Ninja, creators would get reimbursed the way they've always been reimbursed...patronage. Things like Kickstarter keep being called "revolutionary" and "new" but really aren't. They're just a new form of patronage which we've had for thousands of years. The Italians paid Michelangelo to paint and sculpt based on something that did not yet exist, but which they believed he could create. The Sistine Chapel's artwork was Kickstarted by Pope Julius II. Crowdfunding is simply the "democratic" version of it.
If the creator gets paid by the people to make something, then releases it to the internet for free, they still get paid. If it's popular then their next product will get more funding. If Kickstarter is any indication, it will be way overfunded.
Computer games are a great example...how many people are willing to preorder games? They don't know if it's going to be good. They can pirate it probably less than a week after it's released. Yet preorder sales for popular publishers and games are always high.
By the entertainment industry logic, it's only the threat of copyright that causes people to pay...but this couldn't be further from the truth. People are scared of copyright litigation like they're scared of car crashes. Sure, it could happen. But fear of car crashes doesn't stop a whole lot of people from driving. The reason people pay for content is because they want more content. You pay for stuff you want. The main reason for "piracy" is that the law prevents people from paying for what they want, mainly, content they can use as they please. So they get it anyway. This is not rocket science or advanced economics.
People don't need copyright to create. People don't need threat of copyright to pay others to create. We've never needed it. The only people who need it are those who have centered their business around abusing it.
Copyright could help here by setting clear guidelines of how cinemas and other activities with commercial intent that absolutely need existing IP as it is to survive and how much will be owed to the original artists.
The inherent flaw with this is that business that requires legislation to exist probably shouldn't exist. If there is a demand for a business it will exist. If there isn't a demand, then what do we actually lose by letting it die? We've already established the consumers don't want it!
Cinemas would be fine without IP. In fact I'd say they'd be better off. Why? Because they could charge less than $5 a movie since all they'd have to do is buy the movie once and not have to pay the original creator for each viewing. Now you're giving people a real *choice*...do I pay a couple of bucks to watch the movie on a huge screen with the latest sound, or watch a movie out of my house with my girlfriend so my parents aren't around to interrupt, or do I watch it at home? This is a harder decision when it's $10+ a movie. Or better yet; make a "subscription" theater where you pay $30 a month for a pass to the theater. Why not? If someone watches the film 50 times it doesn't cost you any more, and people are more likely to go if they are paying whether they go or not!
I could go on but the point is that the limitations of what will and won't exist if IP laws died are entirely based on the way they currently work. We've built our own limitations into reality and then have been spending millions of dollars trying to force everyone to conform to that reality.
And then we scratch our heads and wonder why the economy is bad. Doh.
My real issue is that the entire crux of the matter...economic incentives for creators to create is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that creating media is expensive. We see movies all the time that cost millions to make.
What's so expensive in those movies? Is it the sets? The costumes? The actors? The cameras?
With computer technology many of these costs can be drastically reduced. Here's the thing; why are sets expensive? Partially because you need to buy rights to the stuff you use on the set. The costumes? Same thing; the material and manufacturing are very cheap. Actors? A large portion of their cost comes from contractual obligations. And camera technology is cheap. Even computer graphics, widely considered to be a huge cost on "big budget" films, are primarily expensive because you need to buy software that's slightly better than freeware for literally thousands of dollars per artist, then pay more for each prefab object you use in that software, then licensing costs for everything you used.
If you cut out the copyright costs of making a movie you'd find that they take a fraction of the current budget to make. Distribution costs are practically nothing with digital distribution if you remove the licensing costs.
It's a self-perpetuating cycle that's mostly smoke and mirrors. Intellectual property must be expensive to sell since it's expensive to make and it's expensive to make because of intellectual property costs. And round and round it goes. The scam is in all the people getting paid without actually adding any value to the final product. What function do the lawyers have in a film other than to protect the creator from copyright? What function do the movie studios have other than to distribute the movies based on restrictions created from copyright?
How can you be surprised they are making up imaginary reasons for their purpose when their purpose itself is imaginary?
And just because some frivolous dmca notices are filed does not make all dmca notices frivolous.
So if you occasionally get speeding tickets when you weren't speeding but you were driving a car that was the same color as a speeding car, that would be OK because some speeding tickets are given to the actual speeding car?
Also, instead of the police, you were pulled over by a private company that had no legal requirement to make sure you had actually broken any laws.
Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of your comment.
I don't see any need for a warrant either. Email is hosted by a third party. Therefore, it is not protected under the fourth amendment. Like it or not. Welcome to the cloud.
Huh, so it's perfectly fine for the postal system to go through your mail, because it's being hosted by a third party?
Either way, you're wrong. The 6th circuit ruled that emails contained a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and this ruling has yet to be overturned (a bill codifying this into law, however, was shot down by the Senate last year).
Your reasoning is wrong too...the SEC is the reason emails were considered accessable, not the 4th amendment. The SEC states that electronic communication held for over 180 days is considered "abandoned" and can be freely accessed by government officials. This law was passed 30 years ago when actually storing such data was considered too expensive to consider. Now all email is stored essentially forever. The key point is that email under 180 days is considered private under the law...the 3rd party storage is irrelevant.
Re: USPS is a PRIVATE corporation, does NOT serve "public interest"!
USPS is a PRIVATE corporation, does NOT serve "public interest"!
...A private corporation specifically created by the Constitution, partially funded with government subsidies, and possesing several federally appointed powers, who's leadership is appointed by the President of the United States?
Yeah, totally private. Obviously not designed for the public interest at all.
Now read the part where Lori Drew was convicted of a misdemoner offense of the CFAA for violating Myspace's ToS.
Sure, the conviction was overturned in appeals, but that was a case of the DoJ using a ToS violation to charge a citizen with a criminal breach of the CFAA.
He never said they'd be convicted. He said they could be tried, under the DoJ's (NOT the court's!) interpretation of the law. It has been done, and tried successfully enough to get a jury conviction, in the past.
So often, folks get impeachment confused with conviction. They are not the same thing.
While true, this is irrelevant to the discussion. Simply being charged with a crime that is taken to court can devastate the average citizen financially regardless if they win or lose. The government prosecutors get paid whether they win or lose. For all practical purposes if someone gets charged with a crime they may as well have been convicted of it.
It is important to note that so far none of these individuals have been convicted of criminal charges under the CFAA, well, except Brekka, who was found guilty by jury but later overturned. These cases are likely to end up at SCOTUS level since two districts have found different interpretations of the CFAA.
The key point is that they were successfully charged under the CFAA. The result is irrelevant; the cases were still heard. District judges don't hear cases without merit; if it is obvious that a charge will be dismissed it's never brought to court, let alone given a guilty verdict.
When it's not clear whether or not a particular action is a violation of a law that is, by definition, vague. I seem to remember an issue or two with vague laws.
The ubiquitous "on a computer system"-style laws may have worked back in the 90s before computers were in virtually every household in the U.S. It's time to take a close look at those laws with a bit more technical knowledge and understanding, something that was clearly lacking when these laws were written.
Mike accused this woman of violating the DMCA and the CFAA. Both claims are unsupportable.
Have you read the charges against Aaron Swartz? He used a built-in function of JSTOR and a script to access free information and was being threatened with potentially years in prison. He even had legal access to the content.
Yet you find the idea that someone with unauthorized access to commercial content is an unsupportable claim?
Under our current laws she absolutely violated at a minimum the CFAA, and would probably lose against DMCA charges as well considering she is accessing copyrighted material based on unauthorized access to that material. The man who gave her the password had "permission" from the creator (HBO). She did not. Hence copyright infringement, regardless of the technical means to access the data.
If anything I would argue Mike is being too conservative with the law. Laws should not be based on whether or not some judge thinks they make sense in a specific context. They should be clear, and it should be clear when they are violated. The CFAA and DMCA are anything but clear and should be removed or replaced with something that is.
It still boggles my mind that Terms of Service could be considered legally binding. Since when does the purchase or use of something create an automatic, non-negotiable contract?
It would be like buying a desk that's only allowed to be placed on east-facing walls...put it on a north facing wall and now you're facing criminal penalties! What? You didn't agree to these terms? They're listed in section 36 on the 10 page document in the desk drawer that you can't open until after you bring the desk home and build it (which, since it's been built, you can no longer return).
Oh, you took a picture of your room with the desk in it, too? That's copyright infringement as well. You're in a heap of trouble! Prepare to spend at least $50,000 in legal fees...minimum, even if you somehow defend against your crime! Oh, and in the meantime your house will be confiscated indefinitely until the FBI can determine if you've possibly broken any more laws. If you're lucky you may even have it returned...most likely with all your furniture and belongings removed, you know, to avoid returning possibly illegal evidence back to you. No, you will not be compensated. You should never have been suspected of breaking the law...that's your fault!
Yet this is pretty much the exact situation computer users risk every day under the CFAA/DMCA. Obviously we only disagree with it because we're criminals. Obviously.
There is also a group of people that think just because a company made a profit out of the public for a number of years, that they made enough and no longer deserve a profit and should continue to operate the business in a nonprofit mode. That is bullshit to me. Nobody has a right to free TV service.
No one "deserves" a profit. You earn a profit. This is the problem right here.
Why not just stream their network TV through the internet? Aero would go away in a heartbeat because that's what customers want. They won't because...because. Because they've been making money the other way and never want it to end.
That's bullshit. Do corded phone manufactures deserve profits? What about the poor typewriter manufacturers? You know, those horse-and-buggy guys sure got screwed by these newfangled "car" things. Where's the profits they deserve?
TV is like the VCR and cassette tape; old technology that no longer has relevance to the modern world. The TV distributers either need to update to new tech or GTFO.
Nobody has a right to legislate their business model.
Chosen, it's illegal because passwords could be considered a "technological measure" to prevent access to copyrighted works. Thus even if someone freely gives you their password, by using it you have violated the DMCA since it's intended to prevent you from doing so.
I'm still trying to figure out at what point we decided it was OK to sell things and yet still keep ownership of them. If someone sold me a chair 15 years ago, and then told me if I stood on it instead of sitting they'd take it back and fine me hundreds of dollars, I'd have laughed at them.
Now I'd have to laugh nervously and call my lawyer. It's ridiculous and why the copyright maximalists have lost any semblence of moral high ground.
I'm not asking for free chairs. I'm not demanding free chairs. I just want the person who sells me a chair to go away and leave me alone after I've bought it, whether I intend to use it as a chair, a stool, or to use it as a model to make my own chair.
We've criminilized the entire country and it needs to stop.
Re: Re: You keep mistaking what sue-crazy lawyers do with copyright.
If you don't like what Mike has to say, then go start your own blog. It's that simple.
Nobody could read OOTB's blog. You'd be violating copyright by viewing it without prior permission. I can see the opening page now...a link to his email asking for personal permission before you can read the first entry.
Why isn't anyone reading his blog? Piracy! Obviously.
Ad hom...I don't think that word means what you think it means.
If you'd read my comments with even minimally open mind, you might see that I support copyright but definitely not unlimited copyright let alone unlimited gov't.
If you'd read this blog with even a minimally open mind, you'd realize that's the whole point of the articles here. We currently exist in a country where "unlimited copyright" is the reality. Lack of enforcement on something that's arguably unenenforceable does not change this fact.
Current copyright law means that *everything* created since you were born will be copyrighted until after you die. I don't really care if it expires after I'm dead; nothing created now will be relevant by then anyway.
How can a company copyrighting rounded corners for beyond the human lifespan be considered anything other than "unlimited?"
Bull. You're on the internet. It's impossible to avoid infringement on the internet. The only way to not infringe is to never use a computer.
Here's how it works. You visited this website. This website has copyrighted information (the articles). This information is copyrighted regardless of the creator's will; it's automatic.
By visiting the website, your computer made at least two unauthorized copies, according to current copyright law. It saved the files once into RAM, and once into your temporary internet files. You did not have permission for either of these copies because your created *new* copies of a copyrighted work. Even if Mike gave you permission to use his original copy, your computer automatically created new copies which are inherently infringing since they are separate from the original work.
In order for this to be avoided, the *only* websites (and all internet media, for that matter) you could ever view would require an unlimited distribution and free manipulation license, which the vast majority of the internet does not have. Therefore, by going to any website with any sort of media, including text, video, or sound, you are guilty of copyright infringement.
It doesn't fit under fair use, since the new copy is not 1) Transformative (the work is virtually identical), 2) they are not facts/ideas, but are artistic works, 3) they copy the entire work, not just a small part, and 4) you do not purchase this copy and thus potentially caused economic harm to the creater (whether they are selling it or not).
The only reason the internet isn't banned by current copyright law is either because the lawmakers haven't quite figured out how computers work yet, or because the concept is so insane the legal system is willfully ignoring it. Or maybe because there's so much money in suing people they don't want to destroy the internet, just rip people off for using it.
I can imagine you're thinking that description is dumb, or false, or there's something wrong with it. Bingo. You just figured out why the people on this website don't like copyright laws as they currently exist.
It's silly fear mongering to be concerned we may get accused of copyright infringement from organizations that manage to accuse *themselves* of copyright infringement?
That's like saying "I never speed, therefore those intersection cameras will never affect me, only you dirty speeders!" I wonder if your tune would change if you were one of the people who's parked car was cited for speeding.
You are just as vulnerable to six strikes as everyone else, whether you pirate or not. The only way to avoid it is to not use the internet at all.
Actually, for some US citizens that is somewhat true. If a naturalized citizen is found to be a member of a communist or anarchist organization they can have their citizenship stripped and be deported (and if you admit to having ever belonged to a communist party, you will never become a citizen in the first place or even get a green card). The same is true if they're accused of being a terrorist.
Is this sarcastic? I'm can't really tell if this is a joke or you're being serious.
Just in case, being part of a communist or anarchist organization is perfectly legal in the U.S. You are legally permitted to speak out against the U.S. government. In order to have your citizenship revoked you must stand trial before a federal judge. And you would never lose it for an accusation; you would have to be convicted of illegal activity.
Let us all just agree that copyright should ideally balance the rights of artists and creators with the rights of the general public. However this appears to be an inpediment to the whiny Google lobbyists on this board that wish to line their pockets with stolen content.
This statement may have had relevance ten years ago. It doesn't now. The fundamental premise of this logic is flawed because there is no functional difference between "artists and creators" and "the general public." You act like these are completely separate groups when modern technology easily combines the two. Youtube users are both creators and the public. Game modders are both creators and the public. Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, deviantart...all these people are creators and the public.
The concept of "art" as something created by an elite few for the pleasure of the masses has been dying a slow death since the internet developed. It's like we're passing legislation to prevent cars from going faster than 15 MPH in order to avoid causing "irreparable harm" to the horse-and-buggy industry.
You can't steal culture. You can fight culture, you can direct culture, you can profit off of culture. But it is not a commodity that can be taken away by spreading more of it.
We've created a society where every single person, including you, breaks the law on a daily basis, often without even realizing it. When a normal life becomes illegal, there is a problem with the law, not a problem with the people.