If 7 out of 10 of your neighbours do like talking about their sex lives or their lives in general, you can't act surprised or shocked that the government wants to know more about you and your neighbours. I'm not saying the government is right to do that.
What is there to cook? Hollywood wants a system that they can control. We are beyond that. Just give us what we want at a reasonable price with no limitations or restrictions.
DVD protection hasn't stopped a single person from making a copy of a DVD, yet Hollywood keeps insisting on including DVD protection, even if it means that the legally-purchased DVD cannot be watched on relatively modern devices.
When one of the discs of Grey's Anatomy that I purchased for my wife would not work in a portable DVD player, I did what everyone else does: download a torrent with the copy protection removed. That's why torrent is popular: because it works.
Netflix can most definitely be used in Hollywood Accounting.
Hollywood Inc creates a new company called Hollywood Licensing. Hollywood Licensing charges Hollywood Inc a "fee" for negotiating and collecting those license fees. Hollywood Inc add that "fee" to their Hollywood Accounting Pro Forma as an expense, let's call it "License Fee Recovery".
So now not only does Hollywood Inc get all the license revenue from it's wholly-owned subsidiary Hollywood Licensing, it gets additional revenue in the form of "License Fee Recovery". Win - win for Hollywood.
Kozinski may not like it, and may find it distasteful and crude (hell, it probably is distasteful and crude), but that does not automatically mean that the government should then be able to assume that all information has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I don't read it that way. His not liking the information people are voluntarily releasing is irrelevant. The point Kozinski is saying is that we shouldn't be surprised that the government wants to push the boundaries of privacy, when people are pushing those boundaries themselves. It's a fair assessment.
I love how movie studios state that copyright is about giving "creators the right to monetize their creations". Meanwhile, using Hollywood accounting, movie studios will do everything in their power to not pay creators.
Then again, this is the same industry that moved to the west coast to make it difficult for Edison to collect royalties on his new fangled inventions.
It's there to stop others from profiting from your work for a limited amount of time.
It's there to stop other from COPYING your work for a limited time.
Nobody has the right to be guaranteed a return, but copyright is supposed to ensure that only the original creator can do so to begin with.
No. Copyright lies with the copyright holder, which isn't always the original creator. There is nothing in copyright law that states the copyright holder is the only person that can make money from content.
Short term, you can look like a great guy by not addressing the issues, but in the long run, you face the erosion of the entire business model, which grinds it all to a halt.
So? Change the business model. That $0.99 price point is working wonders for Rovio.
Apple has several pending lawsuits with Samsung. Didn't stop Apple from contracting out the manufacture of the retina display in the new iPad to Samsung.
"Basically, why do any research or really develop anything, when you can take someone else's work and go from there?"
That's an easy one to answer. If it really is that easy to "take someone else's work" then perhaps that "work" should have never been granted a patent in the first place.
Just because you invent something, even if it is novel or unique, does not mean you are automatically entitled to government-mandated protection.
(untitled comment)
A long time ago, you could receive TV programming for free over the air. How did NBC, CBS and ABC survive back then?
Re: Re:
Sorry, but people are replacing their smartphones more often.
Re:
Ditto.
Re: Re:
If 7 out of 10 of your neighbours do like talking about their sex lives or their lives in general, you can't act surprised or shocked that the government wants to know more about you and your neighbours. I'm not saying the government is right to do that.
Re: Re: Re:
What is there to cook? Hollywood wants a system that they can control. We are beyond that. Just give us what we want at a reasonable price with no limitations or restrictions.
DVD protection hasn't stopped a single person from making a copy of a DVD, yet Hollywood keeps insisting on including DVD protection, even if it means that the legally-purchased DVD cannot be watched on relatively modern devices.
When one of the discs of Grey's Anatomy that I purchased for my wife would not work in a portable DVD player, I did what everyone else does: download a torrent with the copy protection removed. That's why torrent is popular: because it works.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Netflix can most definitely be used in Hollywood Accounting.
Hollywood Inc creates a new company called Hollywood Licensing. Hollywood Licensing charges Hollywood Inc a "fee" for negotiating and collecting those license fees. Hollywood Inc add that "fee" to their Hollywood Accounting Pro Forma as an expense, let's call it "License Fee Recovery".
So now not only does Hollywood Inc get all the license revenue from it's wholly-owned subsidiary Hollywood Licensing, it gets additional revenue in the form of "License Fee Recovery". Win - win for Hollywood.
(untitled comment)
Kozinski may not like it, and may find it distasteful and crude (hell, it probably is distasteful and crude), but that does not automatically mean that the government should then be able to assume that all information has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I don't read it that way. His not liking the information people are voluntarily releasing is irrelevant. The point Kozinski is saying is that we shouldn't be surprised that the government wants to push the boundaries of privacy, when people are pushing those boundaries themselves. It's a fair assessment.
Re:
Remember the good old days when TV networks broadcast shows freely over the air? How did TV networks survive back than?
Re:
Remember the good old days when TV networks broadcast shows freely over the air? How did TV networks survive back than?
Re: Re: Nonsense
Since municipalities assign addresses, perhaps they should sue Canada Post for copyright infringement. Something about tasting your own medicine.
Re: Say goodbye to your affordable medicines
Many of those "counterfeit drugs" are perfectly-legal drugs purchased in Canada by US seniors.
(untitled comment)
I love how movie studios state that copyright is about giving "creators the right to monetize their creations". Meanwhile, using Hollywood accounting, movie studios will do everything in their power to not pay creators.
Then again, this is the same industry that moved to the west coast to make it difficult for Edison to collect royalties on his new fangled inventions.
Re: Re: He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations
It's there to stop others from profiting from your work for a limited amount of time.
It's there to stop other from COPYING your work for a limited time.
Nobody has the right to be guaranteed a return, but copyright is supposed to ensure that only the original creator can do so to begin with.
No. Copyright lies with the copyright holder, which isn't always the original creator. There is nothing in copyright law that states the copyright holder is the only person that can make money from content.
Re:
Short term, you can look like a great guy by not addressing the issues, but in the long run, you face the erosion of the entire business model, which grinds it all to a halt.
So? Change the business model. That $0.99 price point is working wonders for Rovio.
Re: Dont be ignorant
How does one calculate "revenue lost from piracy"? Do companies calculate "revenue lost from competition"?
(untitled comment)
When did US politicians decide that they can extend US laws and regulations beyond the borders of the US?
Re:
They are a French company. Enough said.
(untitled comment)
I'm waiting for the copyright maximalists to explain how any of this will encourage Ray Charles to write new material?
Re:
Apple has several pending lawsuits with Samsung. Didn't stop Apple from contracting out the manufacture of the retina display in the new iPad to Samsung.
What is the TSA afraid off? The truth?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Patent Abolition FTW
"Basically, why do any research or really develop anything, when you can take someone else's work and go from there?"
That's an easy one to answer. If it really is that easy to "take someone else's work" then perhaps that "work" should have never been granted a patent in the first place.
Just because you invent something, even if it is novel or unique, does not mean you are automatically entitled to government-mandated protection.