Thank you for the response, but I honestly still don't see what the end game is once these studies have been done or what value they will provide in the decision making process of re-evaluating the current copyright system. The authority granted to Congress to enable the copyright monopoly was solely for the benefit of the public in that granting the limited monopoly would provide incentive to the creator to keep creating, and thus keep contributing to the progress of the arts, and by extension, the public. I can't really see what the public opinion on the morality of copyright has to do with determining what length of monopoly grant provides the greatest incentive to enable new creation.
People care deeply about things other than economics, and they're the ones who lobby for the laws, pass the laws, ignore or follow the laws.
I have to disagree with this statement to an extent. In an ideal world where laws are based on the benefit of the majority this may very well be true, but it is quite evident that we don't live in an ideal world. You identify 3 groups whose opinions should be studied: The lobbyists, the lawmakers, and the public subject to the laws. Those who lobby don't have an opinion relevant to this discussion because their lobbying is a paid service where they are expected to push the opinion of their paymasters. Those who make laws also don't have an opinion relevant to this discussion because while they are technically only supposed to represent the opinion of those they represent, they much more frequently represent the opinion of the paymasters who fund the lobbyists who push their agenda to these lawmakers in the form of financial incentives. Those who choose to "ignore or follow the laws" are really the ones who "care deeply about things other than economics", but they still have to make a decision based off of economics in the form of a cost/benefit analysis.
Once the laws have been passed, they now have to decide whether A) they agree with the law, which may be done subjectively in the instance of morality or objectively as is done through empirical analysis, and B) if they disagree with the law, whether breaking it is worth the consequence. Whether the decision is based on morality or objectivity, it is still an economic decision even if they don't know it, but I digress...
Those aren't necessarily the only purposes society wants its copyright law to acknowledge. By dismissing, marginalizing, or mischaracterizing non-economic intuitions about the purpose and the goals of copyright that are likely to be very widely held, would-be reformers ensure that their proposed reforms are less likely to successfully address such concerns, less likely to appeal to lawmakers and the public, and more likely to fail.
While you may have a valid point here, I believe it is rendered moot without changing the constitution. Because the authority granted to Congress allows them to grant the limited copyright monopoly solely to provide incentive towards the creation of new works, the public opinion as to it's morality doesn't factor into the decision making process. Whether this is morally right or wrong also doesn't factor in as it is what it is until it isn't. Under the guidance provided by the constitution, Congress should be basing copyright monopoly policy based on hard facts that empirically show that a specific term of monopoly length provides the greatest cost/benefit balance to maximize the greatest output of new creative material to the benefit of the public. Until their authority to grant this monopoly privilege is changed, I don't see how the plain language in the constitution can be interpreted any differently.
It is possible that the research you request could very well be the driving force behind changing the portion of the constitution granting this authority, but as it stands now it simply doesn't have a place in determining what is very much an economic policy decision.
I'm happy to admit that some people think in non-economic terms about copyright law. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be allowed to freely express it and have it heard. That being said, I'm not completely sure I understand the reason behind your request to have empirical research done to show that people have opinions. Maybe I'm missing your point in all of this...
I think we all agree that the original purpose of copyright was to stop unauthorized publishers from copying and profiting from works they were not granted the privilege to publish and profit from. The constitution's stated definition of the purpose of copyright is quite clear as well, in that it is to promote the progress of the arts by granting a limited monopoly to the copyright holder to be the sole authorized entity to profit from the creative work in order to provide incentive to create new works.
My question to you is where do these moral rights come into play with this stated purpose? To what end will performing this empirical research be valuable to the discussion of how long this limited monopoly should last and whether or not the extension of this limited monopoly has ever provided additional incentive towards the creation of new works?
The courts did exactly that in this case, yet you advocate ignoring that result to judge him in the court of public opinion.
You are confusing 2 separate points. Mike clearly states that he agrees with the courts in rendering the evidence inadmissible and that he has no problem with the end result of the legal action. He is saying that it is irresponsible for the board of directors to allow someone who is known to have struck his girlfriend 117 times within 30 minutes to be the public face of the company. I think it says a lot about the moral character of the board of directors that they would knowingly allow an individual with a clearly demonstrated propensity for abuse and violence to be their representative voice.
No one disputes that this guy committed a heinous crime. He got off on a procedural technicality due to law enforcement incompetence, but again, no one is denying that he actually committed the crime. He simply can't be prosecuted for it. Mike is simply rendering the opinion that he finds it disgraceful that this company would allow him to publicly represent them, and I have to say that I agree with him.
I can understand your frustration, but every step of activism, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction. Today it may be signing a petition, tomorrow it may be donating to support an activist organization, and who knows... one day it may even be voting. It's these first steps that help encourage people to be more active in their own government, and because of that it's not a waste of time. Sitting around complaining about how terrible things are without taking any action is the true waste of time.
I was thinking the same thing. If this happens, I will absolutely contribute to funding it, and if I have time, I might setup the kickstarter myself. The only stipulation is that Wu would need to release it under a creative commons, free to share.
Yet another failed analogy. Ball kicking is a form of battery and therefore a criminal offense, which, as you pointed out, is punishable by incarceration. Infringement is a civil matter and punishable by ridiculously disproportionate fines. Both can have a deterrent effect when properly applied. The biggest problem with the penalties for infringement is that they are so astronomical that they are kind of a joke. Having the potential to be fined 150k for a $.99 single is so outside of the realm of common sense and unrealistic that most people will simply ignore it.
I've never paid for cable. Between the internet and OVA broadcasting, I've never seen the point. If I can't stream it, download it, or watch it OVA, then I've come to the conclusion I don't really need it. When I find something I like I'll get the DVD or Bluray. I guess never having cable as a kid made it easy for me. It always makes me laugh when I go to a friend's house, flip through 400 channels and still can't find anything worth watching, yet if I'm bored I can almost always find something at home OVA to settle on.
I'm sure that you can get more information from the actual document the AC above linked to, but the major argument against Hotfile was it's incentive program which paid people for uploading popular files. Many of the most popular files were copyrighted content. That coupled with the very low ban rate against repeat offenders was enough to convince the court that Hotfile was inducing infringement.
I am the last person that would ever try to defend the actions of the MAFIAA, but Hotfile kind of shot themselves in the foot. I agree with the AC above that any cyberlocker that is setup properly should not have any issue because of this ruling in the scope that it is presented in. What worries me is that the MAFIAA will try to twist this ruling to expand it to cover other sites that do not meet the same criteria that was used against Hotfile.
So this past Monday night I'm at a swanky Hollywood Italian joint (Cecconi's) – the kind of place where, yep that's Ellen Degeneres pulling up behind me in the valet. Now, at this hosted dinner (thx @fullscreen/@mikecaren) were a dozen smart folks including the presidents of Warner Bros Records, Electra Records, Sony ATV, some other hollywood movers and shakers as well as a few notable LA startups folks (@ChillLive, @LaunchpadLA, @Coloft)
As we walk past some celebs in the main dining room we were seated in the private dinning room with Damien Hirst's "All You Need Is Love" (sold for 2.5MM) hanging on the wall. Everything is going fine until we get through the personal intros and into what became a "spirited" discussion on what exactly is going on between Tech and Music these days.
Thankfully, the carnival barker of the music folks made a blog post summarizing the conventional hollywood perspective on the exchange. As the conversation rolled on, I didn't have the heart to paint the honest picture of what is in fact happening, and realize in hindsight, that these good folks deserve to hear the straight truth on how tech innovators currently see the music biz.
For tech folks, from the 35,000' view, there are islands of opportunity. There's Apple Island, Facebook Island, Microsoft Island, among many others and yes there's Music Biz Island. Now, we as tech folks have many friends who have sailed to Apple Island and we know that it's $99/year to doc your boat and if you build anything Apple Island will tax you at 30%. Many of our friends are partying their asses off on Apple Island while making millions (and in some recent cases billions) and that sure sounds like a nice place to build a business.
Not far away is Facebook Island, which also taxes at 30%, and we all have friends who are partying hard and making their millions (and in some cases billions) and life sure sounds good on Facebook Island.
Of course, just across from Facebook is Youtube Island, which taxes at ~50%, and yet we all know friends who are building nice businesses there.
Hell, over at Microsoft Island, (where I'm camped, and loving it) they're paying people to dock their boats, giving out free land for the first 2 years and they even have open bars!
Now, we also know of Music Biz Island which is where the natives start firing cannons as you approach, and if not sunk at sea, one must negotiate with the chiefs for 9 months before given permission to dock. Those who do go ashore are slowly eaten alive by the native cannibals. As a result, all the tugboats and lighthouses (investors, advisors) warn to stay far away from Music Biz Island, as nobody has ever gotten off alive. If that wasn't bad enough, while Apple and Facebook Island are built with sea walls to protect from the rising oceans, Music Biz Island is already 5 ft under and the educated locals are fleeing for Topspin Island.
This is the reality in 2012. Tech innovators and entrepreneurs have many wonderful options and the islands of opportunity are rolling out red carpets (WWDC, F8, WPC, I/O) Unfortunately for the Music Biz, they don't seem to realize that they've scared off any chance of a smart crew landing any time soon. We pray for our brave brothers at Spotify, Soundcloud, Turntable.fm and others, but generally fear for the worst.
It wasn't in the article here, but I think it was in the torrentfreak coverage that indicated that Japan's CD rental business experienced a huge increase. It would seem that the sneaker net is making a big comeback which explains the huge drop in digital sales. Since it has been shown through numerous studies that downloaders spend the most on culture, and that many used downloading as a way to preview the culture before committing to buy, now people are renting the cd's to try them and since they've got a physical copy they are most likely just ripping them before they are returned. No reason to go get the limited digital purchase when you get a drm free rip in the quality of your choosing.
It is getting increasingly more annoying every time I click on the comments of a thread after I see there's 50-60 comments thinking I'm hopping into an interesting substantive discussion, and 40 of them are responses to some of his nonsense. I admit he's entertaining sometimes and has even been known to actually contribute to a discussion with something insightful on more than one occasion, but this is starting to get a bit ridiculous. Case in point... as I'm typing this is the longest thread of comments on this posting and it is debating why he's a troll and has nothing to do with the actual post about the trial proceedings.
So... that being said... Nancy, thanks for the coverage. Pretenda never fails to entertain with their incompetent trial skills. I can't fathom how they were ever licensed to practice law in the first place.
As pointed out, that isn't the definition of treason. Since no one else seems to be posting the definition, here you go:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Agreed... Tech stories should be boring and devoid of humor. On more than one occasion Mr. Geigner has forced me to elicit a smirk, and this is unforgivable. Not to mention the penis jokes... After a long and hard day, I find techdirt to be a great way to beat the monotony of the daily grind, but many times the thrust of the article is lost due to his juvenile humor.
I was planning on attempting to refute your other claims until I realized your article was parody. You almost had me fooled, but when you said "he knows what he's talking about" I realized my error. Well played, sir, well played.
What you just said was just as offensive, crass, and juvenile as what Rosario tweeted. It's also just as much of a constitutionally protected opinion as his was. That aside, your hypocrisy is unmeasurable.
PS... Your comment is also equally as likely to get prosecuted for slander.