Instead of music consider another medium. Let's say you think of a hilarious joke (like the one about the three nuns in a taxi…..) and you tell a friend. She thinks it's the funniest thing she's ever heard and tells her friends and they tell all their friends and soon it spreads like wildfire. You go on a trip to another state and are at a party and someone asks you "did you hear the one about the three nuns in a taxi? " You say "hey that's my joke, you stole it. You can't tell it. You have to pay me."
Now it sounds ridiculous but digital content is somewhat like this. In economic terms it is non-exclusive, meaning it's not really possible to prevent it spreading. Try telling people not to tell your joke.
To be sure there are still differences between music. Oral jokes are not copyrightable; but if you wrote it down after you told it, then it would be. Also joketelling is not a commercial enterprise so you aren't expecting to be paid. But in terms of how easy it is to transmit and how unlikely you are to be able to prevent it spreading, it is very similar indeed.
That's the larger problem we are facing long-term, not copyright, but that with digital technology created content is becoming less like a private good, such as books and cars, and more like a public good, such as language, and we don't know exactly what to do about it
Ebert mentions "Competition from other forms of delivery" and you add "Competition from other forms of entertaintment."
More significant I think is competition from all the other movies made in the past.
You can't see them in theaters, but only via home rentals of some sort. With today's technology we are no longer restricted to seeing just the few films most recently released and being marketed, but can, at our leisure and on our own time, see any of tens of thousands of films.
I'd gladly have seen 3:10 to Yuma, Unforgiven, Gone With the Wind in theaters last year but they weren't showing anywhere so I watched them on Netflix.
There aren't enough cinemas to show even a fraction of films people want to watch and this is an inevitable consequence of today's technology.
Although SOPA refers to copyrighted material the motivation behind it is exclusively focused on Hollywood films and big label music.
Does anyone think for a minute that the Attorney General, or the ISPs or anyone else will be interested in, or capable of, identifying infringements of photographs, poems, fonts, children's drawings, quotations, logos and distinguishing them from licensed usages or fair use? Not a chance.
This in effect provides for elevated copyright protection for a very small subset of content, films and music, supported and paid for by MPAA and RIAA.
I read the NY Times quite often and enjoy it as one of my news sources along with BBC Reuters the Washington Post and (recently) Al Jazeera, and sohave no problem paying a small amount for doing so with ease.
$35 a month is way way too high in my opinion. When I found out you could get full digital subscription by subscribing the Weekend Book Review for $1.75 a week I signed up. That's about $7.50 a month, which is more reasonable (the right price, I'd say, would be $4.99 a month)
They since seem to have disabled the link, but you might still be able to get a subscription.
As for hacks, the easiest way of all I found was to go to nytimes.com and then instead of clicking on links, do a right-click-copy-link-open-new-window-paste. No ?args. No paywall.
Even so that's a pain and I chose the $7.50 a month instead.
I donate $1 + a month to you, Mike, and they write many more stories than you do.
Making it a highly porous barrier may turn out to be a fair compromise. Traffic will tell.
The Social Science Research Council’s study is a landmark in the copyright literature: an actual empirical investigation into what works and what doesn’t in the enforcement arena. If policy makers want to be guided by evidence and not rhetoric, they will begin with the Council’s study and stay with it for a very long time.
The argument (perhaps from the studios) that it would not be fair for Netflix to buy just one dvd of a movie and then stream it tens of thousands of times, does make some sense.
But a reasonable solution could be that if they buy (license) say, 10,000 copies at the dvd price, then they can stream up to 10,000 simultaneous showings of a movie.
It wouldn't be too much of a hardship for viewers to understand that all the available films are being watched at some particular time and Netflix could manage their purchased to meet demand just like they do now with physical dvds.
Not always. Trademarks are there to avoid confusion for the consumer.
I am a photographer. If I set up a website called "Red Cross Health Photographs" with a large red cross logo, I would expect customers to be confused and the real Red Cross to have an excellent case against me.
That said, there is no doubt a trademark owner can be overly agressive is asserting broad rights where there may be little or no real customer confusion.
"licensing is generally permitted provided that the mark’s owner retains the right to approve the licensee’s use of the mark and supervise any element of quality control over the same. The logic is clear: if the mark is to have the import of signifying a particular source of certain goods or services and the public is going to have the right to rely on that mark for that significance, then when the mark is licensed to a party for use other than by the mark’s owner, the mark’s owner should be in a position to approve the use of the mark in relationship to the licensee’s good or services so that the public, upon seeing the mark in regard to those goods or services provided by the licensee, may rely on the same good will and quality it has come to know in relationship to that mark. " http://j.mp/g9gwOZ
ps I am not a lawyer. But I also agree that it seems the claims appear overly broad (e.g. objecting to use of the color pink)