Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 24 25 26 27 28 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
I agree
yahoo -
Is there some sort of natural model that applies
did anyone give an explanation for this "natural" aspect that keeps getting referred to? Ip apparently not natural in the slightest.
-
did anyone give an explanation for this "natural" aspect that keeps getting referred to? Ip apparently not natural in the slightest.
I get Rob's question/statement in pointing out the irony, but fail to see it's relevance regarding getting anywhere on this.
-
In a rare internet deprived moment at home I picked up a copy of last month's Wired magazine and spotted an article about internet TV, more specifically a Hulu which is getting a
GREAT DEAL of attention in Wired. (Are Condé Nast, the publishers of Wired in some way hooked up to Hulu?...I suspect they might well be following that great American tradition of denying or failing to perceive a conflict of interest, or failing to recognise that there is life outside the US unless there is black gold..er I mean "human rights" to protect...).A number of statements in that article with relevance to this thread stood out.
Probably the most useful quote is
This is not television on the internet, this is the internet
Bang-on. Bulls eye.
Hulu would be among the top 10 US video sites in number of clips streamed
This seems to be because where the site does not have rights to content, it will find you information about the content you want...yeah meta-content, rather than the actual content, it will put ad's on the front of the meta-content, before screening the short clip about the content you want to see.....Am I right in thinking that Wired (which I enjoy) is being a little less than honest/smart with it's use of figures &/or statistics? So here's a clip about 'White & Nerdy', rather than 'White & Nerdy' itself, but with ads, or perhaps better still is an example featuring a teaser with some thoughtful analysis for the show you're interested. Guess this model doesn't quite work so well for the music industry.
TechCrunch readers would vote it best video startup of 2007
Well perhaps TechCrunch readers really like sucking eggs. Maybe Hulu is useful for content that it does have rights for...OK so trying to find a clip that it does have rights for brings me to a message about not being able to provide content to people outside the United States....I've struck this elsewhere before, but have found that surfthechannel may have some links for a particular show that do this, but is likely to have other links for that same show that don't....A few more clicks later, I've dispatched the annoying pop-ups and am streaming what I acutally want to see, without any ad's spliced into the start or middle of the clip.
But the more he thought about it, the more he was drawn to what Chernin and Zucker were proposing. He had always loved TV and movies. And though the music industry had blown its chance to stay ahead of digital culture, he saw a brief window of opportunity for Hollywood. More than 60 million Americans now had broadband, but most hadn't yet gotten into the habit of using BitTorrent to download sitcoms. What if he could help show business make the transition that the music industry had flubbed?
Whilst I like the idea of an industry getting right what the "music industry had flubbed", I don't think it's quite that simple, or that people are really this naive...Not even Americans....not unless they've got L-Ron writing some speeches & giving them oratory lessons.
Looking at the Alexa web ranking data for Hulu it's ranked 465 with a significant rise about the time the Wired article came out. Surfthechannel is rated 641 and miniova ranked 80, so I'm not sure the Bittorrent statement is entirely accurate. Good on people for wanting to go legitimate though.
The top Internet services—Google, Flickr, YouTube—thrive because they are simple.
Hooray, there's another diamond. Simple things tend to work well, without a whole bunch of complications that can just fall flat.
The model for TV is about convienence. In NZ with datacaps that distort the model things are currently a little different, but elsewhere where datacaps are not the issue, it more tends to be about ability to stream without buffering lag/interruption. So you want to see a show, so you fire up the computer, start the streaming process, pause the stream so it buffers 30% of the show and check your email & social networking sites for 20 mins whilst it does that. Then you get the hour long so ad-free in 40 mins and it's probably wrong and probably infringing copyright...but that's not theft, so it's sort of ok, particularly ok if you are a teenager and that's just what you do....hmmm.So really what I am saying, is that I don't beleive the hype regarding Hulu particularly from some of the established tech guard in the States. Figures (pulled perhaps from someone's arse) regarding Revenue from advertising & everything else seemed to be (again) held up as a sort of justification.
-
Over the weekend, I was having a shandy (yeah beer with lemonade...coz I prefer it to real beer...a "radler" as the Germans call it, meaning the beer you drink if you've got to ride your bicycle) with a lawyer and we were discussing Copyright (sad buggers we may be).
I told him about the analogy of the sneakiing into the swimming pool for a free swim, which as an analogy I think is simple & clever.
Quick as a flash, he was asking me about the breaking & entering component.
Not sure that it's entirely relevant to the discussion, but in some ways I think it is.
-
but fail to see it's relevance regarding getting anywhere on this.
that's irony right there jon, (coming from the guy who has waxed lyrical about all manner of non copyright relevant things :))
The relevance is it was used as an argument against IP but not substantiated. ie not a natural right, but no one explained what a natural right was and why ip wasn't one.
it was potentially a big winning point for anti copyright people except it was never actually explained so it was in effect meaningless. -
coming from the guy who has waxed lyrical about all manner of non copyright relevant things
Yeah, perh..definately... but here I was trying to regain a bit of focus and determine what your question is really about.
The usual places have information on Natural laws...and I might in my wisdom invoke:
The sixteenth law is that no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause.
I get that IP is attempts to bring some of the characteristics of Natural Law to an expression that may be intangible, or so easily copied that it may as well be considered intangible (says jon wanting to avoid the use of "virtually intangible"...mental picture of Eric Arthur Blair spinning in his grave). So can you elaborate either what your question is, or what is the underlying issue that you think needs a bit of discussion, particularly with regard to how this piece of the puzzle may contribute to the larger objective?
Natural law to some degree already applies to copyright. For example, it's you that become the copyright holder for your works, not me, or some robot, or some organisation, or some organisation made up of robots, though IP itself may not be considered entirely natural.
-
Al-Maturidi gives the example of stealing which is known to be evil by reason alone due to man's working hard for his property.
so is the definition of property something that you work hard for and is stealing the abuse of said hard worked for property?
-
um, have we come back this far?
Should we consider the act of copying a file as work? Therefore if an individual copies the file, it's therefore his/her property.
I don't think you and I haveterribly differing views regarding copying music without consent as the lesser form of theft referred to as "Copyright infringement".
Paint me a picture Rob, I'm trying to find out what it is you're after with this line of questioning.
-
I'm trying to find out what it is you're after with this line of questioning.
haha, makes it sound like an interrogation.
establishing what property is.Rob Stowell asked a good question re this natural law argument and I didn't see it answered, and reading through though laws as written in the book of wikipedia it seems they really don't define anything to do with the natural right of property. more like a guideline on how to behave nicely.
if that's the case the nice (natural law) way to behave regarding copyright is to observe and respect it. apparently that's not going to happen without enforcement so the whole natural law argument seems to fall over.
Paint me a picture Rob,
is this a commissioned work, as in you want full controlling rights to it??? it'll cost you extra for that.
-
More random linkage
Harvard’s Charlie Neeson raises Constitutional questions in RIAA litigationRobbery, if it helps my impression was the difference between you and others isn't that they think it's okay to undermine people's property rights or that they shouldn't be enforced.
It's that they don't think copyright rights actually extend as far as you do in the first place.
Without resort to some fairly serious information theory, jurisprudence, a theory of value that actually explains why some things should be purchased and others not, I don't know what all else and both parties in the conversation understanding this I don't think there's going to be much convincing.
-
It's that they don't think copyright rights actually extend as far as you do in the first place.
I don't necessarily think they do or don't, i'm just contemplating the reasons the extend as far as they do and consequently at present don't extend any further.
my other motivation was to keep the conversation going and not end with jon discussing the merits of penguins over albatrosses or something, not that I'm messin' with your free speech jon :)
I'm up for some hard concepts if you like lyndon, I wasn't that impressed with the wiki link for natural law though. all seems a bit "do unto others",
-
did anyone give an explanation for this "natural" aspect that keeps getting referred to?
Yep.
But I can't explain it to you because that would be sharing my ideas which, quite frankly, belong to me, so piss off.
This also explains why I have been unable to use your, seemingly irrefutable arguments, myself.
-
that humour's coming along well don, I like it!
-
if that's the case the nice (natural law) way to behave regarding copyright is to observe and respect it. apparently that's not going to happen without enforcement so the whole natural law argument seems to fall over.
The enforcement model seems to have been broken. Society is saying they don't want to be burdened by the costs of an artificial enforcement model, particularly the model that the industry seems attached to, which transfers the burden of enforcement elsewhere. The costs appear to significantly outweigh the benefits. The industry perhaps needs to be wary of society just saying "whatever" and continuing to do as the teenagers already do. Forcing a model of enforcement on society seems only to alienate society from considering the merits of the cause (call this the Metallica lesson).
not end with jon discussing the merits of penguins over albatrosses or something
Why that is a bloody good idea! I'm deep in research mode for my prequel to the book of Genesis. All these dimensions for consideration are great. That could be a chapter title Rob.
"On the merits of penguins over albatrosses and other natural hierarchies". This could well be the chapter that shits all over the notion of intelligent design, turning it into the "no-go zone" it deserves to be.
As for
this a commissioned work, as in you want full controlling rights to it??? it'll cost you extra for that.
I think I've already paid ;o)
I'd be happier if we can take some steps towards finding a model that works. -
Society is saying they don't want to be burdened by the costs of an artificial enforcement model,
That's an interesting reading of the situation jon.
I think society or part of it is saying "I don't understand why it isn't free, and you can't stop me so why should I stop".similar to the argument drunk driving.
if you can't see the down side (ie until you actually see the hurt you cause someone, or get caught and it hurts you) then what do you isn't wrong in your mind.
a society that increasingly loses respect for other sectors of its own is probably an indication of a bigger issue than nicking a few songs off a mates band.I think I've already paid ;o)
which is a fine example of the problem, you think you have paid but you don't understand that you haven't cos you haven't comprehended the worth of the work.
-
sorry, increased incidence of dyslexia
"then what you do isn't wrong in your mind."
-
I think society or part of it is saying "I don't understand why it isn't free, and you can't stop me so why should I stop".
Or perhaps they think that the work they are doing in copying the file makes it theirs, or they're cynical coz they didn't like the previous model, but there wasn't much they could do about it, or they're ignorant...or a bunch of different reasons.
Does it really matter that much why the model is significantly broken? If something is significantly broken, it tends to indicate to me that there is a fundamental flaw and I'd be reluctant to go down that path again, as if I've encountered something once, chances are I'll encounter it again in one form or another, even with the benefit of hindsight.
One way or another people are saying they are not prepared to go back to the old model and not prepared to tie themselves in red tape, when a simpler way is to just ignore the impacted industries.
So again I'm back looking for a model that is light, efficient, elegantly simple, that allows people with IP to win too. Simply changing the method of enforcement by pushing the burden of responsibility elsewhere doesn't seem to be anything other than attempt to re-establish the old model.
I have empathy for the recording industry, but it seems that it's attempting to restrict supply, rather than thinking about it as a source of stimulation for the industry.
My thinking is along the following lines:
In the software industry, the provision of services is typically done under one of 2 models.
1. Fixed price, based on a well defined definition of the services to be required by the client and a quote from the supplier. Where the supplier bears a lot of the risk for any changes that blow-out the scope and tends to deliver the minimum amount of functionality, at the minimum level of quality (unless there are other factors influencing the situation....such as big carrots or sticks) and makes a bit of a killing charging for changes to the scope that the customer decides that they absolutely do require as the process is underway.
2. Time and materials, where the service provider simply charges for the resource usage, tends to produce a higher quality product and put the onus on the person or organisation paying the bills to manage scope and determine when the job is done. Though under time & materials you'd better hope you're working with a service provider that is honest and not thinking that this a good situation to milk the customer.Does the recording industry not already work on these sorts of business models? How interested is the recording industry in actually caring who picks up the tab, as long as the tab is picked up? (probably as much as the software industry is). As a supplier of services, you can decide if you want to offer a one of these models, or any number of alternative models. Is the Recording Industry so entrenched in the behaviour of sharing risk, that it either wants or needs to entice musicians to use their services by offering a reduced charge for the recording process in return for a slice of any profits made? A similar thing occurs in software regarding control of the source code and the ability to on sell any products developed to other customers subsequently. It's probably much more of a commodity based view, than having an essence of art about it.
-
One way or another people are saying they are not prepared to go back to the old model and not prepared to tie themselves in red tape, when a simpler way is to just ignore the impacted industries.
no ones back at a previous model yet. ie an enforceable controlled distribution. its not so much people don't want to go back as they don't have to go back, yet.
here's a for instance for you. for this performance I shall be playing (channeling) the role of jayden (brother of hayden and shayden) a petrol head from 'down south'
"I don't want to go back to paying for petrol, and until I run out of fake number plates and the guts to drive off with out paying I'll stick to my current model of petrol distribution. oh and also if I get caught, but that's not going to happen until they enforce their present system, like the evil overlords that they are. I hate the petrol industry, full of corruption, they've made enough money ripping off customers with their inflated prices. "
of course hayden's english would be 'different' and probably punctuated with lots of swearing but you get the drift.
now hayden will most likely get stopped at some point as they increase the pressure to control the situation, like maybe monitoring petrol station usage, trying to catch the young scallywags doing the petrol liberating etc. if he's lucky he'll get a system that's catch and release, ie hey we caught you doing this, stop it, or next time we'll take your car, or remove your right to enter petrol stations, see how far you get then.What hayden wants doesn't necessarily make it the way its going to be, how ever much he's battling for societies right to free petrol (bless him).
-
So tell me Rob, how will detection and enforcement work in your thinking?
-
So tell me Rob, how will detection and enforcement work in your thinking?
In before "don't look at me, it's the tech wonks' job to work that out"...
-
So tell me Rob, how will detection and enforcement work in your thinking?
In before "don't look at me, it's the tech wonks' job to work that out"...
what he said, but I'm thinking secret police, explosives, water boarding (© USA), derogatory comments, and stern eyebrows, failing that probably something along the lines of actually looking for infringement through the most obvious avenues available,
already internet providers can tell
- how much you're downloading in data totals, (90 gig a month probably isn't emails, and most likely not only music, but still)
- what program you're usung ie peer to peer, and filter it out.
- what sites you're visiting (russian mafia pirate sites)
- and only a matter of time to figure out what encoded stuff you're doing.ie they've got almost everything they need right now,
I also wanted to add to my hayden example,Hayden and his brothers are big fans of petrol, and they're upset in they way they're being treated like criminals when they're the guys that support it in the first place (outside of actually buying it)
theey're deeply offended in the way the petrol industry is treating them and they can't see what they're doing wrong. everyone is doing it. -
The theyworkforyou site is a useful. Well done to the peeps behind it.
In before "don't look at me, it's the tech wonks' job to work that out"
Perhaps that might have worked yesterday, but today I'm here for the detail. I think it's only fair that we get the detail from Rob on his view, else we're left making assumptions on his behalf.
-
Perhaps that might have worked yesterday, but today I'm here for the detail. I think it's only fair that we get the detail from Rob on his view, else we're left making assumptions on his behalf.
Fair enough - 'scuse the Friday morning flippancy.
-
'scuse the Friday morning flippancy
Thursday night grumpiness here at the mo'...so 'scuse that too.
Suspect all traces of my serious tone will be well and truly gone by the morning.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.