Reminds me of the time when discussing cryptography was banned in the US. Security by obscurity is never a good idea, some hacker who really doesn't care for your rules will figure crack your stuff, and you'll be worse because you didn't get a bunch of smart people to discuss the best possible security. Not that this applies to DRM directly. DRM will always be lame.
Correlation and causality. Also, I think we both can name plenty of authors from before the copyright days, all european. And I think that you probably can't name any author from countries with extensive copyright law (like Albania, Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia which has a copyright even longer than the US, Cote d'Ivoire, Mexico right beside your border, etc.)
I still have to find a proper answer to "how does copyright promote anything?". Study after study after study states that copyright doesn't help promoting but hinders progress. I think if your founding fathers new that "Right to Writings and Discoveries" didn't actual promote the progress of science and useful arts, they would never have written that. I wonder why the means is more important than the end in this case. That is, the end was always to promote. If the assumption that the means result in the ends is faulty, can the whole thing be revisited and declared null?
I think you forgot to say "thankfully" somewhere at the end. Like we need another guy claiming trademark for anyone writing the word "Hotel" in their hotel.
If freakonomics is right, file sharing in LSU will raise. First, they are making students aware that they can do it, and next the charge (when found) is relatively low. The next thing that will happen is the MAFIAA suing this students (I really really don't think they'll love the 50 bucks idea). So the students, who thought they had paid for their "crime" will face court charges, and then they'll be really pissed off.
It's interesting how I never once used Google to find Techdirt. I was referred here by a friend, and I mostly consume it via the RSS feed. So Google shouldn't be paying Techdirt for its content but it should be paying CJR?
On the other hand, Osnos say: "Proceeds go instead to those who sell advertising and other services while aggregating and/or lifting material they did not create". Newspapers have always been an ad supported service, so I don't really see the difference.
BTW, my nick is a play on the word "bear" in spanish. I didn't know about this Osnos guy until today.
Mr Carnes is absolutely right. Who would write software without the knowledge that his work will still be paying him off 70 years after he's dead? Oh, right... everybody.
I really don't think this is a grab for IP. With the copyright law as it stands, and the size of Google, it would be either a PR disaster or a huge waste of money in the court. I stay with my appreciation: this is trying to game the system to be positioned high in the page rank.
It's pretty obvious that this anonymous exec wants the algo so he can find how to game the system. Google has given us the basic rules of page rank many times (if you are linked to you're popular, if you're linked to from popular sites, you're more popular). But the specifics of the algorithm is what would make gaming it simpler. "Transparency" sounds really good when what you want is basically a way to cheat.
Oh, I get it. It's stated in the article that Google’s share of the total internet revenue opportunity may diminish. The fact I didn't see before is that there is a totally static "internet revenue opportunity" and it's important to have a big share of that. Apple apparently will seize part of the "internet revenue opportunity" by selling iPhones and Amazon by selling eBooks on the Kindle.
It's been stated already but, since when are Google, Apple and Amazon in the same camp?? I love some of the stuff Google creates, I use Amazon for almost all of my american book shopping and I think Apple has yet to come with a good product but I accept that they have a huge following... but I cannot think of one thing they have in common. Maybe google books and amazon's preview are similar in some way, but that's about it. This is like saying that once wikipedia and facebook start to charge, google is out of business. How does one thing compare with the other??
The other flawed comparison is "Google's share of total domestic online revenues could be at risk as user payments begin to match or exceed advertising". The money is not coming from the same pockets. Users don't decide between paying or advertising. Google may do worst than, say, Amazon. But that's not a failure IMHO, it's a completely different business. You can't start comparing yourself with just about everyone out there!
As I see it, this is just fail for the US. If the rest of the world doesn't follow suit (and this is a case where the RIAA probably doesn't have as much influence because it doesn't have to do with "you're stealing my copyrights" as much as with rates), the rest of the world can still build a healthy webcasting scene. I'm thinking Sweden, Russia, China...
What's weird about your argument, A1, is that the most public supporter of TPB has a seat in the European Parliament right now and they'r using the model of TPB as part of their platform. So I'll assume that TPB is about to turn into a "differences of opinion" issue rather than an absolute evil site. Infringement may be illegal right now, but every day more people realize that it's not immoral.
"Wal-Mart reserves the right, at its sole discretion, without advance notice, to change, modify, add or remove all or any portion of the Site or the Terms."
So it's double useless: unenforceable because it server no purpose and because the courts already have decided that you can't be bound to something that changes with no notification.
I wonder if the EFF will include it in the TOS watchlist...
RSS
Twitter
(as Osno)
Reminds me of the time when discussing cryptography was banned in the US. Security by obscurity is never a good idea, some hacker who really doesn't care for your rules will figure crack your stuff, and you'll be worse because you didn't get a bunch of smart people to discuss the best possible security. Not that this applies to DRM directly. DRM will always be lame.
Re: Re: (as Osno)
Correlation and causality. Also, I think we both can name plenty of authors from before the copyright days, all european. And I think that you probably can't name any author from countries with extensive copyright law (like Albania, Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia which has a copyright even longer than the US, Cote d'Ivoire, Mexico right beside your border, etc.)
(as Osno)
I still have to find a proper answer to "how does copyright promote anything?". Study after study after study states that copyright doesn't help promoting but hinders progress. I think if your founding fathers new that "Right to Writings and Discoveries" didn't actual promote the progress of science and useful arts, they would never have written that. I wonder why the means is more important than the end in this case. That is, the end was always to promote. If the assumption that the means result in the ends is faulty, can the whole thing be revisited and declared null?
(as Osno)
I think you forgot to say "thankfully" somewhere at the end. Like we need another guy claiming trademark for anyone writing the word "Hotel" in their hotel.
(as Osno)
If freakonomics is right, file sharing in LSU will raise. First, they are making students aware that they can do it, and next the charge (when found) is relatively low. The next thing that will happen is the MAFIAA suing this students (I really really don't think they'll love the 50 bucks idea). So the students, who thought they had paid for their "crime" will face court charges, and then they'll be really pissed off.
Oh, and the article is absurd, bla, bla.
(as Osno)
Doesn't Peter Sunde have a template response letter for this sort of situations? Just ask him how to reply!
(as Osno)
It's also weird that he wants "An ecosystem in which all stakeholders in the content economy have a fair share". Let's discuss blogging, then.
(as Osno)
It's interesting how I never once used Google to find Techdirt. I was referred here by a friend, and I mostly consume it via the RSS feed. So Google shouldn't be paying Techdirt for its content but it should be paying CJR?
On the other hand, Osnos say: "Proceeds go instead to those who sell advertising and other services while aggregating and/or lifting material they did not create". Newspapers have always been an ad supported service, so I don't really see the difference.
BTW, my nick is a play on the word "bear" in spanish. I didn't know about this Osnos guy until today.
(as Osno)
Mr Carnes is absolutely right. Who would write software without the knowledge that his work will still be paying him off 70 years after he's dead? Oh, right... everybody.
(as Osno)
Bach and Mozart were paid for writing songs. Without copyright. Which I think is your point anyway.
(as Osno)
I really don't think this is a grab for IP. With the copyright law as it stands, and the size of Google, it would be either a PR disaster or a huge waste of money in the court. I stay with my appreciation: this is trying to game the system to be positioned high in the page rank.
(as Osno)
It's pretty obvious that this anonymous exec wants the algo so he can find how to game the system. Google has given us the basic rules of page rank many times (if you are linked to you're popular, if you're linked to from popular sites, you're more popular). But the specifics of the algorithm is what would make gaming it simpler. "Transparency" sounds really good when what you want is basically a way to cheat.
(as Osno)
This is entirely consistent with the "content is important, distribution is not" mentality of the record labels anyway...
(as Osno)
Oh, I get it. It's stated in the article that Google’s share of the total internet revenue opportunity may diminish. The fact I didn't see before is that there is a totally static "internet revenue opportunity" and it's important to have a big share of that. Apple apparently will seize part of the "internet revenue opportunity" by selling iPhones and Amazon by selling eBooks on the Kindle.
Still not making much sense.
(as Osno)
It's been stated already but, since when are Google, Apple and Amazon in the same camp?? I love some of the stuff Google creates, I use Amazon for almost all of my american book shopping and I think Apple has yet to come with a good product but I accept that they have a huge following... but I cannot think of one thing they have in common. Maybe google books and amazon's preview are similar in some way, but that's about it. This is like saying that once wikipedia and facebook start to charge, google is out of business. How does one thing compare with the other??
The other flawed comparison is "Google's share of total domestic online revenues could be at risk as user payments begin to match or exceed advertising". The money is not coming from the same pockets. Users don't decide between paying or advertising. Google may do worst than, say, Amazon. But that's not a failure IMHO, it's a completely different business. You can't start comparing yourself with just about everyone out there!
(as Osno)
iCopyright probably didn't test such an unusual functionality. They weren't expecting someone to actually try to pay!
(as Osno)
As I see it, this is just fail for the US. If the rest of the world doesn't follow suit (and this is a case where the RIAA probably doesn't have as much influence because it doesn't have to do with "you're stealing my copyrights" as much as with rates), the rest of the world can still build a healthy webcasting scene. I'm thinking Sweden, Russia, China...
(as Osno)
Sorry to break it to you, Mike, but common sense died a long time ago. I think it was right after the Napster trial.
(as Osno)
What's weird about your argument, A1, is that the most public supporter of TPB has a seat in the European Parliament right now and they'r using the model of TPB as part of their platform. So I'll assume that TPB is about to turn into a "differences of opinion" issue rather than an absolute evil site. Infringement may be illegal right now, but every day more people realize that it's not immoral.
(as Osno)
They have the infamous line:
"Wal-Mart reserves the right, at its sole discretion, without advance notice, to change, modify, add or remove all or any portion of the Site or the Terms."
So it's double useless: unenforceable because it server no purpose and because the courts already have decided that you can't be bound to something that changes with no notification.
I wonder if the EFF will include it in the TOS watchlist...