But, it does seem ridiculously hypocritical for Hollywood to parade up and down the streets of DC insisting that its main focus is to make sure all the people who work on its movies get paid, including releasing propaganda commercials highlighting non-acting movie staff, and then go out of its way to not pay people doing work on films.
Silly Masnick. It's yet another proof the studios are dying because of all the freetards. They cannot pay everybody so they decided to pay for all those grocery store employees in their payrolls first so the world won't get so sour that soon.
Home copying is killing grocery stores!
You syncophants will be left crying in despair when all those grocery stores go out of business because of all the theft. So sayeth the oracle.
Re: It's not all about "working", but about STATING MORALITY.
Law is (also) for teaching purposes, and you young ankle-biters who even haven't learned toleration for dissent in comments here, clearly don't understand that though laws may be somewhat impractical to apply, it's statement by adult society of what behavior is acceptable.
So calling us "anklebiters" is an example of a statement by adult society?
Cathy, I'm in my forties and able to think for myself. I also pride myself on my comprehension skills and ability to NOT contradict myself in the same sentence.
A. Those who can't afford
B. Those who can afford but will only buy if it's worth the money
C. Those who can afford but have a fixed budget meaning they need to give priorities while buying
D. Those who can afford but refuse to feed the MAFIAA
E. Those who can afford but are denied access (DRM, geo restrictions, large windows)
F. Those who won't buy whatever it happens
There are interfaces among those but it's much more complex. I'd say the only case where the sales are truly lost are E and F. Even A can generate sales in the long term (think poor students who get decent jobs later). And E is only possible if you are enough of an idiot to place such restrictions.
File sharing is natural. The lack of sales is a symptom of the MAFIAA's stupidity/bad business model.
As usual, Misunderstander Mike misunderstands purpose.
Secrecy in the modern era is to be total, regardless whether effective. It's just one aspect of the surveillance state -- and not incidentally, expands "law" to cover nearly all information.
In the short term, it gives witlings the notion that they're important, "insiders", and so they go along. In fact, those are the most compartmentalized people, who don't see the big picture of the surveillance state taking over. -- Or even if do, are prohibited from spreading the alarm.
And so what Mike misses is that secrecy has NOTHING to do with "security", everything to do with the expanding STATE.
This law has three requisites, that need to be fulfilled for it to take effect:
1) The photography must be HIDDEN. That is, the moment you bring out your camera in full view, none of it applies.
2) The hidden photograpy must take place without permission from the subject(s)
3) The act must take place in an environment where the subject(s) have a reasonable right to expect privacy. That is, indoors in ones own home, inside a dressing room, in a restroom or similar environments.
This law is meant to complement laws against harassment, where the law is interpreted such that you cannot claim to be harassed in cases where you didn't realize AT THE TIME that you were being photographed.
That particular loophole, if you will, led to extensive debate here in Sweden a while back, after a couple of public cases were tried and the accused was acquitted of harassment after having secretly videotaped his tenant in her bathroom using a hidden camera. He was on the other hand convicted of violating the privacy of her home by entering without permission in order to install the hidden camera.
Under this new law he would be convicted of unlawful harassing photography since the law's three requisites would have been fulfilled.
There are also two excemptions to the law:
1) regarding law enforcement use of hidden photography; that is you can still be subject to being spied on if you're a reasonable suspect of a crime.
2) reasonable use. If it can be shown after the fact that the photography was justifiable, for example to gather evidence or for a photo journalist to document something of public interest, the law doesn't apply.
So, in summary, although fears have been raised by free speech activists and others (me included), the law actually does seem to be well written and sufficiently narrow in scope to not hinder everyday use of photography.
this sounds as if it has been done so as to stop the gathering of evidence needed for prosecuting people of power and high positions. in other words, a type of gag order. cant imagine where the idea for that came from!
Open source and other successful stories that don't rely on Intellectual Property laws tend to be disregarded as failures or lack of development by the IP supporters simply because they don't make shitloads of money. I mean, how do you measure success?
So developer A produces some set of softwares that are freeware and make enough money to live comfortably but not in luxury while having a small extra for equipment maintenance and upgrading whereas developer B makes billions with the same type of software but with fancier UI and a few extras that facilitate the end-user lives.
Is dev A a failure? Or is he successful in building a decent software? And how does dev B make millions if there is software that do the same for free? Could we say dev B is successful in adding value to software already available for free?
It is very relative. For me both devs are as successful as any other person making a living of what they love to do as their main "jobs" and revenue. The difference here is that dev B only thrives with light IP protections in place while if there's a more lenient system both of them can thrive. Both of them will have to work to provide a decent product though.