Many people seem to forget that the whole concept of intellectual property is entirely unnatural and the word 'property' in this context is a misnomer. Without some very strong reason no-one should have the right to stop me from copying something. There is no natural ownership to the intangible. We only extend 'rights' to intangibles if it benefits all of us. Quite often the applications of intellectual properties do not benefit 'the whole' on balance. Rather quite perversely they simply protect private interests. There is also a vast difference between theory and practice. In theory we have fair use. In practice the courts have severely limited its application. So frequently even in educational institutions, materials are denied to students because of fear of copyright (unless they cough up very big bucks). Many types of copyright of simply unnecessary for creativity. We had no copyright on buildings before December 1, 1990 but we do after that date. Did that damage creativity there? No of course not. But now they are copyrighted.
We also quite often forget that preventing people from speaking, or singing, or playing an instrument, or creating a DVD or using a photocopier in a way they deem proper takes away from their personal freedom and their economic freedom. Does anyone take into account the money saved on allowing people to use more copyrighted, trademarked and patented concepts with greater ease. Does the $15 I save because an album is 30 years old and 'could' be actually out of copyright count? Take that $15 and multiply is by 10 million. Now people have saved $150 million. You have to weigh their costs and benefits against the artists. And let us not forget that the artist and the corporation that has been putting out their music has been making money off the copyright for 30 years. They have made a fortune.
What about the right to use copyrighted material as part of a large of a larger whole? Eg a documentary film that wants to use short copyrighted clips. Often the cost of obtaining them makes their use uneconomic. Here commercial prorogation of something new is inhibited by 'Copyright' despite the fact that the reason d'etre of 'Copyright' was to encourage commercial prorogation of new ideas and art. Copyright owners who extol the value of copyright often 'forget' quite conveniently that IP may actually supress creativity. Often copyright is used simply to deny public use of material. So let me get this right. You need copyright law that allows the complete prevention of artistic material from circulating at all so you can encourage future creativity. Because mr/ms creative would only produce something for the public if they knew they could prevent any public dissemination. Right?!
I always get a laugh out of the heirs who already enjoy copyright revenues. So they didn't do jack sh*t but they are an heir so they should rake in cash for doing nothing. There was a New York Times article that had the audacity to argue for perpetual copyright. So you want to put on a Shakespeare play - better pay his descendants or some rich corporation. You want to read your bible in the church. Not before you hand over some cash. This idea is absurd but it's scary that the copyright crazies are advocating it. They claim they own ideas. We get this...no-one owns ideas! IP is not susceptible to ownership. We just put restrictions on IP for societal benefit not for the narcissistic desires of the original producer and certainly not their descendants.
Some of the restrictions of IP impinge on free speech. Sometimes you need to be able to film some event that has political implications without worrying about the 'person' rights. Eg Police brutality. Think this is an exaggeration? Just wait till you hear that free speech is cool but because some political speech intruded on commercial ri
1. Given that you can't create competition with copyrighted works we have market failure in this case. I would suggest 14 years copyright for music - long enough to make back all money invested + healthy returns but not too long to inhibit the creation of new music and not too long to deny people the right to copy it.
2. We need to allow people to copy music even if the rights holders don't agree, IF the price they charge is too high. I would suggest that any other company could charge whatever it wanted so long as it paid 15 cents per track to the rights holders. That way if for example the music company together with some distributer charges 99 cents a track, another company is allowed to compete with them and charge 25 cents a track. That way 15 cents goes to the artist and original music company and the new distributer has 10 cents per track to cover their costs. Of course if they want to charge 30 cents they can do that too. We get real competition. We just need to keep a small fee paid to the rights holders that is not exorbitant. 99 cents per track IS exorbitant.
3. We need to force limitations on DRM. If you want to use DRM you can but under the following provisos (companies can choose not to use DRM if they do not like them):
a. Since this mp3 should last for life in the same way a CD does it needs to be compatible with a lifetime's wirth of devices. So at any given time it must work with at least 5 different devices and you should be able to remove one and add one as you acquire new devices through your lifetime.
b. If the format in which the file is encoded becomes obsolete you need to provide a way to convert it to a new format free of charge (ie via some downloadable program).
c. No personal information like email addresses or name is allowed in the DRM file.
d. The company must allow me convert from one DRM type to another DRM type if the file is not compatible with one playback device. Eg if Apples' DRM does not work with Zune then apple must allow me to convert it to another DRM type that does work.
e. If a company violates the above rules the copyright is automatically voided for the songs involved, I can sue for damages and I am allowed to crack the DRM.
4. Members of a household are always allowed to share tracks no matter what the end user license agreement says.
5. Libraries can 'lend' out digital music files so long as they pay for each one separately. Of course they must be digitally returned - perhaps by a DRM expiration on a specific device.
I never understand why given that this is blatantly anti competitive, companies aren't immediately prosecuted under anti trust laws with their directors going to prison. And don't forget about some nasty fines and civil penalties. So if we find a college kid who copies a movie we prosecute the f*ck out of them and financially squeeze them until they are thoroughly screwed over. But if you are a big company and you screw over millions of people, you get off scot-free. Apart from the fact that the rule of law is a joke if the powerful are not investigated it would be better for the economy and everyone's standard of living if anti trust laws were enforced. How many extra thousands of dollars every year do we spend on things because they are more expensive than they would naturally be if companies were not violating anti trust laws.
Part of the answer to this problem is to change the law so that the of proof is NOT on the users to show they got it legally. Perhaps you would begin with a neutral position and expect each side to argue on the balance of probabilities as to whether a CC license was granted. Secondly make the old 'switcheroo' a big time felony with huge fines - 10 times what he could have sued people for. If people knew they could lose their shirt and go to jail for this old 'switcheroo' I am not so sure they would go for it. Make sure as well that one can sue civilly for performing a 'switcheroo' and again make the damages 10 times what the original guy was trying to sue for. Additionally allow punitive damages.
I have to say that I disagree with the statement that 'the gain is marginal'. Once you get used to watching HD stuff you don't want to go back. People often say that about some new improvement in some media. I also think that 2007 was the breakout year for HDTV in terms of consumers. There were/are a lot of affordable HDTVs available. According to TVPredictions.com. U.S. installed base is now estimated at 30 million sets. The Consumer Electronics Association is predicting that for 2008 25.3-million HDTV units will be sold. I would say then that in 18 months time HDTV will go from optional extra to mainstream. The potential market for HD players will be huge. http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205207879&subSection=All+Stories
There are 2 inhibitory factors. Firstly the we have the cost issiue. Blue-ray disks are so expensive right now. I think the studios are sabotaging themselves by charging so much money for them. It's easy to forget that although in the US GDP per capita has gone up like crazy since the 1970s that's really only benefited a small segment of society - 10%. The only way the average Joe has done better is by both partners working and not by much. Since 1980, US gross domestic product (HDP) per capita has increased 67%[1], while median household income has only increased by 15%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income For individual income the situation is even worse. In 1970 adult US median income in 2004 dollars was $28,100. In 2004 it was $30,513. Thats only 8.6% higher in 34 years in real terms. But now people have significant college loans to pay back. In real terms many are poorer as a consequence. So people have very little wiggle room. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
Of course if you want to market stuff to the top 1% with average income above $1.7 million (aprox for 2006) then you can sell them fancy shit. But not the the average Joe. Big corporations need to remember that using debt to get people to buy more stuff only works in the short term. Eventually people get maxed out - like now. Then all of a sudden people can't afford any higher prices. If the studios had any sense of their own best interest they would make peace in the format war, charge for an HD disk what a regular DVD now costs and discount DVDs. Within 2 years we would all see massive uptake of the new technology and everyone would be a winner.
The second inhibitory factor is the format war and its consequences. I bought my first DVD player for my computer in 1998. I would buy an HD player now if there was not a format war. It looks to me that this war is stalemated for now. I see downloads becoming more and more prevalent as people wait for the HD war to resolve itself. The thing is though, that by 2013, maybe even by 2012, there will be enough bandwidth so that most US high speed connections will be able to download HD content. Now there will be DRM issues and storage issues. But I am betting they will figure that stuff out. But Apple, Microsoft, Lg-Netflix ect will be providing the service and making money and Sony and Toshiba will be cut out completely. Of course Sony's studio will still make money from such a model.
This is such a shame. I would prefer a physical medium that works right now. It would also provide competition to downloads so that they wouldn't otherwise be able to have such extreme DRM terms and conditions.
Without a stalemate Christmas 2007 would have seen massive buying of cheap HD players. We would all being watching HD movies and be getting used to them. We would get so spoiled by the superior picture quality that we would not succumb to inferior download quality.
However now that there there is a stalemate going on people are nervous to buy either standard and each standard is still quite expensive. Some people including myself don't want to buy some standard that wont play all movies because some are exclusive to only one format.
Now people will simply say since there is no reliable HD standard why not download a lesser quality version from Netflix or apple or Microsoft. They will do this for both rental purposes and to buy a permanent copy. Then they will get very habituated to it. As time goes watching movies buy obtaining a physical medium will seem less and less attractive. In 2012 there will be enough bandwidth for most high speed internet connections to download HD movies. HD-DVD and blue ray will be both be dead and buried by 2014.
But this requires the stupidity of both Sony and Toshiba to keep their rivalry going and be unwilling to compromise even though it is both of their interests to do so. They seem though to have come through 100% on the doofus front.
Theory that explains the music industry's decline:
1. The many extensions of copyright mean that there is not the same incentive to find and develop new talent. e.g. The rolling stones are still in copyright so they have less need for new talent.
2. As a consequence of this this, new music is often far inferior in quality.
3. This lousy new music incentives people to buy old stuff from the 50s , 60 and 70s.
4. This buying of old music in turn raises revenue from those bygone periods which further disincentives the production of new talent.
And thus the vicious cycle self perpetuates. How ironic it is that intellectual property laws have had the effect of suppressing creativity.
Well it seems to work quite well in Switzerland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Switzerland
Without such limitations copyrights runs amuck. Remember we have copyright to encourage creativity. But you do not need copyright on all photos to encourage it. My objection is the extension of copyright beyond its original reason-d'etre.
2. Solve the problem of people using copyright to prevent reproduction especially in small independent films. If companies use copyright to deny reproduction at any price or at a price that is so high its absurd, enable people to pay some fixed fee and ignore the wishes of the copyright holder. Copyright shouldn't be a tool to prevent reproduction just a tool to make some money from artistic creativity.
4. Expand fair use. If I want to use a small portion of a book eg 1000 words from a 50,000 word book its ok even if its for profit. I just can't reproduce lots of 1000 word bit to reproduce the book. If its educational I get to use it unless it literally causes major loss to the company. Eg in a classroom I can make 200 copies of a newspaper article for all the students. I just can't do that for a whole textbook. But I can use it for a figure from a textbook.
5. No automatic copyright for photos. There has to be some artistic quality to them.
6. In the U.S., buildings built on or after December 1, 1990 are also eligible for copyright. This is pathetic. Given that creativity was not stifled beforehand this is totally unnecessary. No copyright on buildings.
7. No frivolous copyright either like on restaurants. Yes someone was sued and lost because one restaurant was too similar to another.
8. No copyright on 'happy birthday'. If you sing happy birthday in a restaurant you gotta pay a fee to the so called rights holder. The movie 'The Corporation' claims that Warner/Chappell charge up to US$10,000 for the song to appear in a film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
I agree with hherb on this issue. We are way to harsh on sex offenders. It seems that we can keep on passing new laws that find new ways to punish sex offenders. Are the current laws not strict enough? Other than murder, sexual assault convictions carried the longest median prison sentence in New Jersey. I think if someone suggested we add an extra 2 years onto minimum sentences for all sex offenders it would pass in any state. We have since 1980 consistently upped the penalties for sex crimes since the 1980s. There is no evidence that it has helped. Now states are considering the death penalty for worst case sex crimes. There is a guy in Louisiana who is on death row for a sex crime without murdering anyone.
But no matter how harsh the punishment, we can always make it a little worse. We could insist that sex criminals serve a minimum of 25 years. Then we could restrict their privileges in prison even if they were well behaved. We could ban them from having a television. We could ban them from lifting weights. We could stop them from wearing civilian clothes. We could lock them up for 23 hours a day like those on death row. But no matter how much we punish them the public desire for revenge is never satiated. We always want more. When do we finally say that some punishment is enough?
About 400 municipalities in New Jersey have enacted local zoning ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live within their boundaries. This vengeful justice is getting so out of hand that an ex sex offender cannot function in society. They can't get a job because firstly they have a criminal record and secondly they are a sex offender and have to register as such. They can't live in many places. We are forcing them into a life of crime to survive. Many towns like to ban sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any place where there might be children. This list gets very long. It starts with schools and parks. Then it moves on into movie theaters and churches. Now the vogue is to also ban them from 2500 feet of libraries and bus stops as well. There are increasingly states and counties where there is no place a sex offender can live legally.
As to the specifics of the internet ban for sex offenders. Firstly if they have already served their sentence haven't they already paid back their 'debt to society'. Or is this to keep society safe and not as a punishment. Well what if their original crime had nothing to do with the internet. What if they raped an adult and have no desire to do anything to kids? Is there any evidence that this would make kids safer? There is no evidence that residency restriction laws do in fact diminish crimes against children. And remember banning people from a using the internet is removing a distant threat from a kid. They can't physically do anything. And all this assumes that they will choose to use the internet to contact kids to begin with. What if they do not? What about other categories? If someone had underage sex, the law is the problem there as opposed to the law breaker.
So what type of person is this law about? Is it about a sex crazed pedophile who cannot help stop themselves. Well in my mind they don't have what we would call free will. the urge is so great. States are starting to use civil commitment with such offenders so they never get out. So what sort of sex offenders are we talking about?
I think banning people from using the internet is also itself ludicrous. In the 1990s the net was nice to have but
This is sheer madness. I hope US copyright law does not recognize it, given that its 70 years after the building of the structures. Does anyone know about this? IMHO a lot of IP is simply well connected people and governments charging people for the right to use an idea. And that concept is evil. Knowledge ought to be free. I think we need to start up an organization to lobby against IP and get congress to reform it.
This is a really bad idea. This is where it starts - with Star athletes. Then people wonder about dangerous criminals (ie after they have completed their sentences). Then it moves to children (to keep them safe). Very soon it no longer is a 'choice'. You can't keep your job without it. And eventually it becomes mandated by law. When some private company knows where you are 24/7 it's certain that if the government wants to know, it will easily be able to find out (especially now due to the patriot act). Imagine - no more cops using radar to give out tickets. They can do it from a central computer.
Then the chip might be able to monitor a bit more about you. What level of hormone x or y, diseases or how oxygenated your blood is. They could figure out your mood. What's next? Perhaps a feedback loop. If hormone x is too high get the chip to release an electric signal. You insurance company might drop you if they don't like your lifestyle as measured by the chip. Child custody dispute...go look at the data from the chip. Then I am betting some people who remove their chips be criminalized for doing so.
Beyond or the legal uses will be the illegal ones. People hacking into the database to plan the perfect robbery or the perfect blackmailing.. Or the FBI abusing its powers to snoop anyway.
The worst part about it is that it is so unnecessary. Some athletes do drugs. Big deal. They are hurting themselves. Perhaps hurting professional sports. Are we going to sacrifice personal liberty to ensure the integrity of professional sports. And please don't give me 'its for the children'. If we followed that excuse every time we would end up with a police state and no freedom.
Part of the problem is the insistence in Wikipedia that it cannot contain x,y or z. Here there is some rule that 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.' It's very difficult to argue with people about this. When you point out that since wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia it can contain a lot more information than a regular one and therefore can have characteristics of a textbook you get circular reasoning of 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.' If you dare to ask to change the policy people say there is already consensus.
But this 'consensus' is 'weird'. Sometimes even when there is a clear majority in favor of saving some article or changing some policy admins will say that 'Wikipedia is not a democracy.' If you then ask well what does determine it you also end up with a tautology. I once asked someone why they wanted to delete article x and they said they were a 'deletionist'. Again I asked why and ended up with circular reasoning.
As far as this issue is concerned I think without proofs you are missing a whole lot in math. This also makes Wikipedia a difficult forum to discuss math and science in terms of what goes into an article. As someone in this area I often try to explain to people that their idea about y or z here is doesn't work because of some scientific concept.
The problems occur when they consider their generalist approach most important even if they are ignorant of the topic area. For example I might be talking about Unsolved problems in biology or Unsolved problems in medicine. Well to really address the issue you need expertise in that area. Generalists without it go in and presume to understand what is an unsolved problem in a field in which they lack knowledge. I heard all sorts of bizarre ideas from people in the unsolved problems in chemistry deletion debate about the 'nature' of chemistry, how chemistry itself was not very precise and easy to define. It's so crazy because Science magazine had a whole issue on the topic of big unsolved problems in chemistry. Oh well I guess those people who are actually scientists just don't get chemistry in the same way as a wikipedia admin.
It gets really crazy in that although the above articles got deleted enough people kicked up a fuss to save unsolved problems in neuroscience, unsolved problems in chemistry and unsolved problems in economics to save them. To really converse on these issues you have to really understand neuroscinece but wikipedia admins seem to think not. They play sneaky games. If they can't delete them the first time around keep on referring it for deletion. They did this with Unsolved problems in biology here and here. Then if you try to recreate the article you get slapped down by an admin because the article has already been deleted so you lose not matter what.
I finally gave up on getting any logical argument from the admins when I pointed out that if unsolved problems in neuroscience could exist then why not have unsolved problems in biology. I even talked to some practicing biologists about what these problems might be and low and behold they gave me some. Then the admins said well its not biology, its really biochemistry. Then I asked well why not have Unsolved problems in biochemistry. And it went
If you take a look at Wikipedia article on Garry Weiss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Weiss it reads like a positive list of achievements and that it reads much like an advertisement. There is even a template designed to be placed in an article if this happens normally to alert people of such blatant bias and the need for a rewrite. The article does not discuss any of the controversy. You will see that it has now been locked (not even semi protected). As someone who has regularly edited Wikipedia the blocking a page while leaving it in so biased a state is quite unusual. It so blatantly breaks Wikipedia's own rules that it's quite amusing.
However as nsayer and Minwee allude to, the people involved are powerful and the rules are always different for the powerful. Clearly Jimbo Wales and other senior administrators should not be editing articles (and worse still be the sole editors) about controversies in which they are involved. Some might think they are a little biased. Indeed any references to the recent controversy in the article above that were there before have been deleted by a senior admin.
I would suggest that a separate group of Wikipedian's who are not admins be created to oversee disputes such as this one. In fact the senior admins involved in the dispute should be temporarily barred from editing the relevant articles until things have calmed down a bit.
I am wondering if someone could explain to me why the FCC mandating what is on cable is constitutional. Cable doesn't use the air waves. So isn't what they choose to put on on not put on protected under the first amendment? ie- they can put on whatever programing they want.
I would like to know whether this means I can use the storage for a website. IE - I have 100 gb of data on a website and they can be accessed as often as wanted without having to worry about using up more than a quota of data transfered. If I can do this then this service is great. If it's just for personal storage it is way overpriced.
"I also posted about my concerns on the Apple iPhone discussion forums, but my post was quickly removed."
When companies sensor information that the consumer needs make an informed decision, I suspect that it's the tip of the iceberg. If you knowingly supress information about your product that would influence consumer choice you are in effect misrepresenting that product, aka fraud. Of course this is another example of where if you are a big corporation you can get away with what ever they want. Yes their products are nice, but if this is how they act when they have such a small piece of the pie could you imagine how they would be if they had 95%. I suspect Apple would be as bad or worse than Microsoft.
I think that post 9/11 there is an obsession with security that has gone way over the top and is now endangering US economic interests itself. There was a recent survey in which the US was rated the most unfriendly country to visitors. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1121-02.ht m I have met many visitors who love the USA and have been vacationing here every year or two saying that the process to visit has become miserable and that now they are reconsidering coming here. People don't like being treated like criminals - we so often forget that. Now even the old grandmother is treated like a criminal. We suspect all visitors of perhaps wanting to permanently stay in the US even if they come very rich countries themselves and even if they have great jobs. I met some rich lawyers who were treated as possible future illegals - needless to say they are thinking of new countries to spend their cash in.
The discussion on further limiting visits to the USA by visa waiver countries further makes a bad situation worse. US economic growth will suffer. It will no longer be seen as a great place to do business. Again I have seen this first hand. Not long ago the US was considered the place to be for a high tech business. Now people aren't sure its worth the hassle. If we turn the USA into a fortress, it may end up being a poor one. Ironically economic weakness in the long term will make the US much more vulnerable to attack than a lack of short term security measures.
This thing also reminds me how other countries like the UK and Australia are poaching the best international students. Those students are a big reason for the economic and cultural vibrancy of the US. We are in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs because we are so fixated on protecting the goose.
There is no consistent set of studies showing a causal link between violence in video games and in real life. There are conflicting studies all over the place. This is just another example of government over-regulation.
The fact that information was available in 1996 in geographical form on paper and that databases already existed offline that one could search by geographical location makes this patent quite obvious in my books. This is yet another example where patent law has gone crazy. The purpose of a patent is to encourage efficient research and development and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good. This case merely damages Verizon's bottom line (and their subscribers) and makes a lot of Patent Lawyers very rich. It was something that existed in parallel forms in the offline world and people would have come up with it anyway. Thus the efficient research and development argument and the disclosure to public domain arguments do not apply.
We need patent reform. To get a patent it really must be not obvious. It must be novel - something that would not be thought up by others. No more games. No more Amazon one click patents either.
But before they get sued why has a court got jurisdiction to tell them what to do. Why does a court have jurisdiction to tell someone to do x in case they get sued - unless there is a law explicitly saying that. Of course they can give advice but why can they mandate this?
I was wondering if someone could explain why this is in the jurisdiction of the federal government as opposed to the states. The schools are mostly state institutions. Is it the fact that the email 'crossed' state lines that makes all the difference? What if it is within one state? Does it matter where the severs are located?
If you pay the license fee you should not have to pay twice for the content. Funny how if you copy one song - that IP theft. If through the use of DRM you prevent millions of people for using your content (that they have already paid for) then it is ok - no-one suggests that its mass larceny. Also unbelievable how a public organization supposed to exist for the 'public good' consults with the public about DRM and then ignores them. Yeah - that really makes sense. One suggestion: Make the BBC produce all its content under a creative commons license. That would be progress!
Firstly this just demonstrates that the public airwaves are not 'public' at all. They merely belong to the corporations who are the biggest campaign contributors. I love how people who use airwaves without FCC approval are pirates and criminals - but if give to the right politicians and fix the auction then you are legit. Its amazing that if you bilk the customer because either you can get away with ignoring anti trust laws because your Verizon or AT&T then it's ok. Steal a CD and you go to jail.
Secondly this story is another example of the lack of competition in cell phone service and wireless data service. There is enough spectrum for at least 8 national companies. Yet there really are only 3 or 4 depending on how you count them. This I bet is why service is still absurdly expensive. Thirdly, I dream of the re-division of the airwaves. Its a quite a mess. Of course the changeover period may be difficult - but it would be doable. Finally I don't see why CBS, FOX, ABC and NBC should get them for free when so much of what they do is hardly serving the public. They get to refuse ads they don't like. They dont have to justify what they put on the air much. Why not give them for free for 20 years to others and see if they do better?
I agree - way too much copyright. Copyright 200 years ago was for 14 years, renewable for another 14 years. I think the current 70 years after the death of the author is obscene. Given the point of copyright is the public good, what's the point if it doesn't serve it because its too long and too pervasive. Calling something 'intellectual property' is bullocks galore. It's just a restriction on redistribution for the public good. No-one inherently 'owns' knowledge or a design. I propose that copyright be reduced to 25 years and that fair use rights be expanded.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people seem to forget that the whole concept of intellectual property is entirely unnatural and the word 'property' in this context is a misnomer. Without some very strong reason no-one should have the right to stop me from copying something. There is no natural ownership to the intangible. We only extend 'rights' to intangibles if it benefits all of us. Quite often the applications of intellectual properties do not benefit 'the whole' on balance. Rather quite perversely they simply protect private interests. There is also a vast difference between theory and practice. In theory we have fair use. In practice the courts have severely limited its application. So frequently even in educational institutions, materials are denied to students because of fear of copyright (unless they cough up very big bucks). Many types of copyright of simply unnecessary for creativity. We had no copyright on buildings before December 1, 1990 but we do after that date. Did that damage creativity there? No of course not. But now they are copyrighted.
We also quite often forget that preventing people from speaking, or singing, or playing an instrument, or creating a DVD or using a photocopier in a way they deem proper takes away from their personal freedom and their economic freedom. Does anyone take into account the money saved on allowing people to use more copyrighted, trademarked and patented concepts with greater ease. Does the $15 I save because an album is 30 years old and 'could' be actually out of copyright count? Take that $15 and multiply is by 10 million. Now people have saved $150 million. You have to weigh their costs and benefits against the artists. And let us not forget that the artist and the corporation that has been putting out their music has been making money off the copyright for 30 years. They have made a fortune.
What about the right to use copyrighted material as part of a large of a larger whole? Eg a documentary film that wants to use short copyrighted clips. Often the cost of obtaining them makes their use uneconomic. Here commercial prorogation of something new is inhibited by 'Copyright' despite the fact that the reason d'etre of 'Copyright' was to encourage commercial prorogation of new ideas and art. Copyright owners who extol the value of copyright often 'forget' quite conveniently that IP may actually supress creativity. Often copyright is used simply to deny public use of material. So let me get this right. You need copyright law that allows the complete prevention of artistic material from circulating at all so you can encourage future creativity. Because mr/ms creative would only produce something for the public if they knew they could prevent any public dissemination. Right?!
I always get a laugh out of the heirs who already enjoy copyright revenues. So they didn't do jack sh*t but they are an heir so they should rake in cash for doing nothing. There was a New York Times article that had the audacity to argue for perpetual copyright. So you want to put on a Shakespeare play - better pay his descendants or some rich corporation. You want to read your bible in the church. Not before you hand over some cash. This idea is absurd but it's scary that the copyright crazies are advocating it. They claim they own ideas. We get this...no-one owns ideas! IP is not susceptible to ownership. We just put restrictions on IP for societal benefit not for the narcissistic desires of the original producer and certainly not their descendants.
Some of the restrictions of IP impinge on free speech. Sometimes you need to be able to film some event that has political implications without worrying about the 'person' rights. Eg Police brutality. Think this is an exaggeration? Just wait till you hear that free speech is cool but because some political speech intruded on commercial ri
1. Given that you can't create competition with copyrighted works we have market failure in this case. I would suggest 14 years copyright for music - long enough to make back all money invested + healthy returns but not too long to inhibit the creation of new music and not too long to deny people the right to copy it.
2. We need to allow people to copy music even if the rights holders don't agree, IF the price they charge is too high. I would suggest that any other company could charge whatever it wanted so long as it paid 15 cents per track to the rights holders. That way if for example the music company together with some distributer charges 99 cents a track, another company is allowed to compete with them and charge 25 cents a track. That way 15 cents goes to the artist and original music company and the new distributer has 10 cents per track to cover their costs. Of course if they want to charge 30 cents they can do that too. We get real competition. We just need to keep a small fee paid to the rights holders that is not exorbitant. 99 cents per track IS exorbitant.
3. We need to force limitations on DRM. If you want to use DRM you can but under the following provisos (companies can choose not to use DRM if they do not like them):
a. Since this mp3 should last for life in the same way a CD does it needs to be compatible with a lifetime's wirth of devices. So at any given time it must work with at least 5 different devices and you should be able to remove one and add one as you acquire new devices through your lifetime.
b. If the format in which the file is encoded becomes obsolete you need to provide a way to convert it to a new format free of charge (ie via some downloadable program).
c. No personal information like email addresses or name is allowed in the DRM file.
d. The company must allow me convert from one DRM type to another DRM type if the file is not compatible with one playback device. Eg if Apples' DRM does not work with Zune then apple must allow me to convert it to another DRM type that does work.
e. If a company violates the above rules the copyright is automatically voided for the songs involved, I can sue for damages and I am allowed to crack the DRM.
4. Members of a household are always allowed to share tracks no matter what the end user license agreement says.
5. Libraries can 'lend' out digital music files so long as they pay for each one separately. Of course they must be digitally returned - perhaps by a DRM expiration on a specific device.
I never understand why given that this is blatantly anti competitive, companies aren't immediately prosecuted under anti trust laws with their directors going to prison. And don't forget about some nasty fines and civil penalties. So if we find a college kid who copies a movie we prosecute the f*ck out of them and financially squeeze them until they are thoroughly screwed over. But if you are a big company and you screw over millions of people, you get off scot-free. Apart from the fact that the rule of law is a joke if the powerful are not investigated it would be better for the economy and everyone's standard of living if anti trust laws were enforced. How many extra thousands of dollars every year do we spend on things because they are more expensive than they would naturally be if companies were not violating anti trust laws.
Part of the answer to this problem is to change the law so that the of proof is NOT on the users to show they got it legally. Perhaps you would begin with a neutral position and expect each side to argue on the balance of probabilities as to whether a CC license was granted. Secondly make the old 'switcheroo' a big time felony with huge fines - 10 times what he could have sued people for. If people knew they could lose their shirt and go to jail for this old 'switcheroo' I am not so sure they would go for it. Make sure as well that one can sue civilly for performing a 'switcheroo' and again make the damages 10 times what the original guy was trying to sue for. Additionally allow punitive damages.
I have to say that I disagree with the statement that 'the gain is marginal'. Once you get used to watching HD stuff you don't want to go back. People often say that about some new improvement in some media. I also think that 2007 was the breakout year for HDTV in terms of consumers. There were/are a lot of affordable HDTVs available. According to TVPredictions.com. U.S. installed base is now estimated at 30 million sets. The Consumer Electronics Association is predicting that for 2008 25.3-million HDTV units will be sold. I would say then that in 18 months time HDTV will go from optional extra to mainstream. The potential market for HD players will be huge. http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205207879&subSection=All+Stories
There are 2 inhibitory factors. Firstly the we have the cost issiue. Blue-ray disks are so expensive right now. I think the studios are sabotaging themselves by charging so much money for them. It's easy to forget that although in the US GDP per capita has gone up like crazy since the 1970s that's really only benefited a small segment of society - 10%. The only way the average Joe has done better is by both partners working and not by much. Since 1980, US gross domestic product (HDP) per capita has increased 67%[1], while median household income has only increased by 15%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income For individual income the situation is even worse. In 1970 adult US median income in 2004 dollars was $28,100. In 2004 it was $30,513. Thats only 8.6% higher in 34 years in real terms. But now people have significant college loans to pay back. In real terms many are poorer as a consequence. So people have very little wiggle room. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
Of course if you want to market stuff to the top 1% with average income above $1.7 million (aprox for 2006) then you can sell them fancy shit. But not the the average Joe. Big corporations need to remember that using debt to get people to buy more stuff only works in the short term. Eventually people get maxed out - like now. Then all of a sudden people can't afford any higher prices. If the studios had any sense of their own best interest they would make peace in the format war, charge for an HD disk what a regular DVD now costs and discount DVDs. Within 2 years we would all see massive uptake of the new technology and everyone would be a winner.
The second inhibitory factor is the format war and its consequences. I bought my first DVD player for my computer in 1998. I would buy an HD player now if there was not a format war. It looks to me that this war is stalemated for now. I see downloads becoming more and more prevalent as people wait for the HD war to resolve itself. The thing is though, that by 2013, maybe even by 2012, there will be enough bandwidth so that most US high speed connections will be able to download HD content. Now there will be DRM issues and storage issues. But I am betting they will figure that stuff out. But Apple, Microsoft, Lg-Netflix ect will be providing the service and making money and Sony and Toshiba will be cut out completely. Of course Sony's studio will still make money from such a model.
This is such a shame. I would prefer a physical medium that works right now. It would also provide competition to downloads so that they wouldn't otherwise be able to have such extreme DRM terms and conditions.
As a consequence of a loony civil way between Blu-ray and HD-DVD, Microsoft, apple and now Netflix will kill both formats.
Microsoft has helped keep the civil war alive.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20071205123352_Microsoft_Accused_of_Eventual_Blu_Ray_HD_DVD_Formats_Fiasco.html
Without a stalemate Christmas 2007 would have seen massive buying of cheap HD players. We would all being watching HD movies and be getting used to them. We would get so spoiled by the superior picture quality that we would not succumb to inferior download quality.
However now that there there is a stalemate going on people are nervous to buy either standard and each standard is still quite expensive. Some people including myself don't want to buy some standard that wont play all movies because some are exclusive to only one format.
Now people will simply say since there is no reliable HD standard why not download a lesser quality version from Netflix or apple or Microsoft. They will do this for both rental purposes and to buy a permanent copy. Then they will get very habituated to it. As time goes watching movies buy obtaining a physical medium will seem less and less attractive. In 2012 there will be enough bandwidth for most high speed internet connections to download HD movies. HD-DVD and blue ray will be both be dead and buried by 2014.
But this requires the stupidity of both Sony and Toshiba to keep their rivalry going and be unwilling to compromise even though it is both of their interests to do so. They seem though to have come through 100% on the doofus front.
Theory that explains the music industry's decline:
1. The many extensions of copyright mean that there is not the same incentive to find and develop new talent. e.g. The rolling stones are still in copyright so they have less need for new talent.
2. As a consequence of this this, new music is often far inferior in quality.
3. This lousy new music incentives people to buy old stuff from the 50s , 60 and 70s.
4. This buying of old music in turn raises revenue from those bygone periods which further disincentives the production of new talent.
And thus the vicious cycle self perpetuates. How ironic it is that intellectual property laws have had the effect of suppressing creativity.
Well it seems to work quite well in Switzerland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Switzerland Without such limitations copyrights runs amuck. Remember we have copyright to encourage creativity. But you do not need copyright on all photos to encourage it. My objection is the extension of copyright beyond its original reason-d'etre.
This idea is great. Here are some more:
1. I think a general copyright of 14 years is the optimum from the time of publication. This study previously appeared on slashdot.
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf
2. Solve the problem of people using copyright to prevent reproduction especially in small independent films.
If companies use copyright to deny reproduction at any price or at a price that is so high its absurd, enable people to pay some fixed fee and ignore the wishes of the copyright holder. Copyright shouldn't be a tool to prevent reproduction just a tool to make some money from artistic creativity.
3. If companies abuse the position by engaging in fraud or anti trust behavior to manipulate prices they lose their copyright.
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/PrRel/prfeb192004.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-cd-settlement.htm
4. Expand fair use. If I want to use a small portion of a book eg 1000 words from a 50,000 word book its ok even if its for profit. I just can't reproduce lots of 1000 word bit to reproduce the book. If its educational I get to use it unless it literally causes major loss to the company. Eg in a classroom I can make 200 copies of a newspaper article for all the students. I just can't do that for a whole textbook. But I can use it for a figure from a textbook.
5. No automatic copyright for photos. There has to be some artistic quality to them.
6. In the U.S., buildings built on or after December 1, 1990 are also eligible for copyright. This is pathetic. Given that creativity was not stifled beforehand this is totally unnecessary. No copyright on buildings.
7. No frivolous copyright either like on restaurants. Yes someone was sued and lost because one restaurant was too similar to another.
8. No copyright on 'happy birthday'. If you sing happy birthday in a restaurant you gotta pay a fee to the so called rights holder. The movie 'The Corporation' claims that Warner/Chappell charge up to US$10,000 for the song to appear in a film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
I agree with hherb on this issue. We are way to harsh on sex offenders. It seems that we can keep on passing new laws that find new ways to punish sex offenders. Are the current laws not strict enough? Other than murder, sexual assault convictions carried the longest median prison sentence in New Jersey. I think if someone suggested we add an extra 2 years onto minimum sentences for all sex offenders it would pass in any state. We have since 1980 consistently upped the penalties for sex crimes since the 1980s. There is no evidence that it has helped. Now states are considering the death penalty for worst case sex crimes. There is a guy in Louisiana who is on death row for a sex crime without murdering anyone.
But no matter how harsh the punishment, we can always make it a little worse. We could insist that sex criminals serve a minimum of 25 years. Then we could restrict their privileges in prison even if they were well behaved. We could ban them from having a television. We could ban them from lifting weights. We could stop them from wearing civilian clothes. We could lock them up for 23 hours a day like those on death row. But no matter how much we punish them the public desire for revenge is never satiated. We always want more. When do we finally say that some punishment is enough?
About 400 municipalities in New Jersey have enacted local zoning ordinances restricting where sex offenders can live within their boundaries. This vengeful justice is getting so out of hand that an ex sex offender cannot function in society. They can't get a job because firstly they have a criminal record and secondly they are a sex offender and have to register as such. They can't live in many places. We are forcing them into a life of crime to survive. Many towns like to ban sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any place where there might be children. This list gets very long. It starts with schools and parks. Then it moves on into movie theaters and churches. Now the vogue is to also ban them from 2500 feet of libraries and bus stops as well. There are increasingly states and counties where there is no place a sex offender can live legally.
As to the specifics of the internet ban for sex offenders. Firstly if they have already served their sentence haven't they already paid back their 'debt to society'. Or is this to keep society safe and not as a punishment. Well what if their original crime had nothing to do with the internet. What if they raped an adult and have no desire to do anything to kids? Is there any evidence that this would make kids safer? There is no evidence that residency restriction laws do in fact diminish crimes against children. And remember banning people from a using the internet is removing a distant threat from a kid. They can't physically do anything. And all this assumes that they will choose to use the internet to contact kids to begin with. What if they do not? What about other categories? If someone had underage sex, the law is the problem there as opposed to the law breaker.
So what type of person is this law about? Is it about a sex crazed pedophile who cannot help stop themselves. Well in my mind they don't have what we would call free will. the urge is so great. States are starting to use civil commitment with such offenders so they never get out. So what sort of sex offenders are we talking about?
I think banning people from using the internet is also itself ludicrous. In the 1990s the net was nice to have but
This is sheer madness. I hope US copyright law does not recognize it, given that its 70 years after the building of the structures. Does anyone know about this? IMHO a lot of IP is simply well connected people and governments charging people for the right to use an idea. And that concept is evil. Knowledge ought to be free. I think we need to start up an organization to lobby against IP and get congress to reform it.
This is a really bad idea. This is where it starts - with Star athletes. Then people wonder about dangerous criminals (ie after they have completed their sentences). Then it moves to children (to keep them safe). Very soon it no longer is a 'choice'. You can't keep your job without it. And eventually it becomes mandated by law. When some private company knows where you are 24/7 it's certain that if the government wants to know, it will easily be able to find out (especially now due to the patriot act). Imagine - no more cops using radar to give out tickets. They can do it from a central computer.
Then the chip might be able to monitor a bit more about you. What level of hormone x or y, diseases or how oxygenated your blood is. They could figure out your mood. What's next? Perhaps a feedback loop. If hormone x is too high get the chip to release an electric signal. You insurance company might drop you if they don't like your lifestyle as measured by the chip. Child custody dispute...go look at the data from the chip. Then I am betting some people who remove their chips be criminalized for doing so.
Beyond or the legal uses will be the illegal ones. People hacking into the database to plan the perfect robbery or the perfect blackmailing.. Or the FBI abusing its powers to snoop anyway.
The worst part about it is that it is so unnecessary. Some athletes do drugs. Big deal. They are hurting themselves. Perhaps hurting professional sports. Are we going to sacrifice personal liberty to ensure the integrity of professional sports. And please don't give me 'its for the children'. If we followed that excuse every time we would end up with a police state and no freedom.
Part of the problem is the insistence in Wikipedia that it cannot contain x,y or z. Here there is some rule that 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.' It's very difficult to argue with people about this. When you point out that since wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia it can contain a lot more information than a regular one and therefore can have characteristics of a textbook you get circular reasoning of 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.' If you dare to ask to change the policy people say there is already consensus.
But this 'consensus' is 'weird'. Sometimes even when there is a clear majority in favor of saving some article or changing some policy admins will say that 'Wikipedia is not a democracy.' If you then ask well what does determine it you also end up with a tautology. I once asked someone why they wanted to delete article x and they said they were a 'deletionist'. Again I asked why and ended up with circular reasoning.
As far as this issue is concerned I think without proofs you are missing a whole lot in math. This also makes Wikipedia a difficult forum to discuss math and science in terms of what goes into an article. As someone in this area I often try to explain to people that their idea about y or z here is doesn't work because of some scientific concept.
The problems occur when they consider their generalist approach most important even if they are ignorant of the topic area. For example I might be talking about Unsolved problems in biology or Unsolved problems in medicine. Well to really address the issue you need expertise in that area. Generalists without it go in and presume to understand what is an unsolved problem in a field in which they lack knowledge. I heard all sorts of bizarre ideas from people in the unsolved problems in chemistry deletion debate about the 'nature' of chemistry, how chemistry itself was not very precise and easy to define. It's so crazy because Science magazine had a whole issue on the topic of big unsolved problems in chemistry. Oh well I guess those people who are actually scientists just don't get chemistry in the same way as a wikipedia admin.
It gets really crazy in that although the above articles got deleted enough people kicked up a fuss to save unsolved problems in neuroscience, unsolved problems in chemistry and unsolved problems in economics to save them. To really converse on these issues you have to really understand neuroscinece but wikipedia admins seem to think not. They play sneaky games. If they can't delete them the first time around keep on referring it for deletion. They did this with Unsolved problems in biology here and here. Then if you try to recreate the article you get slapped down by an admin because the article has already been deleted so you lose not matter what.
I finally gave up on getting any logical argument from the admins when I pointed out that if unsolved problems in neuroscience could exist then why not have unsolved problems in biology. I even talked to some practicing biologists about what these problems might be and low and behold they gave me some. Then the admins said well its not biology, its really biochemistry. Then I asked well why not have Unsolved problems in biochemistry. And it went
If you take a look at Wikipedia article on Garry Weiss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Weiss it reads like a positive list of achievements and that it reads much like an advertisement. There is even a template designed to be placed in an article if this happens normally to alert people of such blatant bias and the need for a rewrite. The article does not discuss any of the controversy. You will see that it has now been locked (not even semi protected). As someone who has regularly edited Wikipedia the blocking a page while leaving it in so biased a state is quite unusual. It so blatantly breaks Wikipedia's own rules that it's quite amusing.
However as nsayer and Minwee allude to, the people involved are powerful and the rules are always different for the powerful. Clearly Jimbo Wales and other senior administrators should not be editing articles (and worse still be the sole editors) about controversies in which they are involved. Some might think they are a little biased. Indeed any references to the recent controversy in the article above that were there before have been deleted by a senior admin.
I would suggest that a separate group of Wikipedian's who are not admins be created to oversee disputes such as this one. In fact the senior admins involved in the dispute should be temporarily barred from editing the relevant articles until things have calmed down a bit.
I am wondering if someone could explain to me why the FCC mandating what is on cable is constitutional. Cable doesn't use the air waves. So isn't what they choose to put on on not put on protected under the first amendment? ie- they can put on whatever programing they want.
I would like to know whether this means I can use the storage for a website. IE - I have 100 gb of data on a website and they can be accessed as often as wanted without having to worry about using up more than a quota of data transfered. If I can do this then this service is great. If it's just for personal storage it is way overpriced.
"I also posted about my concerns on the Apple iPhone discussion forums, but my post was quickly removed."
When companies sensor information that the consumer needs make an informed decision, I suspect that it's the tip of the iceberg. If you knowingly supress information about your product that would influence consumer choice you are in effect misrepresenting that product, aka fraud. Of course this is another example of where if you are a big corporation you can get away with what ever they want. Yes their products are nice, but if this is how they act when they have such a small piece of the pie could you imagine how they would be if they had 95%. I suspect Apple would be as bad or worse than Microsoft.
I think that post 9/11 there is an obsession with security that has gone way over the top and is now endangering US economic interests itself. There was a recent survey in which the US was rated the most unfriendly country to visitors. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1121-02.ht m I have met many visitors who love the USA and have been vacationing here every year or two saying that the process to visit has become miserable and that now they are reconsidering coming here. People don't like being treated like criminals - we so often forget that. Now even the old grandmother is treated like a criminal. We suspect all visitors of perhaps wanting to permanently stay in the US even if they come very rich countries themselves and even if they have great jobs. I met some rich lawyers who were treated as possible future illegals - needless to say they are thinking of new countries to spend their cash in.
The discussion on further limiting visits to the USA by visa waiver countries further makes a bad situation worse. US economic growth will suffer. It will no longer be seen as a great place to do business. Again I have seen this first hand. Not long ago the US was considered the place to be for a high tech business. Now people aren't sure its worth the hassle. If we turn the USA into a fortress, it may end up being a poor one. Ironically economic weakness in the long term will make the US much more vulnerable to attack than a lack of short term security measures. This thing also reminds me how other countries like the UK and Australia are poaching the best international students. Those students are a big reason for the economic and cultural vibrancy of the US. We are in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs because we are so fixated on protecting the goose.
There is no consistent set of studies showing a causal link between violence in video games and in real life. There are conflicting studies all over the place. This is just another example of government over-regulation.
We need patent reform. To get a patent it really must be not obvious. It must be novel - something that would not be thought up by others. No more games. No more Amazon one click patents either.
But before they get sued why has a court got jurisdiction to tell them what to do. Why does a court have jurisdiction to tell someone to do x in case they get sued - unless there is a law explicitly saying that. Of course they can give advice but why can they mandate this?
I was wondering if someone could explain why this is in the jurisdiction of the federal government as opposed to the states. The schools are mostly state institutions. Is it the fact that the email 'crossed' state lines that makes all the difference? What if it is within one state? Does it matter where the severs are located?
If you pay the license fee you should not have to pay twice for the content. Funny how if you copy one song - that IP theft. If through the use of DRM you prevent millions of people for using your content (that they have already paid for) then it is ok - no-one suggests that its mass larceny. Also unbelievable how a public organization supposed to exist for the 'public good' consults with the public about DRM and then ignores them. Yeah - that really makes sense. One suggestion: Make the BBC produce all its content under a creative commons license. That would be progress!
Firstly this just demonstrates that the public airwaves are not 'public' at all. They merely belong to the corporations who are the biggest campaign contributors. I love how people who use airwaves without FCC approval are pirates and criminals - but if give to the right politicians and fix the auction then you are legit. Its amazing that if you bilk the customer because either you can get away with ignoring anti trust laws because your Verizon or AT&T then it's ok. Steal a CD and you go to jail.
Secondly this story is another example of the lack of competition in cell phone service and wireless data service. There is enough spectrum for at least 8 national companies. Yet there really are only 3 or 4 depending on how you count them. This I bet is why service is still absurdly expensive. Thirdly, I dream of the re-division of the airwaves. Its a quite a mess. Of course the changeover period may be difficult - but it would be doable. Finally I don't see why CBS, FOX, ABC and NBC should get them for free when so much of what they do is hardly serving the public. They get to refuse ads they don't like. They dont have to justify what they put on the air much. Why not give them for free for 20 years to others and see if they do better?
I agree - way too much copyright. Copyright 200 years ago was for 14 years, renewable for another 14 years. I think the current 70 years after the death of the author is obscene. Given the point of copyright is the public good, what's the point if it doesn't serve it because its too long and too pervasive. Calling something 'intellectual property' is bullocks galore. It's just a restriction on redistribution for the public good. No-one inherently 'owns' knowledge or a design. I propose that copyright be reduced to 25 years and that fair use rights be expanded.