As a follow-up to the prior posts. Netanel made the statement that "Many works require a material commitment of time and money to create." which appears, on the surface, to be a rational reason for copyright. However, as Mike points out "Value and price are two separate things.".
From the free market perspective, if you invest a lot of time and money in creating content that a free market would not otherwise support, too bad. You gambled and lost.
Regretfully, Copyright (today) is being portrayed as a justification to charge monopolistic prices to recoup costs for creating content that the free market would not otherwise support. To say this differently, if you create content, you are NOT entitled to a profit yet that is how copyright is being presented by the pro-copyright crowd.
Sorry about the "empty" post. Anyway, China is pointing to the normal evolution of an upstart into an established "company". When you don't have anything, the "law" is irrelevant and to a degree flaunted. Once a country or a company becomes established, companies begin to want to create "property rights" to create a toll-both for the use of their products. Coincidently, these firms now perceive of the law as something to be "honored" rather than flaunted. In fact, companies begin to take an active role in manipulating the political process to create favorable legislation.
Abraham Harold Maslow formulated the concept of "hierarchy of human needs". While this may not seem to be tech orientated, it helps us to understand why companies morph as they evolve from an upstart into an established company.
The purpose of copyright is to provide a limited time for the creator to obtain revenue as an incentive to create. Dr. Balganesh raises a point that I have failed to consider, that the courts seldom take into account the purpose of copyright when making a decision. Nevertheless, Dr. Balganesh conclusion (limiting copyright's grant of exclusivity), while a step in the right direction fails to address the increasing claims of content creators that they have an entitlement to control how content (post sale) is used. (I have read only the abstract, not the full draft paper.)
What I am getting at is that when a product is sold, the purchaser acquires certain property rights to the use of that product. Rationally, at least to me, this means that if you buy a music CD you should have a right to keep a copy on your PC, to make your own mix, etc. Dr. Balganesh has apparently not considered this issue as a copyright "limit".
Copyright holders are mercilessly destroying the concept that a purchaser even acquires a property right a product when it is sold and are bolstering that they can impose a transaction fee if a user simply does "something" (copy a song from on CD to another CD) to the product.
So the question really becomes: a content creator is entitled to some compensation when their work is sold, but they should not be entitled to endless revenue stream resulting from endless "toll fees" for the use of the product. The user has property rights that also need to be respected.
If the data is so valuable, we should get a royalty for its use. If marketers have the technology and money to tract down our addresses and send us junk mail, surly they could enclose a nice little check!!!
Anyway, this is always amusing. If we attempt to use their "content" in a manner that they do not like (copying a music file from the PC to a CD) we are "stealing". But if they collect our data and privatize it to make money for themselves that conveniently isn't "stealing". Hypocrites.
This points to a future concern with the use of DRM technologies. When a product that was previously "protected" (restricted) by a DRM technology enters the public domain, I seriously doubt that the product itself or the manufacturer would turn off the DRM technology so that it would freely be available.
Ultimately, what you say is true. But there is a period of time were old software/hardware will still work. Companies shouldn't simply have the ability to "destroy" your use of the product at their whim.
This cartoon was sparked by the recent attempt by Creative to stop a user from providing better drivers. This is one of several panels to look at.
As for a "1984" scenario, the car will report your location to the police station. You will be automatically cited for speeding, running lights, and parking illegally.
It's about paying something like $5 for the final version of Windows98SE or the final version of Age of Empires III. While I don't like the idea of paying "twice" I am attempting to propose a comprise that would make it less onerous for a company to supply a final disk.
I have one old game where the website has been taken down and the company no longer provides the patches. Fortunately, I have the patches, but it still points to the need for any software/hardware company to make available a final version so that the consumer has the ability to use the product.
This concern applies to virtually all software and hardware. We have evolved to the point where virtually all software and hardware is "updated" through downloads from servers on the internet. A company decides that its software or hardware is now "obsolete" they can now disable it at will. The consumer is powerless.
While a company has a right to discontinue any product, the consumer has an economic investment in that product and companies should not arbitrarily destroy that investment. Consequently all companies should provide the consumer with a "final" CD upon request. I wouldn't mind paying a nominal charge for a final CD.
Content "owners" keep attempt to aggrandize their so-called property rights. If the MLB puts on a public performance they loose a degree of alleged "ownership" over that content. Those who watch/report on the event have a right to freely discuss/interpret what they saw. The same concept should also apply in patent law where a company such as Blue Jeans Cable is selling industry standard components, but is being accused of patent infringement.
The purpose of copyright/patent law is to provide the content owner with a limited monopoly to foster innovation. Copyright/patent law seems to be no longer about innovation, but establishing a perpetual "toll booth" to extort money.
Jim Harper over at the Technology Liberation Front wrote that Monster Cable sent Blue Jeans Cable a cease and desist order. Kurt Denke, president of Blue Jeans Cable, has written a response to that order. In that response, Kurt has raised what I feel is a significant short coming with patent law today. Basically, if someone designs a product to work/comply with an industry wide specification, such as a USB cable, asserting patent infringement is ridiculous?
(PS: I am working on the assumption that an industry wide specification is in the "public domain" and not being licensed. I would like to advocate that any industry wide specification should be in the public domain even if it isn't.)
Sorry if I was not clear about the distinction between DRM and a "pay wall". As you correctly note, access to content in the public domain can be controlled. My point with DRM technologies is that the content, even if it enters the public domain, will remain crippled by DRM technologies.
For example, you have a Region I DVD, the content enters the public domain, would your Region II DVD player recognize that the content is no longer "protected" and allow you to play it? I don't think so.
All the discussions that I read promoting the use of DRM technologies talk about how the content needs to be locked. I have yet to see any discussion of how "locked" content, on the day it enters the public domain, will become unlocked.
A good slippery slope concept. The concept or copyright, as this example demonstrates, is clearly misunderstood. However, there is a greater question at issue here; placing works in the public domain behind a "pay wall". Actually, it could even be a "free wall". The content may be in the public domain, but the public may not have access to it.
One of my concerns along this line has been the use of DRM/proprietary technologies that restrict access to content. Fast forward 300 years. Will the content created in 2008 that is on CD/DVD/Websites that would now in the public domain be accessible by the public?
My guess is that the content (DVD/CD/Websites) will magically remain "locked" based on disclosed "technical issues". True, the content may be in the public domain, but the providers of the content won't make it easy for the public to use.
The good news, I suppose, is that we do have some websites that make it possible to freely use material in the public domain.
Several years ago when we were still Sprint customers, I lost our phone. I called the phone to see if the person who picked it up would answer. No Answer. I called Sprint and asked for the recently called numbers so that I could call those numbers to track down the phone, they said NO that it was against their policy. I protested saying that the person who picked it up was now obviously stealing the phone and it was my phone. The answer was still NO. Sprint said that I would have to wait till I received my bill to see the phone numbers. Well we had the phone turned off. After getting the bill I called those numbers and the answer was the expected "I don't remember who called".
A point that we are overlooking is that content producers through this onerous claim that they still "own" the product are actually transferring a degree of liability to the end user. Specifically that the end-user has assumed responsibility for the proper care of their product.
You accidentally scratch the CD, have you now damaged their property and they would now feel entitled to compensation?
You loan the CD to a friend, you now owe the record company a "rental fee".
There is no line, based on all these ridiculous claims of "infringement", the copyright holders assert that they are owed revenue based on any arbitrary and capricious decision they make. Not only that, copyright holders even claim they don't have to abide by due process to declare "infringement" and even claim the right to force third parties to "protect" their copyright.
A cloth wrap made of various materials either natural or synthetic of one or more colors with one or more holes to allow the insertion of body appendages that is either a partial or full torso wrap which may uses fasteners of any type to connect portions of the material or which may consist of one unified length of cloth.
The Register article had this quote from Creative.
"The huge task of developing driver updates to accommodate the many changes in the Vista operating system and the extensive testing required, including the lengthy Vista certification requirements for audio, makes it very difficult for Creative to develop updates for all past products."
Whenever a company makes this type of statement it means that they are no longer entrepreneural and customer focused. They have evidently evolved into a company that is more concerned about protecting their turf as the means to generate income rather than innovate. I guess Creative's management now consists of lawyers, accounts, and marketing professionals rather than product innovators.
This is real slippery slope stuff. If you patent a design with three buttons using the color blue and someone comes out with a four button design in black is that infringement? Designs are subjective with infinite variations, we will have endless lawsuits.
On the post: Copyright As An Engine Of Free Expression?
Free Market and Copyright
From the free market perspective, if you invest a lot of time and money in creating content that a free market would not otherwise support, too bad. You gambled and lost.
Regretfully, Copyright (today) is being portrayed as a justification to charge monopolistic prices to recoup costs for creating content that the free market would not otherwise support. To say this differently, if you create content, you are NOT entitled to a profit yet that is how copyright is being presented by the pro-copyright crowd.
On the post: China Shows Again That Stronger IP Protection Comes After There's Content To Protect, Not Before
Evolution at Wortk
Abraham Harold Maslow formulated the concept of "hierarchy of human needs". While this may not seem to be tech orientated, it helps us to understand why companies morph as they evolve from an upstart into an established company.
On the post: China Shows Again That Stronger IP Protection Comes After There's Content To Protect, Not Before
Evolution at Work
On the post: If Copyright Is About Incentive, Should It Allow Total Control Over The Work?
Total Control => NO
What I am getting at is that when a product is sold, the purchaser acquires certain property rights to the use of that product. Rationally, at least to me, this means that if you buy a music CD you should have a right to keep a copy on your PC, to make your own mix, etc. Dr. Balganesh has apparently not considered this issue as a copyright "limit".
Copyright holders are mercilessly destroying the concept that a purchaser even acquires a property right a product when it is sold and are bolstering that they can impose a transaction fee if a user simply does "something" (copy a song from on CD to another CD) to the product.
So the question really becomes: a content creator is entitled to some compensation when their work is sold, but they should not be entitled to endless revenue stream resulting from endless "toll fees" for the use of the product. The user has property rights that also need to be respected.
On the post: Marketers Freak Out About Mandates To Make Clickstream Tracking Opt-In Only
The Data Has Value So ...
Anyway, this is always amusing. If we attempt to use their "content" in a manner that they do not like (copying a music file from the PC to a CD) we are "stealing". But if they collect our data and privatize it to make money for themselves that conveniently isn't "stealing". Hypocrites.
On the post: Is It Illegal To Announce A Patent On Something After That Patent Has Expired?
DRM Precursor
On the post: Microsoft's Final 'Up Yours' To Those Who Bought Into Its DRM Story
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ticking Time Bomb
On the post: GPS Will Now Tell You You're In A 'Bad' Neighborhood
A visit to the Local Brothel
As for a "1984" scenario, the car will report your location to the police station. You will be automatically cited for speeding, running lights, and parking illegally.
On the post: Microsoft's Final 'Up Yours' To Those Who Bought Into Its DRM Story
Re: Re: Ticking Time Bomb
It's about paying something like $5 for the final version of Windows98SE or the final version of Age of Empires III. While I don't like the idea of paying "twice" I am attempting to propose a comprise that would make it less onerous for a company to supply a final disk.
I have one old game where the website has been taken down and the company no longer provides the patches. Fortunately, I have the patches, but it still points to the need for any software/hardware company to make available a final version so that the consumer has the ability to use the product.
On the post: Microsoft's Final 'Up Yours' To Those Who Bought Into Its DRM Story
Ticking Time Bomb
While a company has a right to discontinue any product, the consumer has an economic investment in that product and companies should not arbitrarily destroy that investment. Consequently all companies should provide the consumer with a "final" CD upon request. I wouldn't mind paying a nominal charge for a final CD.
On the post: Media Companies Consider Suing MLB Over Reporting Restrictions
Another Abuse of Copyright/Patent Law
The purpose of copyright/patent law is to provide the content owner with a limited monopoly to foster innovation. Copyright/patent law seems to be no longer about innovation, but establishing a perpetual "toll booth" to extort money.
On the post: Patent Boss Admits That The Patent Office Keeps Getting Flooded By More And More Bad Patents
Patents and Design Standards
(PS: I am working on the assumption that an industry wide specification is in the "public domain" and not being licensed. I would like to advocate that any industry wide specification should be in the public domain even if it isn't.)
On the post: Since When Has Copyright Become Life Plus 343 Years?
Re: Re: Access to Copyright Work
For example, you have a Region I DVD, the content enters the public domain, would your Region II DVD player recognize that the content is no longer "protected" and allow you to play it? I don't think so.
All the discussions that I read promoting the use of DRM technologies talk about how the content needs to be locked. I have yet to see any discussion of how "locked" content, on the day it enters the public domain, will become unlocked.
On the post: Since When Has Copyright Become Life Plus 343 Years?
Access to Copyright Work
One of my concerns along this line has been the use of DRM/proprietary technologies that restrict access to content. Fast forward 300 years. Will the content created in 2008 that is on CD/DVD/Websites that would now in the public domain be accessible by the public?
My guess is that the content (DVD/CD/Websites) will magically remain "locked" based on disclosed "technical issues". True, the content may be in the public domain, but the providers of the content won't make it easy for the public to use.
The good news, I suppose, is that we do have some websites that make it possible to freely use material in the public domain.
On the post: Dumb Sprint 'Security' Questions Make It Easier To Hijack Accounts
Sprint Bad
Bad customer service, bad security.
On the post: New RIAA Argument: Throwing A Promo CD In The Garbage = Unauthorized Distribution
An Unintended Consequence
You accidentally scratch the CD, have you now damaged their property and they would now feel entitled to compensation?
You loan the CD to a friend, you now owe the record company a "rental fee".
On the post: Are College Lectures Covered By Copyright?
There is no line
There is no line, based on all these ridiculous claims of "infringement", the copyright holders assert that they are owed revenue based on any arbitrary and capricious decision they make. Not only that, copyright holders even claim they don't have to abide by due process to declare "infringement" and even claim the right to force third parties to "protect" their copyright.
On the post: Fashion Designers Turning To Patents To Protect Their Designs (And Kill The Industry)
Re: Shirt Patent
On the post: Creative Labs Backs Down After PR Mess
Creative has evolved into a
Whenever a company makes this type of statement it means that they are no longer entrepreneural and customer focused. They have evidently evolved into a company that is more concerned about protecting their turf as the means to generate income rather than innovate. I guess Creative's management now consists of lawyers, accounts, and marketing professionals rather than product innovators.
On the post: Fashion Designers Turning To Patents To Protect Their Designs (And Kill The Industry)
When is a Design Different?
Next >>