Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 2:29pm
I wonder...
•Amazon: Low margin hardware (scarce); make the real margins on digital goods sales (abundant)
Is that really true? Is what Amazon ultimately make their margin on not providing the service of digital goods?
I can't help thinking they are one of those business that often get talked about here where people will still buy stuff off them even if it can be had for free.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 11:31am
Re: Re: Re:
Why are you responsible for long distance calls on your phone then, if perhaps someone else in your family made the calls?
Totally the wrong question. A slightly more accurate analogy if you insist on talking about phone lines would be "Are you responsible for the bank robbery someone arranges using your phone line?"
The pipe in between is nothing to do with the offence she comitted and he is no more responsible for what's on the other end of the pipe than he is for what she says to someone on the other end of the phone - if she'd downloaded 6TB of data and run up a few thousand in "over quota" charges then your analogy would fit and I'd agree the guy is responsible.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Sep 2012 @ 10:46am
That's easy
(1) He's not allowed to see the text. (2) He gets upset when someone points him to the leaked text. (3) He... also insists he knows, absolutely, what will not be in the text. How is that even remotely credible?
Well, if he's a lobbyist he probably knows the people who wrote the text.... but at the point they wrote it, it wasn't officially the TPP. It only became the TPP when it was handed over and officially "drafted" and he hasn't seen it since just like he's not allowed to... see? Simples!
'course that theory doesn't change that he's probably lying through his teeth...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 12:22pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah... then I misunderstood what you were getting at as a standard troll attempt to discount the public domain from having much at all to do with copyrighted work and got a little over-rambo'd-up... very convoluted thread... my bad
On the other hand, having gone back and read the "offending" sentance I think maybe you're making a bit much of it. I can't pretend to know what was in Mike Masnick's mind when he wrote it, but in context I'd read it as meaning "Disney's creativity wasn't brought to the world because of copyright (since we just talked about them using PD and out of copyright works as basis for their most popular stuff especially when they started), but often in spite of copyright (since we just talked about them procuring the mouse and some other things from other copyrighted work), so it's a bit rich them claiming it's all about the copyright.
I read it as 2 separate though linked clauses not directly referential to each other, maybe that's just me - but it also explains why I missed your point the first time.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 12 Sep 2012 @ 11:45am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do think we can take a lack of anyone creating feature-length animated movies in the universe that did exist as evidence
Evidence of what though?
Hmm let's see if I can make my point the other way round... imagine a world in which it was decided back in the early days of the internet when it was tiny and mostly academic that it was the right of every citizen to have a connection... the major governments of the world get together and mandate that the budding ISPs must sell any citizen who wants one a connection and strictly limit prices by law so that everyone can afford it (welfare available). You could probably have a good go at imagining the sort of ISPs and supporting structure that would grow up around such a law
Scroll forward to the hypotherical today in that world... I imagine that the availability of internet might be slightly improved over today, but probably at a cost of the speed and usability that we enjoy here in the real world...
But more to the point I'm damn sure there'd be a lot of people (probably including the ISPs who'd be pretty much on a nice cushy semi-guaranteed income) claiming "We'd never have even a fraction of the internet we have today without that law". If you were in that world, could you imagine this one?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 3:02pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just point me in the direction of any feature-length animated movie created in that time frame without the intent of recouping expenses through some copyright-based mechanism, and I'll seriously consider your point.
Except that's a moot point and misleading. There is no way to know what works might have been created had copyright not existed at all. With copyright in existence the playing field isn't level and given the option, which would you choose? Take your chances in the marketplace where someone else can also compete to profit off your work once released, or take the offered monopoly?
You can make an argument either way as to whether they would have been created or not in a hypothtical sense, but the lack of existence (at least I can't think of one) proves nothing for or against.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 2:34pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for 3, most copyright infringement is not criminal, and drawing cartoon characters at the kitchen table is almost certainly fair use (so not even civil infringement).
I snipped and skipped the civil bit.. my bad. Although, that's another gripe I have - as technology progresses, (e.g. sharing, which even the most rabid maximalist will usually agree took place naturally and was "ignored" in the way we're talking about BI - "before internet"), what would once have simply been a civil issue is suddenly re-classified (or trying to be) as criminal. Plus, is there at that point really a major difference between a civil and criminal issue as far as an individual is concerned when the civil "fine" is so damn big for a tiny "offence" as to destroy the life in question anyway.
As for drawing at the kitchen table being fair use, our resident copyright maximalist lawyers usually like to point out (factually or not, who knows? IANAL) that fair use is a defense that can only be applied after you've been sued for it. To an individual again, how is $20,000 (optimistically) in legal fees to prove your innocence or accepting the $5000 (optimistically) "generous settlement" offered massively different from being guilty other than in scale?
Also, I could be wrong because I can't be bothered to look up the reference, but I seem to remember some organisation being sued for displaying fanart done by people who used the facilty. That (true or not) prompts a hypotheitcal; What would happen if your child's picture of Mickey along with other similar ones was put up on display for a nursery (um daycare in the US?) to show prospective parents what wonderful artists the kiddies become under their care and entice them to send their own little darlings there? Would that then be considered potential criminal infringement since (tenuously) the centre could be considered to be profiting from a copyrighted work? If so, should the centre be forced to make little Johnny draw a bowl of fruit when he wants to draw spiderman?
As for the fan fiction one, I know someone who writes in the setting of a well-known TV series and doesn't dare release it into the wild even for free for fear of a heavy-handed response.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 1:53pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you dispute that because of the incentives created by copyright, Disney creates wonderful works that we all love?
Yes, I dispute that... A more accurate form might be:
Disney have re-created many classic stories that are very popular under copyright terms and it is likely that copyright played a significant part in their decision given the prevelant conditions at the time. However there is no way to know what their reasoning or product might have been had copyright not existed.
Because that's the thing isn't it? Copyright supporters are arguing a 1 sided argument. However much shouting there is about "[x film] would never have been created without copyright" it's got to be hypothetical because there's never been an environment to test it. In the current environment, though the option exists to do without and some people do, its a far more difficult route because the playing field isn't level. Who knows what would happen if copyright simply didn't exist? Is it likely that the same films would have been created? Probably not. Is it likely other films would have been created? Likely yes. Would they have been as engaging as many people seem to find the Disney films? Absolutely no way to tell but I'd say yes.
Modern day "blockbusters" with expensive high-tech might not exist in the same form without copyright. But is that a bad thing? I like a good whoosh-bang explosion-fest as well as the next guy but if I tried to write my top 100 fave films well over 1/2 of them would come out as middling to low budget films with engaging plots/stories and/or clever writing and characterisation and would definitely occupy most of the top slots on the list. In a hypothetical world without copyright, more films like that might have been made. Would that be better, worse or just different?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 1:06pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you graphed the projected public domain at the time, it would be steadily growing by huge amounts, starting in 1951 and accelerating from there on. Everyone at the time was happy with that arrangement. The works got created. They got bought. They got consumed.
This here is one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about the "reasoning" of status quo copyright fans.
There's an argument that says works might not have been created without copyright - if you limited it to "exactly the same works" it might even be a strong argument since there's no denying there's money in copyright, though I'm unsure if that's better or worse than the works that would have been created in its absence and who the hell knows since there's no way to test the opposite.
If you think copyright is that effective to create new works you might put forth a cogent argument that lengthening the granted term encourages further creativity (though I've not seen one).
But retroactive extension? There's exactly zero argument the work wouldn't have been created without it because it has been under the original terms. How the hell do you justify that beyond blatant grasping and sense of entitlement?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 12:19pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the benefits down the line would be enormous, we would have a one-stop source for the pertinent data on a work, like when it would be available to the public domain and who owns the copyright if someone wanted to license a use while still under copyright.
You've got to figure it would actually be easier for the creators themselves to have a single central registry too. How often have we heard about instances where no-one can work out who owns a work? All the lawyers neccessary to keep it all straight (or deliberately bent in some instances) can't be cheap, surely?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 12:07pm
Re: Re: Re:
1. No. At least not 100% of the time. But I can't think of any system that is fair to 100% of participants 100% of the time, so I'm not sure if that's a useful metric.
Well that was a valid answer to Gwiz's question, but I think he asked the wrong one.... I'd ask
1. Do you feel that the current copyright system is more beneficial to one or more of those groups (creator, consumers, middlemen) and what "percentage of the pie of benefit" would you assign to each.
My feeling would suggest about 60% of the benefit currently gravitates to middlemen, maybe 30% to creators and a generous 10% to consumers
2. with you on that one.... in this day and age I'd say waaaay shorter (maybe 10 years maybe even less) considering that the speed and volume of creation is so fast and most of the profit usually comes at the front. I think the copyright holder sacrificing the long tail of control for public gain is a very fair swap, after all as has been proved many times, it's not like you can't still make money on public domain works. I'd love to see a genuine debate based on, you know, actual facts regarding a sensible length of copyright though.
On the derivative works thing... that particular "right" is has always been way to close to locking up the idea rather than the expression for my taste and personally I think it ought to go entirely. Certainly making it easier might help some though - some sort of compulsory fixed-fee license grant like for songwriting perhaps?
3. No. That said, I don't believe the current copyright law does [criminalise everyday behaviour] .
3. Hmmmm You don't? Your kids (If you have any) never learnt to draw trying to draw their favorite cartoon characters? You never dabbled in your teens with trying to write "fanfiction" in your favorite story universe or "borrowed" from a book you'd read and changed it around a little bit to pass an english lit test? Never put a recorded TV show or film on a tape meaning to get round to watching it and discovering it on the shelf a couple of years later?
These natural things either do or could violate copyright even before you start getting into the debate about whether you consider "sharing" a natural behaviour or not.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 11:35am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
false dichotomy between public domain and copyright.
What false dichotomy exactly? Are you suggesting that a rich public domain does not enhance creativity? Or are you suggesting that creative works are completely stand alone and not built on things that come before so that "things that come before" being locked up in copyright isn't a problem? Or that it's possible to use copyrighted work as a basis for future works, however loose, without falling foul of being sued? Or that stringent copyright enforcement such as disney is known for does not make it harder to base a separate story on the original uncopyrighted work without being sued?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 11:03am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone knows Disney's bias, and can evaluate the merits of Disney's presentation.
Except politicians of course.... it's a tragic degenerative disease of the brain they get, very specific oddly enough, caused by excessive interaction thick brown envelopes and the residual cocaine on the large amount of bank notes in them.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2012 @ 10:50am
Re: Re:
So in that particular case, there was a reason for it not being available, at least in the US
See that's the thing with history and culture, you're not supposed to ignore the bits of it you don't like you're supposed to acknowledge adn learn from them. Sure loads of people do it anyway but that's one of the problems with massively long copyright - it makes it vastly easier for a single entity (in this case Disney) to decide how history gets revised.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Sep 2012 @ 1:58pm
Re:
You forgot to mention also ignoring that most starting musicians probably haven't spent 5 years studying contract law to be able to understand the (deliberatly) obtuse legalese fineprint of the contract and probably can't afford a lawyer to explain it all and that the law, especially as regards civil law, is outrageously biased towards whoever has the most money.
On the post: This Goes Beyond Tablets: Apple, Amazon & Google Are Betting On Economic Philosophies
I wonder...
I can't help thinking they are one of those business that often get talked about here where people will still buy stuff off them even if it can be had for free.
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Lobbyist Hasn't Seen The TPP Text, Cannot Read The TPP Text, But Knows What's In The TPP Text?
Re: To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Re: Re: Re:
The pipe in between is nothing to do with the offence she comitted and he is no more responsible for what's on the other end of the pipe than he is for what she says to someone on the other end of the phone - if she'd downloaded 6TB of data and run up a few thousand in "over quota" charges then your analogy would fit and I'd agree the guy is responsible.
On the post: Hollywood Lobbyist Hasn't Seen The TPP Text, Cannot Read The TPP Text, But Knows What's In The TPP Text?
That's easy
'course that theory doesn't change that he's probably lying through his teeth...
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, having gone back and read the "offending" sentance I think maybe you're making a bit much of it. I can't pretend to know what was in Mike Masnick's mind when he wrote it, but in context I'd read it as meaning
"Disney's creativity wasn't brought to the world because of copyright (since we just talked about them using PD and out of copyright works as basis for their most popular stuff especially when they started), but often in spite of copyright (since we just talked about them procuring the mouse and some other things from other copyrighted work), so it's a bit rich them claiming it's all about the copyright.
I read it as 2 separate though linked clauses not directly referential to each other, maybe that's just me - but it also explains why I missed your point the first time.
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm let's see if I can make my point the other way round... imagine a world in which it was decided back in the early days of the internet when it was tiny and mostly academic that it was the right of every citizen to have a connection... the major governments of the world get together and mandate that the budding ISPs must sell any citizen who wants one a connection and strictly limit prices by law so that everyone can afford it (welfare available). You could probably have a good go at imagining the sort of ISPs and supporting structure that would grow up around such a law
Scroll forward to the hypotherical today in that world... I imagine that the availability of internet might be slightly improved over today, but probably at a cost of the speed and usability that we enjoy here in the real world...
But more to the point I'm damn sure there'd be a lot of people (probably including the ISPs who'd be pretty much on a nice cushy semi-guaranteed income) claiming "We'd never have even a fraction of the internet we have today without that law". If you were in that world, could you imagine this one?
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can make an argument either way as to whether they would have been created or not in a hypothtical sense, but the lack of existence (at least I can't think of one) proves nothing for or against.
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for drawing at the kitchen table being fair use, our resident copyright maximalist lawyers usually like to point out (factually or not, who knows? IANAL) that fair use is a defense that can only be applied after you've been sued for it. To an individual again, how is $20,000 (optimistically) in legal fees to prove your innocence or accepting the $5000 (optimistically) "generous settlement" offered massively different from being guilty other than in scale?
Also, I could be wrong because I can't be bothered to look up the reference, but I seem to remember some organisation being sued for displaying fanart done by people who used the facilty. That (true or not) prompts a hypotheitcal; What would happen if your child's picture of Mickey along with other similar ones was put up on display for a nursery (um daycare in the US?) to show prospective parents what wonderful artists the kiddies become under their care and entice them to send their own little darlings there? Would that then be considered potential criminal infringement since (tenuously) the centre could be considered to be profiting from a copyrighted work? If so, should the centre be forced to make little Johnny draw a bowl of fruit when he wants to draw spiderman?
As for the fan fiction one, I know someone who writes in the setting of a well-known TV series and doesn't dare release it into the wild even for free for fear of a heavy-handed response.
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Disney have re-created many classic stories that are very popular under copyright terms and it is likely that copyright played a significant part in their decision given the prevelant conditions at the time. However there is no way to know what their reasoning or product might have been had copyright not existed.
Because that's the thing isn't it? Copyright supporters are arguing a 1 sided argument. However much shouting there is about "[x film] would never have been created without copyright" it's got to be hypothetical because there's never been an environment to test it. In the current environment, though the option exists to do without and some people do, its a far more difficult route because the playing field isn't level. Who knows what would happen if copyright simply didn't exist? Is it likely that the same films would have been created? Probably not. Is it likely other films would have been created? Likely yes. Would they have been as engaging as many people seem to find the Disney films? Absolutely no way to tell but I'd say yes.
Modern day "blockbusters" with expensive high-tech might not exist in the same form without copyright. But is that a bad thing? I like a good whoosh-bang explosion-fest as well as the next guy but if I tried to write my top 100 fave films well over 1/2 of them would come out as middling to low budget films with engaging plots/stories and/or clever writing and characterisation and would definitely occupy most of the top slots on the list. In a hypothetical world without copyright, more films like that might have been made. Would that be better, worse or just different?
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's an argument that says works might not have been created without copyright - if you limited it to "exactly the same works" it might even be a strong argument since there's no denying there's money in copyright, though I'm unsure if that's better or worse than the works that would have been created in its absence and who the hell knows since there's no way to test the opposite.
If you think copyright is that effective to create new works you might put forth a cogent argument that lengthening the granted term encourages further creativity (though I've not seen one).
But retroactive extension? There's exactly zero argument the work wouldn't have been created without it because it has been under the original terms. How the hell do you justify that beyond blatant grasping and sense of entitlement?
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re:
1. Do you feel that the current copyright system is more beneficial to one or more of those groups (creator, consumers, middlemen) and what "percentage of the pie of benefit" would you assign to each.
My feeling would suggest about 60% of the benefit currently gravitates to middlemen, maybe 30% to creators and a generous 10% to consumers
2. with you on that one.... in this day and age I'd say waaaay shorter (maybe 10 years maybe even less) considering that the speed and volume of creation is so fast and most of the profit usually comes at the front. I think the copyright holder sacrificing the long tail of control for public gain is a very fair swap, after all as has been proved many times, it's not like you can't still make money on public domain works. I'd love to see a genuine debate based on, you know, actual facts regarding a sensible length of copyright though.
On the derivative works thing... that particular "right" is has always been way to close to locking up the idea rather than the expression for my taste and personally I think it ought to go entirely. Certainly making it easier might help some though - some sort of compulsory fixed-fee license grant like for songwriting perhaps?
3. Hmmmm You don't? Your kids (If you have any) never learnt to draw trying to draw their favorite cartoon characters? You never dabbled in your teens with trying to write "fanfiction" in your favorite story universe or "borrowed" from a book you'd read and changed it around a little bit to pass an english lit test? Never put a recorded TV show or film on a tape meaning to get round to watching it and discovering it on the shelf a couple of years later?
These natural things either do or could violate copyright even before you start getting into the debate about whether you consider "sharing" a natural behaviour or not.
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re:
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re:
Next >>