I just want to point out that the copyright holder does have the right to authorize (as much as he has the right to exclude).
It's unfair to say that if the Dickens and Shakespeare works were in copyright, none of these derivative works would be made. That would only be true if the copyright holder didn't want anyone creating anything having to do with their work; which is kind of rare when the goal of most copyright holders is to expose their work and profit from that exposure.
Would Shakespeare have charged exorbitantly to license his material? maybe. But there's little reason to assume that he would.
Copyright doesn't prevent works from being disseminated. Copyright holders do.
Yeah, this guy is a little radical. He also chose a bad example in Shakespeare. The first copyright law was enacted in 1709...
Dickens on the other hand (as Mike mentions) was a strong supporter of intellectual property rights. In fact, from what I've read, he was rather disheartened to find out that Americans were not honoring his copyrights. I've never heard of the "throngs of fans" paying him anyways (although I don't doubt Mike's research in this instance).
Taking it down a notch from where the Williams fellow was going, his underlying point may not be without merit despite his poor choice of examples and flamboyant hyperbole.
The same way it's unfair to compare then with now from the "pirate" perspective, it's also inaccurate to compare it from the creators perspective.
What Williams doesn't consider is that today, considering the power of the Internet to diffuse content, copyright is less important then it once was. Shakespeare and Dickens would likely be the object of piracy today as well. I just don't think that piracy would affect their bottom line as profoundly.
Shakespeare and co. had to rely on patronage. If his play was plagiarized, and that person performed it first, Shakespeare would be caught with no way to profit from his creation. Today, on the other hand, it may be in Shakespeare's best interest to release the script for free online to entice patrons to come to see his show (and pay for admission). In the 17th century, such marketing strategies would likely have been harder to implement.
For these reasons, I'm one of those who believe that copyright laws need to be reevaluated in light of the way people make use of copyrighted content in the 21st century. Unlike some people on here, I believe in copyright protection. I believe that a creator should retain a large degree of control over the exploitation and dissemination of his work. That said, I don't believe the pre-digital copyright doctrines necessarily have much of a place in the digital arena.
"... it seems that Google is taking some dangerous steps around copyright and patent law -- both of which may go against its own long-term best interests."
What would those long-term interest be? Not saying you're wrong, I just don't see what motivated that comment. Is it in Google's long-term best interest to never fire an offensive salvo despite their deep and growing patent portfolio? If so, why?
Romney should use Dr. Feelgood by Motley Crue...that would just be hilarious! Plus I'm sure Vince Niel and co. wouldn't mind the attention (80's glam rockers usually don't).
You know...This is the most salient objection of all!
The other stuff (public trust, public good...)is debatable even if the evidence is weighed heavily against the nationalization idea.
On the other hand, you've identified a truly insurmountable logistical problem...unless some consortium of countries that can't agree on much get together to govern facebook...yeah...right.
I never said that. You shouldn't put quotes around things people didn't say...it may cause people to think they said them. I asked you to offer up a good argument...you chose not to. That's ok.
While we're "quoting" one another, you still haven't explained what this means:
" NOWHERE IN THE ARGUMENT WAS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ANSWER."
Unlike what you quoted meas saying, you actually did say that...what does it mean?
I just think that flying off the handle in the way you did was a uncalled for. You can either accept that or not, but I don't think I did anything wrong in responding to your original "hypothetical". If you want to have a private conversation with Rob, by all means, please do so! But this is a public comment page. Have a little respect, and show a little class...
You seem like a really intense person! Most people on here, like John Fenderson, are a little more respectful than you just were. Even if you are going to massively distort what I said into a troll like comment, at least have the decency to do it with a little class :)
1. Look. If you're going to whine at me for committing a logical fallacy, explain how it is I made one...
" NOWHERE IN THE ARGUMENT WAS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ANSWER."
What does that even mean!?
As I said, I was responding to your "hypothetical". The "hypothetical was your entire comment...whatever...
2. Thanks for giving me the least charitable interpretation humanly possible...You reek of disingenuousness (if that's even a word).
I'll say it one more time. In the context of intellectual PROPERTY (emphasis on PROPERTY) law, infringement is tantamount to theft. What you're trying to do is make a misleading distinction that has no basis in the way we pragmatically look at IP. It isn't "real" or "personal" property in the common law sense. But that doesn't matter, because it is a "Statutory" right. Copyright is a legal fiction. It's a right granted by the State to the exclusive use of the proceeds of our intellect.
So yes, infringement of copyright IS tantamount to theft. If you don't agree, then I think you have an unduly restrictive definition of the word theft, or you're being the least charitable person on the planet...either one.
1. "Well, what do you do if the person you find and attempt to reason with, reasons right back at you with interesting arguments why piracy is not wrong and so forth? What do you do next?"
Dude, I was just responding to what you said. My point was that your point is irrelevant. Whether the person who "reasons right back" has a compelling argument doesn't make it any less of an infringement.
2. In the context of copyright law, they're one in the same...unless you can show me a meaningful distinction.
Infringement refers to the carrying out of an act that only the copyright holder (or those he authorizes) has the right to do.
Stealing is a non-technical term. and BTW, I used the term "appropriate" (which means the same thing as infringe in this context. "just pointing it out"...
I have yet to happen upon a convincing argument that can't be reduced tot he absurd as to why piracy is good (or not bad).
The important thing to remember is that "bad" and "illegal" are not synonymous. I know the RIAA and MPAA like to make this into a moral issue, but dodn't fool yourself, it's first and foremost a legal issue. Whether or not you feel like you're morally justified in appropriating someone else's property is your business. I don't see how that has much to do with their perspective, namely that they weren't fairly compensated.
Not to be a shmuck or anything...but "you" is you, not us. Mike likes to throw around words. I'm not saying you're alone or anything...it's just not a big deal in my circles, even those that are more web aware...
So let me get this straight. Are you (Mike) advocating for what Holmes is seemingly saying? That we should jail these folks instead of simply seizing their domains?
That doesn't sound like you. This sounds more like you:
"Most of us have been concerned about the free speech and collateral damage issues raised by domain seizures"
Who's "us"? Personally, I don't worry about that at all. In fact, I worry more about typosquatting (and I admittedly don't worry about that too much either) more than I worry about domain name seizures that infringe freedom of speech.
I disagree with Holmes in that the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy is rather user friendly and almost always (if you look at the WIPO jurisprudence) ends in the domain being turned over to the rightful trademark owner. In fact, most of the time, it seems that the alleged cybersquatter doesn't even submit a reply to the complaint making the adjudication process a no brainer...
The UDRP is not overly lopsided. It's possible to make a fair use defense. But if you read the case law, you realize really quickly that most litigious domain name disputes ARE NOT about freedom of speech...even when the respondent claims that it is...
I would love it if you could refrain from telling people what they're concerned about and let them decide that for themselves.
Sorry to take such an aggressive posture here Mike. It's just that your rhetoric is getting a little wild...
- It was more the "Israeli abuses in Palestine" comment that motivated my retort. You don't do yourself any favors in the context of this discussion by surreptitiously sneaking in your political convictions.
- Why is it unfair to offer free to some and pay to others? You didn't really back this up. I agree that charging those who can't afford it the same fee as those who can is regressive and undesirable. But while "formal equality" is not served by my proposed model, "Real equality" is. If it's no skin off your back to spend $1 (or so) a month to subsidize those who can't afford it, why shouldn't you. If Twitter is a social benefit for everyone, then we can justify a little bit of expense levied on those who can easily afford it. I don't think I'm in a bubble...a lot of things work this way...like oh say...income tax (spare me the republican vs. democrat debate on this...just making a point)
- " Maybe this is not the case in America or in the developed world where no1 ever uses the neighbor's open wi-fi because they don't have the money."
I specifically addressed this by saying that only those in developed countries would have to pay.
- "Let us think Brazil for instance..."
You're still not really arguing with me. Maybe Brazilians should be among those who don't have to pay...yet.
- Depending on what you mean by convoluted environment, this had been addressed too. My pay model would not force an Egyptian or Tunisian in the middle of a revolt to pay for the service regardless of their means...
I hope I've addressed all your counter arguments. Bottom line is that you don't like the pay model. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I love it either. I'm just saying that it can definitely work and that those who can afford it should be willing to pay for something of value. Again...Where does this unjustified sense of entitlement come from?
These sites obviously do business based on volume. The subscription doesn't have to be that expensive.
I don't think it's fair to say that a $1/month subscription fee would limit the appeal of Twitter to a niche portion of the population.
I just don't think people, even cheap and broke people are quite as cheap and broke as you make them out to be.
There's also the idea of making the services fee based for affluent countries and free in developing countries. That way the poorest of the poor (who live int he poorest places) won't have to pay but those who can afford it (on balance) will. Are you now going to propose that even poorer North Americans can't afford $1 a day? That's a little tough to defend...
BTW- It only detracts from your substantive point when you get political in one of these posts. Your thoughts on Spain and the Middle East aren't relevant and so while they're just an illustration, they detract from, rather than bolster your point. Just friendly advice.
My point was that I WOULD pay a reasonable fee (let's say $1 a month) for a service like Twitter. It has value, I recognize that value and I'm willing to pay a modest amount to take advantage of it.
As for your response to my first quote, you haven't actually said anything other than that in your personal opinion, the pay model is wrong. Fact is, you're simply perpetuating the "Internet entitlement" viewpoint which I find is often (though not always) unjustified
I agree that DRM shouldn't be considered synonymous with "bad". Unless you're a copyright abolitionist and believe that intellectual property rights shouldn't exist (a growing club) then DRM should be viewed as a valuable tool.
I think what most people rail against- and here I agree with them- is the abuse of those technologies and the lack of safe harbors in the law. Yes the DMCA provides for exceptions and the case law that has developed in the United States over the past decade or so had enriched our understanding. However, here in Canada, our government has just enacted a law that prohibits the circumvention of TPMs, even for lawful purposes. The exceptions tot he rule are incredibly narrow (dealing with things like encryption research and reverse engineering for product compatibility).
Events like the Sony Rootkit fiasco don't help either. Fact is that DRM has acquired a bad name, not because it's inherently bad, but because it's abused by the content industry and over-protected by legislation.
Bottom line, DRM has to get a little friendlier.
Masnick has to tone down the opinion and strive for a little more objectivity. You're borderline distorting facts...as was the case in your assessment of the 7th circuit decision in MyVidster...A LITTLE OBJECCTIVITY...PLEASE
I agree that the RIAA and MPAA will likely never be satisfied with the anti-piracy measures taken by anyone...That said, Mr. Masnick, I don't think you're very fair in your characterization of the RIAA and MPAA as being the forces of evil engaged in a struggle against the forces of good:
"...their neverending war against providing people what they want."
Come on now Mike...
I agree that the MPAA and RIAA are seriously misguided, even stupid at times in the way they try to stem piracy.For example, suing thousands of your customers is a pretty terrible excuse for a revenue stream. But just because they're fools with tunnel vision, doesn't mean you can accuse them of being pure evil...
They aren't in a war with providing people what they want. They just want to get paid and for their members to be paid. Again, when you say that their methods of achieving this are ridiculous and ineffective, I agree with you 100%.
There's just too much hyperbole and not enough honest discussion about how to solve the broken music industry model. A paradigm shift is required if the industry is ever to know it's former glories. I'm of the opinion that the major label model is toast. Some good ideas have been put forward such as a broadband fee.
On the post: Australian Media Exec Uses Dickens & Shakespeare -- Who Both Thrived Without Copyright -- To Explain Why We Need More Copyright
Re:
It's unfair to say that if the Dickens and Shakespeare works were in copyright, none of these derivative works would be made. That would only be true if the copyright holder didn't want anyone creating anything having to do with their work; which is kind of rare when the goal of most copyright holders is to expose their work and profit from that exposure.
Would Shakespeare have charged exorbitantly to license his material? maybe. But there's little reason to assume that he would.
Copyright doesn't prevent works from being disseminated. Copyright holders do.
On the post: Australian Media Exec Uses Dickens & Shakespeare -- Who Both Thrived Without Copyright -- To Explain Why We Need More Copyright
Dickens on the other hand (as Mike mentions) was a strong supporter of intellectual property rights. In fact, from what I've read, he was rather disheartened to find out that Americans were not honoring his copyrights. I've never heard of the "throngs of fans" paying him anyways (although I don't doubt Mike's research in this instance).
Taking it down a notch from where the Williams fellow was going, his underlying point may not be without merit despite his poor choice of examples and flamboyant hyperbole.
The same way it's unfair to compare then with now from the "pirate" perspective, it's also inaccurate to compare it from the creators perspective.
What Williams doesn't consider is that today, considering the power of the Internet to diffuse content, copyright is less important then it once was. Shakespeare and Dickens would likely be the object of piracy today as well. I just don't think that piracy would affect their bottom line as profoundly.
Shakespeare and co. had to rely on patronage. If his play was plagiarized, and that person performed it first, Shakespeare would be caught with no way to profit from his creation. Today, on the other hand, it may be in Shakespeare's best interest to release the script for free online to entice patrons to come to see his show (and pay for admission). In the 17th century, such marketing strategies would likely have been harder to implement.
For these reasons, I'm one of those who believe that copyright laws need to be reevaluated in light of the way people make use of copyrighted content in the 21st century. Unlike some people on here, I believe in copyright protection. I believe that a creator should retain a large degree of control over the exploitation and dissemination of his work. That said, I don't believe the pre-digital copyright doctrines necessarily have much of a place in the digital arena.
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
What would those long-term interest be? Not saying you're wrong, I just don't see what motivated that comment. Is it in Google's long-term best interest to never fire an offensive salvo despite their deep and growing patent portfolio? If so, why?
On the post: Band Calls 1st Amendment A 'Buzzword' In (Plagiarized) C&D To Mitt Romney Over (Licensed) Use Of Song
Motley Mitt
On the post: Perhaps The Dumbest Idea We've Heard Yet: Nationalize Facebook
Re: Stupid question:
The other stuff (public trust, public good...)is debatable even if the evidence is weighed heavily against the nationalization idea.
On the other hand, you've identified a truly insurmountable logistical problem...unless some consortium of countries that can't agree on much get together to govern facebook...yeah...right.
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
...
I never said that. You shouldn't put quotes around things people didn't say...it may cause people to think they said them. I asked you to offer up a good argument...you chose not to. That's ok.
While we're "quoting" one another, you still haven't explained what this means:
" NOWHERE IN THE ARGUMENT WAS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ANSWER."
Unlike what you quoted meas saying, you actually did say that...what does it mean?
I just think that flying off the handle in the way you did was a uncalled for. You can either accept that or not, but I don't think I did anything wrong in responding to your original "hypothetical". If you want to have a private conversation with Rob, by all means, please do so! But this is a public comment page. Have a little respect, and show a little class...
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: oy...
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
" NOWHERE IN THE ARGUMENT WAS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ANSWER."
What does that even mean!?
As I said, I was responding to your "hypothetical". The "hypothetical was your entire comment...whatever...
2. Thanks for giving me the least charitable interpretation humanly possible...You reek of disingenuousness (if that's even a word).
I'll say it one more time. In the context of intellectual PROPERTY (emphasis on PROPERTY) law, infringement is tantamount to theft. What you're trying to do is make a misleading distinction that has no basis in the way we pragmatically look at IP. It isn't "real" or "personal" property in the common law sense. But that doesn't matter, because it is a "Statutory" right. Copyright is a legal fiction. It's a right granted by the State to the exclusive use of the proceeds of our intellect.
So yes, infringement of copyright IS tantamount to theft. If you don't agree, then I think you have an unduly restrictive definition of the word theft, or you're being the least charitable person on the planet...either one.
Have a nice day...
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
Why don't you actually respond to what I DID say...
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
Dude, I was just responding to what you said. My point was that your point is irrelevant. Whether the person who "reasons right back" has a compelling argument doesn't make it any less of an infringement.
2. In the context of copyright law, they're one in the same...unless you can show me a meaningful distinction.
Infringement refers to the carrying out of an act that only the copyright holder (or those he authorizes) has the right to do.
Stealing is a non-technical term. and BTW, I used the term "appropriate" (which means the same thing as infringe in this context. "just pointing it out"...
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Jail (not really)
The important thing to remember is that "bad" and "illegal" are not synonymous. I know the RIAA and MPAA like to make this into a moral issue, but dodn't fool yourself, it's first and foremost a legal issue. Whether or not you feel like you're morally justified in appropriating someone else's property is your business. I don't see how that has much to do with their perspective, namely that they weren't fairly compensated.
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: oy...
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
oy...
That doesn't sound like you. This sounds more like you:
"Most of us have been concerned about the free speech and collateral damage issues raised by domain seizures"
Who's "us"? Personally, I don't worry about that at all. In fact, I worry more about typosquatting (and I admittedly don't worry about that too much either) more than I worry about domain name seizures that infringe freedom of speech.
I disagree with Holmes in that the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy is rather user friendly and almost always (if you look at the WIPO jurisprudence) ends in the domain being turned over to the rightful trademark owner. In fact, most of the time, it seems that the alleged cybersquatter doesn't even submit a reply to the complaint making the adjudication process a no brainer...
The UDRP is not overly lopsided. It's possible to make a fair use defense. But if you read the case law, you realize really quickly that most litigious domain name disputes ARE NOT about freedom of speech...even when the respondent claims that it is...
I would love it if you could refrain from telling people what they're concerned about and let them decide that for themselves.
Sorry to take such an aggressive posture here Mike. It's just that your rhetoric is getting a little wild...
On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter
Re: Re: Re:
- It was more the "Israeli abuses in Palestine" comment that motivated my retort. You don't do yourself any favors in the context of this discussion by surreptitiously sneaking in your political convictions.
- Why is it unfair to offer free to some and pay to others? You didn't really back this up. I agree that charging those who can't afford it the same fee as those who can is regressive and undesirable. But while "formal equality" is not served by my proposed model, "Real equality" is. If it's no skin off your back to spend $1 (or so) a month to subsidize those who can't afford it, why shouldn't you. If Twitter is a social benefit for everyone, then we can justify a little bit of expense levied on those who can easily afford it. I don't think I'm in a bubble...a lot of things work this way...like oh say...income tax (spare me the republican vs. democrat debate on this...just making a point)
- " Maybe this is not the case in America or in the developed world where no1 ever uses the neighbor's open wi-fi because they don't have the money."
I specifically addressed this by saying that only those in developed countries would have to pay.
- "Let us think Brazil for instance..."
You're still not really arguing with me. Maybe Brazilians should be among those who don't have to pay...yet.
- Depending on what you mean by convoluted environment, this had been addressed too. My pay model would not force an Egyptian or Tunisian in the middle of a revolt to pay for the service regardless of their means...
I hope I've addressed all your counter arguments. Bottom line is that you don't like the pay model. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I love it either. I'm just saying that it can definitely work and that those who can afford it should be willing to pay for something of value. Again...Where does this unjustified sense of entitlement come from?
On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter
Re:
These sites obviously do business based on volume. The subscription doesn't have to be that expensive.
I don't think it's fair to say that a $1/month subscription fee would limit the appeal of Twitter to a niche portion of the population.
I just don't think people, even cheap and broke people are quite as cheap and broke as you make them out to be.
There's also the idea of making the services fee based for affluent countries and free in developing countries. That way the poorest of the poor (who live int he poorest places) won't have to pay but those who can afford it (on balance) will. Are you now going to propose that even poorer North Americans can't afford $1 a day? That's a little tough to defend...
BTW- It only detracts from your substantive point when you get political in one of these posts. Your thoughts on Spain and the Middle East aren't relevant and so while they're just an illustration, they detract from, rather than bolster your point. Just friendly advice.
On the post: A Fee-Based Twitter Is No More Ideologically Pure Than An Ad-Supported Twitter
Re: Re: Not wrong...but disingenuous
As for your response to my first quote, you haven't actually said anything other than that in your personal opinion, the pay model is wrong. Fact is, you're simply perpetuating the "Internet entitlement" viewpoint which I find is often (though not always) unjustified
So....What's you're point again?
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Hold on a minute
I think what most people rail against- and here I agree with them- is the abuse of those technologies and the lack of safe harbors in the law. Yes the DMCA provides for exceptions and the case law that has developed in the United States over the past decade or so had enriched our understanding. However, here in Canada, our government has just enacted a law that prohibits the circumvention of TPMs, even for lawful purposes. The exceptions tot he rule are incredibly narrow (dealing with things like encryption research and reverse engineering for product compatibility).
Events like the Sony Rootkit fiasco don't help either. Fact is that DRM has acquired a bad name, not because it's inherently bad, but because it's abused by the content industry and over-protected by legislation.
Bottom line, DRM has to get a little friendlier.
Masnick has to tone down the opinion and strive for a little more objectivity. You're borderline distorting facts...as was the case in your assessment of the 7th circuit decision in MyVidster...A LITTLE OBJECCTIVITY...PLEASE
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Hold on a minute
"...their neverending war against providing people what they want."
Come on now Mike...
I agree that the MPAA and RIAA are seriously misguided, even stupid at times in the way they try to stem piracy.For example, suing thousands of your customers is a pretty terrible excuse for a revenue stream. But just because they're fools with tunnel vision, doesn't mean you can accuse them of being pure evil...
They aren't in a war with providing people what they want. They just want to get paid and for their members to be paid. Again, when you say that their methods of achieving this are ridiculous and ineffective, I agree with you 100%.
There's just too much hyperbole and not enough honest discussion about how to solve the broken music industry model. A paradigm shift is required if the industry is ever to know it's former glories. I'm of the opinion that the major label model is toast. Some good ideas have been put forward such as a broadband fee.
Why don't we talk about solutions?
Next >>