It really amazes me how the French who are generally concerned about privacy would allow this to happen.
Needles to say TMG services could easily use this information they can acquire for uses outside of stopping "infringement". I say this only because when absolute power is granted it will inevitably become absolutely corrupted.
Scary time to be in France considering that they have effectively privatized a portion of their legal system. I think the term for that is Fascism.
I am one of the only readers of Techdirt that even advocates for abolishment of Intellectual Property. Next to no one on this blog shares my viewpoint that I am aware of.
So please, if you are going to make generalizations about Techdirt readers at least try to get them right.
I won't even start with your analogy of what is more profitable, because it is just plain stupid. It is apparent that you may just be trolling at this point as you have not added to the conversation and instead have taken one side without trying to consider the other.
I think what your trying to say is by allowing the Creative Commons to exist we are also admitting that copyright must need to exist.
I tend to agree with the abolition of intellectual property in general. So by this standard I would agree that the creative commons is indeed a mistake because it makes the assumption that copyright needs to exist in the first place.
I grow weary of corporations and individuals capitalizing on our culture at the cost of our ability to promote effective discourse and exchange of ideas. If the point of intellectual property is to slow down progress and create as many imaginary barriers as possible to actually creating then it has worked perfectly.
We are living in a world of 6 billion + people. How long can we continue to afford such privilege to such a minority?
I think the answer to the question of this post is moot. We already know that ISPs are more than willing to hop in bed with anyone who has the cash and their concerns about privacy are very little if any.
It really may just boil down to these content industries getting behind closed doors and scratching the ISPs backs for the info they want. I think for the most part this is already happening with the big ISPs.
Now it is just the smaller ISPs that remain that are resistant to cooperation because they haven't gotten their slice of the pie yet.
Of course having a diverse population of ISP providers would help in some degree to prevent this sort of collusion, but that is not what we have here in the USA. Competition is definitely not the American way when it comes to ISPs.
I have heard the argument from several city planners that if you build more roads people will just fill them up. They often use this as an excuse not to expand roads or build new ones because it will just "create" more congestion.
This is of course hogwash IMHO. More roads always equals less congestion in the the short term. The idea that building more roads will encourage more people to drive is simply untrue. More people equals more people driving not more roads.
I do agree with the premise of this argument though. Less free parking would of course mean that city planners would actually have to provide decent mass transit though, something that typically costs far more than providing free parking. Of course with no free parking ridership would increase so maybe it would all work out?
I would never agree that the most "valuable" real estate can be found in the city though. I guess it matters what you place value in. I personally value forested property along beaches. Now that is some valuable property.
How is it not negative? If a law is written so poorly that it is easy to take advantage of it then it is a poor law end of story.
The very nature and purpose of copyright and intellectual property in general has come under question and increasing scrutiny as we head into the 21st century. Are you denying there are problems?
If our legal system made it clear what was infringement and what was not then we wouldn't even be discussing this case as it would of likely never been filed. This is clearly a failing in IP law.
In my opinion the courts are simply not capable of making these determination without being arbitrary. This is due partly to the enormous gap in judge knowledge about new technology and more importantly to evolving societal beliefs about sharing and collaboration.
If a system isn't working right and we are incapable of fixing it then the best course would be to abandon an already bad idea such as IP.
"We're not supposed to use violence to fix the US Government? Exactly what other avenues for change have been left to us, then?"
How did India free itself from the British? Violence isn't the only solution and it is never the best one.
There are plenty of other options, you have to start thinking outside of the box though. If you think your only recourse is to get a gun then you have failed yourself and humanity.
Moving forward to me means abandoning the idea we can force our will on others through violence. Otherwise you just become what you feared to begin with.
All is not as it seems for the American revolution. The common man was not oppressed rather he was convinced he was oppressed through a masterful propaganda campaign conducted by the wealthy and affluent in the colonies.
It is clear that stories like the Boston massacre were blown up and distorted to demonize the English. From the point of the American revolution and on the poor got poorer and the rich got richer.
When you examine our history with a critical eye and stop trying to elevate our founding fathers on pedestals it becomes clear that what we were told about history is about the farthest thing from the truth.
I think anyone can understand your frustration, but using violence to remove power is in no way a future that we want.
The US government has to be changed through a peaceful revolution if we really want to move forward as a people. There are huge issue to confront and we have to stop thinking only about next years elections or next quarters profits.
We have to think generations ahead for our government and business sector to continue to work for everyone. We must evolve in our actions as we have in our speech. There is a long road to head down if we really want a better future.
Thanks for your input in this matter. We always appreciate hearing directly from the source her at Techdirt.
I would like to point out though that these people lived in a commercial area already so the noise issue is moot in my opinion as Pinball machines are really not that loud and the business I would imagine still had normal operating hours.
Using an old law that is clearly misguided and a noise complaint to shut-down a useful business in your local economy is a shame and a sham. We like to give lip-service to small business but it seems time and time again that it is just talk and when push comes to shove there is no real protection.
Be careful with that "democratic" word as our government really is a true republic with a few democratic ideals sprinkled here and there.
Since we are a Republic the sign of a responsible government is the redressability of its citizens with the structures that have power. As you rightly point out we have no oversight in the NSA but it doesn't stop there.
Try our say in the Pentagon, which is probably the most powerful organization on Earth. The FBI, CIA, EPA, the list of governing agencies with complete power over our lives is staggering. Something is broken within our Republic and that is without a doubt our ability to question what all these organizations are really doing and then making changes if we discover it necessary.
As long as we are missing that redressability the common citizen will remain a pawn of the wealthy and powerful.
It is already clear that parody can cause harm to a copyright holder's interest. Often time this is the intention of parody. So why would it matter if satire caused harm?
This is a flaw in the legal system. If we cannot comment on our society anyway we see fit what does freedom of speech mean? To think that juxtaposing characters or lyrics/music in order to communicate effectively should be an actionable offense is beyond ridiculous.
People like to joke about political correctness but I don't think this new "copyright" correctness is very funny. Intellectual Property has gotten way to far out of hand and it doesn't make sense in our world anymore unless your stuck in the 20th century.
People that support this kind of legal rambling have lost touch with reality IMHO. The courts are clearly arbitrary and capricious when it comes to satire. Their reasoning is flawed and it is too bad no one can really call them out on it.
Wow, actual proof that locking up ideas for monetary gains goes against best practices.
Those that argue for systems like Intellectual Property are NOT repeat NOT the creators or the innovators. They are the leeches that seek to destroy our culture of sharing and copying for their personal gain.
It is was thing to screw over one person, but to screw over the progression of society for a buck is beyond asinine.
Privacy is just an illusion nowadays. I had a coworker who had a past due bill and a creditor called her up to make payment arrangements. My coworker said she couldn't start making payment until the following month and the creditor got real nasty and said "People who go on vacations can afford to pay their bills". My coworker was dumbfounded and the creditor went on to explain she could access all her financial records and saw she went on a trip the month before.
What is privacy if I can pay 40 bucks a month and see every bill you have ever paid and every place you have ever lived?
Essentially privacy no longer exists as we once knew it. Your privacy is bought and sold, your personal information marketed to anyone who is interested on a continuous basis.
The common man has seen their privacy disappear, but it is not a two way street. Our governments and corporations get best of both worlds. Privacy for their actions with complete knowledge of everyones business. This allows the ruling class to continue to gain an even stronger foothold over our lives then they had before.
This is what we should be talking about. Think twice when politicians talk about "privacy" because it is always a smoke screen. We have no privacy anymore and the only recourse we have is to make sure the rich and powerful share our fate.
I think the real problem is that copyright has always been at odds with the natural order of rights.
Once something has been released to the public whether be it commercial or free it no longer has the exclusive rights it once had. We all have a natural right at that point to comment on it, interpret it, and do pretty much anything we damn well please with it.
No one is arguing we can "steal" from anyone but the argument has always been what can we borrow? Since there is no real tool out there to determine this that isn't arbitrary we should always error on the side of caution.
What I would propose is that unless the author can prove it is a literal copy beyond a shadow of doubt word for word including formatting that they have no rights to control it whatsoever.
It is important to set the bar high for this test because even allowing something silly like copyright to exist means it will be abused and it has been more than just abused in the last century.
This would protect someone from making an exact copy of you book but would still allow our culture to continue building on itself without some meaningless time restriction that is solely designed for monetary benefit.
The gall of the intellectual property maximalists that they can somehow rewrite how our culture works is profound. That they can control the discourse of culture for their monetary benefit? Sick and wrong IMHO
I don't know where Obama is going with this but I think he missed the mark. What I would say is devices like the Ipod, Xbox, and PlayStation are not allowing for creativity and freedom of content creation the way they should thus are just entertainment rather than being something more which they could easily be.
After talking with a friend who seems to think Apple's new business model with spread to other devices I was just thinking to myself what a world that was run by Ipads would be like. Would it be a world strangely absent of content creation and creativity that we see currently? I think the answer is yes.
The Iphone and Ipad in particular with their "app" store seems to be focusing on limiting people's options and preventing creativity especially by the end user. In a world were devices should be increasingly open to match the modern progression of society they stand apart, almost a throwback to the 20th century.
I really think that Steve Job's has taken Apple down the road of retardation. I can hardly think of the Ipad as a device that would allow end users to create. So much for the artists and creative types who normally swear by Apple.
I think your right on, but at the same time if you flipped the coin and this guy's son is caught distributing his own dads story (the movie) on a torrent would he would be infringing?
Utah is the biggest manufacturer of supplements and vitamins in the United States. This huge and unregulated market is motivating their legislature with money signs in their eyes. They want a piece of the pie so to speak.
Of course the products are pure crap, wasting resources to make money from suckers who believe a pill or a drink is the key to health. With the pendulum continuously swinging towards buyer beware nowadays it makes you wonder if it will ever swing back again.
Coming soon to a country near you!
It really amazes me how the French who are generally concerned about privacy would allow this to happen.
Needles to say TMG services could easily use this information they can acquire for uses outside of stopping "infringement". I say this only because when absolute power is granted it will inevitably become absolutely corrupted.
Scary time to be in France considering that they have effectively privatized a portion of their legal system. I think the term for that is Fascism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish this
I am one of the only readers of Techdirt that even advocates for abolishment of Intellectual Property. Next to no one on this blog shares my viewpoint that I am aware of.
So please, if you are going to make generalizations about Techdirt readers at least try to get them right.
I won't even start with your analogy of what is more profitable, because it is just plain stupid. It is apparent that you may just be trolling at this point as you have not added to the conversation and instead have taken one side without trying to consider the other.
Re: mistake
I think what your trying to say is by allowing the Creative Commons to exist we are also admitting that copyright must need to exist.
I tend to agree with the abolition of intellectual property in general. So by this standard I would agree that the creative commons is indeed a mistake because it makes the assumption that copyright needs to exist in the first place.
I grow weary of corporations and individuals capitalizing on our culture at the cost of our ability to promote effective discourse and exchange of ideas. If the point of intellectual property is to slow down progress and create as many imaginary barriers as possible to actually creating then it has worked perfectly.
We are living in a world of 6 billion + people. How long can we continue to afford such privilege to such a minority?
Why ask why
I think the answer to the question of this post is moot. We already know that ISPs are more than willing to hop in bed with anyone who has the cash and their concerns about privacy are very little if any.
It really may just boil down to these content industries getting behind closed doors and scratching the ISPs backs for the info they want. I think for the most part this is already happening with the big ISPs.
Now it is just the smaller ISPs that remain that are resistant to cooperation because they haven't gotten their slice of the pie yet.
Of course having a diverse population of ISP providers would help in some degree to prevent this sort of collusion, but that is not what we have here in the USA. Competition is definitely not the American way when it comes to ISPs.
Re: Re: Re: Less RIAA...
I have heard the argument from several city planners that if you build more roads people will just fill them up. They often use this as an excuse not to expand roads or build new ones because it will just "create" more congestion.
This is of course hogwash IMHO. More roads always equals less congestion in the the short term. The idea that building more roads will encourage more people to drive is simply untrue. More people equals more people driving not more roads.
I do agree with the premise of this argument though. Less free parking would of course mean that city planners would actually have to provide decent mass transit though, something that typically costs far more than providing free parking. Of course with no free parking ridership would increase so maybe it would all work out?
I would never agree that the most "valuable" real estate can be found in the city though. I guess it matters what you place value in. I personally value forested property along beaches. Now that is some valuable property.
Re:
"Care to cite a law that can't be abused?"
All laws could theoretically be abused, but if a law lends itself to abuse then it is a poor law.
Re: Not Negative?
How is it not negative? If a law is written so poorly that it is easy to take advantage of it then it is a poor law end of story.
The very nature and purpose of copyright and intellectual property in general has come under question and increasing scrutiny as we head into the 21st century. Are you denying there are problems?
If our legal system made it clear what was infringement and what was not then we wouldn't even be discussing this case as it would of likely never been filed. This is clearly a failing in IP law.
In my opinion the courts are simply not capable of making these determination without being arbitrary. This is due partly to the enormous gap in judge knowledge about new technology and more importantly to evolving societal beliefs about sharing and collaboration.
If a system isn't working right and we are incapable of fixing it then the best course would be to abandon an already bad idea such as IP.
Re: Violent overthrow of the US government?
"We're not supposed to use violence to fix the US Government? Exactly what other avenues for change have been left to us, then?"
How did India free itself from the British? Violence isn't the only solution and it is never the best one.
There are plenty of other options, you have to start thinking outside of the box though. If you think your only recourse is to get a gun then you have failed yourself and humanity.
Moving forward to me means abandoning the idea we can force our will on others through violence. Otherwise you just become what you feared to begin with.
Re: Re: Re: Forget the guns
All is not as it seems for the American revolution. The common man was not oppressed rather he was convinced he was oppressed through a masterful propaganda campaign conducted by the wealthy and affluent in the colonies.
It is clear that stories like the Boston massacre were blown up and distorted to demonize the English. From the point of the American revolution and on the poor got poorer and the rich got richer.
When you examine our history with a critical eye and stop trying to elevate our founding fathers on pedestals it becomes clear that what we were told about history is about the farthest thing from the truth.
Re: Forget the guns
I think anyone can understand your frustration, but using violence to remove power is in no way a future that we want.
The US government has to be changed through a peaceful revolution if we really want to move forward as a people. There are huge issue to confront and we have to stop thinking only about next years elections or next quarters profits.
We have to think generations ahead for our government and business sector to continue to work for everyone. We must evolve in our actions as we have in our speech. There is a long road to head down if we really want a better future.
Re: According to the mayor..
Thanks for your input in this matter. We always appreciate hearing directly from the source her at Techdirt.
I would like to point out though that these people lived in a commercial area already so the noise issue is moot in my opinion as Pinball machines are really not that loud and the business I would imagine still had normal operating hours.
Using an old law that is clearly misguided and a noise complaint to shut-down a useful business in your local economy is a shame and a sham. We like to give lip-service to small business but it seems time and time again that it is just talk and when push comes to shove there is no real protection.
Re: A couple of things...
Be careful with that "democratic" word as our government really is a true republic with a few democratic ideals sprinkled here and there.
Since we are a Republic the sign of a responsible government is the redressability of its citizens with the structures that have power. As you rightly point out we have no oversight in the NSA but it doesn't stop there.
Try our say in the Pentagon, which is probably the most powerful organization on Earth. The FBI, CIA, EPA, the list of governing agencies with complete power over our lives is staggering. Something is broken within our Republic and that is without a doubt our ability to question what all these organizations are really doing and then making changes if we discover it necessary.
As long as we are missing that redressability the common citizen will remain a pawn of the wealthy and powerful.
Re: A Better Question
It is already clear that parody can cause harm to a copyright holder's interest. Often time this is the intention of parody. So why would it matter if satire caused harm?
This is a flaw in the legal system. If we cannot comment on our society anyway we see fit what does freedom of speech mean? To think that juxtaposing characters or lyrics/music in order to communicate effectively should be an actionable offense is beyond ridiculous.
People like to joke about political correctness but I don't think this new "copyright" correctness is very funny. Intellectual Property has gotten way to far out of hand and it doesn't make sense in our world anymore unless your stuck in the 20th century.
People that support this kind of legal rambling have lost touch with reality IMHO. The courts are clearly arbitrary and capricious when it comes to satire. Their reasoning is flawed and it is too bad no one can really call them out on it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:hmmm
Because the kernel is so useful without the userland. Give me a break :)
Good logic and evidence to backup what we know is true
Wow, actual proof that locking up ideas for monetary gains goes against best practices.
Those that argue for systems like Intellectual Property are NOT repeat NOT the creators or the innovators. They are the leeches that seek to destroy our culture of sharing and copying for their personal gain.
It is was thing to screw over one person, but to screw over the progression of society for a buck is beyond asinine.
Privacy is a thing of the past
Privacy is just an illusion nowadays. I had a coworker who had a past due bill and a creditor called her up to make payment arrangements. My coworker said she couldn't start making payment until the following month and the creditor got real nasty and said "People who go on vacations can afford to pay their bills". My coworker was dumbfounded and the creditor went on to explain she could access all her financial records and saw she went on a trip the month before.
What is privacy if I can pay 40 bucks a month and see every bill you have ever paid and every place you have ever lived?
Essentially privacy no longer exists as we once knew it. Your privacy is bought and sold, your personal information marketed to anyone who is interested on a continuous basis.
The common man has seen their privacy disappear, but it is not a two way street. Our governments and corporations get best of both worlds. Privacy for their actions with complete knowledge of everyones business. This allows the ruling class to continue to gain an even stronger foothold over our lives then they had before.
This is what we should be talking about. Think twice when politicians talk about "privacy" because it is always a smoke screen. We have no privacy anymore and the only recourse we have is to make sure the rich and powerful share our fate.
Copyright is always copywrong
I think the real problem is that copyright has always been at odds with the natural order of rights.
Once something has been released to the public whether be it commercial or free it no longer has the exclusive rights it once had. We all have a natural right at that point to comment on it, interpret it, and do pretty much anything we damn well please with it.
No one is arguing we can "steal" from anyone but the argument has always been what can we borrow? Since there is no real tool out there to determine this that isn't arbitrary we should always error on the side of caution.
What I would propose is that unless the author can prove it is a literal copy beyond a shadow of doubt word for word including formatting that they have no rights to control it whatsoever.
It is important to set the bar high for this test because even allowing something silly like copyright to exist means it will be abused and it has been more than just abused in the last century.
This would protect someone from making an exact copy of you book but would still allow our culture to continue building on itself without some meaningless time restriction that is solely designed for monetary benefit.
The gall of the intellectual property maximalists that they can somehow rewrite how our culture works is profound. That they can control the discourse of culture for their monetary benefit? Sick and wrong IMHO
Just another distraction.
I don't know where Obama is going with this but I think he missed the mark. What I would say is devices like the Ipod, Xbox, and PlayStation are not allowing for creativity and freedom of content creation the way they should thus are just entertainment rather than being something more which they could easily be.
After talking with a friend who seems to think Apple's new business model with spread to other devices I was just thinking to myself what a world that was run by Ipads would be like. Would it be a world strangely absent of content creation and creativity that we see currently? I think the answer is yes.
The Iphone and Ipad in particular with their "app" store seems to be focusing on limiting people's options and preventing creativity especially by the end user. In a world were devices should be increasingly open to match the modern progression of society they stand apart, almost a throwback to the 20th century.
I really think that Steve Job's has taken Apple down the road of retardation. I can hardly think of the Ipad as a device that would allow end users to create. So much for the artists and creative types who normally swear by Apple.
Re: Flip of the coin
I think your right on, but at the same time if you flipped the coin and this guy's son is caught distributing his own dads story (the movie) on a torrent would he would be infringing?
Probable reason for this
Utah is the biggest manufacturer of supplements and vitamins in the United States. This huge and unregulated market is motivating their legislature with money signs in their eyes. They want a piece of the pie so to speak.
Of course the products are pure crap, wasting resources to make money from suckers who believe a pill or a drink is the key to health. With the pendulum continuously swinging towards buyer beware nowadays it makes you wonder if it will ever swing back again.