Most of us here believe in the original stated purpose of copyright in the US constitution--the benefit of the society granting it. Seeing as copyright law as it exists today provides no discernible benefit to society (it only benefits those that hold the copyright), it should be abolished or replaced with something that does.
He didn't 'give it away and pray', he 'gave it away, and worked his ass of to give people a reason to pay'--pretty big difference there. And sure enough--as we talk about here all the time, his business model worked. I think this is something you seem to forget--the hard work part, all you record label shills seem to want is a 'magic bullet' model that makes the labels massive amounts of money for very little work.
Re: Did you stay up all night writing these fall-back pieces?
BUT MAINLY, as we've written several (hundred) times: the industry CANNOT survive if their business model goes unchanged.
Over 80% of an album's production cost (writing, recording, mastering, and advertising) is going to the 10 songs that no one really wants (if you split it up into strict percentages). How can an industry hope to survive with this kind of inefficiency built into their business model? Why should we care if an inefficient industry fails? This happens all the time, and is an indicator of a healthy market. And, really it's not the industry thats failing--it's the product. The recording industry has only one product--the album. Their entire business model is based on the creation, production, and distribution of the album (at this point in time, the CD). Fewer and fewer people want albums--they want digital singles. To save their industry, all they have to do is stop wasting their resources producing what people don't want (the album) in favor of what they do (the digital single).
Whoo...not only does he admit to the civil offense of copyright infringement, but also the federal offense of breaking the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. Get ready for some prison time bud...oh wait, it's just us proles that the law applies to.
One thing I think this clip clearly shows is that the very people that we need to have advising on legislation like this do a very poor job translating all the technical details into terms the legislators--some of whom seem to have less of a grasp of technology than your average grade schooler--need to understand. Once you start throwing terms like "routing communications" and "IP address" out there, you've lost them. Kerr was confusing Rep. Gohmert rather than informing him.
This is something the lobbyists and "experts" for some other industries do very well. Their positions and statements may be utter crap--but at least it's understandable crap--and this is why we get crappy laws.
And can be none. It's too easy to conceal your identity on the internet--which is Kerr's whole point, although he describes it rather poorly in the clip. How can you police a massive group of essentially anonymous PC's many, if not most of which reside in other jurisdictions and countries?
The stupid...it hurts...Lets also make a law that says it's OK to kill someone that you think, maybe, might be, but you're not quite sure, trying to kill you.
I think we should pass a law that states "In order to pass legislation on a particular subject, you must first pass a college level test on that subject". Hell, even a high schooler with basic IT knowledge would know that's idiotic.
And many security companies do exactly that--break in and steal stuff (exploiting). You can tell some people and corporations that their security is crap (and explain why it is), but until you show them how crappy it is by breaking in and stealing stuff (exploiting), many won't do a thing to fix it--the head in the sand approach to security (most famously demonstrated by Sony with their crappy PSN security that they had been told about by the security people in their own company and did nothing to fix until they got hacked).
Hmm...I think you haven't hung around in the white hat hacking community much. This is a constant problem they run into with any major corporation--you can't just "get on the phone to AT&T's security department and disclose it"--the entire customer facing parts of their business are designed to not let you do this. And even if you did by some miracle get hold of someone with the authority to do something about it, or to forward the info to someone who does--what do you think the chances are that they will? The only way to get them to do anything about it is to expose it as publicly as possible, so it makes it into the mainstream news--then maybe something will get done to fix the problem--and the best way to do this is to actually use the exploit to prove it exists.
Bill Waterson has stated in the past (and in the "Calvin And Hobbes 10th Anniversary" compilation book) that he was always worried about bootleg products exploiting his works. In his defense, he was very afraid that something he meant for the world to enjoy would be exploited commercially without his permission.
This makes little sense. How does not giving any permission to use your works stop the bootleggers from profiting? It doesn't--they profit anyway, because they don't ask for permission.
It's very sad that he would see his work wither and die from neglect and forgetfulnesses in some vain attempt to stop bootleggers from profiting from his work--which they do anyway.
I think the big thing that all of the copyright maximalists are ignoring is the fact that copyright is supposed to be an incentive for new creation. How long has it been since Watterson produced something new concerning Calvin and Hobbes? Almost 20 years. Since He's not creating anything new, perhaps it should lapse into the public domain.
This is a classic example of what copyright should not be--welfare for artists. No artist--no matter how talented, influential, or awesome (and Watterson is all three), should be allowed to sit on their copyrights and do nothing with them. This is the big thing that needs to be change regarding copyright--it lasts too long. Almost everything else about copyright could stay the same for all I care, but reduce the term to something like five years with possible extensions if you can show proof of continuing works. In this case, as long as Watterson's making new works with Calvin and Hobbes he can keep the copyrights on the old stuff--if not, five years after the last new strip it all becomes public domain.
As an artist myself, if I were in Watterson's position I would be thrilled about what Michael Den Beste is doing and would give him permission to do it to all of the strips (and probably donate some money to him, and maybe work out a book deal with him too). Because as any artist knows, once your work drops out of the publics' consciousness--it may as well not even have existed. Unless I introduce them to it myself, I sincerely doubt my children will discover Watterson's work on their own--and that would be a shame.