So, you're telling me there is only one solution for a developer to do something?
To be fair, there is usually, at any given time, only one (sometimes a few) "best" way for a developer to solve a given problem. Regardless how the code is written (which has an exponential number of ways to be written) there is usually only one "best" method/algorithm to be used. Are we going to force all developers to be inefficient to avoid being sued?
No one is infringing on the privacy of content creators, nor the due process for them since no one is initiating any proceedings or court cases against them. Therefore your point there is moot.
DRM is not a "private communication" with the customer. There have been DRM systems that the EFF has been ok with. The ones they campaign against are DRM systems that intrude on the rights for someone to legally use something they have purchased. For example, the "always on" DRM that requires you to always have a constant internet connection. Not everyone can always have an internet connection for a single player game to require it is ludicrous. Say I want to play my game on my laptop while in a car, this DRM would prevent me from it. Thus is bad for the consumer.
Imagine if the EFF in their role as staunch defenders of rights insisted that every downloader must get a court order certifying that the material is either in the public domain or available with a valid license? Hah.
What do you mean? In the case of when a content producer is already suing someone? Because when the content producer does sue someone and can prove they actually downloaded it, the EFF does not stand in their way. or do you mean every time someone downloads something they have to have a court order verifying that it is ok for them to download it. That's ridiculous on the face of it because then on top of making the purchase and payment for something online, you have to pay for a court order verifying it? Absurd.
The phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' is a staple of the US justice system. Thus, in order for a content creator to 'protect their rights' they must not trample over the rights of consumers. Privacy and due process belong to the consumer who is being attacked. No one is violating the rights of content producers except for the ones who get convicted of the infringement.
Try selling an exact replica of the Chanel bag and giving it a different name and it will still sell very well and make money. Especially if you make it cheaper since they are not paying for the brand name. However, this will not eat into the profits of Chanel. Thus, a perfect example where copyright is unnecessary. A model that others should follow.
If you think the ACLU is astroturfing for the newspaper businesses then you don't know what you're talking about. Contrary to popular belief it is possible for an industry to donate to a good cause without that cause being in the pocket of those donating to it. You're right that the EFF isn't neutral, they have chosen the side of freedom and privacy. They see something that is a violation of privacy and a circumvention of laws that were made to protect and thus file an amicus brief for it. Just because the hardware manufacturers may have an ulterior motive for deciding to donate to the organization does not mean that the EFF doesn't have a good point and doesn't mean they aren't correct and fighting for a cause. If someone donates money to me because they like something I do, it doesn't mean that suddenly I'm doing this for them and not for the cause I was originally pursuing.
Maybe the reason you don't hear the EFF "Applying the law equally to both sides" is because we haven't seen any law or case yet that benefits "illegal copying" to the detriment of the content creators that wasn't a case of protecting the privacy and due process. Give me an example where they "should" have stepped in to be equal otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.
Insisting that websites make it easy to file a DMCA form makes no sense. There are plenty of locations online that you can find the format and layout for a DMCA form just use google. Then all you do is email/snail mail the form to the contact information for the site. The information of which will either be on the site or you can do a whois lookup. Why would the EFF need to step in and insist on this? It is already easy. In fact, too easy which is why so many wrongly filed DMCA forms get sent.
Or, maybe just wait a bit longer until you license the patent to them? Remember, they didn't copy the design, they were licensed the design. They paid for it.
Also, the Chinese company had R&D to come up with those "improvements" that everyone was complaining about.
Considering the solution was to simply change the name, not the look or the skins or any of the graphics, just the name and this appeased everyone who was complaining. It seems that the idea of "hitting too close to home" is just bull shit. If you were offended or traumatized and it hit too close to home for people who are not you, not related to you, and who you don't know to play as the Taliban then how would simply changing the name be any different if it's still a brown guy in a turban (for example) who you are playing as? Answer: It's not.
referring to them as advanced is a bit like saying that the steam engine is advanced because if you run out of fuel mid route you have the option of chopping more wood or burning other things to keep you going.
Actually, compared to what came before it, the steam engine was extremely advanced.
Also, if you could please read what I wrote. I was not saying that the Chinese themselves were advanced, I was specifically talking about the improvements that they made which are being pointed at as a reason they can't compete.
Yes, sweatshops and virtual indentured servitude are bad. However, you can't say that an invention that results from a Chinese R&D department isn't advanced simply because their manufacturing uses techniques that we consider to be wrong.
Except the experiment that "shows Dogs are smarter" is flawed and based on a faulty assumption. Larger brain != more intelligent. By other measures such as brain mass as a percent of body mass and number of neurons, cats beat dogs. But even then, you have to argue/prove that those measurements prove something is more intelligent.
The only other experiment I know offhand is that one with the strings and rewards to get cats to pull a horizontal string for a reward. In the way it was described, it didn't take into account the fact that many times a cat just doesn't want a treat. Also the fact that cats tend to see the string itself as a plaything to play with rather than a means to get something. Unlike a dog who has no interest in string and thus won't see it as a plaything. This attitude difference will greatly affect the experiment.
As you say (by the way, talking about intelligence and then reading your post. It's hard to give you any amount of credibility) experience and anecdotes do not make science or prove anything on a general scale. However, neither do faulty experiments which at most prove that dogs and cats think differently and that Dogs are easier to train. Who would have thought that? =P
I highly doubt that either could be proved. However, judging from the history of philosophy and Aristotle's works (since you invoked his unmoved mover =P) it seems to be much more likely that it is an infinite sequence of small innovations. Consider, if you will, that Aristotle's philosophy groundwork came about due to observing the natural world and making observations and then coming up with ideas that would explain those observations. He then built upon these ideas with more ideas to clarify them. Granted this is an incredibly simplified way of explaining it, but I assume you know this due to your choice of wikipedia link.
Looking at the chain of events, you can see a small 'innovation' in philosophy followed by a sequence of more small innovations that built upon the original. In this example one could conceivably consider Aristotle's observations were the 'Prime Inventor' or they could consider his observations to instead be based upon the 'innovation' of whatever ideas had sparked him to think in the manner he did to decide to make those observations, infinitely small right?
Philosophy is a funny thing because in many situations you can equally reason in multiple directions and all are just as correct as each other.
My personal opinion on the matter is as follows: An accident occurs which results in an observation. The observation thus results in an invention as the observer discovers how to recreate the accident. Each string of invention and innovation could be traced back eventually to a situation as such. However, I would not call the accident->observation->discovery->invention cycle a 'prime innovator' nor the person who did the observing (who is frequently not the same as the one who has the discovery or invention). I also, however, wouldn't consider it to be a sequence of infinitely small innovations because it seems to be more like a series of disconnected but relatively related actions that, perhaps like an exponential series, continuously build upon one another becoming larger and larger very quickly. Because these series' exist for every innovation ever and constantly interconnect and overlap, there is no way for there to be a 'Prime Innovator' as, in the model I have created, many people and many different times observe many different things and have very different ideas on what they just observed. Innovation just happens, I'm sure a mathematical model could be derived to explain it but I'm also just as sure that everything can eventually trace to some infinitely small random observation that was made by several people and told to another person who reasoned enough to put them together.
I only said 'four years' because that is what you said. The point I was making is just as someone else mentioned, if the companies didn't license their patents with a "Do Not Compete" clause then they cannot complain when the Chinese come back and compete against them. If they've innovated during those four/ten/fifteen years, then why haven't you? It doesn't matter what you assume, if you license your patents to someone, you can expect them to compete against you. If it wasn't a long enough time period then either you underestimated how long it would take them to bring it to market or underestimated how long it would take to recoup your money.
Also, R&D should be continuous. You do your R&D until you have something to bring to market, while that gets put into production and is rolled out, you continue to do R&D to continue to innovate past what you've just come up with. If you don't continue to do R&D then don't complain when someone else improves upon what you've come up with before you do.
It's common knowledge that you can pay someone in China 1/10 of the cost of someone in most anywhere else. You factor this into your decision making. Essentially, as you said, "they play by their rules and if you're not prepared for it, do not engage in business with them" is the point. There is no reason for any of these companies to be complaining because 1) nothing 'illegal' happened here as the Chinese paid for the patents, 2) the companies knew or should have known what they were getting into and dealing with as it is all common knowledge, especially for a business.
Also, you would have to define what you mean by 'responsible IP laws' before I could agree with you that they are a good thing. Though I do agree that pure unbridled capitalism is very devastating.
Just a question, if "four years later you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements", then why haven't you improved it yourself just as well or better? If during those four years, the Chinese improvements are so advanced that you can't compete, then it's your own fault, not "lax Chinese labor and pollution".
You do realize that majority of "bottled water" is just tap water sent through a filter? Aside from the tap water being perfectly drinkable in most of the US (i'm sure there are some areas it isn't) for about $15 you can buy a pitcher with a filter, if you need to. You pour tap water in, and you get water that is every bit as clean (or even cleaner) than bottled water.
You seem to be missing the point where the first amendment concern comes in. There is no clear definition of "illegal" site in the bill. It's very vague. This means that a site which posts pictures/a story/whatever that some senator doesn't like or is incriminating or whatever, could be shut down by claiming it is "infringing" on someone's copyright or its "primary purpose" is infringement. There is no due process, there is no hearing, as long as they can make a slightly reasonable (or maybe not even) argument, that's it. The site will be taken down.
Always assume that any law passed will be abused and look at how the abuse goes. As others have pointed out, a more realistic example is perhaps a political site which focuses on consumer rights in respect to p2p has a forum or area of the site which discusses various p2p software developments, and discuss the limitations and ideas surrounding copyright and avoiding being accused of copyright infringement incorrectly. Now, someone could accuse them of having the primary purpose of the site be to infringe due to the discussions of p2p software and copyright loopholes etc. Even though they offer no copyrighted material. Thus political speech would be silenced under this law with no recourse by the owner. Can you really say this is an appropriate approach?
Or simple economics can take over. The people who enjoy the cds and movies will pay money for the cds and movies to ensure their survival so they can continue to enjoy them. It is really simple when you think about it. Without the artificial profits that companies make do to people who will pay for cds and movies instead of pirate them, only the really good movies that the public enjoys would make as much money and therefore be able to continue to make more good movies. Companies would put more thought and creativity into what they produce because it would be harder to make as much money. Thus, all the drek and generic action movie #3 and other general crap that is produced nowadays would slowly dry up leaving only that which is valued by society and that people want.
As I said, it's simply how economics work. People will pay money to so that more of something they enjoyed can be produced. I submit that you can look at all the examples of freely released movies/music and the artists that survive off of merchandise sales/live performances/donations/the general kindness of their fans as a result.
And screw anyone who gets caught in the crossfire because it's much more important to "protect" the profits of the MPAA than it is to protect the free speech of the innocent sites that will be taken down due to a lack of clarity on the definition and corrupt politicians....
It isn't like the recording industry, where $5000 worth of investment can make millions of dollars of profits for the recording label
Actually, it's just like the recording industry, just scaled up. Where $3 million worth of investment can make $200 million of profits. When you realize that copying and piracy increase sales and get more people to watch movies in theaters for the experience, you understand that it is good for the movie. If a movie is crap, I might download it just to confirm or otherwise just for the hell of it (maybe to laugh at it's ridiculousness) if a movie is good then I'll watch it in the theater. I have, however, refused to buy a single dvd for years due to MPAA's crusade against filesharing. I'll go to the theater, but I make sure to get some popcorn or something, despite it being overpriced, because I want the THEATER to make money. They deserve the money for the experience they provide. Movie ticket prices, however, are ridiculous in their expensiveness nowadays.
The problem I have is not with people who deserve to be paid. I have the problem that 10/14/25 years later, it's copyright infringement to give my friend/cousin/child/parent a copy of this great movie that is old. Maybe a sequel is coming out and I want them to know about the original? Why should I pay for another copy when I already own it? I could lend it to them, but when it is possible to make a copy easily and quickly, why not just make them a copy that they can watch on their own time and I can keep my original? It's convenient.
Even worse, if someone wants to use a movie for inspiration and make an entirely new movie that is based on it, they have to pay millions of dollars to secure the rights before they can do it. Movies have died before they began due to rights being unable to be secured. In what way is this "promoting the arts" ?
Copyright is a permissive law. Which means that you only violate my copyright if I don't grant you a license or if you violate the license I grant you.
That said, "exception from copyright law" is a bad way to word it. A better way to say it is that the GPL grants you a license to redistribute the software in every conceivable way as long as you follow the terms of the license. (Source code must be available and all that). So the license agreement doesn't 'grant an exception' it 'grants you permission'.
All they would have to do is put a message when you install flash saying 'By the way, Flash can use up a lot of battery power quickly.' And viola mystery is gone, consumer keeps their experience AND keeps their choice. There is absolutely no reason to disallow the customer from installing Flash.
The Android version of flash works quite well and due to the ability to have it only turned on when requested for specific objects does not take any more battery life than a battery heavy game, or watching a video, etc. Thus Flash mobile already works fine on at least one platform. Notice I said fine, not perfect. No software is perfect. Flash is not harmful in any way to Apple, except for being technology they want to eliminate to promote HTML5 because of their stake in it.
Apple DOES prevent jailbreaking. They campaigned to prevent the exception to the DMCA that made jailbreaking legal, if Apple had its way, jailbreaking would be illegal and able to sue over. In addition, everytime a method of jailbreaking becomes popular, they work on a patch to 'plug the hole' as it were.
Essentially, Apple has the most restrictive and locked down platform currently. Microsoft is looking at them and going "hey, that's a good idea!" and following them. Which just makes things even worse.
I'm not sure what legal doctrine would be most applicable if, for example, one were to make 1,000 unauthorized copies of someone's car keys, and then mailed them to that car owner's neighbors. However, I don't think such an act would be right (and I highly doubt it would be found lawful), even if those unauthorized copies were never used to deprive the owner of the car itself.
Hmm, I believe that unless you "borrowed" the keys, you probably had to have stolen them to make at least the first copy and thus could be found guilty of theft of the key. (During the time you took it to make at least the first copy, the owner did not have it.) Otherwise I don't think you could be guilty of anything for making the unauthorized copies of the key. It's surely morally wrong, but I do not think legally. However, as soon as any of the keys are USED you have broken the law. Whether it be trespassing since the car is personal property or otherwise. IANAL though.
Truth be told, this still is a bad analogy for copyright infringement because using the key in the manner in which it was intended would be illegal whether it was the original key or not simply because you are not the owner. In the case of copyright infringement, it is not who performs the act that makes it illegal, it is the fact that the copy in use is not "licensed".
As the GP mentioned, the question is not whether or not the download/upload action occurred. The question is whether or not the act caused any damage. Obviously, if the action caused no damage or even actually had benefit to the record label, then there should be no penalty or payment that needs to be made since there is no damages to recoup.
Currently, there is no proof of damages, since you cannot prove damages you should not be able to receive any payment to recover said damages.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're telling me there is only one solution for a developer to do something?
To be fair, there is usually, at any given time, only one (sometimes a few) "best" way for a developer to solve a given problem. Regardless how the code is written (which has an exponential number of ways to be written) there is usually only one "best" method/algorithm to be used. Are we going to force all developers to be inefficient to avoid being sued?
No one is infringing on the privacy of content creators, nor the due process for them since no one is initiating any proceedings or court cases against them. Therefore your point there is moot.
DRM is not a "private communication" with the customer. There have been DRM systems that the EFF has been ok with. The ones they campaign against are DRM systems that intrude on the rights for someone to legally use something they have purchased. For example, the "always on" DRM that requires you to always have a constant internet connection. Not everyone can always have an internet connection for a single player game to require it is ludicrous. Say I want to play my game on my laptop while in a car, this DRM would prevent me from it. Thus is bad for the consumer.
Imagine if the EFF in their role as staunch defenders of rights insisted that every downloader must get a court order certifying that the material is either in the public domain or available with a valid license? Hah.
What do you mean? In the case of when a content producer is already suing someone? Because when the content producer does sue someone and can prove they actually downloaded it, the EFF does not stand in their way. or do you mean every time someone downloads something they have to have a court order verifying that it is ok for them to download it. That's ridiculous on the face of it because then on top of making the purchase and payment for something online, you have to pay for a court order verifying it? Absurd.
The phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' is a staple of the US justice system. Thus, in order for a content creator to 'protect their rights' they must not trample over the rights of consumers. Privacy and due process belong to the consumer who is being attacked. No one is violating the rights of content producers except for the ones who get convicted of the infringement.
Try selling an exact replica of the Chanel bag and giving it a different name and it will still sell very well and make money. Especially if you make it cheaper since they are not paying for the brand name. However, this will not eat into the profits of Chanel. Thus, a perfect example where copyright is unnecessary. A model that others should follow.
If you think the ACLU is astroturfing for the newspaper businesses then you don't know what you're talking about. Contrary to popular belief it is possible for an industry to donate to a good cause without that cause being in the pocket of those donating to it. You're right that the EFF isn't neutral, they have chosen the side of freedom and privacy. They see something that is a violation of privacy and a circumvention of laws that were made to protect and thus file an amicus brief for it. Just because the hardware manufacturers may have an ulterior motive for deciding to donate to the organization does not mean that the EFF doesn't have a good point and doesn't mean they aren't correct and fighting for a cause. If someone donates money to me because they like something I do, it doesn't mean that suddenly I'm doing this for them and not for the cause I was originally pursuing.
Maybe the reason you don't hear the EFF "Applying the law equally to both sides" is because we haven't seen any law or case yet that benefits "illegal copying" to the detriment of the content creators that wasn't a case of protecting the privacy and due process. Give me an example where they "should" have stepped in to be equal otherwise you're just spouting nonsense.
Insisting that websites make it easy to file a DMCA form makes no sense. There are plenty of locations online that you can find the format and layout for a DMCA form just use google. Then all you do is email/snail mail the form to the contact information for the site. The information of which will either be on the site or you can do a whois lookup. Why would the EFF need to step in and insist on this? It is already easy. In fact, too easy which is why so many wrongly filed DMCA forms get sent.
Or, maybe just wait a bit longer until you license the patent to them? Remember, they didn't copy the design, they were licensed the design. They paid for it.
Also, the Chinese company had R&D to come up with those "improvements" that everyone was complaining about.
Considering the solution was to simply change the name, not the look or the skins or any of the graphics, just the name and this appeased everyone who was complaining. It seems that the idea of "hitting too close to home" is just bull shit. If you were offended or traumatized and it hit too close to home for people who are not you, not related to you, and who you don't know to play as the Taliban then how would simply changing the name be any different if it's still a brown guy in a turban (for example) who you are playing as? Answer: It's not.
referring to them as advanced is a bit like saying that the steam engine is advanced because if you run out of fuel mid route you have the option of chopping more wood or burning other things to keep you going.
Actually, compared to what came before it, the steam engine was extremely advanced.
Also, if you could please read what I wrote. I was not saying that the Chinese themselves were advanced, I was specifically talking about the improvements that they made which are being pointed at as a reason they can't compete.
Yes, sweatshops and virtual indentured servitude are bad. However, you can't say that an invention that results from a Chinese R&D department isn't advanced simply because their manufacturing uses techniques that we consider to be wrong.
Except the experiment that "shows Dogs are smarter" is flawed and based on a faulty assumption. Larger brain != more intelligent. By other measures such as brain mass as a percent of body mass and number of neurons, cats beat dogs. But even then, you have to argue/prove that those measurements prove something is more intelligent.
The only other experiment I know offhand is that one with the strings and rewards to get cats to pull a horizontal string for a reward. In the way it was described, it didn't take into account the fact that many times a cat just doesn't want a treat. Also the fact that cats tend to see the string itself as a plaything to play with rather than a means to get something. Unlike a dog who has no interest in string and thus won't see it as a plaything. This attitude difference will greatly affect the experiment.
As you say (by the way, talking about intelligence and then reading your post. It's hard to give you any amount of credibility) experience and anecdotes do not make science or prove anything on a general scale. However, neither do faulty experiments which at most prove that dogs and cats think differently and that Dogs are easier to train. Who would have thought that? =P
I highly doubt that either could be proved. However, judging from the history of philosophy and Aristotle's works (since you invoked his unmoved mover =P) it seems to be much more likely that it is an infinite sequence of small innovations. Consider, if you will, that Aristotle's philosophy groundwork came about due to observing the natural world and making observations and then coming up with ideas that would explain those observations. He then built upon these ideas with more ideas to clarify them. Granted this is an incredibly simplified way of explaining it, but I assume you know this due to your choice of wikipedia link.
Looking at the chain of events, you can see a small 'innovation' in philosophy followed by a sequence of more small innovations that built upon the original. In this example one could conceivably consider Aristotle's observations were the 'Prime Inventor' or they could consider his observations to instead be based upon the 'innovation' of whatever ideas had sparked him to think in the manner he did to decide to make those observations, infinitely small right?
Philosophy is a funny thing because in many situations you can equally reason in multiple directions and all are just as correct as each other.
My personal opinion on the matter is as follows: An accident occurs which results in an observation. The observation thus results in an invention as the observer discovers how to recreate the accident. Each string of invention and innovation could be traced back eventually to a situation as such. However, I would not call the accident->observation->discovery->invention cycle a 'prime innovator' nor the person who did the observing (who is frequently not the same as the one who has the discovery or invention). I also, however, wouldn't consider it to be a sequence of infinitely small innovations because it seems to be more like a series of disconnected but relatively related actions that, perhaps like an exponential series, continuously build upon one another becoming larger and larger very quickly. Because these series' exist for every innovation ever and constantly interconnect and overlap, there is no way for there to be a 'Prime Innovator' as, in the model I have created, many people and many different times observe many different things and have very different ideas on what they just observed. Innovation just happens, I'm sure a mathematical model could be derived to explain it but I'm also just as sure that everything can eventually trace to some infinitely small random observation that was made by several people and told to another person who reasoned enough to put them together.
In short, a real life example of "A Wizard Did It" =P
I only said 'four years' because that is what you said. The point I was making is just as someone else mentioned, if the companies didn't license their patents with a "Do Not Compete" clause then they cannot complain when the Chinese come back and compete against them. If they've innovated during those four/ten/fifteen years, then why haven't you? It doesn't matter what you assume, if you license your patents to someone, you can expect them to compete against you. If it wasn't a long enough time period then either you underestimated how long it would take them to bring it to market or underestimated how long it would take to recoup your money.
Also, R&D should be continuous. You do your R&D until you have something to bring to market, while that gets put into production and is rolled out, you continue to do R&D to continue to innovate past what you've just come up with. If you don't continue to do R&D then don't complain when someone else improves upon what you've come up with before you do.
It's common knowledge that you can pay someone in China 1/10 of the cost of someone in most anywhere else. You factor this into your decision making. Essentially, as you said, "they play by their rules and if you're not prepared for it, do not engage in business with them" is the point. There is no reason for any of these companies to be complaining because 1) nothing 'illegal' happened here as the Chinese paid for the patents, 2) the companies knew or should have known what they were getting into and dealing with as it is all common knowledge, especially for a business.
Also, you would have to define what you mean by 'responsible IP laws' before I could agree with you that they are a good thing. Though I do agree that pure unbridled capitalism is very devastating.
Except that all of those "original innovations" were built upon many previous smaller innovations. It's just how things work.
Just a question, if "four years later you are competing with your own technology plus Chinese improvements", then why haven't you improved it yourself just as well or better? If during those four years, the Chinese improvements are so advanced that you can't compete, then it's your own fault, not "lax Chinese labor and pollution".
You do realize that majority of "bottled water" is just tap water sent through a filter? Aside from the tap water being perfectly drinkable in most of the US (i'm sure there are some areas it isn't) for about $15 you can buy a pitcher with a filter, if you need to. You pour tap water in, and you get water that is every bit as clean (or even cleaner) than bottled water.
The more you know :)
Because then they can't force you to stay with them and continue paying them for an extended period of time (2 years)
You seem to be missing the point where the first amendment concern comes in. There is no clear definition of "illegal" site in the bill. It's very vague. This means that a site which posts pictures/a story/whatever that some senator doesn't like or is incriminating or whatever, could be shut down by claiming it is "infringing" on someone's copyright or its "primary purpose" is infringement. There is no due process, there is no hearing, as long as they can make a slightly reasonable (or maybe not even) argument, that's it. The site will be taken down.
Always assume that any law passed will be abused and look at how the abuse goes. As others have pointed out, a more realistic example is perhaps a political site which focuses on consumer rights in respect to p2p has a forum or area of the site which discusses various p2p software developments, and discuss the limitations and ideas surrounding copyright and avoiding being accused of copyright infringement incorrectly. Now, someone could accuse them of having the primary purpose of the site be to infringe due to the discussions of p2p software and copyright loopholes etc. Even though they offer no copyrighted material. Thus political speech would be silenced under this law with no recourse by the owner. Can you really say this is an appropriate approach?
woosh! =P
The TSA is not the federal government.....
Or simple economics can take over. The people who enjoy the cds and movies will pay money for the cds and movies to ensure their survival so they can continue to enjoy them. It is really simple when you think about it. Without the artificial profits that companies make do to people who will pay for cds and movies instead of pirate them, only the really good movies that the public enjoys would make as much money and therefore be able to continue to make more good movies. Companies would put more thought and creativity into what they produce because it would be harder to make as much money. Thus, all the drek and generic action movie #3 and other general crap that is produced nowadays would slowly dry up leaving only that which is valued by society and that people want.
As I said, it's simply how economics work. People will pay money to so that more of something they enjoyed can be produced. I submit that you can look at all the examples of freely released movies/music and the artists that survive off of merchandise sales/live performances/donations/the general kindness of their fans as a result.
And screw anyone who gets caught in the crossfire because it's much more important to "protect" the profits of the MPAA than it is to protect the free speech of the innocent sites that will be taken down due to a lack of clarity on the definition and corrupt politicians....
Right?
It isn't like the recording industry, where $5000 worth of investment can make millions of dollars of profits for the recording label
Actually, it's just like the recording industry, just scaled up. Where $3 million worth of investment can make $200 million of profits. When you realize that copying and piracy increase sales and get more people to watch movies in theaters for the experience, you understand that it is good for the movie. If a movie is crap, I might download it just to confirm or otherwise just for the hell of it (maybe to laugh at it's ridiculousness) if a movie is good then I'll watch it in the theater. I have, however, refused to buy a single dvd for years due to MPAA's crusade against filesharing. I'll go to the theater, but I make sure to get some popcorn or something, despite it being overpriced, because I want the THEATER to make money. They deserve the money for the experience they provide. Movie ticket prices, however, are ridiculous in their expensiveness nowadays.
The problem I have is not with people who deserve to be paid. I have the problem that 10/14/25 years later, it's copyright infringement to give my friend/cousin/child/parent a copy of this great movie that is old. Maybe a sequel is coming out and I want them to know about the original? Why should I pay for another copy when I already own it? I could lend it to them, but when it is possible to make a copy easily and quickly, why not just make them a copy that they can watch on their own time and I can keep my original? It's convenient.
Even worse, if someone wants to use a movie for inspiration and make an entirely new movie that is based on it, they have to pay millions of dollars to secure the rights before they can do it. Movies have died before they began due to rights being unable to be secured. In what way is this "promoting the arts" ?
Copyright is a permissive law. Which means that you only violate my copyright if I don't grant you a license or if you violate the license I grant you.
That said, "exception from copyright law" is a bad way to word it. A better way to say it is that the GPL grants you a license to redistribute the software in every conceivable way as long as you follow the terms of the license. (Source code must be available and all that). So the license agreement doesn't 'grant an exception' it 'grants you permission'.
I just wanted to point out a couple things:
Essentially, Apple has the most restrictive and locked down platform currently. Microsoft is looking at them and going "hey, that's a good idea!" and following them. Which just makes things even worse.
I'm not sure what legal doctrine would be most applicable if, for example, one were to make 1,000 unauthorized copies of someone's car keys, and then mailed them to that car owner's neighbors. However, I don't think such an act would be right (and I highly doubt it would be found lawful), even if those unauthorized copies were never used to deprive the owner of the car itself.
Hmm, I believe that unless you "borrowed" the keys, you probably had to have stolen them to make at least the first copy and thus could be found guilty of theft of the key. (During the time you took it to make at least the first copy, the owner did not have it.) Otherwise I don't think you could be guilty of anything for making the unauthorized copies of the key. It's surely morally wrong, but I do not think legally. However, as soon as any of the keys are USED you have broken the law. Whether it be trespassing since the car is personal property or otherwise. IANAL though.
Truth be told, this still is a bad analogy for copyright infringement because using the key in the manner in which it was intended would be illegal whether it was the original key or not simply because you are not the owner. In the case of copyright infringement, it is not who performs the act that makes it illegal, it is the fact that the copy in use is not "licensed".
As the GP mentioned, the question is not whether or not the download/upload action occurred. The question is whether or not the act caused any damage. Obviously, if the action caused no damage or even actually had benefit to the record label, then there should be no penalty or payment that needs to be made since there is no damages to recoup.
Currently, there is no proof of damages, since you cannot prove damages you should not be able to receive any payment to recover said damages.