Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Eric Stevens, Nov 14, 2012.

  1. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    They can't. It's not a crime.
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 1, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. That't the main reason for most professions not to leave
    assets.
    You limit authors to self-employed book writers. I don't think
    that's correct.

    On the other hand there are many other self-employed
    professions without benefits and pensions and retirement
    plans ... and are not well paid.
    Yep, nobody cares for telephone sanitizers. You know what
    happened next.
    Name any company paying million bonusses that does not have
    offices. Others are also not making millions of an author's
    creative work, that's just what they're using at the time.
    Name a character from the last 50 years that's not based on
    any previous character, but fully invented. Same with plot.
    That's because they file off the serial numbers very
    carefully and sometimes use a blender.

    The reward in the case of music goes to the big labels, the
    rewards of film actors is what fixed amount they get from
    their contracts. Top 10 performers may be different in that
    they actually do get some percentage --- in the case of music
    most money stays with the label.

    Sports --- if you're a top performer, you get well paid
    and can get money for advertizing, but --- what about the
    "midlist" player? Do they get paid 70 years after death for
    their performances? Do they get royalties? Do they leave
    their sport successes as assets?

    Do you really want that for authors?

    What about the camera man, the sound technican and all the
    rest of the crew that allows you to watch your favorite
    athlete at the olympics or world games and all the games ---
    or recording your favourite actor in these newfangled things
    called movies?

    What about the studio crew recording and mixing the CD or our
    favourite musician or group?

    Aren't they just as necessary for the performers to reach
    their audience? Don't they and their skill not deserve just
    as much reward?

    What of the relationship between architect and building?
    Does the architect get to decide what companies are allowed
    to use "his" buildings?

    So the Mickey Mouse Copyright Protection Act was forced on
    the US by the Berne Convention? Really?

    Perfect --- for whom? For Disney (and other rights owners
    and exploiters)? For the creatives? For the general
    public?

    And who *should* by right be the one for whom the solution
    should be good, even perfect if possible?

    What is the goal, the reason for existence, the pinnacle by
    which 'it works' or 'it fails' must be measured, of copyright?

    Music is tangible? I beg to differ!
    Plays are tangible?
    Limiting art to "works of fiction" is like reducing
    photography to mugshots.
    So how many of them are generating relevant income of works
    first published 20 or 30 years ago?

    And how comes you're not moving things so your favourite writers
    get a $5 stipend (as a group, not each individual) from you
    for writing their works? Even a comparatively small number
    of people doing this will make their finances less marginal
    and less depenent of hitting just the right *mass* taste ---
    missing that just once will have a more than small change
    for them.

    Are these authors offering advanced readers' copies at a
    higher price for those who need to have their dose of the
    next (still incomplete and terribly raw) book?

    Are these authors selling tuckerizations?

    And so on --- there's a whole internet out there, and --- if
    the authors are good --- many people willing to use some
    spare money to insure the next book won't be held up.
    It seems rethorical devices need to be marked clearly here.
    Copyright *is* a simple solution, and extending it is a pat
    solution. It doesn't even work too well either for society
    nor for creatives.

    If you are still thinking I'm looking for a "simple pat
    solution" (isn't that a "personal identification PIN
    number"?) me Engrish be much bad then I tink.
    In theory. Only works in DVDs and similar.

    Iron Skies: 7.5 mio € cost, 1 mio € crowdfunded, and that
    being a special interest, independent movie, all in all.
    A typical major motion picture today weights in at 100 mio
    USD --- so 1% can certainly be had.

    Just a very quick look on Kickstarter finds multiple projects
    that weight in at well over 1 million USD. There's one with more
    than USD 8.500.000 ... that would be near 3% of the MOST
    EXPENSIVE FILM EVER (yet): "Pirates of the Caribbean: At
    World's End" (USD 300 million)

    So pardon me if I tell you your 1% claim is bollocks.
    And you think the Nielsen Ratings doesn't rate third quartile
    shows and formats correctly?

    What does the third quartile get from the copyright between
    20 years after publication and decades past their death, as
    that seems to be your preferred answer?

    What? A report that an average of N computers on the network
    were downloading a registered work carrying a given fingerprint
    during a given time period?

    Did you know that they already do that with p2p networks?
    That YouTube allows automatic uploading of fingerprints to
    deny uploaders from showing the so-identified works?

    Did you not notice that about every website you visit tracks
    what pages you visit and your IP --- and if you are lucky,
    none of the usual web bugs, 1 pixel gifs, flash cookies,
    normal cookies, browser identification, million-sites spanning
    ad-network javascripts, Facebook "like" buttons, google (or
    similar) web analytics tools etc track you in addition to that?
    With the site-spanning they can track you over many sites ...

    Did you know that almost all computers can be identified with
    the information a simple javascript and flash test can
    produce, even if you switch off all cookies?
    https://panopticlick.eff.org/
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/tracking-by-user-agent


    So how comes that it's "*extremely* intrusive" to report the
    activity of files? In p2p networks they always come with a
    finger print --- you gotta check if you downloaded the file
    correctly or if there was a bad/malicious host amongst your
    sources! --- and usually comes with fingerprints for every
    sub-part, too ...
    See also:
    https://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing


    If perfection cannot be attained, then any bad and broken
    scheme must do, there's no room for improvement?

    Do you want a scheme that does help the top 1% (or less) and
    often actively hurts the rest of the creatives (never mind the
    public for a moment)? A scheme where most money goes to big
    companies who do not care for creatives except for what they
    can make them money?

    Google doesn't seem to find relvant answers.

    The only one I am conversant with is a system which has the
    legal right to assume every bit of music is licenced by them
    (unless *proven* not to) and which is set up in a way the the
    top 100 earners have the say (including how to distribute the
    income, mostly to themselves, that is. Of course, the exact way
    the money is split is secret.).

    Works well for the top 100, works sort of for commercial music
    (every CD printing, every performance of music, every listening
    to music in commercial environments has to be reported to
    them with title and author, e.g. the complete playlist of
    the day of a restaurant), doesn't work for independent music.
    Also enforces that you can either have all your past, current
    and future work licenced through them or none at all (which
    sort of precludes you from radio & co. as they are not in the
    mood of making contracts with individual artists.

    Still, it *does* funnel quite some money to non-best-sellers,
    contrary to your claim
    So an artifact of the 1950's *TV* ratings in the US is supposed
    to have impact on the 2010's internet monitoring? If you're
    serious, you're also putting your storage cards into developer
    and fixer to develop your digital pictures.

    Did you ever notice that every TV receiver is a potential TV
    sender, and many, many are? Me neither, but just that's the
    case for internet ...


    So let me ask, do you have any indications --- that are
    applicable to a halfway sane system for the internet in the
    internet age --- that only the best-sellers would get money?

    A couple million USD isn't exactly "small stuff" any more.
    Not even if you're looking at projects with just a couple
    hundred man years.

    A couple million USD might be small stuff for colonizing Mars
    with a million people using our current technology.
    So books stolen from retail outlets *before ebooks* didn't
    cause the retailer not to re-order the book because they still
    thought they had one?

    And when was that "before ebooks"? Before 1988 (Mona
    Lisa Overdrive), before 1971 (the first results of Project
    Gutenberg), before early 1960 (Augment and FRESS), of before
    the Index Thomisticus in the 1940s?
    There's a lot of stuff that seems easy for humans that's really
    hard for computers (at least with our knowledge about computer
    programming) and vice versa.
    I cannot comment on whether that's stupid or not, not having
    the data to consider if it's mostly right or wrong nor having
    the data to say for which segments it's right and for which
    ones it's wrong.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 1, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. [full-post snipped]

    My ISP delays posts from cretins like you who full-quote
    without good reason. I will ask them to just delete them
    instead.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 1, 2012
  4. The Bible known to Christianity does happen to have the Old
    and the New Testament --- you'd be hard pressed to find a
    scholar supporting your claim. The Bible known to the Jewish
    religion may not, but that makes your "There is only one Bible"
    claim false.

    Might as well say that the Bible does not consist of several
    books.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 1, 2012
  5. Eric Stevens

    PeterN Guest

    I and millions of others do not accept the document you call the
    "Christian Bible," as the Bible.
    I never attempt to force my religious view upon anyone. Please do not
    not attempt to force yours upon others, especially me.
     
    PeterN, Dec 2, 2012
  6. I've watched lots of people in a number of fields, and the authors are
    some of the most stretched.
    That's what the term means in normal usage.

    Other times it means the peopel who wrote some piece of softare, or
    whatever; that's a very different world.
    Most of the really poor jobs are normal employment, not self-employed.
    Name any offices that make a difference to the corporate profits.
    All matters of opinion, not fact. There is already good legal precedent
    for where the line comes, it works out fine.
    Yes, music has a label problem right now, though things are getting
    interesting.

    It's not just top-10 performers. Mark Hamill does okay, and he was
    nobody when he got that role. Among actors it goes a LOT deeper than
    10. A couple of orders of magnitude, it looks to me like.
    Once you make the big leagues, you do pretty well. There's an order of
    magnitude top to bottom, but the top is stratospheric, so the bottom
    doesn't suck. (How long they play also makes a big difference.)
    Want what? Life + 70, like they get now? Not especially, I think
    that's excessive.
    No, absolutely not. The craftspeople are much more interchangeable.
    They're doing expert and valuable work -- but they're pretty
    interchangeable, just like good programmers in a field or whatever. We
    get paid well (programmers), but not like performers. (Relative to
    performers, I mean. Far less interchangeable than cashiers, of course.)
    No, obviously.

    Although Frank Lloyd Wright famously tried to control where they put the
    furniture.
    The extension from 50 to 70 was not (that's what the Mickey Mouse
    Copyright Protection Act usually means). But I never said it was. I
    said quite specifically what I meant just above there, and I don't
    believe you didn't understand it; jumping to other points means you
    can't get anywhere with this one.
    A "perfect" solution has to be at least tolerable to everybody. Ideally
    rather better than that (situations control the available solutions).
    Drawing the "works" vs. "fails" line is a whole different question.
    Well, actually doing private or public premieres of music and plays *is*
    pretty tangible; it gives the patron a pretty big payoff. They're not
    tangible in the same way a painting or sculpture is though, obviously.
    So who did that again? I missed seeing it.
    What's "relevant"?

    But my immediate answer is "all of them that are still publishing".
    No book ever really hits "mass taste" -- the biggest sellers are 10% of
    the population or less.
    Generally one can't (contractually prevented).
    I don't think any of my immediate friends are.
    Shadow Unit is an interesting experiment in that, for example; some of
    the people involved are friends, more are friendly acquaintances.
    Or used less. I'm not interested an an argument, I have no position to
    push. I have a long list of interesting questions, and some objections
    to some of the common answers.
    It's worked quite well for authors historically, until the extensions
    (now lots of stuff is getting locked up, and authors are going out of
    print because of copyright).
    Then I guess it is.
    Reruns on TV, too. Netflix streaming, Amazon streaming, Hulu, etc.
    One example that hasn't produced a result yet is NOT "demonstrating"
    that something works. Five isn't either. This is all new.
    I know sweeps week on the radio doesn't.
    As I have repeatedly said, I don't have a preferred answer.

    Twenty years after publication, thousands to tens of thousands of
    dollars are possible (from the totality of previous work, usually
    doezens of books). It tends to go down very quickly after most authors
    die.
    Banning encryption, putting monitoring stations in all exchange routers,
    having the cpu power in major hubs to examine packets (not currently
    feasible), distinguishing between full and partial downloads, etc.
    I know that this technology has caused major embarrassment to the users
    by cutting completely legitimate traffic, including Neil Gaiman's Hugo
    acceptance speech.
    Irrelevant, this has nothing to do with tracking downloading of works by
    fingerprint.
    You mean identifying it's the same computer on two hits? Sure.
    Because that's not what you're proposing; you're proposing identifying
    fingerprints of arbitrary streams and allocating income to the content
    owner based on that. You haven't yet suggested, by the way, how that
    works to figure out who gets *charged* for that content.
    Sorry, don't understant.
    Anything worse than the current scheme is a bad idea.
    No, which is why I don't like what you're proposing.
    Sweeps week is a radio thing, not a TV thing. (Maybe it was a TV thing
    long ago, I dunno.)
    Um, it's smaller stuff now than in the past; it's called "inflation".
    You keep jumping around. Try to follow the discussion! Harlan's
    statement about counting for full royalties was about paper books, and
    was made before ebooks.

    The point was that a book stolen from the bookstore could not be
    returned for credit. Thus, it was "sold" in terms of the payment stream
    from retailer to distributor, distributor to publisher, and publisher to
    author.
    I think it was 60s or 70s, don't remember exactly where it was though.
    There sure is. And vice versa.
    Well, it makes the results look stupid to me, and hence makes me pay
    less attention to them in general.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 2, 2012
  7. Eric Stevens

    Whisky-dave Guest

    I'd rather pay for that that it being parked outside my front door or someone elses and still having to pay road tax and insurance for a stationary car.

    Nah takes too long, quicker to walk it.

    I'm hoping an automated car would take it'self to be fixed ;-)
    it should know it has a fault same as it'd know when it was running out of fuel oil, and water.

    Yeah wait in line like you do for a 'black cab' or a bus.
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 3, 2012
  8. [/QUOTE]
    So basically you agree that the notice of a book may be correct
    for one place and only sorta-correct for other places.

    OK, so "which additional rights to the content does buying
    (compared to lending) grant one" where *you* reside. You
    claim that there's a difference ... which one is it?
    'recent'? The music industry was self-proclaimed dying ever
    since ther was radio and/or tape recorders. "Home recording
    kills music!"

    Anyway, what additional rights does buying a music or video
    carrier (CD, tape, DVD, BlueRay, ...) grant one --- in your
    neck of the woods --- over lnding one?

    You haven't answered that yet ...
    You seem to be very easy to fool. "Look, a three-headed
    squirrel behind you!"

    Now, that the US does admit that there is an international
    copyright, everyone else has to follow their "lead"?

    (Nearly) everyone has never ended the life of a human being,
    therefore, no murderers exist. Let's do away with all the
    unneccessary laws about that topic. Right?

    WHY should doing exactly as you permit me --- in writing, no
    less --- land ME in trouble? Care to explain how you propose
    to tell the judge "I didn't mean what I wrote when I granted
    that right"?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 4, 2012
  9. That's fine.
    *B*illions however, do.

    We can now go a couple rounds of "A word means what I want it to
    mean" and "If you wish to communicate with others, it's much
    better to use the generally accepted meaning of the words you
    use, or at least define the meaning if you use a different
    one".
    Noting that either your statement is not supported by scholars
    or that (due to meaning a different bible) your "There is only
    one Bible" is logically wrong is most certainly not forcing
    any religion on anybody.

    If anything was 'forcing ones religious views on others' it
    would be your claim (i.e. telling Christians they're reading
    a/the --- in your view --- incorrect bible (the one with an
    AT and a NT, namely)). I think reading either your or mine
    statements as "forcing religious views on others" would
    require a rather thin skin.


    Just for the record: If I was attempting to force my religous
    views on you, we'd probably discussing the moon far more than
    books. Including any version of any bible.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 4, 2012
  10. So they deserve to get paid decades after they are dead?

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/author
    disagrees. (As does Wikipedia.)

    Naah, let's keep it at the written word. There are more
    writers than book writers, and some are not self-employed.

    So what assets do they have regularly to pass on when they
    die?
    Any that represent. Any that are missing. Any that cause
    worse communication or bad work conditions or unhappy employees
    (e.g. too loud, too cramped and sunglare on the screen) ---
    and extending that, any that exactly avoid these problems.

    Any that are not effective --- and thus any that are.
    And so on.

    Only when employees do not care and react at all about their
    work environment (or they don't work in offices in the first
    place) or when the employees do not have any impact on corporate
    profits what ever they do do offices not make a difference.

    Rather obvious, isn't it?
    Name a character.
    You are worried about authors seeing others legally making
    a profit of their works without them getting any, should
    copyright be sufficiently shortened. What's your problem again?
    That (then) perfectly legal stuff might happen?

    So how much is he making from Wing Commander, again? It's
    not even 20 years ago ...
    The big league authors are also rich. Maybe not sports-rich,
    but they get to write till late in life ...
    OK, so how much does a soccer player make in the US? Then look
    up how much they can make in Europe, and vice versa, what an
    American Football player makes in both places.

    So shortening wouldn't hurt? And the only thing left to decide
    (assuming we want copyright, because the alternatives are seen
    as worse) is *how much* would be the best balance between having
    authors get enough money to be able to write as much as they
    can and having the people (who offer copyright for this type
    of reason alone, nowadays, not for censorship reasons any more)
    not having to restrict themselves further than necessary ...

    I'd vote musicians and actors craftspeople, too. (And studio
    musicians and stuntpeople and extras are quite interchangeable.)
    Depending on the field you'll have to search long for good
    programmers --- and not very much to find a good musician.
    And yet there are programmes that are 10 times as effective(!)
    as some other programmers, yet get paid only twice as much on
    the average.

    So we see that the author and the architect are not that far
    from each other. (And as to the bulldozer operator, what's
    the relationship between a staff writer and the ordinary sports
    news he wrote?)

    So what was "Basically, it's the price we paid for bringing
    our copyright law in line with the rest of the world."?

    I'd call that a tolerable, not a perfect solution. But then,
    I'm not a native English speaker, so what do I know?

    Your English is better than that.

    What's the goal of copyright, and how likely is a given
    copyright system reaching said goal?

    And a premiere is not exactly repeatable, whereas a painting
    can be shown to each new visitor.

    Patronage -> sometimes for books -> but rare for
    now-important works of fiction

    Seems like you did.

    Let's say more than 1% or 0.1% of the authors' income.
    A sale every year granting the author $1 just isn't gonna be
    relevant in most cases.
    OK, and how many % of all books would that be?

    7 Billion / 200 million (since 1943) doesn't even get close
    to 10%. Still, the market is not "the population", but much
    smaller, and "the market" is like "the American": very different
    and depends very much on the subset you're looking at.

    For example, the market for a science fiction book centering
    on space opera in the far future with much unobtainium, lots
    handwavium and impossible physics is not in the same market
    as one on the independence of the penal colony on the moon,
    using very little handwavium.

    Depends on the publisher --- some offer ARCs themselves.

    Ah, thanks for the pointer. Not exactly my preferred subgenre
    (i.e. the markets I am part of have probably very little
    overlap with this), but we'll see.

    This isn't always obvious. When you proclaim "Extending
    [copyright] is far less damaging than contracting [it]." it
    sure seems *to me* you are against all copyright term reductions
    and have a rather fixed position.
    I also have some objections over ever increasing copyright
    terms.
    Yep, and note that I don't want to abolish copyright, merely
    lead it (back? forwards?) to a saner method.

    For example, I would want a copyright that you don't have
    to register or spell out --- you create something which is
    copyrightable: poof, copyright applies.

    On the other hand there needs to be a sane way to get abandoned
    works back into the heritage of mankind within a sane period.
    An unknown, anonymous author or noone who steps up as owning
    the rights shouldn't keep a work "out of print" for decades.

    Also you certainly want to reward both creatives who supply
    the mass market with (often shallow) entertainment --- hey,
    people *are* enjoying it --- and those who create what the
    future will call "important works" and "classics". (The latter
    is rather hard, short of the invention of the 'future reader',
    which will cause the future to change drastically as all it's
    inventions will be copyrighted and patented today, and thus
    unavailable in the future, if this goes on.)

    Ah. OK. Maybe I should use Google Translate then.
    Studios destroyed their films, when they thought it had no
    more commercial value. It's thought 90% of the American silent
    movies and 50% of the talkies up to 1950 are lost. Not having
    reruns on TV was one of the "no more commercial value" points.

    Note that film studios aren't in TV reruns and even TV isn't
    much in Netflix, Amazon streaming, Hulu & co. It seems it's
    always the others --- usually branded evil in the beginning ---
    that find business models with content. And it's rare that
    the current copyright owners (as copyright can be sold) are
    at least jumping on the speeding train till it's very very late.

    Many creatives are far more flexible with their own works.

    So noone has ever demonstrated:
    - manned landings on the moon (if 5 doesn't count, 6 doesn't
    either)
    - working mars rovers (Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity,
    Curiosity --- that's only 4)
    - a self-controlled robot driven by wave energy crossing the
    Pacific (the first arriver was fished out at Byron Bay
    today, 2 others are still en route (and one diverted due to
    damage)
    - the submarine as a dangerous weapon in a war against a foe
    with a vastly larger fleet (only happened twice)
    - that you can actually resign as a president of the US (only
    Nixon did it)
    - Sending a probe to Neptune (only Voyager 2)
    - Building a space probe that still works after 35 years
    (Voyager 1 & 2, confirmed. Pioneer 6, confirmed in 2000,
    but not since. Others could be, but are not confirmed)
    - landing a rover on the moon. (Lunokhod 1 & 2)
    - landing on Titan (Huygens)
    - returning samples from a comet's coma (Stardust)


    However, I count at least 19 crowd-funding projects (not
    counting Iron Skies, which used several models at once)
    which are above the $1.000.000 mark in a single channel. A
    quick check would have shown you the same ...

    Is 19 or 20 times still not demonstrating? Well, then, what
    is? 7 Billion times?

    And that cannot be remedied by more-or-less continuous
    observation of the medium.

    I see. I leave it to you to calculate the ratio of books and
    income between 0 and 20 years afte publishing and 20-60 years
    after publishing.

    And I shall note that there are very few occupations that keep
    paying you a decade after you stopped working. The other
    way I know that seems to more-or-less reliably pay you even
    if you stop working is investing money and paying someone to
    handle all the details of the investments. Something that
    most people don't get thousands to tens of thousands of dollars a
    year out of on top of whatever they do.

    Any usable P2P network needs to advertize what it offers.
    It also needs to advertize where one can get parts from; and
    usually notes (or allows one to deduct) the number of seeders
    and leechers for any given file.

    Partially downloading is unusual --- the file will usually
    simply not work unless complete, as random parts will be
    missing from everywhere --- and will not cause the computer
    in question to become a seeder. All it takes is a number of
    computers recording these data for every interesting file
    in P2P network, e.g. doing the same dance as any computer
    downloading it has to do, minus the downloading.

    There --- you got a good yardstick for P2P network downloads
    without banning encryption, monitoring any excange routers,
    or deep packet inspection in major hubs (which will be coming
    anyways if net neutrality isn't enforced by the law: after all,
    if traffic can be differently priced on content, someone has
    to count the beans!)

    As to large download and streaming sites: They already collect
    data on what is downloaded/streamed when by how many and how
    often a stream is only partially seen (and in which way and
    how much of it) --- partial streams _are_ quite common. All
    they need to do is to report anonymous numbers.

    Creatives' and publishers'/labels'/... servers usually are
    smaller, but again will collect data about their own wares.
    Simply let them report. Maybe they need to be audited every
    now and then, too, lest they overreport.

    My guess is that other small download sites do not have
    enough traffic to matter; and those that might have can be
    compelled to report anonymous numbers by law, without being
    onerous.


    What part of the above was so surprising that you didn't
    think of it yourself?

    Yep, but the fault of that is not with YouTube, but with rights
    owners who either upload hashes of stuff that is *meant*
    to be viewed via YouTube (the routine being that it's not),
    or that contrary to their contracts someone uploaded a hash
    that was not theirs to begin with.

    The former, IIRC, happened with several networks and Obama's
    acceptance speech: live it worked, later not.

    Relevant: it's quite possible to track visitors, and what
    links they click and how far they download anything. No new
    techniques needed.

    Please read more carefully. Noone --- except maybe the content
    mafia and dictatorial states bent on censorship --- sees a
    need to fingerprint each and every stream. All that's needed
    is representative streams, and they are advertized and can be
    searched for (how else does Jane Doe find the newest Madonna
    track on P2P?), or even bound to a single server cluster.
    Oh, I thought it was not a problem. You could use a flat rate
    'tax' for everyone using media. If you wanted much more work
    and waste in the name of false "fairness", you could tie it
    to a internet access owner (e.g. by IP -> ISP -> access owner)
    and bill him on the number of points.

    Did you understand enough to at least formulate a question?

    Worse for whom? Copyright extension is fine for everyone ---
    except for recipients of creative works. (You have to pay
    longer and, worse, more works are longer unavailable.)

    That's exactly what we're seeing with copyright as it is today.
    So even if you were right, my scheme wouldn't be worse than
    the current scheme.

    Googling for sweeps week shows something different. OK, it's
    more like a month everywhere, and not sweeping over America
    from one cost to the other.

    Still, would it be very onerous to require radio broadcasters
    to keep correct and complete playlists, and using something
    like 'sweeps week' --- best stretched over 52 weeks/year ---
    only for reach calculation, not for seeing what they play?

    So you're basically saying that in a halfway sane system only
    the best-sellers would ever be transmitted, right? Anything
    even mid-list would simply never appear in the calculation,
    since (here's the same part) it's never transmitted?


    If not, kindly detail why mid list works must be invisible to
    the accounting.
    The same is true for ANY sum. Like, say, $56.8 trillion
    (the net worth of all households in the US in 2010 Q4).

    You keep not reading closely.
    | It's similar with books: the problem for almost everyone is [...] not
    | being found. Either because someone has stolen the last copy of the
    | book in a brick&motar shop ("noone buys this author/book! So why order
    | more?") [...]

    1 stolen book == 1 royalty
    1 stolen book == 10+ missed sales.
    Does ONE royalty equal TEN OR MORE sales?

    Do you get now why Ellison's "pointing out" is probably very
    stupid --- unless the book is not sellable in first place?

    Then people were even more dependent on actually being able
    to see and touch a copy in a bookstore to buy one.

    So why are you surprised something turns out HARD for
    computers?

    Which is only relevant at the current stage of technology
    if you're Joe Average when it comes to buying gifts and own
    preferences and looking at the recommendations. Are you?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  11. The significance IS the work needed.

    I can download Debian easily, put it on a couple sticks and
    share them with my friends and neighbours. The only significant
    parts are
    a) I share something and thereby help my friends and neighbours
    b) I probably want the sticks back



    Now compare that to, say, a functionally equivalent Windows.
    Not only do I need to spend months finding all the software
    to get the function I got out of the box (and some of the
    functionality isn't even available[1]), I also need to spend
    tens of thousands of USD on software. Then I need to have
    lots of CDs and key codes and so on.

    Installing the whole mess is lots of work (instead of just
    choosing the packages and letting the computer do all the
    work while I'm away from it). And it doesn't update itself
    automatically, only a few parts do.

    Oh, and I'm not allowed to share. And even if I were, there
    are lots of technical barriers.

    Now, tell me, what is the significance of THAT?


    And tell me a society that makes it artifically hard to help
    your friends and neighbours (and thinks the profits of a
    convicted monopolist more important) is on the right way.


    Are you sure the creatives do lose their physical objects?

    -Wolfgang

    [1] Try to get Windows to understand sloppy focus (i.e. the
    window last touched by the mouse is active) *and* not to
    raise the active window.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  12. Some have, but not due to principle, but due to ba protection
    spans or overbroad application.
    So how do you suppose they should be prevented from starving?
    Downloading stuff via the Food Transfer Protocol?
    How long have you made your living from your creative works?
    Or are you saying all real creative people should waste 40
    hours each week not being creative?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  13. Just as the difference betwen the printing press and "the days
    of the pen".

    As you found out, advancing technology makes some things
    practical that weren't before: "ease and speed" can be a
    question of life or death for applications.

    Therefore: yes, there are radical differences between the
    computer and the printing press. Like the fact that there
    are millions more computers than printing presses ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  14. So you're basically saying monasteries waited for a century
    till the original author was safely dead, then started
    copying the work. Any book newly written would have to wait
    that long before it could appear as a copy in the library of
    another monastery.

    I think not.


    Oh, authorship wasn't nearly as important then as it is today.
    Many books were anonymous.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  15. Naah. The books were from other monasteries. And they didn't
    need to do copies by the dozen just to preserve their one copy.

    Yep, and it often took them half a year to send a message
    one way. However, most people were NOT networked outside
    their parish at all. They never left it ...

    Logical fail. You assume everyone who has NOT ripped off a
    copy (yet) is a customer. Most people are decent. If they
    want an item, can pay the price and consider the price fair,
    they'll rather pay. Assuming they can find the place to pay
    and don't get stones laid in their way there.

    Logical fail, second: For most creators the problem is not
    people not wanting to buy, but people not knowing there exists
    something they'd want to buy. A free sample, a test drive,
    so to say, is an effective way of finding out if the pig in a
    poke is actually something they'd enjoy. Paying 20 bucks on
    the off chance that that CD is something I'd enjoy? Are you
    joking? But 20 bucks for a group I know I like is something
    quite different ....
    Yes, people who go into brick and motar stores to take a copy
    without paying are thieves. They're not the decent majority.

    Do you really want them as your customers?

    Naah, it's been granted to the publishers and labels.
    At least in the real world, if not in the letters of the law.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  16. From when to when, and sources, please.
    They'd need only one, maybe 2 copies from each book for that.
    And the act of copying a CD to my computer and uploading it
    (or burning it via a CD burner) via P2P is more costly to me
    in time, tools and materials than the original creator of the
    work paid to have another CD pressed.
    But they did read the books.

    And if I am storing an additional copy of some work on my
    computer, giving it a better chance to survive if others let
    it lapse or a mass extinction event (think asteroid) nearly
    wipes the Earth ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  17. Does it matter? Why?

    If I tell a business secret (even if I'm forbidden), are you
    bound by law not to listen to it and not to repeat it?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  18. ^^^^

    What's that, Savageduck? That wasn't broken into a new line
    in Alan's post!
    You should at least be able open a ticket with your
    vendor and get it fixed --- assuming you don't have the
    sourcecode already.
    Something else did happen ...


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  19. However, you cannot steal intellectual property. At most you
    can steal a physical object embodying intellectual property, say
    a DVD embodying a film or blueprints embodying some invention.

    You *can* copy intellectual property without permission, but
    that's not theft or stealing[1]. Nor is it robbery on a ship
    on the high seas cutlass between your teeth, no matter what
    some quarters would like you to believe.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] Ask your lawyer. "stealing" as a moral issue is something
    else, and often shouted most loud by people who think
    digital downloads need to have a downward adjustment in pay
    to the creator for "grampohone records broken in transit".
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 5, 2012
  20. Eric Stevens

    tony cooper Guest

    If your great-grandfather purchased a house, willed it to your
    grandfather, who willed it to your father, who willed it to you, do
    you deserve to own it?


    An estate is an estate, whether it's real or intellectual property.
     
    tony cooper, Dec 6, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.