Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
Creative Commons licenses are perfectly valid copyright licenses.
No, they're not. Creative Commons is a non-profit and has no ties to federal jurisdiction to circumvent copyright law.
CC licenses don't "circumvent" copyright. They are copyright licenses, grants of permission from the copyright holder to the public. Public copyright licenses have been upheld many times around the world. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Law has some relevant links.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You won't stop until the artists include the first born
BY-NC-ND permits format shifting. The license says:
"The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats, but otherwise you have no rights to make Adaptations."
Still, it is unfortunate that the book is under a restrictive license, though nowhere near as unfortunate/restrictive as default copyright, under which a number of other recent books about copying fall (as noted by Felix PleČ™oianu in another comment on this post). Perhaps though authors of such books and blogs figure that based on content most people will figure out sooner or later that they're free to help promote their content by reusing it however they want.
Part of the problem we have with copyright laws today is that there is so little evidence on the actual impact of stronger or weaker copyright laws. It's an area that needs more widespread experimentation with very different models (or no copyright at all) to see what really happens so that there is real evidence.
Amen, but I wonder if the seeming lack of evidence isn't as much due to lack of looking by researchers as it is lack of policy diversity in the world.
Obvious places to look for the impact of different policies include different copyright lengths, exceptions, DMCA-like laws, levels of enforcement of all of these, and especially dates of implementation for each.
There's been lots more policy variation over the ~300 year history of copyright, the impacts of which could be studied.
Public licenses have also introduced variation in levels of copyright restriction that ought be ripe for finding evidence.
Just be sure to evaluate costs as well as benefits -- concentrated and diffuse.
The copyright holder is a third party to the conversation between someone publishing infringing material and the person downloading the material. The copyright holder wants the state to prevent this conversation, just as a censorious churchlady wants to prevent the conversation between a porn distributor and porn reader. You may think the copyright holder is a just censor.
Does anyone claim the Blu-ray/HD-DVD battle does g
For example, by providing employment opportunities for more engineers? I don't think so. The broken window fallacy isn't being invoked by anyone here, though I'm glad you're aware of it so you can call it out when it is used, which is frequently.
If I read the article correctly government employees are worried about their functions being "outsourced" to the private sector -- typical of government employees worldwide. No indication of worry about outsourcing to Bangladesh or wherever.
It'll probably be awhile, but I look forward to the day when wages have risen enough in India and infrastructure good enough in even poorer locales to make outsourcing from India a boon.
That won't be "poetic justice" or "karma is a bitch", that'll be good for both India and wherever Indians outsource work to.
Jealousy is "I wish I had what X has -- let's see how I can steal it." Envy is "I don't have what X has -- let's see how I can destroy it." Obviously envy is more destructive, as it can only be negative sum.
No, the present value of revenues collected decades from now is the same for anyone (modulo different individual discount rates) -- a tiny fraction of the value of revenues collected now. Participation by investors doesn't change the arguments for or against perpetual copyright at all.