No, I'm saying that copyright often increases the price of making a good movie by a significant amount. That doesn't mean that making movies is cheap or that the effect copyright has on the production of a work is the same in all cases.
The Tolkien estate was supposed to receive 7.5% of gross, which is rather significant. There is a lot of other fat to trim, particularly on the side of the actors. The Gollum CGI probably depended greatly upon a render farm, which probably had a lot of patent and copyright related expenses as well. I would suspect that they didn't license existing recordings for that film, so they wouldn't get the cost savings other films would in that area, but original recordings are not necessary for a great film.
No, it's fraud. What you are describing is not LOSS of identity, but rather DAMAGE to it. So, 'identity vandalism' would be more accurate, but even that's an awful kludge. The ill act is fraudulently claiming to be someone who you are not. That is fraud.
I'm not sure I would even call him brilliant. By his own admission, he brute forced his way through inventing, finding 10,000 ways that didn't work. He was a savvy businessman, but I don't think that's the kind of brilliance generally associated with him.
And that's irrelevant, because when you put something on BitTorrent, you're making copies. They're not covered by the first sale doctrine, only your original copy is. You can sell your hard drive. You can give away a CD. But you can't make a copy
I know it's not covered by the first sale doctirne. My point was that distribution is practically toothless in regards to copyright law, mostly serving as an additional condition for infringement. In other words, you must create copies AND distribute the copies you made in order to be engaging in copyright infringement.
They're paying for a license to distribute copies. Not distribute one, single file that they immediately delete from their servers. Come on, get real.
I've seen no evidence that they are, and even if they do, it's probably insignificant compared to the royalties Apple pays per copy.
Except that they're not unconstitutionally excessive. They're right in line with how much a distribution license costs. See, e.g. Michael Jackson's acquisition of the Beatles' catalog.
They are right in line with something that is on a completely different scale? You might as well be talking about the costs of a sync license for a home video.
Except I can legally distribute a single copy of Poker Face for a cost of $1.29, which is what, on average, I would have uploaded on a p2p network. I can do that because of the first sale doctrine. The distribution element is rather minor because of this, and I'm quite sure the bulk of the money Apple pays out are for the number of copies sold. Outside of that, It could very well be that Lady Gaga's label paid Apple to have it and perhaps feature it prominently on iTunes.
The problem is that statutory damages are tuned for industrial scale copyright infringement, and thus you can get excessive (and thus unconstitutional) fines for copyright infringement. Luckily, suing poor people for more money than they have is expensive and doesn't result in any significant profits, so those lawsuits have stopped. Now, the popular mode is mass p2p lawsuits, but they don't seem to be fairing that well either.
What the ideal model for a modern author isn't all that clear. We've shoved copyright onto most of the world, so the best business model may have not yet arisen yet. It's quite likely that there wouldn't be a publisher at all in said model. The importance of publishers was due to the high costs needed to get a book to a wide audience, while that is far easier to do today.
Actually, animals such as whales engage in what we would consider copyright infringement. They've probably been distributing songs across the world without paying royalties for much longer than humans have.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414131444.htm
You said they deprived the owner of a sale, and yet there is no evidence that they did. The cost of borrowing or renting is less than the cost of a sale, and in the case of renting, the money goes to a third party, not their competitor. There's a plausible argument that paying MORE than the retail price to rent would still be a better choice than paying for a copy. Others have said that the company would not have sold them a copy, which is actually evidence that they were NOT deprived of a sale, since you can't lose a sale you would never engage in.
Also, "a potential sale" is not generally regarded as property, and only property can be stolen. They have taken many more potential sales by using the elements they legally copied from their competitors software in their own software. However, modern economics does not regard that as theft, which is generally held to be bad, but competition, which is generally held to be good.
They actually still have that ability, it was merely infringed upon, just like I still own my land if someone trespasses on it. Copyright infringement doesn't mean you lose your copyright. The closest I'm aware of of anybody 'stealing' the ability to determine the distribution of copyrighted materials is what Bridgeport Music did to George Clinton, but that would likely be better categorized as fraud and possibly forgery.
That was the entire point of the murder argument. Murder is not theft, but most people consider murder worse than theft. Are people who say "copyright infringement is not murder" inherently trying to justify copyright infringement or just correcting idiotic statements.
Actually, a good movie could be produced for a great deal cheaper absent copyright. They don't have to pay licensing fees for musical recordings and film clips within the movie.
Telecommunications (the printing press in particular), free trade, and individual liberties are more likely the causes of guilds to fall. Copyright was of very little concern to guilds. More important would be patents. In both cases, it was by no means obligatory, so they could keep their secrets just as well before or after patents, and there is no logical reason to seek a patent on something you could effectively keep a secret for longer than the period of protection a patent provides.
Mathematically, the average p2p user has a 1:1 ratio, making them halfway responsible for 2 copies, or in other words, they are fully responsible for about one copy. The reason damages are so high is because the copyright cases use STATUTORY damages, which are rooted in the scale of a printing press, not a personal user.
It's not theft at all. It may be referred to figuratively as theft, but that doesn't make it literally theft. "You took the words right out of my mouth" isn't even a malicious usage of 'theft', which when taking literally, describes an inherently malicious act.
If one sneaks into a concert without paying, he might even say "I stole past the ticket desk and straight into the theater."
That's a completely different usage of steal, and a very awkward one. It is the definition "to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved." The last time I heard that was in Robbie Depree's song "Steal away." This would be an accurate description even if it was a free concert.
No, copying is NEVER stealing. The case itself seems to be that the company had no intention of using the software for the intended purpose, but rather to use it to get non-protected ideas within it. They could have reasonably borrowed or rented a copy from someone who had a legit copy and achieved the same, in which case nobody would be breaking the law.
Actually, German authors made more money than British authors when Brits had copyright and Germans had no effective system. They also wrote more books, and the public had more books. Basically, in Germany, authors got paid bigger advances and their strategy was high volume, low margin. Getting to the market first was very important for them. In Britain, authors got smaller advances, and would depend upon royalties which would rarely if ever materialise, just like today. Books were more of a luxury item in that setting.
The information and choice aren't removed by Google, as the websites still exist. They are removed by the app store. Now, what COULD be done is that Apple could vet the app store, AND allow you to easily add 3rd party repos if you so choose. Most users wouldn't venture outside of those repos, but those that want to could. Thus, we've got neatly organized information without actually removing choice. They could even do a decent job of vetting those apps if they took this approach, and be subject to a lot less controversy.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't try to walk the thin line, or at least not the one you are talking about.
But that's not all Apple keeps off, and they don't always keep it clean anyway.
No, I'm saying that copyright often increases the price of making a good movie by a significant amount. That doesn't mean that making movies is cheap or that the effect copyright has on the production of a work is the same in all cases.
The Tolkien estate was supposed to receive 7.5% of gross, which is rather significant. There is a lot of other fat to trim, particularly on the side of the actors. The Gollum CGI probably depended greatly upon a render farm, which probably had a lot of patent and copyright related expenses as well. I would suspect that they didn't license existing recordings for that film, so they wouldn't get the cost savings other films would in that area, but original recordings are not necessary for a great film.
Authors weren't getting screwed by the printing press, scribes were.
No, it's fraud. What you are describing is not LOSS of identity, but rather DAMAGE to it. So, 'identity vandalism' would be more accurate, but even that's an awful kludge. The ill act is fraudulently claiming to be someone who you are not. That is fraud.
I'm not sure I would even call him brilliant. By his own admission, he brute forced his way through inventing, finding 10,000 ways that didn't work. He was a savvy businessman, but I don't think that's the kind of brilliance generally associated with him.
I know it's not covered by the first sale doctirne. My point was that distribution is practically toothless in regards to copyright law, mostly serving as an additional condition for infringement. In other words, you must create copies AND distribute the copies you made in order to be engaging in copyright infringement.
I've seen no evidence that they are, and even if they do, it's probably insignificant compared to the royalties Apple pays per copy.
They are right in line with something that is on a completely different scale? You might as well be talking about the costs of a sync license for a home video.
Except I can legally distribute a single copy of Poker Face for a cost of $1.29, which is what, on average, I would have uploaded on a p2p network. I can do that because of the first sale doctrine. The distribution element is rather minor because of this, and I'm quite sure the bulk of the money Apple pays out are for the number of copies sold. Outside of that, It could very well be that Lady Gaga's label paid Apple to have it and perhaps feature it prominently on iTunes.
The problem is that statutory damages are tuned for industrial scale copyright infringement, and thus you can get excessive (and thus unconstitutional) fines for copyright infringement. Luckily, suing poor people for more money than they have is expensive and doesn't result in any significant profits, so those lawsuits have stopped. Now, the popular mode is mass p2p lawsuits, but they don't seem to be fairing that well either.
What the ideal model for a modern author isn't all that clear. We've shoved copyright onto most of the world, so the best business model may have not yet arisen yet. It's quite likely that there wouldn't be a publisher at all in said model. The importance of publishers was due to the high costs needed to get a book to a wide audience, while that is far easier to do today.
Actually, animals such as whales engage in what we would consider copyright infringement. They've probably been distributing songs across the world without paying royalties for much longer than humans have.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414131444.htm
Identity theft is not theft either. It's a specific kind of fraud that is erroneously named.
You said they deprived the owner of a sale, and yet there is no evidence that they did. The cost of borrowing or renting is less than the cost of a sale, and in the case of renting, the money goes to a third party, not their competitor. There's a plausible argument that paying MORE than the retail price to rent would still be a better choice than paying for a copy. Others have said that the company would not have sold them a copy, which is actually evidence that they were NOT deprived of a sale, since you can't lose a sale you would never engage in.
Also, "a potential sale" is not generally regarded as property, and only property can be stolen. They have taken many more potential sales by using the elements they legally copied from their competitors software in their own software. However, modern economics does not regard that as theft, which is generally held to be bad, but competition, which is generally held to be good.
Why? Copyright infringement is rarely prosecuted as a criminal act, and they didn't engage in any infringement other than a single download.
No, copyright is not an ethical or moral institution. It's a practical one. It's no more an ethical matter than jaywalking.
They actually still have that ability, it was merely infringed upon, just like I still own my land if someone trespasses on it. Copyright infringement doesn't mean you lose your copyright. The closest I'm aware of of anybody 'stealing' the ability to determine the distribution of copyrighted materials is what Bridgeport Music did to George Clinton, but that would likely be better categorized as fraud and possibly forgery.
That was the entire point of the murder argument. Murder is not theft, but most people consider murder worse than theft. Are people who say "copyright infringement is not murder" inherently trying to justify copyright infringement or just correcting idiotic statements.
Actually, a good movie could be produced for a great deal cheaper absent copyright. They don't have to pay licensing fees for musical recordings and film clips within the movie.
Telecommunications (the printing press in particular), free trade, and individual liberties are more likely the causes of guilds to fall. Copyright was of very little concern to guilds. More important would be patents. In both cases, it was by no means obligatory, so they could keep their secrets just as well before or after patents, and there is no logical reason to seek a patent on something you could effectively keep a secret for longer than the period of protection a patent provides.
Copyright is a practical institution in the US, not a moral one. Copyright is not by any means a moral issue.
Mathematically, the average p2p user has a 1:1 ratio, making them halfway responsible for 2 copies, or in other words, they are fully responsible for about one copy. The reason damages are so high is because the copyright cases use STATUTORY damages, which are rooted in the scale of a printing press, not a personal user.
That's a completely different usage of steal, and a very awkward one. It is the definition "to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved." The last time I heard that was in Robbie Depree's song "Steal away." This would be an accurate description even if it was a free concert.
Copyright infringement is not theft.
No, copying is NEVER stealing. The case itself seems to be that the company had no intention of using the software for the intended purpose, but rather to use it to get non-protected ideas within it. They could have reasonably borrowed or rented a copy from someone who had a legit copy and achieved the same, in which case nobody would be breaking the law.
Actually, German authors made more money than British authors when Brits had copyright and Germans had no effective system. They also wrote more books, and the public had more books. Basically, in Germany, authors got paid bigger advances and their strategy was high volume, low margin. Getting to the market first was very important for them. In Britain, authors got smaller advances, and would depend upon royalties which would rarely if ever materialise, just like today. Books were more of a luxury item in that setting.
The information and choice aren't removed by Google, as the websites still exist. They are removed by the app store. Now, what COULD be done is that Apple could vet the app store, AND allow you to easily add 3rd party repos if you so choose. Most users wouldn't venture outside of those repos, but those that want to could. Thus, we've got neatly organized information without actually removing choice. They could even do a decent job of vetting those apps if they took this approach, and be subject to a lot less controversy.