Another definitely hypocritical action from likely suspicious sources. EMI seems more like a pirate of citizens rights than an entertainment firm. Another good example of slash and burn antagonistic efforts? This type of lawsuit goes both ways though...
So where is the lawsuit due to the obvious piracy of individual freedoms? The trillions in damages due to outright legislative theft of Public Domain Rights? The billions in damages when Fair Use Rights are rendered nonexistent by indiscriminate lawsuits or untoward legislation? The untold cauterizing of culture when copymight has been criminalizing everyday normal life?
What industry responsibility is incurred when even healthy culture and society itself are victims of monopolistic intent? Where will the bill be sent when even technology and innovation suffer from when basic communications are cut off sabotaging collaborations/sources that are the driving force behind such efforts.
So where is the lawsuit directly paying people who share these works and directly producing new sales due to such public popularity? (several great examples exist. King of Thrones comes to mind.)
Thats right; Send the invoice/lawsuits/bill to EMI. (and don't forget to dump copyright for something with better terms.)
If EMI shriveled and died a horrible free market death/bankruptcy as a firm who would care? In some minds there might be cheering but its still a sad fact that the average citizen is unaware of the criminal liabilities of everyday copyright law.
Sounds more like a publicity stunt. Considering the outrageous amounts asked for its likely more Hollywood accounting manipulation. If the anti-tobacco groups were unable to sue government for cigarettes then this will have no judicial merit either.
-wank, wank- (SFX for several, blood vessel popping, rants at once)
Have mentioned this before? Remember when TV was taking over from Radio and we had a bunch of songs (possibly suggested by publishers?) supporting the wonder and coolness of radio. Some of the artists put some work into their efforts and some good entertaining music was produced. Some of it well revived despite however it originated.
Since this clumsy effort seems directly sponsored by actual eternal copywrong lobbyists its almost guaranteed to be industry monopolistic propaganda. Its unlikely that they are there for grassroots support. Why were they chosen even if the method of delivery was clumbsy and even the content might be considered takcy? This is all they have.
“,who are on the Hill as the Grammys,” Seems like RIAA activity to me.
Yes thats right the eternal copyright proponents have organizations like the RIAA, MPAA and more local groups like “the Southwest Virginia Songwriters Association” producing questionable material/literature/studies/reviews/whatever-works to justify a burgeoning monopoly. Another good example of bad examples.
Anyone might be normally embarrassed when others sing of good deeds and Nobel attributes. But. How would anyone feel when they are the serenade about a subject of likely monopolistic intent? Being complimented with song by a government granted monopoly support group is should not be considered a compliment.
Reactionary;
Jay broaches upon the apparent cluelesness of the SVSA. Its kind of normal that the average citizen knows nothing about copyright and its newly criminal consequences. Even songwriters and singers.
Vmax. Good point but might include also elevator music and of course Muzak.
Muzak; Is normal music but with positive suggestive cues, inserted and adsorbed while normally listening while shopping, of subliminal anti-theft messages. Makes one wonder if the above serenade had pro-copyright subliminal content? Who knows. Considering the likely questionable source it may be a worry.
“Just this morning we were pointing out the MPAA's long history of attacking fair use.”
It sure didn't take long for more evidence of two faced-ness activity to appear. For anyone actually paying attention (not Washington thats for sure) its a ROFL hilariously funny thing. Its beyond funny that any supposedly serious legislator could (in real life) even consider a shred of credibility to any organization that behaved as such.
The MPAA seems so selfish and hellbent on perusing their own monopolistic goals that nothing apparently stands in their way. Not the constitution. Not the lives and wellbeing of the consumers that sometimes enjoy the products of their members. Not any sort of fair political process. And. Certainly not the law as criminalizing daily activities like sharing culture/news/music/books/gossip is even more insane than the war on drugs.
Have said this before but their business model seems more like a criminal organization complete with shady political contributions, suspicious court cases, misrepresentation of evidence, misrepresentation of facts, obscuring even their own historical deeds, etc, etc, etc. Its hard to find any integrity or backbone of decentness in any of their activities/sponsorship/law-suits/etc.
Name one thing from eternal copyright (and the criminal bastardization of such) that anyone could defend in terms of cultural growth and society's benefit? (this is a trick question. If one wants to answer it they would have to read up on why we as a people read, watch TV and communicate with each other.)
-fuming- -toss another 2 page rant-
So now the MPAA wants to step on the Blind's access to culture, knowledge, news, literature and even entertainment? If ever there was a more vulnerable social group it would be hard to find. Here is a group that has totally invested into just surviving in a world that is not built for them.
Laws are supposed to fit society. If this is not true then people get jailed or fined for just living and breathing. If this is not true it makes a mockery of the legal system and breeds little respect and mostly contempt.
Any legislator or potential elected candidate should be asked the question “do you feel that laws should reflect society or that laws are to be used as a way to change society?” The average citizen might not care less if phrased so politely but putting it another way it means; You will be jailed and or fined heavily for behavior your local government deems bad for its (ill?)legally enforced vision of society.
The key words might be “government vision for society” which should send shivers down anyone with a backbone. For anyone with democratic sense its always a bad sign when government has ANY opinion at all.
“it's so bad that even some US negotiators find the MPAA's actions unseemly. ” There is hope kindling under the plentiful logs of flammable nonsense left behind by eternal copyright special interest groups.
Since its obvious that the MPAA's credibility is questionable; Is this just a smokescreen for other more vicarious actions? It might just be a judicial time waster to allow more freedom to do other more culturally damaging crimes on a developing society?
To a culturally diminished way of thinking it might make sense. Just challenging the basic Fair Use Rights for the Blind might just be like playing ball. Keep the ball in your control. Always challenge and damage the oppositions territory in a slash and burn way. Take all that you can and damn the consequence. This is basic adversarial technique used in war.
War is ugly beyond belief. A terror that US citizens have been spared and know nearly nothing about. Killing, without remorse... -pukes-
In a most basic monopolistic war mentality; Who cares about advancing technology and innovation developed through culture that thrives on sharing information in various formats (paper/MP3/mkv/avi/pdf/etc). While slashing and burning culture who cares about the advancement of our society itself? We kill off our own opportunities when monopolies take over.
Disclaimer: have cared for an 'almost' totally blind person and can verify just how vulnerable a group this is. For the MPAA to to attack mercilessly this unwilling social group of life's cruel circumstance is beyond anyones imagination of justice?
Thanks for the well researched article about what one says and does are frequently different. Am sure the MPAA would argue differently but that might only get a laugh.
It always bugs me when an obviously disreputable special interest group somehow keeps making preposterous claims that nobody would believe if known history was checked. Its funny (skewed humor) that the MPAA publishes its own edited history. As if anything they wrote/said/did would EVER support Fair Use Rights.
MPAA (or RIAA or other copyloon (right) organization) In favor of Fair Use Rights? This has got to be propaganda at its worst/best! There has got to be some angle going on here that is not obvious. Since at other times they totally denied that Fair Use Rights did not exist how do they get off on claiming to defend it? This smacks of being two faced.
If the MPAA is in favor of Fair Use Rights then are they going to take it to task and enforce this upon their own members? What sort of hypocritical application of Fair Use Rights are they proposing anyway? (agreement) It certainly dose not mean Fair Use Rights used by others but most likely they mean Fair Use Rights for themselves. The cynicism cup runeth over.
This seems to be more of the two faced behavior one would expect from a likely corrupt special interest group. In what way does the MPAA contribute to Public Domain Rights? With eternal copymight (right) that would be never.
This recent claim they back Fair Use Rights seems hollow and flat out unbelievable. In what way does the MPAA contribute to good culture that lives and breaths the sharing of ideas/innovation/knoledge in various media formats? Can they explain how they benefit society in any way?
The expected ridiculous copyright abuses from groups like MPAA and RIAA can be summed up as antics. The behavior is so obviously bad its impossible to believe that any court or legislation discussion would even look at an opinion/study/research/literature produced by them. Just accepting this 'amicus breif' by any court would detract from such courts reliability and drop their 'good standing' a notch or two.
The MPAA and RIAA might be best evaluated on the same level as some Westburogh FL church as they are quite radical and zealous in pursuit of eternal copytight (right). Their business model seems more like an organized crime plan for eliminating any and all use of media even their own. (copyright is more akin to toxic waste contamination and your copy machine or computer are more dangerous than a bag of M80's or even a gun.)
All this nonsense is just another reason to abolish copyright altogether. Something else would be better for sure. Anything with reasonable term limits and no criminalized enforcement.
Isn't this going a bit to far? What imaginary crimes are they talking about? What about the good things that anonymity brings to the marketplace/world? Citizens are not like governments in that they need privacy just to exist. While government needs openness to build citizen trust.
How will anyone bring down dictators or corrupt politicians? TOR is a valuable international tool for peace oriented organizations to survive in hostile dictator/tyrant/communist environments. If this is successful its likely people will die.
Is this just another symptom of law enforcement laziness? Asking ISP's to do the dirty work of suppressing free speech is a method used in communist countries. What authority does Japans NPA have to issue such a deceleration?
What dangerous precedent is being laid here? If the ISP's cave into this then next they will find themselves responsible for it as well as more and more 'requests' are added.
Don't let Japans MPAA or RIAA hear of this or they will 'ask' for the same thing but for their own selfish purposes. Talk about huge mistakes it would be really stupid for any ISP to allow such. It would be a huge expensive mistake. (just look how much google invests in verifying DCMA take-down notices.)
Would complain more but it would sound hypocritical with the US govmt now trying to pass CISPA the end all of end all spying acts. Up next is the govmt bathroom cam with smell sensor. (and it will be a crime if it stinks too much.)
This is more of my reasons that GDP and Debt load are not really related.
Some might comment on math but math in itself is a variable as it depends on how its applied. Its not how one calculates what a nation has done but what they have done. Since Washington seems to take Hollywood accounting practices to heart its hard to even use their numbers/analysis. More simply put; Where does a nation place its investment?
Economic math goes both ways. When ignoring any significant factors it always proves the limited claims. (argue with me) What is significant is the source of the analysis. Special interest industry group analysis should be mostly ignored for obvious reasons.
GDP is sometimes labeled a measure of Standard of Living which is a gross misunderstanding or misuse of words. Since it is not by any reason a measure of where investments/spending are placed it really tells us nothing. Its only a measure of spending.
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)
Note that Debt is not included in GDP. Just spending. It does not even suggest where government gets it spending money. Taxes are ignored also. The investment portion only includes capitol equipment so don't confuse it with loans or such.
Debt is a measure of investment. Profit is a measure of successful investment. Incurring debt is a winning strategy only when the investment pays off.
What do you think is profitable? A sock? A bond? Gold? US dollars? Euro? Japan yen? Bitcoins? Whatever? Place your bet. Many an investor have won or lost regardless of whether they have a seat on the sock exchange. For many a looser there is a winner.
For an example of a good national investment:
At one time the United States invested in the questionable return of the Moon Landing goal by way of NASA. A GREAT Investment. (capitalized for the reason its impossible to criticize success amidst impossible odds.) NASA (for the moon landing) is an exception. Please use this as an example of greatness. (Can anyone do better than this, consider it a challenge!)
The Panama Canal was a good investment. The Hoover Dam was a good investment. The interstate highway system was a good investment. The WWW was a great investment.
What constituents a bad investment:
The stimulus plan of Bush jr to just give our cash was an investment in available spending amounts for the individual. There was no specific investment. No bridge or highway (to nowhere?) that the public might use. It had only one thing going for it; nobody would refuse money being sent to them.
The drug war is a good example of a bad investment. It benefits no one. Creates armed gangs in every city. Destroys the lives of every arrestee for mere possession/use. It decreases GDP by removing productive normal citizens from the economy. (prison) It increases government expenses through incarceration. (prison expenses ironically increases GDP so its not by any means a real measure of standard of living) Needlessly increases the risk to law enforcement personnel. Decreases the trust in law enforcement in general. Any time anyone said “its for your own good” during a drug arrest its just a flat our lie. Jail NEVER helps ANYONE.
Criminalization of copyright is a bad investment that will decrease GDP by ruining lives with jail and excessive fines. (That will reduce available spending cash thus standard of living.)
Save the jail cells for bankers who falsified loan documents just to foreclose on homes.
When a nation is concerned, its best to provide investment that involves its own people. The citizens are central to successful achievements which will (sometimes) provide profit. Innovation? Technology? All come from citizens (even if they do it at work) and without willing development of new ideas we have nothing. Investment is not always in the form of a loan.
Heathcare, under such light, would be a vast improvement over wasting money on bank executive bonuses. Longer healthier more productive lives is an investment that does have some profitable return measured positively in GDP.
How does a nation invest in its people? Libraries are good but reducing or replacing copyright might provide more access than a ten thousand libraries. Investment is not only in cash but often in freedoms and rights for its citizens.
Its ALWAYAS a question of where to place investment! ALWAYS! On any level.
For a government; Faith is not a religious statement. Its an investment of the greatness that can be achieved through believing in its own citizens.
Austerity is an illusion (almost, as wasting cash is always dumb. Remember the NASA profit example.); Where a nation places its monetary investment is of the utmost importance!
Place your bet. The roulette table spins as we speak... (no clue).
What is important: A mature culturally advanced (we share information in various formats) society that invests in itself. Prodigious development of technology/innovation is a feature of such an advanced culture. Grow with it. Or perish. As all civilizations do when they become irrelevant.
Its likely that the trade secrets are environmentally sensitive information on operations or chemicals used and the quantities or practices involved might bring others to harm.
Agreement that disclosure of basically everything is required before any hearings can proceed. The should just toss out the case/proposal. If they don't want to talk about it then fine but please go away and don't ask for anything.
If anyone wants a license or permit then please submit detailed operations and environmental impact studies. There have been a lot of complaints about fracking so something must be bad about it. Its normal to want to know more with research about it.
Its probable that reporters will take years to dig out the story's details. Normal. Everything heard so far are most likely rumors at best. Even now.
In this day of Internet access our best news sources might be from the witnesses themselves. These first hand accounts are the best and worst information sources. What was in any public Boston area blogs?
Its good that we can have first hand accounts of events (tragic or good) can be read almost instantaneously along with pictures and videos. Reddit seems like its more reliable than the evening news or morning newspapers.
Its not uncommon that witnesses just aren't paying attention until after the fact/event/occurrence. They are busy doing their own things and not looking. Its hard to be a good witness and many people cant ever remember if a stoplight was red, green and even mix up the progression of vehicles. Such is the quality of eyewitnesses.
Androgynous Cowherd's comment of “Random kooks” kind of fits another social phenomena thats hard to pin down.
Its also hard to estimate what effects a perpetrator's lies will have. How good their alibi stands and story sound. Especially if the suspect has enough money to defend themselves.
For the second time I (mostly) agree with OOTB. (Ring the bells. Not a pun.)
“Amazon is in the consolidating rapid-growth stage” Correct IMHO! What other on-line firm has this same vision and growth potential? Few if none! In a way they deserve profits from their insight and investment. In other ways its pointless to stop competitors from entering same marketplace.
“Wal-Mart of publishing” Very insightful. Furthermore your comment on economic advantage (of such) is good. Monopolies are bad. Stomp on them.
“an era without DOJ anti-trust enforcement” Yes. The DoJ has absconded from its obvious judiciary duties of removing monopoly from consumer worry. Historically this is normal (read as judicial ignorance/corruption?) in that every 40-50 years the public intervenes with reason and constitutionality.
“it'll be the most tightly controlling monopoly yet seen.” Of which I quote (from the Humphrey Bogart movie Key Largo);
Johnny Rocco (a famous fictional Chicago mobster, in a movie, with Humphrey Bogart as Frank McCloud and crew weathering out a hurricane on Key Largo) speaks;
(Quote)
“I bet you two or three years, we get Prohibition back. This time we make it stick.,”
“The trouble was, before,... too many guys wanted to be top dog.”
“That was the trouble. One mob gets to massacring another. The papers play it up” big. Big, see?”
-”So what happens? -So what?”
“The papers play it up big, and the public. . . . . .gets the idea that Prohibition's no good. That if they can get rid of it. . . .”
“Next time, it'll be different. We learned our lesson, all right. Next time, the mobs'll get together.”
(end of quote)
Corruption is always a legitimate worry and monopoly is a justifiable fear while conspiracy is a real economic horror. The rest might be conjecture.
Bwahahah. (wow. Something I really think is hilarious!)
Ever look on the wall of your local family physician for the certificates of membership or letters denoting good standing within? Or how about the certificate wall of your family lawyer or tax consultant? Were you impressed? Its OK to be so, as at this level, its always impressive to see documentation of industry commitment and recognition.
But what do they really mean? And. More importantly. Is this any benefit to the average citizen? Why do these industry groups exist and what is the definition of a special interest group?
An industry (special interest group) is created to further fulfill the specific interests/needs/profit of that exact group only. Even at the expense of other marginal (what a laugh) concerns. One might just as well say they are formed to totally and ruthlessly carry out the selfish profit desires of its members at others (usually the client/customer) expense entirely. Even if anyone (without money) dies in the gutter on a filthy street thats often an acceptable loss for a 'successful' industry group run for only profit motives.
There are exceptions to this of course but its classic that almost all public and private groups are eventually hijacked for profit or idealized religious reasons as noble or misguided as they might be.
Because of our cultural infantile state (most likely hampered by copyright laws inhibiting a healthy sharing of ideas through various formats in an eternal way) the effective intelligence level of a special interest industry group never raises above that of a three year old. A baby only wants and needs with no consideration for its environment.
Be it an Association, Guild, Union, Council, Chamber, Brain-trust, organization or whatever its all the same in regards that they all act in favor of the members. Despite whatever is written in their bylaws its classic human social nature that this/almost-every group does not act in favor of a non member. Of all the current organizations it might be conservative to say that 98% of special interest groups act against the average citizen.
An example of a benevolent public organization might be the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) of which considering their current vision and standing should be viable for another 10 or so years. (after that its reevaluation time).
An example of a most likely hijacked public group might be MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) of which they seem hellbent on violating/trampling every constitutional value in pursuit of their seemingly religious like affair with Prohibitionist attitudes. (just an opinion)
$$$
OK. that was the build up for a brief discussion on the Authors Guild.
The comment “,Turow seems to be so focused on propping up the legacy publishers,” leads on to believe that the Authors Guild seems to be in the process of being hijacked by publishers. In what way does the author's book volume sales and the multiplicative effects of popularity (and ultimately profit either directly or from sequels, other works or whatever value can be added) benefit from price fixing?
The removal of public response to his blog post is the hilarious part. Think of it; A special interest group ignoring public opinion? Except in lip service does any industry organization care, except in terms of profit and prestige, for anyone else's opinion? ROFL! Its that funny!
Even more hilarious are the weak attempts to phrase/word such obvious industry orientated behavior that is not in favor of public opinion in terms that sound like they are in favor of public opinion. (it only sounds redundant)
The Authors Guild is acting like a classic special interest group. The three monkeys skit seems appropriate; Monkey see (hands over eyes), monkey hear (hands cover ears), monkey do (just sits there). Carry on business as usual. Nothing interesting here move along.
This childish behavior, placed under the light of adult real world concerns, would be quickly followed by a thorough intellectual spanking if not complete discrediting.
It seems that publisher contributions eclipse author membership fees so its hard to even justify the use of “Author” in this special interest groups name. (is this correct? Or is there corruption involved? Hard to tell but it does not look good from this viewpoint.) Although its normal for a special interest group to choose a name that is misleading when the group faces significant public criticism it hardly makes it nice or polite. In this case it seems like a special interest hijacking.
There are so many issues with copyright law being abused for whatever industry profit or bureaucratic information gathering rationalizations its hard to elaborate in this already wordy essay. (read some of my earlier posts or more of TechDirt in general)
The root of the problem is that there is a perception crisis, outside more informed forums like TD, about what the public thinks of such industry organizations and who or how they derive their profits (from).
Reactionary;
There is nothing 'conspiracy' about a rational analysis based on normal human behavior. Its the reverse thats possible when anyone/organization tries to dampen public discussion.
“It doesn't matter what the politician says it matters what he does.”
So true. And. True for all humankind and every social institution/entity within. Implied might be the hope naturally infused when we depend on people elected to make these decisions in our behalf. Which all is so sweet and nice but possibly over hopeful in light of historical and political trends. (the last 40-50 years specifically)
CISPA's intent/design/core-beliefs seem based on a complete removal of democratic constitutional values. In addition the backers don't ever mention citizen privacy needs except in terms of reducing them for political and government agency bureaucratic needs. (read as constitutional laziness) Its an Act almost designed to ignore privacy in spite of the obvious constitutional flaws.
The 'war of words' phrase attempts to point out the shell game words can play hiding the actual written meaning and meaninglessness alike. (throw in a bunch of FUD or doublespeak as a steak-sauce for the horse meat so its hard to sort out the true beef.)
Think thats to harsh? Try reading some sales books that purport to be able to sell to anyone, anything even if they don't want or need, a proffered product.
Does anyone think that a high profile special interest group with overly paid ex-politicians as lobbyists don't train/coach them using BASIC adversarial sales techniques? These groups are paid to get results in spite of public resistance or opinion.
Its always a bad sign when legislation is enacted in spite of significant public protest. Note not mentioning corporate and government special interest groups. Business profit needs are always taken with salt and government bureaucratic inbreeding is always to be ignored.
So. What are our elected representatives going to do? History says they will be swayed by money and words (political pressure) that goes against common hope for constitutional reason and wisdom.
The 'new' copyright is worse than Prohibition. It criminalizes the very nature of culture and how strong culture builds upon sharing knowledge in various formats. Building upon the works of others is a healthy way sharing culture develops a strong society. Its the way we progress as a cohesive culture.
Copyright is a direct tax on the culture of knowledge and even on learning itself. The core idea of copyright is flawed. Forcing content creators to be educated lawyers just to produce a song or book is the same thing as prohibiting it. Its an Air tax.
The statutory fines for criminal copyright infringement are life destroying events. Its like throwing kids into the gutter to starve to death. (For real. Think I'm kidding?) In exchange for this tax/fine/fee on sharing culture we get walnut tables for the lawyers and corporate special interest groups. The artist has and never see a dime of this kind of blood money. (and sometimes might not want to either)
Where is the worn out rally cry “for the kids” when it comes to saving them from copyright law? Copyright is like toxic waste being slipped into every book, video, song on radio, TV broadcast, etc. (etcetera dose not seem to cover all the potential ways this invades our lives, culture and society.)
It poisons the very ability to record important events (be it a video of a child's first step,a TV news broadcast on a show exhibiting what we think is wisdom or knowledge or humor) in our lives let alone sharing them with others.
The vultures of law are circling and they smell cash settlements without any judge or jury. A bureaucratic lawyer's dream. It even seems that copyright law is being waged as a tax collected by lawyers. Its so profitable that it would be normal to expect criminal organized crime to set up a honey pot to pry money off any that even look.
If drugs can be sold for profit on the street then lawyer baited honey pots will exist. Copyright is like a monetary drug for lawyers with a 100% addiction rate and sometimes legal suicide. (and the big heavy Prendaa question is... did they do it?) 'Zombie Lawyers' seems to convey the idea nicely.
There are probably more reasons to get rid of copyright altogether than for keeping it. The laws wrapped around its corrupt central ideas are just to much to revise individually. The phrase eternal copyright is apt and justified since none of us will live long enough to use any of what we see/read/watch (learn?) in our lives.
An direct tax on the culture of knowledge and learning itself. The core idea that copyright is flawed. Forcing content creators to be educated lawyers just to produce a song or book is the same thing as prohibiting it.
Reactionary;
There are other problems like when courts are used by rich corporations as weapons to intimidate. It would not bother anyone if a few law firms closed because of better written legislation (including tax law).
A good example of a good example. Shows style and humility. A man of some substance.
Stuff like that (forgot to turn off cell phone) just happens even in dire situations like a courtroom. The fine even sounds reasonable.
Hmmm. Fine sounds reasonable... (don't get me goin now.)
This once and a while phone ringing occurrence normally happens when we rely on cell phone gadgets so much. They are everywhere and ubiquitous to everyday life. Similarly we have copy machines everywhere in our lives and sure enough every once and a while we photocopy a picture or two and post them on a bulletin board somewhere else. If you don't then your kids will.
In real life what would be the maximum a judge could do to errant distractions? A few hundred dollars and confiscation of the phone for a while?
Lets compare the $25 serious contempt of court fine for a cell phone ringing in the courtroom to the potential statutory fines of 150,000 for copyright criminal violations. Why the discrepancy? Seems way out of line even to put into writing such a ridiculous amount.
So turn on the cellphones in the courtrooms but lock up that dangerous copy machine its a vice more dangerous than a Gutenberg press with the inquisition hunting you down. (for printing Bibles no less.)
(Most of this is an echo of previous posts. A good read!)
If any corporation sends 200 execs to any event it will be for profit. There is no other reason thats explainable. IBM seems to be acting as an, or in behalf of a, special interest group for reasons that can only be for corporate gain. Please argue with me, tell me am wrong.
These people profit on providing software solutions that harvest data. Who cares, on the level of corporate profit, for constitutional privacy concerns. What forced costly updates to IBM systems would be required to satisfy new government rules for data taking.
Privacy? Personal life and security? Who cares? Not IBM that seems for sure.
wrote this in another post but its kind of definitive;
"We consider under Fair Use Rights the ability to quote from one source for use in a work of our own. Actually using the words, whether in or out of context, is normal and done all the time. So how is using a clip of some song, speaker, video or whatever new communication method any different? Why does Fair Use Rights not cover that? When we create an essay, video or song using a clip/quote from some other source why is that a problem as long as the source is (listed) in the bibliography."
So why cant we just consider sampling like any other Fair Use Rights usage? Since any subjective analysis is complex and often arbitrarily applied.
Its nice to see some effort to make some improvements on the outlandish current copyright laws. Since it does not mention term reduction its only a half hearted effort although the mention of remixing was probably a good thing. If they wanted to list all the problems of present copyright law it would take several pages.
The proposal is vacuous in that it does not say much (with the exception of remixing). Its possibly a ranging argument for some measure of public dissatisfaction with copyright. Its not a fair question since to the average citizen copyright law is rocket science.
As for remixing if the term limits on copyright were reasonable (well under the lifespan of the audience who cares about the author.) like 14 to 28 years (the original copyblight terms) there would be NO PROBLEM whatsoever. The problem is not trying to come up with some complicated legal rational for one specific way of creation based on existing works but one of allowing the use of OLD works in new ways. (and if not this then toss out IP laws in whole. Trash them.)
More on remixing; We consider under Fair Use Rights the ability to quote from one source for use in a work of our own. Actually using the words, whether in or out of context, is normal and done all the time. So how is using a clip of some song, speaker, video or whatever new communication method any different? Why does Fair Use Rights not cover that? When we create an essay, video or song using a clip/quote from some other source why is that a problem as long as the source is (listed) in the bibliography.
Most anytime when we hear of reform (recasting is new but same story) in Washington its just the opposite. Since when has ANY bill/act/legislation actually did what the title indicated? Forgoing the usual special interest influence remarks; It IS the job of legislators to make sure legislation DOES what it is intended/promised. This IS, at the most basic level, what they are voted into office for. Yes it would probably be a good thing to deny pensions to any who voted for bills that were misnamed.
Current copyright has become a criminal nightmare for kids and parents alike benefiting nobody not event the copyright holder since parents will not purchase anything thats risky even if the kids whine and scream. To bad for everyone even tax collectors. Current media sales have been increasing but for how long and who will media firms blame but everyone else. Think the trash talk about piracy (the wrong word) is bad now? Ha!
Since copyrighted material involves knowledge, wisdom and ideas (SUPPOSED to be constitutionally protected) there can be no way current law makes sense. Putting barriers legal or otherwise in place to prevent average citizens from learning what they can by using every (refrigerator example) way and by whatever (let buy a refrigerator and bypass the ice man and ice storage hassles) methods.
Does the Internet and computers bypass several industries? Yes. Do I care? No! Although I do sympathize there is nothing to be done about it. It would be better to argue for tax reduction because machines may take over all human tasks.
Innovation and technology are famous for providing corporations, firms and companies with increased profits by reducing cost. Individuals, familys, kids and friends want the same benefits and should refuse to accept legal intervention by legacy media (ice delivery sales) industries. Why do we have to defend the constitution? (Alright, thats stupid; we have to defend it every day.)
Not addressed also are the cultural losses that eternal copyright terms exact upon society. The term 'chilling effect' sums up the current creative environment.
In short; Who wrote this proposal for copyright 'recasting'? Its sweet that it covers remixing and an old rehash of resale rights (which should be not a problem in the first place.) It covers none of the important cultural, societal and present (ridiculous) legal problems with current copyright (wrong) law/legislation. It did not mention expansion of Public Domain Rights both in quantity or usage rights either.
Otherwise its a good faith effort that deserves some support. That is if it does not give the president any wrong ideas bout copyright reduction (both in laws and term length).
Reactionary;
Note; some of the remixing ideas were derived from reading comments. Thanks.
The fanfic, fanart and fan games comments were inspiring. It would be cool if Fair Use Rights covered the creation of fan works that would piss off the original author. (not a joke) Creation in ways not thought of, or approved, by the original author is expected. Free expression at its best.
To boldly say what needs to be said; if even ONE PIXEL is changed that is enough to for an original works rights claim (copymite, right)
Artwork digital recovery; through scanning (for whatever reason like preservation/backing up or whatever) several artifacts are unavoidable incurred. An artist may take it upon themselves to “clean up” the scan with an image editor like GIMP. (open sourced quality editor) Its conceivable that a lazy artist would only see one pixel that needs to be erased/changed/modified.
Artistic talent; Comedy/Humor/art-vision. Installing/removal parts of and manipulation of an image for whatever reasons is normal. Its at least conceivable that while working on an tiny blog avatar that a single pixel will change significantly the images character.
Evil Intent; (attempt at dark humor); Got something to hide? Edit the data. Remove or change a photo (like Iran's mythical jet fighters) for propaganda. Just adding or removing one incriminating or misleading pixel gives an whole new visual perspective ripe for exploitation.
Whether or not an original artist gives permission to publish any of their works is irrelevant to the issue of a new copyright of which the new copyright has complete control of the distribution rights pertaining to the style and character of the revision (only) on the original work.
Interestingly enough the changes (easily electronically sorted out from the original copyrighted work) may be published without any violation and later recombined/overlapped with the original artwork later on. (am on to something here its got to be a patentable idea.)
Since on the digital level the change of even one tiny single supposedly insignificant pixel can be exactly identifies and labeled as unique it constitutes original work thus copyright-able however silly or pointless it seems. At the digital level its nonsense to use comparisons to analog legal considerations. (lots to expand/expound upon here)
All claims of the original artist that any of their works is a modification or their work is irrelevant. Only charges of publication in violation of Free Use Rights are valid.
Ah. we start to get down to the real problems with a non judicially reviewed, guilty by insinuation, DMCA take-down policy. A healthy culture of research governed by peer review is being threatened. There are very real privacy concerns and liability issues when anyone is prevented from examining thoroughly what, how and why a computer works.
Its so normal to look under the hood/case/service-panel/cover/etc and kick the tires or probe the connections of any new piece of equipment. And when the warranty wears off you start to tinker with it because... why not? Break it, take it apart, decompile it, reprogram it, test the security. All this is normal operations just to learn how to maintenance/repair/update such equipment/programs.
We test and retest security because all need to know such stability/reliability/vulnerableness in a verifiable way. Thats right there is NO other way to find these things out. There are unalienable basic rights to be able to examining what is running on your computer that cannot be waived by some stupid TOS or EULA. Argue with me.
Do you or do you not own and operate the equipment and accept full responsibility for its actions? Certainly the manufacture has put clauses that stipulate you are liable, and that they are not liable, for anything.
To be honest there should be no exemption required for the right to KNOW what level security is being offered or to KNOW exactly what programs are running on a machine. To stick a constitutional feather up a nose or two there are things that cannot be legislated and poking about for better security is one of them.
If you purchase a lock from the hardware store you have an right to test its viability/reliability. No difference with research, computers, programs or whatever. Its always buyer beware. If congress tries to prevent users from looking in the horses mouth before and after purchase then its like putting into law that we could not doubt a used car salesperson or look under the hood just to see if the engine was there.
The DCMA (and the CFAA btw) are absurd pieces of legislation with no (currently) hope of improving and current estimates on congressional wisdom points toward them getting worse.. The only piece know to be worth its ink is the section 230 content exemption and that is almost worthless without expanding its scope and upping the hold harmless statements.
Havent even started to blast the chilling effects of such legislative nonsense. BURRRRRRrrr! Makes the cold war seem warm and fuzzy.
The weirdness of bureaucracy always gets me. There are four important complications; taxing thus limiting social activities like dancing and also incursions on the right to assemble. Also the health of citizens would suffer if they could not dance/exercise at normal social gathering places. Then also the philosophical implications of a tax on fun? (and these are aside the normal special interst political-motivation taxing issues.)
Dance is firmly entrenched in our societies culture. Its a normal human social group activity that enhances participants feelings of individual specialness while fitting in with grace and elegance within that group. One can easily say it enhances life and facilitates social group cohesiveness. A valuable social development tool dancing is.
In such light why would any sane bureaucracy tax that? There is no social/societal/cultural/public benefit to it whatsoever. (using the slash notation condenses 4 sentences into one) Taxing at the expense of society is a cultural crime as it robs both the individual and social group of valuable needed interactions.
A tax on a specific activities performed at a social event is an easy way to limit/control/monitor such activities? Why was dancing singled out as bad? Just by levying a tax on something makes it a bad thing to be avoided especially in hard economic times. Its normal human behavior 101.
Another point is freedom of assembly. The right to gather and behave in any way we feel like and not be interrupted by taxing bodies, music police, performance laws, port-a-potty count or whatever. Worse would be if any of these are contrived reasons to prevent citizens from assembling to discuss whatever important topic and interact (dance, sing, act-out, etc) in the way they choose or pick to be valuable for the social occasion it is.
Here we have a society thats beginning to prohibit any assembly of people at all. When people get together whether at home or at a bar/banquette-hall/disco-bar/classical-dance-floor/foot-stomping-western-bar/etc they will do what they want and that should be 100% totally fine WITHOUT PENALTY!
Freedom of assembly is a constitutional issue that has been neglected in favor of 'gang' laws that prohibit gatherings of any kind or use of language of choice. (outlawing hand signals sometimes called signs) Which is silly cuz even chess/math/bio-chem/etc clubs/fraternities sometimes have a secret handshake or recognition sign. Its a kind of class warfare unfairly waged.
Really. Its a tax on shaking your body. How flipped out it that? It was mentioned thats its legislative inheritance was based on a tax of Jazzersize... Why would any city, state or whatever governing body make it more expensive to get healthy. Call me cynical but its more likely the local/state health club special interest group most likely felt threatened by the newer Jazzersize clubs slipping onto their imaginary turf.
Dancing is a healty normal human function and taxing it is insane. Is it any wonder the weight of the aveage American has been increasing? Nope. If even normal human activity is taxed people and business will just either not do it or make it impossible.
Fines of “thousands of dollars” are not small even to large clubs and frequently they just close down. Decreasing tax revenue while increasing fines is economically stupid. How can the bureaucracy hold the club owners liable for activities that are natural and clients just do it spontaneously for fun and enjoyment.
Along that line of thinking; Wouldn't the “dance tax” be an enjoyment tax. That would be the opposite of a vice tax? (cigarettes, booze) On so many levels this kind of government behavior is unhealthy for a happy social society. Did the state legislature actually think this over before voting? Just how strong is the local special interest groups (MS?) What way can they defend against the accusation that this is a tax on society and culture itself?
Wasn't there supposed to be some phrasing like “shall make no laws pertaining to” something like that? Dance is an integral part of some religions (Native American Indians is good example) so laws like this can have even more cultural damage.
OK time to eat some crow but not without some seasoning.
After reading up on Pawluck a bit it may be that some complications exist. The reasons why are arguable though as no convictions exist. Its common (like in many so called civilized countries) to arrest student protesters lately in Montreal and citizen moral may be at its lowest point.
Lets look at how a typical police department handles or mishandles such a case where a citizen seems disappointed with current police services.
Instead of sending out a counselor to console and help tell the disgruntled citizen that the message they were sending scared the willies out of the home office they arrested her. A lesson on presenting figurative arguments might have been a great subject to discuss. (Better yet it should would be a great grade school subject.)
What kind of escalation of violence and taking of ones freedom is that? Arresting someone and locking them up in an interrogation room and bullying them for hours (sometimes continuously for days its happened before) is no way to encourage happy citizenry.
However all the psych stuff said in the above post still applies. (Interesting, ain't it?) The root problem of constant internal stress derived from 24/7 duty is a universal problem.
Like many current government (societal also its not just government) problems these days we have another broken system. Lack of respect for the average citizen derived from a lack of respect for the required down time an officer (absolutely has to have) needs to preserve sanity and keep paranoia from entering normal life and on the job performance. (Thus proposed laws and procedures.)
Realizing; This is more than the obvious and it takes a bit of knowledge to understand the consequences of stress but such is the professional level anyone would expect from a highly paid police chief or government administrator.
On the post: Leading Italian Film Producer Calls For $16 Billion Lawsuit Against Italian State For Alleged Inaction Against Piracy
So where is the lawsuit due to the obvious piracy of individual freedoms? The trillions in damages due to outright legislative theft of Public Domain Rights? The billions in damages when Fair Use Rights are rendered nonexistent by indiscriminate lawsuits or untoward legislation? The untold cauterizing of culture when copymight has been criminalizing everyday normal life?
What industry responsibility is incurred when even healthy culture and society itself are victims of monopolistic intent? Where will the bill be sent when even technology and innovation suffer from when basic communications are cut off sabotaging collaborations/sources that are the driving force behind such efforts.
So where is the lawsuit directly paying people who share these works and directly producing new sales due to such public popularity? (several great examples exist. King of Thrones comes to mind.)
Thats right; Send the invoice/lawsuits/bill to EMI. (and don't forget to dump copyright for something with better terms.)
If EMI shriveled and died a horrible free market death/bankruptcy as a firm who would care? In some minds there might be cheering but its still a sad fact that the average citizen is unaware of the criminal liabilities of everyday copyright law.
Sounds more like a publicity stunt. Considering the outrageous amounts asked for its likely more Hollywood accounting manipulation. If the anti-tobacco groups were unable to sue government for cigarettes then this will have no judicial merit either.
-wank, wank- (SFX for several, blood vessel popping, rants at once)
On the post: Bob Goodlatte Receives Most Awkward Serenade Ever With Pro-Copyright Song
Since this clumsy effort seems directly sponsored by actual eternal copywrong lobbyists its almost guaranteed to be industry monopolistic propaganda. Its unlikely that they are there for grassroots support. Why were they chosen even if the method of delivery was clumbsy and even the content might be considered takcy? This is all they have.
“,who are on the Hill as the Grammys,” Seems like RIAA activity to me.
Yes thats right the eternal copyright proponents have organizations like the RIAA, MPAA and more local groups like “the Southwest Virginia Songwriters Association” producing questionable material/literature/studies/reviews/whatever-works to justify a burgeoning monopoly. Another good example of bad examples.
Anyone might be normally embarrassed when others sing of good deeds and Nobel attributes. But. How would anyone feel when they are the serenade about a subject of likely monopolistic intent? Being complimented with song by a government granted monopoly support group is should not be considered a compliment.
Reactionary;
Jay broaches upon the apparent cluelesness of the SVSA. Its kind of normal that the average citizen knows nothing about copyright and its newly criminal consequences. Even songwriters and singers.
Vmax. Good point but might include also elevator music and of course Muzak.
Muzak; Is normal music but with positive suggestive cues, inserted and adsorbed while normally listening while shopping, of subliminal anti-theft messages. Makes one wonder if the above serenade had pro-copyright subliminal content? Who knows. Considering the likely questionable source it may be a worry.
On the post: MPAA Tells US Government To Screw Over The Blind, Reject Fair Use
It sure didn't take long for more evidence of two faced-ness activity to appear. For anyone actually paying attention (not Washington thats for sure) its a ROFL hilariously funny thing. Its beyond funny that any supposedly serious legislator could (in real life) even consider a shred of credibility to any organization that behaved as such.
The MPAA seems so selfish and hellbent on perusing their own monopolistic goals that nothing apparently stands in their way. Not the constitution. Not the lives and wellbeing of the consumers that sometimes enjoy the products of their members. Not any sort of fair political process. And. Certainly not the law as criminalizing daily activities like sharing culture/news/music/books/gossip is even more insane than the war on drugs.
Have said this before but their business model seems more like a criminal organization complete with shady political contributions, suspicious court cases, misrepresentation of evidence, misrepresentation of facts, obscuring even their own historical deeds, etc, etc, etc. Its hard to find any integrity or backbone of decentness in any of their activities/sponsorship/law-suits/etc.
Name one thing from eternal copyright (and the criminal bastardization of such) that anyone could defend in terms of cultural growth and society's benefit? (this is a trick question. If one wants to answer it they would have to read up on why we as a people read, watch TV and communicate with each other.)
-fuming- -toss another 2 page rant-
So now the MPAA wants to step on the Blind's access to culture, knowledge, news, literature and even entertainment? If ever there was a more vulnerable social group it would be hard to find. Here is a group that has totally invested into just surviving in a world that is not built for them.
Laws are supposed to fit society. If this is not true then people get jailed or fined for just living and breathing. If this is not true it makes a mockery of the legal system and breeds little respect and mostly contempt.
Any legislator or potential elected candidate should be asked the question “do you feel that laws should reflect society or that laws are to be used as a way to change society?” The average citizen might not care less if phrased so politely but putting it another way it means; You will be jailed and or fined heavily for behavior your local government deems bad for its (ill?)legally enforced vision of society.
The key words might be “government vision for society” which should send shivers down anyone with a backbone. For anyone with democratic sense its always a bad sign when government has ANY opinion at all.
“it's so bad that even some US negotiators find the MPAA's actions unseemly. ” There is hope kindling under the plentiful logs of flammable nonsense left behind by eternal copyright special interest groups.
Since its obvious that the MPAA's credibility is questionable; Is this just a smokescreen for other more vicarious actions? It might just be a judicial time waster to allow more freedom to do other more culturally damaging crimes on a developing society?
To a culturally diminished way of thinking it might make sense. Just challenging the basic Fair Use Rights for the Blind might just be like playing ball. Keep the ball in your control. Always challenge and damage the oppositions territory in a slash and burn way. Take all that you can and damn the consequence. This is basic adversarial technique used in war.
War is ugly beyond belief. A terror that US citizens have been spared and know nearly nothing about. Killing, without remorse... -pukes-
In a most basic monopolistic war mentality; Who cares about advancing technology and innovation developed through culture that thrives on sharing information in various formats (paper/MP3/mkv/avi/pdf/etc). While slashing and burning culture who cares about the advancement of our society itself? We kill off our own opportunities when monopolies take over.
Disclaimer: have cared for an 'almost' totally blind person and can verify just how vulnerable a group this is. For the MPAA to to attack mercilessly this unwilling social group of life's cruel circumstance is beyond anyones imagination of justice?
On the post: MPAA Pretends To Be A Regular Defender Of Fair Use; The Evidence Suggests Otherwise
It always bugs me when an obviously disreputable special interest group somehow keeps making preposterous claims that nobody would believe if known history was checked. Its funny (skewed humor) that the MPAA publishes its own edited history. As if anything they wrote/said/did would EVER support Fair Use Rights.
MPAA (or RIAA or other copyloon (right) organization) In favor of Fair Use Rights? This has got to be propaganda at its worst/best! There has got to be some angle going on here that is not obvious. Since at other times they totally denied that Fair Use Rights did not exist how do they get off on claiming to defend it? This smacks of being two faced.
If the MPAA is in favor of Fair Use Rights then are they going to take it to task and enforce this upon their own members? What sort of hypocritical application of Fair Use Rights are they proposing anyway? (agreement) It certainly dose not mean Fair Use Rights used by others but most likely they mean Fair Use Rights for themselves. The cynicism cup runeth over.
This seems to be more of the two faced behavior one would expect from a likely corrupt special interest group. In what way does the MPAA contribute to Public Domain Rights? With eternal copymight (right) that would be never.
This recent claim they back Fair Use Rights seems hollow and flat out unbelievable. In what way does the MPAA contribute to good culture that lives and breaths the sharing of ideas/innovation/knoledge in various media formats? Can they explain how they benefit society in any way?
The expected ridiculous copyright abuses from groups like MPAA and RIAA can be summed up as antics. The behavior is so obviously bad its impossible to believe that any court or legislation discussion would even look at an opinion/study/research/literature produced by them. Just accepting this 'amicus breif' by any court would detract from such courts reliability and drop their 'good standing' a notch or two.
The MPAA and RIAA might be best evaluated on the same level as some Westburogh FL church as they are quite radical and zealous in pursuit of eternal copytight (right). Their business model seems more like an organized crime plan for eliminating any and all use of media even their own. (copyright is more akin to toxic waste contamination and your copy machine or computer are more dangerous than a bag of M80's or even a gun.)
All this nonsense is just another reason to abolish copyright altogether. Something else would be better for sure. Anything with reasonable term limits and no criminalized enforcement.
On the post: Police In Japan Are Asking ISPs To Start Blocking Tor
How will anyone bring down dictators or corrupt politicians? TOR is a valuable international tool for peace oriented organizations to survive in hostile dictator/tyrant/communist environments. If this is successful its likely people will die.
Is this just another symptom of law enforcement laziness? Asking ISP's to do the dirty work of suppressing free speech is a method used in communist countries. What authority does Japans NPA have to issue such a deceleration?
What dangerous precedent is being laid here? If the ISP's cave into this then next they will find themselves responsible for it as well as more and more 'requests' are added.
Don't let Japans MPAA or RIAA hear of this or they will 'ask' for the same thing but for their own selfish purposes. Talk about huge mistakes it would be really stupid for any ISP to allow such. It would be a huge expensive mistake. (just look how much google invests in verifying DCMA take-down notices.)
Would complain more but it would sound hypocritical with the US govmt now trying to pass CISPA the end all of end all spying acts. Up next is the govmt bathroom cam with smell sensor. (and it will be a crime if it stinks too much.)
On the post: 'Intellectual Bulwark' Of Austerity Economics Collapses Because Of Three Major Errors
Some might comment on math but math in itself is a variable as it depends on how its applied. Its not how one calculates what a nation has done but what they have done. Since Washington seems to take Hollywood accounting practices to heart its hard to even use their numbers/analysis. More simply put; Where does a nation place its investment?
Economic math goes both ways. When ignoring any significant factors it always proves the limited claims. (argue with me) What is significant is the source of the analysis. Special interest industry group analysis should be mostly ignored for obvious reasons.
GDP is sometimes labeled a measure of Standard of Living which is a gross misunderstanding or misuse of words. Since it is not by any reason a measure of where investments/spending are placed it really tells us nothing. Its only a measure of spending.
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)
Note that Debt is not included in GDP. Just spending. It does not even suggest where government gets it spending money. Taxes are ignored also. The investment portion only includes capitol equipment so don't confuse it with loans or such.
Debt is a measure of investment. Profit is a measure of successful investment. Incurring debt is a winning strategy only when the investment pays off.
What do you think is profitable? A sock? A bond? Gold? US dollars? Euro? Japan yen? Bitcoins? Whatever? Place your bet. Many an investor have won or lost regardless of whether they have a seat on the sock exchange. For many a looser there is a winner.
For an example of a good national investment:
At one time the United States invested in the questionable return of the Moon Landing goal by way of NASA. A GREAT Investment. (capitalized for the reason its impossible to criticize success amidst impossible odds.) NASA (for the moon landing) is an exception. Please use this as an example of greatness. (Can anyone do better than this, consider it a challenge!)
The Panama Canal was a good investment. The Hoover Dam was a good investment. The interstate highway system was a good investment. The WWW was a great investment.
What constituents a bad investment:
The stimulus plan of Bush jr to just give our cash was an investment in available spending amounts for the individual. There was no specific investment. No bridge or highway (to nowhere?) that the public might use. It had only one thing going for it; nobody would refuse money being sent to them.
The drug war is a good example of a bad investment. It benefits no one. Creates armed gangs in every city. Destroys the lives of every arrestee for mere possession/use. It decreases GDP by removing productive normal citizens from the economy. (prison) It increases government expenses through incarceration. (prison expenses ironically increases GDP so its not by any means a real measure of standard of living) Needlessly increases the risk to law enforcement personnel. Decreases the trust in law enforcement in general. Any time anyone said “its for your own good” during a drug arrest its just a flat our lie. Jail NEVER helps ANYONE.
Criminalization of copyright is a bad investment that will decrease GDP by ruining lives with jail and excessive fines. (That will reduce available spending cash thus standard of living.)
Save the jail cells for bankers who falsified loan documents just to foreclose on homes.
When a nation is concerned, its best to provide investment that involves its own people. The citizens are central to successful achievements which will (sometimes) provide profit. Innovation? Technology? All come from citizens (even if they do it at work) and without willing development of new ideas we have nothing. Investment is not always in the form of a loan.
Heathcare, under such light, would be a vast improvement over wasting money on bank executive bonuses. Longer healthier more productive lives is an investment that does have some profitable return measured positively in GDP.
How does a nation invest in its people? Libraries are good but reducing or replacing copyright might provide more access than a ten thousand libraries. Investment is not only in cash but often in freedoms and rights for its citizens.
Its ALWAYAS a question of where to place investment! ALWAYS! On any level.
For a government; Faith is not a religious statement. Its an investment of the greatness that can be achieved through believing in its own citizens.
Austerity is an illusion (almost, as wasting cash is always dumb. Remember the NASA profit example.); Where a nation places its monetary investment is of the utmost importance!
Place your bet. The roulette table spins as we speak... (no clue).
What is important: A mature culturally advanced (we share information in various formats) society that invests in itself. Prodigious development of technology/innovation is a feature of such an advanced culture. Grow with it. Or perish. As all civilizations do when they become irrelevant.
On the post: Why Public Interest Trumps Trade Secrecy
Agreement that disclosure of basically everything is required before any hearings can proceed. The should just toss out the case/proposal. If they don't want to talk about it then fine but please go away and don't ask for anything.
If anyone wants a license or permit then please submit detailed operations and environmental impact studies. There have been a lot of complaints about fracking so something must be bad about it. Its normal to want to know more with research about it.
On the post: Major Media's Fine Job Of Confusing Everyone About Boston Suspects
In this day of Internet access our best news sources might be from the witnesses themselves. These first hand accounts are the best and worst information sources. What was in any public Boston area blogs?
Its good that we can have first hand accounts of events (tragic or good) can be read almost instantaneously along with pictures and videos. Reddit seems like its more reliable than the evening news or morning newspapers.
Its not uncommon that witnesses just aren't paying attention until after the fact/event/occurrence. They are busy doing their own things and not looking. Its hard to be a good witness and many people cant ever remember if a stoplight was red, green and even mix up the progression of vehicles. Such is the quality of eyewitnesses.
Androgynous Cowherd's comment of “Random kooks” kind of fits another social phenomena thats hard to pin down.
Its also hard to estimate what effects a perpetrator's lies will have. How good their alibi stands and story sound. Especially if the suspect has enough money to defend themselves.
On the post: Authors Guild Shuts Itself Off From Public Criticism, As People Realize It Represents Publishers, Not Authors
“Amazon is in the consolidating rapid-growth stage” Correct IMHO! What other on-line firm has this same vision and growth potential? Few if none! In a way they deserve profits from their insight and investment. In other ways its pointless to stop competitors from entering same marketplace.
“Wal-Mart of publishing” Very insightful. Furthermore your comment on economic advantage (of such) is good. Monopolies are bad. Stomp on them.
“an era without DOJ anti-trust enforcement” Yes. The DoJ has absconded from its obvious judiciary duties of removing monopoly from consumer worry. Historically this is normal (read as judicial ignorance/corruption?) in that every 40-50 years the public intervenes with reason and constitutionality.
“it'll be the most tightly controlling monopoly yet seen.” Of which I quote (from the Humphrey Bogart movie Key Largo);
Johnny Rocco (a famous fictional Chicago mobster, in a movie, with Humphrey Bogart as Frank McCloud and crew weathering out a hurricane on Key Largo) speaks;
(Quote)
“I bet you two or three years, we get Prohibition back. This time we make it stick.,”
“The trouble was, before,... too many guys wanted to be top dog.”
“That was the trouble. One mob gets to massacring another. The papers play it up” big. Big, see?”
-”So what happens? -So what?”
“The papers play it up big, and the public. . . . . .gets the idea that Prohibition's no good. That if they can get rid of it. . . .”
“Next time, it'll be different. We learned our lesson, all right. Next time, the mobs'll get together.”
(end of quote)
Corruption is always a legitimate worry and monopoly is a justifiable fear while conspiracy is a real economic horror. The rest might be conjecture.
On the post: Authors Guild Shuts Itself Off From Public Criticism, As People Realize It Represents Publishers, Not Authors
Ever look on the wall of your local family physician for the certificates of membership or letters denoting good standing within? Or how about the certificate wall of your family lawyer or tax consultant? Were you impressed? Its OK to be so, as at this level, its always impressive to see documentation of industry commitment and recognition.
But what do they really mean? And. More importantly. Is this any benefit to the average citizen? Why do these industry groups exist and what is the definition of a special interest group?
An industry (special interest group) is created to further fulfill the specific interests/needs/profit of that exact group only. Even at the expense of other marginal (what a laugh) concerns. One might just as well say they are formed to totally and ruthlessly carry out the selfish profit desires of its members at others (usually the client/customer) expense entirely. Even if anyone (without money) dies in the gutter on a filthy street thats often an acceptable loss for a 'successful' industry group run for only profit motives.
There are exceptions to this of course but its classic that almost all public and private groups are eventually hijacked for profit or idealized religious reasons as noble or misguided as they might be.
Because of our cultural infantile state (most likely hampered by copyright laws inhibiting a healthy sharing of ideas through various formats in an eternal way) the effective intelligence level of a special interest industry group never raises above that of a three year old. A baby only wants and needs with no consideration for its environment.
Be it an Association, Guild, Union, Council, Chamber, Brain-trust, organization or whatever its all the same in regards that they all act in favor of the members. Despite whatever is written in their bylaws its classic human social nature that this/almost-every group does not act in favor of a non member. Of all the current organizations it might be conservative to say that 98% of special interest groups act against the average citizen.
An example of a benevolent public organization might be the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) of which considering their current vision and standing should be viable for another 10 or so years. (after that its reevaluation time).
An example of a most likely hijacked public group might be MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) of which they seem hellbent on violating/trampling every constitutional value in pursuit of their seemingly religious like affair with Prohibitionist attitudes. (just an opinion)
$$$
OK. that was the build up for a brief discussion on the Authors Guild.
The comment “,Turow seems to be so focused on propping up the legacy publishers,” leads on to believe that the Authors Guild seems to be in the process of being hijacked by publishers. In what way does the author's book volume sales and the multiplicative effects of popularity (and ultimately profit either directly or from sequels, other works or whatever value can be added) benefit from price fixing?
The removal of public response to his blog post is the hilarious part. Think of it; A special interest group ignoring public opinion? Except in lip service does any industry organization care, except in terms of profit and prestige, for anyone else's opinion? ROFL! Its that funny!
Even more hilarious are the weak attempts to phrase/word such obvious industry orientated behavior that is not in favor of public opinion in terms that sound like they are in favor of public opinion. (it only sounds redundant)
The Authors Guild is acting like a classic special interest group. The three monkeys skit seems appropriate; Monkey see (hands over eyes), monkey hear (hands cover ears), monkey do (just sits there). Carry on business as usual. Nothing interesting here move along.
This childish behavior, placed under the light of adult real world concerns, would be quickly followed by a thorough intellectual spanking if not complete discrediting.
It seems that publisher contributions eclipse author membership fees so its hard to even justify the use of “Author” in this special interest groups name. (is this correct? Or is there corruption involved? Hard to tell but it does not look good from this viewpoint.) Although its normal for a special interest group to choose a name that is misleading when the group faces significant public criticism it hardly makes it nice or polite. In this case it seems like a special interest hijacking.
There are so many issues with copyright law being abused for whatever industry profit or bureaucratic information gathering rationalizations its hard to elaborate in this already wordy essay. (read some of my earlier posts or more of TechDirt in general)
The root of the problem is that there is a perception crisis, outside more informed forums like TD, about what the public thinks of such industry organizations and who or how they derive their profits (from).
Reactionary;
There is nothing 'conspiracy' about a rational analysis based on normal human behavior. Its the reverse thats possible when anyone/organization tries to dampen public discussion.
On the post: Government Has Already Fooled Us More Than Once On Privacy; History Belies How CISPA Will Be Used
So true. And. True for all humankind and every social institution/entity within. Implied might be the hope naturally infused when we depend on people elected to make these decisions in our behalf. Which all is so sweet and nice but possibly over hopeful in light of historical and political trends. (the last 40-50 years specifically)
CISPA's intent/design/core-beliefs seem based on a complete removal of democratic constitutional values. In addition the backers don't ever mention citizen privacy needs except in terms of reducing them for political and government agency bureaucratic needs. (read as constitutional laziness) Its an Act almost designed to ignore privacy in spite of the obvious constitutional flaws.
The 'war of words' phrase attempts to point out the shell game words can play hiding the actual written meaning and meaninglessness alike. (throw in a bunch of FUD or doublespeak as a steak-sauce for the horse meat so its hard to sort out the true beef.)
Think thats to harsh? Try reading some sales books that purport to be able to sell to anyone, anything even if they don't want or need, a proffered product.
Does anyone think that a high profile special interest group with overly paid ex-politicians as lobbyists don't train/coach them using BASIC adversarial sales techniques? These groups are paid to get results in spite of public resistance or opinion.
Its always a bad sign when legislation is enacted in spite of significant public protest. Note not mentioning corporate and government special interest groups. Business profit needs are always taken with salt and government bureaucratic inbreeding is always to be ignored.
So. What are our elected representatives going to do? History says they will be swayed by money and words (political pressure) that goes against common hope for constitutional reason and wisdom.
On the post: Andy Baio On The New Prohibition Created By Copyright
Copyright is a direct tax on the culture of knowledge and even on learning itself. The core idea of copyright is flawed. Forcing content creators to be educated lawyers just to produce a song or book is the same thing as prohibiting it. Its an Air tax.
The statutory fines for criminal copyright infringement are life destroying events. Its like throwing kids into the gutter to starve to death. (For real. Think I'm kidding?) In exchange for this tax/fine/fee on sharing culture we get walnut tables for the lawyers and corporate special interest groups. The artist has and never see a dime of this kind of blood money. (and sometimes might not want to either)
Where is the worn out rally cry “for the kids” when it comes to saving them from copyright law? Copyright is like toxic waste being slipped into every book, video, song on radio, TV broadcast, etc. (etcetera dose not seem to cover all the potential ways this invades our lives, culture and society.)
It poisons the very ability to record important events (be it a video of a child's first step,a TV news broadcast on a show exhibiting what we think is wisdom or knowledge or humor) in our lives let alone sharing them with others.
The vultures of law are circling and they smell cash settlements without any judge or jury. A bureaucratic lawyer's dream. It even seems that copyright law is being waged as a tax collected by lawyers. Its so profitable that it would be normal to expect criminal organized crime to set up a honey pot to pry money off any that even look.
If drugs can be sold for profit on the street then lawyer baited honey pots will exist. Copyright is like a monetary drug for lawyers with a 100% addiction rate and sometimes legal suicide. (and the big heavy Prendaa question is... did they do it?) 'Zombie Lawyers' seems to convey the idea nicely.
Just wrote a comparison on copyright law to the recent manly $25 fine Judge Raymond Voet gave to himself. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130415/17310922715/judge-finds-himself-contempt-court-when-his-n ew-smartphone-interrupts-closing-arguments.shtml#c593
There are probably more reasons to get rid of copyright altogether than for keeping it. The laws wrapped around its corrupt central ideas are just to much to revise individually. The phrase eternal copyright is apt and justified since none of us will live long enough to use any of what we see/read/watch (learn?) in our lives.
An direct tax on the culture of knowledge and learning itself. The core idea that copyright is flawed. Forcing content creators to be educated lawyers just to produce a song or book is the same thing as prohibiting it.
Reactionary;
There are other problems like when courts are used by rich corporations as weapons to intimidate. It would not bother anyone if a few law firms closed because of better written legislation (including tax law).
On the post: Judge Finds Himself In Contempt Of Court When His New Smartphone Interrupts Closing Arguments
Stuff like that (forgot to turn off cell phone) just happens even in dire situations like a courtroom. The fine even sounds reasonable.
Hmmm. Fine sounds reasonable... (don't get me goin now.)
This once and a while phone ringing occurrence normally happens when we rely on cell phone gadgets so much. They are everywhere and ubiquitous to everyday life. Similarly we have copy machines everywhere in our lives and sure enough every once and a while we photocopy a picture or two and post them on a bulletin board somewhere else. If you don't then your kids will.
In real life what would be the maximum a judge could do to errant distractions? A few hundred dollars and confiscation of the phone for a while?
Lets compare the $25 serious contempt of court fine for a cell phone ringing in the courtroom to the potential statutory fines of 150,000 for copyright criminal violations. Why the discrepancy? Seems way out of line even to put into writing such a ridiculous amount.
So turn on the cellphones in the courtrooms but lock up that dangerous copy machine its a vice more dangerous than a Gutenberg press with the inquisition hunting you down. (for printing Bibles no less.)
On the post: IBM Sends 200 Execs To Capitol Hill To Demand The Right To Send Your Private Info To The NSA
If any corporation sends 200 execs to any event it will be for profit. There is no other reason thats explainable. IBM seems to be acting as an, or in behalf of a, special interest group for reasons that can only be for corporate gain. Please argue with me, tell me am wrong.
These people profit on providing software solutions that harvest data. Who cares, on the level of corporate profit, for constitutional privacy concerns. What forced costly updates to IBM systems would be required to satisfy new government rules for data taking.
Privacy? Personal life and security? Who cares? Not IBM that seems for sure.
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
"We consider under Fair Use Rights the ability to quote from one source for use in a work of our own. Actually using the words, whether in or out of context, is normal and done all the time. So how is using a clip of some song, speaker, video or whatever new communication method any different? Why does Fair Use Rights not cover that? When we create an essay, video or song using a clip/quote from some other source why is that a problem as long as the source is (listed) in the bibliography."
So why cant we just consider sampling like any other Fair Use Rights usage? Since any subjective analysis is complex and often arbitrarily applied.
On the post: White House Petition Launched To 'Recast Copyright For The Digital Age'
The proposal is vacuous in that it does not say much (with the exception of remixing). Its possibly a ranging argument for some measure of public dissatisfaction with copyright. Its not a fair question since to the average citizen copyright law is rocket science.
As for remixing if the term limits on copyright were reasonable (well under the lifespan of the audience who cares about the author.) like 14 to 28 years (the original copyblight terms) there would be NO PROBLEM whatsoever. The problem is not trying to come up with some complicated legal rational for one specific way of creation based on existing works but one of allowing the use of OLD works in new ways. (and if not this then toss out IP laws in whole. Trash them.)
More on remixing; We consider under Fair Use Rights the ability to quote from one source for use in a work of our own. Actually using the words, whether in or out of context, is normal and done all the time. So how is using a clip of some song, speaker, video or whatever new communication method any different? Why does Fair Use Rights not cover that? When we create an essay, video or song using a clip/quote from some other source why is that a problem as long as the source is (listed) in the bibliography.
Most anytime when we hear of reform (recasting is new but same story) in Washington its just the opposite. Since when has ANY bill/act/legislation actually did what the title indicated? Forgoing the usual special interest influence remarks; It IS the job of legislators to make sure legislation DOES what it is intended/promised. This IS, at the most basic level, what they are voted into office for. Yes it would probably be a good thing to deny pensions to any who voted for bills that were misnamed.
Current copyright has become a criminal nightmare for kids and parents alike benefiting nobody not event the copyright holder since parents will not purchase anything thats risky even if the kids whine and scream. To bad for everyone even tax collectors. Current media sales have been increasing but for how long and who will media firms blame but everyone else. Think the trash talk about piracy (the wrong word) is bad now? Ha!
Since copyrighted material involves knowledge, wisdom and ideas (SUPPOSED to be constitutionally protected) there can be no way current law makes sense. Putting barriers legal or otherwise in place to prevent average citizens from learning what they can by using every (refrigerator example) way and by whatever (let buy a refrigerator and bypass the ice man and ice storage hassles) methods.
Does the Internet and computers bypass several industries? Yes. Do I care? No! Although I do sympathize there is nothing to be done about it. It would be better to argue for tax reduction because machines may take over all human tasks.
Innovation and technology are famous for providing corporations, firms and companies with increased profits by reducing cost. Individuals, familys, kids and friends want the same benefits and should refuse to accept legal intervention by legacy media (ice delivery sales) industries. Why do we have to defend the constitution? (Alright, thats stupid; we have to defend it every day.)
Not addressed also are the cultural losses that eternal copyright terms exact upon society. The term 'chilling effect' sums up the current creative environment.
In short; Who wrote this proposal for copyright 'recasting'? Its sweet that it covers remixing and an old rehash of resale rights (which should be not a problem in the first place.) It covers none of the important cultural, societal and present (ridiculous) legal problems with current copyright (wrong) law/legislation. It did not mention expansion of Public Domain Rights both in quantity or usage rights either.
Otherwise its a good faith effort that deserves some support. That is if it does not give the president any wrong ideas bout copyright reduction (both in laws and term length).
Reactionary;
Note; some of the remixing ideas were derived from reading comments. Thanks.
The fanfic, fanart and fan games comments were inspiring. It would be cool if Fair Use Rights covered the creation of fan works that would piss off the original author. (not a joke) Creation in ways not thought of, or approved, by the original author is expected. Free expression at its best.
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Artwork digital recovery; through scanning (for whatever reason like preservation/backing up or whatever) several artifacts are unavoidable incurred. An artist may take it upon themselves to “clean up” the scan with an image editor like GIMP. (open sourced quality editor) Its conceivable that a lazy artist would only see one pixel that needs to be erased/changed/modified.
Artistic talent; Comedy/Humor/art-vision. Installing/removal parts of and manipulation of an image for whatever reasons is normal. Its at least conceivable that while working on an tiny blog avatar that a single pixel will change significantly the images character.
Evil Intent; (attempt at dark humor); Got something to hide? Edit the data. Remove or change a photo (like Iran's mythical jet fighters) for propaganda. Just adding or removing one incriminating or misleading pixel gives an whole new visual perspective ripe for exploitation.
Whether or not an original artist gives permission to publish any of their works is irrelevant to the issue of a new copyright of which the new copyright has complete control of the distribution rights pertaining to the style and character of the revision (only) on the original work.
Interestingly enough the changes (easily electronically sorted out from the original copyrighted work) may be published without any violation and later recombined/overlapped with the original artwork later on. (am on to something here its got to be a patentable idea.)
Since on the digital level the change of even one tiny single supposedly insignificant pixel can be exactly identifies and labeled as unique it constitutes original work thus copyright-able however silly or pointless it seems. At the digital level its nonsense to use comparisons to analog legal considerations. (lots to expand/expound upon here)
All claims of the original artist that any of their works is a modification or their work is irrelevant. Only charges of publication in violation of Free Use Rights are valid.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Its so normal to look under the hood/case/service-panel/cover/etc and kick the tires or probe the connections of any new piece of equipment. And when the warranty wears off you start to tinker with it because... why not? Break it, take it apart, decompile it, reprogram it, test the security. All this is normal operations just to learn how to maintenance/repair/update such equipment/programs.
We test and retest security because all need to know such stability/reliability/vulnerableness in a verifiable way. Thats right there is NO other way to find these things out. There are unalienable basic rights to be able to examining what is running on your computer that cannot be waived by some stupid TOS or EULA. Argue with me.
Do you or do you not own and operate the equipment and accept full responsibility for its actions? Certainly the manufacture has put clauses that stipulate you are liable, and that they are not liable, for anything.
To be honest there should be no exemption required for the right to KNOW what level security is being offered or to KNOW exactly what programs are running on a machine. To stick a constitutional feather up a nose or two there are things that cannot be legislated and poking about for better security is one of them.
If you purchase a lock from the hardware store you have an right to test its viability/reliability. No difference with research, computers, programs or whatever. Its always buyer beware. If congress tries to prevent users from looking in the horses mouth before and after purchase then its like putting into law that we could not doubt a used car salesperson or look under the hood just to see if the engine was there.
The DCMA (and the CFAA btw) are absurd pieces of legislation with no (currently) hope of improving and current estimates on congressional wisdom points toward them getting worse.. The only piece know to be worth its ink is the section 230 content exemption and that is almost worthless without expanding its scope and upping the hold harmless statements.
Havent even started to blast the chilling effects of such legislative nonsense. BURRRRRRrrr! Makes the cold war seem warm and fuzzy.
On the post: Washington State Apparently Taxes Clubs For People Saying On Yelp That They Danced
Dance is firmly entrenched in our societies culture. Its a normal human social group activity that enhances participants feelings of individual specialness while fitting in with grace and elegance within that group. One can easily say it enhances life and facilitates social group cohesiveness. A valuable social development tool dancing is.
In such light why would any sane bureaucracy tax that? There is no social/societal/cultural/public benefit to it whatsoever. (using the slash notation condenses 4 sentences into one) Taxing at the expense of society is a cultural crime as it robs both the individual and social group of valuable needed interactions.
A tax on a specific activities performed at a social event is an easy way to limit/control/monitor such activities? Why was dancing singled out as bad? Just by levying a tax on something makes it a bad thing to be avoided especially in hard economic times. Its normal human behavior 101.
Another point is freedom of assembly. The right to gather and behave in any way we feel like and not be interrupted by taxing bodies, music police, performance laws, port-a-potty count or whatever. Worse would be if any of these are contrived reasons to prevent citizens from assembling to discuss whatever important topic and interact (dance, sing, act-out, etc) in the way they choose or pick to be valuable for the social occasion it is.
Here we have a society thats beginning to prohibit any assembly of people at all. When people get together whether at home or at a bar/banquette-hall/disco-bar/classical-dance-floor/foot-stomping-western-bar/etc they will do what they want and that should be 100% totally fine WITHOUT PENALTY!
Freedom of assembly is a constitutional issue that has been neglected in favor of 'gang' laws that prohibit gatherings of any kind or use of language of choice. (outlawing hand signals sometimes called signs) Which is silly cuz even chess/math/bio-chem/etc clubs/fraternities sometimes have a secret handshake or recognition sign. Its a kind of class warfare unfairly waged.
Really. Its a tax on shaking your body. How flipped out it that? It was mentioned thats its legislative inheritance was based on a tax of Jazzersize... Why would any city, state or whatever governing body make it more expensive to get healthy. Call me cynical but its more likely the local/state health club special interest group most likely felt threatened by the newer Jazzersize clubs slipping onto their imaginary turf.
Dancing is a healty normal human function and taxing it is insane. Is it any wonder the weight of the aveage American has been increasing? Nope. If even normal human activity is taxed people and business will just either not do it or make it impossible.
Fines of “thousands of dollars” are not small even to large clubs and frequently they just close down. Decreasing tax revenue while increasing fines is economically stupid. How can the bureaucracy hold the club owners liable for activities that are natural and clients just do it spontaneously for fun and enjoyment.
Along that line of thinking; Wouldn't the “dance tax” be an enjoyment tax. That would be the opposite of a vice tax? (cigarettes, booze) On so many levels this kind of government behavior is unhealthy for a happy social society. Did the state legislature actually think this over before voting? Just how strong is the local special interest groups (MS?) What way can they defend against the accusation that this is a tax on society and culture itself?
Wasn't there supposed to be some phrasing like “shall make no laws pertaining to” something like that? Dance is an integral part of some religions (Native American Indians is good example) so laws like this can have even more cultural damage.
-more ranting-
On the post: Montreal Student Arrested For Posting Photo Of Anti-Police Graffiti To Instagram
Re:
After reading up on Pawluck a bit it may be that some complications exist. The reasons why are arguable though as no convictions exist. Its common (like in many so called civilized countries) to arrest student protesters lately in Montreal and citizen moral may be at its lowest point.
Lets look at how a typical police department handles or mishandles such a case where a citizen seems disappointed with current police services.
Instead of sending out a counselor to console and help tell the disgruntled citizen that the message they were sending scared the willies out of the home office they arrested her. A lesson on presenting figurative arguments might have been a great subject to discuss. (Better yet it should would be a great grade school subject.)
What kind of escalation of violence and taking of ones freedom is that? Arresting someone and locking them up in an interrogation room and bullying them for hours (sometimes continuously for days its happened before) is no way to encourage happy citizenry.
However all the psych stuff said in the above post still applies. (Interesting, ain't it?) The root problem of constant internal stress derived from 24/7 duty is a universal problem.
Like many current government (societal also its not just government) problems these days we have another broken system. Lack of respect for the average citizen derived from a lack of respect for the required down time an officer (absolutely has to have) needs to preserve sanity and keep paranoia from entering normal life and on the job performance. (Thus proposed laws and procedures.)
Realizing; This is more than the obvious and it takes a bit of knowledge to understand the consequences of stress but such is the professional level anyone would expect from a highly paid police chief or government administrator.
Next >>