Nobody's forcing you to do anything. However, if you want to claim royalties for your emails and digital pictures, then you will have every right to. Simply publish them, sign up, and claim royalties from the rights organisation.
Just think of all the money in micropayments school children can make when pedophiles download their daily schedules and photos of their friends, which they're forced to license.
Now, that's a really stupid way of lookingat things. People would only be obliged to licence things that were actually published. You see, it's quite easy to prevent people from copying by not publishing.
The MPAA's argument was that DeCSS allowed the data to be copied. Perhaps if that argument was defeated then the MPAA would also have argued that it allowed the data to be accessed, but they didn't need to.
But they're not Commercial Works, which I'll define here as copyrighted works with all rights reserved and with access restricted only to paying customers.
But there's no reason they can't become commercial. The reason many of them aren't at the moment is simply that it's not viable to do so. Creators that don't wish to have no reason to take from the pot.
No, it's almost the same argument. Under current models, whether access is restricted depends on what kind of incentive an author needs in order to create and publish a work. Different works need different amounts of incentive, and a proposal for a copyright replacement should address this fact.
Yes it should. I agree. But the argument was it was unfair on the people paying the tax, on the basis that they are subsidising other people's dowloads. It may be unworkable. It would cost people way more than they're willing to spend. It may also be unfair, but not for that reason.
However, I think it would be a possible to create a decent form of metering software. It just requires a market.
It also requires a design. How is metering accomplished other than through eavesdropping, especially given IPsec, SSL/SSH, and other methods of hiding data from eavesdroppers? Or are we talking about introducing what Mr. Stallman has called Treacherous Computing?
The market requirements would produce a design. The market's good like that.
All we need is to create a standard protocol for data to be sent, anonymously, to the rights collection organisation. Since sending this data costs people nothing (they pay a fixed tax whetever), and results in a reward for the people they like, it would be in the users favour to use software that implements the protocol. A lot of people may well dislike the idea, but this doesn't matter. All we need is a statisitical sample to work out how much each artist deserves. If 10% of the population use the software, we find out which information they're downloading and divide the pot between them. Since we're just dividing a fixed amoutn of money, it doesn't matter how small a sample we take, as long as its large enough to be statistically valid.
Granted, this is open to fraud, and this will have to be dealt with by law rather than technology, but the basic mechanism should work.
Lots of people have come up with the same argument. Now, I know for a fact that there are a number of Slashdotters with a decent (i.e. degree level) understanding of economics, and nobody has been called up on it, so it seems reasonable that this is the generally accepted consensus according to economic heory.
Which leads to the question - who is Adam L. Penenberg, and why the hell do we give a damn what the moron thinks?
Isn't that roughly how the DVD market works? I bought Pirates of the Carribean when it first came out because I didn;t want to wait. Now I can get it for about a quarter of that price. Oldboy I was less keen on, but decided to wait until it went down in price. Dark Star, I feel is a silly film, but a cult classic, and it was so cheap that I bought it on impulse.
This a seriously misinformed and badly thought out point you're making.
Indeed it is. For many reasons. I just think that the idea that you're subsidising others is not one of them.
because one might just want to download things like Drivers for your computer, get support for your workstation, download free software.
But under this scheme, the driver writers and free software developers would be entitled to a share of the pot as well. So would website developers.
Broadband is NOT limited to the downloading of copyright restricted materials.
Don't know about you, but almost everything I download is copyrighted. Slashdot is copyrighted, The Linux kernel is copyrighted. The amusing email a friend sent me is copyrighted.
Parks and Libraries and any number of other public services are there For The Public, and they are in the public's interest. Imposing a tax on broadband access because there are people violating copyright is not in the public's interest, it's in the interest of the content creators. For that reason, I am one who would oppose such a thing.
Art and creativity are in the public interest. They serve a similar benefit to parks and libraries. This is not imposing a tax on broadband because people are violating copyright. This is imposing a tax on broadband because we see it as beneficial "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Copyright does the same thing, but when copyright is no longer viable, because copying is impossible to control, it's time to come up with other alternatives. You keep going back to this idea that copyright is an inherent natural part of nature. It's not. It's a synthetic construction that didn't exist before the invention of the printing press. Copyright exists purely to encourage people to create. This proposed tax is another synthetic creation to encoutrage people to create.
What it sounds to me like is that you want a great number of musical selections available to you for a fixed price, unlimited and all you can make use of.
Of course I do! Who wouldn't!?
Unfortunately, it won't work out well that way. Who gets to decide who gets what share of the pot? What about songs downloaded outside metering software? If there should be no songs like that, who gets the authority to monitor all data traffic to your computer to verify and check?
Ah, but now we're getting into a completely different argument. The idea that the system is not viable. However, I agree with you completely here. However, I think it would be a possible to create a decent form of metering software. It just requires a market.
I read the summary. There were a lot of comments that after being sdecrypted it could be copied "like any other file". No mention of the fact that before it was decrypted, it could be copied like any other file. And if they pointed this out, then it would demonstrably not be a measure to prevent copying.
Great. So I can't read my email, shop at Amazon, or access my university library from home because I don't want copyrighted content?
Yes you can. You just have to pay a tax (Alhough why you need broadband for that, I have no idea). All sorts of things are taxed, and a lot of the money goes to services I don't use.
The Internet doesn't exist simply for people to download copyrighted content. The fact that a huge amount of bandwidth is currently used to do so illegally doesn't mean that anyone using it for other purposes should be forced to subsidize media junkies and pirates.
We're talking about ending piracy. You're not subsidising the media junkies and pirates! You're subsidising the content creators! Don't you see? Making more copies does not cost the creator more. If I download data it doesn't cost anyone anything. I gain. Nobody loses. The revenue is simply readjusted marginally so that the person I downloaded from gets more of the pot.
Erm.. No - That only works if about 50% of houses are left unlocked.
Remember, "almost half" means that "MORE than half" of break-ins are performed when the doors *are* locked.
Yes it does. But I never said "almost". I said "About".
I used Kwikset as an example, even though nearly all other commercial "buy it in a local hardware store" locks follow the same pattern - they have a set number of keys, and no more.
And how many keys is that? I mean, many insurance companies insists on a 7 lever lock. Presumably then they have assessed the risks and know that my house is safer with a better lock.
, even without a "professional" set of tools (I did it in 30 with a nail file when I locked myself out of my apartment).
Perhaps you should invest in a decent lock. Last time I was locked out, I called the company that installed the lock, and they said they'd have to drill it out.
Heck, you can make professional-grade tools in less than an hour using steak knives and a grinder, or in a couple hours if you've gotta file 'em by hand.
Most criminals don't have the time, patience or knowledge to do that.
Never mind the fact that they can just as easily bust a window (if there is one).
My windows are made from toughened glass. That stuff is pretty durable.
Locks only keep out the lazy and/or honest people of the world. Determined people break past standard door locks as if they weren't there.
Exactly. My locks are effective against lazy thieves. The lazy thieves are in the majority. That's why they steal for a living rather than work. They may not be effective against determined thieves but that's no reason not to have them.
The DeCSS case: Why did nobody anywhere think to point out that encrypting a file does not prevent it from ebing copied.
The Sonny Bone law challenge: This was just naive. Of course the court isn't going to make a decision that will make the entire media industry's assets worthless. Lessig should have included the argument that 99% of media profits would not be affected if copyright was rolled back to 14 years.
You're satill making the mistake of treating data as a physical object. Nobody's consuming anything. You download data. It's still there. But everyone's getting more content that they're paying for. It's worth different amounts to different people. If it's worth less that $100, then you won't pay it. You'll simpyl do without broadband internet. If it's worth more than $100 to you then you will. Media does not have some inherent worth. The worth of data is the amount someone is willing to pay to get that data.
It's no less fair that the current system. Under the current system, ten people want me to create something for them. I do so and charge them $10. They each get the data for $1. Then you ask me to create something for you. I charge you $10. You're getting screwed because I charge 10 times as much to you as I did to them. I get the same amount either way.
As it happens, I think the whole system is flawed for various reasons. One being that people don't realise just how much they spend on media in a year, and would balk at the idea of actually paying that much if they did realise. another is that it means there is a fixed amount of money available for creativity, and valuable, low demand; high price works will not be viable.
There are people who follow the original Ten Commandments and there are people who don't. Those who have faith, generally do. Those who have none, generally do not.
Bullshit. I have no faith (i.e. I don't believe in a god) but you don't see me running around having sex with boys, convincing people to give me their life savings, having extra-marital affairs (ok, I'm not married so that doesn't count), murdering my family and so on. I highly doubt you'd find many people who don't have faith who don't follow the underpinnings of the 10 commandments.
Given that the first commandment is essentially that god exists, it's kind of a tautology that those who don't have faith don't follow the commandments. I suspect you don't keep the sabbath day holy either (commandment 4). So pedantically speaking, the grandparent was right.
The objection is that people who "share" little or no copyrighted music/text/video would be forced, under your plan to subsidize those who "share" lots and lots of materials.
But they wouldn't. The only reason it looks that way is that current copyright assigns a value to each copy of a work.
It's not a zero sum game. You pay that much, and you're entitled to download as much as you want. Someone else downloading far more than you is not going to remove your right to download as much as you want. If everyone downloads twice as much of everything, then the artists stil get the same amount of money (as they should - they did the same amount of work). You get more, they get more. The creators get as much as they did before. Everybody wins.
No lock available on any consumer-grade car, truck, minivan, house, garage, shed, or toilet (don't ask) is capable of keeping criminals out.
Yes they are. Most of the criminals round here are kids who wouldn't know where to start attacking a lock. Locksmiths know how easy it is for a locksmith to break in. Most criminals aren't that skilled. The ones that are are probably going to go for richer pickings.
Here's a fun fact: If the locks on your home were made by Kwikset, I have a key to your house.
Good job they're not then.
Here's another fun fact - About half of unlawful entry through doorways occurs when the doors were left unlocked. And most criminals will spend less than a minute trying to break in.
him: "I like to quote my locksmith friend, locks aren't supposed to keep criminals out, they're supposed to keep honest people in"
I'd have answered "Uhmm... No... They're supposed to keep criminals out. That's why I lock my car and my house and my bike". (Actually I wouldn't - I'd have just given up the argument as not worth having).
You sign a restrictive agreement with a cartel that has absolute control over all marketting channels, or you wallow in obscurity forever. Are you surprised that some people go for the restrictive contract? It's the best they can get.
the ambulance has to arrive. That doubles the time waiting.
Or if that's not practical, you should get there safely rather than buying a few minutes by speeding... A pregnant wife in the car doesn't give you the right to speed (or blow through stops) and a car going that fast is more likely to cause an accident,
True.
or to get pulled over, which would defeat the purpose of speeding in the first place.
No it wouldn't. The cop has a siren, flashing lights, and the ability to determine whether it's more important to give you a ticket, or to get your passenger to the hospital as quickly as possible.
A lot of people use the word Linux to refer to a lot of things that are not Linux.
Slashdot should not be one of them. They should rename the section "Open Source" or "Free software" considering the stuff that turns up in that section.
P2P file sharing simply wasn't considered when the DMCA was written. And the understanding of the technology by the people drafting the law was a little vague anyway.
The idea was that if someone posts something on a website, and it infringes copyright, then the copyright owner could contact the ISP, the ISP would then remove the website and give information on who was infringing copyright to the copyright holder so that they could sort it out between themselves. This means that the ISP is safe from prosecution as long as it follows the rules.
There are probably problems with this that weren't considered.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody's forcing you to do anything. However, if you want to claim royalties for your emails and digital pictures, then you will have every right to. Simply publish them, sign up, and claim royalties from the rights organisation.
Just think of all the money in micropayments school children can make when pedophiles download their daily schedules and photos of their friends, which they're forced to license.
Now, that's a really stupid way of lookingat things. People would only be obliged to licence things that were actually published. You see, it's quite easy to prevent people from copying by not publishing.
The MPAA's argument was that DeCSS allowed the data to be copied. Perhaps if that argument was defeated then the MPAA would also have argued that it allowed the data to be accessed, but they didn't need to.
But they're not Commercial Works, which I'll define here as copyrighted works with all rights reserved and with access restricted only to paying customers.
But there's no reason they can't become commercial. The reason many of them aren't at the moment is simply that it's not viable to do so. Creators that don't wish to have no reason to take from the pot.
No, it's almost the same argument. Under current models, whether access is restricted depends on what kind of incentive an author needs in order to create and publish a work. Different works need different amounts of incentive, and a proposal for a copyright replacement should address this fact.
Yes it should. I agree. But the argument was it was unfair on the people paying the tax, on the basis that they are subsidising other people's dowloads. It may be unworkable. It would cost people way more than they're willing to spend. It may also be unfair, but not for that reason.
However, I think it would be a possible to create a decent form of metering software. It just requires a market.
It also requires a design. How is metering accomplished other than through eavesdropping, especially given IPsec, SSL/SSH, and other methods of hiding data from eavesdroppers? Or are we talking about introducing what Mr. Stallman has called Treacherous Computing?
The market requirements would produce a design. The market's good like that.
All we need is to create a standard protocol for data to be sent, anonymously, to the rights collection organisation. Since sending this data costs people nothing (they pay a fixed tax whetever), and results in a reward for the people they like, it would be in the users favour to use software that implements the protocol. A lot of people may well dislike the idea, but this doesn't matter. All we need is a statisitical sample to work out how much each artist deserves. If 10% of the population use the software, we find out which information they're downloading and divide the pot between them. Since we're just dividing a fixed amoutn of money, it doesn't matter how small a sample we take, as long as its large enough to be statistically valid.
Granted, this is open to fraud, and this will have to be dealt with by law rather than technology, but the basic mechanism should work.
Lots of people have come up with the same argument. Now, I know for a fact that there are a number of Slashdotters with a decent (i.e. degree level) understanding of economics, and nobody has been called up on it, so it seems reasonable that this is the generally accepted consensus according to economic heory.
Which leads to the question - who is Adam L. Penenberg, and why the hell do we give a damn what the moron thinks?
Isn't that roughly how the DVD market works? I bought Pirates of the Carribean when it first came out because I didn;t want to wait. Now I can get it for about a quarter of that price. Oldboy I was less keen on, but decided to wait until it went down in price. Dark Star, I feel is a silly film, but a cult classic, and it was so cheap that I bought it on impulse.
This a seriously misinformed and badly thought out point you're making.
Indeed it is. For many reasons. I just think that the idea that you're subsidising others is not one of them.
because one might just want to download things like Drivers for your computer, get support for your workstation, download free software.
But under this scheme, the driver writers and free software developers would be entitled to a share of the pot as well. So would website developers.
Broadband is NOT limited to the downloading of copyright restricted materials.
Don't know about you, but almost everything I download is copyrighted. Slashdot is copyrighted, The Linux kernel is copyrighted. The amusing email a friend sent me is copyrighted.
Parks and Libraries and any number of other public services are there For The Public, and they are in the public's interest. Imposing a tax on broadband access because there are people violating copyright is not in the public's interest, it's in the interest of the content creators. For that reason, I am one who would oppose such a thing.
Art and creativity are in the public interest. They serve a similar benefit to parks and libraries. This is not imposing a tax on broadband because people are violating copyright. This is imposing a tax on broadband because we see it as beneficial "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Copyright does the same thing, but when copyright is no longer viable, because copying is impossible to control, it's time to come up with other alternatives. You keep going back to this idea that copyright is an inherent natural part of nature. It's not. It's a synthetic construction that didn't exist before the invention of the printing press. Copyright exists purely to encourage people to create. This proposed tax is another synthetic creation to encoutrage people to create.
What it sounds to me like is that you want a great number of musical selections available to you for a fixed price, unlimited and all you can make use of.
Of course I do! Who wouldn't!?
Unfortunately, it won't work out well that way. Who gets to decide who gets what share of the pot? What about songs downloaded outside metering software? If there should be no songs like that, who gets the authority to monitor all data traffic to your computer to verify and check?
Ah, but now we're getting into a completely different argument. The idea that the system is not viable. However, I agree with you completely here. However, I think it would be a possible to create a decent form of metering software. It just requires a market.
I read the summary. There were a lot of comments that after being sdecrypted it could be copied "like any other file". No mention of the fact that before it was decrypted, it could be copied like any other file. And if they pointed this out, then it would demonstrably not be a measure to prevent copying.
Great. So I can't read my email, shop at Amazon, or access my university library from home because I don't want copyrighted content?
Yes you can. You just have to pay a tax (Alhough why you need broadband for that, I have no idea). All sorts of things are taxed, and a lot of the money goes to services I don't use.
The Internet doesn't exist simply for people to download copyrighted content. The fact that a huge amount of bandwidth is currently used to do so illegally doesn't mean that anyone using it for other purposes should be forced to subsidize media junkies and pirates.
We're talking about ending piracy. You're not subsidising the media junkies and pirates! You're subsidising the content creators! Don't you see? Making more copies does not cost the creator more. If I download data it doesn't cost anyone anything. I gain. Nobody loses. The revenue is simply readjusted marginally so that the person I downloaded from gets more of the pot.
Erm.. No - That only works if about 50% of houses are left unlocked.
Remember, "almost half" means that "MORE than half" of break-ins are performed when the doors *are* locked.
Yes it does. But I never said "almost". I said "About".
I used Kwikset as an example, even though nearly all other commercial "buy it in a local hardware store" locks follow the same pattern - they have a set number of keys, and no more.
And how many keys is that? I mean, many insurance companies insists on a 7 lever lock. Presumably then they have assessed the risks and know that my house is safer with a better lock.
, even without a "professional" set of tools (I did it in 30 with a nail file when I locked myself out of my apartment).
Perhaps you should invest in a decent lock. Last time I was locked out, I called the company that installed the lock, and they said they'd have to drill it out.
Heck, you can make professional-grade tools in less than an hour using steak knives and a grinder, or in a couple hours if you've gotta file 'em by hand.
Most criminals don't have the time, patience or knowledge to do that.
Never mind the fact that they can just as easily bust a window (if there is one).
My windows are made from toughened glass. That stuff is pretty durable.
Locks only keep out the lazy and/or honest people of the world. Determined people break past standard door locks as if they weren't there.
Exactly. My locks are effective against lazy thieves. The lazy thieves are in the majority. That's why they steal for a living rather than work. They may not be effective against determined thieves but that's no reason not to have them.
The DeCSS case: Why did nobody anywhere think to point out that encrypting a file does not prevent it from ebing copied.
The Sonny Bone law challenge: This was just naive. Of course the court isn't going to make a decision that will make the entire media industry's assets worthless. Lessig should have included the argument that 99% of media profits would not be affected if copyright was rolled back to 14 years.
You're satill making the mistake of treating data as a physical object. Nobody's consuming anything. You download data. It's still there. But everyone's getting more content that they're paying for. It's worth different amounts to different people. If it's worth less that $100, then you won't pay it. You'll simpyl do without broadband internet. If it's worth more than $100 to you then you will. Media does not have some inherent worth. The worth of data is the amount someone is willing to pay to get that data.
It's no less fair that the current system. Under the current system, ten people want me to create something for them. I do so and charge them $10. They each get the data for $1. Then you ask me to create something for you. I charge you $10. You're getting screwed because I charge 10 times as much to you as I did to them. I get the same amount either way.
As it happens, I think the whole system is flawed for various reasons. One being that people don't realise just how much they spend on media in a year, and would balk at the idea of actually paying that much if they did realise. another is that it means there is a fixed amount of money available for creativity, and valuable, low demand; high price works will not be viable.
Given that the first commandment is essentially that god exists, it's kind of a tautology that those who don't have faith don't follow the commandments. I suspect you don't keep the sabbath day holy either (commandment 4). So pedantically speaking, the grandparent was right.
But Google had every right to simply not operate in China for ethical reasons.
The objection is that people who "share" little or no copyrighted music/text/video would be forced, under your plan to subsidize those who "share" lots and lots of materials.
But they wouldn't. The only reason it looks that way is that current copyright assigns a value to each copy of a work.
It's not a zero sum game. You pay that much, and you're entitled to download as much as you want. Someone else downloading far more than you is not going to remove your right to download as much as you want. If everyone downloads twice as much of everything, then the artists stil get the same amount of money (as they should - they did the same amount of work). You get more, they get more. The creators get as much as they did before. Everybody wins.
No lock available on any consumer-grade car, truck, minivan, house, garage, shed, or toilet (don't ask) is capable of keeping criminals out.
Yes they are. Most of the criminals round here are kids who wouldn't know where to start attacking a lock. Locksmiths know how easy it is for a locksmith to break in. Most criminals aren't that skilled. The ones that are are probably going to go for richer pickings.
Here's a fun fact: If the locks on your home were made by Kwikset, I have a key to your house.
Good job they're not then.
Here's another fun fact - About half of unlawful entry through doorways occurs when the doors were left unlocked. And most criminals will spend less than a minute trying to break in.
him: "I like to quote my locksmith friend, locks aren't supposed to keep criminals out, they're supposed to keep honest people in"
I'd have answered "Uhmm... No... They're supposed to keep criminals out. That's why I lock my car and my house and my bike". (Actually I wouldn't - I'd have just given up the argument as not worth having).
Okay - so what's the choice?
You sign a restrictive agreement with a cartel that has absolute control over all marketting channels, or you wallow in obscurity forever. Are you surprised that some people go for the restrictive contract? It's the best they can get.
You have the right to remain silent...
I like that idea. Make speeding a bit irritating and people will not speed, but if they have a need to then they will still be able to.
You should call an ambulance?
the ambulance has to arrive. That doubles the time waiting.
Or if that's not practical, you should get there safely rather than buying a few minutes by speeding... A pregnant wife in the car doesn't give you the right to speed (or blow through stops) and a car going that fast is more likely to cause an accident,
True.
or to get pulled over, which would defeat the purpose of speeding in the first place.
No it wouldn't. The cop has a siren, flashing lights, and the ability to determine whether it's more important to give you a ticket, or to get your passenger to the hospital as quickly as possible.
Very much the same thing.
Exactly the same thing.
Word for word...
Wait a minute!! The BBC ripped off my blog!
Maybe they asked the AI, and it had ethical objections ;)
A lot of people use the word Linux to refer to a lot of things that are not Linux. Slashdot should not be one of them. They should rename the section "Open Source" or "Free software" considering the stuff that turns up in that section.
Yes. It turned out Copyright hadn't been renewed (and that was a requirement at the time), so it had been public domain since the 1970's.
P2P file sharing simply wasn't considered when the DMCA was written. And the understanding of the technology by the people drafting the law was a little vague anyway.
The idea was that if someone posts something on a website, and it infringes copyright, then the copyright owner could contact the ISP, the ISP would then remove the website and give information on who was infringing copyright to the copyright holder so that they could sort it out between themselves. This means that the ISP is safe from prosecution as long as it follows the rules.
There are probably problems with this that weren't considered.