Why Discussing New Business Models That Work Is A Good Idea
from the not-a-responsibility,-but-helpful dept
Jack Zeal has a really interesting post over on Rick Falkvinge’s InfoPolicy site, in which he argues that it’s not “our” job to “fix” the broken business model of those who rely on copyright. He talks about having yet another discussion with the typical copyright system supporter, in which they make one of those “but without copyright…” arguments, and he starts pointing out alternative business models. However, he’s come to believe that strategy is pointless because, effectively, it’s not our job to fix your broken business model. And, to some extent, he’s right. It’s not our job to do so, but as someone who’s been taking part in these discussions for a very long time, and who has spent an awful lot of time and effort highlighting successful new business model opportunities, I still think it’s incredibly helpful and useful. I’ll explain why by responding to each of Jack’s points. To be clear, I don’t think Jack’s argument is a bad one, and I can understand the frustration, but I still think our focus is more productive long run.
If we propose specifics, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the “but what about A or B? Those couldn’t work with business model C!” It’s an unending cat-and-mouse game. The classic example is the old “How to finance a blockbuster-caliber movie?” trope. Nobody ever considers that maybe the current system is the reason movies have to cost that much, do they?
So? That’s always true. People can always bring up a “what if?” and it’s easy to then point out that there are similar “what ifs?” with the current system. To be honest, I’ve often found the “what if” discussions useful in thinking through even more new business model ideas, which is kind of cool.
If we offer generalities, like “Merchandise and sell experiences instead of commodities”, they tend to be shot down in snarky sound-bites, like “So bands will have to sell T-shirts instead of records?”
There are always going to be some people who misunderstand or (more likely) misrepresent your arguments. The “sell lots of t-shirts” trope is so common we used to sell an actual t-shirt that said “looooooooots of t-shirts” on it. And it was a decent seller! Point being: you’ll never convince everyone — especially those who have no interest in being convinced. But, having been at this for a long time, I can assure you that for every person misrepresenting such arguments, there are many others who are recognizing the truth of the opportunities opening up around them. I can’t even begin to tell you how many content creators contact me talking about how they used to believe the old party line on copyright (or, more commonly, that they believed there was no hope for making money these days), but that they ended up becoming inspired by reading through some of the many examples of business models that worked.
It keeps the conversation on the content industry’s terms. They can be the “victims” needing a “rescue” strategy. It’s sure a great shift of attention from the rest of society being denied access to information and the natural rights to communicate and share
I’m not sure about this at all. In talking to and working with numerous content creators working through business model challenges, I just don’t see this. The discussions about business models are never about “rescuing” anyone — just straight up brainstorming about cool things that can be done.
It’s needlessly speculative. Indeed, it reminds me a lot of the earliest “home computer” books dumped out by the thousands in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors spent hours arguing that we’d all be managing recipies or doing computer-driven teaching, and then VisiCalc happened and people forgot all about recipe-management. No doubt it will be the same. Someone finds the “killer model” for post-monopoly revenue generation, but it’s probably not gonna happen until there’s no other choice but to find one. And much like the cuddly toy in the caption image, some of the suggested models aren’t gonna fly in the real world.
Well, to be clear, we’ve always said that there isn’t a magic bullet business model that works for everyone — and that the “new business model” involves experimenting with a number of opportunities, much of which depends on the content creator themselves, their audience and the relationship between the two.
So, for us, the highlighting of new business models serves a number of different purposes. First off, it’s just plain helpful to lots of artists. And that seems like a good thing. Second, it debunks the claim that copyright is the only business model, which seems to be an implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption by many, unfortunately. Third, doing so quite often inspires others to try more cool new things themselves. And that can only be a good thing. Much of this is about experimenting and recognizing that there isn’t just one way to do things any more. That can be scary and a big challenge for many artists, but it also means that there’s tremendous opportunity.
Finally, whether or not it’s “our job” to highlight alternative business models, if you don’t, none of the claims above go away. People will still attack and complain that there are no business models that work without copyright. A decade ago (after about five years of highlighting problems with the system) I finally started focusing more regularly on highlighting positive examples, and on the whole the experience has been much more beneficial than negative. It’s resulted in a lot more interesting conversations with content creators from super stars to kids just starting out — often leading to cool new experiments and more opportunities. It’s also resulted in some really interesting conversations with execs from the legacy industry really looking to help adapt to the changing market. If I was just talking about the problems of copyright, none of that would likely have happened.
A friend of mine who is a successful CEO had a rule at his company, which was that no one was allowed to highlight a problem without also at least tossing out a possible solution, even if it was just to kick off brainstorming. That might be extreme, but it seems like a handy tool. If you’re only complaining, it’s easier for people to write you off. If you’re also highlighting possible solutions, there’s a lot of benefit. Also, frankly, it’s often a lot of fun to talk about cool things that people are doing.
Filed Under: business models, copyright, discussions
Comments on “Why Discussing New Business Models That Work Is A Good Idea”
I agree with Mr Zeal. Copyright isn’t about an entitlement of creators to income streams and while examining various marketing methods of creative works can be interesting and provide some comfort that extensive reform may not be inconceivable, the core issues of copyright are its impact on the culture, freedom, and economy of society as a whole.
Re: Re:
“copyright are its impact on the culture, freedom, and economy of society as a whole.”
can you perhaps quantify that statement, in what way does not being able to copy the material that someone else has created stopped you from creating something that would contribute to your own culture?
You have a freedom to retain ownership of a work, as you have the freedom to release or discard it’s copyright, of your own work.
Why do you think your freedom has been compromised by having a right ?
Sure, you are not free to steal, or murder or punch someone, you are free to the limit of the law, you have a freedom that comes with a responsibility, that is to respect the freedoms of others, and the right of others.
why do you think a law protecting that freedom is going to continue to do so if it is repealed?
it’s only a good idea if it doesn’t disrupt what is the established business model at the moment. if it means adapting from an old model, it cant be any good. just ask the entertainment industries. they’ll tell you.
there is nothing wrong with discussing, and even implementing different business models, in any field.
as long as your model fits within the existing laws (rules of the game) anyone is welcome to play.
It’s when you ask “what if” the laws were different, what great things we would be able to do now !!!..
so will everyone else, the big players will always be the big players, and the nobody’s will always be the nobody.
you’ve changed the rules of the game, but the best players will simply adapt and progress.
what masnick thinks is that if you change the rules the ‘big boys’ will go away !!!..
no, they will just compete as they do now within the existing rules.
A new model, and fits within the existing rules may be something great, and they might even become one of the ‘big boys’, at that time, they will become an enemy of Masnick, and be vilified here on TD :)….
Re:
all industries adapt and change all the time, no business model is static, rather it’s usually highly dynamic one part of writing a business plan, is your plan for change.
it’s usually no more than 5 years that you would expect major modifications to your business plan to modify your work to meet customer expectations.
The big players today, are going to be the big players tomorrow if the laws on copyright are changed today..
As they will be the big players in 5 years from now.
changing the rules does not change who the winners of the game are, as it appears you hope it will..
Masnick the white knight is going to ride in with a ‘new business model’ and overnight the big companies are going out of business and the new regime will rule !!!
nice dream,
Re:
rules of the game?
Life isn’t a game, you inbred moron.
It’s not our “job” to do so, but I feel it’s valuable to discuss it as much as possible. If nothing else, at least that shows that the customers of those industries not only realised they were broken, but were also offering solutions, well before the industry collapsed under its own mistakes.
While the current incumbents aren’t necessarily likely to take any notice, at least they lose the “nobody could have predicted this” card and the “there were no alternatives” excuses.
Re:
“what masnick thinks is that if you change the rules the ‘big boys’ will go away !!!.. “
What AC thinks is that if he lies about the stated opinions of everybody he deals with and distorts the truth as much as possible, then reality will shift itself so that he’s speaking the truth, and his attacks have some point beyond the tantrums of a petulant child. Alas, he’s simply deluded.
Re:
Quote:
By interfering with my rights to own, modify or distribute something that I legally own.
Quote:
Not true, if I recreate something even though all the work was done by me somebody else can stop me from ownership of that work I done it, further it also interferes with my ability to create new work since any work today is most certainly based on work done it before, so you are full of shit.
Quote:
The freedom of everyone is at risk because you can have freedom and granted monopolies they are mutually exclusive by definition.
Quote:
Says the guy supporting the suspension of everybodies rights for his own personal gain. If you don’t get it, a artificial granted monopoly is only possible if you exclude everybody else from doing something, that doesn’t seem like respecting others rights does it?
We can all see what artificial monopolies cause and we are all feeling it right now, the more that system feels threatened the more state enforcement it needs, the more intrusive it becomes and the outcome is always the same. Revolution, people who have to endure those monopolies get fed up and fight against it, the Church in the middle ages suffered the ire of the peasants, kings and emperors felt it too, what makes you believe it will be different with copycrap or any IP related abuse today is a mistery.
Poor Masnick.
Mike: Piracy flourished for as long as it did because copyright law wasn’t enforced.
You were truly foolish to think that scenario would continue forever.
Please move on with your life.
Re:
Really?
How many big players from the beginning of the motion pictures age are around?
Oh that is right not one.
You wanna know why?
Because they couldn’t wrap their heads around new ways of doing things they all failed in the market and were replaced by others that were more capable, despite having tried to legislate their own business model in their own times.
I don’t see this being any different the big players today will almost all be wiped out and new comers with new ideas will become the new big players and will try to mold the laws to work for them and then somebody else will come and disrupt that business and it will be called a criminal too, only to survive and become the dominant party again until another player comes around and do it to him what he has done to his predecessors.
What you call pirates today are the new order, one that has no support and it is persecuted by today powers but if it endures long enough it will become the law of the land, specially if it has public support, which it does.
Further people can see more open ways flourish that don’t depend on mercantilism to survive.
Have you seen Red Hat make a billion dollars lately?
I just saw a movie being financed in Kickstarter, the cast is all unknown and the quality is good enough for a TV movie, crowdsourced and paid for in advance is another model.
Why should the world pay for others welfare when they get almost nothing in return?
Re:
Pro hint:
In every industry declining even in countries in decline you can see what their leadership looks like at that moment and it is always bureaucrats(i.e. Accountants and Lawyers).
I am starting to believe that people who had a prior career having to think only about the worst case scenarios could never be good managers, they lack optimism and charisma to do anything new which involves taking risks and chances.
Re:
Your money is a monopoly.
I demand you share it with me or you are just part of a great conspiracy.
Re:
The law wasn’t enforced for good reason you muppet.
Nobody respects monopolies and they will fight back those who try to impose it.
Re:
Sure, I made a digital copy of my money. Where should I email it to? But be warned, if you decide to print it out and try to spend it you will be accused of plagiarism, I mean, counterfeiting.
Re:
Still haven’t grasped the actual arguments, have you? Your analogies just prove that you don’t know what other people have been saying.
For what it’s worth I’d certainly share all my money with you. If it were infinitely copyable like digital files, and I got to keep my copies like the copyright owners do.
Re:
Piracy flourished for as long as it did because copyright law wasn’t enforced.
How do you enforce the law to deal with sneakernet? Or any darknet? Are cops going to make it harder for people to copy things?
Re:
He seems to be one of those people who are under the delusion that piracy didn’t exist before Napster, so he probably hasn’t considered that piracy will also exist offline when his impossible mission to eradicate online piracy is finished…
Re:
Just out of sheer curiosity, if you had a machine which could copy 1:1 any food product, would you use it to, say, give to the poor and needy? What if the food corporations found out that you were copying “their” food products and decided to place an artificial monopoly on ‘food reproduction’ so as to restrict you? Would that be fair?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
The copyright maximalists treat copyright as an absolute right deserving of them being granted the tool necessary to enforce their rights. Their attitude is that the rest of society should bear the costs of enforcing their rights by carrying out the policing required at their own cost. They are also trying to make as many parties liable for any infringement,where infringement is taken to include carrying links to infringing copies. Also they believe that their is no fair use, and even the shortest quote requires an expensive license.
The cost to society of achieving the level of policing required by the copyright maximalists is not just a monetary cost of carrying out the required policing, but also the collateral damage to free speech that occurs when they try to enforce their rights.
The copyright maximalists are demanding that they are given control over all technology that can carry out copying action so that they can either limit who can use the technology to authorized companies, or that they have the ability to check all copying operations, and prevent any that they deem to infringe on their rights.
This means that all internet communications are monitored, and all computers, printers and copiers are network connected and check for permission to proceed for all copy and printing operations.
The end result would be a totalitarian government by or controlled by the copyright industries, with the ability to control almost all information that is made available, at the price that they desire.
Re:
Well, over the past decade, we’ve gone from 5 major music labels to just 3. Independent music accounts for over 30% of the market today and is slowly but steadily gaining ground. The market is expanding; the labels are not future-proof.
I don’t see how any discussion with these corporations can be fruitful. Monopolizing markets, stifling competition, exploiting tax loopholes, bribing politicians, extortion schemes, etc. Now they’re attempting to create a small claims court to process ‘copyright infringers’ through the system faster and collect yet another easy payday. Such is their business model.
If Masnick or whoever wants to give these people good ideas so that they can generate even more profit and so continue to abuse the public, the legal system and the free market, be my guest. I, however, will decline.
The classic example is the old ?How to finance a blockbuster-caliber movie?? trope. Nobody ever considers that maybe the current system is the reason movies have to cost that much, do they?
Clerks was made for less than $30,000. It made over $3 million worldwide. I’d be happy with that sort of return on investment.
Paranormal Actitivity 1,2,and 3 cost, combines, less than $10 million to make, and worldwide made collectively in excess of $580 million.
That’s not even counting the money they make from DVD sales, broadcasting fees, and the like.
Movies simply don’t have to cost $200 million to make to make money.
Re:
call it whatever you like, or not whatever you like, a commitment, a duty, what the fuck you do everyday. call it what you like.
it means the same thing, you have rules which define what you can and cannot do, those rules have evolved and it is what makes a culture.. call it a game of whatever, it’s the same thing..
really!!! is that the best you can do ? 🙂 LOL
Re:
what lies ??
please be concise, if not you’re just trolling.
I did not state what everybody’s opinion was or is, I stated my opinion and that of the existing laws and rules.
could you please (if it’s not too hard) explain what lies I have posted?
Re:
oh, the “we can crack any safe or lock you put up for we are the original criminals, you cant stop us” argument.
piracy has existed as long as creativity has existed and those who cannot create take advantage of those who can.
Theft is the same, you’ll never get rid of it, but you can take measures to reduce it.
what you generally do not do, is say “sure, we can never stop theft, therefore we just make theft legal!”
you are saying “Piracy is not going away, so you might as well make everything free”. ‘
the “we’re going to steal anyway” does not wash in the real world.
Re:
Require all computers to be online to operate, and then use a contentid system to authorize or deny a copy operation. This requires that the computer is locked down so that only authorized programs are run.
Re:
The rules don’t make a culture.
Re:
On the horizon, can it be? An army of straw men, run for the hills! Lest they poke us with their pointy straws . . .
Re:
“Says the guy supporting the suspension of everybodies rights for his own personal gain”
how am I doing that ?
I am actually SUPPORTING EVERYONES RIGHTS, not suspending it.
If you own the copyright to the material, I support your right to copy it.
but when you own the album you own a copy, not the copyright.
it’s just that simple, and if you own the copyright, you have the RIGHT to COPY it, if you do not own the copyright, even if you own you personal copy, you do not have that right.
so I support all your rights, and the rights of people who have those rights.
it’s really simple, you do not have a right to steal, you do not have a right to copy material that the copyright belongs to someone else.
Re:
no, your right, the culture makes the rules.
Re:
except when copyright IS being enforced, in that case we need to change the laws so that they cannot enforce their copyright.
and I am sure Masnick is quite happy stuck in his rut.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
that’s what a society does, if Fred up the road breaks into your garage, you call the police and they arrest him, all at the Governments expense, you pay for that service by paying taxes, to ensure there are people to enforce the law, and uphold your rights. If you believe that is “totalitarian” then so be it.
call it whatever you like, it’s the system you live under.
Re:
Copyright is the legalized theft of the rights of everyone else to copy, to be in control of their own property and mold it into the form they wish
Re:
what argument are you claiming is a straw man?
you did not provide that, so I therefore have to assume you have no better argument, and are simply a troll.
next time, some substance please.
Re:
no one believes it will be eradicated just as much as they do not believe murder will be eradicated. That clearly is not the point, there is and will always be an arms war between those who want to protect their property and those who want to take that away from them, be it straight up theft, or blackmail, or murder or God forbid even illegal fire sharing.
being impossible to eradicate is not reason you turn around and bend over to whoever wants to ream you.
So the only delusion is in those who think that because you cannot completely kill something, you should give up trying to protect your rights.
you will never get rid of people driving their car above the speed limit, that does not mean the best way to fix it is to make no speed limit, that is a delusion you would be proud of!
Re:
” those rules have evolved and it is what makes a culture”
Excellent point, and very pertinent to the discussion at hand, which is that these rules *continue* to evolve. Attempting, as you are, to stem the progress of this cultural and technological evolution is a fool’s errand.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
When a cartel and or government gain total control over all communications between people, and can look at every document that you create, then they have total control over your ability to gain knowledge and communicate with other people. That is totalitarianism, and that is the level of control that the copyright maximalists are requesting to prevent piracy.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
when and IF that ever happens, you can call it whatever you like, but that is not the system you live under, nor is it the plan or what your laws tell you.
no one is taking away from you any abilities, to gain knowledge or to communicate with others.. nor does a totalitarian regime do that.
you own your own home, or your car, you feel you have some right to what you own, and you probably don’t think that you own a car because your government is totalitarian or otherwise.
It’s your Government upholding your laws, just like if you had your house broken into, the Government will uphold your right to not be stolen from, and uphold the laws against theft.
it’s how a society works, and like it or not, you are part of the society, if you don’t like the laws, get enough people together to make a difference. (or spend the rest of your life trolling TechDirt)..
it’s really up to you.. although you appear to not understand that basic fact.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Even discussing the possibility that copyright is wrong is a good idea, since there is still a big misconception that it is the only way to solve the free-rider problem for artists. That in itself is a bold claim, and it needs bold evidence. You will never hear of cinemas talking about the free-rider problem, or gig venues, or theatres, or Kickstarter. They all use tickets, therefore everyone pays.
Anyone who cannot see how filesharing is a shortcut for buying a DVD on Ebay and selling it again, or for borrowing a DVD from a friend, or for swapping hard drives/USBs with data on them, is not worth talking to. And indeed, they’ll turn around and say that it’s the pre-owned DVDs that are the problem! And that THEY need to be stopped! You just need to look at the bullying towards ReDigi to see this attitude first hand. The only reason they’ll go after ReDigi is because they don’t have the guts to go after pawn shops or Ebay. Also, you can see it more passively in cases where Steam does not allow users to swap games between them. Even more passively, Sony and Microsoft’s attempts to make their next consoles digital only… so the days of swapping games becomes history.
This is why it is so important to stress that copyright does much more damage than it is worth. If only 10% of people bought straight from the publishers and lent their copies to ten people each, you could reduce the publisher’s profit down to 10%. Yet, unless you want to interfere with the most basic free trade morals, they have every right to do this. So it makes sense for publishers to tend towards dangerous systems where all data is under a higher power’s control. This should make anybody concerned.
But instead, when people pay tickets to see a high quality YouTube video (each computer is a “seat” in the theatre), the publisher gets the profits that nobody else can get. And funnily enough, you ironically put the pirates out of business like this since nobody will buy from them when they can just go on YouTube. Indeed, noone will try to “sell” the copyright free art where it can be obtained like this, while the publisher walks away with the ticket incentives. If not enough tickets are sold i.e. only 2 people pay for seeing a music gig at a stadium, or if for some reason the gig cannot go ahead, everyone gets their money back – this is the all-or-nothing crowdfunding mentality. And it must be expected that those who did not contribute to the publisher and see it on YouTube afterwards probably would not have done so anyway… as they would have borrowed it from someone else.
This is just a start. See what happens when you get out of the copyright mentality?
Re:
What makes a culture is the sharing and building on existing works, that is the participation of people in the culture around them. Strong copyright protection prevent these activities, and rewuires that people become consumers oof entertainment, which is made by an industry. This results in the decay of culture.
Re:
Does this include being able to block distribution, or extort money, of a work because it has a short phrase or sentence in it that someone else claims as their copyright, such as this example.
Re:
” respect the freedoms of others, and the right of others”
Apparently the content cartel does not feel the need to respect much of anything other than their own enrichment at the expense of innocent bystanders and hence we are on the brink of guilty until payment is received – no evidence necessary and no day in court allowed.
Re:
Denial – lol
Re:
“Require all computers to be online to operate, and then use a contentid system to authorize or deny a copy operation. This requires that the computer is locked down so that only authorized programs are run.”
What could possibly go wrong … (eye roll)
Re:
“being impossible to eradicate is not reason you turn around and bend over to whoever wants to ream you.”
There are two sides to this coin
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
If I look at my book and DVD collections, then 1 to 2% bought from the publishers would be more like the actual figure for physical media, especially if library loans, and loans from friends are taken into account. Taking into account what I have seen visiting friends and family, those with a lot of books and DVDs are mainly about this ratio. Those that have all new Books and DVDs have on average bought fewer from the publishers than I have. While this is only anecdotal, it is probably about the ratio of new sales to readers, viewers and listeners that the publishing industry has always had. Most of my new purchases occurred after I had read, listened or viewed the work. I doubt that the pirate bay does any worse for the publishers in the western world, and it is getting the works to countries where they are priced out of reach of the general population.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“that’s what a society does”
I assume that you condone the police state totalitarian regime described in the post to which you responded … in that case I suggest that you pack your things and move to where such thinking is more acceptable – possibly N Korea.
Re:
I forgot, a law will be passed making it illegal to bypass the control exerted by the computer, sorry it already exists in the DMCA, and operating systems will be designated as part of DRM.
Re:
woah, woah, wait a minute
i thought you SUPPORTED my rights, i guess not!
we all have a natural right to copy, copyright SUSPENDS OUR RIGHTS
you even say so yourself:
supporting copyright is like supporting forcing women in the middle east to wear burqas and be subjugated, it degrades the rights of the people forced to do it so a few (who don’t have to worry about it, by the way) can be happy with the result
it’s entirely one-sided
Re:
aye
what’s really messed up is i’m beginning to see parallels between this and racism/sexism, both in the way it’s done and also the age/outdated mentality it comes from
women need to respect and defer to men. hey what about men respecting women? nah stop whining learn some respect freetard
black people need to respect and defer to whites. hey what about whites respecting blacks? nah stop whining learn some respect freetard
the public needs to respect and defer to copyright holders. hey what about copyright holders respecting the public? nah stop whining learn some respect freetard
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
You should have pointed out that N. Korea is a beacon of democracy compared to the worse case scenario if the Maximalists have their way. A camera and microphone on every replay device, see previous story.:-)
Re:
um. yes it is
a really dumb stupid game full of grinds, restrictions, hackers, cheaters and trolls with a shitty death penalty, but still a game all the same
Re:
Poor MAFIAA
MAFIAA: Easy money flowed in for as long as it did because the internet wasn’t around.
You were truly foolish to think that scenario would continue forever.
Please move on with your life.
Re:
Not really a complete monopoly like copycrap since I cannot say what you can or cannot do with that money after it is out of my hands.
Re:
Says the guy who changes the rules of the me as it suits him and who’s lobbiests ask “what if the laws were different”.
Re:
This is not an arms race, people won that war long ago you just don’t realize it yet.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
No we are just good citizens trying to make a better world by monitoring everything you do so no criminals can be inside our society.
Really that is your argument?
Re:
Unlike copycrap I cannot tell you what to do with my money that I gave it to you after it is out of my hands so, no I am not giving you my money because I will not hold control over it afterwards, I only give it to you if I can control it and make sure it will be used correctly and who decides what is correct or not is me.
Does that sounds good to you?
Re:
You create a whole class of criminals out of historically not criminal acts and goes ahead to attack those “horrible crimes”.
Copying is not a crime, sharing is not a crime only in the distorted minds of silly people blinded by heir own greed it is something to be fought or reduced LoL
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Unfortunately the government rushing headlong towards a totalitarian regime is the US, and they are using their power to try and force their laws onto the rest of the world via trade treaties, and international bodies.
Re:
I don’t see many people arguing that they deserve to take everything for free, they just want copyright reform and for our politicians to stop accepting bribes. Why is 14 + taxable extensions years too little for the content industries? What, a movie studio cannot recoup on a film after having 14 YEARS exclusively to do so? Not only are studios recouping on new films, their net profit is at record levels. (But even if it falls again at some point, that’s due to a market failure.) The music industry took a nosedive around 2000 but has since been on the rise as they’ve slowly adapted to internet markets.
Even if copyright weren’t in place for older works, these corporations could still profit off it just the same, just as they do with classical music, art from centuries past, etc. The only difference is that they’d have no excuse to throw lawsuits at the public and shut down websites they don’t like without any due process.
Re:
Quote:
What rights of others you are defending exactly?
Their right to do as they please with what they legaly acquire and own? or your right to tell them what they can do or not with what they legally acquired and own even after it is out of your hands?
If you support everyones else rights why would you support artificial monopolies that abridge everyones rights to legally own, modify and distribute something?
I can buy a car paint it the color I want and the manufacturer can’t tell me what color it should be, or charge me for the privilege of changing the color, I can make a cab, thus creating a business with it and the manufacturer have no say on how I use it, I can share that car with anyone I like and the manufacturer can’t call me a criminal, I can put other parts in it and the manufacturer can’t do anything about it, now why on earth would I respect or take seriously copyrights?
The only thing that crap does is limits my own natural rights and you are telling me you are fighting for my rights?
If I buy a copy of a written language, sound, video or image I am met with all kinds of restrictions that are not found anywhere else in the real world and goes against human nature, you act like the guys who beat woman they claim the woman was asking for it, she precipitate all those things upon herself by being what she is, he never stops to think that maybe he should be the one who should have auto control and not beat people, you can see the aggressive idiots that don’t have control because they always abuse those that can’t fight back, you can see it in adolescents when they hit inanimate objects in frustration, you can see it in people who beat their dogs, those people don’t have the self discipline or emotional maturity to see what they are and you apparently is just like them, a child, a selfish brat that can’t see what he is doing and can’t take responsibility how did you managed to go through life like that just proves that we as a people are very forgiving, but that have limits and copytards are pushing the limits already.
Re:
Why yes … we will simply pass a law and everyone will live happily ever after.
Re:
When contentid mutes the sound on a short < 1 Minute video of a baby dancing to a song. This destroys the value of a family memory, posted for the benefit of overseas members of the family.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
You seem to lack an imagination … I’m sure that those who would oppress society if given the opportunity do not suffer from such a malady.
Re:
Really? Suing children and grandmothers wasn’t copyright enforcement?
Your turn passed since several decades ago, since the campaing of “Home Taping is Killing Music”. Now it’s time everyone else took a turn and the best thing you can do is sit back and watch.
Re:
Quote:
Hence the abridgment of ownership for everybody else, that is not SUPPORTING EVERYONES RIGHTS.
Apparently you brand of freedom tastes funny to everyone.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
You forgot to mention by paying PROPERTY tax. How much PROPERTY tax do you pay on your so called ‘property?”
What are my chances of getting whatever was stolen back? Have you lost a song recently. I’ll be SOL with out insurance. So you can pay property tax or you can insure your content. Either way, you will need to put a value on it.
Cut the bullshit.
Re:
Incidentally, and fwiw, the copyright ?small claims court? idea apparently came up in the context of proposed ?orphan works? legislation back around 2006. Quickly, however, the idea was detached from the orphan works problem. The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing on ?Remedies For Small Copyright Claims? in March 2006. In a submission for that hearing, the Copyright Office offered to study the issue.
In October of 2011, the Copyright Office issued a Notice of Inquiry and solicited public comments. A second Notice of Inquiry was issued in August 2012, and then the deadline for responses was extended. Panel discussions took place in November. The Copyright Office has a web page on their proceedings.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
is that really the best you can do ??????
No, I have not last a song, nor have I lost the copyrights to a song.
have you owned the copyright to a song recently ?
it is not the fault, that you feel you will not get you stolen goods back, some to, and you have a far greater chance of getting your stuff back if there are laws to make taking them a crime in the first place, and people willing to uphold those laws.
I am sorry you do not like the system of society you live under, but it is your choice. you know, by the people, for the people … crap…
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Darwinian evolution applies to everyone, and is working now with your present rules and laws, it will continue to work in the future, and will work no matter when you do to the laws and rules.
the best will always be at the top, and masnick will always complain about them. If you have the nads to make it the way things are, why do you think you will be able to make it if things are different ?
face it, you’re not a player in this field, and you will not be a player no matter when the rules are..
so, how come the big music industries are able to become so big if the system is unworkable ? is it because it’s only unworkable for you, and not for most other people.
sure Darwinian evolution is alive and strong, and will apply no matter when the rules are, even if the rules you would like are put in place.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
you called it a police state totalitarian, but you and I both know that is not what you live under, nor is it anything like what you live under.
especially the US, you say FREEDOM is the holy grail, you have rights, and you have responsibilities. Although you tend to forget about those responsibilities.
but if you think the police coming to you place because you were broken into and robbed is a police state you don’t get out much !!!!
rarely if ever does one single person in the US MAKE A LAW, I know it can happen under Presedential veto, but mostly new laws have to pass congress, and all sorts of people have to approve of that law.
That’s how you get your laws, and your rules of society, yes you can bare arms, no you cannot shoot people, yes you can own property, no you cannot steal the property off someone else.
yes, you can drive a car, no you cannot exceed the speed limit, or drive on the pavement.
yes, you can make your own business, if you pay taxes to ensure those rules are abided by.
that is not a policed state, it’s your democratic process, and your democratic right, you can even run to office and contribute to the development of the rules of your society.
or you can troll TD the rest of your life.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
it’s a big IF you talk about, and it might be nice to dream and imagine how things would be if things were different, so I cant complain to you about that, but when you expect your dreams to be the real work things start to look a bit sad (for you).
having an imagination and living in reality are not quite the same thing.
dream on my friend,, dream on.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Unfortunately the government rushing headlong towards a totalitarian regime
you know how silly that sounds ??
they want totalitarian power, so they are going to get others to do it for them !!!..
that is the opposite to totalitarian is it not!!!!
you I assume do understand what a treaty is ? and what the word ‘agreement’ means.
do you happen to have any examples of this ? even 1 ?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Really that is your argument?
NO….. is that really your level of comprehension?
I think I was clear in saying I do not believe crime will ever be completely gone, nor will copyright theft. I also made the point that that is not the issue.
They are not trying to eliminate crime, and they have no expectation of ever doing that. But that does not mean you give up and let crime thrive. They take measures to reduce it, the make laws to deter it and they pay police and courted to enforce it.
You create politicians to make the rules, and you pay then to uphold them.
If there were no crime you would not have to pay for police, but you would still have the law, but no one would break them..
but an argument that “you will never eliminate file sharing therefore you should stop trying” is just plain dumb. Don’t you think so ?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
The copyright maximalists treat copyright as an absolute right deserving of them being granted the tool necessary to enforce their rights.
as does your bill of rights !! and your laws.
you could however replace “copyright maximalists” with your Government, your society, most people, or even “common sense”.
copyright is a right !!! you got it, who would’ve guessed!!.
is it an absolute right, no it is not, there are situations where copyright cannot be enforced, as you should know if you read TD, the one thing masnick has correct, the 4 point test, although you do not get to decide if you meet those conditions it’s decided in a court, like all other issues of law, that need determination by a court.
but it is a right, and it’s clear it’s held of high value by those who own the copyright to valuable material.
I would assume, that would not be you, I would guess you like to have access to the work of others, but are not capable of creating your own works !!.
you value the content, otherwise you would not want to steal it. The fact that you are technically capable of stealing it with little effort is not excuse for actually stealing it.
it’s the same old story you want something of value and are not willing to pay for it, easy way out, steal it.
lots of people want things of value, but those things are not as easy to steal !!!! and some want things of value but will rather go without that to steal it.
I guess you just thing stealing is easier, therefore it is your right to do it. If they only made it harder for you to steal, to the point where it would simply be easier to buy it legit, or go without, then I see that as acceptable.
You own a car ?? does it require a key to drive it ? would you object if someone stole your car ? after all you have an absolute right to that car, you paid for it, you might of even designed and built it yourself!.
so you an absolute right to have your car and have no one steal it, you also have an absolute right to create something of value that is protected under copyright law (not auto theft law) and you would want the absolute right to that property.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Copyright isn’t in the bill of rights, and where the constitution does metion copyrights is an optional power of congress and not a moral right of copyright holders.
The olny mandate is that granted copyrights must have an epiration date.
Re:
I think he meant an *enforceable* law, not one based on a totalitarian fantasy that will never work in the real world.
Re:
The part i quoted, unless you can back that up with facts rather than a distorted version of Mike’s words that assumes that the only reason someone would question copyright is because they want to pirate. You know, the bullshit lie that most of your posts here are based on.
Re:
IOS devices,Xbox, Kindle etc, are not that far away from what I have suggested.
Re:
really what has the cost of creating something to do with what people willing to pay to see or hear or read it?
I don’t see that you are making a point, but are trying to make some point.
the cost of movies has little or nothing to do with the issues of copyright or what is being discussed here.
your $30,000 movie WAS CREATED IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM !!
you yourself have shown that even with copyright and all the legal mumbo jumbo it is still possible to make something of value, and get value from that product.
you have shown that even within the existing system this is possible and it happens a lot, so why change the system you yourself have shown to work…. and well by your accounts..
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
They are just passing laws, or trying too, under the excuse of stopping p[racy, stopping terrorism, and protect the children. DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP, FISA etc. All of which increase the governments, and.or private police, to monitor everybody’s online activities, and take down web pages and web sites on demand.
Re:
Erm, yes they are. While Kindles and XBoxes prefer you to use their inbuilt digital stores to buy products, there’s absolutely nothing to stop you from using content from other sources. IOS devices may be within a walled garden environment, but there’s nothing to stop you jailbreaking them. There’s also nothing to force you to use any of those types of devices if you prefer a more open approach, as there’s open competitors to every one of those devices (your suggestion requires that every device needs to have these restrictions).
Basically, once you try to enforce those restrictions on every device and try to remove more open options, the market will rebel and make open options available. That’s where reality intrudes and attempts to enforce closed ecosystems onto everybody will fail.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
I did not say that a totalitarian state exists, just that the efforts to protect the rights of the major copyright holders are leading in that direction.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Quote:
Depends on what you call crime if you are refering to the BS crime of sharing it will never go away ever, because most sane people don’t see it as a crime and so it doesn’t matter how much enforcement is put into it, which already is showing signs to be unacceptable to everyone except the idiots who believe they can “reduce it or contain”.
The real crime is allow idiots to gain artificial monopolies that they don’t deserve, and give them tools to enforce those monopolies that is the true crime in this day and age, that is legal theft perpetrated by our own governments against its own people.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Not really you always say the same thing, people already rebutted you lame claims a million times and you still comeback saying the same old lame things.
Apparently you have a weak imagination to come up with new things, maybe that is why you support a monopolistic welfare system so you don’t need to work hard.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
So you are cool with somebody else spying on you 24/7 to see if you are not breaking the law then?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
I am sorry you don’t like us criminals either because unfortunately for you we are the majority and I can tell you, either laws will change to make it legal or countries should just build walls around their borders and declare the whole population criminals.
Which one is going to be pal?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
LoL
There is nothing about copycrap on the bill of rights or the American constitution saying anything you said there, but being delusional is part of being a copytard right? The only people by the way that cherish and care about such powers since they directly benefit from it while screwing society.
Everybody should steal copyrighted works, nobody should respect laws that create artificial monopolies that over stayed their welcome.
My car, my home I can protect I don’t need others to do it for me, copyBS on the other hand is indefensible, more so since it depends on others not having the same ideas and not being able to produce something themselves.
Would you respect a law that forbid you from making the medicine you need to live yourself?
I doubt you would respect that crap.
Re:
Markets will rebel?
Have you not noticed that Micro$oft is moving towards a walled garden. Walled gardens allow a company to lock in their customers, which is attractive to them.
Also jail breaking is not always easy, or possible, and requires a DMCA exception for it to be legal for mobile phones.
Re:
Yah right all those cheap-o’s were all done in the current system, that is why they all got greenlite by some dude from the studio and got millions for distribution and ad campaigns right?
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Well why do you complain so much about piracy then, if it is so workable?
You think all the 7 billion pirates in this world care?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Bush is that you?
Still trying to pass that crap of “zero tolerance” I see.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
you still cant get past the “we are criminals, you cant stop us, so you might as well make it legal” argument.
we’ll good luck with that, let me know how it works out for you, but I must say you come across as a very bitter and angry person, have you considered talking to someone about that?
countries do build walls around themselves they are in the form of the laws that country live by.
I am sorry that you feel that the only way to reduce crime is to cancel the law that makes what you do a crime.
How often does that happen?
you have another problem, you have no viable alternative, you say the current system is broken but are unable to present a viable alternative, that is acceptable by the majority of people, not just the few who think they have more rights that others do. (because they can!!!!)..
Re:
Actually, you can get rid of theft. It’s really simple conceptually. Just remove the reason people steal. People steal because there is a vast social and economic inequality. Balance the inequality and the theft goes away.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
it’s in the only real place that matters, it’s in your law!
it does not need a mandate, it already is a part of established US culture and the human culture, and is reflected in most if not all countries laws, and in international law.
I don’t really care, if it is in your bill of right, for the amendment, or your constitution, but it is the way you live you life and the laws you follow and rely upon.
It’s your choice if you want to break those laws or not, but the result is the same, and you should expect the force of the law, should you choose to break them.
Sure, by all means try to have laws changed, and modified, or rescinded all you like, but not liking a law is not an excuse to break it.
and if you think abiding by the laws that govern your society is totalitarian then by all means think that, your opinion is as good as someone else’s and after all I don’t have to agree with your opinion, or confusion, you can have that problem all of your own.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
no and neither do I have to be, just as you are not subject to that stupid, and moronic statement.
are you honestly saying you are under 14/7 surveillance?
I think it’s time to get the tin foil hat on..
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
gee it’s going really, really fast then isn’t it !!!
like copyright has been around for a LOOOOOG time now, the pace of “moving to a totalitarian regime” is very slow.
So slow if fact, that I expect it is not actually happening, apart from the minds of the freetards and tin hat, coolaid drinking crowd.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
a lot of words that says nothing !!! nice try though.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“people already rebutted you lame claims a million times “
and yet you seem incapable of doing it, even after reading those million things..
you’re a freetard, just copy what someone else said, like for example Masnick. He is there so you don’t have to think after all.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“you have no viable alternative”
That’s not true, but it’s also not our responsibility. It’s yours. Just because we say the system is broken, it doesn’t place the onus upon us to solve it. However, there are plenty of alternative models to explore if you care to take a look.
Personally, I think the whole rug should be pulled from under you. Copyright should be eliminated entirely and you should figure out how to do without, because you can. It’s just a crutch.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Article one section 8 of the US constitution:
“Congress shall have the power … to promote the progress of the sciences and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries.”
As Americans, it is also our civil duty to oppose unjust laws. However, we must also be prepared to face the consequences of our actions if they violate that law. You can’t be an American and unquestioningly obey the law. You are either an American who questions authority or neither. It was the principle our revolution against the monarchy in Britain originated from. The best way to oppose an unjust law is civil disobedience. As Americans, it is our job to be vigilant against those that would form unjust laws. We are some of those people that observe and speak our mind about the unjust laws we see being used to infringe our rights.
You really have no understanding of politics, revolution, and freedom, do you? You care only for money and property.
Re:
My goodness, you are as dense as a singularity.
The point, that you so completely missed, was that movies don’t need ballooning budgets to create quality that Hollywood frequently claims it does and that copyright is required to support that. It points out the claim that copyright is necessary to make a business model work is complete fallacy.
Why change the system? Because even though you can still make things work within the system, it still imposes shackles on people that would hinder creativity and expression, because expressions are not discreet units of property. They overlap and treating them as discreet units only diminishes our cultural well.
Re:
A walled garden may be attractive to corporate interests, but it is hardly attractive to potential customers. What you describe would require a forced subscription model, this is not inline with what most members of advanced societies prefer. And … here’s the icing on the cake – all this totalitarian crapfest just to enforce copyright upon an unwilling populace. Your ideas are stupid.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
“so, how come the big music industries are able to become so big if the system is unworkable ?”
The system is made specifically for them you blithering idiot! They crafted it, handed it to congress, and said, “Here, make this a law or forget your funding next election.”
Everything else you said is pure baseless bullshit.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
So far you have failed to respond to a substantive example of what most people would consider as copyright enforcement damaging society, and a list of copyright driven legislation and treaties which most people consider to be a big step towards a totalitarian situation.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Huh – you were wrong, go figure.
Real mature reply … “I don’t really care … “
Seems you have no interest in what others have to say.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
What are you trying to say? That because big businesses are always going to be big, therefore nothing should change? And because copyright works for big companies, that is evidence that there is nothing better than copyright?
I do not happen to think that abolishing copyright will get rid of big, corporate publishers… or even the Justin Biebers of this world. I know Capitalism a lot better than most people: it is simply the trading of goods and services with one another. Indeed, I think that greediness is a symptom of human genetics, not Capitalism. If people were not greedy and gave away money to those who needed it while asking for nothing in return, Capitalism would turn out to be a great system in many people’s eyes, and quite rightly. But because the genes of greed do exist, corporations will too. In no way did I suggest that abolishing copyright would solve this problem.
The point I am trying to make is that if copyright stopped affecting the free market, artists would be able to find methods to get incentives by themselves and companies likewise, because business models would be selected based on whatever ones were the most successful. That is what it means for the models to naturally evolve, and is a Libertarian impulse (well, some of the time it is, but not as often as it should be). Copyright makes the assumption that the free market cannot evolve to something that solves the free rider problem on its own, but as I have just said there is a system of ticket admission that disproves this assertion.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Quote:
Fine since it is not me trying to chance laws to increase surveillance and censorship and despite the best efforts of people like you I can still pirate anything, I just chose not too, like I chose not to buy anything from people like you.
What you can’t or won’t understand is that you already lost this fight, it is over, you can’t increase enforcement because the backlash will be severe and you are unable to adapt so you are going to falter in the market one of this days.
Good luck trying to convince everyone to give you more powers to screw them over, just let me know how that goes.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
BTW about the viable alternative well, we showed to you a hundred times already you just chose to ignore it.
It is called open source, open hardware, open arts, but you are to dumb to make something out of it aren’t you?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Dude it wasn’t me in congress trying to pass SOPA or trying to increase powers to enforce something that will never be enforceable?
Is not me trying to force others business to “help out” because I can’t defend my own property, is not me complaining I don’t have the tools to find pirates.
That is you, is also you calling everybody a criminal and saying they deserve to be punished and willing to go to any lengths to get it done, unfortunately for you muppets there was this wall you hit and can’t pass so you keep bitching and moaning how you need more power, more legal tools which involves ripping apart checks and balances that were put in place to safeguard the public and you wonder why people don’t like your brand of freedom.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
See there, again you fallback to your tiresome “I am right you are wrong”, you ignore what everybody says and keep the repeating the same thing over and over and over.
It won’t work, after 20 years hearing this BS I am immune to it and so are a lot of others.
The real criminals here are you people.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Quote:
Sure it is, the first step to change laws from the bottom up is to show to the people on the top that the people on the bottom has had it already.
Re:
If the cost of movies has little or nothing to do with it, could you ask out_of_the_asscrack to stop bringing up his bloody $100 million movie, darryl? Or is that too much for your lack of cognitive capability, you turd-twat?
Re:
“Have you not noticed that Micro$oft is moving towards a walled garden.”
Yes I have. I’ve also noticed that their former de facto monopoly position has crumbled, and that people are free to install whatever operating system they wish – be that a non-walled garden MS product or a free (as in freedom) alternative – on the exact same hardware. They can do whatever they want, but people are free to choose something else if they find their approach unacceptable – the exact opposite of what you seem to be striving for.
“Also jail breaking is not always easy, or possible, and requires a DMCA exception for it to be legal for mobile phones.”
Jail breaking is fairly easy if you have the knowhow and access to a crack, and most people who lack the technical knowledge will just as a friend (or pay somebody) to do it for them. If a person truly objects to needing to do that, they’re free to buy an alternative handset that doesn’t require them to do anything of the sort – again, the exact opposite of what you want. As for legality, well it’s also illegal to do a great number of things with software ranging from breaking DVD encryption to outright piracy. Guess what? People do it anyway…
In other words, the market rebels when authoritarian assholes try to exact complete control over what people do with what they buy. Deal with it, it’s reality.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“They take measures to reduce it, the make laws to deter it and they pay police and courted to enforce it.”
No. They like criminals. They make laws to make criminals.
Prohibition: No criminals one day, pass a law, many many criminals. We need money to fight crime!
Drug war: Yes, you like criminals.
Re:
Secure Boot, can be disabled on x86 machines, and Micro$oft has set up a system where a boot loader can be signed by a Micro$oft key. However Micro$oft could alter their license terms to disable bot these options for x86 if windows is pre-installed.
Jail breaking is not a realistic option for most users.
Re:
“However Micro$oft could alter their license terms to disable bot these options for x86 if windows is pre-installed.”
So do they own the software or the hardware? What have I a license to?
Seems that if they want to operate that way, they should just give me a computer.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
I know capitalism far better than you do and your definition of capitalism is very incomplete. Capitalism is a system where private owners control the means to production and they exchange wages to workers for their labor in order to manufacture goods. Afterward, the workers go out to the market and use their wages to purchase those goods. The capitalist collects the revenue, keeping the excess value (or paying the workers less than their labor is worth, depending on your perspective) as profit.
This economic system existed by another name in Europe. Serfs worked for lords that owned the land. They kept a bit of their crops to live on and the majority went to their lords for their own profit. It was called Feudalism. The main difference between the two systems were that the serfs were not able to rise above their station, by reason of birth. They were destined to live indentured to the lords who owned the land. Feudalism was abandoned because it was basically slavery and people rebelled against it.
Capitalism is an economic system designed to turn the people at the bottom into chattel while letting us think we have freedom and a chance to be rich like the capitalists. We have to work for our right to food, board, and so on because a few people at the top control the industries that produce the food, the housing, and so on. The system has greed built into at its core. It forces people to chase their tail trying to scrape together the means to live by laboring to make a minority of capitalists rich and comfortable. People waste their lives doing the work of machines for the means of mere sustenance. All that labor gets funneled up to the rich and we get less in return every day.
We all know this to be true in the back of our minds, but we refuse to admit it because it’s such a terrible thing to realize and we just want to go back to pretending we are free. We want to think that everything is okay. But it’s not. We live in one big farm where the livestock drives themselves to the fields and plows the land. We spend the majority of our lives making someone else comfortable while we struggle to live. We’re all just resources to use and dispose of. That’s what capitalism really is.
You don’t believe me? Think about what you’d really like to spend you life doing. Think hard on that. What is it that you would consider fulfilling? Now, can you do that without money? No? People aren’t free to truly explore what they can contribute because they are constrained to the pursuit of self preservation. Unless your name is Rothschild, Warburg, Schiff, Strong, Chase, Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller, or worth more than 1 million, you’re likely not a free man.
Re:
It is a license to run the software on permitted hardware.
While not quite there yet, secure boot is a big step towards locking the personal computer to being a windows device, with the other alternative being the equally locked down mac.
Re:
You sound as though you are totally fine with this. Rest assured the majority of computer users find such behavior reprehensible and will find alternatives to the MicroAppleSoft prison you describe.
It really is sickening that anyone finds such attempts to be acceptable.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“having an imagination and living in reality are not quite the same thing. – dream on my friend,, dream on.”
You are not my friend and it is you who are in a dreamland far removed from reality, but you dont care
Re:
“It is a license to run the software on permitted hardware.”
Then they have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my hardware.
I rarely use M$ and idon’t use the other alternative either.
I am using neither right this second. I do not feel locked down.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“you called it a police state totalitarian, but you and I both know that is not what you live under, nor is it anything like what you live under.”
But it is what you suggest is needed in order to put an end to a civil infraction. Yes – a civil infraction. Your claim that “that’s what a society does” is not only incorrect but it also does not address the concerns of many who do not trust those who wish to hold an ax over their heads. Modern society does not act this way and you are either attempting to mislead or simply that ignorant. IDK
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“you value the content, otherwise you would not want to steal it.”
Contrary to your proclamation, I don’t either value it nor do I steal it – however, you want to control my computer just in case … and then you want the ability to send me letters accusing me of things I have not done, and demanding payment in order to avoid persecution via some strange mixture of court and arbitration which amounts to no right s for the defendant. So, you shouldn’t be surprised about all the negativity being hurled you way.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“have you owned the copyright to a song recently ?”
What does this have to do with Fred breaking into my garage?
You never mentioned anything about paying property tax or insurance. Sucks to have to play by the same rules, doesn’t it?
Re:
Not while GNU lives and processes.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Oh, do not get me wrong. I am on the Left economically, and you are quite right that there is such a thing as being too rich. You are also right in saying that whoever has the unfortunate burden of being the latest born will end up worse off, as they could not have possibly had a fair shot at getting a fair share of the entire property in the world.
I often give this thought experiment to those who are too economically Right-wing for my liking. Imagine that another planet is discovered that is habitable for humans. However, for the time being we can only send something like 2,000 people to that planet. So we do so, and they travel to that planet by space shuttle. Now the question is, how would you decide for the 2,000 people on the planet who gets what properties lying there? Those on the Right will only ever be able to say something like “finders keepers”. So it really would be down to whoever can run fastest, as they would be able to claim property before anyone else. This is not taking into account anyone else wanting to come from Earth to live there. This is obviously morally false, and supports the need for at least some degree of redistribution.
But in your first paragraph you are still essentially talking about the trading of goods and services: labour for wages, wages for goods (and the managing of those goods, everyone tends to forget), etc. So it’s only natural that those who were lucky enough to have both the right property to begin with and the knowledge to discover the business models that give them maximum profit are the ones who will be the most powerful – the wealth would have to naturally accumulate towards those of a managerial position. We ultimately need people to call the shots and make decisions, so we reward those who can do so most effectively. It is here that redistribution can be tricky, as there is a danger of unjustly messing with these default rights. You must remember that those who are rich often still have to work for it by actually managing their businesses, which is in itself also a means of production in the form of a service – the exceptions would be those who have inherited so much wealth that they never have to work a day in their lives, and end up doing just that: not working. Maybe it is this group of people who deserve to be responsible for most of the redistribution. Just as everyone is entitled to a fair share of property, it could also be fair to say that there is a moral duty for everyone to contribute their fair share to society. Sitting on tons of money and not using it not only makes all other money a little more worthless, but slows the flow of trading entirely.
Like I said, it is perfectly possible for those who are too rich to give away their earnings for absolutely nothing in return, and it would still fall under the heading of Capitalism. It is the fact that they are NOT capable of doing this that a degree of redistribution is called for to help the poor. Humanity is not perfect and never will be, especially when you realise that evolution is not a ladder and we will always be afraid to die.
There are unfair inequalities that do not make the “free market” as free as Right-wingers think it is: the two big ones being intellectual imbalances (education and market research data being withheld from smaller businesses) and the accident of birth which I have mentioned already. And I suppose I could also mention the dangers of global warming. I find Socialism an admirable position as it was one of the greatest attempts to shift the balance of power, as well as that whole international solidarity thing that cannot be understated.
But having said all of this, in order to get an accurate reflection of what can best suit the public, you must be willing to step back where it is called for and see how the greedy race for profit can actually motivate humans to innovate for humanity’s gain. We must not be so quick to dismiss the potentials of Capitalism and its innovation even as Leftists.
It is a great irony that the classification of some innovation as another form of capitalistic “property” (confusing goods with services) has actually hampered the progress of markets. Anybody who truly takes Libertarian values to heart must see this contradiction.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
if you do not steal music, or value it, then you would not have that material on your computers.
show me all the letters you have received accusing you of the things you have not done..
let me guess, you have NEVER received one, and you probably NEVER will..
so your point is ? oh, that’s right, you don’t have one.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
My car, my home I can protect I don’t need others to do it for me
and the people who own the copyright to music and movies and suck can protect them too !!! they don’t need others to do it for them.
and just as you can prosecute people who try to break your protection, so can someone who owns the copyright to material..
so according to you it is ok for the property owners to protect their own stuff and use the law to help them.
JUST LIKE YOU!.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
what about your laws ? you do have some laws in America I believe.
and you sure do need someone to help you protect your home and car, just because you don’t see them all the time does not mean they are not there. Even you can understand that.
all you can and will ever do it uphold the law by your own mean. Did you not the law there?
that’s right within the limit of the law you are allowed to protect your home and your car. But it’s not you doing the protection it’s you using the power of the laws that allow you to do that.
without the laws, you could still TRY to protect your property, but you would fail because you do not have the law to fall back on.
People do not steal your car because they think you are protecting it, they don’t steal your car because there are laws against car theft.
It’s because you have the law on your side, and because those laws exist that allowed you to exist they way you do.
and you cannot understand that ????? REALLY !!!!!!!!!
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“Sure it is, the first step to change laws from the bottom up is to show to the people on the top that the people on the bottom has had it already.”
how’s that working out for you so far ??? LOL
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“it is also our civil duty to oppose unjust laws.”
it is also you duty to abbey the laws that are in place, you can oppose unjust laws, but you still are REQUIRED BY LAW to obey them.
again, you really have to learn that laws are not a thing you get to pick and choose from. If you don’t like a law you can oppose it and you can protest, lobby and argue against that law.
but until that law is changed you HAVE to obey it.
again, I am sure even you can understand that simple fact of life.
I don’t care if you like a law or not, neither does the people to uphold the law, you don’t even have to know the law, as ignorance of the law is no defence. So it having no knowledge of the law is no defence then knowing the law and not obeying it is also not defendable.
I am sure in time even you will come to understand this basic fact of life.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“You never mentioned anything about paying property tax or insurance”
and what has property tax or insurance got to do with you stealing material that you do not own the copyright’s for that allow you to steal it?
you probably pay property tax to ensure you have roads, water, electricity and all the things you need to exist in your society.
you probably have insurance in case you hit a rolls Royce with your car and it’s cost $200,000 to fix, or you hit a person and there are large medical expenses.
that’s right insurance is there to protect others not yourself, and again what has this got to do with laws and copyright ?
oh is it that you paid for something, so therefore everything else you can steal for free ???
when you got your car did you have to pay for it ?? or did you just have to pay property taxes and insurance and they gave you the car for free..
that’s just stupid right, are you ????
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
I know quite a bit about open source, and the others, ok explain why they are not the big players yet, and why after 25 years open source is still really not doing very well at all.
these things exist it is true, do they make a real difference ? Sure, they make some difference. But clearly it is not the answer that everyone is looking for or actually WANTS..
lets look at open source, it’s really not a successful model, sure it exists and it have for a wile. but in truth it does not really provide any of the products or services that people seem to actually want, and that they are willing to pay for.
open source also would NOT exist if it had not been for the commercial products it copied off to start.
RMS wanted to use a printer, with copyrighted (protected) method of making it work, he copied what they did and wrote his own software.
without the commercial printer in the first place RMS would not have been able to copy it, it would not have been created.
OPEN source makes things by copying others work that is successful and using that copy.
if the commercial product did not exist in the first place there is nothing for the OPEN crowd to copy.
Do you honestly think you would have Linux if it had not been UNIX to copy off?
that’s just the fact of life, sure there are open communities, but they have no proved to be a viable replacement to commercial business models.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
it’s funny you say they cant increase enforcement, yet TD is full most of the time with example after example after example of them doing just that! How do you explain that?
Yes, we established early on it is easy to download anything, and I agree being easy does not make it legal, well done on that one.
I don’t think the fight is lost or won, I said clearly that it is not a winnable fight, you will never eradicate theft, it’s just not a “won or lose” thing.
You are also not going to be able to stop murder, you can reduce it, you can enforce it and you can deter it.
You are not going to stop copyright theft, you can reduce it, you can enforce it and you can deter it.
again, you say you cant increase enforcement, but you know that is not true, enforcement will increase, does increase and it is clear from reading Masnick talk that it will continue to increase, and continue to be enforced.
so that does not leave much less of your argument that is actually true right.
In fact, you have not actually presented an argument that is worth trying to counter. but it is clear what you have said is not true, it might be your opinion, but it is not the opinion of TD or Masnick or most other people.
just because YOU cannot see a way to do something does not mean that way does not exist, and is used already in practice. It just means you don’t seem to know much.
If you want to compete in these discussions, I would hope you could bring a bit more to the table. So far, the quality of the responses against my argument is weak and inaccurate.
you can’t increase enforcement because the backlash will be severe
would you like to elaborate on that, with some examples or proofs ?
enforcement is already in place, as are the laws, it’s not an issue of ‘increasing’ enforcement. It’s already here, and enough.
the “enforcement” is already here and a working model now, within the laws (that already exist), enforcement takes place.. where is this big backlash you are talking about ?
(crying on Techdirt does not count as a ‘backlash’)..
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Open source is not doing well?
First off, the big selling phones are android, which are built upon the open source linux kernal and then there are the android-original parts which can be used to build an entirley open source system.
A large number of people use open source browsers like firefox, many websevers and super computors use linux.
Plus, in many cases open source softtware far surpassed the original products it cloned to the point of not being clones anymore or at least became more reliable tha6t the closed ones. And there are plenty of OSS which were not clones of anything in the first place.
Open source is, quite simply TRIVING
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
And furthermore, taking control away from the person who actually bought the computer is immoral
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“then you would not have that material on your computers”
And there would be no need for you to force your snotty nose where it does not belong.
“and you probably NEVER will”
Probably is not reassuring enough when I read about zealots like yourself being put in charge of determining how best to bleed the populace. Oh – and fyi, there have already been multiple instances of innocent parties being accused, harassed and made to suffer for no reason other than the shoddy investigation techniques employed.
“so your point is ? oh, that’s right, you don’t have one”
It is sad that you are so wound up in your own self righteousness that you are unable to recognize valid arguments against what you propose.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
You miss my meaning. The act of “owning” is what creates inequality; it gives me the power to exclude you from having something. If I own the only means to feed, heal, educate, and shelter you, I own all of your labor. Therefore, I own you. If you refuse to submit to me, you starve despite there being more than enough to feed the both of us. That is the problem with the capitalist and, by extension, all property based systems. The entire concept of property is a tool to leverage control over others and property laws that are applied to all are done so to placate the masses into believing they are protected.
There is no way our culture could successfully colonize another world with capitalist ideals. Our economic and political structure is far too volatile for that. It requires too much collaboration. The people that go would have to completely abandon the idea of property and authority. Need, technology, and resources would be the law of the land. What do you need to survive? What can you do to achieve that? What do you have that will help? Nature is a dictatorship and you can either follow its rules or perish. Nature cares little for our ideas of money and property. You can’t buy your way out of extinction.
If I’m not being blunt enough, capitalism, through the use of property law, is literally slavery. That’s not allegory, not metaphor. It is actual slavery. People are chained to their jobs to toil for the means to live while the richest people out there live the cozy life from the fruits of that labor. We have no other choice, the whole prison was built around us. We were born into it and it has been integrated into our lives so completely that we don’t even see it. We are cattle to drag the plow.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“I know quite a bit about open source, and the others, ok explain why they are not the big players yet, and why after 25 years open source is still really not doing very well at all.”
You know a lot do you … tell us what web server software runs the vast majority of web servers.
Not a big player – really?
What measurement technique(s) do you use and what parameters do you look at in your determination of success? Please be specific, provide examples for extra credit.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“and what has property tax or insurance got to do with you stealing material that you do not own the copyright’s for that allow you to steal it?”
You need to re-read your post that I first responded to. Then you should be able to figure it out.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“you probably pay property tax to ensure you have roads,”
Gas tax, $0.63 federal tax alone per $
“water,”
I live in Canada, yet
“electricity and all the things you need to exist in your society.”
I get a monthly bill from the local utilities company. This “bill” includes surcharges for “debt reduction,” as well as my monthly fees for water and sewage.
How much property tax are you paying on your “intellectual PROPERTY” so we can have police enforce THE LAW for YOU?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“that’s just stupid right, are you ????”
Of course I am. Do you know all? Or even a fraction thereof?
I’ve got a second, tell me everything you know.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
wow, that is just straight up tin foil hat stuff, do you honestly believe that there is some big dark entity in the sky controlling your computer to make sure you are not download copyrighted material ??
do you honestly believe that ??????
someone controls your computer “just in case”, gee I am really happy I am not you.. Paranoid is what that is called.
Re:
all system will impose the same restrictions, and you appear unwilling or unable to offer any viable alternative.
you have confirmed however that within the present system it is possible to survive and even thrive. Considering these facts it is clear the existing system does work, and it does not cause undue restrictions on any party willing and able to work within the present system.
what do they say, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.
and what it cost one company to create their product within the system as opposed to what it cost another company to create A DIFFERNT product has no bearing on the issues being debated.
it is clear you can make movies for $30,000 but you are not going to create a matrix, or top gun with that kind of money.
This means there is a market for all players, and that market is thriving. So I have to ask you again, what is it you have a problem with again ????
Re:
Hello, what movie did I bring up again ? oh that’s right, it was just your brain going crazy!
I thought I said you can make movies for a range of costs, and that the present system allows, even promotes people making low budget movies and making them successful, within the same industry you can have big budget movies as well, as well as middle level movies. All you are managing to do is confirm to us that the present business model works well for all market segments and encompasses both big industries and small and even micro players.
way to make my argument for me guys, I own you some thanks..
Re:
I don’t know why you’re blathering on about Microsoft all of a sudden, but let’s just say that if that system becomes widespread, so will the hacks. It doesn’t matter one jot whether the average user can jailbreak or even cares about it – complete control over what a person does with their computer after they have bought it is impossible, and the greater restrictions people like you try to apply, the harder the resistance to it will be. ESPECIALLY when the people resisting this bullshit are only trying to do it in order to operate their legally purchased computer with their legally obtained software and content. Got it?
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
“Even discussing the possibility that copyright is wrong is a good idea, since there is still a big misconception that it is the only way to solve the free-rider problem for artists”
it’s not about “solving the problem” just like you will never solve the problem of murder, they don’t expect to eliminate it, that would be a stupid expectation, and would lead to certain failure. Just as there is no expectation to eliminate murder, does not mean you just give up and let people do what they like.
No, societies do not work like that, they try to control murders, theft and anti-social behaviour, there is no expectation of ridding the world of these things, or in “winning the war” against it.
Societies know people within that community will do things that are not acceptable, the community/society makes rules and laws to guide it’s people, and do what they can to ensure those rules are generally followed.
Once again, your main problem is your inability to show facts that indicate that the present system is broken!
you’ve given lots of examples about how well it works, and how it generally achieves it’s clearly stated goals, but you have failed to show (using real world examples) of how the system is breaking down and does not work.
So it’s a bit hard for you to convince people that we do need new business models, or a new system for all business models to work under, when you cant show how the present system has failed, and you keep providing example after example of how individuals and companies big and small have managed to survive and prosper under the existing system.
That’s a major problem for you people, it’s clear the rules as they are now work, and failing in providing good reasons why an alternative is required gives you little or nothing left but to whine and complain. In the mean time, there are people and companies large and small doing very, very well under the existing legal framework. They have been doing well for hundreds of years with the existing system.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
I am a free person, I own my own business I pay taxes, I pay for the things I purchase with money I have earned.
Who am I a slave too? who is my slave master?
I live a cosy life from the fruits of my labour, If I employ someone, they have a choice to work for me or not work for me, if they work for me they live a cosy life from the fruits of their labour.
I make money for employing them, and they make money from being employed, I cannot force someone to work for me. I also cannot make someone pay me for work I have not done.
It is clear you don’t like the capitalist system, yet you fail to provide a viable alternative. The system we presently live under is a natural evolution of human behaviour.
if you don’t think the present system is working, then be willing to provide possible viable alternatives, real ones that could actually work within a society. Not just a dream one that you feel might work if given a go.
otherwise you are doing little more that whinging about how the world is, just grandpa Simpson, but it’s just a cry for attention.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
“There is no way our culture could successfully colonize another world with capitalist ideals.”
and you know that why ??????
I know at least ONE world that capitalist ideals evolved naturally and is a successful and viable politic.
and you really need to consider that word slavery for a second, using it in this context makes you out to be a bit of an idiot. Or a sad person who just does not understand things.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
what is stopping you doing what thousands or millions of other people do all the time, and start their own business, make money, employ people and prosper?
why is it all these millions of people can do what you say they cannot do, and you cannot ?
I have started my own business, employed people and those people have gone off and started their own business and have competed with me. That is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned. It’s how the system works, you don’t need to be born rich, and you don’t even have to be rich to start your own enterprise and become rich, employ people who are happy to be employed, make money FOR THEM, as well as yourself, help them buy homes, cars and things they want by employing them and paying them a fair wage.
If I can do it, (several times) and others can do it all the time, why is it you cannot?
the only way you could not do that is if you lack the skills and abilities that other people are willing (and want to) pay for.
But you are free to do it, you simple choose not too which mean the problem lies with you, not society or the current economical system you live under.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“I know quite a bit about open source, and the others, ok explain why they are not the big players yet, and why after 25 years open source is still really not doing very well at all.”
Amazing. You claim knowledge, then prove that you know nothing in the same sentence. About the only way this would have any truth to it is if you assumed that “open source” means Linux, and even then only on desktops rather than at the server level. In almost every other field – including consumer level electronics – open source is doing very well, and often leads against the restricted corporate products you love.
The irony of you trying to make this assertion on a web site running the leading web server software (Apache, which is open source) on a Linux server (source: http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.techdirt.com) is particularly rich.
“RMS wanted to use a printer, with copyrighted (protected) method of making it work, he copied what they did and wrote his own software.”
Nice distortion to back up the outright lie in your previous sentence (far too many fallacies to list here). The story actually goes (IIRC, there’s a numerous different versions and I’m recalling this from memory) that he and his colleagues were very used to sharing source code, habitually editing, debugging and improving code as they used the devices – as people concerned with advancement of technology rather than profit are wont to do. One day, he found that he was unable to do so, as the people supplying the code had decided that they no longer wished to share it. This required the writing of new code in order to achieve what he needed to do with the printer (IIRC again, he needed to edit the code to warn if the laser printer was getting jammed, as early models tended to).
Saying he only wanted to copy something is a gross distortion and a massive misunderstanding of both what he wanted to do and his reasons for doing so.
“Do you honestly think you would have Linux if it had not been UNIX to copy off?”
Like MS copied DOS, and both MS and Apple copied the Xerox PARC developments in GUI interfaces? Like MS copied the concept of its office packages almost wholesale from Lotus and others, or copied the browser? Are you also going to accuse Apple of copying because OSX is based on FreeBSD – another UNIX variant?
Probably not. Intellectual honesty is not your thing, nor is internal consistency within your arguments.
Re:
“You sound as though you are totally fine with this
By the way I am running Debian.
What I am pointing put is that for the majority of the population secure boot is an effective lock on the operating system that comes with the machine. Also micro$oft are not above using pricing to encourage the companies that put machines together to only pre-install Windows. Arm tablets come with secure boot locked.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“Like MS copied DOS,”
Micro$oft bought QDOS, and called it MSDOS. QDOS waa a Quick and Dirty Operating System intended to allow easy porting of CPM software to the 8086, where they could be used to right a real operating system.
Re:
Maybe it is time to invest in OpenRisc 🙂
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Quote:
Or more likely your unwillingness to accept that copycrap is the wrong here not the other way around.
Like you said there and put it so eloquently, “people” make rules the majority of people not the minority, most people don’t regard sharing anything as a crime only you people and you have the balls to tell everyone that they should respect your views while you purposefully, methodically consistently ignore theirs?
Copycrap is not imaginary property that can be enforced you don’t got public support, you don’t have the man power or financial reports to do it and I doubt very much that any punk defender of copyright will be able to pass all the laws needed to get close to effective enforcement that would mean you having to monitor every device, everywhere, all the time and that is just not going to happen people are not that stupid they know they must have some little degree of privacy, they know they have to hide because the legal system is not a warm welcoming entity that will do the right thing 100% of the time.
People made their own rules that some idiots chose to reject and pass laws making it illegal now those same people complain that a large number of people openly defy those laws, isn’t that sad?
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
By the way if it is doing so well why do you people complain so much then?
Isn’t everything peachy?
What is with the “we all gonna die” if we don’t do something against pirates?
Re:
Are you sure?
Because I am seeing a lot of advances in tech that allows people to do Matrix style things already on the cheap.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Open source is in space!
Quote:
TechEdSat
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Well who cares?
Nobody I know cares about copyright law, so really who cares?
Lets ask the 7 billion people how they feel about it and what their traditions tells us all about what is legal or not and you see that a minority that distorted the laws to their own benefit is not going to get away with it appealing to the fallacy of authority.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
It is working as always has.
I copy what I want, I share what I want and you can’t do anything LoL
I managed to pass more than a decade and counting without buying a new album, I also managed to not watch TV for the last 2 years(thanks Joe for pushing me), I have a library of thousands of movies and music, some legal some not.
But the most important part I changed, although I could get anything, I just chose not to anymore, instead I waste my time learning to do things instead of watching others do.
This is why I don’t care that much about you or your business, you are irrelevant to me in any useful way, but you are a threat to my freedoms and my ability to expand.
Re:
“micro$oft are not above using pricing to encourage the companies that put machines together to only pre-install Windows”
Perhaps the Justice Dept would find such practices of interest.
“Arm tablets come with secure boot locked”
Yes, another reason to not buy one.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Fine you want to be willfully dumb so be it.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
If the current system works so well, why are you complaining about pirates?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“open source also would NOT exist if it had not been for the commercial products it copied off to start.”
This is simply not true. Please, do some research before making such silly and outrageous statements as you clearly are not well versed in the history of open source.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
No need for Techdirt to cry, pirates everywhere the 7 billion of them show it to you every day and there is nothing you can do about it.
Re:
I am not supporting this lock-down, just pointing out that the mechanisms are being put in place. Remember all those people who suddenly couldn?t run Linux on their PS3s after an upgrade?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Well the same can be said about creating something and wanting to steal it from everybody else thus the act of imagination justify stealing it from everybody else and not letting then have their own creative moments for themselves?
If I have a car that car is limited by the laws of nature, it is of finite quantity and occupy a finite space in this world, I can enforce my ownership rights only in that finite space and time, that doesn’t happen with copycrap does it, it is only limited by the imagination and greed of the stupid people who believe in it.
To protect my car or home I can keep an eye on those things 24/7 if I needed I don’t need the help of others or the permission to keep an eye on my own property that is why you never will be able to enforce copycrap because to do so you must invade the homes and property of others so you can look to see if your imaginary property is being violated in some arbitrary way, rules that by the way were not born inside social norms but in little backroom doors.
Just tell me how it goes you trying to protect an imaginary concept that is everywhere and needs tremendous amounts of resources to exist.
I can have a car and so do others, I can build a car and so do others, I cannot create a car and tell everybody else that they need to pay me for it, it is just not going to happen and so it will too in the arts.
People will bring the copytards in line with society norms in one way or another.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“do you honestly believe that there is some big dark entity in the sky controlling your computer to make sure you are not download copyrighted material ?? “
Your love of embellishment is amusing but it really does get old. As you probably know but will not admit, control freaks from several factions have been rambling on about this topic for well over a decade, but it doesn’t really exist does it? From TPM to UEFI locked down ARM, none of it is for the benefit of the consumer. It is not some entity in the sky as you so eloquently describe, it is hidden within the innards of the computers available for purchase with the unsuspecting public unaware it is there to gain control and monitor what they do.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
When people have responded to you with specific issues about copyright you fail to respond, you obviously read the comments, but to make it easy for you to respond to some of the point here is a list of links. They are all part of this discussion.
Where copyright damages society and culture.
Copyright on short quotes
Videos of children dancing to music The Article I should have referenced
What makes Culture
Risks of totalitarianism
proposed and actual laws and treaties
Re:
Imagine a future : anyone can download anything for there own use free. Anyone that sells content or includes someone else’s content in an item they are going to sell must abide by copyright laws and pay content creators a fair share of any profits made.
OK now that I have written something that even a few pirates will disagree with lets see how this would work,remembering how big business managed to make money from radio and recordable media where they outright screamed at the court that they would kill music , just as the vhs would kill movie theatres.
Big business has a very good knack for making business plans that make money form things most of us would think was impossible, but they always do manage to create environments where they make money, lots of money.
So if we did the above and told big business you can have access to all content everywhere free of charge, but if you sell it you have to pay content creators.
Firstly they will look at locking down the content but if the laws are strong enough they wont be able to, then they will scream that they cant make any money when something is supplied for free, then a few innovators will realise that if they create an environment where content is sold but the content is a secondary part of the business we start to get an idea of some really good business plans coming out of the woodwork.
Ok lets say i had so much money i could do whatever i wanted.
1. create a site that allows people to download the best quality movies at the fastest speed there connection can handle.
2 provide a live forum for anyone watching the movie , a chat room is available to discuss with others what is going on in the movie live, what they think about specific parts of the movie and even pointing out mistakes, this could even be an automated system that just gives details live as you are watching the movie.
Provide a background on each character in the movie, maybe adding details that are not in the movie, and add a bibliography of a characters previous movies with ratings etc.
Let anyone use the system but charge a monthly or yearly fee for the benefits.
I mention a few but there are many many more things that could be added that create a movie fanatics wet dream.
Now the movie industry would scream all the way to the highest court , threaten to not make movies and threaten to cut jobs. Well allow them to do that, there are many new artists and directors that could then get a chance to get there movies in the limelight for a while.And there have been many a year where there have been no blockbuster hits that have really been all that good.
But they have theaters and the experience of taking someone out to see a movie on a date , if people start using there own equipment then improve the experience, they will have to if they want to encourage people to still go to the theater.
And talking about the theater, this is one area we need to see change, It is one area where innovation has been lacking. yes 3d movies helped, but they are not enough on there own. Create a futuristic seat that is actually comfortable and possibly has bult in speakers, and heaters and coolers for drinks. Create an enviroment where people feel they are paying for somethign more than just sitting down ina chair with hundreds of others to watch a movie. Let people take a copy of the movie home for a small fee on a personalised disc they can order from there chair via a tablet type interface, have a semi wrap around head concealing visor type effort.
This could all have been done many years ago , but the money they are making from movies is so much they dont want to change anything, why invest if you can have all seats full on a given night over a weekend.
Provide the entertainment factor and people will come, oh and of you dont want to go over the top, fine just make some small changes at least, walk into a theatre today and one from 30 years ago and you will not be able to see much difference, even the quality of the screen is almost identical.
There is the possibility to hack into a very large revenue stream, but they will not do it until they are put in a position where they have to take money from the billions in profit and invest it in theatres.
So there are many innovative business plans , some crazy some that will generate more income than ever, let the movie creators make money from the tried and tested format the theatres and let them have a reasonable but not ridiculous cut of the profits from others innovating.
Once this is done and copyright is changed many plans will appear as if by magic, but it takes putting the industry at risk to force them to innovate, history tells us that very clearly.
The problem at the moment is that the monopolists have so much power they do not need to innovate, they just ignore technology and sue anyone who dares to use it.
That is not a business model, that is a plan to destroy yourself and then blame others.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
Uh… I got a question: Where does it say that I am “by law” to be force to follow the laws? Where is this law that says so? Which law are you talking about?
From what I’m reading, this is absolute bull-crap! I don’t remember reading or seeing such a law in existence! There isn’t a law that I know that tells us to follow all laws. If such a law exists, then I’m sure that law doesn’t work in a country like the United States.
Oh wait, I think I know what you’re talking about: COMMON SENSE!
Seriously, if there is a law stating we are forced to obey all laws, people will disobey this law. It’s impossible for such a law to be active in any place unless in a control, militarized state. The US isn’t like that (at least not yet), and yet it isn’t common sense that is telling us “hey, maybe we should obey this law,” but a law? Dude, that’s completely stupid! No one, other than those who want full complete control over their people, will ever come up with an asinine, draconian law to force its citizens to obey every ill-conceived law that comes out of their government.
Even then, people do obey some laws out there because of their own viewpoints, not because the government is telling them that “Action X is wrong!” If people can make their own decisions without governmental aid telling us what and what not to do, then why do we need these laws in the first place? And then again, why do we have the government telling us what is wrong and what is right? Can’t we make our own decisions?
Oh right, we need to have people like you to keep on saying these things.
Look, I’m fond of having control and rules/laws in place to keep that control, but there’s got to be a time when you think “say, would this start a riot if I put this out?” While We the People have our rights to say that law is wrong, it’s also the lawmakers’ own actions to take into consideration that they’re the ones making these laws and they should be the ones to blame.
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
I thought people steal cars because they look pretty… and when do people steal houses? That’s kinda hard to pull off… and a little hard not to notice. (I know that’s not what you’re applying there)
And really? Are you saying that people steal because they know the law is protecting the owner? There’s a reason why people are saying that copyright is a crutch… you’re saying that these laws that you are saying are in place are holding these people up like a crutch! That’s… just… stupid!
And can you please put something to break up your sentences? It’s really hard to read where the beginning of a new sentence is…
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
“show me all the letters you have received accusing you of the things you have not done.. “
I have received two notices from my isp and a friend received one also(for a movie he had just finished watching and did not like on pay tv via sattelite).
Both of us have thrown the letters out.
But I am sure you are aware of the blunders out there. Suing printers etc…
Re:
Arstechnica: ?Captain, I saved the bridge?: Boldly going where no TV set has gone before
A fan is salvaging the Enterprise’s bridge and building a business around it.
I wonder how CBS(holder of Star Trek TV property) and Viacom(holder of Star Trek Movie property) will respond to that, since he clearly will use intellectual property that he doesn’t own, but acquired pieces and bits legally.
Re:
“[I]t is clear you can make movies for $30,000 but you are not going to create a [M]atrix, or [T]op [G]un with that kind of money.“
Sorry for the changes to your quote, but I want to call you out on that.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Of course you can, you dim-witted, money-hogging, lying bag of feces!
I’m sure that you look at the articles that talked about where there are movie-makers out there working with new business models than what Hollywood is using, then check out the comments to each and everyone of them, those comments are saying you can make a movie with even no budget while it can be an enjoyable experience. Granted the visual qualities may be lackluster or downright stupid, but there’s much more to a movie than its visuals.
You bring up the Matrix and Top Gun. Both movies are definitely worth commenting in that both of them do have something in common while vastly different at the same time. In short, they are visually entertaining with what the Matrix has in terms of setting, action and VFX, while Top Gun has plenty of aerial shots of the plane (and that famed volleyball scene), but those two movies are greatly different in their visuals. The same also goes for their story in that they don’t have
Now with a budget of $30,000, you really can’t do much with it in terms of an eye-catching movie, but for a storytelling movie, you can get away with that with no budget at all! In fact, I’m considering working on two fan-movies based on two different video games series. I know I’ll need a small budget for it, maybe something like the $30,000 or maybe $50,000 (I’ll probably need that one of my movies), considering that I’ll be traveling a lot for it and I’ll be working with a lot of different people from across the world working on these projects.
But the thing is that the true heart of it goes to what the movie is about, and that is what is written in the script! To be precise, it is the story, not the whole movie itself, that is worth more than what goes into the visuals, soundtrack and everything else! You can’t put a price on a story. If someone has the time and effort to put their words down on paper and type up their take on the Matrix or Top Gun and then turn that into a movie with a small budget, then it can be done!
The budget of a movie shouldn’t determined the quality of that movie! It is the effort that went into it, the story that is written for it, and everything else that made it up! If you’re worried about the money, then please take your complaint somewhere else. None of us gives a crap about your whining about movie budgets when we’re trying to come up with better ideas on how to work with shoestring budgets.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Also there has been no response to examples of breakages listed in this response?
Re:
Yeah, but the low budget movies that have more effort going into them will be overshadowed by the high budget movies that are eye-catching and have little effort to make them enjoyable.
You know, there’s a reason we have that joke going around about the $100 million movie. Why should we care about the budget of the movie when there’s more going on behind the scene than worry about the price of it?
Then again, are we supposed to take you seriously?
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
The nature of property is unfortunately a regrettable necessity. If we did not have this concept, everyone would be free to steal from each other. And we would have a world where fascism and totalitarianism would plague our species just about everywhere.
I mean, the economic fight between the Left and Right will always go on as long as politics exists. The Left will claim that you cannot have a disregard for the poor and the Right will claim that no one is good enough to be chosen to redistribute. It is the right of property vs the right to a fair share of property. This is never going to be resolved as both sides are too slippery.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
You answered your own question. People cannot do so if they lack skills and abilities. And education is a big factor in all of this. Therefore the free market needs to give way to those who are unfortunate enough to be in an unfortunate position, especially how it has been shown that those who prosper most from the free market usually do not commit this act of altruism.
Here in the U.K. we still have one of the greatest moral achievements that resulted from Socialism: the National Health Service. We were very lucky in that we stumbled upon a recognised human right to health care that does not discriminate based on wealth. If people still want to go to private health care even after paying their fair share to the NHS you cannot stop them. But you absolutely must acknowledge the fact that there are those who cannot help themselves (“you may only live once, but you are not the only one alive”) in the same way that we cannot leave third world countries to fall to ruin since they do not have the luxury of environments that can grow crops and drill oil.
This is just one of the many moral issues that the free market cannot solve.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
You must be one of the AC shills. I can tell because you skipped reasoned discussion and dropped directly into personal attacks.
Choice? You think those people have a choice? No they don’t! They don’t choose to work for you, they are begging to work for you because they have no other means to support themselves. They are compelled by a system to submit their labor to an employer, any employer they can get, in order to attain the necessary wages to pay for their living costs. That’s the sick thing about capitalism. It has people spending the majority of their lives busting ass just to scrape together enough to cover the cost of living. That’s such a huge waste of a human being. People are capable of so much more than being walking mops or a food kiosk with a human face attached to it.
“if you don’t think the present system is working, then be willing to provide possible viable alternatives, real ones that could actually work within a society. Not just a dream one that you feel might work if given a go.”
Tu quoque fallacy. You can’t demand that I provide an alternative or shut up. The fact remains that the system is wrong, it’s broken, and it’s harming us greatly. However, if you insist on an alternative:
There is the concept of post-scarcity (which I’m sure you’ve already stopped reading and are on the comment box to lodge more insults at this point). Such a system would require efficient and responsible use of resources that would allow all materials used in products to eventually be reclaimed as newer product replace them. These goods would not be manufactured by corporations, they would be made by automated fabrication devices (i.e. 3D printers, only far more advanced). They would reclaim old goods and recycle the materials into new goods. Goods would be designed from the ground up to be 100% recyclable, because anything that can’t be recycled is waste and waste is loss.
Energy would be ubiquitous and free because through carbon nano technology, we can apply solar panels to any window on any structure to capture that energy (transparent graphene). The tech is already being worked on today. Between these two technologies, automation and free energy, we can produce food for everyone without cost and almost zero human labor involved. These things would have to be developed to a point that all the resources involved would be effectively abundant. That is, every person on Earth could get what they need without denying anyone of their share of it. Just like air is abundant, technology will make everything else equally abundant. Aluminum was once more scarce than platinum, but when we learned how to process boxite to get the aluminum out of it, it because as cheap and common as steel. Capitalism thrives on scarcity, but life suffers. So much so that they will actually create it just to exploit the demand.
Once you have automated manufacturing, energy, and food, there isn’t much reason for capitalism is there? The only occupations worth pursuing would be engineering, arts, science, education, philosophy, medicine, computer science and, so on. Not for money, that would be obsolete, but for opportunity to push the boundaries of oneself and improve the status of humanity.
Then there’s the idea of property. Let’s take the car for example. It’s common culture for a person to own a car right? Well, what does that car do when you’re not driving it? Absolutely nothing. It’s wasting space. What if that car instead could drive itself and all you have to do is call it? It could pick you up, drop you off, and it would move on to pick up the next passenger. You wouldn’t need to own a car anymore, but you’d only possess it so long as you had need of it. Such is the case with most any possession. How about sport equipment? You use that how many days out of the year? How much space does it waste sitting in that garage that used to house the car that you used to own? Why not just fabricate the sports gear on the spot when you’re ready to use it and send it to reclamation when you’re done? No storage needed. Property? Pfft? Who needs it? With everything automated and made on the spot to your specifications, why would you have any attachment to material things?
Far fetched? No, we already have 3D printing doing amazing things. This is achievable in the current half of this century. Capitalism is an anchor pulling us down and holding us back. It keeps people from doing something with their lives besides being cattle and it funnels all the value of our labor to the handful of people that control this human farm. You can insult me and dismiss me all you like, but you’d still be wrong.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Because a capitalist in a colony on an alien planet would be more concerned with staking his claim and establishing his economic leverage than ensuring the stability and success of the colony. He is more concerned with declaring what is his than the welfare of the people around him. And who the hell said he was anymore deserving of this or that than any other person? What makes any other person special in comparison to another? Not one damn thing. We are all human and no one is set above the rest. If you think that, you’re delusional.
Re:
“
By interfering with my rights to own, modify or distribute something that I legally own.”
sure, so you are saying you own the copyright to that material ?? or do you just own a copy of it.
Even you should be able to work out there is a difference to owning the right to copy and owning just a copy.
But you do have those rights, if you own the copyright to that material you have every right to copy it, or do what you like with it, as you own the COPYRIGHT to it.
do you own the copyright to anything ?
Do you think the $20 you paid for your copy was to pay for the copyright or for the actual copy you have in your hand?
No one is saying you don’t own you copy, they are simple saying you do not own the copyright, that is different!!!..
I hope in time you will come to work out the difference, until then you believe what you want.. because I really don’t care.
I can talk all you like about how you justify your theft, and claim it’s not really theft and all, but until you can understand that you don’t know the rules and the law, you are just kidding yourself.
Re:
bully for you, you just keep on believing that crap 🙂
have a happy and bitter life
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Actually, you have that backwards. Fascism and totalitarianism are born from the concept of property. They are forms of authority and violence, which are used to justify and maintain the status property and power. All power is derived through property. It’s through property that resource monopolies are formed, which are used as leverage to force the lower class to submit their labor in exchange for the means to live.
The left and right are just two sides of the same fucked up coin. Neither side should be given any credence because they both support the same old backwards ways of dealing with things because they are all old men with old ideas.
The truth is, we are stuck with this scenario:
You want to eat? You got to get a job!
You want a place to live? You got to get a job!
You want your kids to go to school? You got to get a job!
You need to go to the doctor? You got to get a job!
You want to solve world social problems? Sorry, you’re too busy with that other shit to worry about humanity.
You want to spend the majority of your time homeschooling your kids? Good luck, you still need that job to pay for shit.
You want to learn to be an artist? It better be to go to college and get a job, because you don’t have time when you have so many things that you need a job for.
And this is if you’re lucky. Some people don’t even get to attain the means to support themselves. They’re so poor, even with a job, that they can’t feed themselves. Most people never get to ascend to higher aspirations, they’re too busy trying to pay for their next meal. In a world with an excess of food. Generations of potential is wasted as human chattel. This economy is full of waste. A waste of human potential, natural resources, and time.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
“and you really need to consider that word slavery for a second, using it in this context makes you out to be a bit of an idiot. Or a sad person who just does not understand things.”
Says the person that is fooled by the system that keeps him enslaved.
Re:
what do you want a freaking history lesson, no one said the SAME big players will be around forever.
That would be stupid, (I am guessing your not stupid).
but you keep telling me people have been copying stuff since there has been stuff to copy, so how would that make the people who copy stuff today any different to the situation 100 years ago, or last year ??
Yes, I have been a Red Hat watcher for many years, notice that MANY YEARS !!!! that means RH is NOT the new up and coming guys, they have been around for years and years and years.
I have not checked recently but after 10 years they almost had their share price up to the value it was listed!!!
that is NOT doing so well, in case you did not know that.
RH Open ??? hell no, RH is a closed shop these days, and has been for a LOOOONG time..
RH is NOT a good example for you to pick, but I understand you have so little to choose from.
btw: IF RH is successful, it is yet more proof that the existing system is very workable, and if you have what it takes you can be a success within the existing legal framework.
Re:
While red Hat protective their branding, RHEL is available for free as Centos and Scientific Linux. Further Red Hat provide infrastructure and engineering support to Fedora, which again is totally free.
Re:
I am not attempting to do any such thing, I understand and fully expect laws to change over time, as does cultures and the societies that make them.
You may note, I never make comments that the present system is the best, or that it cannot be changed for the better.
I am just saying, it is what we have now, you can dream all you like as to what MIGHT happen in the future, but you don’t live in the future, or the past, you live in the present.
You have to understand you are bound by the laws and rules PRESENTLY, all I am doing is show you how what you wish for is not what you have, and until you wishes come true, be a good little boy and play by the social rules OF THIS TIME.
not what you think/guess/hope/dream it will be in the future, or what it was like ‘in the good old days’.
Yes, change is in evadable, we all know that, what was big 20 years ago might not be big today, what is not big today, might be big in 20 years.
You just don’t know, so the best you can do is live with what you have now, dream all you like about some utopian dream world were product just appears from nothing, and with no DRM and you can copy it and give it to whoever you like.
But its a dream, in the dream world you can do anything, in the real world however you have to deal with what is real.
I stick up for the existing copyright laws for one simple reason, that is THEY ARE THE EXISTING COPYRIGHT LAWS.
I don’t comment as to if they are good or bad or just laws, what I do object to is simply because you don’t agree with the laws, you think you have some right to ignore them.
That is not how society works, just taking something you want, and not being willing to pay what it cost to buy it, is theft. Theft (be it copyright theft, or car theft or any other kind), is THEFT under the existing laws of your society.
you can try to justify it all you like, and you do!..
you say thing’s like “well I don’t agree, so that makes me immune”.
also (the classic) “it’s so easy to do, they cant stop us so we can do what we like”.
and
“you’ll never kill theft (copyright or otherwise) so you might as well give up trying”. (I like that one)..
you could be saying “we don’t like the existing laws, we are doing our best to change them, but in the mean time as it is the law we have no choice but to be law abiding”.
but no, that would be too hard, and require some real effort.
IF you don’t like the existing laws, do something about it, run for congress, if you feel enough people feel as strongly as you about it, you’ll get in, and you’ll be able to contribute to changing the laws.
that is a choice you clearly have decided not to make, so no I don’t think all laws are perfect and should be set in stone. I do understand that will enough popular support (which you claim you have) on a subject you can change minds and laws.
it happens all the time, it’s how your political system works, it’s how your social system and cultural systems work as well.
you people also always talk about stemming the cultural and technological progress, yet you never provide real world examples of how that is happening?
Yet, here on TD Masnick is always showing how people can and do, do well within the existing system.
then he tries to use them as an example as to why the system needs changing, and you guys buy it !!!!!
“the system is broken and needs changing, now here are some examples showing how well the system works for all sectors of the industry.”
If indie and small enterprises are able to make good content and make good money under the present system is that not a clear indication that the present system is at least functional, and if you have the skills, talent and willingness to do something you can within the existing laws, and be very successful at it.
it’s funny because Masnick would have you believe that the system is broken, and unworkable, yet he goes out of his way to showcase examples of that being THE EXACT OPPOSITE to reality !!!! with example after example after example.. day after day, year after years.
Masnick:
“THE SYSTEM is broken, it’s unworkable, so here are some more examples of people working within the system proving how if fact it is NOT broken and working well”
Re:
exept that is not the case, we have had copyright laws for over 100 years and culture is thriving just like it always had, the problem you have is one of convincing people what you are saying is true, which is very hard when the present system has been around for a very long time, yet culture, and movies and music and books are doing better than ever!
until you are able to explain why that would be, that people can progress, thrive, invent and create under a system you are telling us does not work.
It might be true it does not work for you, but that is probably for reasons other that the system.
you might just suck at creativity, or not be interested to learn.
but millions of others who are not trying to place the blame for their own failure on a working system go on the create great things under the very same system you claim is unworkable, or failing or out dated.
truth is if you have what it takes you can do well within the existing laws, if you cant you probably think a change in the laws is suddenly going to give you talent and skills you previously did not have, and you will be rich, rich, rich.
but it’s only a dream, in the real world we all have the same rules and limitations, we just don’t spend our lives whining about a system simply because you cant think of anyone else to blame.
you know masnick was a budding photographer, but I guess he worked out he did not have the talent for it, but if he did, and became a magnum photographer, with an amazing photo, and he found someone else had used that to make millions of dollars then he would probably think copyright is a good thing for him.
but you keep dreaming your utopian dream of the day when all the laws are changed to just how you like them, and you are given special powers of creativity that no one else has.
or you could decide to actually do something about it, or work within the existing laws, until they are changed.
or just whine here on TD.. up to you..
Re:
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS THEN !!!!
I did not state what everybody’s opinion was or is, I stated my opinion and that of the existing laws and rules.
Moron – lol
Re:
I have no issue with questioning copyright, or any other law for that matter.
question, debate and discuss it’s all good, I don’t have any problems with that, it’s the people who say they don’t agree with the law as a justification to break it I have some issues with, and rightly so too.
but if you would like give examples of downloading copyright material (except the legal exemptions we all know about), that is not pirating I would be interested to see them.
but most of the arguments presented here, follows something like.
“you cant stop us, so you might as well make it legal”
“everyone does it, so it’s ok”
“it’s so easy to do, we can break DRM in 1 millisecond, we can so we must be allowed to do it”
“I don’t like that law, so I choose not to abide by it”.
oh and the classic.
“we are not really stealing anything physical, so it’s ok”
there are ALL strew man arguments, without merit, that is what I object too.
also, The Masnick trotting out hundreds of examples of small companies doing really well under the existing system and laws, and using them as an example of how the system they are thriving in DOES NOT WORK!!!..
it’s amazing, and you buy it !!! hook, line and stinker.
But just like you, I have no position on this subject, I just think that like them or not the laws and rules of society should be held in high regard, and if you don’t like those laws and rules, still hold them in high regard until such time as they are changed.
or the crazy believe that if you change the laws and the rules that somehow the people doing well now will no do well in the future, and some other group will.
that might or might not be the case, but as it’s pure speculation, and not historically backed up, it’s a very weak argument, supported by a mass of proof (provided by masnick) that the present system is working well and for all players.
Re:
Definitely denial.
Re:
Tell me… who has taken you seriously this far?
Re:
And during that 100 years, how many pieces of that culture is in the public domain? Hm?
And I have a very creative mind and am very much interested in learning new things. If what you’re saying is true, then I don’t need anybody, including the government, to make it on my own and strike a deal.
You’re just a whining idiot of a troll. Again, are we supposed to take you seriously?
Re:
what lockdown ?? I like probably many, many other people have NEVER seen a DRM error message or whatever it does, nor have I ever encounted any problems with the material I have either purchased or downloaded.
Listening to you guys you would expect that I could not turn on my computer with hitting a bunch of wall and roadblocks.
that just is not the case, so one has to ask when the hell are you up too ??? that gets you in so much trouble and focus ?
Most if not everyone, does not ever have a problem!
Just say’in
Re:
Who or what said that we’re bound by these laws? There’s such a thing call COMMON SENSE that’s around! You think that maybe people aren’t that stupid to think for themselves and realized that their government is not the ones ordering how they operate their lives?
And here’s a thing: we can make our dreams reality. We can take what we see in the future and try to make them appear in the present. People will do anything to get to that point in the future where we’ll have our hoverboards and jetpacks, and maybe a government that’s fair and balance. And you’re saying that we’re stuck with what we have and should accept it for now? That’s freaking stupid! How can’t we have our future if we can’t change what is already here in the present? If we want that future to appear, we must change the present for it to change!
How are we supposed to take you seriously again? I’m going to keep on asking this until I get an answer.
Re:
I’m already am! Now for you to get you one of your own! … Only we need to get rid of the “happy” and the “bitter” parts out. You need to work for those.
Re:
“There are two sides to this coin”
only two !!!!! I am sure there are hundreds or millions.
it’s all about ‘level’, or perceived level of the problem.
it there are a lot of murders, you consider becoming more forceful with the law.
but not generally the reverse, if there are less murders you don’t generally reduce the forcefulness of the law.
but the extreams do not occur, for example, you never have no enforcement of the law, and total crime.
and you don’t have total enforcement and a zero level of crime.
look at your prison system, total enforcement of the law, yet in prison crimes are regularly committed.
it has to be ‘somewhere in between” those two extremes.
the pirates lean towards one end of the spectrum, and the copyright max guys lean towards the other end.
reality is somewhere in between.
Re:
ok, your opinion, fine.
Re:
And to sum up all you’re saying: we’re a bunch of thieves.
… Again, why should we take you seriously?
Re:
oh no, please, “why wont they please think of the CHILDREN !!!!!”
what are they going after next, cuddly puppies ?? LOL
Re:
The change that the Internet has brought in is that what people are doing with culture has become visible to the publishers. Written literature has always had its fan fiction, which pre-internet had limited circulation. Remixes and mash-ups came in with the tape recorder, but again circulation was limited by costs. The VCR allowed video mash-ups to be made, but again cost limited circulation.
All that has changed is that the Internet allows a wider sharing of culture, but the activities were carried as soon as technology allowed.
There used to be a time where some pubs were well known for impromptu performances of music, but the collection agencies have made this too expensive for pubs to permit such activities. Nowadays you can’t turn on a radio in a public space without the agencies demanding payment.
All these activities are informal, and carried out for the pleasure of sharing culture, and maybe to learn how to become good enough at them to go on and make a living from them. The copyright maximalists are attempting to earn money from every slightest use of their copyrighted material, and this stiffles the development of new talent.
Re:
OK, if any other post isn’t enough to solidify your stupidity, this is it. Now I know people aren’t going to take you seriously.
Really, maybe this is probably an only time where it’s all right when you have businesses suing children and older folks for simply enjoying a song or movie online. If you can’t take that seriously, then why should we take you seriously?
You’re an idiot. Please leave.
Re:
And clearly you’re not seeing it.
Re:
UEFI secure boot comes with windows 8, so no problems with any box with earlier versions of windows..
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
locking people up for victimless crimes
I stopped reading at that point, because if you think there are no victims of drugs you are living on another planet!!
no point in reading further, so I don’t know (or care) if you actually had a point to make. sorry
just saying.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
so many people complaining, yes, all 14 of them here on TD.
Generally speaking most people do not know about or care about the issues that rule your lives.
they actually have better things to do, what you may ask ??
ANYTHING !!! 🙂
Re:
Look, I like you don’t ever experience a problem with DRM… however, I never dealt with it because I never thought about ripping anything! And I don’t complain about it because I am satisfy with what I got!
Are we supposed to take you seriously?
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
are you incapable of saying something with your own mouth and brain ?? you have to link me to something someone else said to prove your point..
wow, talk about lazy assed !! try again, better luck next time.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
You do realize there’s more to the Internet than TechDirt, right? Also I’m sure there’s more than 14 people on this site, but I guess you are too lazy to count… or read.
Maybe true, but there are certain things we care about.
Hey, why don’t you take your own advice and leave the frigging computer!? There’s a world outside! Step out into it and get some fresh air!
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Again, we’re supposed to take you seriously. If you’re giving up, then why did you comment?
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
You hit on one of the major results of prohibition, Al Capone. Drugs and various forms of copyright violation are similar in effect on society because the law is trying to stop a generally harmless activity. This increases crime, and can en-power criminal gangs. That said, under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not an excuse for committing a crime, nor should it be taken as a mitigating factor.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
He’s linking to himself, you dip. Did you bother clicking on the link and check to see the snowflake?
Oh wait, you’re too lazy to finish a comment. Sorry, I forgot…
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
The only victims as a result of drugs are those who get imprisoned for something that was nobody’s business but their own, especially the young and poor who then have to go through the rest of their lives with criminal records.
And I really do not care if you read the rest of my post or not. I never needed your agreement nor regard for your opinion.
Darwinian evolution of markets can be trusted more than copyright.
Those were mainlu=y my posts, I did not feel like repeating myself, amnd boring the rest of the commenters.
Re:
Do you want to join reality at some point and address my real positions, or do you want to continue tilting at that windmill?
Re:
You’re just saying a bunch of crap that assumes a lot of things about both myself and other people that’s quite insulting – and completely wrong. I wonder when you people might drop that crap and try to address the real things people are talking about?
Although, your position appears to be that Microsoft should be able to retrieve its de facto monopoly position and completely lock out competitors, and that’s fine because muppets like you won’t notice. I wonder why that position isn’t a popular one among the tech savvy?
How copyright maximalism leads to totalitarian regimes
It’s the new Salem Witch Trials…
Sue em for infringement….
If they claim ‘fair use’ or ‘extenuating circumstances’ throw the book at em to the tune of $150,000 per ‘infringement. (If they sink they were innocent and should not have been tried… too bad they died in the trial.)
If they provide evidence that the IP address sued was not them (aka it was their printer, or their neighbor), then they are still guilty of ‘facilitating copyright infringement’ which should be a criminal charge even higher than infringement. (If they float, they are a witch and need to be burned at the stake…)
Justice is only Just for those serving the current regime.
Slavery vs Copyright
While Slavery removed all liberties from a few, Copyright removes a few liberties from all….
Which is the greater injustice and why to we continue to allow it?
Re:
Yeah, he missed the point completely.
Re:
Since you did not comprehend what was said previously, let me elucidate.
your comment -> “being impossible to eradicate is not reason you turn around and bend over to whoever wants to ream you.”
My reply was attempting to point out (the other side of the coin) that the victims of copyright lunacy should not simply bend over to whom ever wants to ream them. Get it?