I have had a love/hate relationship with Netflix for many years now. I love the service they provide and the content I can watch. The price is pretty good for what they offer. I have subscribed for many years.
However, their stance on DRM is the primary focus of the hate part of the relationship. Their insistence on using DRM, driven mostly by their media partners, has prevented me from being able to watch online any content on my primary PC and my HTPC. The reason is that the DRM they use, Microsoft Silverlight, is not compatible with my operating system, Linux. It never has been and never will.
Lucky for me, some clever users were willing to violate the DMCA and risk fines and jailtime to circumvent the DRM and allow Netflix's Watch Instantly software to run in Linux based PCs. It is absolutely insane that one must risk financial and social ruin to allow people to use services they are already paying for.
In response to the Boston bombings, police have shut down one of the most useful and commonly used services for victims and those close by to contact family and emergency services. They have shut down the ability for media to communicate easily with one another. Shutting down the cell services of the Boston area will do nothing but spur more panic and frustration at the scene and around those trying to contact loved ones. Imagine being a parent or spouse trying to contact someone you suspect as having been there and getting nothing but a "Your call cannot be connected" message.
I am aware that they are not unique to the real world. My daughters have owned several pairs of "ruby slippers" but they were never called "Ruby Slippers" in any marketing materials. However, you cannot make a Wizard of Oz movie that includes Ruby slippers because those were a construct of MGM.
While there is no fashion design copyrights, there is movie, and TV copyrights. Those copyrights extend their protection to anything uniquely identifiable to the movie. That is why no one by MGM can make Ruby Slippers or use the exact look for the Scarecrow and Tinman, as an example. That is why Fox thinks it is the only one who can license the rights to sell Jayne hats.
Calling them "Jayne hats" and making them look exactly like the hat Jayne wore in the series could be copyright infringement. Kind of silly, but that is the world we live in.
Now, the question then becomes, can you legally recreate and sell the hat without using the term "Jayne"? If people are selling replica's but not referring directly to the show, would Fox be in its right to send a C&D? I wouldn't think so. While the hat had a unique look in the show (did you see any other knitted caps?), it isn't unique in the real world.
For digital the benefit to the author of going with a publisher is nearly non existant.
As a self published author, you get 70% of whatever you price your book at. As a traditionally published author with a digital release, I think it is around 12-25% of the profit. That is after the 30% the distribution service (Amazon) takes and whatever other expenses the publisher claims. Often this ends up as less than 10% the list price.
So what do you want, 70% of a $3 book or 10% of a $10 book?
I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says the way to promote the progress is to grant exclusive rights to authors. No doubt you'd erase that from the Constitution if you could. Best just to pretend it's not there, right?
That is not misleading. Mike was explicitly talking about the purpose of copyright. You are confusing the purpose of copyright with the method. The purpose of copyright is not to grant a monopoly, that is the method.
Since the purpose of copyright is to promote science and useful arts, then we should be framing any and all discussions of the method of copyright in those terms. Is the approach we are currently taking or plan on taking going to promote the science and useful arts? IS there a better way to promote the science and useful arts?
What about all those people who now have a strike against their YouTube account because of these takedowns? Will Sega work with YouTube and those users to remove that strike or will those users simply forever be branded because of this disaster?
How exactly does upholding these insane statutory damage fees actually support artists? Is all that money going to go to the artists who wrote and/or performed the songs she uploaded? No. None of it is.
That is stepping aside from the real issue that these damages will actually erode what respect of copyright the average person holds. When they hear that uploading 24 songs will get you fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are just going to laugh and go right on doing what they do everyday with the addition of complaining about how one sided copyright law has become.
Yep. Wiley will most likely raise the price in those markets to make buying, importing and selling much more difficult to do while making a profit. At the same time, they will be pricing themselves out of local markets resulting in more governments like Ghana resorting to piracy to stock their schools.
We don't have to think about copyright terms at all (except perhaps for things that should be in the public domain to begin with). All we have to consider is price. Is it cheap where you want to buy it? Yes. Will you make a profit selling here? Yes. Then you have a business model.