I see nobody mentioned the real irony of the MPAA complaining aboout piracy, their members set up in Hollywood so that they could pirate movie technology using film. They did not like paying a license to Edison to use his patents.
Prior to digital copies there weere various ways of consuming copyrighted work without paying the copyright holder,. A friend could lend you his/her copy. Friends met up at various houses to listen to records, and books could be borrowed from the library. Physical goods are also available second hand, which make the available withiout paying the copyright holder.
As a youth I would read two or libray books a week, but only buy, or be given two or three books a year. Actual sales of books probably accounted for under one percent of the readership, so payment for books at least was largely voluntary,
I picked a few examples to illustrate that copyright is not necessary for the production of cultural works. You have not addressed my main point, the danger of copyright to the freedom of speech, and the transmision of ideas reuired for cultural and scientific growth.
I think that strong copyright is slowly leading to establishing the prerequisites for totalitarian state, an effective mechanism for censoring published information.
What about when it is necessary to request removal of the porn filter because it blocks sites like ttp://scoraigwind.co.uk a blog about homemade windpower. (hello there T-Mobile).
There are perfectly good internet fiolters that can be used on a home or school network such as dans guardian, and dns server that also do such filtering. These are opt-in systems, and require a small amout of effort to use.
Would you agree if techdirt got added to the block list. It sometimes uses adult language.
This sort of system could all too easily become a light form of censrship, Get a site added to the list to cut down its effectiveness. Also how long before the usual suspects get 'pirate' sites added to the list?
I wonder, do the politicians think that if they strengthen copyright that their friends in the MAFIAA will censor content for them, it will of course be accidental, and recent events would help support this claim.
Most politicians, like religious leaders, are acting on faith, and have a limited view on freedom of speech, it is OK if it agrees with their viewpoint.
Politics like religion has a large component of belief, and a limited attachment to reality.
SOPA and ACTA were not defeated by reason, but rather because politicians feared that passing them would cost them their jobs. Therefore they see no reason to change copyright, but rather a need to educate the public until they agree with their viewpoint.
While copyright worked when it only covered books and other printed matter, it was not necessary to ensure the creation of new works. Some of the most significant literary works were produced without the Authors being protected by copyright, and they include :
paradise lost John Milton
The pilgrims progress by John Bunyan
don Quixote Miquel Cervantes
The works William Shakespeare
Copyright was invented by the Printers/Publishers when parliament was eliminating a mandatory licensing scheme for book, which gave the printer/publishers sole rights to the works that they licensed. Copyright was a sleigh of hand, which gave the printers sole rights to the works that they published.
As many stories on this site show, copyright is not needed for authors and performers to make money. A question mark exists for large budget films, but it may be possible to fund these through kick-starter or the like.
The MAFIAA believe that they need a long copyright to get a return on their investment, but the real problem is that their members are being made redundant by the Internet, particular in the music industry. Their efforts to deal with piracy via lobbying for laws, pushing for treaty terms that grant them powers to shut down sites and remove content on demand is threatening the Internet as we know it.
If the MAFIAA gain there desired control over the Internet, financed by the Internet service providers, then very little traffic will move on the net without their say-so. The Internet could be reduced to a shopping channel, and entertainment feed to controlled consumer devices. This will likely include all personal computers and the software that they run. Doing so is the only way that they can gain control over all copies of works that they own the copyright for.
Given their attempts to block audio and video recorders, they are likely to eventually push for cloud storage only, and try to ban removable media altogether. I can't remember where, but I saw a report that a study showed that removable media accounted for more piracy than the Internet.
From a cultural perspective, copyright maximalism is based on the mistaken belief that creators of works actually create totally new works. This has never been the case, as they build on and retell stories of the previous generations. Also, culture is a shared experience, and often a participatory experience. This has been partly realized in the mandatory licensing of venues, and for cover works in the music industry. However the greed of the collection agencies is threatening the use of these licenses. They are being priced out of reach of small venues and pubs that provided a space for new band and performers to perfect their art. The Internet also allowed performer to develop, bay allowing distribution of performances, and importantly feedback from listeners.
Transforming and building on existing works is often the starting point for new authors. An audience is desirable for their development, once they have gained the rudiments of their craft. This can be blocked by excessive use of copyright, especially if a contentid like system is applied to written works.
Another cultural danger is that works that go out of publication are locked up by copyright terms for a long period, which may be arbitrarily extended by the MAFIAA. This effectively removes works from a culture, and could become landmine for new works, especially when the concept of a derivative work is applied.
Finally, treaties like ACTA, and TPP, which force strong protectionist measures on other countries are likely to backfire on the USA. This especially applies where it forces the price of knowledge out of reach of the poorer countries. This along with pricing life-saving medicine out of reach can only stir up antagonism towards the USA.
Technology had changed copyright from a mostly harmless nuisance to dangerous basis for control of the Internet and greatly slowing or preventing development in poorer countries. The major beneficiaries are the publishers, rather than the creators or the public. It should be eliminated as a danger to society because as long as it exists, the publisher will push for stronger laws, and more control over devices and services until they regain control over most of the content available to the public.
P.S.
I notice that the discusion is dominated by a the conceot of a business model and I have to ask :
Does a business model trump fredom of speech, and access to knowledge?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by printersMate.
I see nobody mentioned the real irony of the MPAA complaining aboout piracy, their members set up in Hollywood so that they could pirate movie technology using film. They did not like paying a license to Edison to use his patents.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Business 101
Prior to digital copies there weere various ways of consuming copyrighted work without paying the copyright holder,. A friend could lend you his/her copy. Friends met up at various houses to listen to records, and books could be borrowed from the library. Physical goods are also available second hand, which make the available withiout paying the copyright holder.
As a youth I would read two or libray books a week, but only buy, or be given two or three books a year. Actual sales of books probably accounted for under one percent of the readership, so payment for books at least was largely voluntary,
Re: Re:
I picked a few examples to illustrate that copyright is not necessary for the production of cultural works. You have not addressed my main point, the danger of copyright to the freedom of speech, and the transmision of ideas reuired for cultural and scientific growth.
I think that strong copyright is slowly leading to establishing the prerequisites for totalitarian state, an effective mechanism for censoring published information.
Re:
What about when it is necessary to request removal of the porn filter because it blocks sites like ttp://scoraigwind.co.uk a blog about homemade windpower. (hello there T-Mobile).
There are perfectly good internet fiolters that can be used on a home or school network such as dans guardian, and dns server that also do such filtering. These are opt-in systems, and require a small amout of effort to use.
Would you agree if techdirt got added to the block list. It sometimes uses adult language.
This sort of system could all too easily become a light form of censrship, Get a site added to the list to cut down its effectiveness. Also how long before the usual suspects get 'pirate' sites added to the list?
I wonder, do the politicians think that if they strengthen copyright that their friends in the MAFIAA will censor content for them, it will of course be accidental, and recent events would help support this claim.
Most politicians, like religious leaders, are acting on faith, and have a limited view on freedom of speech, it is OK if it agrees with their viewpoint.
Politics like religion has a large component of belief, and a limited attachment to reality.
SOPA and ACTA were not defeated by reason, but rather because politicians feared that passing them would cost them their jobs. Therefore they see no reason to change copyright, but rather a need to educate the public until they agree with their viewpoint.
While copyright worked when it only covered books and other printed matter, it was not necessary to ensure the creation of new works. Some of the most significant literary works were produced without the Authors being protected by copyright, and they include :
paradise lost John Milton
The pilgrims progress by John Bunyan
don Quixote Miquel Cervantes
The works William Shakespeare
Copyright was invented by the Printers/Publishers when parliament was eliminating a mandatory licensing scheme for book, which gave the printer/publishers sole rights to the works that they licensed. Copyright was a sleigh of hand, which gave the printers sole rights to the works that they published.
As many stories on this site show, copyright is not needed for authors and performers to make money. A question mark exists for large budget films, but it may be possible to fund these through kick-starter or the like.
The MAFIAA believe that they need a long copyright to get a return on their investment, but the real problem is that their members are being made redundant by the Internet, particular in the music industry. Their efforts to deal with piracy via lobbying for laws, pushing for treaty terms that grant them powers to shut down sites and remove content on demand is threatening the Internet as we know it.
If the MAFIAA gain there desired control over the Internet, financed by the Internet service providers, then very little traffic will move on the net without their say-so. The Internet could be reduced to a shopping channel, and entertainment feed to controlled consumer devices. This will likely include all personal computers and the software that they run. Doing so is the only way that they can gain control over all copies of works that they own the copyright for.
Given their attempts to block audio and video recorders, they are likely to eventually push for cloud storage only, and try to ban removable media altogether. I can't remember where, but I saw a report that a study showed that removable media accounted for more piracy than the Internet.
From a cultural perspective, copyright maximalism is based on the mistaken belief that creators of works actually create totally new works. This has never been the case, as they build on and retell stories of the previous generations. Also, culture is a shared experience, and often a participatory experience. This has been partly realized in the mandatory licensing of venues, and for cover works in the music industry. However the greed of the collection agencies is threatening the use of these licenses. They are being priced out of reach of small venues and pubs that provided a space for new band and performers to perfect their art. The Internet also allowed performer to develop, bay allowing distribution of performances, and importantly feedback from listeners.
Transforming and building on existing works is often the starting point for new authors. An audience is desirable for their development, once they have gained the rudiments of their craft. This can be blocked by excessive use of copyright, especially if a contentid like system is applied to written works.
Another cultural danger is that works that go out of publication are locked up by copyright terms for a long period, which may be arbitrarily extended by the MAFIAA. This effectively removes works from a culture, and could become landmine for new works, especially when the concept of a derivative work is applied.
Finally, treaties like ACTA, and TPP, which force strong protectionist measures on other countries are likely to backfire on the USA. This especially applies where it forces the price of knowledge out of reach of the poorer countries. This along with pricing life-saving medicine out of reach can only stir up antagonism towards the USA.
Technology had changed copyright from a mostly harmless nuisance to dangerous basis for control of the Internet and greatly slowing or preventing development in poorer countries. The major beneficiaries are the publishers, rather than the creators or the public. It should be eliminated as a danger to society because as long as it exists, the publisher will push for stronger laws, and more control over devices and services until they regain control over most of the content available to the public.
P.S.
I notice that the discusion is dominated by a the conceot of a business model and I have to ask :
Does a business model trump fredom of speech, and access to knowledge?