"What right do others have to condemn someone who gains wealth through inheritance?"
Well, certainly no legal right, but maybe a moral right?
Don't get me wrong, I admire and respect anyone who goes from "nobody" to "Richie Rich rich" through his or her own work. But I definetely can't say the same about their heirs. They were just lucky enough to be born in the "right" family. Of course this should not be a reason to condemn them. But putting certain limits to the advantages that such family-ties bring does not seem wrong to me.
Consumer's Free <> Hollywood's Free - it's that simple.
To me entertainment freedom means I get to watch what I want, when I want, where I want, on the device I want without any advertisment, without any fbi-warning, with the means to make backups - this sort of freedom is certainly worth a few of my bucks.
A DRM-, advertisment-, fbi-warning-laden construct is worthless to me.
Dear Hollywood, get back to me when you got some offer that is worth the name...
Well... here on techdirt we have a button called report. Sure. It's not censoring in an absolute sense, because a comment is "only" hidden that way, but still...
We appreciate means to have a say about what we like (hint to facebook) or dislike. And therefore, there are various degrees of censoring.
Maybe by getting racist content officially off-line, that's our way of showing our dislike. Because, lets be honest, the net never forgets. Even if such apps are being taken offline, once they've been spread they will continue to digitally exist in more shady areas of the web.
AND it can act as an economic booster, which - financially speaking - is the best thing that could happen to an app-dev.
While I agree that, generally speaking, artificial copying barriers do more harm than good, I'm not quite sure if the fashion world can be compared to the computer world without some... restrictions.
As stated in the article the fashion world works around (and follows) trends. The computer world does it too in some cases (entertainment apps, videogames, etc.) but there are also parts in the computer world where trends play a smaller role. Some software should rather be "useful" than "trendy". To give a simple example: You'd rather buy the software which enables you to perform a certain task with 3 clicks instead of 7.
Don't misundestand me. I still think the computer world would benefit if the slowing mechanisms named "patent" and "copyright" weren't in place - but for different reasons.
True, because I failed to make you understand it. Maybe I should have given you a few historical examples how "creative work" or "entertainment service" was financed pre-copyright - but you ain't worth the effort.
See, service is a "here and now" thing. It's direct and one on one.
Ugh, so what exactly is "one on one" when the police patrols our streets? Here? Can't see any policemen around... And now? Don't know, as I've said, they ain't around but... it's still a service right? To "serve" and protect us, right?
"Writing is none of that."
Of course it is. Writing is a process - not a finished product.
"It's writing and book and then SELLING THE BOOK."
Only because you forcefully link two different and independent stages:
2. (Printing and) Selling the book.
The first stage is where the (marketable) scarcity comes from. The second stage is the one that has become obsolete because there is no regulable scarcity in it. That you can't see that is not me redefining reality, it's you being BLIND to reality.
"Yes, and without a structure under which he could sell that book, he is left with nothing except a nice feeling and probably a day job."
He is not selling "the book", he is selling the service of writing the book. He could sell that service with or without copyright in existence. People like Stephen King will always be in high demand, because they have something scarce that other people want: They have the ability to express interesting thoughts and bring them into a form compelling to others.
Copyright has nothing to do with the scarce part. It only seemed as if, because the distribution channels were scarce too: Printing was (and still is) a costly business. Only a few people had the means to do it and therefore copyright was a useful and enforceable tool to convey the initial creator's scarcity into a sellable scarce product.
Nowadays the distribution channels aren't scarce anymore. Anyone with a decent cellphone holds the capability to endlessly replicate a written piece in his or her hands. Where there once were a manageable number of publishers you now have countless legions of potential publishers. In such a scenario copyright is neither useful nor enforceable.
Innocent until proven guilty, sounds familiar? I know you prefer it the other way around - but only when it suits your interests. I bet you'd cry bitter tears if you got caught up in a system where you get accused and have to prove you're innocent...
Because pirates pirate for one reason, and one reason alone:
THEY WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE
They wouldn't pirate because:
- The title is not available in their country.
- They want a digital version of their bought paper version.
- The buyable digital version comes with unpleasant restrictions like DRM.
- They deem the pricing of the digital version unfair.
- They just want a sneek peek to see if the book is to their liking.
No, no, no. They just pirate because THEY WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
So, you mean that devaluing a human rights convention by adding stuff that does not belong in there gives YOU copyright maximalist the moral high ground??
You may have enough money to buy laws, you may be wealthy enough to codify your beliefs into the humanly most valued charters, but despite your financial power, despite your propaganda-machinery, you will not succeed in eradicating one simple thought:
Sharing is good.
It's how we learn. It's how we evolve. It's how we got from stone to digital age. Putting a fee on the sharing and calling the fee a human right gains you no sympathy, no understanding and absolutely no moral superiority.