"you saying that trying to make it illegal via a bill for a government agency to hack any computer they want to is not possible? That government agencies aren't beholden to follow government laws?"
I think that there is a conflict between the state goal of a spy agency and such a law. A big part of spying is obtaining information that someone might not otherwise want to give up, and that information may be obtained using methods that are, well, a little out of bounds. When you remember that much of what is obtained is not used to pursue a court case, you can understand where they can operate in spaces that are perhaps not as comfortable for all of us.
Outlawing hacking would essentially be crippling the agencies and putting them at a significant disadvantage. It would be like coming 50 years ago and saying wiretaps and hidden microphones shouldn't be used. It would tie the hands of a spy agency and make it very difficult for them to do their jobs.
Wyden will soon introduce the Tide Revocation and Sand Help act (TRASH Act), which will force the moon to no longer control the tides touching US shores, instead encouraging an open source app to allow individual coast line property owners to decide when and where the tide should be for their property.
The newly created Tide Observation and Surveillance Service (TOSS) will take care of applying TRASH for Governement waterfront, the TOSS TRASH project will fulfill Wyden's desire to control the otherwise uncontrollable.
You are correct. It doesn't make it any more legal, it just makes it a "look the other way" offense.
The issue is claiming these are "bogus" parking tickets. By the motor vehicle laws, they are not bogus. The city perhaps doesn't want the police to issue them, but they are not "bogus". That's hyperbole, plain and simple - typical of Techdirt to over react and slant the story to be anti-authority.
Actually, this is a perfect example of a local politicians failing very badly at their jobs. A pedestrian cut out like that, no matter what the local authorities say, is an illegal parking spot by state law, which over rides. So the local politicians may be saying "it's okay, park here" but the police are in fact correctly issuing tickets.
Local law cannot generally override the state (or federal) law.
"Read back through your comments on this article, and your arguments are all just different mixes of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯."
Why? Because copyright has been around for a couple of hundred years and generally seems to work pretty well. It's not perfect, but it would be a truly faith based more to kick it to the curb. My arguments are only that if you want to replace copyright with something, replace it with something better that has some facts behind it to make it go, and not just "get rid of it and we are all better" - there is no proof that it would be a good solution to anything!
"You say that those links to Techdirt don't count, but did you read the research that those links point to... that wasn't conducted by Techdirt?"
As I have mentioned before, Techdirt stories are often based on other people's opinions or studies written by people who are pretty biased on the subject. As I said, the Australian Commission thing is a perfect example, it's written by two commissioners who have been very publicly against anything and everything copyright - so citing it as some great change in attitude by the government is meaningless.
"And finally, for what it's worth, I suspect that the creators of the Creative Commons license would consider it a success if people no longer felt the need to use a CC license because copyright terms were no longer ridiculous, and there would be much rejoicing and carousing in the Creative Common."
Yet that would be forcing everyone into the commons if they want to or not. Abolishing copyright (or limiting it so much that it's neutered) would diminish creator rights and would very likely harm and discourage creative works from being made and distributed widely in their various forms. The beauty of CC licensing is that it works with (and against) copyright in a manner that allows the system to work BOTH ways, not just one way.
I think that a government organization should ALWAYS err on the side of caution, especially when it comes to systems that may contain sensitive data bout the public. To do otherwise would be shameful.
Somehow Mike seems to think that they should be more nuanced, magically coming up with exactly the perfect balance that gives all the access possible and still stops the near endless attempts to phish, fake out, and sneak in viruses to the government network.
You can imagine the Techdirt story calling out the incompetent IT staff if they had just let the thing get through. You can picture the whining about billions of dollars and no security.
The story is a perfect example of a no-win situation, and how Techdirt can turn any story into an anti-government one. Think about it the next time they are slamming someone for failing to do X or Y to secure a network.
"What does human nature to create have anything to do with money? Nothing."
Actually, it has a lot to do with it for many. Money isn't the driver, it's a requirement to be able to live. They have the desire to create, but not the time. They still do, but perhaps it takes much longer or perhaps the create less.
Also, for people who are creative but perhaps normally can't find the time, financial incentive is pretty powerful.
The Rock and Roll dreams of many a young musician involve playing front of big audiences, being popular, and living "like a rock star". The truth is that money and sex are two of the biggest motivators for humans in the world. Combine them (get rich and get laid a lot) and for many it's a pwoerful incentive to create.
"What we say is it has become a roadblock and is a burden to up and coming artists/services/etc. It is abused to stifle free speech."
Baseball bats are used to stifle life from time to time. It doesn't mean that we ban them. Heck, in the US, we know that guns hurt, maim, and kill thousands each year - certainly limiting their victim's free speech - yet they are legal. Laws are exactly like a baseball bat, most of us use it to play ball, a very few use them for more sinister purposes. We don't ban bats just because of them.
Actually, you need to search Techdirt. Mike had said that (in various ways) any number of times over the years. Certainly copyright has stopped people from creating derivative works that might otherwise have existed.
"Yes and most do it because they love it not because they get a copyright."
Most garage band types dream of monster success, of being rock stars and living the life - and that is mostly based off of writing and selling lots of CDs and touring like mad. Without copyright, they would have no means by which to convert their desires to cash in their pockets to fulfill their rockstar fantasies of hookers and blow.
"People created long before copyright because they love to do so and it is part of human nature."
Yes, and as a culture, western people generally also like money, fame, fortune, and all the trappings of it. Money is an incredibly powerful motivator, both for the creator and those who seek to profit from their creations. It has driven a society that creates more than ever. Don't take my word for it, Mike has said many times over that we create so much more content than ever - with this "oppressive" copyright regime getting more "oppressive" and still we produce more... it;s like cause and effect!
You are thinking to linear here. One of the reasons people release stuff through CC or other means that is that normal copyright is to long term and they don't want their work cooped up. But if copyright was reduced to a very short period of time (say a couple of years) they might be tempted to just keep the copyright and work from there.
There would be a tipping point where CC licenses would be perhaps less desirable or perhaps the ability to exercise a little more control for the short period of "ownership" would be more desirable.
It might be said that a little short term money making might not be so bad...
"And which of those scenarios are lost if copyright term is reduced to 25 years from registration, or 14 years on registration with an optional 14 year extension?"
None of them would be lost. Silly question. They might however be somewhat less relevant, as creators may choose to retain their rights or issue more restrictive CC licenses as their ownership length is much less. "How do you know? Can you show us actual proof or studies that show actual test cases, or is it all just faith based?
Well, let's see..."
Standard answer is this: If you point to Techdirt for answers, you fail. The recent Aussie government thing is written by two commissioners who have publicly come out as copyright abolitionists. Not exactly unbiased - and entirely opinion as they have nothing but faith based concept to support their ideas.
Generally every study, report, and talking point comes with a basic faith based "things would be better without copyright" mentality without any proof except that they THINK things would be better.
We create many, many times more works today with copyright than we ever have in our history. We have created more works in the 21st century alone than any century before the 20th, and we continue down that road. Faith based says we would have more without copyright, but so far beyond the statement of faith, there is nothing.
You wrote a good post, but it's all pointing to things of faith and not things of fact.
(Oh, and for what it's worth, there are a very few places on earth without some sort of copryight, and none of them are havens of mass content production, great writers, or stunning artists. Stick that in your faith and smoke it.
Interestingly, the support and push for encryption in all things would pretty much put an end to the revolution. When every document is stored with a long key the idea of hacking in to download files is somewhat meaningless.
Apparently this revolution is being squashed by the other revolution you are supporting!
"You mean like you? Any and every time calls are made for copyright law to be revamped and looked at, you start foaming at the mouth and scream that people are demanding for copyright to be abolished."
Aside from the amusing visual, I have to tell you that I don't foam at the mouth or even have my pulse raise a bit (according to my fitbit...). I only ask the logical question, which is if you want to get rid of copyright, what do you replace it with? If you want to cut back or limit the term, how do you handle those works created under the current setup, without creating confusion about what is and what is not copyright? For that matter, if you are (say) 40 years old, does it really, really matter that much if copyright drops from 75 years to 60 years? You will still be dead as a dodo before the copyright expires. If you are younger, you might to get to copy that movie just before you are too senile to understand it.
I think the current system work well, in no small part because it allows for so many outcomes and scenarios. We have everything from open source and CC licensing to the strictest of nastygram toting lawyer loving Metallica listening public hating copyright robber barons. If falls to the creator to have the choice which way they want to play the game, and that all starts out by having a system that first allows them right to "own" what they create, at least for as long as they will live (and beyond). They can turn around and issue a CC-by or whatever they like license to give their work away, they can license it commercially, they can add it to an open source project, they can give it away, or they can even assign the right to make such choices to someone else.
We have an insanely vibrant world full of creative people, and we guild and create more and more new works every day. We produce more now than ever. It's hard to say that copyright is somehow massively holding us back, reality seems to say otherwise.
(and if you think this post is foaming at the mouth, you really need to get your foam detector fixed, it's not working).