Re: The FIVE PERCENT that Kickstarter skims is reason!
....and yet a great rate for a relatively robust marketing and customer communications platform, access to a large community of active backers, and exposure through on-site and third-party discovery tools.
So... all this effort has been expended making a point nobody cares about to disprove an argument you only think the other side is making?
- Infringement is not theft
- Pirating a song is in no way analogous to shoplifting a CD
- A pirate copy is not a lost sale
Those are the key points. All are demonstrable both legally and economically, and by your own admission, you've offered nothing to counter any of them, instead citing a bunch of unrelated laws to prove an inconsequential point...
Re: DRM is just technology, Mike. Accept it without question.
DRM is not a technological inevitability. It has never, ever worked (all DRM is cracked within hours or days) because its fundamental goal is impossible. DRM only exists because there are laws that allow companies to block the real technological inevitability: openness and interoperability.
DRM derives what little power it has from law, not technology.
There are various international agreements that spell out how patents work between different countries, and of course some countries behave differently within that system than others (see: China) -- and of course, on the internet there are jurisdictional issues with services that are available worldwide, servers in multiple different countries, etc.
In a sense, nothing is stopping the war you describe -- in fact that war is already happening in some places, such as China as mentioned, or India and other countries that are ignoring certain drug patents. But, of course, there are also powerful global and national interests operating in all these countries who benefit from a strong patent system worldwide, plus all the diplomatic muscle the US throws behind intellectual property, so the war isn't one-sided.
Re: "the technology is coming one way or the other"?
If the biggest reason to support DRM is that it's "inevitable", then there's even more reason to support DRM-breaking hacks and cracks, which have been inevitable since the first time anyone tried to limit what you can do with your devices.
Oh please. You've been answered plenty of times -- by Mike, by staff, by readers -- over the years that you have been weirdly obsessed with Mike, and every time you throw a giant temper tantrum. Now you just throw the temper tantrums right from word one, which saves us the indignity of talking to you.
Though honestly, if the concern is quid pro quo, I don't see how that's particularly comforting. Isn't the real value in permission to use the set, not the cost?
Besides, it seems to me that the threat of quid pro quo goes *up* if we decide that political parties using news footage isn't covered by fair dealing. After all, that's just giving the networks more quid to offer pro quo -- whereas if it's fair dealing, footage is not something networks can trade on for political favours.
If a campaign infringes and the rights holder does not assert their rights, I suspect an electoral law judge would see it as a contribution.
But how is an electoral judge to determine if it infringes if the rightsholder has not asserted their rights? There can be no copyright determination without a copyright lawsuit... Or are electoral judges supposed to arbitrarily decide to rule on non-existant civil copyright disputes? And are they qualified to do so?
That's tough though, because there's no fixed rate on licenses -- it's up to the copyright holder, who can offer to license something for free or ten billion dollars, whatever they want. So if a party uses unlicensed material, how big of a contribution did they accept?