To be fair to Cracked, taking this sentence from Spose: "But they just wanted to take my name, my sorta-notoriety from one hit, and plug "Spose" into a bunch of pop songs." and adding: "Probably because it's really easy to rhyme with 'hos.'" is... pretty funny. Just sayin'.
The sad thing about this is that it only really affects researchers, archivists, and other niche uses of ripping DVDs. Every consumer who wants to backup a DVD just will- I know people who rip every movie they get from Netflix, and have built up huge libraries of films and shows. I'm not even sure if they know it's illegal. There's nothing stopping anyone from backing up their DVDs, because the means to do so are ubiquitous. The only time the law would matter at all is if you were backing up DVDs as part of some institutional objective, and then couldn't for liability reasons.
As with most of these legal discussions, the maximalists seem to argue as if everything that is illegal is also impossible, and that legalizing it will somehow open the floodgates- floodgates that in reality have been wide open for like fifteen years.
"Bandcamp can effectively compete with filesharing and other free distribution platforms by a) giving fans a clear, easy way to directly support the artist,"
See there's your problem right there. If fans can directly support the artist, it takes money away from hardworking gatekeepers like media conglomerates. Directly supporting an artist is the same as stealing.
"You make it sound like the public made a deal with content creators: "We are GOING to arbitrarily take the fruits of your labors and generate personal profit from them, but we'll be nice enough to give you a couple of decades to make a living first." I've never seen that as the spirit of works entering the public-domain"
Because that is in fact exactly what copyright is. A deal between the public, and Authors and Inventors, to secure for limited Times the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (as outlined in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution). Explicit in that agreement is not just 'exclusive Right', but 'limited Times', after which the author or inventor no longer has exclusive right, but it belongs to the public.
You write as if when these books were written, the authors had an expectation that the works would be exclusively theirs forever. That has never been the stated deal.
Who are the strategy analysts at these places? These seems like a shot aimed directly at their own feet.
I want to watch any show or movie ever made, whenever I want to, and wherever I want to. This is in no way an unreasonable desire- it's been technologically feasible for half a decade. To satisfy my want for a particular show or movie, I'm willing to pay with money to Netflix (or by sitting through ads on Hulu) in exchange for convenient delivery. Or less preferably, pay with my time by hunting down unauthorized versions. And if I can't pay with money and I don't have time, then I just don't watch it all.
Those are my three ways of consuming media, only one results in money going to producers. Not everyone has cut their cord yet, but I know my behavior is not unique.
I find decisions like this so hard to understand. Anyone who might pirate game is definitely going to in this case, because the pirated copy is better. Anyone who wouldn't normally pirate it (don't know how/inconvenient/etc), are just going to be annoyed or discouraged from purchasing. It's a baffling strategy I feel like might actually increase piracy- I purchase most games I play, but if I wanted this title, I'd pirate it.
Any game that people want to play is going to get cracked and shared, and pirated copies of this game will have MORE value than legitimate copies. Not really a promising way to compete.
Hey Mike- I only just noticed the new 'Insightful'/'Funny' comment sorting mechanism, which is neat.
In addition to 'Show Insightful'/'Show Funny', could we get an option for 'Show Insightful Or Funny'? I had just voted interval's comment as both, and realized there was no way to display them at the same time. The comments already differentiated with the lightbulb/lol icon, so it's not like anyone will mistakenly confuse insight for humor or anything.
I don't think the depiction is 'fair' either, and I don't think any reasonable person would think it's meant to be an accurate portrayal of actual working conditions- humor has always exaggerated the truth in order to reveal it.
I'm just one person, but I reflect the findings of this study. I'm a young, college-educated professional- and Hulu and Netflix are how I watch TV (well, and pirated streaming, if something isn't on those two). I know many people my age doing the same.
In college, I cut the cord to save money. I got used to Hulu. After I got a job, I had television for a year and didn't find it worth the price. I want to watch whatever I want and whenever I want and I couldn't stomach following programming schedules or having to set up DVR. I'm pretty happy with my current setup.
I thought of the comparison to gun laws immediately as well. But there is a crucial difference- the irony of your statement, "the only people who will have security from being spied apon will be the people who the government actually want to spy on", depends on the assumption of who the government actually wants to spy on.
I think something less pithy, but more accurate would be: 'The only people who will have security from being spied on will be the people who the government purports to want to spy on.' Because the people they really want to spy on is who they will be able to spy on: mostly everyone.
I'm not a pessimist though. In a police state, this is just something the government does. But in our glorious democracy, even the NSA is reduced to badgering the intractable gridlock that is Congress for legislation that it wants. They may get their proposal passed, but it'll take years, include a rider for Ohio farm subsidies, and end up applying only to Palm Pilots and Yahoo Messenger.
When you're competing with piracy, making your product worse than free seems like a bad idea. Pay for something you can only use once (god forbid you lose the code, etc), or copy a cracked version that you'll be able to use infinitely, for free.
While the other complaint in the press release is that journalists have suggested the Salahis did this as a publicity stunt for a reality TV show, it really must make you wonder why they're suddenly bringing it back up again, many months later, after pretty much all talk about the couple has died down.
You're answering your own question here. It's an attempt to get press attention... again. And look! It's worked!
You often highlight how abusing the legal system can lead to negative press, maybe you should be applauding the Salahis' creative legal tactics as a model for others.
I like the idea of holding companies liable for the comments of bloggers. Mike compares the major record labels and movie studios to buggy whip manufacturers all the time. Maybe Jedediah's Buggy Whip (http://www.jedediahsbuggywhip.com/) should sue EMI for creating brand confusion.
The creator of a work should be able to decide how their work is being consumed and used.
This isn't true. If it were, fair use wouldn't exist. The creator gets many many rights regarding their works, but there are fair use exemptions. Mike isn't discussing circumvention for unlawful purposes, but lawful ones. What the anti-circumvention clause does, essentially, is outlaw fair use.
I could back up all my VHS tapes in case of loss, and that'd be perfectly acceptable. But do that same, perfectly legal act, with DVDs, and it's illegal. There cannot exist a logical justification for that.
I think this is an interesting premise, and you explain succinctly the advantages to the restaurant. But what does this offer the diner? Why, besides fleeting novelty, would I buy tickets for a meal? It doesn't do me any good at all.
It sort of strikes me as the newspaper paywall for restaurants. If someone implements this ticket plan, doesn't that just give a competitor a chance to position themselves as "Make reservations, and it's okay if you cancel! The customer comes first!"
I'm definitely for restaurants experimenting with new business models. But I think something that is to the customer's disadvantage isn't going to work for very long.
All of this raises the question of whether or not permanence will impact the way people use Twitter.
I doubt it. People only rarely consider how their online actions will reflect on them in the future. I find it hard to believe your average Twitter user is going to think, "Hmmm. I was going to tweet about a movie I just saw, but it might end up in a sociologist's thesis paper in fifty years. Better not." Most everything online is archived in some way anyway, but people still post embarrassing youtube videos.
I think this is a great initiative though. Diaries and personal correspondence are often the best historical sources- generations from now when historians discuss this era, having access to all that Twitter banality will be a treasure trove of easily analyzed data.