutrality concepts. Instead they insist on hiding behind the tired mantra of "flexibility" which opens the door to arbitrary and capricious actions, witness our financial meltdown. If they do not want regulation, why aren't the anti-net-neutrality advocates not offering any guarantees as an alternative to regulation? The implied conclusion is that they are not being honest in disclosing what they will do and that they want the unilateral power to do whatever they want whenever they want and without consequences. To paraphrase Tim, the results of unfettered corporate power could be very different from what the consumer has been lead to expect concerning net neutrality. A middle ground needs to be worked out.
On the post: UK ISPs Looking To Work With Entertainment Industry; But What About Consumers?
Re:
On the post: UK ISPs Looking To Work With Entertainment Industry; But What About Consumers?
Re: Big Bother (Corprate version) is Watching.
"There's no reason why ISPs should be involved.". Quite true. The ISPs should be limited to delivering the mail. They should have no implicit right to inspect the mail or to make any assessment as to its legitimacy. As TechDirt has noted, the ISP should not be the content industry's police force.
On the post: UK ISPs Looking To Work With Entertainment Industry; But What About Consumers?
Big Bother (Corprate version) is Watching.
Next >>