Even Switzerland, that old standby, has its surveillance programs, and the risk is that it, too, will bring in measures like those of its neighbors.
Other countries might introduce similar measures in the future, but the French government is introducing them now.
Entire companies pulling out will serve dual purposes, both as a means of very visible protest, and a large boost to the reputations of those companies, quite possibly making up for the costs of pulling out of France in the long term.
You should consider selling tickets, I haven't seen this much dancing and contortionism outside of a circus act. You could make it a two-for-one show too, as you seem to be pretty good at creating strawmen.
Also, your little example is just a little off from reality, a more accurate one would be something along these lines:
Public/TD: Fair Use is a good thing. MPAA: We agree. Public/TD+MPAA: Let's support fair use.
Trade rep in charge of US negotiations for 'trade' agreements: Let's consider including Fair use in the 'trade' agreements*. MPAA: Woah now, let's not get carried away, that's a very controversial and divisive decision there.
Public/TD: Clearly the MPAA does not in fact support Fair Use, given they consider it's inclusion 'controversial and divisive', despite their claims to the contrary previously.
*Ignoring for the moment the only reason he wants to include fair use is to limit it, as the few leaked parts of the 'trade' agreements make clear.
Chorus of ignorant Techdirt posters: F*ck the MPAA! Anyone who disagrees with our position, based on a stolen document of unknown origin and unverified accuracy that we declare the immutable truth...
Ah, and now it's on to trying to discredit the documents themselves by bringing their validity under question. Sorry to say though(well, not really), but Sony's actions during this who debacle makes it pretty clear that they at least believe the documents are genuine, as rather than making a simple statement refuting the legitimacy of the documents and files, they are instead trying to stop them from spreading, and keep people from discussing the contents.
In addition, several bits of information from them(paying off AG's in multiple states, the MPAA's involvement in such) have been found to match up with other information and evidence elsewhere, something that would be just a bit difficult to manage if the documents were false.
needs to answer an arbitrary set of illogical questions and give us their name and photo ID or else!
'Arbitrary and illogical' now are they? Really, watching you do everything you can to avoid answering those three simple questions is almost funny.
Also, speaking of 'arbitrary and illogical', you were the one who offered to provide your name, in exchange for Mike answering a question he had no possible way of knowing the answer to. Rather than being honest and admitting that you had no intention of giving your name, you instead threw out an impossible challenge, and when he called you out on it, you suddenly got defensive and acted all offended. Really now, just be honest from the start next time.
Yeah, nice try at the deflection there, but I doubt anyone's buying your excuses. None of what he asked were loaded questions. In case you missed them, here are the three, super tricky questions:
1. If the MPAA truly believed in fair use, then why wouldn't it want fair use to be a part of our trade agreements with other countries?
2. If the MPAA truly supported fair use, then why would it call the proposal to include fair use in the TPP "controversial"?
3. Why did the MPAA directly fight *against* Australia and the UK implementing fair use if they truly support fair use?
At this point I'd say I've got a pretty good idea as to why you refuse to answer the questions, and it has nothing to do with them being 'loaded questions' as you are trying to claim. But hey, if you don't want to answer them, just say so, don't try and dodge around and pretend that they are somehow 'unfair'.
And the MPAA never changed its position on fair use. You guys just don't give up.
You may have missed it when you were busy constructing your strawmen, but I don't think anyone here thinks the MPAA have changed their position on fair use. They've lied about their position before, sure, but they have maintained a consistent position on the matter, and it's not for fair use.
Youtube - yes. Justin Beiber was discovered by Youtube. You are so right - the future of music is in great hands. I'll go on over to Kickstarter to fund some band's recording fees so they can put their MP3's up on Soundcloud since none of them have enough talent to play live and make money any more.
Really, that's your counter-argument? That Beiber got started on Youtube, so therefore you can dismiss every other artists using the various independent services? That's the best you can do?
However, assume for a moment that you're right though, that Beiber got his start on Youtube, various people consider him a rubbish musician(myself included), and therefore the platform he started on is composed of nothing but similar rubbish musicians/singer...
Remind me again, who is he signed with currently? Ah yes, a major label. By your argument then, the labels, and the poor saps they've conned into signing for them are all rubbish, and can be dismissed as insignificant.
I always find it funny, how while pirates are often portrayed as the ones who 'hate artists and musicians', to find the real loathing and disdain for creators, you need look no farther than those defending the parasitic middle-men, who it seems have nothing but dismissive contempt for those that aren't stupid enough to sign their rights and money away for a lottery ticket at 'making it'.
Notice you still haven't answered the questions Mike presented... Really, either answer them, or admit that you're not going to, stop twisting and turning and doing everything you can to avoid addressing them.
As for the recording industry, strawman much?
I hate them not for what they are, but because what they have, and continue to do. Being half of the parasitic duo that fights to ensure nothing ever enters the public domain, pushing for laws that have absolutely zero effect on the claimed target(piracy), but impact tons of innocent people and services, constantly demanding that everyone but them should be responsible for their content... I could probably go on for a while if I cared to, but the fact remains that they have done plenty to earn their toxic reputation.
As for new music, try Youtube, Bandcamp, Soundcloud and other similar services. Services that allow musicians to post and even sell their music, all without some parasite demanding a huge share and the rights to the music for hosting and/or selling it. You want to throw money at the rubbish that the major labels toss out, paying money to those that consider their paying customers barely better than a pack of criminals, knock yourself out, but don't expect those of us who care about who we give money to to do the same.
What a complete load of horseshit. More music being created right now then any other time in history. More opportunities for more musicians to make decent livings than ever before. One isn't required to win the "A & R Lottery" to participate anymore.
I always find it funny, if rather annoying, when people conflate the recording industry, with the music industry. If the recording industry crashes and burns(and the sooner the better), the music industry will still continue on perfectly fine. In fact, without one of the main supporters of constantly ratcheting up copyright law around, it's quite possible sane reforms could be made, leading to even more music created.
Even with the recording industry raking in record profits on an almost yearly basis(despite whining for decades about how piracy was on the verge of destroying them, funny how that works), as you point out, more music than ever before is being created and sold, it's just that most of it isn't through the parasitic labels anymore.
Sure they could try and compete on price and service... but that would take work, effort, and money, and might result in a drop in profits and would almost certainly lead to a drop in control.
Parasites like this pretty much only know how to do two things when competition shows up, and that's sue it into oblivion and/or buy laws to make it illegal to compete with them. The idea of offering what the customer wants, how and when they want it, and at a price they consider reasonable is so foreign to them it might as well be in a lost language.
Your confusion is caused by thinking that their objection to piracy is the (potential) loss of profits, when this is very much not the case. Loss of potential profits is a factor to be sure, but not the main one, not the important one(to them).
Rather, as their objections to people paying for their content via VPNs makes clear, their main objection is the loss of control, which in turn often leads to the loss of profits. If they can't dictate price due to having a local monopoly on the content, because people can get the same content cheaper elsewhere, then that drastically cuts down on the control they have, which is something they just can't stand.
If you frame their objections as a loss of control, rather than a loss of profits, then the fact that they see no difference between someone pirating a work, and someone paying for it via a VPN makes perfect sense.
The copyright owner for the movie 'The Wizard of Oz' has threatened to file a lawsuit against Sony, as they claim to own the copyright of the idea of yelling at people and telling them to stop looking behind the curtain.
When asked to comment on the potential lawsuit, a Sony representative merely issued vague legal threats against the reporter, telling them that if they kept reporting on Sony's business matters, or anything related to the company, 'dire consequences will follow'.
The sentiment is nice, but an unproven concept at best.
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that in the US at least, nothing enters the public domain, unless it's well over a century old at the very least. Kinda hard to test how a more robust public domain would lead to increased works when it's never allowed to grow, and certainly never allowed to grow with anything relevant to current culture. I suppose you could always look to other countries, but given how much the USG loves pushing it's laws elsewhere in the interests of 'harmonizing' them, it's just a titch difficult to find examples to look at with regards to how things might have gone with saner durations.
I am never a big fan of the strip mining mentality that seems to exist, hoping to find a gold nugget while ignoring the effects of the mining itself.
What 'strip mining' would that be exactly? If something is in the public domain, everyone gets to use it and create works based upon it. 'Strip mining' suggest that something is being lost, when in fact other than parasites who had nothing to do with the creation losing their monopoly rights to something, shorter terms and more robust public domains instead increases what is gained.
The 90% crap figure you suggest is both painful and a whole lot of discouraging poor quality content to wade through.
That '90% crap' is going to happen regardless, whether there's a lot of works being created, or only a few. By enlarging the amount of works created, while that does increase the amount of crap that gets created, it also increases the amount of good works that are created as well.
Again, great sentiment, but the results would be the same: The copyright expiration would be extended to meet the requirements of the mouse and others, and thus the results would be the same as you have today.
Which is why you stop extending the duration. If the terms offered were good enough when something was created, then there's absolutely no need to extend them after the fact just because certain companies are feeling parasitic and/or don't feel like competing with older works.
Requiring registration to have copyright is wasteful, expensive, and creates an incredible amount of doubt in the public's mind as to what is and what is not copyright.
Did you miss the whole point about registration making it so people could easily check whether or not something was under copyright still, or if it had entered the mythical realm known as the public domain? That's pretty much the exact opposite of creating doubt.
With regards to 'wasteful', if it will help deal with the orphaned works problem, where who knows how many works are basically sitting in limbo, because no-one knows who has the rights to them, and no-one feels like getting sued to find out, then that sounds like a good cost for copyright 'ownership' to me. Works languishing, with no-one to claim them, and no-one able to use them because of it, sounds quite a bit more 'wasteful' than some simple paperwork to me.
With regards to 'expensive', well, I keep hearing about how valuable copyrights are, how infringing, even accidentally, on one is grounds for massive monetary fines due to the immense 'harm' suffered by the copyright owners, and if they are so very 'valuable', then registering them, for a minor fee, should be seen as a worthwhile investment. Wouldn't even need to be that expensive, a simple fee to cover filing costs should be sufficient, and given the benefits that being covered under copyright grants, a small fee to cover the paperworks hardly seems excessive.
Today's system is simple: Someone has copyright on it (even if it is a monkey). There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind right now that a work is copyright.
(Well except for the fact that no-one owned the copyright to the monkey selfie, despite claims by some to the contrary...)
Unless it's an older work, or you don't know who owns it, which makes it impossible to figure out when the copyright duration will eventually lapse, or you want to know who has the rights so you can contact them for whatever reason...
Unless of course you meant that due to the fact that nothing enters the public domain, ever anymore in the US, it's safe to assume that everything is covered, in which case I might agree with you, though that still doesn't solve the problem of knowing who has the rights to something, and when the theoretical expiration of the copyright term is.
So I'm curious, assuming the above wasn't a Poe, is it fun being a puppet? Do the strings get in the way of your everyday life, or are they mostly fairly easy to ignore?
Anyone paying the least bit of attention to party affiliation(whether democrat, republicam, or other), or the rubbish that is 'conservative' vs 'liberal' rather than what people do, have fallen prey to one of the greatest tricks of politics, 'My tribe vs Your tribe', where you get people so worked up over meaningless labels, they completely miss how similar the different 'tribes' really are, blaming all the woes on 'those other guys', instead of realizing that more often than not both are to blame.
Hey, I can throw out hypothetical scenarios too. If we actually had sane copyright durations, such that things actually entered the public domain when they were still relevant, even if 90% of it was crap, that remaining 10% would still be a huge amount of excellent new works.
Also, the "upon death of author" would lead to the inevitable BS legal defense of "I didn't publish without permission, I read on the internet that he was dead".
At which point the status of the creator would be checked, and the defense either upheld if they were dead, or tossed if they weren't. The 'problem' would be at most minor, and is hardly an effective argument.
However, you could solve that given problem fairly simply, with just two simple changes. Make copyright duration based upon publication date, so there's absolutely no room for confusion, and require registration for a work to be covered under copyright(which would also solve various other problems like orphaned works). No confusion, as a simple check would allow people to know exactly when something entered the public domain, or if it was still locked up.
This would also have the not-so-minor benefit of making sure that anything created would make it to the public domain eventually, as it could be automatically released once the duration was over, and registration would mean that a usable copy would always be available.
The campaigns manager for Choice, Erin Turner, says at least 684,000 Australian households currently employ VPNs to bypass geoblocks and access overseas content at globally competitive prices.
People are paying, even paying more for VPN's, and they're throwing a fit because it allows people to purchase content in a manner that removes their stranglehold on it. It removes their ability to price Content X at one rate in one country, and another rate in another country, based upon how much the one who's paying to offer it are willing to shell out.
If people can get content from other countries, should the price be cheaper from a service there, then that drastically decreases the value of the content, and the ones buying the broadcast rights for it are not going to be willing to pay nearly the same rates as a result. That is what they're throwing a fit over, the fact that a global market means it's much harder to hold a monopoly, and they don't have nearly a strong a bargaining position as a result, leading to decreased profits.
Of course, when it comes to costs, whether production or otherwise, you can be sure they quite enjoy the global market, and how it allows them to decrease how much they have to pay, because if one country isn't willing to price competitively, they can always look elsewhere. They just don't want the consumers to enjoy the same advantage.
Hey, I think pointing the finger at NK is ridiculous too, and likely a mix of trying to make Sony's security look better than it is('See, only another nation could beat our security!'), and taking advantage of the hack for political reasons(anywhere between 'Here's today's boogieman' and 'If we'd only had more power, we could have stopped this').
Most likely it was exactly what it looked like, a random hacker group deciding to break in and look for interesting stuff, but given I don't believe I've run across anyone being able to say for certain who exactly was responsible(other than Sony's abysmal security), it's impossible to say for sure.
As such, you're basically asking for Mike to provide information he has no way of knowing, in exchange for meeting his request. Either say flat out that you won't provide your name, or provide terms that are at least achievable. Don't act like you'll take up his offer of providing your name if you have no intention of ever doing so.
In case you missed it, the emails were among those grabbed during the recent-ish massive hack Sony suffered, and according to the USG at least, the finger of blame seems to be pointed at north korea for whatever reason.
Assuming you're right, and he signed a NDA document, and assuming he didn't take a 'I swear to protect and defend the constitution' oath(which would easily trump any NDA), so what? If that's what it took to expose massive government misconduct(to put it lightly), it seems a pretty minor price to pay.
'Oh noes, he lied in order to expose massive, domestic spying, intentional weakening and attacks on encryption, and various other quasi-legal actions by the government, what a terrible person! Let's all focus on the lie and just ignore the rest as not nearly as important, because remember, he lied!' /s
What's your position on (highly complex subject A)? Come on then, just because it's extremely complex and nuanced, surely you can boil all of it down to simple bullet-points that address all of it?
What, you can't? Complex subject by their very nature require complex answers, and at times don't have any clear answer other than 'more data is needed'? Nonsense, every subject can be boiled down to bullet points! /s
If the sarcasm hasn't gotten the point across, maybe a more direct comment will, and that is the subject matter is a highly complex one, making the discussion and stances on it also complex. If you want to know Mike's, DH's, or the other writers' of the site's stance on the subject matter, get to reading. It's not the job of others to give you a nice cliff-notes version.
'...done in the right way and with sufficient solicitousness and it's very important to the privacy interests which I do think can be balanced.'
A statement I would agree with, if the 'right way' was 'get a gorram warrant'. As it stands though, the fact that they are fighting so hard against the laughably easy task of simply applying for a warrant before snooping makes it pretty clear the vast majority of their fishing expeditions are just that, baseless searches with no actual justification, and certainly not ones that would hold up under scrutiny.
What a change to 1201 would do would be to tip the balance that currently exists.
I think you mean a balance that currently doesn't exist. Removing the anti-curcumvention clause would likely have a minimal impact on piracy, at most.
Really, copyright infringement is already illegal, do you honestly think someone involved in it pays even the slightest bit of attention to DRM beyond removing it when it bothers them(a trivial task in pretty much every case as I understand it)? Heck, I'd be surprised if even a quarter of those engaged in copyright infringement even knew about the anti-circumvention clause at all, so I rather doubt removing it would have any effect on them.
The only people DRM screws over are legitimate, paying customers, pirates aren't bothered by the infection in the least, so allowing people to strip DRM would be a great help to legitimate customers, while not affecting copyright infringers in the least.