> This is the definition of your favorite tactic: FUD!
Wait a second, I'm confused? You're claiming Mike is a copyright maximalist? You know, like the ones claiming that without copyright/SOPA/DRM/DCMA/extension/harmonization/N-strikes/... (or instead that with VCR/P2P/proxies/encryption/...) the fundamental forces binding the universe/economy together would suddenly cease in an apocalyptic finale?
A bit reminiscent of the 2012 Ig Nobel prize in Literature:
LITERATURE PRIZE: The US Government General Accountability Office, for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports.
All of the Humble Bundle offers are time-limited (something like 2 weeks, if I remember correctly).
Sometimes components of old Humble Bundles offerings are re-offered as bonuses on new bundles, however. Luckily they let you customize the payment split (otherwise I'd have paid for World of Goo, for example, something like 3 times)...
> is as effective as telling us that we can't
> point out that the Emperor is completely butt nekkid
Well, actually, if you consider the original story, a major lesson was that the vast majority of people were too afraid to (be the first person to) point that out. Which only emphasizes the great value to society which anonymity on the net provides --- with it, anyone can be a "little boy".
Everywhere? You jest. Let me see... somehow "fair use" isn't mentioned in the posts on the following, rather common subjects
Bad faith/bugily automated takedowns where there is no possible claim for the plaintiff to have rights
Legacy industries not understanding the need to adapt their business models
Democracy being undermined by lack of transparency on the part of government, especially in the realm of international IP treaties
Every post about patents, since "fair use" doesn't apply there
Legacy industry using government regulation to block/kill innovative new budding competitors
Collateral damage which ensues when actual copyright infringement is stopped by law enforcement
Wonderful anecdotes of new business models for artists which have worked
Clueless governments trying to prevent "bad things" on the net, like trolling or criticism
In fact, as I write this, the last 20 RSS topics which I see in my feed include only one post concerning "fair use", and that only peripherally: it was mainly about how abusers of the DMCA practically cannot be punished (in the particular case in the post, the content which was claimed to be infringing was ruled to be a "fair use").
BTW, "fair use" is everywhere in real life. You should take off your blinders...
> To force all artists to give their art away for
> free is tyranny.
I guess copyright, as it has traditionally been implemented, is tyranny, then, considering it has never been of unlimited duration.
Oh, and by the way, none of the current media industries you love so much would ever have gotten off the ground if your ideal of copyright/IP had existed from the start. Read "Free Culture" by Lessig to confront some other "real facts".
For your information, this post is something called "a reply". If you want to be (consistently) ethical, to use my "reply" idea, you can pay me at the rate of $0.001 BTC per use (at BitCoin address 1HVVj8SHLQhvaxUeNqTwjsK8R53SoJRNUM). Ridiculous? So are your ideas about copyright.
First of all, I see that you haven't produced any "massive innovation" which was first revealed via patent.
That is inclear. ...
Wow, I see that we're really gaining ground now --- before you were totally certain that without patents there would be little or no innovation.
What would happen is no reasearch was done down certain paths, because there was no hope of financial return?
It's obvious what would happen when you make that particular assumption. What isn't obvious (i.e., "inclear" [sic]) is whether without patents there would be more or less innovation. This question cannot be answered with certainty, because we have no way to make a controlled experiment in which we run the world down the two different paths and compare the results.
... Basic resaerch on something may produce a patent. Others may take the information in that patent ...
Basic research is usually defined as research carried out by academics who do not have as a goal a particular application in mind, or a particular practical problem to solve. Such research is automatically published, because that's how the academics build their reputations. There is no need for patents for that. Furthermore, I daresay that in a world without patents, reverse engineering, both as a topic in itself (the development of new techniques) and as a source of interesting and publishable information, would be a much hotter academic topic than it is today.
... "on the shoulders of giants" ...
You do realize that that quote is from Isaac Newton, and the last time I checked he didn't apply for any patents? Albert Einstein did apply for one patent, but it was for a refrigerator which is not in current use.