Seems to me that any businessman would say "I don't care about moral arguments, where's the Return On Investment ?", and the straight answer is that it's with getting the 92% to spend (more), not throwing money away trying to sue the 8%.
I guess the music industry isn't as bad as the movie industry, but personally I'm completely fed up with buying a DVD or a movie ticket and being subjected to annoying "features" and propaganda about how bad piracy is - "Hello! Paying customer here! How about making your product less annoying than the pirate version for me ?".
Sure sounds like they used ideas from the book, and even dialogue, but they didn't copy the book, or distribute it, and I don't think a movie counts as a translation. Obviously, lawyers can argue anything, but I really don't think that copyright was intended to stop people making movie adaptations of books that they don't own the rights to - seems to me that the movie and the book are two very different expressions of the same ideas.
...is that everyone knows that copyright affects everyone, but very few people actually know how it works. Copyright law is way too complex to affect people's everyday lives - it needs to either be vastly simplified or moved back into the business world, where it's reasonable to expect to have to consult a lawyer before doing something.
...that regardless of what was at a particular URL when you linked to it, unless it's on your site you have no control whatsoever over what will be there when somebody follows the link. That's the main reason why "linking to something illegal" *can't* be illegal.
"ALL business models, not just "new" business models, rest on property rights" - maybe I'm just being stupid here, but I don't see any requirement for property rights for the person who cleans my office building, or a gardener, or travel agent, or an agent, or a lawyer, or a real estate agent, or any other "service industry" job. I think all those business models are entirely based on contract, with a bit of licensing thrown in in some cases.
When talking to right-wingers (and libertarians), I always emphasize the "government-granted monopoly" side of things, whereas when talking to people from the left (and libertarians), I tend to emphasize the "restrictions on expression" and "prevention of creativity" arguments.
The simple fact is that something closer to the original copyright just makes much more sense than what we have today, unless you happen to be making lots of money from today's system.
I'm inclined to agree with John. I think "reproduction" is really only there because at the time copyright was conceived, reproduction was a good indication of "intent to distribute".
If you were to get rid of the distribution right, you'd still need numerous exceptions to the reproduction right for things like ephemeral copies, backups, format-shifting, time-shifting, etc, etc, which is a pretty good indication that the reproduction right is problematic.
Re: Uh, taking someone's output without permission is slavery
I'm pretty sure slavery is about owning people, and being able to decide how they spend their time, and nothing at all to do with taking things away from them. Honestly, equating anything at related to copyright with slavery is pretty offensive to me, and no doubt even more so to people who's ancestors were actually subject to slavery.
Even without copyright, you'd be free to create all you want, and nobody could take any of your creations *unless you decide to share (or sell) copies of them*. Of course, without copyright, once somebody had legitimately acquired that first copy from you, they could certainly try to compete with you in distributing (for free or for profit) more copies. You'd have to rely on things like your "first mover" advantage, branding, and the like to compete. Definitely harder than being able to prevent that competition.
Your belief that without copyright there will be no artistic creations is provably false by the existence of artists who make a living without exercising the rights granted to them by their copyrights. Techdirt is a great guide to finding them. You wilful blindness does not stop them existing. No, none of them (yet) have spent $100m on making a movie, but so what ? I've seen plenty of $100m movies that were a complete waste of money, and plenty of movies that cost a fraction of that to make that were far better. I don't believe that the amount spent to make something has a good correlation with quality.
Hmmm. Is it a coincidence that the Dilbert dinosaur character is also called "Bob" ?
This tells you an awful lot about the way the execs at publishers think. They hear "libraries want to own, rather than license, ebooks" and they think "they want to be able to transfer them from platform to platform - we can do that!".
It probably never even occurred to them that there might be other aspects of "ownership" that are important to their customer base. Myopic.
"Your app must not contain adult content, and metadata must be appropriate for everyone. Apps with a rating over PEGI 16, ESRB MATURE, or that contain content that would warrant such a rating, are not allowed."
"Casey does not highlight the contradictory nature of this arbitrary rule -- what if a game has both an M rating by the ESRB and an 18 rating by PEGI [...] ?"
There's no contradiction there, because it doesn't say anything about apps without those ratings. Does the app have a rating over PEGI 16 ? Then it's banned. Does it have a rating over ESRB MATURE ? Banned. Does it have a rating of exactly ESRB MATURE ? Then it gets a pass there, so let's look at the other factors to see whether it gets banned on any of those...
If I have a bridge and say "no Fords or SUVs may cross my bridge", there's no contradiction just because you have a Ford that isn't an SUV...