I think people are misinterpreting what he means by permanent. He means permanent in form, not in existence, at least that's how I take it. A physical book is a finished product, something that can't be changed, it is final and complete, to be consumed as intended. Digital things are transmutable, what you buy might not be what you own in a few years if they decide to change things, even without DRM.
To Franzen each book on the shelf is something which can be cared for, something personal that he can become attached to and that only he can own/alter/appreciate, unless he allows others to do so. He feels a digital book is just something in the community that you access.
I sympathize with his desire for true ownership, especially with the way companies treat their products and customers. Sony removing the ability to install alternate operating systems on the PS3 is just one example of this.
I'm not saying I agree with his ideas about it being bad, personally I prefer things to be able to constantly evolve and improve, but to say he makes no sense is a rude dismissal and it sets the tone of the article to one of negativity and disrespect. What he is talking about might not be the way of the future, I believe digital ownership will become more prevalent and useful than physical ownership in time, but it's not wrong to feel sentimental about the things which define you as a person.
So since Mike is not a lawyer we should question whether his statements hold merit or not, but without knowing anything about your background we are to take your review of ACTA as more correct than that of Senator Wyden? Obviously Senator Wyden, and many others, are concerned that while ACTA doesn't directly change US law it may conflict with current laws and in order to comply with ACTA we will have to change laws. That is why he is asking the questions he is, even though no one wants to answer him.
We're not bullying creators. If we're "bullying" anyone it's corporate shills and media gatekeepers that use their accounting methods and control over the industry and lawmakers to make a huge profit off of their artists while only sharing the profit with a select few big names, whom they decide on. If we were bullying the content creators there wouldn't be musicians and authors coming out against SOPA/PIPA.
Also, way to completely dismiss artists that aren't part of the current system. That's cool. There are plenty of good content creators who primarily use the internet to independently distribute their works, whether it be for free or at a premium.
This discussion has never been about protecting creators, or whether people will create in the future. There will always be artists as long as there is intelligent life, because people make art for the love of art. It was done that way for a long time before copyright laws and it will continue to happen in the future no matter what. This is about enormous marketing/production industries holding on to old methods of distribution and not giving their consumers what they want. They have tried to hold technology back at every turn and have continuously failed. This time will be no different. Even if they win this battle, as technology makes production less expensive and people learn to use the internet to market for almost no cost they will lose in the end.
not an official statement, but I think when someone drops a case it's usually not because they stopped caring about the crime. it's because they don't have any evidence that the defendant is guilty. if Dajaz was guilty the government would have prosecuted. instead they just withheld the domain as long as they could with no explanation until they didn't think they could keep getting away with it.
So what I'm getting from your arguments the more I read is that you and the only musicians you think are worth anything care more about the quality of their recording equipment and how much money they can make than they do about the music.
A friend of mine is in a band and they do all their own recording and editing and it sounds great, because their music is great.
I would figure this is obvious, but I'll say it anyway, music is about music. If technology brings an end to the multimillionaire musician and multimillionaire producers I don't really care. As long as there are musicians who care about music there will always be diversity. And they may not be super rich, but they will be able to make a living. That should be enough to anyone who actually cares about their art and expression. For everyone who doesn't make music because they can't make enough money to have private jets and 30 room mansions with private movie theaters, they weren't worth the millions they would have made.
I agree with your point, but that case is different in that it was about the company name, and this case is about a company name vs the name of a product. even if htc went into the music business for w/e reason, they would presumably not use vivid in the name, as that's just one of many phones they offer.
yes, but a corporation deciding to charge based on total operating costs, including the price of the music they play, is still giving you the choice of shopping there. if it's a government tax you are paying for music you aren't hearing unless you go to the library and download three songs. everyone who doesn't is still paying anyway.
it's sort of how the record industry views people not buying as losses. well, this is their solution. sell it to the government, and through taxes everyone buys, whether they like it or not.
and besides, a lot of stores just use the radio, which is public and free, to cut costs. at least, they do around where I live.
that's pretty much the first thing I learned in the journalism class I took. make the headline tell the story because it's the first, most noticeable thing, and many times the only thing, that people will see. then you start with the most important details and filter down to less and less important things as the article goes on.
basically they taught that no one is going to read your whole article, so if you want to get the story out, put it all in the first couple lines. and that's why I didn't go into journalism.
by that logic, let's reinstate capital punishment. there were only a few cases where we executed innocent people because they weren't given proper due process and were bullied by the police into false confessions. who really care about those few people?
"give it away and pray" works in other industries. obviously, and it was mentioned before, with tangible products, free samples given away in grocery stores or outside of a restaurant or kiosk.
and the most prominent "give it away and pray" strategy I can think of right now is in video games. microtransactions, in which they give a game away for free, then they count on a small percentage of the users to pay money for in game items. many games are using microtransactions these days, a lot of people consider it a better way to make money than a monthly fee, they consider it the way of the future. and it's clearly working for the video game companies that are using it.
"Ask someone to name a First Amendment lawyer. If they answer, one-hundred percent of the time the answer will be the same: Floyd Abrams. Then ask them to name another such lawyer. The answer: silence. It is a sign of the times that the name Floyd Abrams is synonymous with the First Amendment in a way that virtually no other name is." First Amendment Center.
The idea that so much weight can be given to one person based on past achievements that he becomes infallible scares me.
Floyd Abrams himself said, "I really believe that a lawyer - no matter how good - if he or she is really worth their weight in salt, they will lose some cases because, after all, it is not really one of those secretive things that not everything is decided by who your lawyer is."
The man himself acknowledges he can't always right. If 108 law scholars say one thing and he says another, they're still the safer bet. Especially given that this is a democratic republic and the people who pass the bills are supposed to represent the people who voted for them, i.e. vote in a way compliant with the desires of the majority of the people they represent.
No matter how well worded or sensible one man's opinion is, it's till just one opinion.
Yes, because there isn't a plethora of abuse of the legal system. The Patriot Act was intended to target terrorism and has obviously only even been used to pursue terrorists, because that was its intent.
And even if Techdirt doesn't stand to lose anything directly because of the bill they can still contribute to the conversation. I don't own or run any business, nor do I make remixes or parodies, so I don't stand anything to lose either, but I can still see the massive unintended consequences of the bill. People are allowed to petition the government on the basis of preserving their rights before their rights are violated, and they should. Once your rights have been violated it is almost always too late, because the government never admits when it's wrong and pretty much never repeals anything it passes.
except CC isn't the public domain, and there's not always the option of CC.
given an automatic copyright system, anything I write that's long and uniquely worded enough to be considered original, for instance this post, is automatically granted copyright and cannot be used without my permission. maybe one day I decide to write a short poem in a post, for instance, to get my point across. Techdirt doesn't offer offer me an option to apply a CC license when I post, though, so I am automatically granted the default copyright protection when I post it, whether I want it or not. obviously the solution would be to write in my post that people can use it, blah, blah, but I'd rather have people who want copyrights for their works have to actively get them than for everything to just be protected under copyright law.
there are already enough bogus lawsuits without people suing each other over who came up with an idea first and neither having any way to prove it because there's no record of them filing for copyright, since they didn't have to, they were granted it automatically.
if people don't want to be "robbed of [their] work by Big Media" then they should apply for copyright before releasing it. that's their personal responsibility as the creator of the work. if they're too stupid to do that and they put their executed work out unprotected then they have to deal with the consequences when someone else makes money off the same execution.
If you think that watching an ad forces the product on you, you are the weak-minded one. I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions, but I like to be informed before I make them. Ads are one of the ways you become informed. If I've never heard of a good product that fits me well then I don't have the option of specifically researching it based on my interest. The ad allows me to hear about a product and make an informed decision on whether or not I want that product, it doesn't lock me into a decision. You must seriously undervalue yourself if you avoid ads so you don't get forced to buy things you don't want.
I know this isn't really on topic but I don't like Spotify and I don't know why people love it.
first of all, it's not insanely expensive, but it's too expensive for me considering I wouldn't even have the time to listen to half that music, and I'm just as happy listening to fewer songs that I only have to pay for once, not monthly, especially since some of the bands I like didn't have all their music on Spotify, just a single album. also, their "unlimited" service package doesn't include using it on your phone, you have to pay extra to use the app on your mobile phone.
second, the ads on it are terrible. I've used Pandora for a while and now I pay for it so there are no ads (mostly to support a service I like) but the ads never bothered me, they were short and moderately infrequent. on Spotify I got ads after 4 songs, then another 4 and I couldn't not listen to them. the ad was a clip from a song by the band LMFAO, whom I find unpleasing to the ears, and when I muted my computer so I wouldn't have to bleed from my ears the ad paused, with no was of resuming it manually. I literally had to listen to it at an audible volume for the ad to continue playing it.
I only got to the second ad figured maybe it wouldn't be so frequent, or there was some fluke on the last ad, or the other ads wouldn't be so offensive to my ears. but at the second ad being the same as the first, after the same number of songs, I closed the Spotify program and decided never to use it again. maybe I had a misleading first time use of the service, but first impressions are important, and they not only failed to impress, they offended.
I think your argument is that just because Hollywood portrays something that doesn't mean it thinks it's a good idea. It's true that there are many movies and shows about illegal activity, but it's always clear. There are no movies where the moral is selling drugs and shooting people is a great lifestyle that everyone should aspire to. It's the message which is the thing we have to look at, not the portrayal. The message of Glee (I assume) is that these kids are creative and awesome and having a fun time doing something constructive at school. It gives viewers something to aspire to and look up to.
But of course, you probably have a hard time looking beyond the face value of anything you watch and looking for a message or meaning.