|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
06-03-2012, 02:25 PM | #181 | ||
Addict
Posts: 304
Karma: 2454436
Join Date: Sep 2008
Device: PRS-505, PRS-650, iPad, Samsung Galaxy SII (JB), Google Nexus 7 (2013)
|
Quote:
Quote:
Magic digital pixies probably. I've noticed that the people all for total internet regulation don't actually have a clue what's involved. |
||
06-03-2012, 04:06 PM | #182 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 2,016
Karma: 2838487
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Device: Ipad, IPhone
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Advert | |
|
06-03-2012, 04:40 PM | #183 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,240
Karma: 35000000
Join Date: Jan 2008
Device: Pocketbook
|
Quote:
(Austrailia was required to change it's copyright law length in order to get a free trade agreement. The US made it non-negotiable. No copyright length change (from Life + 50 to Life + 70) no other trade changes at all...So much for you give something, we give something...) |
|
06-03-2012, 07:03 PM | #184 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
Quote:
The revolution and drama will be about children's toys and "marital aids." Slightly-modified knockoffs of every trademarked character will appear--and this being the internet, parody stories and artwork of them will also appear so that it's obvious the use isn't infringement. Mattel and Hasbro will go crazy trying to sue people. And on the other side of things, conservative parents' groups will freak out that print-file hosting sites have "adult content" and their kids could just download and print out objects of obviously erotic purpose. Site owners will argue, would you rather they got a good one from us, or a badly-made one--the kind with sharp edges or angles that can cause damage--from their friends? |
|
06-03-2012, 07:29 PM | #185 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,025
Karma: 39312118
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
|
Quote:
There seem to be at least two authors named Avner Mandelman. I somehow suspect that I should be peeved at the novelist, but it could be he's innocent, and the economically errant post was written by the stock picker. Both have Overdrive availability |
|
Advert | |
|
06-03-2012, 07:37 PM | #186 | |||
Wizard
Posts: 2,016
Karma: 2838487
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Device: Ipad, IPhone
|
Quote:
The Cynical Musician ( who is also an economist) explains why pirates crowd out legit business : Quote:
[QUOTE]There is something in the *culture* of the internet that makes them incompatible, and I don't just mean in the geeky hacker technophile corners of the web[/QUOTE ] I understand the concept that the Internet was originally a sort of techie libertarian utopia where people worked on trust, not law, etc. Times have changed. The Internet has become a public square and a place of commerce. That means it has to become a place under the rule of law. There is no reason why it can't also be a place where free speech and privacy rights are protected. It does mean that you have to be a citizen and participate in the democratic process, if you are concerned. Quote:
The Trichordist is calling simply for the law to be enforced. Just about everything you speculate about sounds like sophistical hypotheticals with no basis in reality. The reality is the mass violation of artist rights. Focus on what's really happening, not what MAY happen. Last edited by stonetools; 06-03-2012 at 07:39 PM. |
|||
06-03-2012, 09:33 PM | #187 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
Quote:
It's failing to be effective, because the foundations of the law included the idea that copies would be difficult to make, and therefore minimal resources could be expended to stop infringement; only large-scale commercial infringements would have any effect on the financial viability of legit copies. This is no longer the case. (1) Small infringements, of the type that used to be waved off, are having an effect, because they are widespread and simple enough. (Example: a hundred years ago, nobody cared if someone hand-wrote or typed a copy of a book onto individual sheets of paper, and mailed a chapter at a time to their brother overseas at war.) (2) Enforcements attempted against small infringements have the problem of, legally, being equally viable against things that are fair use. The line between "fair use" and "infringement" on an individual, noncommercial scale, or even small commercial scale, has never been defined. Example: Playing music at a house party with a $2 head charge. Making a mix tape. Photocopying the charts from an RPG manual each player has a set. Copying a page of artwork from a children's book to use as a cross-stitch pattern to make a gift. Hand-calligraphed poetry. If you've got a way to categorically define "infringement" so that it excludes these, I'd love to hear it. If you think some of these are infringement--should be paying money to the rights holders--that's exactly the curtailment of creativity that people are worried about. It's not that most of the sensible crowd (and I grant, there's plenty of idiots) really believes that mass file-sharing is good for artists, although there's substantial debate about how much harm it causes. (Obviously, it's good for *some* artists. Obviously, others are gaining nothing at all from it.) We *can* agree that some of it is harmful. We *can't* agree on how harmful, and what measures are reasonable to take to stop that harm. We can't even agree on who should be making those decisions. We can hopefully agree that it shouldn't be rights-holders alone; almost every author or musician who ever lived thought they weren't being paid enough. That leaves at least two other factions who could be involved in the decision: the public, who has an interest in works being available (which means both "at reasonable prices" and "with compensation enough that the artist keeps creating"), and the government, who has the task of enforcing whatever rules are decided on. The gov't seems to have mostly decided that the rights-holders can declare how much they *should* be making, and if they're not making that, piracy must be to blame. They insist that countermeasures should be based on the amount of money they think their efforts are worth, rather than based on actual market analysis. In response, a lot of the public has decided, "to hell with that! They can take what I'm willing to pay... or nothing." To members of the (consumer) public, it doesn't matter how many works have been created if those works are outside their price range. Whether artists go broke (and stop producing) because (A) they overpriced their works, can't find a market, and give up, or because (B) their works were shared so much they can't sell them at all, is irrelevant to the public: either way, no new works. In Plan B, at least the public gets access to existing works. This is not the only way of perceiving the situation, but it is a valid one--and it's one that needs to be taken into consideration when devising solutions. Why should the public go along with a plan to price works out of their reach? So that someone else who has more money can enjoy them? |
|
06-04-2012, 08:07 PM | #188 |
Banned
Posts: 1,687
Karma: 4368191
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oregon
Device: Kindle3
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
White House will propose new digital copyright laws | The Old Man | News | 19 | 02-09-2011 09:12 PM |
Impact of digital technology on the brain | 6charlong | News | 6 | 08-18-2010 01:50 PM |
iPad Adobe Unveils Digital Viewer Technology for Magazines | kjk | Apple Devices | 3 | 06-03-2010 01:44 AM |
very interesting link about copyright in the digital age | Liviu_5 | News | 0 | 06-05-2006 10:45 AM |