I doubt that piracy was actually reduced, what probably happened is it went further underground.
Given that revenue is down, HADOPI is in a no-win scenario. If they're right that piracy really is down, then it's proved that they're ineffective at the industry's stated goal of increasing revenue. And if you're right that piracy is the same, but just driven underground, then it's proved that they're ineffective at their own organization's chartered goal, decreasing piracy. They just went with the option that sounded most up beat.
I actually think that the copyright term should ignore completely whether the artist is alive or dead. The determination of how long the copyright term is should balance how much of an incentive it is for the artist versus the overall benefit to the public. How does whether the artist is alive logically play into this calculation?
I'm having difficulty figuring out the difference here.
The difference is simply the degree to which it's deemed that music contributes to the appeal of a service. I'm not saying that I agree with the judgement about the hotel, but I can see the logic of accounting for how the availability of music affects drawing in customers. Having music at a bar draws more people in. If you surveyed bargoers, you'd have a relatively high percentage of people that would say having music would make them more likely to patronize a bar. But not so with a auto shop, police station, or a stable. But...the hotel? Probably somewhere in the middle. Again, it's subjective, but I think at least the scale being used is correct.
This just seems like a strange and pointless battle.
Exactly. This is why no one should stand in the way of the licensing agencies controlling access to these TLDs. Let them win the battle and lose the war. They'll waste time with this while the rest of the Internet goes on its merry way. It will be the same as the walled garden approach by the newspapers: people will just ignore what's inside the wall.
At issue, of course, is whether or not an iTunes transaction is a sale (tiny royalty payment) or a license (much bigger royalty payment).
What about the affect of this settlement on the consumer? Because this was settled instead of getting to an official verdict, we won't have Sony going on the record as stating that iTunes transactions are really a sale (which would imply more privileges to the consumer) rather than a license (which gives Sony the wiggle room to change the terms after the transaction).
I still think that if you involve the courts, that the details of all settlements should be made public and should be accounted for (to at least some degree) in case law. If you don't want to keep the dirty secrets of your settlement, then pay for arbitration or something and stop wasting taxpayer money by clogging up the courts.
Hopefully, we'll see those proposals turn up elsewhere.
And it would be nice if "elsewhere" meant in its own legislation instead of tacked onto a completely unrelated bill. I'm guessing that I'd agree with much of Wyden is proposing, but that doesn't make this kind of thing OK. It's a sign of how lawmaking is more about backroom deals and underhanded maneuvers than judging a proposal based its merits and on facts.
"Perhaps your product contained search tags or descriptions that references elements from The Twighlight Saga, for example titles, character names, etc."
Perhaps? So, Zazzle removed content based on a claim and there isn't even an explanation as to what is infringing? Shouldn't this be a mandatory part of any takedown request? Unless you're a Twilight fan -- and I hope you're not -- how in the world would you connect that particular date with anything owned by Summit Entertainment?
You're not very good an understanding how people interpret what you write. Most people reading what I quoted would think that you were implying just that.
I also LOVE the way you didnt answer the question either:
So the whole of his life is ended by one bad decision?
I didn't answer the question because the obvious answer is no. And that's the point. No one suggested otherwise. If you have a problem with how Mike or the Techdirt community has previously "nailed" Ron Paul, why don't you reference and address that instead of putting words into Mike's mouth?
So the whole of his life is ended by one bad decision?
Yeah but that one bad lawsuit... OF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!
Did Mike directly state or even imply anything close to these statements in his post? Not as far as I can tell. If you equate pointing out an instance of hypocrisy on the part of a politician with decapitation, then that's your problem, not Mike's.
It seems Capitol Hill only thinks of industries in terms of whoever has the power to control the most mindless sheep.
I think it doesn't even occur to most politicians that they'd have to engage the people as a whole instead of big companies or lobbying groups. Money in concentrated in big companies and lobbying groups, so that's whey're they're conditioned to focus their attention. When confronted with what happened with SOPA, their response is "Right, OK...but who's going to pay my bribes?"
"Wait, someone is suing us for infringment?! That's our job!" I've thought for a while now that we'll only get true IP reform when it starts affecting the big companies. The collective pushback by the people on PIPA/SOPA/ACTA is a great start, but the scales won't really tip in the right direction until a truce is called between the big players.
At the first workshop in Amsterdam only a few ISPīs were participating. In the second one in Madrid we have more participants from the internet industry and also some NGO's. We will however not share names in public without their permission. Companies might be a bit reserved to link their corporate reputation to a project without knowing precisely what the end-result will look like.
Translation: Since we're starting from a false premise that the best approach is censorship, we already know that the end-result it going to be controversial, so we want to hide as much as possible until it's already too late for you pesky citizens to do anything about it.
Take note, this is the post PIPA/ACTA model: give lip service to transparency, but still keep all of the essential dealing behind closed doors.
The question is if we can limit the use of internet for terrorist purposes, without affecting our online freedom.
This "question" makes my brain hurt. It's not a question; it's an obvious contradiction. You cannot, by definition, limit something without adversely affecting freedom. This is the same kind of intellectually dishonest thinking that politicians use when saying that PIPA/SOPA isn't censorship. What they really mean is that "Restricting what people can say isn't censorship if I don't agree with what they are saying. 'Censorship' is bad, but what I'm doing is good; therefore this isn't censorship."
hasn't taken him long then. now all that needs to happen is to apply the same thinking towards the internet and copyright and maybe he'll be getting somewhere.
No no no. We can't critisize any politician who has a bad publicity induced epiphany, even if it's mild sarcasm. When they realize that the thing they were railing against is actually the "wave of the future", we need to puff up the politicians' delicate egos with public praise. Or else the next time, they might just stick to their guns and not drop their support. "You get the behavior you reward."
Instead of having a happy artist celebrating the worldwide Blu-ray release of a seminal film, you've got a disgruntled former employee telling people to shoplift the hell out of the store.
Shoplift? Nice try, troll! As everyone at TechDirt knows, infringement isn't stealing. When you steal something, you deprive the original owner of its use, whereas--what? Oh. I see now that quote was in the original article, not a user comment. Nevermind.
So I can understand why a (no facts related to the people involved) non-lazy, legal expert would not want his writing just copied by someone else and they get to charge the ridiculous fees.
I can understand this emotion too. And I'd bet Mike would understand it too. But the emotions around whether someone is using your work without your permission has absolutely zero to do with the original intent of copyright. You quote that original purpose and then proceed to completely ignore it by appealing to emotion.
As for the "ridiculous fees", maybe if more lawyers actually did copy the legal filings from each other, there wouldn't be a need for these high fees.
I have to worry about all the things everyone else is doing while driving.
Wait, there was a time when you didn't have to pay attention to other drivers? Whether it's eating, fiddling with the radio, putting on makeup, or texting, there's always been distracted driving. And there's therefore always been a need for defensive driving.
Burst my bubble? Are you sure you replied to the right post? My post was about how politicians can say one thing and, through weasel words, mean something completely different. It had nothing to do with the specifics of how data loggers work, one way or otherwise.