"Doesn't the current expiration of copyright already provided for eliminate orphan works eventually?"
No. The entire problem is that orphan works cannot have permission obtained until copyright expires, by the very nature of the system. Since the expiration date keeps getting removed far away from an individual's natural lifespan, it's effectively infinite and therefore the current system doesn't allow for orphan works to expire at all. In fact, the current system only guarantees that the pool of orphaned works will increase every year.
"If a "user" wants to use a work and can't get permission for one, it can probably find another suitable item to use in its place."
So, in situations where a work is locked up, we just forget it ever existed and move onto something else? I'm glad I grew up in a time before this mindset became so prevalent, as a lot of work I truly appreciate in every medium has utilised the public domain quite nicely. Some of it produced by the same corporations who had no qualms using the public domain for their own purposes, but claim the industry will die if their own past works are allow to be used in the same way.
This only makes sense if you have no appreciation for cultural history and have no taste for anything not produced for the mainstream by a major corporation.
The system is extremely problematic for the rest of us - and that's just those of us who wish to consume older works, let alone those artists who wish to create new works based on the public domain as those generations before them were allowed to.
So, bad laws are OK just as long as they're not enforced? You didn't think that one all the way through. But, even then you're wrong.
"The ones I do recall were all associated with the public distribution of ripped copies, which is an entirely different matter"
Just because you chose to be ignorant of them, that doesn't mean they didn't happen. It's true that most of them have been levelled against people who make the hardware and software to allow ripping rather than end users, but here's a couple I recall that I found after a few moments searching. There are others.
So, do you have any justification of these actions, or are you in the mindset of "some people might decide to do something wrong with their otherwise legally obtained file, so we'll make ripping illegal even for those who commit no other crime" camp? The latter group gets zero respect from me.
"The vast majority of the people on earth have no problem respecting copyright."
Then, why are your heroes claiming massive losses due to piracy if most people don't do it? Surely, this would be a minor issue if what you said was true?
"However if you want to speak for just the douchebags that don't, keep on keepin' on."
Funny, I'm seeing an article about people who did respect copyright but still got falsely accused of illegal activity, caused by a system put specifically in place at the demand of record labels to protect copyright.
Where are the people who did not respect copyright in this article? Are you hallucinating again?
"you still can't tell us whether artists and authors shouldnt have copyrights"
Ignoring the horrible way that phrase was written, he has - if you read the actual articles he writes. He's just never given you the answer you want, which relates to the fictional strawman version of him you set up an entire persona to attack and not the one that exists in reality.
But, hey, why address any of the points raised and why discuss why you disagree with them when you can just launch another impotent personal attack instead?
No, Blockbuster helped create Netflix by creating demand unserviced by its low choice / high price business model. It's just that once the time came, Netflix didn't mind changing its fundamental business model once greater opportunities presented themselves, and pivoted toward streaming (which has given them a far larger customer base than ever would have been possible with DVDs). By servicing their customers' demand, they're bigger than ever, not sitting around whining for government protection because the world changed around them.
Don't forget "home taping is killing music" and other classics. I wonder if they're be making it so that the only people who get targeted by these campaigns are people who are consuming legal content at the time as well. Those are always fun.
That was my first thought. Perhaps someone should tell them that the disruption already took place, and a major reason why these problems exist is because the industries they're working for haven't caught up yet. But, hey, every conversation they're having tells them that their industries have been disrupted so that must be the buzzword to use!
Very good point. According to Wikipedia, they have around 9,000 members, so I don't think they've been inundated with new authors. However, clicking through to their actual website, I can see that they do accept freelance and self-published authors although they state a minimum income of $5,000 over the last 18 months.
My impression from that is that they probably have a number of members who have seen their revenues fall and have joined the guild hoping to leverage their promised legal and copyright advice to increase their income. Since they're not demanding that new members actually make a living above poverty level when they join, these people most likely skew the results. They wasted their membership fee in my opinion, but there's that.
That's of course assuming that they attract new members on a regular basis. The other possibility is that their membership has stagnated, and they're currently only representing luddites who demand that they turn back the clock to the "good old days" and the guild will either die or join the modern reality when those people die off or retire.
I would ask the other questions they're not supplying answers to as well, such as:
- How has the income level changed for these authors over time? (i.e. what were they making before eBooks were popular) - How many new works have they created (i.e. are they still writing, or are they just whining that a book they wrote in 1972 isn't paying their new mortgage) - Are all their books in print? (physically and in electronic form)
If their membership has seen a comfortable living evaporate beneath them quicker than they can write new books and nobody's buying the copies that give them higher royalties, I can generate a little sympathy. I think the "solutions" offered are idiotic, but at least I can agree that something needs to be done.
If (as I suspect is more likely) they either didn't make a lot of money to begin with, haven't bothered writing new material or don't have their full catalogue available to buy, I have zero sympathy.
The piracy angle is laughable either way. When I can quite legally buy second hand physical copies of most of the books I want to read for less than a dollar, but these morons are still trying to charge me $15 for the less valuable eBook copy, the problem isn't that I can also choose to get it for free.
""Them, they, us, good guys, bad guys". A large part of the problem with the debate is that it's not sufficiently personal for those directly involved with it."
Actually, the problem is that these people think they're in some sort of Hollywood movie but haven't yet graduated to the likes of spaghetti westerns and Dirty Harry which thrived on how grey the real world is. They're still acting out the kind of black hat/white hat fantasy that the generation before mine (at least) rejected as childish.
I think what he's going for is that, if you read it a certain way, Karl's comment seems to propose 2 outcomes (pirate or don't pirate), when of course there's several other options that aren't considered(don't pirate but still buy/stream/whatever).
That's missing the point (that whether the labels like it or not, simply not consuming their content is a valid option for which they still get nothing). But, it's easier for the ACs to argue semantics in other peoples' comments than address the nuance of reality.
Re: Re: Out of the frying pan, into the fire(but now with self-righteous satisfaction as you roast)
"Piracy is just another word for stealing when used in the framework of economics"
Would it kill you guys not to make idiotic arguments that depend on the redefinition of words and basic concepts? It's possible to argue against piracy without constructing a parallel reality from which to do it. The words and definitions in the real world work just fine.
You know what's funny? Despite your whining, lying and personal attacks, you're yet to defend the actual focus of the article. Even if we were to get rid of piracy tomorrow, your heroes would still be ripping off the artists you and they claim to defend. But, you're happy for those people to be robbed blind because they were fooled into signing a contract.
If you want pathetic, look at someone who feels he has to white knight a bunch of cartel criminals because he thinks he's spotted someone worse. Yet, when faced with a site that discusses how to get rid of pirates and corporate scam artists alike, all he can do is lie about them in order to defend his preferred set of con artists. Now, that's pathetic.
No, it makes perfect sense *(especially if you're honest enough to read the linked studies. Alas...).
Despite your whining, this is not a zero sum game. Your entire industry was predicated for decades on giving away free access in return for higher revenue sales. "Lost" sales on low margin song sales can also translate into higher margin merchandise, concert or other revenue. People also buy music after listening to pirated copies, meaning that although they make no revenue on the free copy, they get revenue on the sale that would never have existed beforehand. And so on...
You should know this by now, yet you play the ignorant fool. I say "play" because nobody's actually this stupid.
"Of course it was voted insightful. It's Techdirt."
Of course. This is a site generally populated by people who have reading comprehension, nuanced thought processes and the ability to consider more than one factor of a situation at once. I apologise if you lack any of these qualities.