Comment Re:Why do you say that? (Score 1) 131
No, that is the targets that are currently KNOWN. That does not mean that there are none in the US.
How, as a society, do we fund the creation of big budget movies that a lot of people really enjoy?
Crowdsourcing, I suppose. You pay for the movie ahead of time, and based on your investment you get to see the film, download it, get a DVD or a Blu-Ray or an M4V, get to be an extra in a crowd scene or whatever they're offering. There's no reason that major studios can't use this model. And then there's merchandising, official conventions, and lots of other opportunities for profit. I don't really think that there will be any problem getting enough people to fund some of these big-budget stinkers.
Then go for it and show that it's a viable model.
The best way to get rid of copyright is to make it unncessary. A major Creative Commons movie would go a very long way to doing that.
DRM is fairly effective, the problem is it's a massive PITA for legitimate users and prevents a lot of legitimate uses.
Actually, a grand majority of DRM is ineffective; it gets cracked almost immediately, and therefore anyone with a slight amount of knowledge can apply the cracks.
Exactly, DRM is fairly effective
We've never had a society like ours that did not have copyright, so we don't actually know what it would look like. You can only make baseless guesses based on how our current society operates, not a society where people are used to the idea of there being no copyright and therefore have figured out how to adapt. I don't claim to know what it would be like, either.
Not exactly but copyright hasn't always existed and in some places like China it's generally ignored.
And freedom (freedom of speech, real private property rights) is more important to me than the sort of 'safety' you speak of, anyway.
I don't think freedom of speech is really inhibited by copyright. I also wasn't aware that I spoke about 'safety' at all.
WOOSH!
The capitalisation thing is a piss-take on the tabloid press, eg the Daily Mail and its ilk. In general The Register doesn't take itself very seriously.
No, I don't like the LH anti-CC articles very much, but he seems an OK guy except for that large blind spot!
Disclaimer: I occasionally write for ElReg and indeed hope to get a free lunch out of that writing in a couple of weeks!
Rgds
Damon
My actual solution is to let people come up with their own solutions. But yes, I'm sure many would choose to try DRM... and many would fail, since DRM is rarely effective in any sense.
DRM is fairly effective, the problem is it's a massive PITA for legitimate users and prevents a lot of legitimate uses. The fact it's a PITA combined with the fact that the warez sites tend to get shut down (and people understand they're illegal) means that people are more willing to pay for official content.
But if you remove copyright entirely then not only are the warez sites legal, but so are companies who make a business off of ripping off creators. And even for the ones who still pay creators the prices will be pushed down by the need to compete with the companies who don't pay creators.
There's still money coming in, but without the law declaring the warez sites illegitimate (even if it isn't enforced) it's only going to be a fraction of what's coming in now. I just don't think you can wave your hands and assume they'll adapt without a massive drop in the number of working artists.
I would suggest that we rely on the actual free market rather than on government-enforced monopolies that infringe upon free speech and real private property rights. It's up to individuals trying to sell something to succeed, and no one else. If they can't figure out how to make money on their product, that is simply too bad.
So your solution is DRM.
This is nothing but yet another one of his charades and PR stunts. He is not fighting for you or your right to keep a "backup copy".
I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free. We The People enable, protect, and to a large part even pay for the production of mass media content due to Hollywood's and Big Music's creative accounting practices which show them losing money or breaking even on clearly profitable media. And the same goes for the telecommunications infrastructure: We The People largely paid for that, not just by paying for services but actually through government grants and the like, and it's used against us to milk us of every possible cent while providing the lowest possible standard of service. The fact that we still pay more to send calls across town than to send them across the country is just ridiculous and it's based on legislation bought by the telecoms industry.
So what do you suggest as an alternative?
How, as a society, do we fund the creation of big budget movies that a lot of people really enjoy?
And what strain of paranoia makes you think that any of us in this thread want to "silence" you; that is wild talk.
We appear to be having an on-line civil discussion with no gun literally or metaphorically held to your head.
Currently I think that the clear majority of road users and funders don't want motocyclists (or others) with a rather strong sense of self-entitlement going at *unsafe* speeds around us, whatever those speeds are and whether or not they are related to the legal speeds. However, I haven't seen many public roads on which 154mph would be safe other than empty motorways in good visibility.
Rgds
Damon
So go and get the rules changed, but the original question appeared to be in the present tense, and I answered it as such.
Actually, I think that speed limits are bad laws* but I'd still want people dinged for dangerous driving in that shared space whatever vehicle and speed is involved.
Rgds
Damon
*I take the lead from my uncle who was a very senior and placid and respected barrister who as far as I know had never knowingly broken a speed limit, and had immense respect for (most of the rest of) the law of course.
Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.
