

Online Newshour Tackling Digital Copyright 173
dmabram writes "The online version of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is tackling copyright in the digital age. They are sponsoring a forum where Lawrence Lessig will square off against RIAA executive Matt Oppenheim. Anyone can submit questions, and the best questions or comments will be posted to Lessig and Oppenheim for debate and discussion. I know that the producers understand the importance of this debate, and would love insightful questions." Looks worth tuning in for.
yeay! (Score:1)
Re:yeay! (Score:1)
I say sue the NewsHour (Score:2)
Anyway,
Yay (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yay (Score:1, Interesting)
Free Advice (Score:3, Insightful)
Or (Score:1)
Sure (Score:2)
George W. Bush is an erudite and effective president.
DVR (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DVR (Score:1)
Re:DVR is overkill for skipping ads on PBS. (Score:3, Funny)
"Corporate Jim" I call him (Score:1, Interesting)
The only reason PBS exists is so that the corporate fatcats can pretend that there is real diversity in the airwaves. This stifles any type of comprehensive public access before it can start. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting stood right along Cl
Re:"Corporate Jim" I call him (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to be an optimist, but notice this is online only. It's not even gonna hit the radar of the average PBS-watching yuppie, let alone the mainstream audience.
Perhaps you should encourage Mr. Lehrer to move this copyright discussion into a broader arena. I doubt he will be convinced, but you never know.
ask him yourself, silly. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Corporate Jim" I call him (Score:2)
"Unfortunately, the US government runs its own elections, rather than a tru
Re:"Corporate Jim" I call him (Score:2)
In the Watergate era they were absolutely essential as an alternative media both polticially and in the society at lar
NPR, too -- WAS Re:"Corporate Jim" I call him (Score:2)
Valuable questions (Score:5, Funny)
If I ask a good question, do I get to claim the copyright on it? And how will I enforce payment?
Balance of Power (Score:5, Insightful)
I decided to be a little less flippant and submitted a question quite like this one to the site.
One thing that occurred to me and that I asked in the extended question was this:
In the new world of license enforcement, every time I make a tiny use of a song I end up having to seek a license and pay for it. But here I am the little guy submitting a question to the big guys in Television Land and I have no mechanism for forcing them to pay at all for a BIG use of my words if they decide they are important enough to use on their show. Something seems unbalanced about that.
As a straw man, shouldn't they be forced to offer me royalties and trickle out money to me every time they rerun their show? In a world that's becoming increasingly peer to peer, why should an individual do all the paying and none of the receiving?
I suspect the answer is "Because we can" from the big guys. That doesn't seem very fair though.
Re:Balance of Power (Score:2)
Its called an implied license. By submitting a question for them to ask on their show, and by doing so without any suggestion of compensation, you impliedly give them a license to use your copyrighted work on the show, for free.
Copyright lengths (Score:2)
People do share novels. Many people read novels on their laptops and palmtops while travelling. The big difference is that people tend to share public domain novels, whereas virtually all recorded music is locked up behind copyright. Project Gutenberg has thousands of public domain novels to choose from, but there are very few public domain recordings (mostly because copyright extends back to the beginning of the record industry).
If songs from the 50
Re:Balance of Power (Score:1)
Well, not for use qua use. That is, not for a use that isn't one of the enumerated rights in section 106. And not for those uses if you had a good defense or a statutory exemption.
Really, licenses in the consumer sphere are highly unusual even today, are not traditional, and really are pretty pointless given the current law.
Re:Balance of Power (Score:2)
Huh? If 106 (primarily) doesn't say that a use is exclusive to the copyright holder, then everyone can enjoy it. For example, I don't infringe on a copyright when I read a book, since reading is not exclusive to the copyright holder.
Besides which 107 doesn't expressly allow anything; it provides guidelines for a multifactor weighing test. Whether ANYTHING falls within 107 depends on the circumstances involved
Re:Balance of Power (Score:2)
Which is lovely, but there's no property that's relevant here. The discussion previously didn't appear to be about copies of works that had not yet been distributed at all; rather it was about copies that had been distributed once already.
Thus, if author Alice sells a copy of her book to Bob, he can read it, he can sell it, he can rent it, and he can loan it out -- all for other people to read. Because reading is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. The only proper
Re:Balance of Power (Score:2)
No, I think that property can be, and often is, a highly useful social construct.
But that doesn't mean that copyrightable subject matter -- i.e. the work, as distinct from the copyright applied to that work, or any individual copy of that work -- is property.
If it were, boy, one would really wonder how to reconcile various current and historical aspects of copyright law, such as the limited terms, fair use, statutory exemptions, the failure of Congress to fully exe
Re:Valuable questions (Score:2)
It's more than just the right questions. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is getting them, specifically Matt Oppenheim, to actually answer the question that is asked. Just like a politician, I assume he's going to go off on a tangent, sidestepping and dodging anything that would make the RIAA smell like shit.
Here's an idea - Give me a camera, a room with a locked door, an RIAA executive (or any politician or lawyer), and I'll show you how it's supposed to be done.
You have to keep pressing them, don't let them change the subject. If they start to go off on a tangent, you need to "violently" (physical violence is good, but just being forceful is enough) bring them back to the point. Also, watch out for doubletalk, make sure they define their terms clearly.
Re:It's more than just the right questions. (Score:2)
Here they are:
"Is copyright more important than plaigarism?"
"What do you think would happen if copyright law no longer existed, but plaigarism laws did?"
It would be hard to just go off in some other direction with these. Then again, they may have experience in dodging the question asked.
Re:It's more than just the right questions. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Friend, you raise an interesting point there. Nobody can deny the significance of plaigarism. In some ways modern technology is making it easier and easier to plaigarise. In fact, due to plaigarism concerns, a significant college admissions exam was cancelled recently. Often the same technologies that make plaigarism easy make copyright violation easy. A search engine can be used to find essays just as easily as it can be used to find copyrighted music. Now artists worked hard to produce that music,
Re:It's more than just the right questions. (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you really want to see them squirm you have to ask the right question. Ask about fair use for example. As a question where every reasonable person who's listening knows what the answer should be, yes. But where you expect the person to answer no. Then you get to watch them squirm because they know what everyone wants to hear as well.
You have to
Re:It's more than just the right questions. (Score:2)
How's that for a nice spin? :)
Re:It's more than just the right questions. (Score:2)
Last night on the News Hour they were talking about the upcoming FCC ruling on expanding monopoli^H^H^H^H^H^H ownership of tv/radio markets. You should've seen the VP of NBC stutter his way through it... Hahaha...
Re:It's more than just the right questions. (Score:2)
It's a good question because there's no cracks that weasel words can get out of.
That's not a good question, it's a horrible question. You've loaded it in such a way that anyone who tries to respond directly must first assume your premise, which happens to be at the very center of the debate itself. I personally agree with what you've said, but there's no way in hell the producers of the show would
The simplest question about the Constitution's job (Score:2)
Also how does the RIAA reconcile such language in copyright law with the legal fact that the 1st amendment is supposed to supercede, Article I, Section 8 which was in the original body of the Constitution amended b
They would have interviewed RMS .. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They would have interviewed RMS .. (Score:2)
When the Infocom newsletter, the "New Zork Times" was C&D'd for stretching the trademark, one response strategy was to fight fire with fire.
The Gnu Zork Times: motto: all the gnus' wee feet leave prints
Thank god for Jim Lehrer & PBS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I can imagine Fox News doing a piece in 2005...
When Copyright Kills: RIAA sniper bill signed into law
PBS can be part of the problem too. (Score:2)
Re:PBS can be part of the problem too. (Score:2)
I think it's the other way around...
Anyway, I don't know what to make of the reest of your post. You seem to be equating PBS with a state-run news agency. It isn't.
Forced copyright assignment (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet poses a serious threat to this. However, ISPs have been working to take control themselves. Most of them in the US now block port 80, so most musicians can't legally run a web site on their own machines. The ISPs then offer web space on their machines, but the license states that all files on such a web site belong to the ISP. The result is that, once again, musicians must give the copyright to the corporation that controls the distribution channel. The most notorious of these is msn.com, of course, but others have been doing the same thing.
If they succeed with this approach, it will mean the end of the recording industry, since the ISPs will own the copyrights to everything on the Web. But it will be just as big a financial disaster for musicians, who will still live in a world in which the local internet monopoly controls the distribution channels and can demand the copyright in exchange for making files available.
Is there any solution to this?
Re:Forced copyright assignment (Score:1)
Re:Forced copyright assignment (Score:3, Insightful)
The last time the subject came up here and created a great public outcry -- turned out no one had actually READ what the ISP's TOS *said*. In the case I refer to, the ISP's TOS had words to the effect that "you grant us the right to *distribute* whatever copyrighted material you put in your webspace". This is precisely so you CAN'T sue your own ISP for "copyright infringement" thru "unauthorized copying" -- because technically, the web
Re:Forced copyright assignment (Score:2)
Just because it isn't cheap, doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
Re:Forced copyright assignment (Score:1)
Just because a company acts lawfully doesn't mean it is acting moraly. If the musicians have little choice but to sign the contract to the record industry because they control all the channels of distribution due to monopoly, by the law it is not 'stealing', but it may have just as well have been.
Re:Forced copyright assignment (Score:2)
I don't think I'm the least bit confused, and neither are the many musicians who consider the "industry standard" contract nothing more than legalized theft. The fact that the legal system is behind it doesn't make it moral or ethical.
As Woody Guthrie pointed out -
Some will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen.
Big easy question of ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's new EULA demands the use of "Windows Updater" and grants Microsoft the ability to search for and remove files they consider copyright infinging. The music and film industry has demanded the same "protection" for all digital devices. Do I really own a computer that I can't write files on and that's run by someone else? What does this kind of ownership do to journalism and free press?
an inflamatory question from a coward. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing dangerous or unlawful about my the files on my computer. For you or anyone else to search them would be unlawful as I run free software and have not granted anyone permission to bother me.
It astounds me how people who threaten others with all the force of law over file copying
Re:an inflamatory question from a coward. (Score:2)
Makes a person want to tear his hair out. (His, not mine.
Problems with questionnaire form? (Score:1)
my questions (Score:5, Interesting)
If not, please reconcile explicitly with the language of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
If not, then why is the RIAA pursuing legal action against so many individuals and their ISPs?
If so, then why is the RIAA lobbying Congress for legislation allowing them to, for example, commit cybercrimes against suspected file-sharers?
renard
Re:my questions (Score:1, Informative)
No. It's not okay for the same reason that walking out of a store with a CD is not okay. Buying one instance of a thing does not entitle you to a second instance of that thing. (Unless your agreement with the seller so stipulates, of course.)
Is it all right for me to make and distribute, to my friends and non-commercially, "mix CDs" that consist of comp
This was my question (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm bothered by the abuse of language for purposes of propaganda
My questions... (Score:1)
If the RIAA is going to say that they won't go after people and then change directions and then sue Verizon for access to private information about its users then sue four college kids for operating Windows file sharing search engines, why would consumers continue to support the RIAA (an organization that obviously goes back on its own word) by purchasing music or other media from the organizations that support the RIAA?
Also, with the increase
They gotta stick... (Score:1)
Re:They gotta stick... (Score:2)
Let me go into my closete.
I have a copy of "John Denver's Greatest Hits vol 2" on 8 track. I'm not proud of this fact, but never the less, at some point in my life I just wanted a copy of, "thank god i'm a country boy".
Now, do I own a copy of the song for personal use, or do I just own the physical cartrage and have no rights to play the song what so ever?
Until recently, I'
watching it (Score:2)
Ain't that an understatement.
Money says Larry makes him look like a fool inside 5 minutes.
Re:watching it (Score:1)
I bet you're right.
DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild (Score:2)
The constitution enumerates 18 powers (plus several amendments) which congress may exercise. In order for congress to do anything, they must exercise a power that the constitution grants them. With regards to cars and the FCC, that power i
Re:DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but with very few exceptions, once you buy a car there are no restrictions on what you can do with it. If you want to remove the catalytic converter or drive around without a safety belt, you can do that as long as you don't take it
copyright extension (Score:1)
Mod parent up please (Score:2)
And if I may just add one question of myself: strong copyright enforcement has the effect of criminalizing huge parts of the population. These are not wicked crooks, but normal, friendly people
Great! (Score:2)
Man, could you imagine this type of debate on Fox News? The host would be interrupting Lessig every second while letting the RIAA spokesperson speak for days...
When and Where please (Score:1)
And WHEN will it be on?
I looked over the linked pages briefly and cannot find it.
thank you.
Re:When and Where please (Score:2)
If it's on NPR, I might hear it, but probably not. But if there's a followup here that links to it, I and all the
Can I sue the RIAA back? (Score:4, Interesting)
If lawyers can't even define it, technology can't possibly contain the intelligence necessary to determine the difference between fair-use and illegal copying in every case; so how can the RIAA hope to enforce copyright without violating the fair-use rights reserved to the public? Is there a market for a piece of software that files a lawsuit against the RIAA every time a person tries to make a rightful copy of a recording and is prevented from doing so?
Re:Can I sue the RIAA back? (Score:2)
A right is a defense against superior might.
Civil Disobedience (Score:5, Funny)
I sing along with the radio, cds I play, and sometimes...well, I don't *KNOW* the lyrics, so I'll look them up on the internet!
I can't help it! Honest! It is the Artists!! They made me do it...why, just look at Mick Jagger (ok, bad Idea)...consider Mick Jagger and the Stones in the song "Miss You" with:
what's them matter man..{something, something} with some Puerto Rican girls just diiieeng to meet-chu. We gonna bring a case of wine {long string of words...I think} like we used to!
And the woohoo-hooo-hooo is just so damn fun to sing I don't know when I'm over the line with; Copyright Infringment, Public Performance and Wreckless Endangerment and Public Indecency.
See what happens when you "Start Me Up"(c)(r)(tm) of Microsoft Corp (right?).
Someone Help Me Out (Score:2)
My Question (Slightly Reformatted) (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words: Lessig, explain to me what you really think about copyright and Matt, don't just give me your organization's standard rhetoric, please try to find a convincing argument for once.
Re:My Question (Slightly Reformatted) (Score:2)
I think your premise here is a bit flawed. The Baen Free Library and mp3.com do not represent the unrestricted distribution of a work. In Baen's case, the work is being released in a format that's often noticeably infer
Re:My Question (Slightly Reformatted) (Score:2)
While these works are not 100% "speech" free, they are "beer" free -- and that is the in context meaning, as I am talking finances. I will agree that while they aren't "libris" releases along the lines of the GPL or a Creative Commons license, they are not Rights Manglement crippled, and that is the minimum standard for copyright IMO.
Re:My Question (Slightly Reformatted) (Score:2)
The purpose of copyright (and patents) is to "promote the progess of science and useful arts" [US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 paragraph 8] through granting the creator (inventor) "exclusive rights" [ibid]. We know what the purpose of copyright is; that is why I did not explicitly question it.
The current method of said promotion is to monetarily reward the inventor or creator through their exclusive control. My question
What I posted (Score:1)
With the recent Grokster ruling it is legal to operate a search engine which catalogs public INTERNET shares indiscriminant of content. That being said 'search engines' such as Phynd and Flatlan are then legal to operate since they indiscriminantly catalogs user shares without reguard to content on an INTRANET.
Mr. Lessig: Do you think that along with fair use, the definition of 'legal file sharing within an INTRANET' as opposed to the 'legal file sharing within the INTERNET' is an im
Re:What I posted (Score:1)
Guess again. That's NOT what the Grokster ruling was.
First there's the fact that the Grokster ruling was the act of merely a district court and thus doesn't necessarily carry a great deal of weight.
Second, the actual ruling was this: if you create a search engine, but are totally unable to control its use (i.e. people run the software on their own computers, not your ser
My Question (Score:4, Interesting)
In 1790, the first US Copyright Act was created by George Washington and enacted by Congress. It gave creators ownership of their work for up to 28 years. Today, the period is the lifetime of the creator plus 90 years. Given that methods of distribution and mass marketing have only improved, it seems that time period should have been decreased if it were to be changed at all. Could you explain why copyright holders have been granted more than three times that original amount of time to allow for just compensation of their contribution to the public domain?
The RIAA might dodge the question, but if it is even posed, I will have made my point :-)
Re:My Question (Score:2)
Since the Net is borderless, how can anybody expect to enforce American copyright overseas? And if it's not enforced overseas, how do we stop Americans from accessing overseas addresses?
Irrelevant (Score:2)
Maybe that would be the basis of a better question:
(Assuming I've got
digital copy versus material copy (Score:3, Insightful)
Now another scenario. We have again a 2nd PC , however its the neighbour's PC. This time he paid the $1500,= for his PC. He wants to run that msoffice too. I give him that CDR with msoffice on it. He inserts it and install/runs MS Office completely without extra efforts than inserting that CDR. Now we ask again, is this illegal??? Some say yes, some say no. It depends. lets assume that the $1500,= covers also the expenses for running msoffice, then its completely ok. If the $1500,= does not cover running msoffice then it is not ok to give your neighbour that CDR. But then again. What value does the msoffice CDR represent? The CDR itself is just a lousy $0.25 media costs. If you find it in a desert with no PC's for over 5000 miles, you can only use it as a coaster. The msoffice CDR will only be of use if you have a running PC.
Bill gates said exactly the opposite to the director of the Altair factory : "Without my software your Altair is completely useless". Well that is just not true. You can always find some other version of a office package or OS to run on your PC. There's expensive ones, cheaper ones and even free to download iso versions which you then burn and install.
What i want to make clear is that for a digital copy to work one needs some sort of a materialized copy to go along too. Staring at a directory and watching at two files : msoffice1.iso and msoffice2.iso ain't a real copy. It takes a extra CDR to burn and a 2nd PC to install/run msoffice also on that one.
Now comes the Internet. suddenly people don't need CDR's anymore to transport iso's from Joe's PC to Jack's PC. Jack anyway burn the msoffice2.iso on a CDR and installs/runs it. Jack also paid $1500,= for his PC. If that price covers running/installing msoffice its ok. If not, then Jack is the bad guy. Not for having a $0.25 CDR with msoffice2.iso on it, but for installing/running it.
Oh what a mess. In the old days making a copy was technically also easy, but media, harddisks and tapes were way more expensive. What i want to point out here, is that a digital copy technically takes no effort at all. its sometimes just 1 command on a prompt. There's no regulations i can think of that can prevent that from happening. Its a digital cyberspace thing. What matters in the end is the materialization efforts/costs which are needed to run a copy on a different street address. That would take a 2nd PC and CDR. if we want to have a sane digital copying act , let it act on the extra materalization efforts needed to run it on a different place.
Feel More Strongly about Patents (Score:2, Interesting)
Tax my blank recordable media? (Score:4, Insightful)
rob
Re:Tax my blank recordable media? (Score:1)
Some questions (Score:3, Interesting)
There seems to be a disturbing trend towards more restrictive uses for legitimate users, i.e. non Redbook CDs that will not work in purchurser's CD drives. Also in this vein, "CDs" that do not follow the Redbook format but do not loudly proclaim that this is not a CD (just not putting the CD logo on the case is NOT sufficient in my opinion, but this is just my opinion).
How do you feel about the success of Apple's new online music store? Though some people are critical about certain features of this service, such as only being able to make 10 copies of a single play list (personally I think this is an argument of someone who just wants to rip free music), the majority of users love Apple's music store. Do you think that this could be a new and profitable business model?
Could you explain the payment model that an artist gets for a standard CD vs. what an artist gets from the Apple Music Store? Further, could you give us a rough idea of how much profit an artist gets from a current CD sale?
Do you think if you reduced prices on CDs that piracy would diminish? Also, when CDs were first introduced there were comments of prices lowering because CDs were cheaper to make, yet there has been no lowering of prices. Can you explain why?
I've heard quotations of how the music industry is losing x amount of money to piracy. How do you compute this amount? Specifics would be preferable because some of the formulas I have seen are rather laughable, such as the number of mp3s of some group on some (or all) p2p network(s) vs. the official number of sold albums by that group, especially considering the Penn State case where a professor was wrongly accused of sharing some music file (and the RIAA issued an apology for the wrongful accusation).
One question is, is that number (x, from above) still valid now that fake mp3s are being distibuted on p2p networks (some of those being placed by RIAA memebers) to try and curb the pirates?
What do think that the future of DRM is? Most DRM seems to hurt the most non-pirate regular users that usually just want to backup their CD, mostly because if the CD gets scratched, you (RIAA companies) WILL NOT provide a free (besides media cost) replacement. If we bought a license to the music, then you are required to provide a replacement at the cost of the media. If we bought a product, we are allowed backups. Could you please explain which of these 2 positions we consumers occupy? How does your stance compare to the concept of "fair use" according to the US Supreme Court?
There is a CD media tax for recordable CDs. This is supposed to offset the losses for piracy. If I/we are paying this "piracy tax", why can we not make one copy for personal use? A backup copy of a CD is not piracy, so if I do not copy my legally bought CD for anyone else, do I get a refund of this "piracy tax"? If not, why? I have been assumed to illegally pirating music, but if I have not, why do I not deserve a refund?
Thank you for answering my questions.
Bryan
What I wrote... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, I don't download music, nor do I share my CD collection on-line. Downloading content I haven't paid for, or that isn't given to me by the rightful copyright owner, in my opinion is wrong to do.
That being said, I also believe that the "technological cat is out of the bag", so to speak.
I haven't bought a CD in over 2 years, since they are outrageously priced, and there just hasn't been anything out there that I feel warrants such an expense. There have been a few songs that I wouldn't of minded getting, but I would be paying the full CD price for a song or two. I have spoken to many, many people who feel the same way - not enough quality content to justify the full price of a CD. Add to this the onerous copy protections that the Industry wants, their seeming hatred of Fair Use doctrine (I have each of my CDs backed up in MP3 format on 2 separate computers in case the origionals are damaged in some way), the well known fact that very few artists actually make money from the sales of CDs and the way the RIAA has tried to stifle technological advances, you end up with many, many people who are angry at the record companies and feel justified in acquiring thier content via P2P networks. This trend started quite a few years ago, and since the music industry did little to re-close the bag back then - by addressing what thier customers now wanted, not how to prolong the status quo - the cat left.
Sharing of content is taken as a misdemenour at best, and an inherent right when you're connected to the Internet at worst. You are no longer serving your customers, you are fighting them. This being the case, any Economics undergrad can tell you that the current business model of the Music Industry is now fataly flawed.
Seems to me that people are just voting with thier dollars. If it were easier and less expensive to acquire the content that customers of the RIAA actually wanted on a CD, rather than putting up with the hassles of downloading said content, this issue would just go away.
Regards,
Ron Sokoloski
Re:What I wrote... (Score:2)
What needs to be done! (Score:2, Insightful)
INFORMATION IS NOT PROPERTY.
It cannot be. There would be no need for 'copyright' if it could be. Yet corporate lobbyists have hammered the word 'intellectual property' into dozens of laws over the past couple of decades and have managed to replace copyright law with a fraudulent redefiniton of the concept of 'prope
two tough questions (Score:5, Insightful)
1.The value that the entertainment industry has traditionally brought to the artist has been production and marketing. But costs of producing artistic works has plummetted, and many would say that "viral marketing" (through the sanctioning of alternative/free distribution channels) is cheaper and more effective anyway. Given the ever-shrinking royalty percentages and restrictive nature of entertainment contracts, why does it still make economic sense for artists to sign up with major media companies?
For Mr. Lessig:
2. Nobody ever put a gun to an artist's head to sign an unfair contract with the entertainment company. These contracts are freely entered into because both parties believe it in their respective self-interests. Why then is legislative tampering necessary? Isn't the problem self-correcting? If enough artists get screwed or perceive themselves as getting screwed by signing up, they won't sign up, or they will insist on more favorable terms. Why then should Congress hamstring the ability of artists and companies to enter into contracts? To justify legislative intervention, it seems to me that you would need to demonstrate that entertainment contracts are instrinsically predatory and exploitative.
What Mark Twain thought of copywrites: (Score:4, Funny)
- Mark Twain
They always talk handsomely about the literature of the land....And in the midst of their enthusiasm they turn around and do what they can to discourage it.
- Mark Twain Speech in Congress, 1906
I wonder if I can copywrite my own genes? or that cute thing I do...
Something we'll look back at this all and say 'WTF?'
The question I submitted. (Score:4, Interesting)
-
My 2 cents (Score:1)
Re:My question to Lessig would be (Score:2)
So you blame the people for finding easier and cheaper ways to get music and not the recording industry. Downloading music is not stealing. Please for the sake of humanity do some reading. It is copyright infringement. Stealing does not relate to copying. It is up to companies to stop the employees from abusing the bandwidth anyway.
"Drained BILLIONS of dollars out of our economy"
Ok, you can look at it that way or you can see it in a more
Re:My question to Lessig would be (Score:3, Interesting)
So you blame the people for finding easier and cheaper ways to get music and not the recording industry.
I blame the people for the waste of bandwidth, when it is a corporate resource. I blame people for the loss of jobs, when they are due to declining profits -sometimes due to low productivity, other times due directly to the theft of intellectual property.
It is up to the employees to be responsible members of a productive workplace, or to stop being a drain on much needed resources.
Music is a resour
Re:My question to Lessig would be (Score:2)
Re:My question to Lessig would be (Score:2)
[snip]
Compared to the costs of getting your work into major distribution channels without help from the RIAA, none of the costs you cite are a drop in the bucket. If you live in a major city, there are plenty of ways to get access to professional studios. Of course you have to pay for the privilege, but as I said, the
Re:My question to Lessig would be (Score:1)
Re:My question to Lessig would be (Score:1)
Since you're reasonable, let me try to explain one of the more important points I was trying to make.
Because of illegal filesharing, decentralised technologies were developed. This was done with the theory that without a central hub (a central point of attack, if you will), the networks would be less vulnerable to being shut down.
And they're correct.
What scares me
Re:My question to Lessig would be (Score:2)
And that's not why decentralized technologies were developed. But you go on believing that.
DoS the whitehouse isn't terrorism. As Bruce Schneier says "If
Re:Yah right (2nd submission) (Score:1)
When we buy a CD or a DVD what exactly are we buying ?
??AA response: You're buying rights to view/listen or a piece of plastic, whichever dies first.
Re:FP (Score:2)
But, never fear...one day I will return and have my revenge!
(Oh shit I forgot to post as AC)