OC Remix's terrific remix album, like this Mega Man X series one right here distribute their albums via torrent. It's legal because the the remixers, original composers, and original video game companies all approve, and OC Remix facing legal trouble is as rare as seeing a comet in the sky.
Those are some legal torrents off the top of my head. If it didn't take me that much time to think of legal torrents, maybe that says more about the *AAs than the people who actually download the torrents.
Jason Mazzone, in his book "Copyfraud and other abuses of Intellectual Property" has a suggestion that there should be a compulsory license for sampling à la cover songs. I am fully on board with that. That way, more money could be made by the original copyright holders and more creativity would flourish, which is what is copyright's original goal is supposed to be (and of which Congress has unfortunately lost sight).
Mob-rule never works. And a true Democracy is nothing more than Mob-rule.
No it isn't. You're confusing Democracy with Ochlocracy. True Democracy is similar to Athens, or maybe with what Occupy Wall Street was doing. Democracy has order, an Ochlocracy has chaos.
I read all that, and nowhere does it say "when" they say those things. They could all have changes of heart, or they could also want to have nothing to do with the agenda of those who want to use copyright as a pretext for governments and private corporations to take control of the internet. Or it could also be the case as with Bono that they're assholes.
"Piracy," by contrast, is a denial of a choice by a copyright owner. It says to the creator, "I don't care what you want. I am taking what you have created." It doesn't respect the freedom that copyright law gives to the creator. It denies that the law should secure to the creator any such freedom to choose. The only relevant choice in pirate culture is the choice of the pirate to take. Not the choice of the creator to make her work available.
Using the logic of whomever created that blogpost, Lawrence Lessig must be in favor of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, et al.! Of course he's not. There's a lot of nuance in between "Piracy is a bad thing" and "Everything must be done to stop piracy, damn the consequences."
In the US? 1998. (1923+75=1998). There won't be any more retroactive term extensions (and there will be some, mark my words) until 2018, which is in six years.
I'm not against copyright; but I'm against when the scope is taken to extremities like the *AAs want, when the terms are limitless, and when the exceptions (like fair use) are meaningless.
I'm no abolitionist, but I do understand the tendencies thereto.
Being from Brooklyn (I've lived in the same house my whole life in Brooklyn), I can say with certainty that the "Brooklynese" stereotype is not the norm. Some people have the "Brooklyn accent", but some people in other neighborhoods don't.
Copyright is for a limited time. Works fall into the public domain. Just because you would have a shorter copyright term (as would I) doesn't change the fact that the initial benefit is to the author, not the nation.
Mike and all the other copy-whiners have the ridiculous notion that it should be for the nation right away. That's not the deal provided for in the Constitution.
Save the straw men for the Wizard of Oz. When "Steamboat Willie" was created in 1928, the copyright term was 56 years. Now it's 95. "Steamboat Willie" should have been in the public domain decades ago.
We're not "whining" because we didn't get Steamboat Willie in 1928; we're legitimately upset because we didnt' get every single work made in 1928 back in 1984 (1928 + 56 = 1984) and no copyright has expired in the US since 2002.
There's a huge gap between copyright maximalism and copyright abolitionism. Though I am not part of the latter, it is indeed bred by the former.
The benefits accrue to the author first (via the granting of exclusive rights), and then later to the nation (when the work falls into the public domain). Plus, the nation benefits as well while the work is under copyright since the ideas in the work are never locked up.
If the works actually DID fall into the public domain, I would agree with you 100%. However, congress has retroactively extended and extended copyright terms so as to make works after 1923 (such as Mickey Mouse) never fall into the public domain. With every copyright extension (such as 1998's Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) the "creators" win and the nation loses out.
NB: I put creators in scare quotes because I am one such creator and I am not benefiting from perpetual copyright extensions.
I think the nation as a whole is more important than the class of creators as a whole. So in your analogy, the mother would be the nation and the baby would be the creators. And I'm saying this as a content creator.
Congrats... and the law professors book is still only opinion.
Just because it's a book doesn't make it a fact.
Mike never said otherwise (at least not in this blog post).
Also, copyfraud (as per Jason Mazzone's definition) is not merely a figment of Prof. Mazzone's imagination; it is actually something that happens. For instance, I saw copyright notices in Dover-published books that were in the public domain (go to your local bookstore if you believe me not). Not to mention that this following notice appears in ALL Penguin Books, regardless of copyright status:
The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and punishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions, and do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.
That means that that notice appears in books that are out of copyright, such as Jane Eyre and Dracula, despite those books necessitating no such copyright notice.
Also, I have a DVD of George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead". Before the movie starts, there is one of those copyright notices that presumes you are a criminal for you buying a legitimate version. That would be fine, except the movie has never been copyrighted (before when everything was automatically copyrighted, back when everything had formalities). So that's another case of copyfraud.
I'm sure there are more, but really, you don't have to take Jason Mazzone's word for it. You just have to be a teeny bit observant.
Of course, given that they're both built on copyright law, which originally was designed as a protectionist tool for a similar publishers guild, perhaps the similarities aren't too surprising.
Keep in mind when Copyright was created by the Statute of Anne, it actually was supposed to expire. When the US Constitution copy&pasted it into the consitution, the "limited times" part was important.
Copyright was indeed a protectionist tool, but a protectionist tool whose protections expired, which made it sort of a utilitarian tool.
Not to mention that the MPAA would not be here were it not for Edison's patents expiring, so...
However, we have lost all sight of the "expiration" part and why that was so important to letting commerce and culture thrive.
Re: New Law Bans Hammers Amidst Cries from Home Builders
Or for tools of Sado-masochism.
Re: Re: Re: Statistics
I don't doubt it either. I do, however, doubt a 95-to-5-percent ratio of infringing to non-infringing uses.
And to that I say...
Of course, I must include Torrent Freak's response.
Re: Statistics
You know that 65% of statistics are made-up, right?
More websites that distribute legal torrents
I can think of more web sites that legally distribute torrents. Here are some:
Those are some legal torrents off the top of my head. If it didn't take me that much time to think of legal torrents, maybe that says more about the *AAs than the people who actually download the torrents.
Here's an idea: Compulsory License for sampling
Jason Mazzone, in his book "Copyfraud and other abuses of Intellectual Property" has a suggestion that there should be a compulsory license for sampling à la cover songs. I am fully on board with that. That way, more money could be made by the original copyright holders and more creativity would flourish, which is what is copyright's original goal is supposed to be (and of which Congress has unfortunately lost sight).
Mob-rule = Democracy?
No it isn't. You're confusing Democracy with Ochlocracy. True Democracy is similar to Athens, or maybe with what Occupy Wall Street was doing. Democracy has order, an Ochlocracy has chaos.
Re: Re: Majors and indies
I read all that, and nowhere does it say "when" they say those things. They could all have changes of heart, or they could also want to have nothing to do with the agenda of those who want to use copyright as a pretext for governments and private corporations to take control of the internet. Or it could also be the case as with Bono that they're assholes.
Think about it: Even free culture founder Lawrence Lessig has said that piracy (as in illegal downloading) is wrong:
Using the logic of whomever created that blogpost, Lawrence Lessig must be in favor of SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, et al.! Of course he's not. There's a lot of nuance in between "Piracy is a bad thing" and "Everything must be done to stop piracy, damn the consequences."
Re: Re: Re: He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations
I think that's the best post you ever made. The Berne Convention needs to be renegotiated.
It was in...
In the US? 1998. (1923+75=1998). There won't be any more retroactive term extensions (and there will be some, mark my words) until 2018, which is in six years.
Re: fun
I'm not against copyright; but I'm against when the scope is taken to extremities like the *AAs want, when the terms are limitless, and when the exceptions (like fair use) are meaningless.
I'm no abolitionist, but I do understand the tendencies thereto.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Being from Brooklyn (I've lived in the same house my whole life in Brooklyn), I can say with certainty that the "Brooklynese" stereotype is not the norm. Some people have the "Brooklyn accent", but some people in other neighborhoods don't.
Re: Re: About that public domain part...
Save the straw men for the Wizard of Oz. When "Steamboat Willie" was created in 1928, the copyright term was 56 years. Now it's 95. "Steamboat Willie" should have been in the public domain decades ago.
We're not "whining" because we didn't get Steamboat Willie in 1928; we're legitimately upset because we didnt' get every single work made in 1928 back in 1984 (1928 + 56 = 1984) and no copyright has expired in the US since 2002.
There's a huge gap between copyright maximalism and copyright abolitionism. Though I am not part of the latter, it is indeed bred by the former.
About that public domain part...
If the works actually DID fall into the public domain, I would agree with you 100%. However, congress has retroactively extended and extended copyright terms so as to make works after 1923 (such as Mickey Mouse) never fall into the public domain. With every copyright extension (such as 1998's Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act) the "creators" win and the nation loses out.
NB: I put creators in scare quotes because I am one such creator and I am not benefiting from perpetual copyright extensions.
I think you got this backwards...
I think the nation as a whole is more important than the class of creators as a whole. So in your analogy, the mother would be the nation and the baby would be the creators. And I'm saying this as a content creator.
Copyfraud is a real thing
Mike never said otherwise (at least not in this blog post).
Also, copyfraud (as per Jason Mazzone's definition) is not merely a figment of Prof. Mazzone's imagination; it is actually something that happens. For instance, I saw copyright notices in Dover-published books that were in the public domain (go to your local bookstore if you believe me not). Not to mention that this following notice appears in ALL Penguin Books, regardless of copyright status:
That means that that notice appears in books that are out of copyright, such as Jane Eyre and Dracula, despite those books necessitating no such copyright notice.
Also, I have a DVD of George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead". Before the movie starts, there is one of those copyright notices that presumes you are a criminal for you buying a legitimate version. That would be fine, except the movie has never been copyrighted (before when everything was automatically copyrighted, back when everything had formalities). So that's another case of copyfraud.
I'm sure there are more, but really, you don't have to take Jason Mazzone's word for it. You just have to be a teeny bit observant.
One thing I quibble with...
Keep in mind when Copyright was created by the Statute of Anne, it actually was supposed to expire. When the US Constitution copy&pasted it into the consitution, the "limited times" part was important.
Copyright was indeed a protectionist tool, but a protectionist tool whose protections expired, which made it sort of a utilitarian tool.
Not to mention that the MPAA would not be here were it not for Edison's patents expiring, so...
However, we have lost all sight of the "expiration" part and why that was so important to letting commerce and culture thrive.
Re:
If I could vote "funny" a thousand times to that, I would. Especially the part about the copyright being "still alive".
You didn't just win the whole internet; you won the entirety of civilization.
Re: Re: Collections Agencies + Creative Commons
Depends on how you define "free". Not free using Richard Stallman's or (blech) Nina Paley's decision, that's true.
Re: Re:
Even though that AC broke my heart and killed me (and tore me to pieces).