It costs as much to access information as it does to make it.
Same with the rest of culture. I am continually baffled that people fail to acknowledge the work that goes into "consuming" art. In fact it's not "consuming," it's attending.
Attention is scarce. Information is not. Do the math.
Er...Cory Doctorow does favor some copyright, and releases his books under -NC ("non-commercial") CC licenses, aka commercial monopolies. The whole point of -NC restrictions is to prevent commercial competition; the justification is that these monopolies provides incentives for works to be created that wouldn't be created otherwise.
I strongly disagree with -NC licenses and commercial monopolies, which happen to be incompatible with a functional market. Others believe they are worth the social cost.
So I am probably one of those "radical extremists," but Cory is not.
A video of me saying just that went up just the other day!
Free Markets?! What are you, a COMMUNIST???
I need to send a stronger signal that my work is Free. Viewers need to know they can legally copy and share the work, which is vital to the film's distribution. Other artists and innovators need to know they won't be sued for building on the work. Otherwise it will be assumed "owned" by default - and the law backs that up. Free licenses aren't a perfect solution, but they're the best solution we've got in this everything-copyrighted-by-default regime.
Creative Commons is worse than copyright as it promotes the same kind of dangerous "permission culture" it purports to eliminate. It creates an entirely new thicket around terms like "attribution" and "noncommercial use" that are entirely unnecessary.
Not worse than copyright, but I agree with the rest, and I hate that CC's genuinely Free licenses (Share-Alike (copyleft), CC-0, and Attribution only) are lumped in with their restrictive -NC and -ND licenses, so all are called just "Creative Commons licenses." CC-NC and CC-ND are CC-BS.
I don't want license proliferation, which is why I use CC's BY-SA, but I wish there were a viable competing organization that offered only Free licenses. I don't support over half of CC's licenses, and hate the implication that my use of their Free license means I support all their unfree crap.
I meant it's hard to persuade by using facts. Unfortunately, the facts bear that out.
It's very hard to argue with facts, as the ongoing copyright "debate" proves. Facts aren't at all persuasive, unfortunately.
Hollywood has been the gatekeeper for entertainment content for ages. It doesn't like the fact that it's losing that role. This fight isn't so much about copyright as it is about Hollywood's continued need to block out alternative routes for distribution that it cannot control.
Yes. But it is about copyright, because that's what copyright is for: eliminating competition.
If true, it's not a pirate; it's a plagiarist.
Let's just say Germany is harboring pirates, and invade. That's what we do to any countries harboring terrorists, right? Except Florida, of course. And everywhere else in the world. Fortunately, since every state harbors pirates and terrorists somewhere, we can invade anywhere we like!
And maintain commercial monopolies via the -NC licenses. :-(
Please print money using images from Sita Sings the Blues. That would be the coolest "commercial use" ever. Talk about turning art into money!
You're welcome.
"Capacitastrophe" is excellent.
I've always thought of it as "infopocalypse," but apparently some people use that term to mean something else.
Netflix already offers DRM free streaming.
No, they don't.
I meant, nice acronym.
Nice anagram.
Interestingly, Netflix competitor IndiePix picked up this story, to point out their video-on-demand (VOD) service is unencumbered with DRM.
I hope other competitors to Netflix, iTunes, etc. come forward to stress the value of their DRM-free services. This is how competition is supposed to work. If it's clear there is demand for DRM-free VOD, ultimately even the "big guys" will see it's in their interest to offer it too. But first audiences need to know what DRM is, and that DRM-free alternatives exist.
Re: Re: Re: Illegal is Illegal
any time, effort, or money spent trying to stop file sharing is time, effort and money that is not just wasted, but actually invested in ill will against you and your product.
Investing in ill will. Well said.