Everytime you think about a movie or tv show or photograph you have seen you are replaying the memory stored in your brain. The movie makers, songrighters, photographers etc are not being paid for for these copies and playback in your mind. Infact you now hold their intellectual property in your brain without compensating them. Dreaming itself may be fraught with infringements since the images presented may contain other's intellectual property. The only moral thing to do is keep a meter and if a memory is replayed in your mind you can record it and the IP owner will be paid accordingly. Anything else is theft and memory piracy.
The problem with Internet ads is not the ads but the metric advertisers use to determine the success of an ad. Most ads track the number of people that click on their ads however this is not the way ads are effective. No other ad format is the viewer expected to make some overt act by clicking on an ad. Do TV or newspapers or magazines expect their potential customer to do some overt act like clicking on a link? No, the same goes for Internet advertising. The power of an ad is the exposure to the name of the company in the ad. Most people buy from brands they are familiar with and ads are what provide this familiarity. Judging an ads effectiveness by counting clicks is counter productive because few people do it and even fewer people who do it actually end up buying.
I suppose there are only hobbyists clothes designers and there are no quality close designs. Clothes designers cannot make any money because clothing designed are not subject to copyright.
In reality clothing design is one of the most dynamic of the creative industries. Clothes designers must constantly create new lines because they can't rest on their laurels and life off of one successful clothing line. Lack of copyrights have not hurt the clothing industry and in fact enhance it since each designer is free to build on past successes.
If you watch a bootleg copy of a movie you do not get threatened with imprisonment. If you watch a legal copy of a movie you get threatened with imprisonment. Another way the movie industry devalues the genuine article while adding value to the bootleg article.
The same Saul Zaentz company who nearly killed any chance of the Hobbit Movie being made because of their unreasonable demands.
This place had used the name 'Hobbit' for over 25 years. If enough time goes by without a copyright holder taking any action then they should not be able to stop it.
Eric Holder is so corrupt he won't do anything about this. Unfortunately the courts are going to have to decide this. The only other choice is to boot Obama out of office in November and hope the next Attorney General will uphold the law.
This is an excellent article and makes a great point about copyright law and the 1st Amendment. The copyright clause was part of the original Constitution before the Bill of Rights was passed. Once the 1st Amendment was passed it essentially repealed the copyright clause in the context of freedom of Speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
For instance if I were to recite a copyrighted poem the 1st Amendment should protect me from any government action including being sued via the courts. If I perform a copyright song I should have the same protection. Anything in context of free speech should not be actionable by a copyright holder because of the 1st Amendment.
If I use copyrighted material outside of free speech such as using it for commercial purposes then that would be actionable and Congress can make laws barring that activity.
The public should have virtually unlimited rights to use any copyrighted material in connection with free speech. It would be interesting if someone made this argument to the courts. Framed correctly this would be a very compelling argument.
An excellent article about Freedom of Speech and Copyrights and how The 1st Amendment when enacted made some parts of copyright law unconstitutional in the context of freedom of speech.
The copyright clause was part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights came after which included the 1st Amendment barring the free exercise of speech which means that amendment essentially repealed copyright law in the context of free speech.
If I quote a copyrighted poem the 1st Amendment should protect me from any kind of government action which includes being sued via the courts. If I perform a song or perform a play or post a photo or news article in connection with speech then that must be protected under the Constitution.
Now when it is not in context of speech such as using the content for commercial use then the free speech aspect would not apply.
It would be interesting if copyright law was challenged under the 1st Amendment.
News outlets that make it difficult to share stories or put themselves behind paywalls will continue to see both their relevance and bottom line deteriorate because they insist on trying to force readers to digest their information in a way that is foreign to the very workings of the Internet.
Makes you wonder how this will effect "Newsright" since their business model is to require blogs and others to pay for excepts? This ruling may take the legs right out from under them since Newsright is demanding payment for something that has now been ruled fair use.
The court may rule that since Stephens Media was also a party to it that they also are stripped from any claim to the copyrights and the new owners will be given full control leaving Stephens media with nothing unless they successfully bid them back at auction.
My guess is that the copyrights will also be stripped from Stephens media and the new owners will have full ownership of them. The only way for Stephens media to regain ownership of them would be to successfully bid for them.
Stop Memory Piracy
Everytime you think about a movie or tv show or photograph you have seen you are replaying the memory stored in your brain. The movie makers, songrighters, photographers etc are not being paid for for these copies and playback in your mind. Infact you now hold their intellectual property in your brain without compensating them. Dreaming itself may be fraught with infringements since the images presented may contain other's intellectual property. The only moral thing to do is keep a meter and if a memory is replayed in your mind you can record it and the IP owner will be paid accordingly. Anything else is theft and memory piracy.
Re: Re: Re: Problem is the metric used to measure ads effectiveness
Micheal Ho
So far I am the only person who has read this post. :-)
Re: Re: Problem is the metric used to measure ads effectiveness
They way advertisers determine the effectiveness of ads is like determining your readership by the number of comments.
Problem is the metric used to measure ads effectiveness
The problem with Internet ads is not the ads but the metric advertisers use to determine the success of an ad. Most ads track the number of people that click on their ads however this is not the way ads are effective. No other ad format is the viewer expected to make some overt act by clicking on an ad. Do TV or newspapers or magazines expect their potential customer to do some overt act like clicking on a link? No, the same goes for Internet advertising. The power of an ad is the exposure to the name of the company in the ad. Most people buy from brands they are familiar with and ads are what provide this familiarity. Judging an ads effectiveness by counting clicks is counter productive because few people do it and even fewer people who do it actually end up buying.
(untitled comment)
I suppose there are only hobbyists clothes designers and there are no quality close designs. Clothes designers cannot make any money because clothing designed are not subject to copyright.
In reality clothing design is one of the most dynamic of the creative industries. Clothes designers must constantly create new lines because they can't rest on their laurels and life off of one successful clothing line. Lack of copyrights have not hurt the clothing industry and in fact enhance it since each designer is free to build on past successes.
(untitled comment)
Those who can create, those who can't copyright.
The price for honesty is getting threatened with imprisonment
If you watch a bootleg copy of a movie you do not get threatened with imprisonment. If you watch a legal copy of a movie you get threatened with imprisonment. Another way the movie industry devalues the genuine article while adding value to the bootleg article.
(untitled comment)
This is like saying you are guilty of murder but it may have been self defense.
Traffic Fatalities Plummet Despite Fatalities
So many distractions but traffic fatalities keep getting lower. 2010 was lowest ever recorded.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/PR/NHTSA-05-11
(untitled comment)
The same Saul Zaentz company who nearly killed any chance of the Hobbit Movie being made because of their unreasonable demands.
This place had used the name 'Hobbit' for over 25 years. If enough time goes by without a copyright holder taking any action then they should not be able to stop it.
Re: Patent Maximalists
This reminds me of this joke:
A scientist said to God "we don't need you anymore, we can create life ourselves".
God said "OK create life out of sand.
The scientist stooped down to pick up sand and God stopped him and said "No, that is my sand. Create your own".
Corrupt AG will not act
Eric Holder is so corrupt he won't do anything about this. Unfortunately the courts are going to have to decide this. The only other choice is to boot Obama out of office in November and hope the next Attorney General will uphold the law.
Internet Free America
We need something similar to Radio Free America for the Internet.
Copyright Unconstitutional?
This is an excellent article and makes a great point about copyright law and the 1st Amendment. The copyright clause was part of the original Constitution before the Bill of Rights was passed. Once the 1st Amendment was passed it essentially repealed the copyright clause in the context of freedom of Speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
For instance if I were to recite a copyrighted poem the 1st Amendment should protect me from any government action including being sued via the courts. If I perform a copyright song I should have the same protection. Anything in context of free speech should not be actionable by a copyright holder because of the 1st Amendment.
If I use copyrighted material outside of free speech such as using it for commercial purposes then that would be actionable and Congress can make laws barring that activity.
The public should have virtually unlimited rights to use any copyrighted material in connection with free speech. It would be interesting if someone made this argument to the courts. Framed correctly this would be a very compelling argument.
http://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/
Copy
http://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/
Copyright Unconstitutional?
An excellent article about Freedom of Speech and Copyrights and how The 1st Amendment when enacted made some parts of copyright law unconstitutional in the context of freedom of speech.
The copyright clause was part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights came after which included the 1st Amendment barring the free exercise of speech which means that amendment essentially repealed copyright law in the context of free speech.
If I quote a copyrighted poem the 1st Amendment should protect me from any kind of government action which includes being sued via the courts. If I perform a song or perform a play or post a photo or news article in connection with speech then that must be protected under the Constitution.
Now when it is not in context of speech such as using the content for commercial use then the free speech aspect would not apply.
It would be interesting if copyright law was challenged under the 1st Amendment.
http://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/
(untitled comment)
News outlets that make it difficult to share stories or put themselves behind paywalls will continue to see both their relevance and bottom line deteriorate because they insist on trying to force readers to digest their information in a way that is foreign to the very workings of the Internet.
Ruling May Effect NewsRight
Makes you wonder how this will effect "Newsright" since their business model is to require blogs and others to pay for excepts? This ruling may take the legs right out from under them since Newsright is demanding payment for something that has now been ruled fair use.
Re: Re:
The court may rule that since Stephens Media was also a party to it that they also are stripped from any claim to the copyrights and the new owners will be given full control leaving Stephens media with nothing unless they successfully bid them back at auction.
(untitled comment)
My guess is that the copyrights will also be stripped from Stephens media and the new owners will have full ownership of them. The only way for Stephens media to regain ownership of them would be to successfully bid for them.