Jesse's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the copyright-countdown dept
Just as with our discussions on the efficacy of rain dances, I am most fascinated by stories of the baffling choices of copyright maximalists which, albeit unintentionally, most definitely promote content piracy/theft [insert Chris Dodd's buzzword of the week]. With that in mind, my favorites list will consist of stories about various entities hilariously undermining copyright in spite of themselves.
Copyright Countdown: #7
Number 7 in my "A Week in Copyright" review is actually a multi-part post comparing the economics and psychology of parking to copyright. At first blush, this analogy seems a bit farfetched, but upon closer inspection the comparison is actually fairly on point. Larry Downes does an excellent job of calling out the content producers who want to reap all the benefits of essentially free distribution and reproduction, but not pass along any of those cost-savings to consumers:
Worse, even as the unit cost of media declines, the rules against unauthorized copying have become stricter. It's as if there were suddenly millions of new parking spaces available across Manhattan, but parking lots keep charging more than $10 an hour. And all the meters are suspiciously broken.
How true.
Copyright Countdown: #6
Honestly, I had been waiting all week for a post tearing down Blizzard for their abysmal Diablo III DRM fiasco, but alas my gamer rage will have to settle for a different target. And so we have this post highlighting the generous offering by Crytek to let you play the game for which you paid. Wow. Although I wouldn't fault someone for pirating/cracking a game they own, personally I wouldn't play this game even if someone paid me. If they can't figure out how to let paying customers play their games, I just can't imagine the rest of the product is worth the time it takes to remove the shrink wrap.
Copyright Countdown: #5
Number 5 highlights the cognitive dissonance the American government seems to be experiencing with regards to free speech and copyright. This is particularly amusing/interesting for me because up here in Canada, we actually have laws against "hate speech." Sometimes it surprises me how even the most extreme hatred is covered by the American first amendment. Personally, I am undecided as to which approach is better. At any rate, call me disappointed to learn that while racist hatred is protected by American free speech laws, suppressing speech in the name of copyright is apparently totally fine because, you know, reasons.
Copyright Countdown: #4
The post about copyright infringement and the coming "singularity" was, frankly, quite disturbing. Just when I was beginning to think that death would be my only escape from the insanity that is modern copyright, Techdirt points out that even in the great beyond I will be infringing on copyrights and ignoring shrink-wrap click-through agreements to no end (bringing all new context to the maximalist goal of "forever minus a day"). I guess with that in mind, we can amend that old saying to, "Nothing is certain but copyright and taxes."
Copyright Countdown: #3
I have always said that if the concept of libraries hadn't already been well established prior to modern copyright, they never would have been accepted today. Let's pretend libraries were just invented last week: can you imagine the uproar this would create among book publishers? "Accessing knowledge? For free?! Madness! This is practically a physical manifestation of the Pirate Bay!!1!" Thankfully, we don't have to exhaust our imaginations because the UK Publishers Association won't let a little thing like "reality" prevent them from harping against such an evil as libraries.
Copyright Countdown: #2
This one is a doozy. Apparently, some TV people have just realized that many viewers don't like commercials. So rather than, I don't know, make commercials people actually want to watch, those same people want to make it illegal to skip commercials. I don't really know what to say, but I think this may be one of those instances where a picture is worth a thousand words. [SFW, picture from A Clockwork Orange]
Copyright Countdown: #1
And finally, this
post, featuring Ethan Kaplan, once again offers some basic economics
lessons on supply, demand and artificial scarcities. Apparently, it's hard to
build a successful business if you ignore these most fundamental principles.
But the most interesting point here was Mike rehashing a probable causal link
between file sharing and increased sales. It occurs to me: there is
method to their rain dances copyright expansionism, and their evil
genius is much more sinister than previously thought. They are expanding
copyright to ridiculous extremes because they know this will only serve to
promote piracy, which in turn will ultimately trick us into increasing their
sales. How could we have missed that!?
So there we have it: 7 hilarious failures, one for each day of the week. But don't be sad; I have no doubt there will be plenty more next week. And the week after that. Just when you think we've hit rock bottom, someone else steps up to the plate with another hilariously flailing attempt at salvaging the copyright monopolies of yesteryear, but in actuality they only further undermine respect for the law and drive even more people to functional alternatives, legal or otherwise. It's so predictable and obvious, you almost want to charge them with inducement to infringe.
(untitled comment)
"Or does simply asking for that make you a target?"
And you can go on the no fly list too, no extra charge!
(untitled comment)
Stop allowing the patenting of living things.
(untitled comment)
Interesting. If it's ISPs magically waving away infringement, it's really easy to figure out infringement from non-infringement. If they have to do it, it's too hard.
(untitled comment)
"It's been said that on a long enough time table, everybody's chances for survival goes to zero. I'd make the same argument for oppressive regimes."
This statement makes the dangerous assumption that democracy and freedom are natural endpoints of social evolution. Democracy came about in the West through very specific circumstances, and it could dissolve in the future.
If it's something worth having it must be protected and defended from those that try everyday to turn our country into China (falsely believing that censorship and the erosion of civil liberties is the best way to defend the country). We cannot assume or take for granted achieving and preserving freedom takes hard work.
(untitled comment)
I'm pretty sure that in cases such as this the DMCA qualifies as a law that blocks speech.
Re: Re:
Right but if you are on private property and you break rules that you have been informed of, you are trespassing. The speech itself is not the crime, it's the trespassing. That's the difference.
It doesn't actually give police the ability to arrest you for filming, only for trespassing (by breaking the rules by filming).
Maybe you could make some corporate spying or wiretapping laws work?
Re: Re:
Really? I thought unconstitutional laws could be challenged just for being unconstitutional??
I mean, anyone who has had their speech chilled for fear of being prosecuted has been harmed, no?
Re: Re: How?
Exactly. It's unfair to charge the innocent. If he was charged, he must be guilty.
Re: Re:
The problem is, and it's not exactly constitutional, is that we haven't really left the feudal era in the employment context, where employers are viewed as lords and employees peasants (almost property).
The employee/employer relationship is much closer to the feudal system than it is to consenting adults entering a mutually beneficial business arrangement.
Re: Re:
He said "do want" not "do not want"
(untitled comment)
"Hopefully long enough such that Wikileaks can recoup its operational costs... and continue practicing the free speech ideals that the U.S. is merely preaching."
The U.S. government only protects free speech that doesn't bother them, such as racist speech and homophobic speech. That's when the 1st amendment really shines. But don't even think about saying anything that might be embarrassing to a U.S. official.
(untitled comment)
"which was just a very small portion, which is why the federal judge had argued it was protected by fair use"
Fair use implies Hulk Hogan made a copyright claim, but how can that be if he didn't know he was being filmed. He most definitely can't be the copyright owner then? Unless filmer sold rights to him, in which case does that mean Hulk published it knowingly to web?
(untitled comment)
Well we wouldn't want to modify the agreements made between artists and the public after the fact.
Oh wait, that's exactly what every copyright maximalist wants, so long as it's retroactively improving their side of the deal and not the other way around.
(untitled comment)
Whatever. Every time someone gets mad because politicians only give canned responses, and then when they are real everyone gets mad, "Gasp you can't say that!"
He got into it with a jerk. We've all been there. Give the guy a break.
(untitled comment)
Snooping for tax purposes is a matter of national security! I feel safer already.
(untitled comment)
Hopefully now that money is involved more people will care about the abuse of national risk/security excuses when clearly it's anything but.
(untitled comment)
Lying about her age online? She's a hacker! 35 years in jail.
(untitled comment)
“No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law].”
I never actually read the law, but based on that reading doesn't that exclude the circumvention of technological measures which aren't effective? (i.e. all DRM?)
Re: Re: Employment at will
Here is what you tell that company:
"Dear Prospective Employer,
I'm not going to give you my Facebook password and here is why you still want to hire me.
When people interact with me and message me in social media, there is an implicit trust to keep their information confidential.
Similarly, when employees leave your company, certainly there is information you expect them to keep confidential.
If I were willing to give you this information, that would tell you that I am willing to betray the trust of others in my attempts to get a new job. The fact that I am willing to risk this job opportunity here shows that I can be trusted whereas the other candidates who comply are likely to violate your trust in the future if properly incentivized.
That is why you want to hire me."
Unfortunately, this sort of policy specifically selects for employees that, if pressed, will betray these companies in the future.
Re:
On second thoughts, copyright needs a use it or lose it clause. I know this is not an original idea (if such a thing exists) but this would be a great example of a situation where it would be useful.