Mike is arguing that if a single patent, looked at individually, does not promote the progress, then the patent system is unconstitutional. That's a ridiculous argument...
It's also an argument that was never made. You may want to read the article again, extra carefully this time. What was argued was that in certain instances allowing the product to be made (and perhaps without having to pay the patent holder) should be something that can be considered as promoting the progress as well.
From the article:
To some extent, this is related again to the first item. Actually paying attention to the part in the Constitution where it says that Congress is only able to pass such laws if they "promote the progress" seems important. If you're going to allow a patent system to exist, then why shouldn't it at least be a plausible argument in a patent dispute that allowing certain products is consistent with the "progress" argument?
Weíll see more small-budget or amateur films, and fewer major studio films. These movies, he suggested, are the iconic ones that people remember and reference, so piracy may have an important cultural impact.
What's funny about this is that he takes no account of marketing. Indie films just don't have the same "cultural impact" because... well, just because. Certainly it isn't anything to do with hugely expensive marketing campaigns so people actually know about the film compared to indies without the budget.
It was argued that the VCR would kill TV because it allowed people to commit piracy, and they should be allowed to effectively ban it. It's only use as far as they were concerned was piracy. Courts ruled that time shifting was fair use, and entertainment companies made lots of money from home video regardless.
So before you claim people should move on to services that aren't pirate havens, you might want to provide the name of a service that:
a) Isn't some sort of haven to piracy
b) Is still useful to artists wanting to distribute their work for free (to them) and free of charge (to their fans)
You seriously make no sense. If someone doesn't want SOPA or SOPA style rules to be made, what about it is any different if it passes as legislation or as a back room deal? If people don't want it, then they're going to fight it regardless. Why is simply letting it pass congress without a fight any more sensible than having it brought via back room deals?
If you're going to talk about more influence over the process, well that's exactly what happened. People asserted what they wanted their representatives to do, and they got it. The fact that the MPAA/RIAA go even further into corruption to make such deals over something as unimportant as entertainment (as you stated yourself) just shows how messed up their priorities are. It's OK for them to corrupt the political process, but not for the public to tell the representatives they vote for what they want.
It's hardly a difficult concept to understand; unless, of course, one can't understand plain English in the distinction between saying all copyright is an affront to society, or that corporate lobbying for terms that go beyond the death of an author - at a minimum - are an affront to even to the original intent of copyright.
But you have a knack for missing the point, it seems. Disney may still have copyright on their works, but this doesn't mean the case for why they should still have copyright over works that are over 40 years old is a sound one, or a logically consistent one. Particularly for a company for whom significant value appears to depend on a healthy public domain.
You also (repeatedly) completely missed the point of why people were referencing stealing. People were responding to an AC that asserted infringement is akin to stealing, not necessarily claiming it to be themselves.
Why it seems to not bother you that Disney lobbies for stronger copyright laws, so that it rarely - and at this rate, it sometimes feels like it may never may never - put anything back into the public domain like the authors of whose works they borrowed from freely, eludes me.
It's also important to note that the nature of open source and its wide use is that it also helps further blur the distinction between creator and consumer. Facebook, Twitter and many others don't just use it, they also produce it and contribute to other projects.
The idea that open source is limited to just a few small companies in their own play area is naive at best.
Says the guy consistently substituting the labels for "artists". Nobody said anything about artists themselves, only the labels who are the ones making the demands. Artists it appears have nothing to do with this fight other than getting the change from the labels pockets after they've had their hefty cut.
From the linked article on the labels demands:
General deal structure: Pay the largest of A) Pro-rata share of minimum of $X per subscriber, B) Per-play costs at $Y per play, C) Z percent of total company revenue, regardless of other business areas. As stated previously, this means labels de facto set retail price (they also regularly negotiate floors on price, giving even less wiggle room), which limits the ability of the music service to develop ancillary revenue streams that arenít siphoned off by the labels.
Labels receive equity stake. Not only do labels get to set the price on the service, they also get partial ownership of the company.
Non-disclosure. Every contract has strict language prohibiting the digital music company from revealing what they pay to the labels. If they speak publicly about any of the licensing terms, they jeopardize invalidating their license which would torpedo their business. Since labels license on behalf of the artists any payment to the artist comes from the labels not the digital music company. This is the main reason music services, not the labels, have been getting heat from the artist community. Music services canít defend against accusations about low artist payments because they pay the labels who donít disclose what theyíre paying to the artists.
Which is exactly why Jason Rohrer has been spectacularly unsuccessful as a developer of public domain games. He has never made any money from it in all these years, and shakes his fist at anybody with an eye patch, which is a lot of people thanks to his propensity to stab forks in peoples eyes from all the rage at the freetards he sees on the streets.
Don't forget to mention Nina Paley, the writer of the article you're commenting on, she's never sold a thing either and hates file sharing with a passion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It can be.
People making their own food from recipes devalues food from professional chefs who create those recipes. We should stop people distributing recipes to stop the devaluing of food.
Chairs are being devalued by multiple chair manufacturers and even certain individuals competing against each other. We should limit chair manufacturing to the Association of Accredited Chair Manufacturers to stop this devaluing of chairs.
Being able to copy and distribute goods at near zero cost devalues the goods being distributed. We should limit distribution to protect the goods value.
Hint: An item is valuable because it is useful in some way, not because it's distribution is limited. Limiting its distribution is what limits its value.
You took my comment about Masnick having burned his bridge and compared it to Steve Jobs. That is what you did. I called you out on it, and you denied what you did.
Erm, no. But keep on misrepresenting what people say though.
As pointed out, I showed how your specific claim of no one bitching about DRM was wrong by showing Steve Jobs 5 years ago presenting clearly that DRM was not the future. I then took your comment about how Mike had apparently burned bridges with the entertainment industry for being anti-DRM (I didn't realise he had any in the first place when it came to the major labels, but whatever) and turned it around to help make the point that despite Steve Jobs arguing against DRM, not only did they continue doing business, the labels eventually relented and removed DRM from their music on iTunes.
No direct comparison with Mike needed, though even if I did grant you that, I'm not sure how it's relevant at all to attempt to insult Mike either way, other than to distract from the point at hand. You made a factually incorrect statement in a lazy attempt to make a personal attack, and responded with another irrelevant personal attack when proven wrong.
No, securing it to EVERY device YOU own. Just like Apple allows 5 copies to exist on different devices YOU own. I don't hear people bitching about iTunes locking you down to 5 devices (iPods, iPhones, iPads, computers, Apple TV, etc..)