I applaud your effort to bring some neutrality to the debate. Unfortunately, it is NOT rational to make assumptions when we have facts and evidence which directly refute an assumption.
one side is absolutely certain that giving things away for free and recovering money in an alternate manner cannot work
Again, I applaud your effort in trying to understand the other side; but, an "assumption" such as the one above is irrational and one cannot reasonable discuss this issue with anyone who relies on this "assumption" because it is provably false. 60 years of broadcast television have shown that content can be "given away" with money from other sources. People on the other side of the debate can't simply start the debate with an irrational assumption and then expect to be taken seriously.
Where do I start with someone who is so friggin' dense? Didn't you read my post?
Apparently you start by trying to insult their intelligence and then follow up with a series of paragraphs that proves you are functionally retarded.
Saying that people don't watch ads and won't pay for things doesn't make it so. Part of problem with the "content industry" is that people in the industry spend so much time making up and living out fantasy worlds that they are unable to distinguish them from reality. Here in reality, we use facts, research, studies, and polls to determine what people will or won't do. In "content land" you just make up shit and then present it as evidence.
In this technological era, nothing but utter stupidity prevents me from having access to the collected artistic works of mankind via a simple subscription based application. If the "content industry" wants to survive they need to create that app; otherwise they're dead ... and I won't care.
So you think the way to eliminate copyright is to remove the ability to transfer rights.
Reading comprehension 101: The author, Hans Bousie, said that we should eliminate copyright in favor of a compulsory license system. That means no one would have a copyright, instead they would have some kind of "right to a creative income". At no point did the author, Hans Bousie, talk about limiting anyones ability to transfer that right. At no point did I talk about limiting anyones ability to transfer any rights. I simply pointed out that your contract law argument is meaningless in the context of a discussion about copyright vs. compulsory licensing.
You on the other hand co-opted a conversation to try to make it about contract law (snooze) because you want to turn everything into some type of scholarly law debate. Intentionally mis-reading my (and others) comments in an effort to steer the conversation is beneath you.
Frankly, I'm really tired of reading the crap you post. People will write insightful or interesting comments (both for and against copyright) and it is only a matter of moments before you have narrowed their post down to 1 sentence which vaguely brushes on some topic of law. The next thing you know, there are 50 comments where everyone under the sun is indulging you in some foolish debate about the finer points of current law.
I've had several "conversations" with you on these forums and you frequently mis-quote, mis-represent, or flat out mis-understand the law. Previous attempts to educate you by pointing to specific cases or statues have resulted in you bitching and name calling. When someone fires back the entire conversation is then about how "you won't engage with them unless there is civil discourse." (I guess the civil part only applies to the other party.)
Long story short, you're rude, as yet uneducated, and surprisingly inept at reading for a lawyer. Also, there is a fine line between being an avid debater and being an argumentative asshole; unfortunately, you crossed that line some months ago.
Read above. Lots of people think that using the article was fine ... unfortunately, what we want is not currently the law and mis-stating the law while being "grade A obnoxious" doesn't usually sit well with anyone.
I don't buy it, tone can be difficult in text but as a magazine editor you ought to be able to send an e-mail which can't be mis-interpreted. I'll even grant that the first e-mail may have been a text / voice situation ... but the second e-mail is blatantly rude and there is no way you can read this paragraph and NOT imagine her all red faced and throwing a hissy fit:
But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!"
If that's true, why $62,500? Is that number somehow special? Why is it so different from previous numbers in this case?
And more importantly, if the jurors think "file sharing is a bad thing" are you saying that this amount (over $1 million) is what they consider an appropriate punishment? If the jury is supposed to be determining a punishment based on "how wrong her actions were", why do they need to be given a range in the instructions anyway?
Having worked for a government run institution I would say this is par for the course. RFQs are almost always written with assistance from the desired vendor and "requirements" are created out of thin air in order to ensure that only 1 vendor can possibly meet the spec.
Efforts to end corruption have done nothing but create a legal framework to justify corruption.