What I was responding to was your argument that the money shouldn't be flowing to the creator/owner, but rather some undefined "somebody else" for the benefit of society.
Then you misunderstood my point. I didn't say the money would flow to 'someone else' I said the 'benefits' would go to society as a whole. Benefit does not have to equal money. Moreover, the artist can make plenty of money without selling 'copies' of his work. If he goes this route there can be no money flowing to other people because copies of his work can be freely available and infinite - in the digital world. And this actual 'work' can't be pirated at all. It's a scarce resource unlike infinite digital copies.
The musician actually plays music for a living.
The photographer actually takes pictures for a living.
The artist paints works of art people commission.
Writers can get their works widely known with little to no monetary investment. See xkcd.com as one example of moving from free to making money.
ThePirateBay site recently offered to freely advertise for artists. How much is being publicly shown on the tpb home page to a millions of people a day worth? That kind of advertising normally costs real serious money. It no longer does.
When did I mention them? You are aware that one can copyright works without being involved in the RIAA/MPAA cartels, right?
You mentioned that siphoning off money does not enrich society and I simply pointed out that the 2 biggest proponents of copyright maximalism themselves siphon massive amounts of money out of the system. When the 'defenders' of copyright completely meet your definition of the bad things that would happen if copyright didn't exist, it sort of makes you wonder whether they are actually helping. Sort of like how the LucasFilms literally claims Star Wars - Return of the Jedi was not a profitable movie. Seriously they claim it 'lost' money based on their accounting tricks.
Copyright has been extended to a permanent monopoly. Literally *no* works entered the public domain this year. That's not benefiting society. Heck they are retroactively removing works currently in the public and putting them back under copyright.
Copyright is fundamentally broken. It has been broken by greedy corporations Disney chief among them. The idea of copyright is reasonable. What we have for copyright today is a perversion of what it is supposed to be.
Jesus Fucking Christ, this is a retarded argument.
No it's not. It's literally the very definition of copyright. It is a limited time monopoly so that after such time passes society reaps the *entire* benefit of it being freely available for use by anyone however they see fit.
The definition of 'benefit' are not limited to 'money'.
That diversion of money does not enrich culture and society, it impoverishes it.
I would fully agree that RIAA/MPAA are impoverishing society by their very existence yes.
The only grey area that comes into play is things like Facebook. It's a commercial site but the content placed on it is mostly user generated. So Facebook profits from people using it for both legal and illegal purposes.
Laws need to catch up with things like this..and the DMCA is a flawed but reasonable attempt at this. Safe Harbors provided you follow procedures when a copyright owner asks for take down. Could be done better but it's at least in the neighborhood of the direction we need to go.
Show me any significant cost in creating a 'copy' of a digital file, that wouldn't already have been spent by the computer already being turned on. Any cost of electricity or wear on the equipment is so small as to be utterly meaningless.
Original content certainly costs money to create, but digital COPIES of that content do not cost anything to create.
The profit from a copy argument is still a vestige of the pre-digital days of music labels controlling everything. There are no profits from copied digital works. They cost nothing to create and and can be infinitely created. They have no value in and of themselves.
There are profits to be made from 'convenient delivery' of digital works...see iTunes. There are profits to be made using digital works to drive people to buy scarce physical things like concert tickets, t-shirts and other merchandise.
See xkcd.com. A free online comic that built up enough fans to be able to sell physical copies of something that is widely available for free. LOLCats is another site doing fairly well by providing something for free.
The little guy has never had it so good as today. The old gate keepers (RIAA/MPAA/publishers) that controlled who would be successful and who wouldn't are becoming irrelevant.
I thought there was an arrangement where if an artist published a song under the aegis of ASCAP or BMI that anyone was free to play that song, provided they payed the tithe to ASCAP or BMI to play songs in a public venue.
Umm so why should the publisher profit indefinitely from that same work without the creator getting any of it?
Perhaps the creator should have demanded better compensation from the publisher when providing said work to the publisher? Or better yet, perhaps the creator shouldn't plan to make money selling copies of their work, but on actually 'creating' work.
You pay a lower price to see a Pink Floyd Tribute band than you do Pink Floyd. Why? Because one is more valuable than the other. A copy isn't the same thing as the original creation.
Some work generates revenue for decades. Sorry, but it does.
Yes, the issue is whether it should be locked up/monopolized by one party or allowed to the greater society for use by anyone to further expand on it. All works will create revenue for as long as they exist whether they are 'free' or not.
That money's going to flow somewhere, so who is better entitled to it?
Perhaps the greater good of culture and society...which is what copyright is supposed to be supporting?
Care to elucidate, then, on how you plan to protect said "digitized" goods?
You don't. Period. However, you do protect any and all commercial uses of a copyrighted work - digital or not. But personal digitized use is something that simply can't be stopped given the non-existent costs of duplication and distribution.
1. Copyrights of information transferable by the internet are not enforceable anymore. Period. Unless you disconnect everyone from the internet.
I would tend to disagree. Commercial use is always going to be enforceable since there's money being moved around.
Personal use is now not enforceable...or at least at a scale that makes it uneconomical to enforce. A million websites created on a million different servers...in under a day. You simply can't kill that type of scale with laws.
But a commercial entity using a copyrighted work won't have that type of scale, they are able to be targeted fairly easily.
Do a little research...CDO's were the blatant cause of this crisis. They were over leveraged bets/insurance on risky assets that no one understood. Did some CDO's pay off? Sure. There was a 60 minutes episode about a guy who saw this coming and made like 4 billion taking out CDOs. The point wasn't whether an investment was sound or not it was simply an overunder bet on how that investment would do. So you could make it pay off by betting against it.
Actually, they were required to sell loans to people they knew would fail to repay by the federal government.
Sources please. Goldman Sachs didn't make the loans...they were selling securities *on* the loans. BIG difference. And making bets that those securities would go bust.
Given the hypocrisy of the UMG and the other labels of shooting first and asking questions later when people use *their* music...it's perfectly reasonable to call them out when it shows just how presumptuous they are.
They didn't ask if they had permission they just 'assumed'. Sort of like I can 'assume' if I find it online it must be free to use right?
The summary also makes it look like YouTube did this. In fact, Youtube allows the music labels themselves to add songs to filter on. So UMG saw their artist play a song then someone else play the song (the true author) and so uploaded the song as a violation...even though their artist was in fact the violator.
last I checked GM offered a warranty on their products....I'm guessing Goldman Sachs didn't offer any 'warranty' on the advice they were giving on wholly independent things.
Well you did have Goldman Sachs selling things to people that they knew were going to or very likely to fail (and did fail in the end)...precisely because Goldman Sachs were making bets that they would fail.
What opinion? Everything I stated is iron clad fact.
Perhaps you could say this is opinion "It's going to have very significant effects even if it was released naturally/normally." but that's mostly just saying when you radically alter a system, the system is going to react to that change.
Uh, sulfur dioxide is a regular product of volcanos so it too is a natural byproduct of the earth of which all living things are as well.
We're just now producing it excessively ourselves.
CO2 released that was removed from the air last week isn't a problem. CO2 that released that was removed from the air 5 million years ago is a problem because it's outside the 'normal' cycles. Note I said 'normal' and not natural since oil is itself a natural thing.
Now couple that with releasing millions of years worth of CO2 in just 100 years. It's going to have very significant effects even if it was released naturally/normally. But for us we're doing it explicitly when it would not have 'normally' been released. So it's our activities that are putting all this extra CO2 into the air at a time when it wouldn't be there otherwise.
I always love how they tout Ron Paul's fanatical base of 'young' supporters...yet never question that since he's been running this schtick for 30 years, shouldn't some of his supports be 'old' now?
It's almost as if they get older and wiser and see what a loon he really is:)
Melting sea ice doesn't 'directly' raise sea levels. It does however increase the amount of heat absorbed by the same area that was nice and white (ice covered) and now is dark blue (open water) and this is a very significant amount of new heat in the environment. That increased heat causes the air to heat up...which then melts ice on land.
Mostly false. When you take into account the actual facts and circumstances.
Gore pays a higher premium because he requires the energy come from renewable/clean sources. So his energy use is doing far less environmental damage than regular users who are getting their electricity from coal/gas. So he's putting his money where his mouth is.
Further more he invested heavily into making it a more efficient system. As evidence of this, when a record heat wave hit Nashville, his energy use was down 11% from the previous year while most Nashville houses reported 20-30% *more* energy used.
If you generate your *own* electricity from solar/wind/etc as Gore's house does.. how much you use doesn't matter nearly as much .
Likewise trolls like you bitched when Gore bought an 'ocean front' house in CA. Obviously a hypocrite since he was saying sea levels were going to rise! Except his house is on a *cliff* 60 feet up. Well beyond any rise that will happen in his lifetime.
nope. With more open ocean now catching the suns rays it absorbs much more heat than the ice covered area did previously.
That increased heat in the atmosphere and ocean then melts more sea ice, rinse, repeat. All that increased warmth in the atmosphere also tends to melt ice on land...
Except that arable land doesn't move with the change in temperatures. It's still non-arable land that is now warmer and wetter. It takes quite a bit of time to make it productive...and much longer than the hunger of 200 million people who just moved there.
Slashdot Mirror
So, why not make that argument, rather than the trollish rubbish you first advanced?
Rather ironic coming from someone who jumped into this thread with
;-)
"Jesus Fucking Christ, this is a retarded argument."
What I was responding to was your argument that the money shouldn't be flowing to the creator/owner, but rather some undefined "somebody else" for the benefit of society.
Then you misunderstood my point. I didn't say the money would flow to 'someone else' I said the 'benefits' would go to society as a whole. Benefit does not have to equal money. Moreover, the artist can make plenty of money without selling 'copies' of his work. If he goes this route there can be no money flowing to other people because copies of his work can be freely available and infinite - in the digital world. And this actual 'work' can't be pirated at all. It's a scarce resource unlike infinite digital copies.
The musician actually plays music for a living.
The photographer actually takes pictures for a living.
The artist paints works of art people commission.
Writers can get their works widely known with little to no monetary investment. See xkcd.com as one example of moving from free to making money.
ThePirateBay site recently offered to freely advertise for artists. How much is being publicly shown on the tpb home page to a millions of people a day worth? That kind of advertising normally costs real serious money. It no longer does.
When did I mention them? You are aware that one can copyright works without being involved in the RIAA/MPAA cartels, right?
You mentioned that siphoning off money does not enrich society and I simply pointed out that the 2 biggest proponents of copyright maximalism themselves siphon massive amounts of money out of the system. When the 'defenders' of copyright completely meet your definition of the bad things that would happen if copyright didn't exist, it sort of makes you wonder whether they are actually helping. Sort of like how the LucasFilms literally claims Star Wars - Return of the Jedi was not a profitable movie. Seriously they claim it 'lost' money based on their accounting tricks.
Copyright has been extended to a permanent monopoly. Literally *no* works entered the public domain this year. That's not benefiting society. Heck they are retroactively removing works currently in the public and putting them back under copyright.
Copyright is fundamentally broken. It has been broken by greedy corporations Disney chief among them. The idea of copyright is reasonable. What we have for copyright today is a perversion of what it is supposed to be.
Jesus Fucking Christ, this is a retarded argument.
No it's not. It's literally the very definition of copyright. It is a limited time monopoly so that after such time passes society reaps the *entire* benefit of it being freely available for use by anyone however they see fit.
The definition of 'benefit' are not limited to 'money'.
That diversion of money does not enrich culture and society, it impoverishes it.
I would fully agree that RIAA/MPAA are impoverishing society by their very existence yes.
The only grey area that comes into play is things like Facebook. It's a commercial site but the content placed on it is mostly user generated. So Facebook profits from people using it for both legal and illegal purposes.
Laws need to catch up with things like this..and the DMCA is a flawed but reasonable attempt at this. Safe Harbors provided you follow procedures when a copyright owner asks for take down. Could be done better but it's at least in the neighborhood of the direction we need to go.
Show me any significant cost in creating a 'copy' of a digital file, that wouldn't already have been spent by the computer already being turned on. Any cost of electricity or wear on the equipment is so small as to be utterly meaningless.
Original content certainly costs money to create, but digital COPIES of that content do not cost anything to create.
The profit from a copy argument is still a vestige of the pre-digital days of music labels controlling everything. There are no profits from copied digital works. They cost nothing to create and and can be infinitely created. They have no value in and of themselves.
There are profits to be made from 'convenient delivery' of digital works...see iTunes. There are profits to be made using digital works to drive people to buy scarce physical things like concert tickets, t-shirts and other merchandise.
See xkcd.com. A free online comic that built up enough fans to be able to sell physical copies of something that is widely available for free. LOLCats is another site doing fairly well by providing something for free.
The little guy has never had it so good as today. The old gate keepers (RIAA/MPAA/publishers) that controlled who would be successful and who wouldn't are becoming irrelevant.
I thought there was an arrangement where if an artist published a song under the aegis of ASCAP or BMI that anyone was free to play that song, provided they payed the tithe to ASCAP or BMI to play songs in a public venue.
You are correct
Even more, they performer doesn't have to pay anything to ASCAP if the venue itself pays for a blanket license.
Umm so why should the publisher profit indefinitely from that same work without the creator getting any of it?
Perhaps the creator should have demanded better compensation from the publisher when providing said work to the publisher? Or better yet, perhaps the creator shouldn't plan to make money selling copies of their work, but on actually 'creating' work.
You pay a lower price to see a Pink Floyd Tribute band than you do Pink Floyd. Why? Because one is more valuable than the other. A copy isn't the same thing as the original creation.
Some work generates revenue for decades. Sorry, but it does.
Yes, the issue is whether it should be locked up/monopolized by one party or allowed to the greater society for use by anyone to further expand on it. All works will create revenue for as long as they exist whether they are 'free' or not.
That money's going to flow somewhere, so who is better entitled to it?
Perhaps the greater good of culture and society...which is what copyright is supposed to be supporting?
Care to elucidate, then, on how you plan to protect said "digitized" goods?
You don't. Period. However, you do protect any and all commercial uses of a copyrighted work - digital or not. But personal digitized use is something that simply can't be stopped given the non-existent costs of duplication and distribution.
1. Copyrights of information transferable by the internet are not enforceable anymore. Period. Unless you disconnect everyone from the internet.
I would tend to disagree. Commercial use is always going to be enforceable since there's money being moved around.
Personal use is now not enforceable...or at least at a scale that makes it uneconomical to enforce. A million websites created on a million different servers...in under a day. You simply can't kill that type of scale with laws.
But a commercial entity using a copyrighted work won't have that type of scale, they are able to be targeted fairly easily.
Do a little research...CDO's were the blatant cause of this crisis. They were over leveraged bets/insurance on risky assets that no one understood. Did some CDO's pay off? Sure. There was a 60 minutes episode about a guy who saw this coming and made like 4 billion taking out CDOs. The point wasn't whether an investment was sound or not it was simply an overunder bet on how that investment would do. So you could make it pay off by betting against it.
Actually, they were required to sell loans to people they knew would fail to repay by the federal government.
Sources please. Goldman Sachs didn't make the loans...they were selling securities *on* the loans. BIG difference. And making bets that those securities would go bust.
Given the hypocrisy of the UMG and the other labels of shooting first and asking questions later when people use *their* music...it's perfectly reasonable to call them out when it shows just how presumptuous they are.
They didn't ask if they had permission they just 'assumed'. Sort of like I can 'assume' if I find it online it must be free to use right?
They had *no* license to use the work. linky
The summary also makes it look like YouTube did this. In fact, Youtube allows the music labels themselves to add songs to filter on. So UMG saw their artist play a song then someone else play the song (the true author) and so uploaded the song as a violation...even though their artist was in fact the violator.
last I checked GM offered a warranty on their products....I'm guessing Goldman Sachs didn't offer any 'warranty' on the advice they were giving on wholly independent things.
But nice troll attempt anyway
Well you did have Goldman Sachs selling things to people that they knew were going to or very likely to fail (and did fail in the end)...precisely because Goldman Sachs were making bets that they would fail.
That's pretty much the definition of fraud....
What opinion? Everything I stated is iron clad fact.
Perhaps you could say this is opinion "It's going to have very significant effects even if it was released naturally/normally." but that's mostly just saying when you radically alter a system, the system is going to react to that change.
So what exactly are you saying is opinion?
Uh, sulfur dioxide is a regular product of volcanos so it too is a natural byproduct of the earth of which all living things are as well.
We're just now producing it excessively ourselves.
CO2 released that was removed from the air last week isn't a problem. CO2 that released that was removed from the air 5 million years ago is a problem because it's outside the 'normal' cycles. Note I said 'normal' and not natural since oil is itself a natural thing.
Now couple that with releasing millions of years worth of CO2 in just 100 years. It's going to have very significant effects even if it was released naturally/normally. But for us we're doing it explicitly when it would not have 'normally' been released. So it's our activities that are putting all this extra CO2 into the air at a time when it wouldn't be there otherwise.
re: libertarians
:)
I always love how they tout Ron Paul's fanatical base of 'young' supporters...yet never question that since he's been running this schtick for 30 years, shouldn't some of his supports be 'old' now?
It's almost as if they get older and wiser and see what a loon he really is
Completely false. Sea levels rise 'naturally' as sediment runs into the oceans. This is usually measured in a few inches per century.
We're now looking at meters per century with the additional land ice melting.
Melting sea ice doesn't 'directly' raise sea levels. It does however increase the amount of heat absorbed by the same area that was nice and white (ice covered) and now is dark blue (open water) and this is a very significant amount of new heat in the environment. That increased heat causes the air to heat up...which then melts ice on land.
Try thinking more than 1 step into the future...
Mostly false. When you take into account the actual facts and circumstances.
Gore pays a higher premium because he requires the energy come from renewable/clean sources. So his energy use is doing far less environmental damage than regular users who are getting their electricity from coal/gas. So he's putting his money where his mouth is.
Further more he invested heavily into making it a more efficient system. As evidence of this, when a record heat wave hit Nashville, his energy use was down 11% from the previous year while most Nashville houses reported 20-30% *more* energy used.
If you generate your *own* electricity from solar/wind/etc as Gore's house does.. how much you use doesn't matter nearly as much .
Likewise trolls like you bitched when Gore bought an 'ocean front' house in CA. Obviously a hypocrite since he was saying sea levels were going to rise! Except his house is on a *cliff* 60 feet up. Well beyond any rise that will happen in his lifetime.
Continents move, the 'arctic' was once at the equator..as was just about every other point on earth....
nope. With more open ocean now catching the suns rays it absorbs much more heat than the ice covered area did previously.
That increased heat in the atmosphere and ocean then melts more sea ice, rinse, repeat. All that increased warmth in the atmosphere also tends to melt ice on land...
Except that arable land doesn't move with the change in temperatures. It's still non-arable land that is now warmer and wetter. It takes quite a bit of time to make it productive...and much longer than the hunger of 200 million people who just moved there.