> Frankly, I rather doubt there is anything the movie industry could > do to satisfy the deep seated animus regularly exhibited here short of > totally disclaiming and abandoning reliance upon the longstanding > body of law we refer to as copyright law.
You are wrong. But you are too blind to see it.
Here are a dozen things the movie industry could do.
1. Quit focusing on Google which has absolutely nothing to do with piracy. 2. Go after actual infringers. With proof. Using due process. You know, the site hosting infringing content. Free Clue: if you take those down, then those sites don't appear in Google. (and other search engines!) 3. Quit trying to use copyright as a censorship tool. 4. Quit trying to create laws the impose liability upon everyone except the actual infringers. 5. Try making movies that I actually want to see. (There is exactly one movie this summer that I am interested in seeing -- this is the first time in several years. This new stupid anti-piracy ad for three minutes is giving me 2nd thoughts.) 6. If you want to actually help the hard working people you feature in your anti piracy ad, then get rid of Hollywood Accounting. 7. Quit complaining about the Creative Commons license. 8. If I buy a DVD (or CD) I should own either a piece of plastic that costs virtually nothing to produce, or I should own a licensed copy that allows me to very cheaply replace the worn piece of plastic. Or have reasonable backup policies. Most people are honest. But you'll never see this. 9. Quit trying to destroy the public domain. Quit trying to re-copyright it. 10. Quit extending copyright. 11. In short, quit abusing copyright. 12. Quit trolling TechDirt
13. Get your head out of the sand. Quit being stuck in the past. See the future. Technology is your friend. It always has been historically even when you fought it kicking and screaming.
Every Who on the Internet liked Netflix a lot... But the Cable who lived north of Internet, Did NOT! The Cable HATED Netflix, the whole TV streaming! Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right. It could be, perhaps, that his greed was too tight. But the reason most likely for the copyright pigs May have been that their ego was six sizes too big.
Whatever the reason, Their heart or their greed, They stood on the precipice of Cable TV. Staring down from their cave with a sour, greedy fret, At the warm lighted screens all over the Internet.
For they knew down on the Internet Every Who they could see Was watching Netflix original series Instead of Cable TV!
And that new streaming content! cable snarled with a sneer, Streaming TV is popular, it is practically here! Then they growled with their long fingers nervously drumming, "I MUST find some way to stop the Streaming from coming!"
For in the future cable knew, all the Who girls and boys, Would be watching on smart phones, their tablets, gadgets and toys!
Then they got an idea! An awful idea! The Cable got a horrible, awful idea! "I know just what to do!" The Cable laughed like a brute. I'll call my lawyers", they snarled, "to file a lawsuit!"
Copyright has already fragmented into many ridiculous rights for the playing and listening of music.
They could just make up some more. * Separate licensing for right to listen on an airplane * Separate licensing for right to listen from a cell phone. (Hey, getting to hear your music from your phone adds value to that MP3 you bought)
This suggests a fantastic scam. One that copyright maximalists should take note of.
Deliberately make some percentage of your physical recordings defective. People cannot return them if they've opened them. Even if the original purchaser returns it unopened, some other sucker is going to end up holding the defective copy that cannot be returned. Some (large) percent of those people will simply fork out to buy another copy, hoping it is not one of the XX percent of defective ones.
This scam is not quite as good as the scam of imaginary property itself. But still could provide the copyright maximalists with desperately needed supplementary income.
Of course, a way to fix this would be that you can only return a defective item for an exchange of the same item.
This tilts things much more in the consumer's favor. For the cost of only one copy, one could return and exchange a large number of defective copies. (Assuming they were all originally defective of course. Not to suggest doing something improper. No, nosiree.)
Weasely way to have submarine patents / functional claims
Your honor! I am not making a functional claim!
Traveling back in time is the specific implementation of how I do the functional claim of altering the past to my advantage.
My patent on time travel, which has applications such as altering the past to ones own advantage, has been submarined all these years beneath the waves of bureaucracy. It has surfaced now that the evil defendant has come up with an implementation that infringes my invention of time travel, which has applications such as altering the past.
The agents on the phone are incentivized to get the customer off the phone as soon as possible. That is in the phone agent's best interest. Where this eventually leads to is that agents will tell a customer anything they want to hear to get them off the phone. Especially when confronted with a problem so big that they cannot easily fix it, a problem that is a can of worms, a problem that might involve any kind of followup, etc.
Why could Comcast pick this kind of incentive for customer service? Because they want to have bad customer service.
1. How many problems have you had with your Comcast service? [x] Zero [_] Less than one
2. Which of the following problems have you experienced with Comcast? (Please check all that apply.) [_] Was unable to express in words how happy I was with Comcast service! [_] Could not reach enough Comcast people to express my joy with Comcast service. [_] The online payment system has a bug that will not allow me to pay more than the actual price for the service.
3. How would you rate your Comcast service? [_] Fantastical [_] Amazing [_] Wonderful [_] Marvelous [_] Good
Thank you for your feedback. As a reward for sending us feedback, would you like to receive craptacular email offers from selected Comcast partners? [_] Yes! Please fill my inbox to overflowing! [_] No. (but fill my inbox anyway)
> Wikipedia has come to dominate without requiring any policy changes. > Netflix has also come to dominate without requiring any policy changes. > SpaceX is doing just fine without any policy changes.
Without regulation to stop innovation, the innovation happens. Unless the ruling class can hinder innovation, it upsets existing business models. Examples: There was a thriving industry that supported the manufacture and maintenance of everything related to horse drawn buggies. There was an industry that sold lanterns and oil before the scourge of electric lighting came along.
That is why the ruling class should must hinder innovation, to protect the rich. Things must change such that the peasants must get permission from the ruling class in order to innovate.
(sad but the way some people seem to actually see it)
Unfortunately, Creative Commons (and also open source licenses!) beautifully hacked around making copyright the unavoidable default. Making it almost impossible for something to merely exist in the public domain.
An innovative way to fix creative commons (and maybe also open source licenses) is to legislate that ALL copyright licenses (like CC, and GPL, etc) require that some amount of money be paid for use of the license. That way politicians can rationalize that they have added value* to the economy.
* here's another idea to add value to the economy: break all the shop windows on main street -- those businesses will have to pay the glass companies for repairs -- thus stimulating the economy!
The problem with innovation is that it upsets existing entrenched business built upon the inefficiencies that innovation tends to eliminate.
That is why you must convince the ruling class to allow us mere peasants to create innovation. Even if the innovation doesn't affect the legislators, it certainly affects their friends, or those who put money into their pockets while whispering things into their ears about how wonderful inefficiency is.
The Internet upsets information monopolies. (Encyclopedias, dictionaries, other reference information, public domain information that you must pay a price to obtain, etc) The same as libraries, but at your fingertips, any time, anywhere.
The Internet allows artists to sell their content directly to consumers cutting out the exploitative and vastly inefficient dinosaur middlemen.
The Internet allows the creation of cloud services, that upset less efficient businesses. (Example: Uber, Lyft. But I could also repeat: Netflix, Amazon Prime)
And these are just the most obvious examples.
Innovation like self driving cars is going to upset so many people that we may never get self driving cars. Self driving cars are the realization of a dream -- come true. Saving vast amounts of wasted human intellect and productivity. Yet we may never get them because: taxis could become Johnny Cab (self driving, while spewing inane small talk), insurance companies want more accidents, car ownership may decline affecting dealers and auto makers.
Innovation like electric cars threatens big oil -- despite that we should have begun serious work on electric cars, decades ago. Why did GM wastefully destroy all those beloved and perfectly working electric cars when California changed its law to no longer require a minimum percent of EVs?
Innovation like SpaceX threatens fat dinosaurs sucking at the government teat.
I could go on. But there are major problems with innovation. That's why we should not do it.