So to be clear, a "reputable" company is a company that has a direct relationship with the content gatekeeper (I contend that many of the companies that have a relationship with don't actually produce anything, they simply "own" the rights).
However, search engines that are in the fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/11207.html) apparently are not reputable.
I... don't think I'm understanding your definition of reputable.
And remember, theft does not equal infringement. If I peddle in stolen goods, someone lost the good and I benefit from it. If I link to some infringing work, no goods are stolen.
One final note. If I link to site Xs article which does not contain any infringing content, I'm good to go. However, later site X absolutely can change the article that I linked to so that the article now includes infringing works. And suddenly, through no fault of my own, I am no directly infringing. That. Is. Crazy. How do you justify that? Do I have to proactively monitor every link that I've ever used every moment of every day so I can avoid any possible liability?
I get the legal issues, but think about it like this. The **AAs are spending inordinate amounts of money right now on new legislation (SOPA, PIPA, TPP, etc.).
Why don't they spend that money on fixing the current broken system that would allow them to better meet their customers' demands?
It's abundandtly clear what is copyrighted material! There are no gray areas, copyright holders never claim ownership incorrectly, and they only want to share their content and make a modest living while they're at it.
Given that there ate clear lines of what is and isn't copyrighted, I imagine the system is both simple and inexpensive to implement and maintain.
Wow. Playing the other side like that is seeing the world through a crazy person's eyes. ...I feel dirty.
"Which uncertainty led to this 'professional' into thinking his license for singing songs at camp also allowed him to post whatever music he wanted to anywhere on the internet?"
That, I think, is the crux of Mike's point: It isn't that he was trying to "post whatever music he wanted to anywhere on the internet"; it's that he was trying to post a video of pictures from the camp, that happened to be using the copyrighted music.
Are you suggesting that for every video anyone uploads, if there is any music whatsoever in the background, they have to make sure it isn't copyrighted or that they have rights to upload it?
Wait, what? If they are an "initial movie goer" didn't they just pay to see it? And if you mean they can just rent the movie, aren't they still paying to see it? All of it is revenue and the movie watchers are paying, what are you getting at?
"Copyright exists because content can't be locked up any other way."
Isn't that the heart of the matter that we're discussing at Techdirt? If you lock up your content too much, then nobody can get at it, so they are forced to go to infringing methods.
And we're starting with the assumption that content must be locked up so you can profit from it. Explain that to open source companies, such as Red Hat, who don't sell the content, but instead things surrounding the content. As discussed previously, for movies that would be the theater experience or limited physical goods that you purchase with the DVD / Blu Ray. For music it is the merchandise and the concerts.
And, finally, people actually do pay for content when it is user friendly and easy to get to.
I contend that copyright exists not because it is the only way to lock up content, but because people are too afraid to find alternative methods to making a successful business.
Sounds like we need a DMCA / SOPA style take down system - make the patent holder defend themselves and prove the prior art isn't valid. Otherwise, it gets taken down.
"Could, eh? Let's take worst case: you'd have to get your sports fix only from authorized channels. You're harmed how?"
Reduced competition only helps the seller and hurts the consumer.
"That's entirely the NFL's choice. YOU'VE NO SAY in the matter. I'd abolish the NFL entirely as state-authorized monopoly, but you're /for/ that monopoly, so TOUGH, that's just what monopolies DO, dang it."
I find that a bit quixotical - I think as a customer I should always have a say in the matter. Granted, the seller can ignore my input, but isn't that bad for business to ignore what your customers want?
"So it's going to be "ineffectual" but "seriously harm" you..."
Yep. Let me give you an example: DRM. It is extremely ineffectual in preventing piracy, but it is incredibly damaging for all legitimate users. In other words, SOPA will drastically impact the people who want to be legitimate in their uses (consumers, businesses, etc.), but those who don't will absolutely be able to get around this.
Another way to think of it is this is a bad game of whack-a-mole. You know, there's the mole where you get points for hitting (piracy) and there's the other things that pop up that make you lose points (legitimate users). In this case, I'd say that copyright holders have a score of about -10000000000. But I think that's about as high as the game can go before it just maxes out the negative score.
"If you hang out with criminals who are stealing content, you can hardly complain when they try to cheat YOU too!"
Errrm... what? Stealing is for physical goods. This is copyright infringement. I know it's common to refer to it as "stealing" but it isn't.
And secondly, sharing my thoughts on a "criminal's" website means I don't get a vote? Goodbye 1st Amendment?
"Facts are that piracy is rampant, and there's no mechanism in sight other than the guarantees of exclusive distribution (copyright) that'll allow millions to be "invested" into making movies."
Two points here:
1. I shall rebuff your statement and note that the facts are that the content industry is doing better than ever, posting increasingly high profits. And, like yourself, I will refrain from posting any supporting links (note: there are plenty of links on Techdirt that show support for the ever increasing raise in profits). I believe I played by your rules with my statement.
2. ...why do we need to invest millions in movies? I've seen incredible, low budget films, that are much, much, much, much better than multi-million dollar films that have a highly paid actor, lots of CGI, and that's about it.
I think there are two points here that you're missing:
1. YouTube employs copyright filters and actively shuts down content based off of DMCA requests. They are very proactive and responsive to copyright issues. Given that, can you point out more how they are dodging copyright? Perhaps I am missing something?
2. Stealing is not the same thing as copyright violation. Remember, stealing is when the original good no longer exists for the original owner to profit from. Copyright violation is when they copy a file that they were not authorized to copy. There is no lost good.
Well, sure. Why not? If they have a strong opinion, then I'll just ask them to defend that opinion. I figure it will accomplish one of two things:
1. They'll explain their point of view and we all can have a good discussion
2. They respond with insults, and I ask them again, noting that they can either explain their point of view, or be discounted entirely
Still not a great analogy - in this case I could pay someone to get me the car and ship it to me, all quite legally.
However, with IP, they often try to restrict people from getting access to these goods period.
So no, I don't think the person is being a spoiled child as they have a legitimate method to retrieve the car that they wanted in the first point - they would just need to pay for it. And it would be exactly what they wanted.
In the situation we're discussing, the root problem is that there are no ways to get exactly what you want, even if you are willing to pay for it.
I think we'll need to define the term "host". As someone who works in the computer science field, a "host" to me is anything that stores data that I can access remotely. That can be via an API, a web interface, or a mobile device.
Further, wikipedia defines a service provider as "A service provider is an entity that provides services to other entities. Usually, this refers to a business that provides subscription or web service to other businesses or individuals. Examples of these services include Internet access, Mobile phone operators, and web application hosting. The term is more often applied to communication services than to other kinds of service industry."
I strongly, strongly agree with this definition. It seems that we are arguing that this definition itself is wrong because, if it is correct, YouTube is genuinely a Service Provider.
Would you define "host" for me and "Service Provider" for me? I think the clarity would help drive this discussion some more.
That's precisely the point - since there aren't any useful legal products, a market for counterfeit goods springs up.
However, if Lowes offered the hammers at a reasonable price and without restrictions, consumers would return to Lowes. Instead, by maintaining the same prices as before and adding restrictions to it, consumers see the overall value of the hammer drops.
Thus, they have to choose between a legal, albeit crippled, product, or a counterfeit product that is illegal, albeit fully functional. I'm guessing that after doing the cost benefit analysis, most consumers would elect to go with the counterfeit version.
Re:
And we all know how easy it is to prove intent...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
I am no directly infringing = I am now directly infringing
Re: Re: Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
So to be clear, a "reputable" company is a company that has a direct relationship with the content gatekeeper (I contend that many of the companies that have a relationship with don't actually produce anything, they simply "own" the rights).
However, search engines that are in the fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/11207.html) apparently are not reputable.
I... don't think I'm understanding your definition of reputable.
And remember, theft does not equal infringement. If I peddle in stolen goods, someone lost the good and I benefit from it. If I link to some infringing work, no goods are stolen.
One final note. If I link to site Xs article which does not contain any infringing content, I'm good to go. However, later site X absolutely can change the article that I linked to so that the article now includes infringing works. And suddenly, through no fault of my own, I am no directly infringing. That. Is. Crazy. How do you justify that? Do I have to proactively monitor every link that I've ever used every moment of every day so I can avoid any possible liability?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we should hold the Library liable for your posts then yah? You know, direct liability for its users actions?
Re:
So first you want him to provide business models. And then when someone else says they are using his business models, you insult him directly.
Your inconsistency knows no limits.
Re: Re: Re:
I get the legal issues, but think about it like this. The **AAs are spending inordinate amounts of money right now on new legislation (SOPA, PIPA, TPP, etc.).
Why don't they spend that money on fixing the current broken system that would allow them to better meet their customers' demands?
Re: Re: Re:
When you boil it down like that, I'd agree that Mike is for and against innovation. But let me unpack that for you:
Innovation type 1: Something new, unprecedented, or a clever re-working of something that already exists.
Innovation type 2: Something obvious, but worded in such a way that it gets jammed through an already clogged and faulty patent system.
I'd contend that Mike is all about type 1, and not so much about type 2. So... yes. I agree with you. Mike is both for and against innovation.
Costly system?
What do you mean a "costly system"?!
It's abundandtly clear what is copyrighted material! There are no gray areas, copyright holders never claim ownership incorrectly, and they only want to share their content and make a modest living while they're at it.
Given that there ate clear lines of what is and isn't copyrighted, I imagine the system is both simple and inexpensive to implement and maintain.
Wow. Playing the other side like that is seeing the world through a crazy person's eyes. ...I feel dirty.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Professionals should know
"Which uncertainty led to this 'professional' into thinking his license for singing songs at camp also allowed him to post whatever music he wanted to anywhere on the internet?"
That, I think, is the crux of Mike's point: It isn't that he was trying to "post whatever music he wanted to anywhere on the internet"; it's that he was trying to post a video of pictures from the camp, that happened to be using the copyrighted music.
Are you suggesting that for every video anyone uploads, if there is any music whatsoever in the background, they have to make sure it isn't copyrighted or that they have rights to upload it?
Re: "you should be able to buy the DVD of the movie you just watched"
Wait, what? If they are an "initial movie goer" didn't they just pay to see it? And if you mean they can just rent the movie, aren't they still paying to see it? All of it is revenue and the movie watchers are paying, what are you getting at?
"Copyright exists because content can't be locked up any other way."
Isn't that the heart of the matter that we're discussing at Techdirt? If you lock up your content too much, then nobody can get at it, so they are forced to go to infringing methods.
And we're starting with the assumption that content must be locked up so you can profit from it. Explain that to open source companies, such as Red Hat, who don't sell the content, but instead things surrounding the content. As discussed previously, for movies that would be the theater experience or limited physical goods that you purchase with the DVD / Blu Ray. For music it is the merchandise and the concerts.
And, finally, people actually do pay for content when it is user friendly and easy to get to.
I contend that copyright exists not because it is the only way to lock up content, but because people are too afraid to find alternative methods to making a successful business.
Re:
Agreed - it's much easier to prove that SOPA is good for us, and we all want it, without showing numbers.
Because... you know... the numbers don't really seem to support the position...
Re:
Sounds like we need a DMCA / SOPA style take down system - make the patent holder defend themselves and prove the prior art isn't valid. Otherwise, it gets taken down.
Re: Great! I'm starting to actually /like/ SOPA!
To address a few points:
"Could, eh? Let's take worst case: you'd have to get your sports fix only from authorized channels. You're harmed how?"
Reduced competition only helps the seller and hurts the consumer.
"That's entirely the NFL's choice. YOU'VE NO SAY in the matter. I'd abolish the NFL entirely as state-authorized monopoly, but you're /for/ that monopoly, so TOUGH, that's just what monopolies DO, dang it."
I find that a bit quixotical - I think as a customer I should always have a say in the matter. Granted, the seller can ignore my input, but isn't that bad for business to ignore what your customers want?
"So it's going to be "ineffectual" but "seriously harm" you..."
Yep. Let me give you an example: DRM. It is extremely ineffectual in preventing piracy, but it is incredibly damaging for all legitimate users. In other words, SOPA will drastically impact the people who want to be legitimate in their uses (consumers, businesses, etc.), but those who don't will absolutely be able to get around this.
Another way to think of it is this is a bad game of whack-a-mole. You know, there's the mole where you get points for hitting (piracy) and there's the other things that pop up that make you lose points (legitimate users). In this case, I'd say that copyright holders have a score of about -10000000000. But I think that's about as high as the game can go before it just maxes out the negative score.
"If you hang out with criminals who are stealing content, you can hardly complain when they try to cheat YOU too!"
Errrm... what? Stealing is for physical goods. This is copyright infringement. I know it's common to refer to it as "stealing" but it isn't.
And secondly, sharing my thoughts on a "criminal's" website means I don't get a vote? Goodbye 1st Amendment?
Re: The "slippery slope" argument isn't in your favor, even.
"Facts are that piracy is rampant, and there's no mechanism in sight other than the guarantees of exclusive distribution (copyright) that'll allow millions to be "invested" into making movies."
Two points here:
1. I shall rebuff your statement and note that the facts are that the content industry is doing better than ever, posting increasingly high profits. And, like yourself, I will refrain from posting any supporting links (note: there are plenty of links on Techdirt that show support for the ever increasing raise in profits). I believe I played by your rules with my statement.
2. ...why do we need to invest millions in movies? I've seen incredible, low budget films, that are much, much, much, much better than multi-million dollar films that have a highly paid actor, lots of CGI, and that's about it.
Re: DMCA /wasn't/ intended for symbiotic copyright infringement.
I think there are two points here that you're missing:
1. YouTube employs copyright filters and actively shuts down content based off of DMCA requests. They are very proactive and responsive to copyright issues. Given that, can you point out more how they are dodging copyright? Perhaps I am missing something?
2. Stealing is not the same thing as copyright violation. Remember, stealing is when the original good no longer exists for the original owner to profit from. Copyright violation is when they copy a file that they were not authorized to copy. There is no lost good.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, sure. Why not? If they have a strong opinion, then I'll just ask them to defend that opinion. I figure it will accomplish one of two things:
1. They'll explain their point of view and we all can have a good discussion
2. They respond with insults, and I ask them again, noting that they can either explain their point of view, or be discounted entirely
The burden of proof is a great tool to employ :-)
Re: Re: Re:
Still not a great analogy - in this case I could pay someone to get me the car and ship it to me, all quite legally.
However, with IP, they often try to restrict people from getting access to these goods period.
So no, I don't think the person is being a spoiled child as they have a legitimate method to retrieve the car that they wanted in the first point - they would just need to pay for it. And it would be exactly what they wanted.
In the situation we're discussing, the root problem is that there are no ways to get exactly what you want, even if you are willing to pay for it.
Re:
I think we'll need to define the term "host". As someone who works in the computer science field, a "host" to me is anything that stores data that I can access remotely. That can be via an API, a web interface, or a mobile device.
Further, wikipedia defines a service provider as "A service provider is an entity that provides services to other entities. Usually, this refers to a business that provides subscription or web service to other businesses or individuals. Examples of these services include Internet access, Mobile phone operators, and web application hosting. The term is more often applied to communication services than to other kinds of service industry."
I strongly, strongly agree with this definition. It seems that we are arguing that this definition itself is wrong because, if it is correct, YouTube is genuinely a Service Provider.
Would you define "host" for me and "Service Provider" for me? I think the clarity would help drive this discussion some more.
Re:
So to clarify, what you're saying is that when the customer asks for something, we should respond by calling them a "spoiled child"?
Manufacturer: "We only have the car in black"
Consumer: "But I want it in red"
Manufacturer: "You know what? No. You're a spoiled brat"
Or did I miss something?
Re: Re: Re:
That's precisely the point - since there aren't any useful legal products, a market for counterfeit goods springs up.
However, if Lowes offered the hammers at a reasonable price and without restrictions, consumers would return to Lowes. Instead, by maintaining the same prices as before and adding restrictions to it, consumers see the overall value of the hammer drops.
Thus, they have to choose between a legal, albeit crippled, product, or a counterfeit product that is illegal, albeit fully functional. I'm guessing that after doing the cost benefit analysis, most consumers would elect to go with the counterfeit version.