I like the fact that the cited article points out that these kind of laws really send the wrong message - not "don't infringe", but "don't have an Internet account" (what was the result here - we know that the account-holder cancelled her account. Do you think the actual infringers stopped infringing ?). The simple fact is that there's no way to guarantee that your internet account can't be used by somebody to infringe copyright, so the only way to be sure to avoid these kind of things is not to have such an account.
Want to bet that the NZ government also has a policy to "bridge the digital divide", or "get more people online" or something similar ?
Re: Well, in this case, the reason is NO ACTUAL HARM.
"Lenz still has her video to play all she wants, so no harm there, right?"
Just like UMG still has all their music to play (and sell) as much as they want, despite it also being made available for illegal downloading ? So no harm there, right ? And yet they still go to court asking for $250,000 per song...
And why should she remove the audio from the video, when using that audio was found to be fair use ?
She has a constitutional right to freedom of speech, and UMG prevented her from exercising it. No harm, really ?
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 16th, 2012 @ 8:22pm
You could easily argue that the marketers of "coke" should be celebrating that achievement - "We're so dominant that even when people are talking about our competitors, they're still using our name. We're always in their thoughts."
And of course that's another example where there could be "consumer confusion".
Don't marketers get paid to increase "mindshare" ? So isn't almost any use of the brand name a good thing ? Granted, "there's no such thing as bad publicity" isn't always true, but it's still true more often than not.
I'm picturing hordes of robot fish from different companies, all trying to lead the same school into different nets. If one them succeeds, of course, they'll discover that the school is actually entirely made up of robots...
I think that it's very easy for a lot of moral rights to become economic rights. For example, 'would you be willing to waive your "right to integrity" so that we can use your music for this campaign ad if we pay you $X ?'.
The one moral right I don't have an issue with is attribution. Indeed, I've said before that I'd happily support a "forever" attribution right in return for a shortened term for economic rights. There are still issues with an attribution right, mostly when some part of a work is used, but I don't think those are insurmountable.
In reality, though, we often hear the argument that "why should it be ok to put your name on somebody else's work 70 years after they die ?" used as an argument to increase the duration of the economic rights granted by copyright law. Do any countries have different durations for economic and moral rights ? That might be a useful first step.
Yes, one of the main problems is the duration. In a world where most companies don't look far beyond the next quarter, and certainly not beyond five years, the only concern is whether something will be profitable within that timeframe and any residual income afterwards is just a bonus - one that isn't needed as an "incentive to create".
The other problem is a combination of complexity and scope of protection. Neither is a huge problem in itself, but complex laws mean that you need legal advice to determine whether what you're doing is permitted and the broad scope of copyright protection means that things that individuals do in their own homes may be infringing. That's a problem. We expect companies working with IP to have to hire IP lawyers, but not people at home. Either the law shouldn't regulate things that a reasonable person might do at home (this was the case with copyright law for a long time - the investment required to infringe copyright pretty much guaranteed that only businesses could infringe), or it needs to be vastly simplified so that it's easy to determine whether your conduct is permitted or not.
I think there's a growing recognition that the Berne treaty isn't a good match for the world of today. It'll take a *long* time (a generation or two), but sooner or later we're going to see either countries pulling out of Berne, a renegotiation of the treaty, or some sort of amendment to it.
"the key things that made the old record labels so powerful is almost entirely whittled away by technology" - all except for money, and we all know that money = power. Unfortunately, it'll take a while for the money to run out.
Doesn't it strike you as a little absurd that the publisher pays the DRM company so they can add DRM to the book, I then buy it and then spend (some) time and effort to remove said DRM.
Seems to me that it would be far more efficient just to buy only non-DRMed books in the first place. Also that way you help let the publishers know that they could save money by skipping the "add DRM" step.
"By saying he knew she was downloading infringing content, but didnít prevent her from doing so, he self-incriminated."
So would he have been ok if he'd *tried* to prevent it ? "Listen, dear, I know you really like those songs, but I've been getting these letters ...". If not, how on earth do you actually *prevent* somebody in your home from using your Internet connection to infringe ? I guess you put the modem inside a box with a padlock ? Or sit behind them whenever they're online, waiting to pounce on the mouse and click "cancel" ? I can't see any way to completely prevent somebody from using my Internet connection to infringe (apart from the one he eventually came up with - cancel it), so what steps would be "good enough" ?
"I would say that the success isn't because of piracy or a lack or attention to piracy". I think that's exactly the point - piracy is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many people are pirating the game, because sufficient people are paying for it that the creators are making enough. These people are focussing on the positive side of things - giving people good, positive, reasons to buy the game - rather than the negatives - "how can we prevent people from getting it without paying ?", and obviously doing it right, because people *are* buying it.