I disagree with that because I think that those who profit the most from society should also bear the most financial burden to keep it running for the benefit of all. More so, the investors that make obscene amounts of money merely because of the fact that they have obscene amounts of money to invest should bear the largest burden. Nobody who makes millions or billions has ever "earned" it.
I think the simple reason this happens repeatedly is because they are only accountable to shareholders who don't care about anything other than a favorable quarterly report. These companies need to be held accountable to the stakeholders at large if they want to receive anything from the government. It only stands to reason that they should be obligated to adhere to conditions attached to every handout they get and face serious consequences when they fail to follow through on their end. Otherwise, they behave like spoiled children that get no punishment when they drop their pants and shit on the living-room rug.
Muslims are bound by their religion to not use banks that charge interest, as usury is against their religious laws. So, yes, they definitely don't trust (American) banks.
We actually do. Once people start reaping the benefits of a copyright-free world, they won't give it up willingly. A business built on content can adapt without copyright. We should not allow the abridging of free speech for concessions to profit concerns. Art and knowledge will survive a world without copyright. Free speech is withering under copyright.
The Google AV never left the lane. It moved to the far right of the lane, detected the sand bags, and attempted to return to the [i]center[/i] of that same lane. The bus tried to take an opening that was not there.
Except that Elsevier didn't do any of the research nor pay the people that did the actual work. So your argument has zero merit. They're just exploiting the scientific community.
"this is literally the problem that copyright was first created to solve: publishers appropriating a creative work in its entirety and selling it without compensating the author."
This is a shallow justification of copyright. I fail to see the implied mandate that someone making money by copying the works of others should compensate the artist they are copying. This just shows that artists can't compete with one of the natural properties of information: it's easy to copy. It also ignores that culture builds on culture. You can't create new "original" works without the existence of prior works. If the goal is to enable artists to be compensated for their labor, then copyright is completely the wrong way to go about it. Adopting a mindset that creative works should be treated like exclusive property is contrary to reality when exclusivity is not natural to the object in question. If the goal is to maintain a monopoly on copying and distribution, you've failed as soon as you publish your works.
The proper solution is a mindset that leads to adapting to the reality of what the artist truly has control over. The truth is, you only have control over your own will. So it follows that artist and audience would be better off forming an agreement prior to the act of labor which produces the creative works. It also shifts your focus onto serving the people that are willing to pay you and accepting that copying is just part of marketing.
Copyright is the model of doing the work today and hoping that people will agree to pay you tomorrow. Don't do that; get your just compensation settled before you do any work. Everything else is dealing with plagiarism.
This is the problem with automatic copyright. It makes everyone vulnerable to litigation, forcing them to make a case for fair use. This weakens fair use to the point of uselessness. Better that works be unprotected until registered. Then the first, and most important, factor for fair use would be "Is it registered?" Then we might finally start to see how tedious it is to apply copyright to every bit and byte in digital spaces.
What about commentary? Is the particular expression Mr. Prince creating a commentary on the work in question? Does it make a statement about work in some way?
It seems to me to be a commentary on how people respond to works in digital spaces.
Oh, how silly of me! I didn't realize that I don't have a legitimate grievance when it's not vital to my survival!
You know what? Comcast doesn't need my money for that content because culture and art existed long before there was a business built around it. Art will survive without my money, so I'll just have it when, where, and how I want it. If companies like Comcast don't want to sell me the service I want to pay for, then I'll just help myself.
That doesn't excuse the fact that your options are less than what they could provide. That's like using gum to plug a hole in the Hoover dam. I'm not going to allow myself to be pissed on and have them try to convince me it's rain. Those services are a pale shadow of what could be offered.
Many people only have one ISP to choose from. The alternative is dial-up. You're quite lucky that you have two services in your area. Many only have dial-up and nothing else.
Not only that, but to get access to all of your favorite content, you have to pay for multiple services that end up costing you nearly as much as cable or you just pick one and go without the rest.
This stinks of a risk-adverse mentality. They aren't following the will of the market. They're using psychological manipulation on players to get them to spend more money than they would otherwise. They're focusing on what makes people spend money, rather than what people would actually find satisfying. It's the same psychological tactics casinos use to trap gamblers in to spending more money.
It's better to view modern online games as casinos, rather than actual games.
Re:
Re: Re: Hello, "Greevar"! Back after 30 month dirt nap!
(untitled comment)
Angular momentum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage
Imagine flywheels as big as hydro-electric generators storing energy.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Stop the Insanity.
(untitled comment)
Re: Pirates don't seem to understand
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Too late.
Re: Re: Re:
Music Labels
Re: Why focus on the selfies?
Re:
This is a shallow justification of copyright. I fail to see the implied mandate that someone making money by copying the works of others should compensate the artist they are copying. This just shows that artists can't compete with one of the natural properties of information: it's easy to copy. It also ignores that culture builds on culture. You can't create new "original" works without the existence of prior works. If the goal is to enable artists to be compensated for their labor, then copyright is completely the wrong way to go about it. Adopting a mindset that creative works should be treated like exclusive property is contrary to reality when exclusivity is not natural to the object in question. If the goal is to maintain a monopoly on copying and distribution, you've failed as soon as you publish your works.
The proper solution is a mindset that leads to adapting to the reality of what the artist truly has control over. The truth is, you only have control over your own will. So it follows that artist and audience would be better off forming an agreement prior to the act of labor which produces the creative works. It also shifts your focus onto serving the people that are willing to pay you and accepting that copying is just part of marketing.
Copyright is the model of doing the work today and hoping that people will agree to pay you tomorrow. Don't do that; get your just compensation settled before you do any work. Everything else is dealing with plagiarism.
Re:
Re: Unfair use of fair use
It seems to me to be a commentary on how people respond to works in digital spaces.
Unfortunately, I don't think you care.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what? Comcast doesn't need my money for that content because culture and art existed long before there was a business built around it. Art will survive without my money, so I'll just have it when, where, and how I want it. If companies like Comcast don't want to sell me the service I want to pay for, then I'll just help myself.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Netflix: It has lots of content owned by Comcast.
Hulu: Comcast owns that.
Many people only have one ISP to choose from. The alternative is dial-up. You're quite lucky that you have two services in your area. Many only have dial-up and nothing else.
Not only that, but to get access to all of your favorite content, you have to pay for multiple services that end up costing you nearly as much as cable or you just pick one and go without the rest.
(untitled comment)
It's better to view modern online games as casinos, rather than actual games.
More comments from Greevar >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Greevar.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt