Re: Ratings Systems - The Gateway Drug to Censorship
Parent's shouldn't have to adapt to the world, the world should have to adapt to them so they can go on their way pretending that sex, drugs, violence, and evolution don't exist. It's hard to be a responsible parent when the government isn't doing the job for them.
Perish the thought that they might actually talk to their children and try to give a rational explanation why they object to certain sources of entertainment.
They shouldn't have to help their child understand why one thing is appropriate and the other is not, because they don't know either. They just mindlessly parrot the same brainwashing they were told as children.
"The Supreme Court ruling on Aereo was the correct one. This was a company who was stealing media content from the licensed authorized broadcaster and tried to profit off content created by others."
Stealing: You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
"Aereo was violating copyright laws by selling access to watch TV shows online without licensing that content from the broadcasters."
No, they were providing a DVR to each customer with a really long cable.
"It doesn't matter what argument anyone comes up with, violating copyright is simply not permitted in this country. Otherwise, torrent sites would have a legitimate argument to push back against the MPAA and RIAA and be able to profit from sharing torrents."
Translation: It doesn't matter what argument anyone comes up with, I've made up my mind and I refuse to listen to any rational, factual argument that is contrary to my opinion. Despite that, I'll say this anyway:
Torrent sites do have a legitimate argument to push back against the MPAA/RIAA. They are search engines that provide files that contain links to the actual hosts with specific content. They host no content of their own, just links. How long will it take to get it through people's heads that the "content theft" they rant about comes from the people that use torrent sites and not the torrent sites themselves? You might as well put Stanley Tools on trial every time people are murdered with one of their hammers.
Let me make this explicitly clear so that anybody with an IQ above room temperature can parse it: Bittorrent is a tool and torrent sites are a tool. Blaming the tool rather than the people that misused it is a special kind of stupid.
Re: And the morons also want jobs working as writers, actors or artists
If selling copies was the only way to make a living in content, you'd be right. However, it is not even remotely close to being the only option. Creating content is a skill, and a skill can be sold as a service. The only thing that will be "destroyed" is the power to control access to content indefinitely as a means to extracting perpetual revenue from something created with a finite amount of labor.
In truth, we can have it both ways. Content as a business thrived long before copyright appeared and it will continue to do so long after copyright ceases to exist.
You can't fix a house while its foundation is crumbling.
Which is why I wish we could just scrap copyright in its entirety. The industry doesn't need copyright, and if you think it does, you should get your head checked. Yank the rug from under them and tell them to go find another business model. They don't get to use the law to externalize risk at the expense of the public welfare.
It makes sense to do what they're doing. You can't create a new market while being immensely obscure. You need to expand adoption so that the positive feedback loop of innovation can build that market for you. The best innovators get the competition to build on their innovations and create a foundation for more innovation.
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.