Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?

from the maybe... dept

The Economist has an interesting article suggesting that perhaps the tide is finally turning on bad copyright laws, and we're beginning to see real efforts at reforming copyright in the right direction:
Canada passed a law in June that sets a new standard of permissiveness. It caps statutory damages if copyright is breached for non-commercial purposes. It expands the definition of “fair dealing” (“fair use” in America) and creates exemptions for educational purposes and for parody. Firms must pass warnings about infringement to the person who posted the material rather than immediately take the content down themselves. This contrasts with practice in America and Europe, where a web company alerted to infringing material must remove it. This encourages knee-jerk responses to complaints.

Britain too plans to introduce internet-friendly legislation this autumn after a review led by Ian Hargreaves, professor of digital economy at Cardiff University. As with Canada’s law, the recommended new code entails exemptions for non-commercial uses and user-generated content. Also mooted is a “digital copyright exchange” that would establish a marketplace for copyright. A musician could list her song and the licensing terms. A filmmaker wanting to use it would know quickly and simply what to do.
It also talks about how Ireland and Australia are both exploring more open and internet friendly copyright reforms. The article does note that this is not all going smoothly. There are efforts to create taxes on content to preserve old business models, for example. But it does seem like, for the first time in pretty much anyone's lifetime, there actually are real and legitimate efforts to push back on the excesses of copyright law, with the recognition that it's done more harm than good.

I'm not quite as optimistic as the Economist piece, as almost all of those efforts (Canada excepted, and even that came with bad digital locks/DRM anti-circumvention provisions) are still nascent and are facing tremendous lobbying pressure to go in the other direction. Furthermore, we just got through the SOPA and ACTA fights, and the latest round of TPP negotiations are going on as we speak. Plus, there's plenty of evidence suggesting that even as the RIAA and MPAA have had their budgets slashed, they're gearing up to continue the push for copyright maximalism in all corners. There are inklings of hope and greater and greater recognition of the problem, but I'd say that we're a long, long way from seeing the tide really turn -- and there's still an unfortunately large possibility of things going back to maximalism-as-usual.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:19am

    Just to be clear, Mike. In your opinion, are there any "good" copyright laws? If so, please specify which are good and why you think them so. And if possible, please point to even one article you've written where you defend the particular "good" law and any right holder invoking it. Thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Justin (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:20am

    I get the feeling that the Content industries are focusing more time on things like ACTA and SOPA, so stuff like this is getting through. Then all of a sudden you will just wake up one morning to see ACTA on steroids has been passed and is now law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:23am

    I think I have to agree.
    As much as I would love to be optimistic about a worldwide pushback against the ridiculousness of copyright law, I don't think it's realistic to expect much; at least not for a while.
    It definitely seems that more people are aware of the problems with copyright and patent laws—or perhaps I just notice them more now that I am—but I'm afraid it's going to take a global-financial-crisis level of disaster before there's anything resembling meaningful reform.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Chris Brand (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:28am

    Perhaps

    At some point, some of these people surely have to realise that if they just make enough exceptions and exemptions that copyright moves back out of our living rooms and returns to being a law that only affects businesses (including, of course, people who want to make a living creating content), then they can go back to the world where the general public won't care about copyright law.

    Having followed the copyright reform process in Canada for over a decade, though, it's pretty clear that the "user-friendly" parts of the law that eventually got passed are mostly there because the government was afraid that without them they wouldn't get re-elected, and the "DRM uber alles" part makes them meaningless anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:30am

    Derivative

    Perhaps it is the second derivative that turned, not the first derivative. Their signs do not need to be the same. And most people are looking only at the first derivative.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Rich, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:30am

    Re:

    You're assigning homework now? You can't search articles yourself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Rich, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:32am

    Re: Derivative

    I can't tell if you are babbling incoherently or making a calculus joke.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:33am

    Re:

    He just defended Canadian law as generally good while pointing some issues that could be worked on....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re: Derivative

    Calculus reference. Not joke; I was serious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:34am

    Hope

    I would say the copyright side still has the upper hand and are certainly being active in using their power in trying to ram though more nasty laws.

    Internet piracy is their Godsend and all the time it exists there is the perfect excuse for even harsher laws.

    I do think politicians are starting to wake up though and while they may well see piracy as bad they also see even harsher rights enforcement as bad also.

    What happened in Canada was very productive where they took many big steps in the right direction. It is true that the digital locks part was not good when it is no good having many nice fair dealing clauses if you then set the rights holders as the gatekeepers to this. I now only await the day of some Court case where it is concluded that their use was fair dealing but they are still punished for breaking the digital lock to do so.

    With that said Canada is the best we have and we should encourage other countries to follow their example. Certainly across the border in the USA they do need big changes like limiting the fines for non-commercial infringement and statutory damages make for a nice fantasy world far removed from facts.

    I now hope for productive improvements in the UK but I don't think that they are that keen on the subject.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:35am

    Re:

    Well if you call a law that 'gives' you a few exceptions (which were good exceptions) then takes them all away if there is DRM good, then yes the Canadian law was good.... It would be better if the exceptions were not voided by DRM.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:37am

    I tend to agree with Mike when he says we'll need a long time before reverting the copyright excesses and in that we'll still see more bloodshed and insanity in the field. However, I do think there's a lot of space for optimism as well. If we look at the past few years we've seen both ramped up efforts of enacting more draconian laws and make examples of people but we've also seen awareness risen to unprecedented levels, which by itself paves the way to turn the tides.

    As I've said before do not lay down your weapons, we still have many battles to win before the war is over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:38am

    Re:

    In the top right hand corner of the website is this little button labeled Search. Use it.

    You come here enough to know better.

    average joe indeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Zos (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:43am

    Re:

    i'll answer on my own behalf, wouldn't claim to speak for mike-

    no. no there are not any good government granted monopolies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:51am

    Re:

    Copyright is a valid and useful concept. It just doesn't work as well in the digital world, but it still applies and is *very* valid in the physical world.

    It's a lot harder to monetize something if you have to pay to create the copies. In the digital world, that's free and so information is effectively infinite. Hence how you can give away your content and drive purchases to thing that aren't infinite.

    In the physical world, selling actual books for instance, there's a cost to making each copy of the book and so it isn't as easy to 'give away' the content in the same manner.

    It could be argued that with the advent of the internet and digital media, perhaps copyright is now an outdated concept - since vastly more people are creating content than ever before and that's the express purpose of copyright.

    But as a concept it's still a valid idea; just the corruption of the implementation that's being worked out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:53am

    haven't read or seen any new internet-friendly legislation that is going to be introduced in the UK. last i saw was going to be all entertainment industry oriented and absolutely nothing people/customer orientated. almost all of the Hargreaves recommendations were being completely ignored by Ed Vaizey in favour of what the industries wanted

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re:

    He just defended Canadian law as generally good while pointing some issues that could be worked on....

    No, he said it was "reforming copyright in the right direction." I read that to mean "in the direction of copyright abolition." But I'm not asking about Canadian copyright, and I'm not asking for everyone's views. I'm asking Mike for his views. I want Mike to answer for himself. Can he point to *any* of U.S. copyright that he thinks is "good," and if so, can he point out where he celebrated that "good" law's enforcement? I can't help but feel that he frames these things like he's trying to be reasonable (e.g., implying he's only interested in getting rid of the "bad" parts of the law), but in fact his views are quite extreme (he actually thinks it's all "bad"). I await Mike's answer should he choose to give one (and history has shown that he scurries away from these types of discussions like a cockroach when the lights get turned on, so I don't expect that he'll actually meet the substance of my query with a response).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 9:57am

    Re:

    And for the sake of the argument, if Mike were to answer that there are in fact no good copyright laws...what then? Is he not allowed to have this opinion (one which I share)? Is he somehow under some sort of obligation to defend a law he doesn't believe in?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I read that to mean "in the direction of copyright abolition."

    Reading comprehension fail. He did not say that anywhere. And if you read TD regularly (no, you don't, you just pretend to read) then you'll know that Canada did exactly what Mike has been saying it is needed: expand fair use, limit statutory damages and allow for easier and more transparent acces to who holds which copyright and how to license works.

    I'm asking Mike for his views. I want Mike to answer for himself.

    It seems we found the "yes or no" question kid. I'll post his own reply: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdir t.shtml#c1210

    I can't help but feel that he frames these things like he's trying to be reasonable (e.g., implying he's only interested in getting rid of the "bad" parts of the law), but in fact his views are quite extreme (he actually thinks it's all "bad").

    Interesting, most of us feel like you try to seem reasonable but in the end you are just an extremist or ip-maximalist if you will.

    I await Mike's answer should he choose to give one (and history has shown that he scurries away from these types of discussions like a cockroach when the lights get turned on, so I don't expect that he'll actually meet the substance of my query with a response).

    I'm gonna paste again in case you haven't seen it:
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-te chdirt.shtml#c1210

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe he scurries away from these types of discussions like a cockroach because you're like a dick. Just saying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    BeaverJuicer (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm not asking about Canadian copyright, and I'm not asking for everyone's views. I'm asking Mike for his views."
    Actually, what you said was "Just to be clear, Mike. In your opinion, are there any "good" copyright laws?" No specification of country. And if you read the article, it does hold the Canadian law as a good example to follow. So that would be a good example of a copyright law he likes, even if there is a clause he doesn't agree with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:19am

    Re:

    How about ones that don't retroactively yank shit out of public domain? Fuckhead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?

    Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?

    Has someone finally introduced a bill to repeal the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act?

     

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re:

    " But I'm not asking about Canadian copyright, and I'm not asking for everyone's views. I'm asking Mike for his views. I want Mike to answer for himself. Can he point to *any* of U.S. copyright that he thinks is "good," and if so, can he point out where he celebrated that "good" law's enforcement? I can't help but feel that he frames these things like he's trying to be reasonable (e.g., implying he's only interested in getting rid of the "bad" parts of the law), but in fact his views are quite extreme (he actually thinks it's all "bad"). I await Mike's answer should he choose to give one (and history has shown that he scurries away from these types of discussions like a cockroach when the lights get turned on, so I don't expect that he'll actually meet the substance of my query with a response)."

    Oh hai. It's "why won't you debate me?!?! rawr!!!" guy. I was wondering what had happened to you.

    Just fyi, let's pretend you aren't him. You sure do write just like him, even saying some of the same things he's said. Which are, "I don't care for anybody else's responses, even if they're quoting Mike. I want Mike to respond!" and "He seems to give an answer without giving an answer." and my personal favorite "He just won't answer me!"

    But as I meant to say, nice to see you again, "debate me" AC.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:23am

    Actually, the Canadian law is in fact very non-permissive, and is likely to cause more harm than good.

    The "non-commercial" use clauses are pretty narrow, and much like US law, almost any commercial gain from the use of the content would still be considered commercial.

    Posting on Youtube? That's really commercial - and not covered by Canadian law, but by US law where it's being published.

    Good luck with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:24am

    Re:

    Dear Mr. average_troll:

    There is nothing fundamentally immoral or wrong in believing in the abolition of copyright.

    If you don't want copywrong to eventually be abolished, then YOU, yes YOU, better fix it. Or the rest of us will.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Dear Mr. average_troll:

    Abolishing copyright is the ultimate fix to cure the wrongs of PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, TPP, DRM and DMCA.

    Maybe you have not been listening to all of the stakeholders for so long that you don't recognize this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Real change

    will come when the file sharing generation grows up and is in charge of govt and private sector.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re:

    No. That would mean pulling their ass out of their ass for once.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    LMAO I need my coffee

    I meant pull their HEAD out of their ass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:33am

    Re:

    are there any "good" copyright laws?

    An abolished one. Or one so crippled it's almost useless (Just like fair use is now)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:35am

    Re:

    a global-financial-crisis level of disaster before there's anything resembling meaningful reform

    If by meaningful reform you mean bailout the failing companies, big bonuses to the executives that caused the mess, and business as usual afterwards, then I agree.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re:

    I don't really think it would make much of difference to the trolls. They've already got it painted like he's said it anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:39am

    Re: Real change

    That'll never happen in our lifetimes, the current people in charge will do whatever it takes to ensure their kind stays in power.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:42am

    Re: Perhaps

    In order for me to not care about it it'd have to totally ignore the internet. Which I might actually settle for.

    But I don't see it happening, ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    SujaOfJauhnral (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Abolishing copyright is the ultimate fix to cure piracy

    FTFY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Phuckem Awl, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 10:54am

    Re: Perhaps

    Having followed the copyright reform process in Canada for over a decade

    Three decades under Canadian copyright b*llsh*t here.

    it's pretty clear that the "user-friendly" parts of the law that eventually got passed are mostly there because the government was afraid that without them they wouldn't get re-elected

    I would have said "wouldn't have managed to steal the office". They were never elected before and they lied, intimidated, frightened, bribed, bs'd and oiled (damned dimwit rednecks) their way into (barely) stealing the office this time. They were just part of a moronic coalition in the past. And they had major financial support from certain american fascist oil-billionaire criminals who just happened to own 25% of the Alberta Tar Sands (a mere coincidence, I'm sure).

    and the "DRM uber alles" part makes them meaningless anyway.

    Precisely. Canadian dumbf*** sheep bought that bs hook, line and sinker. It was all just a b*llsh*t smoke-screen.

    Besides, they knew full-well that certain other fascist countries would commit no end of evil acts to drain the swamp anyway.

    You also forgot to mention the draconian anti-consumer additions like the right to time-shift video as long as the time-shifted material was destroyed within a few hours (WTF?). Like I said - hook, line and sinker.

    If Canada's fascist-driven evil draconian "new" copyright legislation is considered the high-water mark of "fair" on this planet, then this planet is well and truly doomed.

    And don't give me any crap about downloading - it pre-dates the fascists stealing power applies ONLY to downloading (NOT uploading, which is still deemed illegal) and ONLY to audio (NOT video) and we pay a f*ck*ng royalty (percentage) IN ADVANCE on any form of memory or storage (disks, CD's, ram chips) that could hold audio (just IN CASE somebody has the nerve to keep a copy and even if you use the disks to back up your software and not for ********* music) and that money goes directly into the pockets of the same fat-cat rat b*st*rd industry lowlifes that first "proposed" it (AND proposed the rates AND get them raised regularly AND still have the stones to bitch that it's "unfair" AND gets a piss-pot full of money for doing NOTHING AND the artists STILL get nothing).

    Canada got such a copyright deal from the H***er Junta: Decption, Lies, Damned Lies, Evil Fascist Lies and more Evil Fascist Lies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    And if possible, please point to even one article you've written where you defend the particular "good" law and any right holder invoking it.


    You're begging the question here. You're assuming the only good that can come from a copyright law is a 'right holder' invoking it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re:

    Oof. I'd give you a good-hearted "touché" but now I'm just sad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:06am

    Re: Real change

    Not really. Remember people are fucking morons in groups of larger than about two.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:07am

    Gotta love how much they're always bitching about copyright. I mean lets be realistic for a second... If anyone has the right to complain it would be software developers.
    Their products rely on computers and most of the new ones rely on the internet as well.

    There's no move theaters where they can go make 850 millions dollars in a week.
    For many there is no physical copies for sale either as it's a waste of resources.

    There's no Comcast,AT&T, or any other outlet that's streaming it to television for millions upon millions of people and no Pay-Per-View either.

    Most software is singly designed for one profession.
    Most software requires you to learn it.
    Some software has insanely steep learning curves that can take years to learn and even longer to master.

    Now lets get to movies/music.
    The only requirements for movies/music is "watching/hearing"
    The big companies claim they do not rely on the internet or computers because it hurts them.
    Most movies genres appeal to a wide variety of people.
    Most movies cover multiple genres.
    Most good movies still make serious bank at the box office since we're paying for the experience as well.
    I like to see a good movie here and there.
    I fucking absolutely love music. "Enough said about music"

    Now who's on the downside? Software or Media?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 11:25am

    Re: Re: Derivative

    He is saying that he thinks the speed at which IP-maximalists are making proposals towards totalitarian copyright is only increasing slightly.

    I do not agree about his precondition of peoples look at copyright staying the same. The non-costumerminded parts of the industry (old parts of: Record, film, publishing, marketing, legal ao.) are furious and they are taking still more extreme stances or are trying to force others to take up their position. The consumerminded industries on the other hand (retailers, ISPs, homepage-owners ao.) have moved towards a far more cautious position on copyright. The copyright industry has got something on the consumerminded industry (and politicians and several other professions) and that has been their big weigh so far. However, the future is catching up to them and they are loosing a bit of funding/influence. I see that trend keeping up for many years. I think the next big thing will be a lot of the traditional middlemen seeking alternative roles than helping the big content industry and one or two of the big companies going under (getting bailed more than now.). At that point, we will see a very swift movement towards rationalisation of these laws. My prediction is that we are ~3 years away from the real turning point still. A lot will depend on ACTA and if USA can push enough countries to join and ratify for it to survive. The pushing will start late spring 2013, while the real make or break will happen later depending on if USA gets it through domestically. If USA gets a ratification through (probably with several courtcases to be determined the following years), it is possible that ACTA will come to life. TPP is not as determining for the future of copyright law since it doesn't include EU and since it seems to move towards a normal multilateral trade agreement without its own "priests".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Dudley Duderight, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 12:22pm

    BEWARE! Utterly Wrong

    What happened in Canada was very productive where they took many big steps in the right direction.

    I live in the Horrorworld of Haperstan (the country formerly known as Canada). We got one of the worst possible "copyright" legislative results for the "common man".

    The Haperstan ruling cabal simply managed to snow the most dimwitted and most horribly ill-informed with their well-practiced deception.

    Anyone who does not believe the foregoing either needs to do some serious studying and thinking or shoot themselves in the head.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 12:31pm

    Give Me a Break

    Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?

    Laws maybe, but only because the sheriffs are tired of having to follow them and deal with lawyers.

    Politically, no. The bad tide is only rising. Bushbama-style totalitarianism (ignore the laws and kill everyone first and answer questions later) is much more effective than having to be all legal and fair. Game over, no pesky lawyers to deal with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nah, you had it right. They look the same. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re:

    Didn't I already address your misconception?

    "I have to completely disagree. Copyright has always been ineffective at stopping individuals from infringing. However, in another time when publishing was beyond the means of the common person it only prevented publishers from leeching off of each other. But today we are all content creators and we can all easily distribute our content through the internet. Copyright is obsolete because the internet is a two way conversation, unlike the 20th century's read-only model.

    What's more, copyright's origins began as a law to censor seditious books that spoke against the monarchy of England. When the privileged few sanctioned by the crown got accustomed to the perks of their position, they argued to keep the law in place, not for sedition, but to "protect" authors. The very core of copyright was never to help authors, but to block undesirables from printing texts that go against the desires of the ruling class."


    I guess I did! Art is speech and copyright censors that speech. Censorship is never a good thing, especially when it's meant to protect profit.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120815/18483620066/stupidity-just-go-without-argument .shtml#c612

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    BigKeithO, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re:

    Agreed. Makes are the exceptions kind of pointless when the most simple form of DRM renders them useless.

    Still, what are the chances the average person gets caught stripping DRM? Also, pirated content usually doesn't come with DRM. ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 3:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe he scurries away from these types of discussions like a cockroach because you're like a dick. Just saying.

    He runs away from having a human, open, and awesome discussion with anyone who questions him on his beliefs. It's not just me. Mike refuses to ever be pinned down on anything. He'll do anything to get out of just having a normal conversation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 6th, 2012 @ 3:12pm

    Re: Re:

    You're begging the question here. You're assuming the only good that can come from a copyright law is a 'right holder' invoking it.

    I'm trying to avoid the situation where Mike pretends like some part of copyright law is "good," but really he doesn't think that anyone should ever enforce it. So if he claims that there is a "good" part (which he will never do), I'd like some evidence to back it up (which he'll never give). The real question is why Mike can't just be open and honest about his beliefs. I've never seen somebody run away faster from a direct question than him. Doesn't matter who's asking either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 4:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Please define anything. And normal. Thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Something like this.

    Q. Mike, do you think there's actually any "good" parts to copyright? You mention fixing the bad parts, and I'm wondering if you really think it's all bad.

    A. Thanks for asking. I think X is good, and Y is good too, but only if Z.

    Something like that. You know, a normal discussion between two human beings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 6:41pm

    Re: Re:

    I wonder if the **AA's could end up nationalized? They're already practically part of the government; I could see Obama formalizing the deal if their cash supply starts running low.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 6th, 2012 @ 6:44pm

    Re: Is The Tide Turning On Bad Copyright Laws?

    Not as long as The Walt Disney Company still draws breath (and spends lobbying dollars). As long as Mickey Mouse lives, so too does his perpetual copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:27am

    Re:

    Just be honest, you're not looking to engage in a mature and reasoned discussion with Mike, you're looking to get a bit of participation out of him to feed your witch hunt to find the most miniscule bit of ammunition to call him either a "pirate sympathizer" (otherwise known as a criminal sympathizer) or to call him out as a hypocrite/fraud. Do you really think that if you "expose" him as this supposed fraud that people will "see" him as biased and dishonest as you think he is? Do you think it will put an end to his blog, that people will cease to spend their time here? What the hell is your end game? Your strategy implies that it's fruitless and impotent, but nevertheless irritating to put up with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Sheogorath (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Having been reading articles on Techdirt for a while now, I believe that Mike Masnick supports the principle of copyright as it's enshrined in the constitution, he just doesn't support the way big companies like the litigious Mouse extend and abuse it. Feel free to correct me if I mistook your view, Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 4:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Strange how having a normal conversation about important topics that you clearly have strong feelings about just isn't in your skill set. And please, stop making so many excuses. The only reason you won't discuss these things is because YOU are incapable of being honest and YOU don't want people to know what you really think. Best part is, we all know how extreme and radical you are, Mike. Running away from discussions where you would discuss directly your beliefs doesn't mean that we all can't tell exactly what you are about. You might fool a few people (the TD-faithful aren't the sharpest), but the rest of the world knows exactly what makes you tick. There just isn't even one honest bone in your body, is there?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 5:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So no, you won't respond. That's not at all surprising. The funny thing is, you point to one of your posts where you at length give all sorts of excuses for why you won't answer a question. But then of course you and I both know that you shortly thereafter actually answered the question. You hemmed and hawed and threw multiple hissy fits for months and months, but then you did in fact answer the question directly.

    Look, you and I both know that you never want to talk about what you actually believe in. This to me proves that it's because you don't want anyone peering at the insecure man behind the curtain. I couldn't live my life that way. I'm an open book. I'm not ashamed of what I believe in, and when people want to discuss my beliefs I'm happy to oblige. You on the other hand will go to great lengths to never answer a direct question about any of your fundamental beliefs about subjects that you write about incessantly.

    Why the subterfuge, Mike, if not for the purpose of deceit?

    You can point to things I've said and done that were not kind. I can do the same to you, but I don't. I'm a moody person. I get fed up easily. I hate bullshit. I can be a total asshole. I don't like it when people scurry away when asked simple and direct questions. From what I can tell, all you care about is inciting the masses in your crusade against IP. You don't ever want to take a step back and discuss your beliefs with those who ask difficult questions. Like all cult leaders, you don't want your beliefs to be questioned.

    So you'll trot out excuse after excuse, but what you will never do is just be an honest person engaged in an honest discussion. I'm not sure when you turned so sour, but it was obviously way before I ever showed up. It's a shame, Mike, 'cause I think you're a really smart guy. But you close yourself off to dissenting views and you stand up on your soapbox and mock anyone who thinks differently than you. I've never seen anyone so opinionated yet so afraid of debate.

    I could never live like that. I'm just too honest of a person. The fact that you won't even engage ANYONE (not just me) says it all. Oh sure, you'll engage when it's a simple issue and when you think it's safe. But you won't engage with someone like me who wants to talk about the difficult stuff that isn't so safe. I guess you're happy being the king of Techdirt. Honestly, I'd want better for myself. But I suppose a demagogue takes who he can get.

    I know you'll NEVER just have a regular discussion with me, and I know it's because you're too insecure and dishonest. It has nothing to do with me. It's you, Mike. You're the one that runs from a debate. Every time. You're the reason that you won't have a normal discussion. But like so many things, I suppose, you won't actually lay the blame on the person who is truly at fault. Funny how you're so judgmental and so able to rip everyone else apart, but you can't even have the simplest discussion about yourself. Overcompensating, I suppose.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 6:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You have a vivid imagination don't you? You also have an astonishing capacity for self-delusion. Did you go off your meds and take a little adventure? Seriously, your behavior wreaks of someone with a maladaptive cognitive disorder. You're absolutely obsessed with Mike and your twisted perception of him. Get help.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 7:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Asking the Supreme Leader what he believes is not welcome on TD. Sad. Just like North Korea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You have a vivid imagination don't you? You also have an astonishing capacity for self-delusion. Did you go off your meds and take a little adventure? Seriously, your behavior wreaks of someone with a maladaptive cognitive disorder. You're absolutely obsessed with Mike and your twisted perception of him. Get help.

    LOL! Yeah, asking Mike what he believes is such a terrible thing. No one should ever do that. Please pass the Kool-Aid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "No, he said it was "reforming copyright in the right direction." I read that to mean "in the direction of copyright abolition."

    and I read all your comments to mean "In the direction of IP absolutism".

    A: No one cares how you personally read what others say. You can read up to be down, no one besides you cares.

    B: "In the direction of copyright abolition" doesn't necessarily equal "copyright abolition". Saying that we need fewer IP laws does not mean we need none at all.

    C: Over excessive copy protection privileges is a much more urgent concern right now, and is much more socially harmful, than discussions about the good of copy protection laws, if any. The primary focus right now should be fixing our existing IP laws, not focusing on figuring out discussing how awesome they are. They are not awesome and there is absolutely nothing good about our existing IP laws at all and so you shouldn't be surprised that no one, including yourself, can create a compelling case to have more and stricter IP laws (and enforcement regimes) or to even maintain our existing laws.

    D: There is absolutely nothing good that comes from IP laws at all. There, I said it (I'm not Mike). Now what's your point?

    Even if Mike's position is that IP laws should be abolished, what's your point anyways? I don't care either way, I think they should, or they should substantially move in that direction.

    You're the one that believes IP laws are a good thing, why can't you defend your own position? Why must you ask your critics to defend your position for you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No one cares how you personally read what others say.

    These are the comments where people are invited to share their thoughts on the issues at hand. You obviously care very much about what I said, or else you wouldn't have taken the time to write a long reply. If you don't like my comments, don't read them and don't comment on them. Trying to shut down a dissenting point of view, as so many on Techdirt do with alarming regularity, is not productive. I'm here for an open and honest discussion about these issues with Mike. Obviously nothing scares him more than that. Should make you wonder about what he's hiding.

    Even if Mike's position is that IP laws should be abolished, what's your point anyways? I don't care either way, I think they should, or they should substantially move in that direction.

    What's wrong with asking the author of this article about copyright law to state his position about copyright law? You guys get all worked up when anyone dares to ask Mike anything meaningful. It's a cult around here. If you really don't care what I post, don't comment on it. I wasn't asking your opinion. I'm asking Mike what he believes. And as you can see, nothing scares him more than having that conversation. It's amazing, really. He spends his life tearing apart everyone else's beliefs about copyright, but he's too much of a coward to have a normal conversation about his own beliefs. I've never seen such a person before.

    You're the one that believes IP laws are a good thing, why can't you defend your own position? Why must you ask your critics to defend your position for you?

    I defend my position all the time. More so than Mike or anyone else on Techdirt I am willing to discuss my beliefs and to provide citations for the arguments I make. I get stuff wrong all the time, and I'm happy to admit it. I make lots of mistakes, and I'm far from being a perfect human being. I recognize my faults. But I also am fascinated by copyright and I spend many, many hours every week learning as much about it as I can. I hope to one day be able to call myself an expert on copyright law. I have years of hard work ahead of me to get to that point, but I'm dedicated and I work hard and I will get there eventually. I value all points of view, and I don't pretend like only my view matters. I'm an open book. I don't run from debate and questions like Mike does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Good job dodging my point about your behavior and jumping to a straw man. It's not the question, it's the manner in which you ask, nay, demand for it to be answered and the tantrum-filled tirade you go on when he doesn't stroke your ego by responding. When he does respond, you throw another tantrum accusing him of not fulfilling your expectations. You are a child demanding attention. More to the point, you are a child. You bite and scratch at people to get them to pay attention to you and when they do, you do it even more. How do I know this? I know because I have a 13 month old son who acts just like you. However, if I stop giving him attention, he eventually stops, but you just keep going. Why don't you go stomp your feet somewhere else? We don't want to play with children like you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Supreme leader, my ass! There are things that I strongly disagree with Mike about that are talked about regularly here, but I don't feel the need to attack him on it. Compared to me, Mike is a fucking conservative. But I don't attack him because of his differing views. I'm not interested in "exposing" his hypocrisy or his supposed multiplicity that you are so certain he is guilty of. He's a guy with an opinion he wants to share. That's the core demographic of the internet. Who are you to tear him down for something everyone with a blog or a forum membership does? The problem is that you don't like his opinion and want to pick apart everything he says to find the tiniest bit of inconsistency that you can throw at him to satisfy your desires to "depose" him from his "leadership". Mike doesn't shape my beliefs and opinions, but he has pointed me to sources that have allowed me to form my own, which have actually lead me to disagree with some of the ideas he supports.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I also noticed that you did exactly what you constantly accuse Mike of doing. Why won't you answer my question from my other reply further down? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120905/02125120278/is-tide-turning-bad-copyright-laws.shtml#c881 What is your goal? It's a straight-forward question. Why do you scurry away when I ask a direct question? Are you afraid that by answering, you will expose the "insecure man behind the curtain"? Are you afraid that you will be seen as the impotent and hateful person you really are? I await your evasive reply.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There's been no demand. I asked a question and then pointed out his continued refusal to answer any questions normally. Make excuses for him all you want. At the end of the day the fact exists that Mike refuses to discuss his beliefs with anyone who dares challenge him. His refusals only strengthen my resolve. If he wants to deal with me, it'll have to be by actually engaging me openly and honestly. He can dish it, but he sure as hell can't take it. Funny how he refuses to discuss his beliefs. I've never met anyone so critical of others but so completely uncritical of himself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My honest answer is that I am curious what Mike Masnick really believes. I have no agenda but to understand him. Does he *really* think that *any* part of copyright is "good"? I think it's a fair question. If he thinks any part of is "good," then shouldn't he also think those parts should be enforced? My concern is that he'll lie and pretend like he thinks parts of it are "good," but really he doesn't think those "good" parts should ever be enforced. He'll say it's OK to have the right, but only if there's no remedy for the violation of that right. It's part of a pattern that I've seen where he attempts to appear reasonable out of some fear that if he actually admits his true beliefs he'll be taken even less seriously (he's already seen as an extremist by many). I think he's a dishonest person, and the fact that he refuses to ever be pinned down on his position is highly indicative of deceit. I want him to just be honest and open about what he believes, and it fascinates me that that's something he appears never willing to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You didn't answer my question. You just told me why you asked, but not what you want to accomplish by getting an answer. What is your intent once you get this ethereal answer that you want so badly? You keep making up negative traits that you apply to Mike and other people that aren't even true. You do it so much so that your entire image of Mike consists of nothing but your cognitive distortions. Why are you so invested in what one person on the internet thinks? Why the fuck do you care? Is it that pivotal to your existence that Mike answer your loaded question and be measured by your obviously prejudgemental metrics? You must have a sad life if you put so much energy and emotion into one random person on the internet. Find a real hobby. Perhaps some animal porn might be up your alley?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Cute. How does my salary depend upon copyright? It doesn't. If you disagree with a point I've made, say why. But saying I'm unable to understand your point because I make money from copyright (which I don't) makes little sense. I love differing points of view. I welcome dissent and honest debate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're going to become an expert in copyright law for free? That's nice and good luck in the future.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What is your intent once you get this ethereal answer that you want so badly?

    My intent is to ascertain Mike's answer. I want to know what parts of copyright he thinks are "good." I honestly want to know if there are any such parts, and if so, what he thinks should be done to enforce those parts. As far as I can tell, he hates it all and is just too ashamed to admit it directly.

    You keep making up negative traits that you apply to Mike and other people that aren't even true.

    I don't think I'm making up negative traits. I think Mike is fundamentally dishonest, overzealous, and unreasonable. He's also a smart guy who I think knows what he's doing.

    Why are you so invested in what one person on the internet thinks?

    I find him fascinating. I truly am hoping that one day he'll just open up and have a normal conversation. I've never seen him do it with any detractors, so I doubt it'll happen. I just want him to be open, human, and awesome.

    Is it that pivotal to your existence that Mike answer your loaded question and be measured by your obviously prejudgemental metrics?

    I want to have an honest discussion. He's the loudest copyright critic I know, I care about copyright, so here I am. I'm really all surface.

    You must have a sad life if you put so much energy and emotion into one random person on the internet. Find a real hobby.

    And now you're just insulting me. If you want to have an open and honest discussion, I'm game. But if you're going to insult me, it's you that needs to find something better to do.

    Perhaps some animal porn might be up your alley?

    I don't think I'd be into it. Saw a donkey show once in Mexico. I wouldn't recommend it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I haven't made any money *yet* since I'm not in practice. I guess you don't actually have a point to make, or else you'd make it. But yeah, go on thinking that the point you haven't made wouldn't be understood by me because in the future I probably will make money from copyright. I don't think that makes sense, but I hope you feel better trying to take me down a notch. Didn't work, but I hope you feel better regardless. If you have anything meaningful and substantive to add to the discussion, you know where to find me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But saying I'm unable to understand your point because I make money from copyright (which I don't) makes little sense.

    But yeah, go on thinking that the point you haven't made wouldn't be understood by me because in the future I probably will make money from copyright.

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you want to make a point. Make it. Let's talk about that point, and if you don't think I understand the point because I'm incapable, then let's talk about that. But what's the point of repeating the same quote? Name one specific point I am unable to understand. You are accomplishing nothing by posting that quote. You have proved nothing. Man up and have a discussion with me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're right, this is a waste of time. I'll be moving on. Good luck with your delusions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you ever want to have an open and honest discussion with me, I'm more than happy to address your questions head on to the best of my ability. I've nothing to hide.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 11:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you were an artist, which would you rather have:

    $1000 for your work or the copyright to your work?

    Choose wisely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's kind of silly since the answer depends on a bunch of facts that you haven't given me. Am I a successful artist? Do I have a lot of bargaining power? Am I just trying to get some cash to feed my family? Or am I well off and I can easily forgo the sale. How valuable is the copyright? Would I make more money from the work or the copyright?

    I can't answer a hypothetical like that without more information. The answer I can give is that I'd look at the facts and try and determine whether the $1,000 for the work itself was worth more than the copyright.

    Take a famous author like Rowling. She'd be better off having the copyright in her next book than in having $1,000 for the original manuscript. The copyright is worth way more. But then take an unknown artist. The $1,000 is probably worth more than the copyright.

    What do think the answer should be?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If copyright were important to artists then wouldn't they choose to have the copyright every time? I mean, if it's so important to the majority of artists, why wouldn't they forgo the cash? It seems to me that copyright works for those artists who are already successful, those artists who are the in the minority.

    But copyright is given to successful artists, non-successful artists, non-artists, pretty much everyone at this point and I wonder if that's the best way to handle it.

    I wonder if that's where the disconnect is coming from, for those who love/like copyright to those who hate/dislike copyright to those who stopped even caring about copyright.

    Copyright also lasts way too long, and the law could use some kind of reforming.

    But I doubt that it would happen. We need more laws! More enforcement! More private agreements! More secret agreements! Longer copyright! Less user rights! More artist's rights! More lawsuits! More restrictions!

    Oh well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If copyright were important to artists then wouldn't they choose to have the copyright every time? I mean, if it's so important to the majority of artists, why wouldn't they forgo the cash?

    I think you answered your own question. For some it's more valuable, and for others it's not. If I were advising someone, I'd have to look at what is right for them. It's not one size fits all.

    It seems to me that copyright works for those artists who are already successful, those artists who are the in the minority.

    I think it works for some up and comers too, such as those who sell their music online or those who sign deals with labels. And for some it doesn't work. I understand full well that the internet is the great disintermediater. You may think I'm a maximalist, but I think I'm a realist. That said, copyright brings us all great works that we all love. So do people who don't use copyright. If you like the copyrighted stuff, pay for it if it's for sale. If you like the free stuff, don't. I'm really a simple person.

    But copyright is given to successful artists, non-successful artists, non-artists, pretty much everyone at this point and I wonder if that's the best way to handle it.

    Your very post is likely copyrighted. So what? No one has to pursue the copyright business model if they don't want to. If the alternative models are better, then those will take over. Change takes time. Techdirt is focused on radical change, and disappointed by anything else. Slow and steady wins the race. Fact is, much of the content we all enjoy comes from the copyright business model. When the alternative stuff is better than the copyrighted stuff, people will want that. But right now that's not happening. There's some cool alternative stuff happening, but the copyrighted stuff is great too. We all love copyrighted works, whether we admit it or not. I spend thousands of dollars a year of entertainment that's copyrighted. I'm glad my money goes to those who create the content I enjoy.

    I wonder if that's where the disconnect is coming from, for those who love/like copyright to those who hate/dislike copyright to those who stopped even caring about copyright.

    I like copyright 'cause I think it just makes sense to give the person who spent the time, energy, talent, and money to create something I enjoy a marketable right to that creation. I think copyright markets thrive and do wonderful things that most people love. Piracy thwarts that model. I think the disconnect comes from those who think copyright does nothing good, only to then make the conscious decision to pirate copyrighted works. If the copyrighted stuff is so bad, why do so many do (what I hope) they wouldn't do otherwise and "steal" it? I just don't get the simultaneous demonization of copyright while then loving the things it brings us. A rightholder who exercises his rights against those who violate them has done nothing wrong. Don't blame the rightholder or the system, blame the pirate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are so full of shit. I'm done talking to you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What if the pirate is a 14 year old kid?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I knew what I was doing when I was 14. I think you'd have to determine if the child knew what they were doing was wrong. If so, they (or their parents) should be responsible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry you feel that way. If you want to give me a simple yes or no question, I'll give you a yes or no. I tried to answer your questions as best I could. I'm not sure what you want me to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And the enforcement against the child or the child's parents is what again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's hard to answer these types of questions without more facts. But say you have a 14 year old who knowingly downloads the latest blockbuster movie without paying. He had the money and resources to pay, but all his friends do it and it's easy so why not. I have no trouble with the child and/or parents being held accountable. Should it be for thousands of dollars? No. The statutory minimum of $750 for willful infringement works is sufficient. The problem with all this is that it (literally) takes a federal case. That's why I think the six-strikes (or whatever it is) is a better approach. A letter to the parents explaining that someone is using bittorrent to infringe on their internet service is likely to get the job done. Honestly though I spend more time learning and thinking about the theory of copyright than I do on strategies for combating piracy. In general I have no problem with holding those who violate other people's rights responsible for what they've done. No strategy is perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "These are the comments where people are invited to share their thoughts on the issues at hand."

    Yes, state the obvious.

    "You obviously care very much about what I said"

    The point is that just because you read up to mean down doesn't mean others care enough to consider such an interpretation seriously. You're stupidity only reflects bad on yourself, it doesn't reflect on Mike's position. No one cares that you think up means down, everyone else still thinks up means up regardless of your personal an irrelevant interpretation. I understand if you struggle with the English language, perhaps you can take adult classes or something.

    "If you don't like my comments, don't read them and don't comment on them."

    So those who disagree with you shouldn't criticize your bad position? You think like a typical mainstream media monopolist who is so used to having the government grant him monopoly broadcasting and cableco power so that he can say whatever nonsense he wants unchallenged and stifle speech he doesn't like.

    "Trying to shut down a dissenting point of view, as so many on Techdirt do with alarming regularity, is not productive."

    Pointing out the stupidity in your position is not trying to shut down your views. Shutting down your views would be if Mike blocked you from here. Shutting down dissenting views is what the government established mainstream media wrongfully abuses its government established monopoly power to do. You are free to comment here, no one says you can't. When you say something stupid expect to be criticized.

    "I'm here for an open and honest discussion about these issues with Mike."

    That's a lie and you know it. There is nothing honest about putting words in Mike's mouth and taking what he says to mean what you conveniently want it to mean instead. In fact, there is nothing honest about anything you say and there is nothing honest about IP and anti-competitive laws in general. They were wrongfully bought and paid for against the public interest.

    "What's wrong with asking the author of this article about copyright law to state his position about copyright law?"

    You keep ignoring the answer and imposing your own answer.

    "You guys get all worked up when anyone dares to ask Mike anything meaningful."

    I have yet to see you ask anything meaningful.

    "It's a cult around here."

    How so?

    " If you really don't care what I post, don't comment on it."

    I disagree with what your post and I don't care about your dumb interpretation of what someone says.

    Again, IP extremists form a cult, they want to stifle criticism by demanding that people don't comment on their nonsense comments.

    "I wasn't asking your opinion."

    Since when do I need you to ask me to post my opinion for me to post it? You must be the IP extremist cult leader, anyone who dares dissent your views without your prior consent shouldn't comment, right?

    "And as you can see, nothing scares him more than having that conversation."

    I can't help but laugh. What makes you an authority over what 'scares' Mike and what the heck have you said that would even be worthy of fear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're stupidity only reflects bad on yourself, it doesn't reflect on Mike's position.

    I hate spelling Nazis, but that's just funny.

    So those who disagree with you shouldn't criticize your bad position?

    I welcome the challenge. If you think my position is wrongheaded on a particular point, please state why you think so.

    You keep ignoring the answer and imposing your own answer.

    Mike hasn't answered the question. He popped in to make an excuse for not answering. Nor have I imposed my answer on him. If he thinks any part of copyright is good, then I'd like to hear about it. If he thinks it's all bad, I want him to be honest about it. It's the pretending that he thinks parts are good while refusing to identify those parts because he doesn't really believe it that gets to me.

    Since when do I need you to ask me to post my opinion for me to post it? You must be the IP extremist cult leader, anyone who dares dissent your views without your prior consent shouldn't comment, right?

    LOL! Huh. I welcome dissenting views with open arms. Dissent away. I'm all ears. I'll never run from a debate and stomp my feet and refuse to talk to dissenters.

    I can't help but laugh. What makes you an authority over what 'scares' Mike and what the heck have you said that would even be worthy of fear.

    And yet Mike runs away every time. Funny that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 7th, 2012 @ 4:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Typo, my mistake.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    Laroquod (profile), Sep 7th, 2012 @ 8:10pm

    Awful. The new Canadian copyright law is awful. It wouldn't matter if they set anybody can copy whatever they wish in a free-for-all, because the presence of DRM entirely cancels every other right set for in the bill. This is a shell game -- a pure tapdance. Next they'll say that everyone gets a million dollars but only if the person who already owns the million dollars doesn't want to put a stamped-it, double-locksies on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Sep 8th, 2012 @ 4:07am

    Re:

    You are a petulant child who makes many demands on Mikes valuable time.

    Instead of trying to "pirate" his time, why don't you pay him for consulting?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Sep 8th, 2012 @ 4:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Or am I well off and I can easily forgo the sale."

    So you finally admit that copyright has nothing to do with enriching the public domain.

    Or do you mean that we should pay content creators less since they won't sell unless they are hungry?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This