There have been various legal analogies posted here, but I feel that "linking to illegal content" is like running a TV ad for an illegal casino. There is clear intent to get people to go there and do something illegal.
To borrow (steal??) your analogy, it would be more akin to running an ad for a casino. Period. Some places casinos are illegal, but again, some places they are not. It's not your job to determine if the casino is legal.
Stepping away from the analogy, with more and more artists using torrents as a tool, often as a viral campaign, it's becoming harder and harder to tell what is authorized and what isn't. Hell, sometimes the company that authorized it can't tell. So, do you assume they are *all* illegal, or do you assume the opposite? You said yourself that it would require an "advanced legal processing" to know. You expect that from a fan who wants to spread the word about something he enjoys? Do we all need to be experts in IP law and talk to a judge before using the internet now?
While I'm sure there would be some technical hurdles at the beginning, are you suggesting that the hurdles are getting more and more difficult? Wired Magazine started at 100,000 copies and has, over 6 months, dropped to 23,000 copies. It is worth mentioning that Wired's core audience probably lines up well with people who own iPads. I was led to believe that the iPad version has the same data as the paper/online versions, so it's not like they're having to write extra stories.
The issue is this, I think: If I buy a song, it's because I intend to listen to it more than once. If I buy a book, it is because I intend to read it more than once. If I buy a movie, it is because I intend to watch it more than once. When I buy a magazine on a shelf, I spend money because I know that it costs money to get that magazine to the shelf for me, *not* because I intend to read it more than once. So, for a digital magazine, there is no distribution costs. In fact, because I need an internet connection, *I* have to pay to get it to me. So, why would I pay them to allow me to pay to get the digital magazine (that I'm only going to read once) to me? Hint: I'm not.
You friend was practicing a business model Mike has coined as "Give it away and pray". Many people on this site have said that this model is not a good one, obviously for the reasons you have stated.
However, using a non-scarce good to leverage the sale of something scarce, or to obtain something in return (including a good reputation, which is very valuable and scarce) is not the same as "give it away and pray". I don't believe Nina or Mike practice "give it away and pray".
The moral of the story is that your friend is probably a good person but a bad businessman. However, people who insist that new laws need to be made to protect their broken business model are bad people *and* bad businessmen. So your friend still wins, yes?
you're drunk, aren't you? Darryl has been all over Mike this week. Thank Science that google sent me a cr-48, or my mouse scroll wheel would be toast by now.
Just so we're on the same page here: you obviously don't think much of Nina's art, but you had no problem reading it because it was free. Would you pay to read her comics? Probably not.
Honestly, reading through the details makes me wonder if the conspiracy theory that some have put forth -- that Allen is doing this just to demonstrate how silly patents have become -- seems somewhat more plausible.
Here's how I imagine it went down. Allen has a research center with the goal of "inventing the future". Computer simulation after computer simulation all point the the same conclusion: The way IP laws are going, soon it will be impossible to invent *anything*, let alone "the future". Crestfallen, Allen closes up shop and sets his sights on destroying the system that will ruin the future. Since fighting it directly is nigh impossible, he decides to fight it by taking it to the extreme.
He's just following the Playbook of his masters. (You wouldn't steal a car, so don't download a song!) You can't blame someone without the capacity to think for himself for doing as he's told, you blame the people commanding him.
I'm with you though, they need to stop calling copyright infringement theft, it's just like forcibly raping a baby panda.
On the post: Would Twitter Be Liable For Links To Infringing Material?
Re: Different shades
To borrow (steal??) your analogy, it would be more akin to running an ad for a casino. Period. Some places casinos are illegal, but again, some places they are not. It's not your job to determine if the casino is legal.
Stepping away from the analogy, with more and more artists using torrents as a tool, often as a viral campaign, it's becoming harder and harder to tell what is authorized and what isn't. Hell, sometimes the company that authorized it can't tell. So, do you assume they are *all* illegal, or do you assume the opposite? You said yourself that it would require an "advanced legal processing" to know. You expect that from a fan who wants to spread the word about something he enjoys? Do we all need to be experts in IP law and talk to a judge before using the internet now?
On the post: As Expected, Court Tells AFP That Posting An Image On TwitPic Does Not Grant Anyone A License To Use It
Crowdsourced editing
on == no
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Its not considered private property..
Darryl: it's Australian for birth control.
On the post: As Predicted: iPad Magazine Subscriber Numbers Plummeting
Re: Thoughts on eMagazines
The issue is this, I think: If I buy a song, it's because I intend to listen to it more than once. If I buy a book, it is because I intend to read it more than once. If I buy a movie, it is because I intend to watch it more than once. When I buy a magazine on a shelf, I spend money because I know that it costs money to get that magazine to the shelf for me, *not* because I intend to read it more than once. So, for a digital magazine, there is no distribution costs. In fact, because I need an internet connection, *I* have to pay to get it to me. So, why would I pay them to allow me to pay to get the digital magazine (that I'm only going to read once) to me? Hint: I'm not.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Copyright on those cartoon characters ?? Iv'e seen them before !!
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, using a non-scarce good to leverage the sale of something scarce, or to obtain something in return (including a good reputation, which is very valuable and scarce) is not the same as "give it away and pray". I don't believe Nina or Mike practice "give it away and pray".
The moral of the story is that your friend is probably a good person but a bad businessman. However, people who insist that new laws need to be made to protect their broken business model are bad people *and* bad businessmen. So your friend still wins, yes?
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simply stunning.
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: so ... you poop for free?
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: so ... you poop for free?
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re:
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re:
Is every download a lost sale?
On the post: Exposing The False Sanctity Of 'Intellectual Property'
Re: Re:
On the post: Paul Allen Files Amended Patent Lawsuit; Shows It's Even More Ridiculous Than We Originally Thought
Re:
Well played.
On the post: Paul Allen Files Amended Patent Lawsuit; Shows It's Even More Ridiculous Than We Originally Thought
Traction
Here's how I imagine it went down. Allen has a research center with the goal of "inventing the future". Computer simulation after computer simulation all point the the same conclusion: The way IP laws are going, soon it will be impossible to invent *anything*, let alone "the future". Crestfallen, Allen closes up shop and sets his sights on destroying the system that will ruin the future. Since fighting it directly is nigh impossible, he decides to fight it by taking it to the extreme.
I like it. :)
On the post: Would Twitter Be Liable For Links To Infringing Material?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Links more generally
On the post: Permission Culture And The Automated Diminishment Of Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm with you though, they need to stop calling copyright infringement theft, it's just like forcibly raping a baby panda.
On the post: Permission Culture And The Automated Diminishment Of Fair Use
Re: We ARE a permission culture, and artists have freedom to create without theft.
Next >>