I was kinda thinking the same thing. This is a cross post from another blog site, so my guess is they have some kind of deal where they get to cross post a story every week and the other site chooses it...? Like you said, it's good to have a new reason to hate Starbucks, but I don't see how this post fits Techdirt.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 30th, 2013 @ 8:27am
This is exactly how it should work, but I think even you can agree that this is not what is currently happening. All new changes to laws have been beneficial only to the content owners that wrote and paid for said changes, continuously diminishing the rights of the public. These changes are extremely slow and attempt to react to a technology that has normally surpassed itself by several generations by the time the reaction becomes codified, and then the now outdated change is attempted to be applied to the newer innovation like squeezing a square peg in a round hole.
The reality of the situation is that no amount of legislation will ever change the fact that the internet can be used as a giant copy machine. The content owners are not trying to compete on a realistic playing field. They have this notion of what they want things to be like and think that additional legislation will solve their problems, but this line of thinking is quite similar to living by a river in Egypt. Until they realize that their only option is to compete with the reality of free, they will continue to fail.
This is exactly the point of the article about hindering innovation. Every time a new startup comes up and tries to fill in a gap to provide a service that there is clearly demand for, they are blocked at every turn in the best case scenario, and sued out of existence in the worst. If the content owners were truly providing the innovation and the services their customers want, then these startups wouldn't even need to exist since the demand would already be met. The content owners have repeatedly shown their desire to work against their customers, not with them, and trying to claim anything to the contrary is truly the definition of disingenuous.
I disagree... The quote Mike was referring to was absolutely ridiculous. I thought Mike's commentary was quite fair and rather tame.
Lanier said: "Of course jobs become obsolete. But the only reason that new jobs were created was because there was a social contract in which a more pleasant, less boring job was still considered a job that you could be paid for. That’s the only reason it worked. If we decided that driving was such an easy thing [compared to] dealing with horses that no one should be paid for it, then there wouldn’t be all of those people being paid to be Teamsters or to drive cabs. It was a decision that it was OK to have jobs that weren’t terrible."
Mike said: "I'm just left shaking my head here because this statement is so ridiculous and so ignorant that it, alone, should cause people to assume that Lanier knows absolutely nothing about economics or history."
I think this was a pretty fair assessment of what he said. In my head I was thinking something like: "Mr. Lanier, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
It really is a sad state of affairs that this is even an issue requiring a petition. Hopefully the goal will be reached, but I don't think this is mainstream enough to get promoted where people will see it like happened with SOPA and the Library of Congress. Although, with 300 million blind people out there, only a very small percentage would need to be made aware to get the signatures...
I humbly request that the Chewbacca Defense now be called the Nazaire Defense. I feel Chewbacca and Wookies in general are disparaged by the original naming, and that they would provide a significantly better defense... albeit one of laser crossbows and being beaten with droid arms.
If you are trolling, well played sir... if not may dog have mercy on your soul.
Zero tolerance policies are the hallmark of punting responsibility by the very people we are supposed to be relying on to have sound judgement and exercise discretion with the education and well being of our children. This trend in our schools is extremely disturbing and needs to be corrected. I am typically never a fan of additional legislation, but no amount of local or even national backlash is getting any of these schools to back down from these ridiculous policies. I thin there is a strong argument that can be made that this behavior could be construed as unconstitutional as a violation of the 8th amendment.
I'd recommend tweeting this story to Dee Snyder. He's been a champion of free speech in the past and may not be aware of the lawyers actions (at least I'd like to think that). Hopefully if he isn't aware of this and it is brought to his attention, he'll have the action dropped.
Aereo is not monetizing the network's "valuable content". That content is being given away for free over the air. You pay for it by watching the commercials which aereo is leaving intact. Aereo is monetizing a service where they record the free over the air shows you want to watch and then stream them to your computer to watch them at your leisure. They are nothing more than a for-pay remote DVR service for over-the-air broadcasts.
Mike appears to be saying that the proper term of copyright is ONLY about how economically valuable the copyright is to the owner. I don't think that's true, but even if that were the only consideration, that would indicate that some period of copyright greater than zero is what's economically best. But will Mike use that logic to state that the term of copyright should be whatever produces the greatest economic return for the copyright owner?
The purpose of copyright is not provide a mechanism that allows the copyright owner to produce the greatest economic return possible. It is to grant the copyright owner a limited monopoly to profit on the creation in order to provide incentive for the creator to produce new works. Note the key words "limited" and "incentive to create". You are beginning from a flawed premise.
What this article is trying to show is that certain types of copyrightable material lose almost all economic value after a defined period of time. Current copyright law allows for the monopoly to last well after the creator passes away as well as his children and their children. This allowance is absurd, and this article clearly shows why. Please do not confuse setting a copyright term length that balances the owner's ability to effectively monetize the work with one that provides the owner with the greatest economic benefit. The later system is what we have now which is essentially an endless copyright and is a perversion of copyright's original intention.