you can not lend your book to someone else and read it at the same time, but in your DRM'd version of the world that you have been very clear about pushing, you cant do that with an electronic version of the book either since that would be considered piracy.
but thats ok, dont let any facts get in the way of your arguments
it's my point exactly. The paper version has a whole bunch of physical restrictions on it, and DRM pretty much just mimics those restrictions. Nobody is bitching and saying they aren't going to buy paper back books because they can't share them. It's a fact of the purchase, you get a single copy, lifetime license. DRM and paper copy, it's the same thing.
the dog pees on your e-reader... imma givin that dog a box of milk bones... good puppy! (by the way, my book? while stinky and gross would still be readable... how bout your electronic thing after a good st bernard hose-down?)
I get the e-reader fixed, go back online with Amazon, and redownload all the books that I have a single copy, lifetime license for. You can enjoy your stinky book, and I will enjoy my nicely cleaned and repaired reader.
There is no crack pipe here. On the other hand, you may want to check for empty koolaid cups around your computer before posting next time.
I am not trying to make it sound like she is whining, I think it is more like a "woe is me" tale from someone who seems to have a whole bunch of these woeful tales to tell.
My take:
The Problem Isn't Middlemen, Isn't Monopoliesm It's People Signing Contracts Without Understanding Them.
Monopolies in entertainment are only created one way, by signing on the dotted line.
Henry, when you learn to hit "reply to comment" I can get back to you. In the meantime, I hope you don't have a dog, because you see about angry enough to kick it.
Oh yeah, I don't "spam" techdirt. No links off, nothing.
Marcus, isn't it natural? If I make dinner, I am not obliged to share it with anyone. If I want to, I can, but I don't have to. We even have laws that legally make that dinner "mine".
I can open a restaurant, and I can sell copies of "dinner". I am not obliged to give dinner away for free, or give everyone the recipe for free, or even offer service to anyone. It's up to me, I am the creator.
In the end, if I write a book, I can share it with whoever I choose, in whatever I want. We have laws for that, called copyright. It's amazing, isn't it? It's just like everything else in our lives.
Paul, where did I say that having works fall into the public domain is bad? It is only bad when it happens too quickly.
Lifetime plus 70 years is probably too long. 28 years is much too short.
We're arguing against a system that changes the rules well after their deaths, in order to enrich descendants and corporations who had nothing to do with the creation of the art, at the expense of our culture
Sadly, in attempting to adjust the system to account for modern times, the length of copyright have been extended. It has happened a number of times since the original law was enacted. The durability of works produced in the last 50-80 years shows that the content still has value in it's original form, not tossed to the masses.
The change of the length of copyright has happened before, and it may happen again. It keeps copyright in line with the usage of the products.
Everyone rags on Disney, yet they can take out 70 year old content, digitally remaster it, and sell DVDs of the content in large numbers. It is still a valuable product. Why should they not have rights to it?
Mike bootstraps all the time. He gently introduces a concept with a post like the one putting forth the idea of a "tax", which is his non-opinion on an opinion piece. So far it's all opinion, right?
After a little while (days to weeks) he starts to bootstrap. He links to stories like this with terms like:
We were just discussing the DRM tax on a Kindle, which is the "price" of having to rebuy any ebooks you want to keep
Notice he doesn't refer to it as an opinion anymore. Now the DRM tax IS something. It isn't someone's opinion anymore, it is a Techduh-fact.
A couple of weeks from now, something else will come up, and Mike will use a link like "such as the woman who was forced to pay a DRM tax because of Sony" or something similar.
Now, Mike will come along and say "everyone know the original is an opinion", but over time, and over multiple steps up the bootstrap pyramid, people lose track of the source of the original concept, and start to accept the term or the idea as a fact.
That's bootstrapping.
There is no DRM tax. The federal government has no DRM tax, the state governments have no DRM tax, and local governments have no DRM tax. There is no DRM tax.
6 months from now, the term "DRM tax" will be used freely on techdirt, as a put down to the concept of DRm in the same manner that a "paywall" is used only to put down suscription based websites.
Again, sorry, but Nina CREATED the monopoly (by granting it). All through the time frame of this movie she has shown to be making mistakes (first on licensing the music, and now on how she licenses the movie).
Her experiences show exactly how you end up with monopolies to begin with, people either not reading all the fine print, or not thinking past "I got distribution".
She is the author of her own misery in this case, yes she admits it, but the title of the post and such isn't right: She basically did the contractual version of "moron in a hurry", and complains about the outcome.
Everyone keeps hitting one example out of millions of works in the last 100 years.
We cannot stop copyright holders from being greedy, nor can they pry their works out of hands and burn them.
In the end, it's up to the artist (or whoever they have signed the right to), not any one of us. It's a generation diss thing again, respect the artists wishes even if they aren't what you want. Learn some respect.
All that would be required is for the author to have a "trigger" on his death, that says "on the day I die, I want all of my works not currently specifically under license to be moved to the public domain" and it could be done.
But you see, the choice of it is available or not comes back to the writer or the people he sold the rights to. It isn't for us to decide what they do with their works. In fact, I find it incredibly arrogant that anyone would think that they can dictate to an artist what they can and cannot do with their original work (master copy).
There are plenty of artists who, at some time or another, destroy everything they have done to that point, slashing paintings, burning manuscripts, or trashing hard drives (the modern version). That is their prerogative as an artist.
You're also arguing for new works to be banned. Clash Of The Titans, There Will Be Blood, every production of Shakespeare's or Dickens' works, Moby's Play, Pride And Prejudice And Zombies, various episodes of The Simpsons based on Poe's or Homer's work, many adaptations of Sherlock Holmes including the new movie out now - none of these would exist in your world.
Not at all. I don't argue for copyright forever, just for a longer time than you consider acceptable. New technology is making most media viable for a much longer time. In theory, books published in an e-book format will be with us forever (unless someone loses all the bytes).
You mention the Simpsons, which I think is a perfect example of why short copyright isn't exactly right. You said "The old US 28 year term was about right...", you understand that the Simpsons are going on year 20 now,right? There is some potential that they could end up running long enough that the original episodes in your world would be out of copyright, and further, the characters themselves could end up in the public domain, with hundreds or thousands of people turning out fake Simpsons cartoons (the technology isn't that difficult).
The times are changing, in the same manner that the times changes from the 1700s. 28 years just doesn't cover it.
They didn't block 4500 websites, that's the point.
They stopped offering service to the yes men. if the yes men resold their services to others, that becomes their problem, not the ISPs problem. If you got caught up in the mess, don't be mad at the upstream ISP, be mad at the yes men for causing such a problem.
It isn't anyone else fault.
I don't suspect this ISP fielded many calls at all, as these were not their 4500 individual customers.
Richard, I saw that, but her whole story is one of misery that she herself created. She attempts to blame other parties, but in the end, it's her signature on the bottom of an exclusive contract.
She is doing what many people do these days: Always trying to find someone else responsible for their problems. "I know I did wrong, but if this other person had just done this, I would have been fine". It's a crock, because there is little or no acceptance of responsibility. It doesn't matter what the distributor did or did not do, that isn't where the harm occurred. The harm occurred when Nina Paley signed an exclusive contract with no right to show her own work by herself.
It is always someone else fault. Is nobody responsible for their own actions anymore?
Richard, exceptions make the point. Human error by the BBC (or stupidity by RCA) isn't something that you change all the rules to protect. Heck, they probably would have done the same thing anyway.
With copyright you are reliant on the rightsholder to maintain copies
Incorrect. You are as much of the process as anyone else. If you buy a book, keep it. Resell it to a used book seller. Give it away to someone who will read it. Pass it down from generation to generation. Treat it as the only copy left to mankind, and things are never lost.
I have books that are more than 100 years old, passed down to me from my grandfather, who got the books originally from his father. For digital media, well, all I can say is every 10 years or so, pull it up, make a copy, and reset the clock. Modern books? I would say complain to the companies putting them out and push to get them on paper that lasts. I have plenty of even "pulp" paperbacks that are more than 30 years old. I just reached back and pulled out a random paperback from one of the shelves, Heechee Rendezvois from Frederick Pohl... my printing is from 1984 (26 years old).
Nature knows that it makes sense to make new copies every 20-30 years - that is why we have children.
This is the funniest line of all. a few hundred years ago, our life expectancy was about 50 years, and typically women would be pregnant long before their 18th birthday. A generation was maybe 20 years. Today, we have women having children when they are 40 and even up to 60 years old. A generation is 60 to 80 years, and our life expectancy is about 75 years or so. As even nature changes, so do the laws we live by.
Based on the current use of material (even TV stations running 25 year old shows) I would say that 28 year copyright isn't anywhere near long enough, certainly not in a digital world where the material may last forever.
No, I caught her point, but I think she misses the greater point: She is the author of her own miseries. Accepting a contract that removes any promotional uses by the creator is about the same as shooting yourself in the foot. Don't blame the guy next to you, you did it to yourself.
Further, we don't get the other side of the coin: why this deal, and not another? What are the benefits? Was this the only distributor willing to pick up the movie in that country at all?
This is sort of like your answers for piracy... you don't support piracy, just all the infrastructure that it uses, the end result of it's existence, etc.
Considering that Facebook appears to be allowing some very questionable apps on their service right now ("1000 free farmville bucks") that require users to spam the crap out of their user list to get the prize (which never comes) it isn't very surprising to see something like this happen.
If nothing else, this is one of the reasons why Facebook doesn't belong in the classroom.
As someone has pointed out in the original post, Kindle isn't a "tax" because the books you buy aren't device dependant, and they aren't lost if your device is broken or replaced. You have bought a license, and Amazon maintains the material in a manner that you can access it and update your new Kindle or other Amazon ebook format readers / software.
So there is no Kindle "tax", just a made up term attempting to scare people once again. WTG, ending 2009 on a high note.
On the post: Calculating The DRM Tax On A Kindle
Re: Re: Re:
but thats ok, dont let any facts get in the way of your arguments
it's my point exactly. The paper version has a whole bunch of physical restrictions on it, and DRM pretty much just mimics those restrictions. Nobody is bitching and saying they aren't going to buy paper back books because they can't share them. It's a fact of the purchase, you get a single copy, lifetime license. DRM and paper copy, it's the same thing.
the dog pees on your e-reader... imma givin that dog a box of milk bones... good puppy! (by the way, my book? while stinky and gross would still be readable... how bout your electronic thing after a good st bernard hose-down?)
I get the e-reader fixed, go back online with Amazon, and redownload all the books that I have a single copy, lifetime license for. You can enjoy your stinky book, and I will enjoy my nicely cleaned and repaired reader.
There is no crack pipe here. On the other hand, you may want to check for empty koolaid cups around your computer before posting next time.
On the post: The Problem Isn't Middlemen, It's Monopolies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My take:
The Problem Isn't Middlemen, Isn't Monopoliesm It's People Signing Contracts Without Understanding Them.
Monopolies in entertainment are only created one way, by signing on the dotted line.
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Anti-mike needs to read this:
Oh yeah, I don't "spam" techdirt. No links off, nothing.
So again, you fail. Poor dog!
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can open a restaurant, and I can sell copies of "dinner". I am not obliged to give dinner away for free, or give everyone the recipe for free, or even offer service to anyone. It's up to me, I am the creator.
In the end, if I write a book, I can share it with whoever I choose, in whatever I want. We have laws for that, called copyright. It's amazing, isn't it? It's just like everything else in our lives.
On the post: Canadian Government Shuts Down Yet Another Yes Men Parody... Takes Down 4,500 Innocent Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pranks are pranks... but...
Knock yourself out.
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Re: Re:
Lifetime plus 70 years is probably too long. 28 years is much too short.
We're arguing against a system that changes the rules well after their deaths, in order to enrich descendants and corporations who had nothing to do with the creation of the art, at the expense of our culture
Sadly, in attempting to adjust the system to account for modern times, the length of copyright have been extended. It has happened a number of times since the original law was enacted. The durability of works produced in the last 50-80 years shows that the content still has value in it's original form, not tossed to the masses.
The change of the length of copyright has happened before, and it may happen again. It keeps copyright in line with the usage of the products.
Everyone rags on Disney, yet they can take out 70 year old content, digitally remaster it, and sell DVDs of the content in large numbers. It is still a valuable product. Why should they not have rights to it?
On the post: Despite Awful Customer Service, Woman Felt Forced To Buy Another Sony eBook Reader... Thanks To DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Caught you Mike!
After a little while (days to weeks) he starts to bootstrap. He links to stories like this with terms like:
We were just discussing the DRM tax on a Kindle, which is the "price" of having to rebuy any ebooks you want to keep
Notice he doesn't refer to it as an opinion anymore. Now the DRM tax IS something. It isn't someone's opinion anymore, it is a Techduh-fact.
A couple of weeks from now, something else will come up, and Mike will use a link like "such as the woman who was forced to pay a DRM tax because of Sony" or something similar.
Now, Mike will come along and say "everyone know the original is an opinion", but over time, and over multiple steps up the bootstrap pyramid, people lose track of the source of the original concept, and start to accept the term or the idea as a fact.
That's bootstrapping.
There is no DRM tax. The federal government has no DRM tax, the state governments have no DRM tax, and local governments have no DRM tax. There is no DRM tax.
6 months from now, the term "DRM tax" will be used freely on techdirt, as a put down to the concept of DRm in the same manner that a "paywall" is used only to put down suscription based websites.
It's the techduh way... ;)
On the post: The Problem Isn't Middlemen, It's Monopolies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Her experiences show exactly how you end up with monopolies to begin with, people either not reading all the fine print, or not thinking past "I got distribution".
She is the author of her own misery in this case, yes she admits it, but the title of the post and such isn't right: She basically did the contractual version of "moron in a hurry", and complains about the outcome.
*sigh*
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re:
Everyone keeps hitting one example out of millions of works in the last 100 years.
We cannot stop copyright holders from being greedy, nor can they pry their works out of hands and burn them.
In the end, it's up to the artist (or whoever they have signed the right to), not any one of us. It's a generation diss thing again, respect the artists wishes even if they aren't what you want. Learn some respect.
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Re:
Authors don't choose to do it. I wonder why?
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are plenty of artists who, at some time or another, destroy everything they have done to that point, slashing paintings, burning manuscripts, or trashing hard drives (the modern version). That is their prerogative as an artist.
You're also arguing for new works to be banned. Clash Of The Titans, There Will Be Blood, every production of Shakespeare's or Dickens' works, Moby's Play, Pride And Prejudice And Zombies, various episodes of The Simpsons based on Poe's or Homer's work, many adaptations of Sherlock Holmes including the new movie out now - none of these would exist in your world.
Not at all. I don't argue for copyright forever, just for a longer time than you consider acceptable. New technology is making most media viable for a much longer time. In theory, books published in an e-book format will be with us forever (unless someone loses all the bytes).
You mention the Simpsons, which I think is a perfect example of why short copyright isn't exactly right. You said "The old US 28 year term was about right...", you understand that the Simpsons are going on year 20 now,right? There is some potential that they could end up running long enough that the original episodes in your world would be out of copyright, and further, the characters themselves could end up in the public domain, with hundreds or thousands of people turning out fake Simpsons cartoons (the technology isn't that difficult).
The times are changing, in the same manner that the times changes from the 1700s. 28 years just doesn't cover it.
On the post: The Problem Isn't Middlemen, It's Monopolies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem isn't middlemen, it's people who sign contracts without realizing the terms.
On the post: Canadian Government Shuts Down Yet Another Yes Men Parody... Takes Down 4,500 Innocent Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pranks are pranks... but...
They stopped offering service to the yes men. if the yes men resold their services to others, that becomes their problem, not the ISPs problem. If you got caught up in the mess, don't be mad at the upstream ISP, be mad at the yes men for causing such a problem.
It isn't anyone else fault.
I don't suspect this ISP fielded many calls at all, as these were not their 4500 individual customers.
On the post: The Problem Isn't Middlemen, It's Monopolies
Re: Re: Re: Re:
She is doing what many people do these days: Always trying to find someone else responsible for their problems. "I know I did wrong, but if this other person had just done this, I would have been fine". It's a crock, because there is little or no acceptance of responsibility. It doesn't matter what the distributor did or did not do, that isn't where the harm occurred. The harm occurred when Nina Paley signed an exclusive contract with no right to show her own work by herself.
It is always someone else fault. Is nobody responsible for their own actions anymore?
On the post: Tomorrow Is National Book Burning Day; Thank Your Friendly Entertainment Industry Lobbyists
Re: Re:
With copyright you are reliant on the rightsholder to maintain copies
Incorrect. You are as much of the process as anyone else. If you buy a book, keep it. Resell it to a used book seller. Give it away to someone who will read it. Pass it down from generation to generation. Treat it as the only copy left to mankind, and things are never lost.
I have books that are more than 100 years old, passed down to me from my grandfather, who got the books originally from his father. For digital media, well, all I can say is every 10 years or so, pull it up, make a copy, and reset the clock. Modern books? I would say complain to the companies putting them out and push to get them on paper that lasts. I have plenty of even "pulp" paperbacks that are more than 30 years old. I just reached back and pulled out a random paperback from one of the shelves, Heechee Rendezvois from Frederick Pohl... my printing is from 1984 (26 years old).
Nature knows that it makes sense to make new copies every 20-30 years - that is why we have children.
This is the funniest line of all. a few hundred years ago, our life expectancy was about 50 years, and typically women would be pregnant long before their 18th birthday. A generation was maybe 20 years. Today, we have women having children when they are 40 and even up to 60 years old. A generation is 60 to 80 years, and our life expectancy is about 75 years or so. As even nature changes, so do the laws we live by.
Based on the current use of material (even TV stations running 25 year old shows) I would say that 28 year copyright isn't anywhere near long enough, certainly not in a digital world where the material may last forever.
On the post: The Problem Isn't Middlemen, It's Monopolies
Re: Re:
Further, we don't get the other side of the coin: why this deal, and not another? What are the benefits? Was this the only distributor willing to pick up the movie in that country at all?
A long story, but it's missing key information.
On the post: A Look Back At Major Label Online Strategies A Decade Ago
Re: Re:
Hopefully in 2010 you won't waffle so much.
On the post: FCC Boss Spams Facebook Friends With Make Money Now Scam
If nothing else, this is one of the reasons why Facebook doesn't belong in the classroom.
On the post: Despite Awful Customer Service, Woman Felt Forced To Buy Another Sony eBook Reader... Thanks To DRM
Re: Re: Re: Caught you Mike!
As someone has pointed out in the original post, Kindle isn't a "tax" because the books you buy aren't device dependant, and they aren't lost if your device is broken or replaced. You have bought a license, and Amazon maintains the material in a manner that you can access it and update your new Kindle or other Amazon ebook format readers / software.
So there is no Kindle "tax", just a made up term attempting to scare people once again. WTG, ending 2009 on a high note.
On the post: Creativity, Innovation And Happiness
Happy New Year
Next >>