Slashdot Mirror
Million-Dollar Donation To Fight Abusive Copyrights
WeekendKruzr writes: "There is a story on C|Net detailing how Duke University's law school received an anonymous gift of $1 million for the express purpose of funding '...advocacy and research aimed at curtailing the recent expansion of copyright law.' It's good to know that we have some well-funded idealists on our side, even if they are 'Anonymous Cowards.' ;^) This, combined with the recent rash of even large corporations running afoul of intellectual property law, could precipitate some tangible results in the next couple of years."
To fund think-tanks to write papers? To to pay-off^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlobby politicians for better laws? Or to fight court cases?
Why not just give this to the EFF?
There is too many unanswered questions to say if this will really help.
Fight Spammers!
What a meager million bucks can do against multimillion dollar lobby? :)
I think it's very naive to expect any major changes and/or law corrections. A good commercial, asking people vote for candidates that support removal of opressive/excessive copyright restriction night be of more help.
Hyperom.com
While starry-eyed /. folk get uptight for a few minutes when they read about new technologies, the people who make the laws don't care about our complaints - we're not a big enough lobby or voting block.
Even more important, stricter copyright laws help the media corps sell more product, and GWB is in favor of anything that helps US corps sell more stuff.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
I've hated intellectual property for as long as anyone. When I started out my career as a young geeklet, I'd frequently pirate games for my Apple ][, and I would always tape music from my friends. I still enjoy copying mp3s and warezing games (though mostly I just don't want to shell out for something that may or may not run under Wine).
But like it or hate it, Linux's success pretty much hinges upon intellectual property laws. Without copyright and patent laws that make the GPL enforceable, Linux would be no better off than *BSD, and certainly wouldn't have made the inroads it has at IBM and HP.
Microsoft will always do fine, with or without intellectual property laws. They sell certification, training, and support in addition to IP. And Linux's only advantages--better stability and security--are only as safe as its code base. If intellectual property laws are repealed, then Linux as we know it is doomed.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Do people not understand that the law is there to protect them ?
I am an information consumer. Please explain how the DMCA protects me.
A donor who really wants to stay anonymous can do so pretty effectively. Personally, I think we should respect their wish. It's rare someone will cough up this kind of a chunk of change for the more general and abstract public good, and if they would rather not be recognized (and end up having every ogg hacker or yahoo with some open licensing scheme they've hatched begging them for pocket change, we should let them be.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Anyone know how the anonymous transfer of a million dollars happens?
Especially these days, when big secretive money moves are watched more carefully.
A bunch of 50s in some briefcases?
Some kind of anonymous bank check?
Or does the University probably know, but part of the deal is that they don't tell anyone?
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
This is my theory on the donor... You know how serial killers eventually get caught, not because people outsmart them, but because they feel guilty and really want to be caught and punished so they leave clues... I think it's the guy that copyrighted the phone numbers as music pieces, or maybe the jpg company...
The university knows. There is probably a contract that states the benefactor shall remain anonymous.
Remember, the $1M went to the Duke University School of Law. there are hundreds of students there, paying Duke for the privilege of researching this subject.
If somebody wants to sue Duke Law School and hopes to suck them dry with legal costs, they are barking up the wrong tree. You generally don't sue people who (a) know more about the law than you and (b) have hundreds more lawyers than you, especially since (c) they have those hundreds more lawyers for free.
MORTAR COMBAT!
"I am an information consumer. Please explain how the DMCA protects me."
It protects your wallet from getting heavy.
It's good to know that we have some well-funded idealists on our side, even if they are 'Anonymous Cowards.' ;^)
." You will be hearing from my lawyers.
Interesting article submission, yet it violates my patent on "a method for using ASCII test to simulate a pointy nosed person winking and smiling
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
I know it's an unpleasant, thankless, unpopular job, but I'll volunteer to give up my personal time and make the necessary commitments it takes to be the anonymous recepient of the million dollar grant. Just PayPal the funds to my hotmail account, mayadharme@hotmail.com. You're quite welcome, and rest assured, this generous donation will go a long way to restoring sanity to the patent, copyright and IP situation in these turbulent times.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
While abuse of copyright and dwindling fair use law is bad, fundamentally those things which are copyrighted are created by the authors, and they should have the ability to control them. If they control them in an anti-consumer way, consumers can always boycott them. This isn't going to change the world tomorrow or the day after, but what's at stake? Movies, music, TV, books -- mostly entertainment.
The patent problem is horrid. Unlike copyright, where at least people might claim some rights based on creation, patent law is clearly corrupted. People patent things that are not inventions -- they patent "business methods" of dubious originality, they patent software methods which have been in use long before the patent filing ("oh, no documentation that you used it? no prior art, then"), and moreover, patents screw the little guys, because patents cost a metric fuckton of money to get, especially en masse. If I write a book, copyright protects me automatically, and filing a copyright is cheap. If I didn't want to file a copyright, nowadays technology gives me other irrefutable options -- like publishing MD5 checksums in the paper -- that are even cheaper. If patents are truly for novel inventions, then why are developers in the software industry constantly afraid of stepping on patents? If all that many people are coming up with something independantly, doesn't that imply that the patent holder was just the first to file on something obvious that followed from existing technology, instead of the inventor of something novel?
Moreover, with patents, we affect all of technology, from CS to biotech, and we stop innovation. Having to pay $10 more than you should for a Britney Spears CD isn't going to hurt the economy -- but having to pay too much for inferior technology for 25 years that no one can legally improve upon, well, that's going to hurt the economy. Patents on obvious inventions slow innovation, hurt growth, damage industries, restrict R&D -- and this effect cuts across industries.
I'm sorry, but this is a lot more damaging that whether or not you can legally rip and/or trade mp3s.
The latest buzz seems to be that the Telcoms and tech manufacturers are getting peeved with the MPAA and RIAA push to legislate thier industry (Hollings Bill, DMCA liability). The 20 billion dollar entertainment industry is trying to push around a 600 billion dollar tech industry.
Simply put: Piracy is the killer app for Telcoms and consumer electronics industries, unless it's in the Telcoms and consumer electronics.
My theory: I think the Telcoms and friends want to devalue the entertainment industry. They want the same exclusive content that AOL/Time Warner enjoys, but rather aquiring the content via an expensive merger, our friends would much rather buy all that content at commidity prices, or sign exclusive deals to act as the conduit to deliver music and entertainment at competitive prices.
If you really want to figure out who's conspiring what. (1) You have to be realistic (2) You have to determine how it pays off
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I disagree, a million dollars is a good amount for some research.
It isn't enough to fight anyone, but it is a good amount to pay a small staff to research the actual cost and benefits of copyrights.
We really don't have clear data on how much work is impeded by copyright patent length, and how much worse it would be if it was lengthened.
Nor do we know what effect shorter periods would have.
So little is really known that we can't intelligently argue all that fairly about the cost and benefit to society.
Linux didn't succeed commercially because of the GPL, but in spite of.
BSD could and would have done better, were it not for the License problems they were having with AT&T in the early 90's. This held them up a lot, and in the meantime Linux got the attention and popularity.
Actually, alot of the public does care, once made to understand.
Personally, I'm furious that I can't legally make a copy of Steamboat Willie to show to my kids. It's a piece of culture. It's history. It's not a commodity anymore. I should be able to say "look kids, here's the very first Mickey Mouse cartoon". But I can't do so unless Disney both decides to sell it, and I can afford it.
Just this weekend I explained this to an untechnical friend of mine. As soon as I explained that Steamboat Willie (and countless other pieces of culture) should belong to EVERYONE, not do Disney, he was confused. He truly did not understand the concept of 'Public Domain'.
His response was 'they can profit off Mickey Mouse, so they should keep it'
To which I replied, "Mark Twain's ancestors could profit off of Huckleberry Finn, but it's public domain. Profit isn't an issue. Copyright is a favor we grant creators. We own it. They stole it. This was exactly the same situation the founders of this country set up the law to prevent: a handful of corporations owning and controlling what we see, read and hear."
I actually watched as the hamster turned the wheels in his head. In an instant he was as pissed about the situation as I was.
This is our culture. This is our history. Whether any one person thinks any one piece of film, text, or music is trivial is irrelevant.
Fact is, in 100 years, when some kid needs to write a book report on 20th century culture, he'll be paying royalties.
So, in the end, we just need to increase public awareness, be it one person at a time. Your average Johnny Lunchpail doesn't realise what Public Domain is. They think copyright is forever.
That said, 1 million dollars to pay a bunch of future lobbyists isn't, IMO, the answer. 1 million dollars for a TV or radio campaign would be much better spent.
People are pissed when they understand the problem. We've all been taken advantage of.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Basically, you have a donor who "anonymously" threw $1 million at Duke to fund "advocacy and research" of battling copyright law expansion. Why this is good is hopefully apparent. It's basic economics of the new millenium.
Basically, corporations believe that public knowledge of technology and processes is bad, because it's hard to make money off of something everyone can reproduce. This country is founded on democracy (good) but also has strong roots in free-market capitalism (mostly good). Making money is why we as a country are so well off, and people seek to maximize their money making. Public domain knowledge of technology and processes reduces the chance to make money because people will pay you more for something that only *you* can make, hence putting a premium on innovative AND proprietary information.
Lawmakers in a capitalist society are easily swayed by the corporations with their lobbying and donations, making it possible to influence law in their favor. In this case, copyright law, when expanded, better protects the information of corporations, making it harder for technology and processes to come into the public domain. In a society where money is so valued, any chance to make money by the corporations is often countered by ways to save money by the consumers.
We as consumers would love to see copyright law weakened rather than expanded because it increases the potential to save money. Also, there is a certain ideology in promoting the free sharing of thought, ideas, and technology for the betterment of society. So when someone donates money to the cause of actively opposing copyright law expansion, it serves to benefit us (the consumers).
But the real question is this: Why would someone do this? Certainly someone with a cool million lying around did something to make that money. What is to be gained by an individual donating that much money to a cause that has its roots in opposing the big corporation and "the man"? Likely, it isn't because it was just philosophically the "right thing to do".
-AAAWalrus
In a surprise announcement, the Republican National Committee has revealed it is bankrupt! A spokesman for the party said they had plenty of money in their accounts last week, but today they just don't know where the money has gone. But not everybody's going begging. Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and the United Negro College Fund announced record earnings this week, due mostly to large, anonymous donations.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Usually the benefactor pays a legal firm with a cashier's check and the legal firm pays the university. The university to be sure that all is legitimate can ask who the benefactor is, but will need to sign non-disclosure agreements before they can find out. These agreements give the law firm the ability to sue the school if they leak the information (usually for more than the initial investment).
Click here or here.
Hmm, a well known law school gets a large anonymous donation to fight our awful IP laws so shortly after eBay gets into trouble with a very vague and questionable patent.
What strange timing. I wonder if one of those fresh out of school lawyers will be taking up eBay's case at a significant discount. I wonder how much cheaper one of these lawyers is than a more expens... I mean experienced lawyer.
~Ben
I think the purpose is being missed.
This isn't being used to fight of lobby bad laws.
It is to try and find out what is good and bad about the existing laws.
We don't know the cost benefit curve for copyright length, they are going to try and define it.
(yes, that is a simplification)
Many "content creators" want infinite copyrights, to milk out as much as possible.
Many "content consumers" want short copyrights to copy and create derivative works for little or no cost. (that isn't the only reason)
At some point the time is long enough to have benefit for "creators" and short enough for "consumers" that both sides can be "happy". They are trying to find out what that point is.
What's wrong with choice. If you are you company wants to donate its work then that is your choice. But is someone or some company wants to retain ownership of their work that is their right. Monetary gain has been the mother of invention, always has and always will. Look at socialist countries even they reward their creative people with a higher standard of living than others. Sure there are some people who aren't out for financial gain who just want to help, but few. Just think about all the things in life you enjoy and most exist because at some time someone or company made money creating it. Even if they only made enough money to pay their bills to allow them to continue creating.
Don't try to legislate altruism, leave it to choice.
I'm glad too but for a much different reason. This is a perfect exemple that shows the issue of economic rights is not a "Good" and "Bad" issue with "po'folks" on one side and "rich folks" on the other.
Such moral absolutism is counterproductive in the worst way... especially for us in the IT world where the living is pretty good. So often I've heard people imply that "making money" and "doing what's right" are polar opposites. Like the Anarchists who would destroy every SUV they saw in the name of skater-justice. Constructive solutions are the way to go. And thinking reasonably about your world is the first step to finding them.
What is music when you despise all sound?
It's interesting that this gift went to a particular university's law school rather than to a grassroots organization such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I wonder if it could be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in the EFF after their attorneys' recent losses in cases like Universal Studios versus 2600 Magazine?
It's true that the EFF hasn't been batting 1.000 lately, but I've never even heard of the "Center for the Study of the Public Domain." Their web site talks only about "...hiring new faculty, creating new courses, setting up Internet Journals and creating new Fellowship Programs." Anyone know what cases they've actually participated in, if any? And for which side?
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
If you want to influence politicians.
1. Support thier campaign - $$$
2. Give them a good arguments/rhetoric to support your cause.
3. Give them voters
This money is going towards reason #2 (education/rhetoric). You may or may not know, but the Telcoms and tech industry is on *our* side (file sharing is the killer app of telcom and consumer electronics industries), and they have already started lobbying against the MPAA's and RIAA's Hollings and P2P Hacking bills.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
For anyone who's interested, the law school's website has a press release with a little bit more information than was mentioned in the C|Net article. It is great to see that some people (esp. the lawyers!) can see the harm that is being done by our outdated system of intellectual property laws.
Even at the undergrad level, it seems that Duke has taken an interest in the subject. This year, for the first time ever, the CS department is offering a course that I'm currently enrolled in whose primary focus is intellectual property issues. It's panning out to be a pretty cool course, and is actually the only CS course I've taken thus far that doesn't involve any coding.
I think more CS departments should offer curriculum like this, since we (the techies) have a unique perspective on the issues, because we are the ones opening the public's eyes to the fact that our system of intellectual property law needs to be completely revamped.
If anyone out there has an interest in the topic, I'd highly reccommend reading John Barlow's The Economy of Ideas as a starting point.
-Matt
Duke '05
Wherever you are, thank you. You have my profound gratitude, and the debt of a nation.
Now if only someone would put a million dollars into reforming our wheezing, corrupt implementation of the democratic process, so that million dollar donations like this one wouldn't be necessary.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Please remember that after the "fun" music&dance Intellectual Property fight of the 0's, we are likely to get the "less fun" IP fights over new and improved DNA sequences that may make you die (or not) of hunger, or whatever else.
*This* is what has to be said to wake the general public up.
Given that Duke's IP department is heavily interested in patent law as well as copyright, I'd guess that a lot of this money will be spent on research that is relevant to both copyright and patent. See, for example, some of the papers from their conference on the public domain, including the ones on biopharmaceutical patents. They are not dumb people, in other words- they're just as well aware of the dangers of patents as you are. :)
IAAL,BIANLY
"Piracy is the killer app for Telcoms and consumer electronics industries, unless it's in the Telcoms and consumer electronics."
If that were true, then how come the video game industry is thriving?
The Game Industry is not very far from the Entertainment Industry. They'd co-exist on a venn diagram with the *AA on one side and the Telcom/IT Industry on the other. If piracy was as destructive as they say, then the PC video game market wouldn't exist.
My personal theory is that the *AA has a monopolistic business model that earns them ridiculous amounts of money. With the internet, now they have to be fair like everybody else. Suddenly, it's not acceptable to say "You cannot return an opened CD" anymore. They'll have to *gasp* understand what customers want and give them the opportunity to decide "I really don't want that afterall."
Wasn't that the price of a 30-second commercial during the last couple years of Seinfeld?
As nice as this is, a million dollars just isn't going to cut it against Big Media. Until we make this a national policy issue, one where actual numbers of voters are involved, we're pretty much screwed. Until then though, I suppose a million bucks can fund some studies and research to strengthen our position from a logical standpoint once the public realizes that they're being screwed.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Now with some big money in play, maybe the anti-copyright forces have a chance after all. I just love American government -- of the people, by the people, for the people.
Blah, print out a copy and mail it to yourself. The Post Office's stamp is all the proof you need (assuming you don't open it and seal it well). I heard it referred to as the "starving musician's copyright."
Usually the benefactor pays a legal firm with a cashier's check and the legal firm pays the university.
Cashier's check for a million bucks? Uhh...somehow i dont think you can buy those at the local supermarket
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
I don't think Ellison has a beef with the *AA.
He's a Microsoft enemy, yes...
May we never see th
The DMCA protects copyright owners. If you own any copyrighted material, it protects you. On the other hand, if you're one of the "information wants to be free" crowd, it's obviously an imposition. However, is that because protecting copyrights is a bad idea, or is it because people just hate the idea of forcing themselves to respect a law that's so easy to break, and that carries an almost non-existant chance of suffering any consequences?
One method: You hire an attourney, give the money to them with instructions what to do with it, how to report back to you, and instructions not to reveal your identity. If they do reveal your identity, they are violating attourney client priviledge and you can file a grievance and they will get disbarred. You can probably also sue them for malpractice and recover the original money. This only works if the activity is legal, of course.
I want my children to benefit from my work, even after I die.
when I said "content creator" I was meaning the general group of creators editors distributers and stuff.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
The Entertainment industry has been fighting the Technology industry for some time now.
...but they don't want to do it for free. If they could have it thier way, they would shoot the owners, assume ownership of the movie industry, and sell each movie as pay-per-view for $20 a view (or whatever price yields the most return).
:)
The technology industry wants to sell TV's, CD-RW's, DVD-RW's, Harddrives, portable MP3 players, portable DVD players, and anything else the consumer wants. If they could sell a machine that would enable the consumer to watch any movie they want or play any song they want, for free, they would be in heaven. (Better yet, THEY would like to be the ones charging $5 per view)
The entertainment industry makes the technology industry's products more exciting. With filesharing becoming popular, it's making the telecommunications industry more exciting (File Sharing fuels highspeed internet sales)
Here's where copyright law comes in: VERY strong copyright law hurts all of these fair uses that are currently fueling the technology/telecom industry. If a person can't burn a CD of music they downloaded from thier high speed connection, what good is the burner and a high speed connection?
The Telecoms want to be the ones who deliver Movies on Demand
Because they don't own the movies and they can't shoot the owners, they have two options.
1. Negotiate with the owners
2. Buy the owners
It's tough negotiating with the entertainment industry, because thier business model has worked very well to this point, and they don't want to risk it on some hair brained scheme that might risk it. They want to give the telcom/tech industry as little of a cut as they must, unless the telcom/tech industry can give them a lot of sales.
The Entertainment Industry and Telcom/Tech industry all need each other, but both want to hold all the cards. The entertainment industry would get it's way by legislating copy protection in every device (Hollings Bill). This would enable give them unlimited control over the terms of usage. If they want to sell you a DVD that only plays 5 times, no one would be able to stop them. Any provider who trafficked thier content without thier permission would be held liable.
The telcom/tech industry would love the same thing, but they don't have the content. They basically have two options:
1. Let file sharing go rampant, fix it (Telcoms *COULD* stop filesharing), in return for a very exclusive/lucritive deal as distributor.
2. Let file sharing go rampant for many years, let entertainment industry suffer, watch stock plummet, buy stock and content, stop file sharing + protect content with DRM, resell at nice markup.
No conspiracy here, just good business strategy...
Follow the greed...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
The DMCA protects copyright owners.
No, copyright law protects copyright owners. The DMCA is not, despite the name, a copyright law. It makes it illegal for a copyright holder to even CHECK if some media cartel's copy prevention scheme actually works and helps "protect" his/her copyrighted material. (Rot13 anyone?) It makes it illegal to disclose how to access PUBLIC DOMAIN material that has been encrypted by someone. It is a bad law which fails to achieve its stated goals, and which should be stuck down (in part if not in whole).
Maybe it's ELVIS.
There are plenty of creative people that don't agree with the current regime. Many of them may sympathize with our take on the issue and be just as outraged that their work hasn't taken it's rightful place beside that of Mozart or Shakespeare.
The King is alive and well and pissed off because Heartbreak Hotel hasn't ceded into the public domain yet.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Of course, Duke Law is THE best place to give such a donation, given that their most famous alumnus is ... Richard Nixon.
The movie industry and record industry are thriving too, but then again only a small minority of people download movies, computer games, and songs.
If more people downloaded this stuff (your mom and uncle), the entertainment industry would see less money. (Most people I know who download songs don't buy CD's anymore, why should we?)
The Gaming industry has starting moving in on the subscription model, which has worked out VERY well for them. You can't cheat the subscription model, you can only compete with it.
Secondly, It still isn't easy to download a game. Many of them span many CD's (take forever to download), and many more will buy it just because it's more convienent.
Once piracy becomes more mainstream, it will hurt the industries who it's easy to pirate. Here's the order from most susceptible to least.
1. Music - Small downloads, many devices geared for it
2. Movie - Compression makes download acceptible via highspeed internet, some won't comprimise with quality and will buy DVD.
3. Computer Gaming - Can turn to subscription services, or make games REALLY big (600 - 3000 Megs) thus making the VERY inconvienent to download.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
This has not been universally true in the past. There is no reason for it to be universally true in the future.
The legal theories that circulate around here don't do so in a vaccuum. They actually reflect US law as it has been in the past, as well as case law. We aren't all just pulling these ideas out of our asses.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
sue the school
Could you explain the logic behind handing someone a million dollar gift and then proceeding to sue them?
Oh, you're a lawyer? Nevermind, my mistake.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This is absolutely true. But we have struck a balance between the producers and consumers of IP that has worked pretty well for a pretty long time. Digital media came along and upset the balance. Then the DMCA came along to compensate and *really* upset the balance. That's why it's bad.
I think most people on this board want reasonable protection of copyright, but unfair protection that only benefits the very large media companies is not in our best interests.
Milo
I think it's absolutely pitiful that they have to use Shakespeare as the example of copyright terms expiring.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
It was me.
The RIAA and MPAA were based on the idea that they are cartels that had near-total control over the distribution media. This means that if you or I, as artists, wanted to get seen/heard by people, we had to use their distribution. They could enforce "standard" contracts on us that gave them all the profits and the rights to our art. You had a choice: Hand it over to them to distribute, or don't see it distributed.
...
They are now in a panic because the Internet provides a new distribution channel that (partially) obsoletes their cartel. This is the whole source of the IP and IRM fuss. They are struggling to find a way to prevent us from getting our art to audiences via this new medium that they (so far) can't control.
Verizon has realized that they have a real opportunity here: They are part of a cartel that in most of the world has a monopoly over telecomm, including the Internet. If they can get into a position of controlling both the communications and the content, then they will have total control over all the world's information except the relics on hard copy in libraries. The RIAA and MPAA will be dead, but to distribute your art, you'll have to get a license from whoever controls your Internet connection. Verizon is volunteering for this position, and hoping that by publicly attacking the RIAA and MPAA, the world's artists will support them.
If you don't believe this, read their TOS. You aren't allowed to run your own web server. That is, if you have an Internet connection through them, you can't use it to distribute your own work. You are required to use their web servers. They are, of course, in a position to strictly control what is on their own machines
It's really hard to be too paranoid here
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
A box containing 1,500 postal Money Orders. ;)
(as of ~2 years ago, the max amount a MO could be made for was $700 IIRC)
What entrepreneurs went to Duke University and might have a million dollars to throw around? Anybody have a clue?
- subsolar
it doesn't, but it protects me, a copyright holder.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
To the Donator:
THANK YOU!
At lawyers rates, that'll last .. ummm .. 4 hours.
There are also people like me (who may be "content creators" and/or "content consumers" or neither) who believe that the more content that is available to the general public (e.g. current and future "content creators"), the more inspiration they will get, and the richer the whole of society will be.
The aim of copyright law should not be to find some middle ground between the greed of the providers and consumers, but to create an environment that makes as much stuff available to as many people as cheaply as possible, at the same time making sure that content creators are well rewarded for getting into the creation business in the first place.
c-hack.com |
JohnDenver wrote:
My theory: I think the Telcoms and friends want to devalue the entertainment industry. They want the same exclusive content that AOL/Time Warner enjoys, but rather aquiring the content via an expensive merger, our friends would much rather buy all that content at commidity prices, or sign exclusive deals to act as the conduit to deliver music and entertainment at competitive prices.
-------
That's a good theory, but if that were the case, why are they (the telecoms) fighting like mad to hand over the whole broadband industry to AOLTW by fucking up DSL competition, and letting cable (dominated by RoadRunner) undercut DSL price-wise? You would think that if they wanted this killer app to keep going, they'd sell DSL at $10/mo like they do in Japan, Canada, and every other more civilized country in the world.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well you might donate your estate to the gov when you die, but I want my kids to inherit my stuff.
You don't have to read too deeply between the lines to see he's talking about bulk copying and reselling in China, not you ripping off the latest J'Lo mp3. --- You are blind if you don't see his plan to hire more law enforcement to sit on your DSL line and sniff every packet that goes through for unlicensed or immoral content.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to grant creators exclusive rights for "a limited time." Since when did life plus 75 years become "a limited time"?
If someone is sent to prison for life, is that "a limited time"? If you purchase a product which is advertised with a warranty that lasts ten years longer than you shall live, would you think the warranty is limited in time?
If I am awarded something or restricted from something for the rest of my life no matter how long I shall live, that is an unlimited time as far as I am concerned. If my ISP offered me $5/month Internet access for the rest of my life regardless of how long I live, I would consider that to be cheap internet service for an unlimited time. If my driver's license was suspended for life, that would be a complete revocation, not a suspension for a limited time. So I wonder what in the world the lawmakers were smoking when they thought that "a limited time" for anything granted to a person could be defined as a time period that is guaranteed to extend beyond their lifetime. Apparently "a limited time" to them is anything less than infinity.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
I'm sure Fritz and Co. are busy right now working out the details of the meta-DMCA bill: that is, laws governing 'research aimed at curtailing the recent expansion of copyright law.'
That would, after all, make just about as much sense as the DMCA itself, so why not. Why not outlaw people from questioning the DMCA as well?
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
The ironic thing about all this is that by perpetually extending copyrights, corporations are hurting their own profits. If copyrights were capped with a time period of 50 years or less, like they used to be over a century ago, the content creators would have now become able to make money from derivative works based on other people's stories and music from the mid and early 1900s, just as Disney made a fortune by creating derivatives of works from the 1800s.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
There are a few problems with your theory.
If the market for CD's was about licensing the use of the material, then CD's would not have been invented. The reality is that the market is for delivery of the material. Therefore, the vendor of that delivery service must provide a compelling reason for me to purchase that service. Content providers very much want the market to be built around the concept of licensing, because that allows them to charge money for things they do not do (such as charging incremental fees for the continued use of the material they already distributed).
The modern problem is that advances in the exchange of information has obviated the need for the service they provide. All they can do now is function as a talent selection and content production service. Rather than attempt to operate in this environment, they are desperately trying to reduce the free exchange of information. This brings us to the DMCA.
The DMCA is about artificially applying pressure to the market in order to transform it to the benefit of content providers. The idea is to create a condition where the vendor can dictate the price for a service which has no incremental expense.
This isn't Capitalism. This is robbery.
There are many problems with DRM as is stands now. To really make it work, and work well, we need a few things:
Frist, we need a standard (preferably open) file format that supports DRM. Without this we are locked into the player du jour.
Next, DRM needs to be reasonable. There's obviously no way to connext to a huge database if you have no Internet connection. While the RIAA may want total control, DRM solutions should err on the side of the individual. If no Internet connection is available, the computer should take new files as owned and perhaps even allow a number of files to be shared. Streaming should be expressly allowed.
Finally, we have to change our own minds. Too many of us don't realize that freedom comes at the cost of responsibility. The freedom to be able to download media comes with the responsibilty to pay those, no matter how much we dislike their business practices, who provided us with same. Until most of us are willing to accept this, we will never make peace with the RIAA
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
From reading the press release, it sounds like (someone at) Duke knows who donated the money, but are honoring his wishes to remain anonymous.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Cashier's checks are drawn against a cashier at a bank. You have this confused with money orders. I see cashier's checks in excess of one million often (I work at a bank).
Click here or here.
What about apartment rental.
I build an apartment, I rent it, I can rent it forever, and keep getting paid, although I'm not creating anything new.
A creative work, I could sell it outright, and make a lump sum. Or I could sell copies, and make a smaller amount year after year.
Too many people donate money because they want to be seen as charitable, they are essentially doing it for selfish reasons. When I donate money I don't want my name on a plaque, in fact I don't want any recognition - I donate because I believe in something not for recognition of my charity.
In fact the current campaign contribution (i.e. bribery) system could be improved by requiring all contributions to be completely anonymous.
Do you think Duke listed the donor as "Anonymous Coward"?
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Receptionist: Sir, a man just swung down through the open window and gave me this envelope with a million dollars in it, and a letter instructing us to fight the stupid/phoney patents we've been seeing.
Duke Lawyer: Who was that masked man?!
Receptionist: I'm not sure, but he had ebay written on his chest.
Duke Lawyer: He must be one of those out of work bay area IT people. Throw it in with the rest of the "donations".
I wish I had more hands so I could give this post 4 thumbs down!
For example, take the AFI's Top 100 Movies. Eighty-nine of the 100 are more than 30 years old! Including "Citizen Kane" (1941), "Casablanca" (1942), "The Godfather" (1972), "Gone With the Wind" (1939), "The Wizard of Oz" (1939), "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957), "Psycho" (1960), "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), "The Maltese Falcon" (1941), "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1962), "King Kong" (1933), "A Streetcar Named Desire" (1951), "A Clockwork Orange" (1971), "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937), "The Sound of Music" (1965), "M*A*S*H" (1970), "Fantasia" (1940), "Rebel Without a Cause" (1955), "Ben-Hur" (1959).
Under the original term of copyright, all these would already be 100% free to all of us. Not to mention Elvis, the Beatles, Tolkien, and a host of novels: Ulysses (1918) -- James Joyce, The Great Gatsby (1925) -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, Lolita (1955) -- Vladimir Nabokov, Brave New World (1932) -- Aldous Huxley, Catch-22 (1961) -- Joseph Heller, The Grapes of Wrath (1939) -- John Steinbeck, 1984 (1949) -- George Orwell, Slaughterhouse Five (1969) -- Kurt Vonnegut, Invisible Man (1952) -- Ralph Ellison, Animal Farm (1946) -- George Orwell, Lord of the Flies (1954) -- William Golding, Deliverance (1970) -- James Dickey, The Sun Also Rises (1926) -- Ernest Hemingway, The Maltese Falcon (1930) -- Dashiell Hammett, The Catcher in the Rye (1951) -- J.D. Salinger, A Clockwork Orange (1962) -- Anthony Burgess, Of Human Bondage (1915) -- W. Somerset Maugham, A Farewell to Arms (1929) -- Ernest Hemingway, The Postman Always Rings Twice (1934) -- James M. Cain. While some of this stuff may already have fallen into the public domain, by rights, ALL of it should be ours already.
The public domain is what let's us sing "America the Beautiful" and do anything we want with it, royalty-free. The plundering of the public domain by copyright extensions, is what will prevent us from freely sing "God Bless the USA" for more than 70 years (copyright Lee Greenwood 1984).
-----
To which I replied, "Mark Twain's ancestors could profit off of Huckleberry Finn, but it's public domain.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
AOL/TW has a lot of competitors, both Cable and DSL who's services are priced competitively, so I don't see them taking whole pie anytime soon. Even if the cable companies gain an overwhelming majority of customers 5-10 years down the road, AOL/TW will still only be part of the pie.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
> The DMCA protects copyright owners. If you own
> any copyrighted material, it protects you.
No it doesn't. If you own copyright material that isn't protected by copyright enforcement technology, the DMCA does nothing for you.
> If you don't have a system to protect the
> producer from theft, he must charge more to
> the consumer to make up for lost items.
And if you don't have a system to protect the consumer from being ripped off, the producer will charge more because - hey, why not.
In most cases competition serves as this system. But that doesn't work in the business of creative works, because no creative work is a substitute for another. If you want a CD that you think is too expensive, you can't go buy the same music on a different company's cheaper CD.
You can do without the CD, of course, but the extent to which entertainment can still be considered a luxury is variable. This might seem like an outrageous claim, but the problem is that so much social interaction is based on popular trends in consumer entertainment that somebody who chooses not to consume any of it could wind up socially disadvantaged - and social acceptance is a fundamental human need.
> Similarly copyright and IP law protects
> comsumers because it helps keep the price down.
No - it means that the costs to the producer are lower. This by no means guarantees that the producers will past the cost on to publishers. Have any media costs actually fallen since the DMCA passed? Nope. Oh, yes, of course, that's right, they're still paying off their losses from the last 20 years piracy. I'm reminded of the similar business with petrol.
A person can't be open minded about DRM and hate Big Media too?
If you would have comprehended ANYTHING I wrote, you would have understood that I think DRM (if done corectly) could enable independant artists to distribute thier own works via thier website, WITHOUT having to sign your life away to Big Media.
Big Media essentially does two things:
1. It distributes
2. It promotes
The reason the record companies, publishers are able to keep thier grips on the industry is because they bundle distribution with promotion. For most artists, there is no other way they can offer thier works to so many people and get people to actually pay for it. Wouldn't you know it if Big Media uses this to have writers and artists sign thier lifes away. What else can they do?
The Internet has been turning into a great way to distribute content, so good infact people will be happy to distribute your content for you via P2P networks. Never mind you probably won't see a dime, but your works will get distributed.
While a good DRM system will do nothing to get your work on the shelves, and do little to promote it, it WILL commodify distribution and give artists more financial leverege dealing with Big Media, by giving artists a way to dsitribute thier own works WITHOUT the need for Big Media.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Consumer electronics has dramatically changed in the last 10 years. It's no longer exclusive to the Japanese enterprises and entertainment devices. Making a CD player that can read MP3's or any other arbitrary format is limited by the guy writing the firmware. Secondly, you shouldn't discount the pervasiveness of PDA devices and their growing roles as MP3 players, Internet browsers, eBook readers, and maybe movie players in 3-5 years?? (using a UWB wireless connection to a portable DVD player)
Go to audible.com: It's an online retailer that sells primarily audio books, in a secure format. Already many MP3 players support DRM system, including: All Pocket PC's, Handspring, Rio, Iomega, Digisette, and Franklin.
Not bad for a little operation...
Imagine what Microsoft could do? (If they wanted to do something)
Next time you call me ignorant, why don't you back it up with a LITTLE insight and SOME information rather than just stating an empty assertion.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce