I wouldn't want that. It puts the server as the mercy of clients. It would make bit-torrent completely infeasible because you could be serving 1000 leechers, but only connection to 10 seeders. It would encourage everyone to leech and discourage them from seeding.
No, that entire argument is an equivocation. Comcast is charging two parties (subscribers and Netflix) for the exact same service. Comcast customers are already paying Comcast for the bandwidth for the purpose of accessing sites like Netflix. What's more, Comcast is degrading service purposely to make Netflix lose business and make the customers' experience poorer. That's flat-out extortion.
The Fed Ex analogy applies. Would you want Fed Ex to delay the delivery you paid for because Amazon didn't give them a kickback to not delay it? What if Fed Ex was making it look like the delay was Amazon's fault rather than Fed Ex purposely delaying it?
You pay Netflix and they pay Cogent to deliver your stream to Comcast. You also pay Comcast to deliver it the rest of the way to your PC. So, you're paying Netflix, Cogent, and Comcast for that video stream. Comcast wants Netflix to pay for what you've already paid Comcast to do!
What Comcast is trying to do is like Fed Ex charging you and Amazon to deliver your purchase. That's double dipping. In the end, the customers end up paying twice.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
"The whole point was to show a case where the current law would protect against this action and your interpretation of the law would leave no recourse."
Your example was a red herring. Your point was that "I should have the right to take down my content when it's used in ways I don't agree with!" My point was, that if it's fair use, it doesn't matter one bit how much you hate it nor how evil it is. Even if the site is used for criminal things, you have no right to take content down simply because it offends you.
"Why can't they be both? It is not sad, I am not alone in this view because that is what the law states."
It can't be both because copyright is supposed to promote the progress, not hamstring it with a rusty spoon just to grant a concession to marketing concerns.
"No, content doesn't have to be a product, but there is nothing wrong with content being a product."
Yes, there is something wrong with it. You're trying to sell a product that is infinite in supply, inconsequential to duplicate, and trivial to distribute, and it's being built on the collective wealth of human culture, without investing the same resources it took to create the work in the first place. Selling a book, a song, or a movie is like trying to sell boxed air.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
"Sometimes you just have the right to do what you want with what you created. I find it is often the non-creator stating that they have a right to do what they will with the creation of another. The law says otherwise."
Everyone is a creator of content. You're taking the narrow definition of only those that sell content are creators. Wake up. This is the age of user generated content. Assimilating and transforming content is how the creative process works. Nothing comes out of thin air. To say that using the works of others as a basis to create new works is "wrong" or a violation of someone's moral right to own what they create is flat-out denial of the relationship between expressions and ideas.
"I disagree. I paint a painting and display it in a gallery. You take a photo of my painting and place that photo, of the painting, on a website promoting the kidnapping of girls and their sale as child brides. I obviously disagree with this idea. In your construct of copyright, this is "not significant" and I have no recourse."
That's a very poor example. First off, slavery is a reprehensible crime in itself and those that would not be offended by it are few. Putting those two things together does not prove your case. I can provide you with a sufficient counter argument as well.
If I took a photo of your painting and used it in an article where I give a scathing review of the painting that you didn't like, fair use allows me to do just that because I am commentating on it. You might hate what I say, but you can't stop me from doing it.
"Intangible things have value. If they did not you would have no desire for them. I find your statement one often used to support piracy and because intangible things do have value, I cannot agree. Items have value beyond scarcity, a computer program is just one example of a good that has no physical scarcity but has "tangible" value."
Yes, intangible things do have value. A sunny day has value and it can be shared by all without any rivalrous cost to others. I find your response is often said by those that don't understand the difference between value and price as well as assuming that the content is the item of value rather than the experience and effort the artist invests in creating it. Now that is a scarce and exclusive thing that also has value, and it can effectively bear a price.
"Not all forms of infringement need to be prosecuted. Some such as fan fiction may benefit the original author or copyright holder but I find the "people due what they always have done they share" as utopian, and ignoring the fact the increasingly ideas and there expression are a significant portion of the economy as the production of physical goods shifts to growing economies where labor is less expensive."
It's sad that you view fan fiction as a "form of infringement" rather than a compliment to the author they are emulating. People have always shared culture and knowledge because there is more benefit in everyone having it rather than only those that pay the gatekeeper having it.
I'm not ignoring the fact, but you're failing to realize that content doesn't have to be a product to be a sustainable business. People can sell their skills to the market for their value to culture. Having skills that other people lack is very marketable; you don't have to sell a product to have a successful business.
Re: Re: Proof of economic damage should be required
"This would imply someone has the right to infringe unless causing economic damage."
The whole argument against infringement has been about economic damage at its core. Every argument, every complaint has been how it damages the business of an artist. Everything related to it also leads to economic concerns. If nobody is usurping your sales for themselves, it's not significant.
"Ownership of one's creation and the right to decide what to do with it, when to release it, how to display it,how many copies to make etc... are concepts separate from damages."
That's creating artificial scarcity. Limited copies, limited availability, and creating urgency in the customers' minds. These are things you don't need in the transforming market.
Then comes the major contention, "ownership". It's the idea that "Because it's mine, I get to dictate to others how they may use my stuff", and it remains "my stuff" even after the customer lays their money down and completes an exchange of payment for goods. The truth is, the ownership issue is tied to the economic issue. If one can own something intangible and stop others from propagating it, one can sell it as if it were a tangible good. It's not reality though. You can record that movie on a stone tablet, but that doesn't make the movie any more scarce nor less intangible. Expressions and information are intangible things. You can pretend that it isn't, but sooner or later, people will start to do what they've always done with culture. They share it.
"People do not have a right to appropriate your expression of an idea how they would like."
Why? Quantify that. We are not just a population of passive consumers and observers. We are copiers, remixers, learners, and creators. We take in what we see in the world and use it to express ourselves in various ways, even ways that earn the ire of those that want to control access for the sake of profit. The most common form of expression is the kind where people propagate culture that has had a meaningful impact on them. Either we love it, hate it, or feel indifferent. Nevertheless, we have a deep fundamental impulse to express that which invokes emotion from us. To deny that for the sake of "ownership" is to retard that process, a process that is the basis for the entire wealth of human culture and knowledge today.
Individuals expressing themselves through the sharing of content are not harmful. Those people are who copyright were meant to serve for the betterment of knowledge and the progress of culture.
The only thing that really grabs my attention is that Modos. It also makes me think that anybody could probably do the same thing for themselves at a home improvement store if they have a keen eye and a vivid imagination.
Why should anyone need a permit to protest? What criteria determines whether a permit is granted? If a wealthy political power is in town, will all permit requests be denied in order to suppress dissent against it? The only tool at the disposal of the people, faced with a corrupt authority, is civil disobedience. Nothing should be allowed to hinder nor prohibit that. It is the one right that no authority can take away.
What is right is not a moral argument, but it's what will benefit everyone regardless of their political or economic standing. Any policy that impacts the public should be held under the scrutiny of the public. Denying them that is asking for a protest and discouraging the protest is benefiting the minority at the expense of the whole.
Or, would you rather let the wolves have a secret vote on whether to eat you without having any say in it?
That's an interesting argument, until you consider whether it was even right of them to disperse a peaceful protest.
Don't confuse what's right with what the law says either. It might have been in accordance with the law, but that doesn't mean it was right. There are plenty of laws in existence that are unconscionable or even down-right evil, yet they still exist. Instead, it's a matter of whether the protestors had a legitimate grievance that was being ignored by traditional means. This is clearly such a case.
Face it, when the voice of the people most affected by policy are being told to get lost, they need to become more visible and get louder. The police reaction to the protest was an effort at sending that voice back to the fringes where all citizens that can't buy a politician are expected to be.
You have completely and totally failed to prove anything. As I said, cite the wording in the COPYRIGHT ACT that indicates this is clear infringement since that is the law that is applicable to the issue and not your gut feeling. I did not say give me your baseless speculation.
1. That was their choice. It does not prove infringement.
2. Their admission is not proof. There are legally defined criteria to test for fair use.
3. See number 1.
4. See number 3.
5. If this had actually gone to court and a judgement of fair use was found, GB would never have been under any obligation to ask for a license.
I say again, find the text in the law that proves this to be infringement. I don't care about your opinions and baseless assumption.
That is 100%, totally, and completely your, biased, opinion. Just because you have a gut feeling that it isn't fair use, it does not make it so. Your opinion does not equate to what the law says it is.