... that until I read the summary, I actually wasn't sure if the headline meant the Obama administration was on the side of the journalist, or was on the side of arresting journalists who record cops...
This is insightful?
What copyright does is ENFORCE the idea of artificial scarcity,
Incorrect. Books produced without copyright ARE STILL SCARCE. They still cost something to make, and they still have intrinsic value, even if the printer doesn't pay the author. Copyright in pre-digital media is helpful BECAUSE books exist in a market that has scarcity, because you can't produce books at lower cost than someone who doesn't have to pay the author to produce the work.
The problem with copyright on the Internet is that digital copies are NOT scarce. They have zero intrinsic value, and cannot be made to behave as if they do without breaking all the computers on the Internet. An exclusive right to sell digital copies is like an exclusive right to sell body hairs to Bigfoot.
Inexpensive, interconnected computing is at least a big a deal as the Gutenberg press, but it's hard for people to see history being made this close up.
Copyright still has value enforcing authorship. You just can't build a business model around making copies anymore.
There are some fine and excellent methods for encouraging people to create things that don't require copyright. They are in use right now. You should consider reading about them on the Internet.
Why buy a new copy for $10 when I can buy an identical copy for $3?
More importantly, why SELL a new copy for $10 when an identical copy is worth $0.00?!?!
It's more apparent now than ever that granting exclusive right to sell a product that has no value is a rapidly obsolescing business model. "Publisher advances money to author, author produces work, publisher produces copies of work and tries to sell them to recoup costs" DOES NOT WORK when the value of any individual copy of the work approaches zero.
"Audience advances money to author, author produces work, audience produces copies of work" is the way of the future, people should start getting used to it.
A single IP can be used by many people at the same time. Some of them can even be out of sight of each other. This doesn't hold true for guns.
That's not quite as true as it sounds...
"For years the city did ballistic testing on all guns that passed through their control and on all bullets recovered, however, they never did much with those records. On September 20 of 2000, the new commander of the ballistics unit reported on a statistical comparisons made possible by new computer technology. What they found, he said, indicates that the common fear about a new influx of guns flooding streets is deeply misguided. What their data base revealed was that a limited number of guns were fueling a large number of violent crimes. In an 18 month period one gun had zig zagged across the city getting involved in at least a dozen crimes until finally being recovered in an abandoned U-Haul. "
I seriously cannot tell if you're joking or if that's the actual plot of a Law & Order episode.
Yes. They're fucking rapists.
[citation needed - price, 1 million euros]
The only thing I've noticed to be actually true is that there really are a lot of good looking Russian women. something in the water over there?
Because no matter how low the cost, the number of people who will not pay for the product by using torrents will far exceed the number of people who will pay for the product simply because they can.
On the other hand, the number of people who WILL pay is quite a bit larger than the number who would pay for your out-of-print product that's not available electronically, which is zero.
I'm glad that people are starting to wise up that counting the people who do pay is always, always wiser than counting the people who don't; for so long, so very many copyright holders have been no smarter than that Aesop dog that dropped his bone in the lake.
The next time they do this, the ACLU should just freely publish the FOIA response with all the redacted bits filled in with whatever they like. Make it as incriminating as possible.
If the FBI files some sort of libel suit, the ACLU can say "Gee, that's what the documents we recieved said. Do you have some sort of evidence to the contrary you'd like to enter into record?"
It would get some fine media attention, if nothing else.
I don't think the BFRO has tried this yet...
When the cost of anything is increased demand decreases, that's very elementary.
Ah, I see, that's why pot has so little demand nowadays. Glad you could clear that up for us.
You don't mess with the price of a cultures drugs, it'd be like doubling the price of coffee in the states.
Starbucks seemed to get away with it without too much protest.
A communist I see.
You couldn't see a communist if one was taped to your fucking face.
Go read the Constitution again and try not to skip any this time. While reading, try and keep in mind what "ownership of the means of production" means for a digital product.
The folks who work at banks can lose their jobs and face criminal prosecution
Obviously not, since your post mentioned that atrocity and this one doesn't.
According to the rules of grammar, it does, technically.