Great overview, but you forgot the player piano. Under copyright laws in the 1800s they were perfectly legal and attempts to ban them or collect licenses from them failed. Back then, only published sheet music was protected and player piano scrolls were not considered publications.
After lawsuits failed, Congress changed copyright law to make unauthorized performance illegal. And now syncing music to video without authorization is illegal, even if you have the individual rights to both. Great job Congress!
There are two problems with healthcare. First, capitalism/a free market depends on consumers making rational choices. There is no choice in relation to healthcare other than to choose to live. You can only say "no" to having your broken leg fixed for so long.
Second, third parties are paying for it, so there's little oversight in keeping prices in check. If we had to pay for each item on a medical bill, we'd complain. There would be rioting. But because someone else is paying, we just shrug and pass it on.
A federal anti-SLAPP law would be the WORST idea ever. When was the last time the feds ever passed pro-citizen/consumer legislation that was not watered down and written by large corporate special interests?!
Here's what would happen, the feds would enact an anti-SLAPP law that would offer no real protections. It would also eliminate all state anti-SLAPP laws (much in the same way states cannot enact their own legislation to get around mandatory arbitration clauses). Accordingly, we'd end up with LESS protection than we have now.
Copyright is already like a tax, it's only a matter of time before it actually becomes a tax.
Instead of "selling" music and movies, we'll all have to pay a percentage of our income to the Copyright Bureau, regardless of whether we consume any copyright. Anyone not paying will be face jail time. Obviously the copyright industries will have no incentive at all to create, because they'll get paid regardless. And of course any work of art, music, theater, movie, etc, will automatically be "owned" by the Copyright Bureau in perpetuity. Because any attempt to sidestep the official Copyright Bureau would be considered theft and infringement.
It'd make great speculative fiction, but I'd hate to be the person to write their game plan.
"Disney -- the poster company for supporting extreme copyright monopolies -- has apparently discovered a form of intellectual monopoly that it doesn't like so much: patents"
Which is why I don't like the term "copyright maximalists." Copyright is merely a means to an end. The end is protection. Thus, they should be called middlemen protectionists.
In other words, Disney doesn't give a frick about intellectual property and will fight against it tooth and nail, unless intellectual property protects it and only it. Then they'll fight for it tooth and nail.
If you look through the history of recorded music, sales have always increased when new technology allows more people to listen.
When radio first was released, the masses were able to hear and buy music for the first time.
When white kids started listening to black music on powerful AM stations in the 50, the birth of rock and roll led to decades of sales.
When college kids started listening to experimental rock on FM radio in the late 60s and 70s, sales increased until the end of the 70s. (And of course the higher quality of FM led to a broad range of music being exposed.)
MTV started playing new music in the 80s and sales increased until they stopped playing videos in the mid 90s. MTV exposed kids to metal, new wave, and rap. And made Micheal Jackson a mega star.
CD actually increased with Napster giving exposure to new music, but it was fleeting.
Since then any new technology which is released to give exposure to new artists is immediately killed. And yet they wonder why sales aren't what they used to be.
I'm of the opinion that the massive economic growth we experienced in the 90s derived from the fact that the net/web and software were not heavily patented. Anyone was free to start up a web based business or write and sell software without the fear of being sued into bankruptcy. And they did.
Now you can't do anything online or produce software without violating someone's patent. You're better off buying up a bunch of old patents and suing true innovators in Texas.
On the post: Why Does The Entertainment Industry Insist That It Can Veto Any Innovation It Doesn't Like?
After lawsuits failed, Congress changed copyright law to make unauthorized performance illegal. And now syncing music to video without authorization is illegal, even if you have the individual rights to both. Great job Congress!
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Second, third parties are paying for it, so there's little oversight in keeping prices in check. If we had to pay for each item on a medical bill, we'd complain. There would be rioting. But because someone else is paying, we just shrug and pass it on.
On the post: Crowdfunding The Push For A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law To Protect Free Speech
Here's what would happen, the feds would enact an anti-SLAPP law that would offer no real protections. It would also eliminate all state anti-SLAPP laws (much in the same way states cannot enact their own legislation to get around mandatory arbitration clauses). Accordingly, we'd end up with LESS protection than we have now.
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Re: Re:
On the post: Jealous Of Copyright Trolls, Entertainment Industry Looks To Move Three Strikes From 'Disconnect' To 'Fines'
Instead of "selling" music and movies, we'll all have to pay a percentage of our income to the Copyright Bureau, regardless of whether we consume any copyright. Anyone not paying will be face jail time. Obviously the copyright industries will have no incentive at all to create, because they'll get paid regardless. And of course any work of art, music, theater, movie, etc, will automatically be "owned" by the Copyright Bureau in perpetuity. Because any attempt to sidestep the official Copyright Bureau would be considered theft and infringement.
It'd make great speculative fiction, but I'd hate to be the person to write their game plan.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Site Reposts Articles About Disgraced Researcher, Claims Copyright, Has Originals Removed
On the post: Former Chief Judge Of Patent Court: We Need To Strengthen, Not Weaken, The Patent System Because [Reasons]
And when was the last time IBM released an innovative product?! Seriously. How could he seriously use IBM as an example of a company that innovates?!
On the post: Is The US IP System Really 'The Envy Of The World'?
On the post: How The FBI's Desire To Wiretap Every New Technology Makes Us Less Safe
On the post: Disney Freaks Out Over Patents That May Mean It Can't Keep 3Ding Old Movies
Which is why I don't like the term "copyright maximalists." Copyright is merely a means to an end. The end is protection. Thus, they should be called middlemen protectionists.
In other words, Disney doesn't give a frick about intellectual property and will fight against it tooth and nail, unless intellectual property protects it and only it. Then they'll fight for it tooth and nail.
On the post: Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
On the post: GEMA Feels It Isn't Killing German Nightclubs Fast Enough, Moves Towards Charging DJs Per MP3 On Their Laptops
On the post: Toshiba: You Can't Have Repair Manuals Because They're Copyrighted And You're Too Dumb To Fix A Computer
On the post: Draconian Downloading Law In Japan Goes Into Effect... Music Sales Drop
When radio first was released, the masses were able to hear and buy music for the first time.
When white kids started listening to black music on powerful AM stations in the 50, the birth of rock and roll led to decades of sales.
When college kids started listening to experimental rock on FM radio in the late 60s and 70s, sales increased until the end of the 70s. (And of course the higher quality of FM led to a broad range of music being exposed.)
MTV started playing new music in the 80s and sales increased until they stopped playing videos in the mid 90s. MTV exposed kids to metal, new wave, and rap. And made Micheal Jackson a mega star.
CD actually increased with Napster giving exposure to new music, but it was fleeting.
Since then any new technology which is released to give exposure to new artists is immediately killed. And yet they wonder why sales aren't what they used to be.
On the post: When A Mouse Requires An Internet Connection, You're Doing 'Cloud' Wrong
Re: Re:
On the post: When A Mouse Requires An Internet Connection, You're Doing 'Cloud' Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, locking customers out of using their hardware for no reason at all is pure stupid.
On the post: When A Mouse Requires An Internet Connection, You're Doing 'Cloud' Wrong
If it does limit resales, it is DRM. If it doesn't, it's just fricken stupid.
On the post: Judge Rejects Einstein Publicity Rights Claim... By Playing Dice With The Law
On the post: Auto Dealers Complain That Tesla Stores Are Illegal... Despite Not Actually Selling Anything
On the post: Is It Really A Good Idea To Open A 'Mini' Patent Office Directly Within Cornell's NYC Tech Campus?
Now you can't do anything online or produce software without violating someone's patent. You're better off buying up a bunch of old patents and suing true innovators in Texas.