How do you own bandwidth permanently? Do you think you can also own the telephone signal you're paying for?
My theory is you completely misread that and thought he was talking about the content, not the bandwidth (even though he clearly said bandwidth). Comcast customers are paying for the bandwidth, but they're also trying to control how it's used, which is the problem.
Re: Re: Re: Repeat after me: 'I demand to be paid for the free advertising you're giving me.'
"In the old days, people paid for their content, their newspapers and magazines, before they read the content to see if they wanted to read it."
Yes and no. A lot of newspaper financing was based on the knowledge that most copies would be read by multiple people who didn't pay for it. But, they were canny enough to know that this merely expanded the potential numbers of eyeballs for advertisers and they capitalised on this. Often, the cover price was too low for them to make a profit on the paper minus the ads, but they knew a low price would allow the ads to make them more profit than raising the price could ever do.
I know I've read copies of papers over the years (especially crap like The Sun and the Daily Fail) that I would never pay for. Same online, I will follow links occasionally to those cess pits depending on context given from a place like Google News, but I'd never go to their site otherwise.
At some point, the canny businessmen seem to have abandoned the industry, so they're reduced to this whining and self-destructive flailing.
It's good news that News Corp are making nonsensical arguments or that they don't know how to make a simple configuration change that will stop Google from indexing what they're complaining about without courts being involved?
I mean, it's nice that you seem to be trying to support an actual argument here but you myth need to clarify which one.
Re: Re: Authors Guild Petulantly Whines About How Wrong It Is That The Public Will Benefit From Google Books
Because, as with the newspaper argument, reading more than a sentence without paying for it will lead to the destruction of the industry!
None of the arguments make a lot of sense. I mean, look at the argument about people writing "real literature". Well, it's telling that the "real" caveat has to be inserted there, because that means they're not thinking about books that are currently best sellers.
Actually, that makes a lot of sense with regard to the argument above. Nobody who is making a truly good product tends to worry that people will be able to preview it.
They're largely thinking about more niche books - the kind that tend to have overinflated price points and low marketshare to begin with. I've had arguments many times where with people who can't understand that if they charge $10 instead of $30 for their book, that's not saying it's worth less, that simply the marketplace - and people can make more money, not less, if the product's worth it. People trying to base their income on massively overpriced works would lose out, but I'm yet to hear a good argument as to how people writing good material will lose all their customers, and as to how lowering the price reduces rather than expands their customer base. That's even without pointing out the obvious facts of reality (most readers never pay for their most of their books directly; most writers have never made a living without a day job).
The only interesting argument is that people writing complex factual books won't be bothered to put in the effort if people can preview a few pages they need for reference rather than pay for it. But, that's no reason to destroy the opportunities afforded to many others.
Childish tantrum, personal attack, refusal to debate any of the points raised, outright lie about something that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand while laughably claiming to be trying an honest discussion?
"he seemed to be suggesting that without copyright, or at least some way of enforcing it"
Seemed - in your mind. Nobody else got that, they were instead addressing your ridiculous and easily falsified claimed that DRM was necessary to hold copyright.
Perhaps before writing another 20,000 word essay that nobody's going to read, you might think about why you're so off-base with the very foundation of the arguments you're trying to make, and why you and you alone are comprehending the words of others so differently.
"I don’t get what you’re claiming here. I never said digital books weren’t available."
No, but you pretended that if copyright was removed there'd suddenly be a glut of pirated books. My point is - those pirated copies are already there, and also that your attempt to conflate DRM and copyright is outright lies.
Perhaps instead of writing your ridiculously overlong nonsense, we can return to your original idiocy. DRM has nothing to do with the copyright status of a book. Are you capable of conceding this part of reality or not?
"DRM is an attempt to control what you do with the text/music/video/etc."
Yes, an ATTEMPT. One that has failed miserably at its stated purpose and has a huge number of unintended consequences that damage authors and the public alike.
It's also got sod all to do with the copyright status of a file or the ability to sell it. There are such things as DRMed public domain works, there are such things as non-DRMed copyrighted books. Both can sell for money, so get out of here with your other idiot strawman.
"What has Google to do with this? Granted it owns Youtube, but there is more to the Internet than Google."
WTF does YouTube have to do with books? The damn article you're drooling all over is specifically about Google's book scanning project.
In your rush to attack, have you actually forgotten what you're talking about? Maybe writing some short, intelligent, reality-based sentences instead of moronic 20 paragraph essays would help you focus your thoughts.
"FYI, public domain works are FREE works. The author gets paid NOTHING."
Of course, since as you already pointed out, that person is dead by the time the work reaches the public domain (and most likely their kids and grandkids by that point). Who would you expect to be paying? The publisher, who often no longer exists or is now part of a corporation?
Also, check your local bookshop if possible - or your favoured digital retailer if not. There's plenty of copies of public domain books still being published and sold for money. The lack of copyright merely removes the exclusivity, not the ability to sell copies. Not every title sells of course, but neither do the ones in copyright.
"First of all, as I am sure you’re aware printed books are only sold by the publisher once, not multiple times"
Indeed. That's why publishers are desperately trying to change this with digital books, so they can be paid multiple times despite having thrived once with a one-off payment for multiple readers. Now, have a think about why people have a problem with that change and the rights removed from them by DRM in order to achieve it.
You're right, it's a long post and I can't read the whole thing right now. But, given the lack of facts and woefully skewed point of view already demonstrated here, it may not be worth the time. I'll do what I can once I have some time once I finish work, however. Just don't expect to change many minds when you're clearly either lying or distorting basic fundamental facts.
Given your later comments here, that's kind of hilarious. I'd suggest that if you're not trolling (the pastime of fools and liars), you might wish to re-examine your own writing.
"If you abolished copyright on DIGITAL (as opposed to PRINTED) books, why would most people BUY a digital book at all when those SAME books would soon be available for free from the countless archives which would quickly populate the Net?"
What's funny is that you say that as if it's a hypothetical future. Most digital books are available already - as are many that have never been released as digital versions.
Is your fear that people *might* start doing something that's been happening for years regardless? How does that make sense? Wouldn't you be better increasing reasons for people to buy the original (I'd start with not locking people into bespoke platforms, thus encouraging them to "pirate" the books they already own later on)
Plus, of course, the person you're responding to said nothing about abolishing copyright
"back in the ancient Twentieth Century, many people doing research went out and STOLE books, newspapers, etc they needed to study? Is that what you;re insinuating?"
By the claims of the people in charge of these companies, that's *exactly* what they did. People shared newspapers all the time with each other, they gave books away for free when they finished with them. There were even businesses dedicated to reselling books multiple times when each reader finished with them without a single cent going to the author or publisher. Yet, they thrived...
The entire point of DRM is to prevent people from doing these things, even though the industry thrived when they were allowed. It's true that the nature of digital goods introduces new issues, but don't pretend people never did these things until big bad Google appeared - and the industry not only accepted them but adapted to the fact that most people will never buy a new hardcover or the same newspaper that someone else at work buys every day.
"You appear to want to get them for free"
...and this is why these discussions never get anywhere. Some people are incapable of addressing real opinions, they have to pretend other people are trying to steal from them just so they can protect the old ways.
"So a few people had their time wasted, is that such a big deal?"
How many missed flights and connections? How much did that cost them? How many missed business meetings and other related costs? Not to mention the costs of the people really wasting time - the dogs' trainers, handlers and other staff who could have been doing something effective.
"What's the alternative?"
Investing in effective ways of catching people with drugs rather than spending over $2 million of taxpayer money on catching people with "small amounts" of food (read: people bringing back food from holiday they were unaware were not allowed despite the fact that they'd gorged themselves on the same food the previous night without issue)? that seems like a wise use of the money to me.
"Would you rather that people who carry drugs also carry sausages and cheese"
The 6 people who this program caught without them doing so, half of whom were on carrying "small amounts" and as such mostly personal use and thus not stopping any trafficking? Sure, why not, it's not like major smugglers were getting caught anyway.
"This is TechDirt, where every day is "Fuck the Police" Day."
No, it's always "moron trying to derail the tread" day, however. Why address the problems when you can make stupid statements and pretend they don't exist?
Hmmm, it appears you were serious after all, so I'll jump in here to join in the conversation.
"the rules are different because the authors are corporations"
Well, not really, although they have certainly tried gaming all the rules in their favour, at the cost of independents and the public alike.
"under current rules books etc do not go out of copyright"
Do you think that copyright requires DRM? If not, what does it matter whether a title is in the public domain or not, given that the argument is that DRM actually does little to reduce piracy?
"so it is difficult to see which books etc you are alluding to"
Not really, if you stick to facts rather than the silly demands of some major publishers. Plenty of newer books are legally available with no DRM, either at the behest of the author or their publisher.
But, we are talking about an industry so scared of new technology that some tried refusing to release some major titles legally at all until people simply digitised them anyway. They may not be the best arbiters of what actually works.
"That cracking would probably itself be illegal, never mind the copying."
It is, yet it doesn't seem to stop anyone for long. Meanwhile, once the DRM is cracked, it often has negative effects that *only* affects those who legally bought the product. DRM is a speed bump for determined pirates (assuming they didn't just get a product leaked from before the DRM was applied).
So why insist on it? It doesn't stop piracy, arguably does nothing to decrease it and makes piracy more attractive even to those who do pay. Given that this is an industry that traditionally thrived on huge levels of product being available either free (libraries) or used (with no resale revenue to them), doesn't this seem rather silly?
"Basic encryption (in it's simplest forms) is better than none. It's similar to having a cheap lock on a door rather than no lock at all."
That can actually be more dangerous, not less. If the person with the lock doesn't realise it's cheap piece of crap that's easily broken, they may be lulled into a false sense of security compared to if they know it's not locked. Burglars and other attackers will happily take advantage, especially if the only reason the cheap lock is used is because it's legally mandated that it not be stronger.
"The question is at what point is the lock on the door overkill?"
No, the question is who should get to make that choice. If you do not consider a decent lock overkill, and you know you need a better one, should you be forced to use one that you know is easily picked? Or, should you just accept that you feel that your family and property be jeopardised because the police want to break in as easily as the criminals?
Yes, we know what you're saying. It's a shame that you can't address the opinions and questions raised in favour of inane contrarian rambling just because you have to try and deflect from the real discussion.
Depends on how you define "industry". Whale oil and petroleum are both part of the fuel industry, and that's thrived even if people who depended on murdering sea creatures didn't. The music industry has thrived (note: music industry, not music recording industry), even if 8 tracks were replaced by CDs and further iterations between factions of that industry.
The problem is that the "legacy" industries tend to be run by people who demand they remain in the buggy whip industry, not the ones who simply tie themselves to transport (to use the oft-repeated analogy).
Re: Watch what they do, not what they say - AG authors know full well that Google Books is good for sales
They presumably hold the same positions as the newspapers who demand money from them - claim that Google is robbing money from them if they have the previews and then claim Google is robbing from them if they remove them from the previews.
But those numbers *sound* bad so they must be bad!
Actually, I was curious so had a quick glance at some figures. That episode had 17.29 million viewers on the broadcast he references. So, he's only panicking over approx. 7% of potential viewership - not to be sneezed at but hardly make or break for the show.
But, wait - those are *worldwide* piracy figures! So, what percentage of the pirates are Americans (i.e. people who could be included in the broadcast figures)? If it's low, he could be talking about blocking customer options because he's scared of losing less than 1% of viewers.
Funny how those scary numbers get a lot less scary when you apply logic and honesty to them.