Yup - 0/0 only has meaning as a limit, and that's how I'm interpreting the court's statement.
Since the site didn't actually host any content, we have no way of knowing which function was used to generate that limit, and thus no way to prove or falsify the stated value of 90%. Eg., the ratio .9x/x would give a limit of 90%, whereas the ratio .5x/x would not - and both give 0/0 when evaluated at x=0.
So you're right that it's outside of the realm of mathematics - it fits in the same category as the truth value of the existence of God.
"I want to know how the court found that a site that doesn't host any content had 90% of its content devoted to infringing."
If one wants to get mathematical, any percentage (including percentages below 0% and above 100% and +INF and -INF) are all valid, since both the numerator (number of infringing works hosted) and denominator (total works hosted) are zero. 0/0 can equal any real number.
Maybe the judge figured that saying 5,000,000% wouldn't have the same impact as 90%, so he used the form of 0/0 that best served his agenda?
"I want to know how the court found that a site that doesn't host any content had 90% of its content devoted to infringing."
If one wants to get mathematical, any percentage (including percentages below 0% and above 100% and +INF and -INF) are all valid, since both the numerator (number of infringing works hosted) and denominator (total works hosted) are zero. 0/0 can equal any real number.
Maybe the judge figured that saying 5,000,000% wouldn't have the same impact as 90%, so he used the form of 0/0 that best served his agenda?
About 30 years ago, the common opinion in the tech sector was the computer code was not copyrightable, as they were just a bunch of instructions and equations. My, how times have changed :(
If you came up with a foolproof way for a manufacturer of a physical good to reduce their manufacturing and distribution costs by 99%, would the price to the customer go up or down?
If that producer has a monopoly, I would expect the price to drop only a small amount. If the demand is also perfectly inelastic (oil is pretty close to that), then the price will stay exactly the same.
The key word is monopoly. All monopolies result in high prices and in no need for a corporation to pass through any savings (whereas a competitive market would force them to).
Well, the criminal punishment is pretty similar (~10 years either way), and the civil penalties are lighter for murder (actual damages, perhaps trebled, vs $500,000 statutory)
I have to disagree. Copying is a pretty broad word and it applies to the arrangement of matter or fields (ie., data or information). Even the copyright maximalists are missing out on some forms of copying. For example, the photons emitted from a TV screen are a copy, and if they're reflected off a half-silvered mirror (eg., a window or the surface of an eyeball), they become multiple copies, and if some of them make it into space, they're essentially permanent copies. To be even more pedantic, the gravitons emitted during a live performance constitute an essentially permanent copy, as nothing short of a neutron star or black hole can absorb or interfere with them to any significant degree. Likewise, the neutrinos emitted during beta decay in the naturally (or not so naturally in the nuclear age) occurring isotopes in any person's body would carry information, and thus be a copy of that data.
The problem is that a restriction on copying makes about as much sense as a restriction on moving (eg., walking, breathing, turning your eyes, digesting, having your heart beat, being at a temperature greater than absolute zero). Both are basic actions that happen all the time in both the natural and human worlds.
What is needed is a more appropriate word, not to redefine an already existing and very useful word.
I know, and nothing that I posted contradicts that.
The laws against counterfeiting also quite a bit looser than copyright. For example, it's legal to make play money that use the image of a dollar bill, so long as it meets certain restrictions on size and quality, but it's illegal to make play Monopoly (R) money.
The copies are stated to be copies, and it should be plenty obvious from the fact that these 'dollar bills' are just bits.
AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to pass around an image of a bill so long as it isn't of super-high quality and I thought that the US government even made moderate-resolution images of US currency available specifically for use in artwork.
PS: Being a work of the US government, there are no copyrights attached to US currency and they are in the public domain, copyright-wise.
They may be pretty standard terms, but that doesn't mean they're good or anything. IMO, they're evidence of three major problems in our society:
1: It's ridiculously expensive to be sued, even if found completely innocent (to the point that barratry is brutally effective).
2: That there is a huge imbalance of power between individuals and organizations (or between larger and smaller organizations): Notice how there are no indemnities from the website to the user.
3: That contract law is extremely broad, and the only punishment for making a contract in violation of the few restrictions that exist is for that section to be removed and reinterpreted as narrowly as possible.
IMO, a boycott is unmerited, but it doesn't mean that all is fine with contract law.
Copyrights very much are monopolies. Works are not substitutable, or poorly substitutable at best, meaning that each individual work is a market onto itself.
Writing a new book wouldn't remove that monopoly, but instead create a new commodity (and another monopoly should the new copyright proprietor so choose).
"I think Google's page rank is based on the number of clicks of particular links with like search terms"
No one except Google knows what the algorithm is - it's a trade secret. That said, I doubt it's so simple. Other factors that likely influence ranking are how many other sites link to the site in question (which is what google bombing relies on) and how well the text of the site matches the search term.
Actually, calling copyright a right isn't being very honest either. Copyright is a privilege.
Rights are things that intrinsically exist and are merely formalized by codifying them into law, whereas privileges do not naturally exist and are created by law or custom.
The semantics are important. Rights are inherently right, and privileges are at best neutral and often carry a negative connotation.
For example, TV is a privilege for children. There is no mandate that parents allow them to watch TV, and it can be withheld for any reason (common reasons are the parent thinks TV rots the brain or as punishment for bad behaviour). Copyright should fall into the same category. It's a privilege and it should only be extended to the extent that it benefits humankind, and only insofar as it is not abused.
"The movie industry has one main lobby that they can put all their weight behind. So does the recording industry. Why don't we have one?"
Here's one very good reason why not to emulate them:
The MPAA and RIAA operate as a trust. Their members pool their individual political and market power into a single entity that has more market power (both on the retail side and the lobbying side). It's a very dictatorial setup, and is corrosive to a democratic society.
You can never get everyone in a democracy to agree, and the internet being about as democratic an institution as there is, it just isn't feasible to have just one advocacy group, or even a dozen.
PS: It's my opinion that both the MPAA and RIAA should be seized and shut down by the US government for blatant and ongoing violation of US anti-trust, anti-bribery, and anti-racketeering laws, but we all know who the government serves.
I tried taking the survey. The first time it didn't let me finish, because I said I had no experience with WIPO (which is true, as it's not like they invite just anybody to their meetings).
So I went back and lied to continue the survey. Here's some of the gems of self-serving and push-poll questions:
- How do you assess the importance of IP in the following areas: (Economic development, Business growth, Providing solutions to major global challenges (such as poverty, hunger, public health and climate change), Encouraging creativity, Protection of innovation, Technological advancement).
While it's technically correct that copyright is important with respect to encouraging creativity, that's only because 'important' technically just means it has a large effect, for good or bad, but the English used certainly doesn't imply that.
- Who do you believe is the global leader in the protection and promotion of IP?
Obvious ego-inflating blather.
- How important are Intellectual Property (IP) issues to my organization in 2012?
It's implicit that only corporations have valid opinions with respect to copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. Individuals are nobodies.
Under current law, a trademark neither identifies a producer, nor a product. It's a piece of property that property that the owner can do pretty much as they wish.
The mark owner can:
- License it to any other company or person, including to multiple ones at the same time, which means that trademarks do _not_ identify the producer of a product or service.
- Use it on any product, or multiple products at once, which means that trademarks do _not_ identify the product or service.
- Can sell, give, or license it will, which means that trademarks do _not_ ensure any sort of continuity in time with respect to owner.
- Can change the products at will, or change which products are sold under the trademark at will, which means that trademarks do _not_ ensure any sort of continuity in time with respect to product.
PS: I'm quite upset with trademarks in general. This post was more to show how messed up the system is rather than support it.
Would it be possible to not link to stuff behind a paywall? That "Monty Hall Dilemma" link is behind a paywall good for nineteen dollars and ninety-five cents.
How is this legal?
Pretty much any EULA I've ever seen for software, with the exception of open source, prohibits reverse engineering?
Why does this troll get to do it, but normal people can't (at least not legally)?
(untitled comment)
Yup - 0/0 only has meaning as a limit, and that's how I'm interpreting the court's statement.
Since the site didn't actually host any content, we have no way of knowing which function was used to generate that limit, and thus no way to prove or falsify the stated value of 90%. Eg., the ratio .9x/x would give a limit of 90%, whereas the ratio .5x/x would not - and both give 0/0 when evaluated at x=0.
So you're right that it's outside of the realm of mathematics - it fits in the same category as the truth value of the existence of God.
(untitled comment)
"I want to know how the court found that a site that doesn't host any content had 90% of its content devoted to infringing."
If one wants to get mathematical, any percentage (including percentages below 0% and above 100% and +INF and -INF) are all valid, since both the numerator (number of infringing works hosted) and denominator (total works hosted) are zero. 0/0 can equal any real number.
Maybe the judge figured that saying 5,000,000% wouldn't have the same impact as 90%, so he used the form of 0/0 that best served his agenda?
(untitled comment)
"I want to know how the court found that a site that doesn't host any content had 90% of its content devoted to infringing."
If one wants to get mathematical, any percentage (including percentages below 0% and above 100% and +INF and -INF) are all valid, since both the numerator (number of infringing works hosted) and denominator (total works hosted) are zero. 0/0 can equal any real number.
Maybe the judge figured that saying 5,000,000% wouldn't have the same impact as 90%, so he used the form of 0/0 that best served his agenda?
Re: Is the tech sector slowly dying?
About 30 years ago, the common opinion in the tech sector was the computer code was not copyrightable, as they were just a bunch of instructions and equations. My, how times have changed :(
(untitled comment)
If that producer has a monopoly, I would expect the price to drop only a small amount. If the demand is also perfectly inelastic (oil is pretty close to that), then the price will stay exactly the same.
The key word is monopoly. All monopolies result in high prices and in no need for a corporation to pass through any savings (whereas a competitive market would force them to).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This case should even be a case
Well, the criminal punishment is pretty similar (~10 years either way), and the civil penalties are lighter for murder (actual damages, perhaps trebled, vs $500,000 statutory)
Perhaps Copy is the Wrong Word
I have to disagree. Copying is a pretty broad word and it applies to the arrangement of matter or fields (ie., data or information). Even the copyright maximalists are missing out on some forms of copying. For example, the photons emitted from a TV screen are a copy, and if they're reflected off a half-silvered mirror (eg., a window or the surface of an eyeball), they become multiple copies, and if some of them make it into space, they're essentially permanent copies. To be even more pedantic, the gravitons emitted during a live performance constitute an essentially permanent copy, as nothing short of a neutron star or black hole can absorb or interfere with them to any significant degree. Likewise, the neutrinos emitted during beta decay in the naturally (or not so naturally in the nuclear age) occurring isotopes in any person's body would carry information, and thus be a copy of that data.
The problem is that a restriction on copying makes about as much sense as a restriction on moving (eg., walking, breathing, turning your eyes, digesting, having your heart beat, being at a temperature greater than absolute zero). Both are basic actions that happen all the time in both the natural and human worlds.
What is needed is a more appropriate word, not to redefine an already existing and very useful word.
(untitled comment)
I would think that it's already illegal, but if it's not, it certainly should be.
Re: Re:
I know, and nothing that I posted contradicts that.
The laws against counterfeiting also quite a bit looser than copyright. For example, it's legal to make play money that use the image of a dollar bill, so long as it meets certain restrictions on size and quality, but it's illegal to make play Monopoly (R) money.
(untitled comment)
The copies are stated to be copies, and it should be plenty obvious from the fact that these 'dollar bills' are just bits.
AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to pass around an image of a bill so long as it isn't of super-high quality and I thought that the US government even made moderate-resolution images of US currency available specifically for use in artwork.
PS: Being a work of the US government, there are no copyrights attached to US currency and they are in the public domain, copyright-wise.
(untitled comment)
They may be pretty standard terms, but that doesn't mean they're good or anything. IMO, they're evidence of three major problems in our society:
1: It's ridiculously expensive to be sued, even if found completely innocent (to the point that barratry is brutally effective).
2: That there is a huge imbalance of power between individuals and organizations (or between larger and smaller organizations): Notice how there are no indemnities from the website to the user.
3: That contract law is extremely broad, and the only punishment for making a contract in violation of the few restrictions that exist is for that section to be removed and reinterpreted as narrowly as possible.
IMO, a boycott is unmerited, but it doesn't mean that all is fine with contract law.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyrights very much are monopolies. Works are not substitutable, or poorly substitutable at best, meaning that each individual work is a market onto itself.
Writing a new book wouldn't remove that monopoly, but instead create a new commodity (and another monopoly should the new copyright proprietor so choose).
Re:
"I think Google's page rank is based on the number of clicks of particular links with like search terms"
No one except Google knows what the algorithm is - it's a trade secret. That said, I doubt it's so simple. Other factors that likely influence ranking are how many other sites link to the site in question (which is what google bombing relies on) and how well the text of the site matches the search term.
The point of the story
This story just shows how copyright brings out the worst in people. Both sides come out looking like greedy and selfish jerks.
Copyright is a priviledge
Actually, calling copyright a right isn't being very honest either. Copyright is a privilege.
Rights are things that intrinsically exist and are merely formalized by codifying them into law, whereas privileges do not naturally exist and are created by law or custom.
The semantics are important. Rights are inherently right, and privileges are at best neutral and often carry a negative connotation.
For example, TV is a privilege for children. There is no mandate that parents allow them to watch TV, and it can be withheld for any reason (common reasons are the parent thinks TV rots the brain or as punishment for bad behaviour). Copyright should fall into the same category. It's a privilege and it should only be extended to the extent that it benefits humankind, and only insofar as it is not abused.
Why we shouldn't emulate the **AAs
"The movie industry has one main lobby that they can put all their weight behind. So does the recording industry. Why don't we have one?"
Here's one very good reason why not to emulate them:
The MPAA and RIAA operate as a trust. Their members pool their individual political and market power into a single entity that has more market power (both on the retail side and the lobbying side). It's a very dictatorial setup, and is corrosive to a democratic society.
You can never get everyone in a democracy to agree, and the internet being about as democratic an institution as there is, it just isn't feasible to have just one advocacy group, or even a dozen.
PS: It's my opinion that both the MPAA and RIAA should be seized and shut down by the US government for blatant and ongoing violation of US anti-trust, anti-bribery, and anti-racketeering laws, but we all know who the government serves.
The Survey is Terrible
I tried taking the survey. The first time it didn't let me finish, because I said I had no experience with WIPO (which is true, as it's not like they invite just anybody to their meetings).
So I went back and lied to continue the survey. Here's some of the gems of self-serving and push-poll questions:
- How do you assess the importance of IP in the following areas: (Economic development, Business growth, Providing solutions to major global challenges (such as poverty, hunger, public health and climate change), Encouraging creativity, Protection of innovation, Technological advancement).
While it's technically correct that copyright is important with respect to encouraging creativity, that's only because 'important' technically just means it has a large effect, for good or bad, but the English used certainly doesn't imply that.
- Who do you believe is the global leader in the protection and promotion of IP?
Obvious ego-inflating blather.
- How important are Intellectual Property (IP) issues to my organization in 2012?
It's implicit that only corporations have valid opinions with respect to copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. Individuals are nobodies.
A Little Clarification
Under current law, a trademark neither identifies a producer, nor a product. It's a piece of property that property that the owner can do pretty much as they wish.
The mark owner can:
- License it to any other company or person, including to multiple ones at the same time, which means that trademarks do _not_ identify the producer of a product or service.
- Use it on any product, or multiple products at once, which means that trademarks do _not_ identify the product or service.
- Can sell, give, or license it will, which means that trademarks do _not_ ensure any sort of continuity in time with respect to owner.
- Can change the products at will, or change which products are sold under the trademark at will, which means that trademarks do _not_ ensure any sort of continuity in time with respect to product.
PS: I'm quite upset with trademarks in general. This post was more to show how messed up the system is rather than support it.
Link behind paywall
Would it be possible to not link to stuff behind a paywall? That "Monty Hall Dilemma" link is behind a paywall good for nineteen dollars and ninety-five cents.