At the community college where I got my associate's degree, they're starting to take online courses seriously. They've always had online courses (mostly of the simple office-worker-skills variety), but now they're implementing free online courses as well.
This fall, they're actually offering the Python course from MIT's OpenCourseWare as an in-class course. The main materials will still be online, but they're also holding in-person classes (which are mostly labs). It's not free (it is cheap), but it counts as a 3-credit course, applicable to a CS/IT degree.
Obviously, this isn't perfect, and there are some kinks to work out. But the fact that the online courses (even free ones) are actually enabling these sorts of courses, is very good news. Especially for lower-income students.
Now, if only they weren't so beholden to Microsoft and the textbook publishers...
When original art is appropriated for cheap knockoffs, you seem to think that it somehow benefits the original artist who does not want his original work degraded.
Quick point. Copyright is not, and never was, meant to be any kind of protection against the work being "degraded."
That sort of thing is covered by libel and slander laws in the U.S. And it would be a total stretch to claim that most infringing works are "libelous" to the original artists.
You could argue that something like this applies to trademark laws - but those laws exist to protect consumers, not the "reputation" of the originators.
I didn't say the company would be operating in a third world country. I'm saying these upstarts would happily supply to third world countries.
You know, you don't even have to go this far to show that the A.C. is wrong. Producers can't increase prices arbitrarily, even in a perfectly monopolistic market.
Wiley (and other publishers) don't lower their prices is foreign markets out of the goodness of their hearts. Those prices are already at the maximum that they can set to maximize their marginal revenue. If those prices were higher, fewer people would buy them, and the loss in marginal revenue from sales would be greater than the gain made from the higher price.
If they increased the price of books in third-world countries to something even approaching the prices in the U.S., Wiley would price themselves out of the market entirely, even without any competition whatsoever.
So, they have two choices. They can either leave the third-world market entirely, or they can lower the price of books in the U.S. Since lower U.S. prices would still result in marginal revenue - even if not optimal for a monopolist - they stand to make much more money overall from that second option.
And that's not even considering competition. Not just from "upstarts," but from well-established first-world publishers. If Wiley chose to leave the market, or price themselves out of it, other publishers would do the math, take that second option, and make a killing. They'd outsell Wiley in the foreign market by default; and, due to their lower prices, they'd crush Wiley in the U.S. market as well.
As time passes, it seems like I've been right, and you've been wrong. Whenever I've made a prediction about any case that has been decided in court, I've been on the side of the law - and you haven't.
Perhaps you should demand a refund of the money you've been paying to your college. Just sayin'.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 4th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
He just wants Masnick to wipe the floor with his ass
I care not one whit about his floor-vs-ass fetishes. To each his own; even perverts need release.
But, dear A.C., please don't "release" all over our faces. Please limit your response (a.k.a. "substantive debate") to the subject matter at hand. (So to speak.)
Plonk. That's the sound of another one of your "ads on pirate sites don't pay" tropes hittin the toilet bowl.
For one thing, that has nothing to do with Amanda's TED talk. So, you're just being an idiotic troll.
Now, to feed you...
That site is run by Chris Castle. He's an entertainment industry lawyer, meaning he has a vested economic interest in claiming "piracy," especially against those with deep pockets.
That doesn't make his arguments wrong, but nowhere in that article does he say anything that approaches a substantive argument. It's just a few cherry-picked quotes, interspersed with a lot of snark. That in itself isn't bad, if there was anything to back up that snark - but there isn't. No data, no studies, no arguments about why the quotes are wrong. All interspersed with appeals to emotion (calling infringement "theft"), ad hominem attacks ("The usual Big Tech standard," "Google Shill Listers"), and so forth.
Even the "facts" he casually spits out are wrong. Example: "according to the Megavideo indictment, Kim Dotcom made his substantial millions in part from selling his advertising inventory through which ad networks? Google Adsense and Adbright." In fact, one of the key arguments in the government's claim that Mega is a pirate site, is the fact that Google cut off their ad funding in 2007, less than two years after Megaupload was even founded, and years before the investigation even began. After that, Megaupload ran its own internal ad network (MegaClick).
Put it all together, and you have a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Truly a tale told by an idiot.
The original jury decision concerning infringement has been upheld as to all Samsung products for which damages were awarded.
Indeed. The more interesting question is what happens now that two of the major patents, for which Samsung was found to be infringing, have since been invalidated by the Patent Office.
So she's a folk singer who thinks musicians should happily be paid in beer, hugs, and high fives.
That article (which is not the top result, BTW) is a hack piece. In fact, it doesn't appear to be anything other than Joshua Clover bitching about "the unpaid microlabor of providing content for Web sites." His version of Amanda Palmer is simply a straw man burned in effigy.
Some facts:
Amanda is not, and never was, a "folk singer." (Minor point, but still.)
The idea that Amanda left Roadrunner because "the familiar channels of label-funded 'artist development' have narrowed, and are now thick with pirates" is beyond ridiculous.
Amanda's back-up band, the Grand Theft Orchestra, was on salary, and got paid even when not on tour.
Amanda didn't "supposedly" spend the Kickstarter money on her album; she gave a very detailed account of where the money went.
Amanda asked for a couple of volunteers in each city to fill out the string and horn sections of her own back-up band. No tour commitments, no signing away any rights, just shoot an email and show up a couple hours before. She has done this, often, with her other projects, such as asking fans to show up to be crowd extras in her videos.
After the kerfuffle erupted, she emailed everyone who had until then agreed to do it, and asked if anyone would like to back out. Not a single one did.
Afterwards, she paid them anyway, out of money that would have gone into producing videos.
All of this info was available before Clover wrote the piece, but apparently he didn't care enough to do the research. Even the facts that he got right were only put there as a retraction.
It's not, and you know it. Seizures are generally done to prevent evidence from being moved or destroyed, not to destroy a business entirely based upon mere allegations. And they are usually done only when the moving party can show that lesser methods would be unsuccessful.
Yep. No doubt. So what?
So, they seized lots of material owned by innocent third parties that is not even allegedly involved in the "crime." Moreover, all of that material is protected by the First Amendment. That's a legal no-no.
This is completely unjust. This injustice far, far outweighs any damage to the public done by Megaupload, even if Megaupload is guilty. If the courts allow it, then the courts are unjust; and if you approve of it, then you are unjust.
Huh? What seizures done by the U.S. were illegal?
Justice Helen Winkelmann said the warrants used when more than 90 New Zealand officers stormed the Megaupload founder's home and other properties in January were too broadly cast, "lacking adequate specificity as to the offence".
"The search and seizure was therefore illegal," she ruled, adding that it was "clear that the police, in executing the warrants, have exceeded what they could lawfully be authorised to do."
I didn't specify that the seizures were "done by the U.S.," but there's no question that the U.S. government was behind the New Zealand raid. The raid was done at the request of the U.S. government, on warrants issued solely from evidence presented by the U.S. government, and was coordinated by the F.B.I. (they were even watching on a live feed).
The disaster of justice was caused by Dotcom et al. What you're seeing now is justice for his victims.
I know you like to appeal to emotion with words like "victims," but it just ain't so. Unless (and until) it can be shown that the complainants were actually harmed by the defendants, they're not victims.
And if the defendant did not harm the complainant, but is still punished or harmed by the court, then it is a "disaster of justice." If the defendant's punishment is out of proportion to the actual harm done, then it is a "disaster of justice." If government misconduct is allowed during the case, then it is a "disaster of justice" - even if the defendant is guilty.
In the first two cases, the defendant is a victim. In the last case, we are all victims.
Servers seized? Check.
Assets seized? Check.
Domain name seized? Check.
Indictment by grand jury? Check.
Principals arrested? Check.
Extradition in the works? Check.
Megaupload shut down? Check.
Done prior to a conviction? Check.
Done prior to the defendant even having a chance to defend himself? Check.
Seizures result in tons of legal material being taken out of circulation? Check.
Seizures later found to be illegal? Check.
Government calls for destruction of evidence? Check.
This is a total disaster. Not for Megaupload, but for the idea of justice.
Beyond buying the copies, no, they don't. The users of TPB buy copies, too - otherwise the material couldn't be on TPB at all.
So, a copy is bought at retail price by a distributor, multiple people consume that copy for free, and the distributor doesn't charge or make a profit. Sounds pretty much like a public library to me.
In The US, consuming that content is against US Federal law 17 USC 106 and 200,000 people have been sued since 2010 for doing so.
Merely "consuming" that content is not against the law. What is against the law is copying and distribution (and other activities, which aren't relevant to users of TPB). So, for example, buying a bootleg DVD from a street vendor is not copyright infringmenet - even though that puts money directly into a for-profit infringer's pocket.
Ironic, then, that users are punished - and punished unreasonably - for infringement that does not make the infringers any money whatsoever.
One final comment from me, and then I'm going to stop. Because the other commenters (including Mike) are right: this is a story about the success of Kickstarter, not about the relative merits of copyright law.
I never said that liability for infringement is the same as unjust enrichment.
Here's exactly what you asked: "Why won't you talk about fundamental issues, like unfair competition and unjust enrichment, directly?"
And you have your answer: copyright infringement is fundamentally not about "unfair competition" or "unjust enrichment." Something can be "unjust enrichment" (under your one-sentence definition) without being copyright infringement; something can be copyright infringement without being "unjust enrichment;" and many cases of "unjust enrichment" are not (and should not be) unlawful at all.
Personally, I would love it if copyright infringement was limited to just "unjust enrichment." But that would mean a total revision of copyright statutes: decriminalization of non-commercial infringement, elimination of statutory damages, placing the burden of proof upon the rights holder to show actual economic harm, and so forth. But that's not how it works.
Sweat of the brow is necessary, but not sufficient, for copyright protection. Copyright incentivizes, via exclusionary rights, new works by rewarding those who commit time, energy, money, and skill into the creation of new works.
No, it rewards anyone who authorizes a creative work. It matters not one whit how much time, energy, money, and skill went into that creation.
I could invest years of time, and many thousands of dollars, to go to college for music theory, write a symphony, hire musicians to perform it on a recording, and release it. Or, I could release a recording of me throwing my roommate's guitar down the stairs. And copyright protects both works equally.
If this were not true, then damage awards would be different depending upon the sunk costs that went into each recording. They are not.
You are purposefully ignoring the Lockean overtones the Court used there
And "overtones" they must remain, for if they meant it as anything other than dicta, they would be at odds with hundreds of years of Supreme Court copyright rulings (including the very first) and Congressional opinions that say the opposite. I've already quoted dozens to you, I don't see the point in doing it again.
They would also be going against the copyright statutes. If copyright really was designed primarily to reward "sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities," then the amount of "sacrificial days" would affect a work's copyright status. It does not, in any way, shape, or form.
No, I'm acknowledging that the two are intertwined.
Of course the method is intertwined with the purpose of that method. It would hardly be a method if it didn't. That doesn't mean we should confuse the two, or put them on equal standing.
I guess you think that 7/9 Supreme Court Justices are wrong too.
No, because nothing in that passage contradicts anything I've been saying. Pay attention to the wording. The purpose - the goal - is "to advance public welfare," "the proliferation of knowledge," and "the progress of science," and to "serve public ends." Copyright is the "encouragement," "the incentive," or "the engine" - that is, the method by which that purpose is achieved. The Supreme Court said merely that the method is effective in achieving its purpose, nothing more. Justice Stevens' quote from U.S. v. Paramount may have been considered "overstated," but it is not false.
They are not saying, as you seem to be, that authors' rights are synonymous with the public good - that granting authors more rights will automatically benefit the public. That idea is absurd.
As to how best interpret the "promote the progress" preamble, I'm sure we disagree.
But the Supreme Court doesn't. It is "the proliferation of knowledge," "the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts," "to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius."
Or - as I phrased it - to "enrich" the general public through increased access to artworks. Unless this is the ultimate result, rewarding authors does not "promote the progress."
Congress gets to decide what it means to promote the progress. It's not some secret economic function like Mike wants it to be. It's simply whatever Congress says it is.
And since Congress represents the general public, it is the general public who is supposed to decide what it means to promote the progress. Not publishers, labels, studios, or artists' unions. Pity that Congress has totally ignored this fact.
Also, Mike has never said it is "some secret economic function." By design, copyright statutes are a set of government regulations granting monopoly rights to certain producers. There are standard economic theories that deal with those, none of which are a secret to anyone.
Says you. Congress says otherwise, and they're the ones who get to decide what promotes the progress.
As far as my first sentence goes, Congress says exactly what I said:
In enacting a copyright law, Congress must consider [...] two questions: first, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.
So, I guess you're referring to my second sentence - that current copyright statutes decrease the "broad public availability" of copyrighted works. I don't think this is even debatable. Especially since current "anti-piracy" efforts focus almost exclusively on non-profit sharing of works among the general public.
Our contemporary Congressional leaders have written bad laws that run counter to copyright's purpose. It's not the first time Congress has put the desires of wealthy special interest groups ahead of the public welfare, and it won't be the last.
On the post: Case Study: Band Embraces Grooveshark And Catapults Its Career
Re:
Well, for starters, they've already been suing Grooveshark...
On the post: DailyDirt: The Future Of Higher Education Is Online
Hot topic in education right now
This fall, they're actually offering the Python course from MIT's OpenCourseWare as an in-class course. The main materials will still be online, but they're also holding in-person classes (which are mostly labs). It's not free (it is cheap), but it counts as a 3-credit course, applicable to a CS/IT degree.
Obviously, this isn't perfect, and there are some kinks to work out. But the fact that the online courses (even free ones) are actually enabling these sorts of courses, is very good news. Especially for lower-income students.
Now, if only they weren't so beholden to Microsoft and the textbook publishers...
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
Re: Re: Re:
Quick point. Copyright is not, and never was, meant to be any kind of protection against the work being "degraded."
That sort of thing is covered by libel and slander laws in the U.S. And it would be a total stretch to claim that most infringing works are "libelous" to the original artists.
You could argue that something like this applies to trademark laws - but those laws exist to protect consumers, not the "reputation" of the originators.
On the post: As Expected, Team Prenda Trying Desperately To Get Out Of Appearing On Monday
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, sorry. I got that from the Pietz deposition, by the way, so you could have RTFM (as it were).
AF Holdings, the corporate entity, is not a party here, right?
Yes, it is. Judge Wright consolidated a whole bunch of Prenda's cases when it was revealed that Prenda, AF Holdings, and Ingenuity 13 were all basically the same people, playing LLC shell games.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609356-gov-uscourts-cacd-543744-57-0.html
On the post: As Expected, Team Prenda Trying Desperately To Get Out Of Appearing On Monday
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, "a 306(b)(6) deposition where A. F. Holdings was the deponent." Durr.
On the post: As Expected, Team Prenda Trying Desperately To Get Out Of Appearing On Monday
Re: Re: Re:
He didn't just "attend a deposition." There was a 306(b)(6) deponent of A.F. Holdings, and he testified on their behalf.
So, unless you think A. F. Holdings has "no dog in this fight," you're just being an ass.
On the post: Two And A Half Minute Video Explains How The Ability To Sell Stuff You Legally Purchased Is At Risk
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, you don't even have to go this far to show that the A.C. is wrong. Producers can't increase prices arbitrarily, even in a perfectly monopolistic market.
Wiley (and other publishers) don't lower their prices is foreign markets out of the goodness of their hearts. Those prices are already at the maximum that they can set to maximize their marginal revenue. If those prices were higher, fewer people would buy them, and the loss in marginal revenue from sales would be greater than the gain made from the higher price.
If they increased the price of books in third-world countries to something even approaching the prices in the U.S., Wiley would price themselves out of the market entirely, even without any competition whatsoever.
So, they have two choices. They can either leave the third-world market entirely, or they can lower the price of books in the U.S. Since lower U.S. prices would still result in marginal revenue - even if not optimal for a monopolist - they stand to make much more money overall from that second option.
And that's not even considering competition. Not just from "upstarts," but from well-established first-world publishers. If Wiley chose to leave the market, or price themselves out of it, other publishers would do the math, take that second option, and make a killing. They'd outsell Wiley in the foreign market by default; and, due to their lower prices, they'd crush Wiley in the U.S. market as well.
On the post: Prenda's Brett Gibbs Finally Answers Some Questions; No Mention Of Alan Cooper
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 4th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/16003912772/karls-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtm l#comments
As time passes, it seems like I've been right, and you've been wrong. Whenever I've made a prediction about any case that has been decided in court, I've been on the side of the law - and you haven't.
Perhaps you should demand a refund of the money you've been paying to your college. Just sayin'.
On the post: Prenda's Brett Gibbs Finally Answers Some Questions; No Mention Of Alan Cooper
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 4th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
I care not one whit about his floor-vs-ass fetishes. To each his own; even perverts need release.
But, dear A.C., please don't "release" all over our faces. Please limit your response (a.k.a. "substantive debate") to the subject matter at hand. (So to speak.)
On the post: Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
For one thing, that has nothing to do with Amanda's TED talk. So, you're just being an idiotic troll.
Now, to feed you...
That site is run by Chris Castle. He's an entertainment industry lawyer, meaning he has a vested economic interest in claiming "piracy," especially against those with deep pockets.
That doesn't make his arguments wrong, but nowhere in that article does he say anything that approaches a substantive argument. It's just a few cherry-picked quotes, interspersed with a lot of snark. That in itself isn't bad, if there was anything to back up that snark - but there isn't. No data, no studies, no arguments about why the quotes are wrong. All interspersed with appeals to emotion (calling infringement "theft"), ad hominem attacks ("The usual Big Tech standard," "Google Shill Listers"), and so forth.
Even the "facts" he casually spits out are wrong. Example: "according to the Megavideo indictment, Kim Dotcom made his substantial millions in part from selling his advertising inventory through which ad networks? Google Adsense and Adbright." In fact, one of the key arguments in the government's claim that Mega is a pirate site, is the fact that Google cut off their ad funding in 2007, less than two years after Megaupload was even founded, and years before the investigation even began. After that, Megaupload ran its own internal ad network (MegaClick).
Put it all together, and you have a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Truly a tale told by an idiot.
On the post: Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
Thanks, but what "substantive discussion" are you attempting to have on the "merits" of Amanda's TED talk?
None whatsoever. Throughout this thread, you've done nothing but call Mike names.
If you want to have a discussion on the substance of Amanda's TED talk, then let's have it. Otherwise, you're just a troll.
On the post: Upon Further Review... Judge Realizes The Jury In Apple/Samsung Case Screwed Up
Re:
Indeed. The more interesting question is what happens now that two of the major patents, for which Samsung was found to be infringing, have since been invalidated by the Patent Office.
On the post: Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amanda Palmer haters
...Oh, right, nothing.
"Substantive discussion" indeed.
On the post: Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, that is what's going on. They're not tattoos.
On the post: Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That article (which is not the top result, BTW) is a hack piece. In fact, it doesn't appear to be anything other than Joshua Clover bitching about "the unpaid microlabor of providing content for Web sites." His version of Amanda Palmer is simply a straw man burned in effigy.
Some facts:
Amanda is not, and never was, a "folk singer." (Minor point, but still.)
The idea that Amanda left Roadrunner because "the familiar channels of label-funded 'artist development' have narrowed, and are now thick with pirates" is beyond ridiculous.
Amanda's back-up band, the Grand Theft Orchestra, was on salary, and got paid even when not on tour.
Amanda didn't "supposedly" spend the Kickstarter money on her album; she gave a very detailed account of where the money went.
Amanda asked for a couple of volunteers in each city to fill out the string and horn sections of her own back-up band. No tour commitments, no signing away any rights, just shoot an email and show up a couple hours before. She has done this, often, with her other projects, such as asking fans to show up to be crowd extras in her videos.
After the kerfuffle erupted, she emailed everyone who had until then agreed to do it, and asked if anyone would like to back out. Not a single one did.
Afterwards, she paid them anyway, out of money that would have gone into producing videos.
All of this info was available before Clover wrote the piece, but apparently he didn't care enough to do the research. Even the facts that he got right were only put there as a retraction.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Loses Appeal Concerning Extradition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not, and you know it. Seizures are generally done to prevent evidence from being moved or destroyed, not to destroy a business entirely based upon mere allegations. And they are usually done only when the moving party can show that lesser methods would be unsuccessful.
Yep. No doubt. So what?
So, they seized lots of material owned by innocent third parties that is not even allegedly involved in the "crime." Moreover, all of that material is protected by the First Amendment. That's a legal no-no.
This is completely unjust. This injustice far, far outweighs any damage to the public done by Megaupload, even if Megaupload is guilty. If the courts allow it, then the courts are unjust; and if you approve of it, then you are unjust.
Huh? What seizures done by the U.S. were illegal?
- Kim Dotcom judge rules mansion raid was illegal
I didn't specify that the seizures were "done by the U.S.," but there's no question that the U.S. government was behind the New Zealand raid. The raid was done at the request of the U.S. government, on warrants issued solely from evidence presented by the U.S. government, and was coordinated by the F.B.I. (they were even watching on a live feed).
What evidence was destroyed.
I didn't say it was destroyed, I said the government "called for" it to be destroyed. Which they did, and still are:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120406/12172918409/megaupload-points-out-that-feds-want-to- destroy-relevant-evidence-its-case.shtml
The disaster of justice was caused by Dotcom et al. What you're seeing now is justice for his victims.
I know you like to appeal to emotion with words like "victims," but it just ain't so. Unless (and until) it can be shown that the complainants were actually harmed by the defendants, they're not victims.
And if the defendant did not harm the complainant, but is still punished or harmed by the court, then it is a "disaster of justice." If the defendant's punishment is out of proportion to the actual harm done, then it is a "disaster of justice." If government misconduct is allowed during the case, then it is a "disaster of justice" - even if the defendant is guilty.
In the first two cases, the defendant is a victim. In the last case, we are all victims.
On the post: Kim Dotcom Loses Appeal Concerning Extradition
Re: Re: Re:
Assets seized? Check.
Domain name seized? Check.
Indictment by grand jury? Check.
Principals arrested? Check.
Extradition in the works? Check.
Megaupload shut down? Check.
Done prior to a conviction? Check.
Done prior to the defendant even having a chance to defend himself? Check.
Seizures result in tons of legal material being taken out of circulation? Check.
Seizures later found to be illegal? Check.
Government calls for destruction of evidence? Check.
This is a total disaster. Not for Megaupload, but for the idea of justice.
On the post: The Pirate Bay's 'Lawsuit' Against Anti-Piracy Group More About Exposing Double Standards In Enforcement
Re: TPB is organized crime period
Beyond buying the copies, no, they don't. The users of TPB buy copies, too - otherwise the material couldn't be on TPB at all.
So, a copy is bought at retail price by a distributor, multiple people consume that copy for free, and the distributor doesn't charge or make a profit. Sounds pretty much like a public library to me.
In The US, consuming that content is against US Federal law 17 USC 106 and 200,000 people have been sued since 2010 for doing so.
Merely "consuming" that content is not against the law. What is against the law is copying and distribution (and other activities, which aren't relevant to users of TPB). So, for example, buying a bootleg DVD from a street vendor is not copyright infringmenet - even though that puts money directly into a for-profit infringer's pocket.
Ironic, then, that users are punished - and punished unreasonably - for infringement that does not make the infringers any money whatsoever.
On the post: DOJ Lets Channelsurfing Operator Mostly Off The Hook
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FWIW, Ninja Video did not host any files either. They were mainly a forum site; the content was all hosted at third-party file lockers.
They incurred no bandwidth costs whatsoever from "uploading." That was all done by the users of the site.
On the post: Kickstarter-Funded Movie Wins Oscar For Best Documentary
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said that liability for infringement is the same as unjust enrichment.
Here's exactly what you asked: "Why won't you talk about fundamental issues, like unfair competition and unjust enrichment, directly?"
And you have your answer: copyright infringement is fundamentally not about "unfair competition" or "unjust enrichment." Something can be "unjust enrichment" (under your one-sentence definition) without being copyright infringement; something can be copyright infringement without being "unjust enrichment;" and many cases of "unjust enrichment" are not (and should not be) unlawful at all.
Personally, I would love it if copyright infringement was limited to just "unjust enrichment." But that would mean a total revision of copyright statutes: decriminalization of non-commercial infringement, elimination of statutory damages, placing the burden of proof upon the rights holder to show actual economic harm, and so forth. But that's not how it works.
Sweat of the brow is necessary, but not sufficient, for copyright protection. Copyright incentivizes, via exclusionary rights, new works by rewarding those who commit time, energy, money, and skill into the creation of new works.
No, it rewards anyone who authorizes a creative work. It matters not one whit how much time, energy, money, and skill went into that creation.
I could invest years of time, and many thousands of dollars, to go to college for music theory, write a symphony, hire musicians to perform it on a recording, and release it. Or, I could release a recording of me throwing my roommate's guitar down the stairs. And copyright protects both works equally.
If this were not true, then damage awards would be different depending upon the sunk costs that went into each recording. They are not.
You are purposefully ignoring the Lockean overtones the Court used there
And "overtones" they must remain, for if they meant it as anything other than dicta, they would be at odds with hundreds of years of Supreme Court copyright rulings (including the very first) and Congressional opinions that say the opposite. I've already quoted dozens to you, I don't see the point in doing it again.
They would also be going against the copyright statutes. If copyright really was designed primarily to reward "sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities," then the amount of "sacrificial days" would affect a work's copyright status. It does not, in any way, shape, or form.
No, I'm acknowledging that the two are intertwined.
Of course the method is intertwined with the purpose of that method. It would hardly be a method if it didn't. That doesn't mean we should confuse the two, or put them on equal standing.
I guess you think that 7/9 Supreme Court Justices are wrong too.
No, because nothing in that passage contradicts anything I've been saying. Pay attention to the wording. The purpose - the goal - is "to advance public welfare," "the proliferation of knowledge," and "the progress of science," and to "serve public ends." Copyright is the "encouragement," "the incentive," or "the engine" - that is, the method by which that purpose is achieved. The Supreme Court said merely that the method is effective in achieving its purpose, nothing more. Justice Stevens' quote from U.S. v. Paramount may have been considered "overstated," but it is not false.
They are not saying, as you seem to be, that authors' rights are synonymous with the public good - that granting authors more rights will automatically benefit the public. That idea is absurd.
As to how best interpret the "promote the progress" preamble, I'm sure we disagree.
But the Supreme Court doesn't. It is "the proliferation of knowledge," "the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts," "to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius."
Or - as I phrased it - to "enrich" the general public through increased access to artworks. Unless this is the ultimate result, rewarding authors does not "promote the progress."
Congress gets to decide what it means to promote the progress. It's not some secret economic function like Mike wants it to be. It's simply whatever Congress says it is.
And since Congress represents the general public, it is the general public who is supposed to decide what it means to promote the progress. Not publishers, labels, studios, or artists' unions. Pity that Congress has totally ignored this fact.
Also, Mike has never said it is "some secret economic function." By design, copyright statutes are a set of government regulations granting monopoly rights to certain producers. There are standard economic theories that deal with those, none of which are a secret to anyone.
Says you. Congress says otherwise, and they're the ones who get to decide what promotes the progress.
As far as my first sentence goes, Congress says exactly what I said:
So, I guess you're referring to my second sentence - that current copyright statutes decrease the "broad public availability" of copyrighted works. I don't think this is even debatable. Especially since current "anti-piracy" efforts focus almost exclusively on non-profit sharing of works among the general public.
Our contemporary Congressional leaders have written bad laws that run counter to copyright's purpose. It's not the first time Congress has put the desires of wealthy special interest groups ahead of the public welfare, and it won't be the last.
Next >>