Wait what in my previous statement suggested that a totalitarian government would be running this or that there would be any relation to government at all really? Or a nationalistic mindset behind the development of new content, which might lead to propaganda? (I'm trying to figure out what exactly you mean by fascist there)
The point is that if the overhead is smaller then a lot smaller businesses can afford to do it so a lot more of them can afford to do it...Not sure how this is fascist at all...and if you're just name calling then you might try one that doesn't have such a specific definition.
Part of the point of this blog is that we support a world where it's actually economically feasible to make more movies at way lower prices than 100 million. And the more we break down the rules that favor the incumbent big industries the more we can afford to produce good movies without such an insane overhead and the more we can all enjoy a much richer variety of content not constrained by the oft-limited ideas of what makes good content that the gatekeeper industries hold.
Mike's been preaching about how pirated content was the future for a long time. Yet it hasn't happened yet.
Wait, when has he been preaching that? I've read stuff about the economics of abundance, meaning that the digital copies produced have such a low marginal cost that you don't make your money there anymore--you make it on all the surrounding business opportunities. And about how a lot of piracy seems to be more a symptom of people not getting what they want in convenient and customer friendly forms than a necessary result of the internet. If it's easier to pay for a service that will actually deliver the content that you want many of the people who pirate will pay for it. And the looking at his oft repeated equation CwF + RtB =$, the reason to buy is often the convenience factor as mentioned before (though there are many other reasons) but if an artist connects with fans the fans often will happily give more money for the same service or content as was previously charged just in support of someone they care about.
In all the reading I've done on this site I really haven't seen anything about piracy being the future.
I would say that I support some level of rights (not sure whether exclusive is definitely part of that) in terms of one of the older ideas of copyright--that you have a right to stop people directly making money off your work if they don't add something to it that makes it a new creative work if and ONLY IF it directly competes with how you are making money already.
So it's targeted more at those who make money that should have gone to the artist rather than at those who 'steal' content for their own use. Basically the suggestion that taking content without paying is the same thing as taking money that the artist would have gotten otherwise is flawed thinking (since the pirate most likely would not have payed for it anyway), and is really not the point of copyright law
Also if you are not actively offering the product, then it's not infringing. Ex. the way so many materials are only sold in certain geographical markets, even when their digital format can easily get everywhere. It's a travesty how much content is just not legally available to developing countries because the content owners don't choose to open a market there. If the owner does not actively sell to a specific market or in a specific form that is wanted, it should not be infringement for someone else to bring that content there!
And I could see limiting copyright and patents to the original inventors or artists rather than allowing it to be sold, because in addition to all the crazy stuff with trolls that's been happening so much in the last few years, it's very inappropriate when the inventors and artists are constrained by their own work because they are forced to bargain away their IP ownership when working with the large industries. Such as that stupid stupid situation
mentioned last week
tl;dr
I think some exclusive rights are good in that they protect the inventor/artist from being exploited by other businesses but only for a limited time and only applied to active competition (if the owner doesn't offer their content in that form or place then it's not competition)
That's always my feeling. I think so many discussions of patents (and even more so copyright) always assign too much of a moral component to the rights of the owner, which misses completely the fact that both copyright and patent law are bargains between society and the content or idea producers. They are not about some inalienable right against stealing but about protecting the small producers from having the chance to make money without competition. I think this viewpoint comes from being so stuck on the idea that infringing these laws is the same thing as plagiarizing in an academic context (It's morally wrong not just rule-breaking). This becomes so limiting once we're out in the real world where copying can actually be necessary for the health of society (also because copyright and patent law actually prevents a lot more than plagiarism rules in academia does--which allow you to use the work quite easily as long as you cite--but the moral associations still survive)
Aaand that got a little away from the point, which was that if it's a bargain that moral idea is false--and like a contract if one side reneges the other side is not held by the constraints anymore. So when one of these companies plays these games we should be able to invalidate their patents in some way as a society...and possibly have consequences on their other patents so that there is an actual detriment to them to continue these filthy sort of manipulations
okay you do realize that continuing to answer the other commentors on this thread is pointless if you won't discuss anything without Mike directly talking? If he's the only one you'll listen to (which I understand, somewhat, as that was the point of your first comment) then why engage with anyone else?
I guess I would say there is a difference between controlling distribution and controlling what a person does with a work that they 'bought' after they purchased it. Most arguments around DRM are more focused on the fact that you are not allowed to do anything with the content that the copyright owner did not explicitly allow (such as switch file formats to read on a different device, or perform research to check for security vulnerabilities in the above case) even when those uses would absolutely be covered under fair use in terms of the original copyright laws. The problem with DRM is that it's ineffective in doing what it's supposed to do (stop piracy) but very effective at disrupting activities that are protected under other copyright laws.
Also, I wanted to say thank you for pursuing this discussion in such a non-inflammatory manner. I'm sorry that some people are just responding with annoying quotes from completely different discussions, but I guess that is part of the culture of internet comment threads.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Nettie.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
okay now I feel stupid for not seeing this was linked to bob's previous comment...sorry, my response is not related then :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
Wait what in my previous statement suggested that a totalitarian government would be running this or that there would be any relation to government at all really? Or a nationalistic mindset behind the development of new content, which might lead to propaganda? (I'm trying to figure out what exactly you mean by fascist there)
The point is that if the overhead is smaller then a lot smaller businesses can afford to do it so a lot more of them can afford to do it...Not sure how this is fascist at all...and if you're just name calling then you might try one that doesn't have such a specific definition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
Part of the point of this blog is that we support a world where it's actually economically feasible to make more movies at way lower prices than 100 million. And the more we break down the rules that favor the incumbent big industries the more we can afford to produce good movies without such an insane overhead and the more we can all enjoy a much richer variety of content not constrained by the oft-limited ideas of what makes good content that the gatekeeper industries hold.
Re: Re: Re: Oh really?
Mike's been preaching about how pirated content was the future for a long time. Yet it hasn't happened yet.
Wait, when has he been preaching that? I've read stuff about the economics of abundance, meaning that the digital copies produced have such a low marginal cost that you don't make your money there anymore--you make it on all the surrounding business opportunities. And about how a lot of piracy seems to be more a symptom of people not getting what they want in convenient and customer friendly forms than a necessary result of the internet. If it's easier to pay for a service that will actually deliver the content that you want many of the people who pirate will pay for it. And the looking at his oft repeated equation CwF + RtB =$, the reason to buy is often the convenience factor as mentioned before (though there are many other reasons) but if an artist connects with fans the fans often will happily give more money for the same service or content as was previously charged just in support of someone they care about.
In all the reading I've done on this site I really haven't seen anything about piracy being the future.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say that I support some level of rights (not sure whether exclusive is definitely part of that) in terms of one of the older ideas of copyright--that you have a right to stop people directly making money off your work if they don't add something to it that makes it a new creative work if and ONLY IF it directly competes with how you are making money already.
So it's targeted more at those who make money that should have gone to the artist rather than at those who 'steal' content for their own use. Basically the suggestion that taking content without paying is the same thing as taking money that the artist would have gotten otherwise is flawed thinking (since the pirate most likely would not have payed for it anyway), and is really not the point of copyright law
Also if you are not actively offering the product, then it's not infringing. Ex. the way so many materials are only sold in certain geographical markets, even when their digital format can easily get everywhere. It's a travesty how much content is just not legally available to developing countries because the content owners don't choose to open a market there. If the owner does not actively sell to a specific market or in a specific form that is wanted, it should not be infringement for someone else to bring that content there!
And I could see limiting copyright and patents to the original inventors or artists rather than allowing it to be sold, because in addition to all the crazy stuff with trolls that's been happening so much in the last few years, it's very inappropriate when the inventors and artists are constrained by their own work because they are forced to bargain away their IP ownership when working with the large industries. Such as that stupid stupid situation
mentioned last week
tl;dr
I think some exclusive rights are good in that they protect the inventor/artist from being exploited by other businesses but only for a limited time and only applied to active competition (if the owner doesn't offer their content in that form or place then it's not competition)
Re: So they are not keeping up with their end of the bargain?
That's always my feeling. I think so many discussions of patents (and even more so copyright) always assign too much of a moral component to the rights of the owner, which misses completely the fact that both copyright and patent law are bargains between society and the content or idea producers. They are not about some inalienable right against stealing but about protecting the small producers from having the chance to make money without competition. I think this viewpoint comes from being so stuck on the idea that infringing these laws is the same thing as plagiarizing in an academic context (It's morally wrong not just rule-breaking). This becomes so limiting once we're out in the real world where copying can actually be necessary for the health of society (also because copyright and patent law actually prevents a lot more than plagiarism rules in academia does--which allow you to use the work quite easily as long as you cite--but the moral associations still survive)
Aaand that got a little away from the point, which was that if it's a bargain that moral idea is false--and like a contract if one side reneges the other side is not held by the constraints anymore. So when one of these companies plays these games we should be able to invalidate their patents in some way as a society...and possibly have consequences on their other patents so that there is an actual detriment to them to continue these filthy sort of manipulations
God these situations make me so sick.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also you might be more likely to get a good reply if you actually answered his question directed at copyright maximalists first.
Re: Re: Re:
okay you do realize that continuing to answer the other commentors on this thread is pointless if you won't discuss anything without Mike directly talking? If he's the only one you'll listen to (which I understand, somewhat, as that was the point of your first comment) then why engage with anyone else?
Re: Re: Re:
I guess I would say there is a difference between controlling distribution and controlling what a person does with a work that they 'bought' after they purchased it. Most arguments around DRM are more focused on the fact that you are not allowed to do anything with the content that the copyright owner did not explicitly allow (such as switch file formats to read on a different device, or perform research to check for security vulnerabilities in the above case) even when those uses would absolutely be covered under fair use in terms of the original copyright laws. The problem with DRM is that it's ineffective in doing what it's supposed to do (stop piracy) but very effective at disrupting activities that are protected under other copyright laws.
Also, I wanted to say thank you for pursuing this discussion in such a non-inflammatory manner. I'm sorry that some people are just responding with annoying quotes from completely different discussions, but I guess that is part of the culture of internet comment threads.