2) Business incentives. Producers of sequel films can trade on the success of the prequels, and thus can cut corners in costs and effort of the subsequent film. Even when word gets out that the sequel is bad, the film will still be over-compensated by the market, because fans may have some affinity for the characters - enough to incentivize them to hold their noses just to follow the characters along. (See: "The Phantom Menace")
IMHO, factor 1 above is the biggest factor at play. It is a powerful statistical reality. Factor 2 assumes a fairly cynical approach by writers and artists to just produce crap that makes money, but I believe that these artists have an inherent desire to create a highly acclaimed product, not a knock-off. The studio 'suits', OTOH, might drive some of factor 2.
Um, don't you think the fact that they're making remakes is because they know it's true that people like them?"
What they DO and what they SAY are not in sync. This is exactly what Masnick (and I) is pointing out. Seems a little thick not to have picked up the key takeaway.
The media industry (perhaps not exactly the movie industry) has been suing derivative artists like Girl Talk for 'appropriating' their art, and building something new with it. We feel like these derivative works are fair use. The motion picture industry has attacked all sorts of fan fiction in much the same way. Techdirt has dozens of posts where media backers comment how these "remixers are nothing better than thieving punks." So, in these cases, the media industry seems to think that derivative works are NOT creative works of their own.
Clearly this isn't a "slam dunk" argument we just made.
We're just pointing out a little more hypocrisy to add to the pile.
No. The community here LIKES remakes. We feel that remixing and re-hashing ARE art, and can add value.
We just want Hollywood to admit it's true.
Because if it is true, then by locking up characters under copyright and trademark, the public loses access to all kinds of derivative works that are currently blocked. If so, then the IP laws are not meeting their stated purpose: to provide more art to the public.
If we judge Hollywood by their actions, based on all the re-hashes that creative community produces, then we conclude that they DO agree that re-hashes are art.
Absolutely. But I think the general consensus here is that remakes, prequels, TV-to-film, and sequels ARE creative works.
The may re-use known characters, common story lines, proven successes, but in any case, they are re-worked. New scripts are written, and the result is absolutely derivative and new.
Just as an example, people produce the plays of Shaw and Shakespeare all the time. They normally quote exactly the same script. The storyline is the same. Yet, despite this, every theater company, director, actor, stage designer, costumer designer, etc is taking some poetic license with their interpretation, and is adding their creativity on top of the base layer of Elizabethan quartets.
Art is derivative, has intrinsic value, and has no need to be wholly original. We know it. We just want Hollywood to admit it's true.
Re: Gross Misstatement by Lemly's 104 page Apologia for Overfed, and Overpriced Lawyers
"It is the defense of denial and theft by large interests that is the great engine of employment for Lemly and other lawyers."
I would think that the existence of the Patent system is the engine of employment for countless persons in the legal field. The abolishment of software patents would greatly reduce the jobs for lawyers.
Please compare the number of IP attorneys or lawsuits in the fashion industry versus the smartphone sector.
It's nice that we can rely on a national government that actually gets informed about the issue of ACTA and decided in favor of the people, not the US media giants and copyright maximalists.
Too bad that it had to be in Mexico, and not in our strange republic.
"...apparently the US Chamber of Commerce feels that writing a reasoned letter to someone to explain why the Chamber of Commerce is manipulating your story counts as "harassment."
Apparently, the US Chamber of Commerce, at some point, reached out themselves, and contacted this woman. The also sent a film crew.
"do they and you hate all property rights or only those of others? Do you have a title on your car, your house, etc? Do you have a pin on your ATM card?"
Please, don't be a total idiot and trot out the tired old mistake of conflating property rights on real physical property and so-called "intellectual property" rights on ideas or methods.
You lost all credibility in your first paragraph, and I didn't care to read what you may have written below it.
If you did, it wouldn't do much. Lodsys' offices are basically fake, in an empty building in Marshall, TX. Empty as in not even Lodsys is really there.
The brick would probably sit there for months before some cleaning crew even noticed.
Re: Re: Re: No, decline is due to manufacturing has moved to China.
"Only Communists don't want private property rights to extend to the intellectual realm (for a limited time, as in US Constitution"
I could go find some quotes from Thomas Jefferson about the perils of Intellectual Property, and then ask you "why you think Jefferson was a communist", but I'm too lazy to do your homework for you.
Call a tutor in India, and they can find it for you.
" a few bad patents being misused. It's pretty much in the same manner that a few cars are misused by drunks, or pain medication is misused by junkies."
Yeah, but what is the ratio among SOFTWARE patents?
Also, perhaps abolishing patents would be a bad idea, perhaps not. It is certainly debatable, and the lion's share of research is not on your side, even if the lion's share of legislation is.
But I do think this: 'no patents at all' would probably be better than what we have now. The overhead is quite low, the paperwork trivial, and the government interference non-existent. Inventors would lose no time in legal morasses. Inventors wouldn't have to worry about being saddled to pull Myhrvold's Plough. Monopolies would be eliminated, and everyone would have to compete on the next big idea, not the last one.
"Video over IP is by choice, because it is cheaper."
Video over IP is orders of magnitude more expensive than broadcast video. It is done by the telcos not because it's cheaper, but because it is new potential revenue, and they don't have broadcast resources available to them.
"new technologies are developed and implemented." "networks have been built to excess capacity"
Right. For example the fiber in FiOS and uVerse that we have both been discussing. So who do you think pays for this implementation? They put it the ground, spend the capital, and then they expect economic rents on the investment. You can't just say "that investment is already made, so now broadband is free".
And which of us should pay? Well, given that...
"The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide." [cisco vni]
...I propose that it's fair that the heavier users should shoulder an heavier share of the economic rents that we pay to our ISPs.
...or was it when I worked at the Javasoft division at Sun Microsystems in 1997, and we were working on the JavaStation thin client computer under McNeely's mantra "the network is the computer".
At least I don't kid myself. None of that was entirely new anyway. Client/server could be considered cloud, and plenty of other "cloud like" tech pre-dates the 90's and thus my career. Processing power, storage, etc have all swung like a pendulum back and forth between the edge and the core through different eras of technology. But sure, if it makes you feel better, consider yourself way ahead of the curve.
"You seem to think that bandwidth is a limited resource, and using it somehow consumes something."
Not so much that. If you kept consuming data at the same rate you consumed it in 2005, there would be no capacity issue. New users would come on to the net, and existing fees would handle that slow, linear growth.
However, what IS happening is that joe shmoe users, who in 2005 were consuming a gig or two a month, are now consuming 14 gigs or more. This requires serious network expansion, and that, my friend, requires capital, i.e. money.
If, as you say, I am fooled, and bandwidth utilization is a moot issue, then why are the telcos investing billions in new networks, like FiOS or that uVerse stuff? They are investing BILLIONS!! New entrants are investing BILLIONS. And the public complains that they are not investing fast enough. When an incumbent doesn't invest enough, municipalities invests in a fiber ring. Does that sound like an industry that has no capacity constraints? Your position is ludicrous.
Maybe you are mislead because this country had plenty of dark fiber at the turn of the century, and that has created the illusion that there is lots of excess capacity. OK, at the core there was dark fiber. That has mostly been lit, and the problem isn't at the core anyway, it's last mile and middle mile.
Yes, sir. "Their prices are going down, per byte." But the amount of bytes is increasing at a rate that outpaces the savings. Cisco's historically accurate VNI forecast says that by 2015, total Internet traffic will be 4x 2010 traffic.
"Boy have they got me fooled?" Please. You're in engineering in telecom. Don't assume that makes you savvy in capital markets, economics, or business. You see capacity where you work because the capital has/is being spent. Then we gotta pay the bill.
On the post: Without Copyright, Hollywood Would Never Be Incented To... Make A Bunch Of Remakes?
Re:
Probably two factors at play:
1) Regression towards the Mean. Probably not something I should take the space to explain here, so if you don't know what it is, you should. Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_to_the_mean
2) Business incentives. Producers of sequel films can trade on the success of the prequels, and thus can cut corners in costs and effort of the subsequent film. Even when word gets out that the sequel is bad, the film will still be over-compensated by the market, because fans may have some affinity for the characters - enough to incentivize them to hold their noses just to follow the characters along. (See: "The Phantom Menace")
IMHO, factor 1 above is the biggest factor at play. It is a powerful statistical reality. Factor 2 assumes a fairly cynical approach by writers and artists to just produce crap that makes money, but I believe that these artists have an inherent desire to create a highly acclaimed product, not a knock-off. The studio 'suits', OTOH, might drive some of factor 2.
On the post: Without Copyright, Hollywood Would Never Be Incented To... Make A Bunch Of Remakes?
Re: Re: Re:
Um, don't you think the fact that they're making remakes is because they know it's true that people like them?"
What they DO and what they SAY are not in sync. This is exactly what Masnick (and I) is pointing out. Seems a little thick not to have picked up the key takeaway.
The media industry (perhaps not exactly the movie industry) has been suing derivative artists like Girl Talk for 'appropriating' their art, and building something new with it. We feel like these derivative works are fair use. The motion picture industry has attacked all sorts of fan fiction in much the same way. Techdirt has dozens of posts where media backers comment how these "remixers are nothing better than thieving punks." So, in these cases, the media industry seems to think that derivative works are NOT creative works of their own.
Clearly this isn't a "slam dunk" argument we just made.
We're just pointing out a little more hypocrisy to add to the pile.
On the post: Without Copyright, Hollywood Would Never Be Incented To... Make A Bunch Of Remakes?
Re:
We just want Hollywood to admit it's true.
Because if it is true, then by locking up characters under copyright and trademark, the public loses access to all kinds of derivative works that are currently blocked. If so, then the IP laws are not meeting their stated purpose: to provide more art to the public.
If we judge Hollywood by their actions, based on all the re-hashes that creative community produces, then we conclude that they DO agree that re-hashes are art.
On the post: Without Copyright, Hollywood Would Never Be Incented To... Make A Bunch Of Remakes?
Re: Re:
Absolutely. But I think the general consensus here is that remakes, prequels, TV-to-film, and sequels ARE creative works.
The may re-use known characters, common story lines, proven successes, but in any case, they are re-worked. New scripts are written, and the result is absolutely derivative and new.
Just as an example, people produce the plays of Shaw and Shakespeare all the time. They normally quote exactly the same script. The storyline is the same. Yet, despite this, every theater company, director, actor, stage designer, costumer designer, etc is taking some poetic license with their interpretation, and is adding their creativity on top of the base layer of Elizabethan quartets.
Art is derivative, has intrinsic value, and has no need to be wholly original. We know it. We just want Hollywood to admit it's true.
On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System... Is A Myth
Re: myth
Where are your many titles?
On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System... Is A Myth
Re: Gross Misstatement by Lemly's 104 page Apologia for Overfed, and Overpriced Lawyers
I would think that the existence of the Patent system is the engine of employment for countless persons in the legal field. The abolishment of software patents would greatly reduce the jobs for lawyers.
Please compare the number of IP attorneys or lawsuits in the fashion industry versus the smartphone sector.
On the post: That Didn't Take Long: Spotify Sued For Patent Infringement Just Weeks After Entering US Market
Hah! One For Me
I'm going to call a win for me in the Mobile TV column. I always knew people would want to watch it, but not pay $15/mo for it.
Here's where you and I were in 2004:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20041122/160109.shtml
On the post: Mexican Senate Calls On President To Reject ACTA
Banana Republic
Too bad that it had to be in Mexico, and not in our strange republic.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce: Communicating With Woman Whose Sad Story We Manipulated Is Harassment
Re: You wish to forcibly enlighten her.
But Techdirt can't contact her cuz that would be wrong?
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce: Communicating With Woman Whose Sad Story We Manipulated Is Harassment
Hypocrites
Apparently, the US Chamber of Commerce, at some point, reached out themselves, and contacted this woman. The also sent a film crew.
Why did they harass her so??!!!
On the post: Google Finally Speaking Up About Problems With Patent System
Fixed That
We have them to *stimulate* innovation, but that, too, is not happening here.
On the post: When Patents Attack: How Patents Are Destroying Innovation In Silicon Valley
Re: nonsense
Please, don't be a total idiot and trot out the tired old mistake of conflating property rights on real physical property and so-called "intellectual property" rights on ideas or methods.
You lost all credibility in your first paragraph, and I didn't care to read what you may have written below it.
On the post: Lodsys Strikes Again: Sues Rovio For Patent Infringement Over Angry Birds
Re: My Wish
The brick would probably sit there for months before some cleaning crew even noticed.
See:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/22250715225/when-patents-attack-how-pate nts-are-destroying-innovation-silicon-valley.shtml#c197
On the post: One More Time, With Feeling: Winklevii Lose Yet Again
Should Be More Vegas
Double or nothing, Winkevii?
On the post: When Patents Attack: How Patents Are Destroying Innovation In Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: No, decline is due to manufacturing has moved to China.
I could go find some quotes from Thomas Jefferson about the perils of Intellectual Property, and then ask you "why you think Jefferson was a communist", but I'm too lazy to do your homework for you.
Call a tutor in India, and they can find it for you.
On the post: When Patents Attack: How Patents Are Destroying Innovation In Silicon Valley
Re: Re:
On the post: When Patents Attack: How Patents Are Destroying Innovation In Silicon Valley
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but what is the ratio among SOFTWARE patents?
Also, perhaps abolishing patents would be a bad idea, perhaps not. It is certainly debatable, and the lion's share of research is not on your side, even if the lion's share of legislation is.
But I do think this: 'no patents at all' would probably be better than what we have now. The overhead is quite low, the paperwork trivial, and the government interference non-existent. Inventors would lose no time in legal morasses. Inventors wouldn't have to worry about being saddled to pull Myhrvold's Plough. Monopolies would be eliminated, and everyone would have to compete on the next big idea, not the last one.
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re:
Video over IP is orders of magnitude more expensive than broadcast video. It is done by the telcos not because it's cheaper, but because it is new potential revenue, and they don't have broadcast resources available to them.
"new technologies are developed and implemented." "networks have been built to excess capacity"
Right. For example the fiber in FiOS and uVerse that we have both been discussing. So who do you think pays for this implementation? They put it the ground, spend the capital, and then they expect economic rents on the investment. You can't just say "that investment is already made, so now broadband is free".
And which of us should pay? Well, given that...
"The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide." [cisco vni]
...I propose that it's fair that the heavier users should shoulder an heavier share of the economic rents that we pay to our ISPs.
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: More Personal Experience
Nice try. But the question is WHEN was it "new" to me? Was it back when I Chaired, moderated, and presented around "Cloud" in 2010:
http://www.kertongroup.com/wireless-telecom-industry-speaker.html
...or when I organized this event for the Telecom Council of Silicon Valley in 2009:
http://www.cvent.com/events/building-the-cloud/agenda-d17d0b288da04b1ab45b782f131a201e.aspx
..or when I made techdirt comments about it in Jan 2009?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090123/0705323499.shtml#c388
...or do you think it is when I wrote this Techdirt post about it in 2007 (see para 2):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071120/181127.shtml
...or was it when I worked at the Javasoft division at Sun Microsystems in 1997, and we were working on the JavaStation thin client computer under McNeely's mantra "the network is the computer".
At least I don't kid myself. None of that was entirely new anyway. Client/server could be considered cloud, and plenty of other "cloud like" tech pre-dates the 90's and thus my career. Processing power, storage, etc have all swung like a pendulum back and forth between the edge and the core through different eras of technology. But sure, if it makes you feel better, consider yourself way ahead of the curve.
On the post: Guy Kicked Off Comcast For Using Too Many Cloud Services
Re: Re: Re: More Personal Experience
Not so much that. If you kept consuming data at the same rate you consumed it in 2005, there would be no capacity issue. New users would come on to the net, and existing fees would handle that slow, linear growth.
However, what IS happening is that joe shmoe users, who in 2005 were consuming a gig or two a month, are now consuming 14 gigs or more. This requires serious network expansion, and that, my friend, requires capital, i.e. money.
If, as you say, I am fooled, and bandwidth utilization is a moot issue, then why are the telcos investing billions in new networks, like FiOS or that uVerse stuff? They are investing BILLIONS!! New entrants are investing BILLIONS. And the public complains that they are not investing fast enough. When an incumbent doesn't invest enough, municipalities invests in a fiber ring. Does that sound like an industry that has no capacity constraints? Your position is ludicrous.
Maybe you are mislead because this country had plenty of dark fiber at the turn of the century, and that has created the illusion that there is lots of excess capacity. OK, at the core there was dark fiber. That has mostly been lit, and the problem isn't at the core anyway, it's last mile and middle mile.
Yes, sir. "Their prices are going down, per byte." But the amount of bytes is increasing at a rate that outpaces the savings. Cisco's historically accurate VNI forecast says that by 2015, total Internet traffic will be 4x 2010 traffic.
In 2009, the average High speed Internet user consumed 11.4GB per month. And video was 4.3GB of that.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cisco-Average-Connection-Consumes-114-GB-Per-Month-105086
By 2010, that number had climbed to 14.9GB. And busy hour traffic was up 41%. What industry can provide 41% more of what they provide, year over year, and not need to invest in additional capacity?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/Cisco_VNI_Usage_W P.html
Additional capacity investment = additional capital = additional economic rent required. Therefore, prices climb.
"Boy have they got me fooled?" Please. You're in engineering in telecom. Don't assume that makes you savvy in capital markets, economics, or business. You see capacity where you work because the capital has/is being spent. Then we gotta pay the bill.
Next >>