Well, in all fairness, I was defining "industry" as synonymous with occupation, under the assumption that "the tech industry" employs more computer and science workers, and "the media industry" employs more artists, designers, entertainers, and pro sports workers. In other words, I was working with the OMB's SOC classification, rather than NAICS classification.
That's a lot easier to do, because the NAICS major classification system is kind of a mess. For example, "Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries" is in Sector 51, "Information" - along with software companies, telecommunications, and newspaper publishers - and not in Sector 71, "Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation." Similarly, "Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing" is in Sector 33, "Manufacturing," while "Computer Systems Design" is in Sector 54, "Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services" - along with lawyers.
Just sorting out which of the NAICS classifications are part of "the tech industry" or "the media industries" is not trivial.
I do plan to do this eventually, when I have time and/or interest. If you go to the page for the SOC (occupational) classification, it lists the specific NAICS industries with both the highest levels, and highest concentration, of employment for that occupation. That way, I could find the tech and media occupations, work "backwards" to the industries with the highest number of those jobs, and calculate how much those industries' entire workforce contributes to the total economy. That way, we can include e.g. the office workers.
Silicon Valley doesn't even employ that many people. They outsource jobs.
First, I'm assuming that when you say "Silicon Valley," you're using a (to you) derogatory term to refer to the tech industry. I'm also assuming you mean outsourcing to foreign countries (and not outsourcing to American firms), a.k.a. "offshoring;" otherwise the whole "killing the American economy" line is ridiculous.
The jobs the tech industry outsources are the same jobs everyone else outsources - mainly manufacturing jobs. That is very much a concern, but hardly unique to the tech industry.
But regardless of this issue, the notion that the tech industry "doesn't even employ that many people" is pure hogwash. According to the latest BLS data, the tech industry ("Computer and Mathematical Occupations") employed 3,578,220 people. That's not the top employer, certainly, but it's more than plenty of other industries. For example, it employs more than two times the number of people that are employed in the arts industries (1,750,130).
Furthermore, the median income in the tech industry ($76,270) is higher than any other industry. This means that jobs in that industry have more of a positive effect on the economy than jobs in other industries, due to higher taxes paid and greater disposable income.
In fact, if you calculate the contribution to the economy in this way (total employed times the median annual income), the tech industry comes in at #6, contributing about $273 billion, or roughly 6.03% of the total economy. In contrast, the arts industries rank at #18 (out of 21), contributing about $77 billion, or 1.9% of the total economy.
So, no, they're not "killing the American economy." Organizations that attack them are.
Open source does NOT mean EVERYONE can add code to the main repo/git/whatever.
Yeah, actually, that usually is what it means. In the case of JDownloader, you just need SVN access. Like almost all open source projects, they grant SVN write access to anyone that agrees to the license terms.
It's like you've never worked on an open source project before. I have (and am). Granting access to anyone who wants to upload code is SOP.
So the programmers that release the software should not be liable to not auditing their code.
As pointed out by silverscarcat, they do audit the code. They do not, however, audit the nightly builds - which (if it's like most open-source build tools) is automatically generated nightly from the working code base.
If you have user submitted code, it is your duty to audit it before releasing it.
If it's an open source project, "you" is often "the users." More specifically, the community of programmers that is actually writing and using the code. The beauty of open source is that if someone submits code that is questionable, it is almost immediately spotted and fixed - since otherwise, it wouldn't be useful to that community.
Moreover, "you" won't be the only one releasing it. Open source means that any user can branch the code, and release their version of it themselves. (Provided, of course, that they also release the source code, and allow others to do the same.)
What else is there in the code? Trojans? Malware? Who knows, we just get the binary, and they don't audit until they get sued...
If it's open source, then by definition, you also get the source code. If there are trojans, malware, or whatever, then either you or one of the thousands of programmers who look at the code will be able to tell.
It's the primary reason that open source code is generally more secure than closed source code.
As someone who has used, and contributed to, open source software, I can tell you flat out that your concerns are a fantasy. Your scenarios have never, once, happened with any open source software that I'm aware of.
I guess what you're saying is YouTube (and Pandora/Spotify etc,) pay a higher percentage of what they CLAIM is their ad income.
No. If you use YouTube's ContentID, they split the profits with the copyright holder, 50-50. That's mainly ad revenue. But with Pandora and Spotify, they pay the majority of their total revenue (not just "ad income") to copyright holders. Pandora pays 54% of its revenue. Spotify pays 70% of its revenue. If you want to know why the artists aren't seeing that, here's a hint: they're paying the copyright holders, not the artists - and the copyright holders are usually major labels.
Which brings me to the next reply:
I don't know who Chris Castle is but please feel free to tell me what lies you think Lowery is posting , it's good to get information and fact check.
Chris Castle is the person behind the Music Technology Policy blog. He is an anti-Google and anti-tech copyright attorney (ironic, since he originally represented Napster), and former VP of business affairs at both Sony and A&M. Trichordist often quotes his biased rants.
But since you know who Lowery is, I'll focus on him instead. And, boy, where to start. The guy lies about pretty much everything.
I first heard of him when Techdirt ran a story about a Facebook post that mirrored some talking points in a speech he gave. In response, Lowery showed up in the comments, saying things like "if i wanted to fucking sue you i could" and "I expect a retraction and an apology. fuckface."
Lowery is a douchebag. He exploited the tragic deaths of two music artists to advance his anti-tech agenda. He quite literally claimed (without one shred of evidence) that without piracy, Vic Chesnutt and Mark Linkous would still be alive.
This is shameful propaganda in the extreme, and it is utterly disrespectful to Chesnutt and Linkous. It shows just how little Lowery respects his musician "friends."
He's also lied multiple times about Spotify and Pandora not paying artists, which I already debunked above.
I'm sure there is more - lots more. But, frankly, if I had to debunk all the lies on Trichordist, it'd be a full-time job. I hope the aforementioned is enough to convince you that at the very least, the site shouldn't be trusted.
Also, digging into the numbers I posted (in the comments I linked to) will probably give you some idea of how I would reply to the rest of your post. I've included links where I could, so feel free to fact-check.
I guess that never came to my attention because when we talk about copyright here it usually deals with copies and rarely stuff like sculptures.
Right. It wouldn't apply to this case, or any of the other cases Techdirt deals with, because it doesn't apply to things like fair use, and it couldn't possibly apply to things like secondary liability or the Internet (the favorite bugaboos of copyright defenders).
It's normally brought up (as here) when commenters confuse "moral rights" with "ethics," in an attempt to show that file sharing is "evil." It's usually a red herring. Still, best to be informed.
Moral rights are NOT covered by copyright laws in the US. Period. Full stop.
That's not quite true, There are "moral rights" on a very limited number of works (visual arts, e.g. sculptures). The original artists (regardless of whether they are the copyright holders) have the right to prevent the modification or mutilation of the original artworks (it does not apply to copies), and to get credit for those works (and refuse credit for works that they did not create).
Object? What exactly does that mean? They retain the right to say "I don't like that!"? Or does it mean that they maintain control of their works EVEN AFTER THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID RIGHTS (as quoted by you).
FYI: The "moral rights" (droit d'auteur) in Europe are very limited in scope, and very different than the "economic rights" that exist both in Europe and here in the States.
For example, "moral rights" cannot be transferred while "economic rights" can, and in many countries, the term lengths are different.
They are usually limited to the right to get credit for the work, as well as the right to remove their name from works they don't approve of. They usually do not have the right to outright block the works on "moral rights" grounds (though they do as part of their "economic rights," as we do in the States).