Perhaps so, but there's a huge amount of collateral damage done by these failing attempts to stem the tide. That's one of the (many) things Mike is usually writing about: the proposed solutions don't work, but they do cause a variety of collateral damage. Some people in the entertainment industry may not care, but more and more people do as it starts to impact their own lives.
Ah, well, but that's exactly what some people in the industry would like to change, now isn't it? They would love to find some (technological?) way of (re?)gaining full control over what they consider their "property". The reason they're finding so much opposition these days is that people realise that such control tramples all over their freedoms, even if they're not even remotely interested in infringing on said "property".
I think you hit the nail right on the head here. I even think this goes for the larger part of the general population. As right as some lawyers may or may not be when discussing these matters, the average man or woman just sees it as a clear sign that there's something seriously wrong with the law as written. Frankly, people don't even care if they're wrong or right any more; it just feels wrong to them when the law seemingly has nothing in common with the way they view the world.
Mike's articles generally raise some very good discussion points, even though I don't always agree with his outcomes. I do share his views that policies on law, and perhaps especially IP law, should be based on solid scientific evidence rather than the lobbying power of certain organisations. Of course it remains problematic that we've managed to box ourselves in via international agreements so much that it's very hard to correct some of the mistakes that have been made in the past.
Truth can be rather subjective though, especially in this case. Depending on one's point of view, and source of definition (economic or legal), the truth they're seeking takes on a different meaning. The main discussion between them has been on whether or not copyrights should be regarded as property, and the truth to that depends very much on one's view. Finding out where one's view lies sometimes becomes the key to understanding each other.
Another issue is of course how the general public views it. Even if the legal definition defines copyright as property, as long as people don't see it that way you won't convince them with arguments based on it either. As bad as the situation for the entertainment industry may or may not be (the opinions differ), if the solution's to be found by curtailing the rights of the general public and good-faith companies they're very likely to tell them to keep their problems to themselves, and leave them out of it. That's rather what happened to SOPA, PIPA and ACTA.
Tangible vs intangible is not at issue here. My point was with regards to the economic definitions of property, and that copyright doesn't fit any of them. The closest would be private property, but for that it would have to be both excludable and rival, which it is not.
The legal definition of copyright may or not classify it as property, depending on who you quote. The SC apparently has classified it as property in some cases, and as non-property in others.
Under economic definitions (which is what most non-lawyers, including the general population, use), copyright would not qualify as property, because it's neither classifiable as open-access property (since it's owned), nor state property (since it's not owned by the state), nor common property (since it's not owned by a collective), nor private property (since it's neither excludable nor rival).
It may share many of the qualities usually associated with private property, but that economic definition requires it to be both excludable and rival, and as such copyright does not qualify.
Why would Google be liable under Canadian copyright law for not reacting fast enough on DMCA notices from small companies? As far as I know, Canada does not have a notice and takedown system (yet?).
They have the same leg the GPL has, and it's one that's well established by the courts by now. It's called copyright law. You either adhere to the license or to the limitations of copyright law (which is usually stricter than the CC/GPL licenses) or you'll be found guilty of copyright infringement in a court of law. At 150k USD per infringement, that's a lot of leg to stand on, believe you me. :)
I agree with the AC poster above: you either accept the CC license with all its terms or you can abide by copyright law. It's a license, not a contract. Abiding by the terms gives you a valid defense against a copyright infringement claim, nothing more, nothing less. I hope the judge will realize this too.
Indeed. VoR makes a hilarious post, but some people here wouldn't know sarcasm if it was wearing a Scottish kilt and holding a big sign with neon letters saying: "This is meant sarcastically."
As questionable as the ruling may be, do realize that this "theft" was the result of RL threats to the victim. The "cooercing" was not done within the game.
Yes, you aren't a criminal, and neither am I: the difference is that I don't download music and you do, yet I pay the same tax when I buy CDs for personal backups. How it it fair to tax me like this?
I don't have any children in school, yet I get taxed to pay for schools anyway. How is this fair? IMHO if such a tax is compensation for legalizing non-commercial copying, which in turn saves a lot of money on the judicial system, then I see no reason why the government should not be allowed to decide accordingly. In the Netherlands, we have a similar levy system, and I highly prefer it over the copyright cases we see in the USA.
The 50 years was never intended to cover the lifetime of the creator. European copyright law is split into copyright (for the author, 70 years post mortem), and neighbouring rights (for the performer/record company, 50 years). The 50 years represents a "reasonable" time to get a proper return on investment. Under European law, the creator receives an entirely different protection than a performer, and as a regular performer of J.S. Bach's creations I can only agree that such a thing is fair. 90 years for a return on investment is IMHO beyond all reason, and makes no sense from an economical point of view either. Sure, I'd love to be paid for 90 years after doing some work, but that's no reason to alter the law for that purpose. I guess it's time to contact my MEPs and national politicians.
Perhaps I'm reading things wrong here, but it seems to me like he's not blaming video on tiny screens for people not going to the theater, but he's blaming video on tiny screens for the commercialicing and dumbing of the movie industry. As far as I read it, he feels that most movies these days are pure crap since they have to make as much money as possible, which in turn implies that they still have to look good on small screens since that's where a large part of the market is. Am I just reading things into his words or ... ?
What is often overlooked in this discussion is that aside from this difference (50 vs 95) having increased during a "harmonisation" of US copyright law to European copyright law, that even if the terms were equal we would still not have a harmonised copyright law.
The US differentiates between copyright for individuals (life+70 years) and corporations (95 years). The EU differentiates between copyright (life+70 years) and neighbouring rights (50 years). This means that even if the terms were equal, we would still have works that are in copyright in one region, while being out of copyright in the other. Thus talking about "wanting the same rights as in the US" is a strange thing.
What's also interested is that they're not really talking about "wanting the same rights as in the US", but in stead the artists complain about "wanting the same rights as US artists". They already have this! Both US and UK recording artists get life+70 years of copyright in the US, and life+70 years of copyright and/or 50 years of neighbouring rights in the EU. Both US and UK corporations get 95 years of copyright in the US, and life+70 years of copyright and/or 50 years of neighbouring rights in the EU.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Pieter Hulshoff.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Perhaps so, but there's a huge amount of collateral damage done by these failing attempts to stem the tide. That's one of the (many) things Mike is usually writing about: the proposed solutions don't work, but they do cause a variety of collateral damage. Some people in the entertainment industry may not care, but more and more people do as it starts to impact their own lives.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Ah, well, but that's exactly what some people in the industry would like to change, now isn't it? They would love to find some (technological?) way of (re?)gaining full control over what they consider their "property". The reason they're finding so much opposition these days is that people realise that such control tramples all over their freedoms, even if they're not even remotely interested in infringing on said "property".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you hit the nail right on the head here. I even think this goes for the larger part of the general population. As right as some lawyers may or may not be when discussing these matters, the average man or woman just sees it as a clear sign that there's something seriously wrong with the law as written. Frankly, people don't even care if they're wrong or right any more; it just feels wrong to them when the law seemingly has nothing in common with the way they view the world.
Mike's articles generally raise some very good discussion points, even though I don't always agree with his outcomes. I do share his views that policies on law, and perhaps especially IP law, should be based on solid scientific evidence rather than the lobbying power of certain organisations. Of course it remains problematic that we've managed to box ourselves in via international agreements so much that it's very hard to correct some of the mistakes that have been made in the past.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Truth can be rather subjective though, especially in this case. Depending on one's point of view, and source of definition (economic or legal), the truth they're seeking takes on a different meaning. The main discussion between them has been on whether or not copyrights should be regarded as property, and the truth to that depends very much on one's view. Finding out where one's view lies sometimes becomes the key to understanding each other.
Another issue is of course how the general public views it. Even if the legal definition defines copyright as property, as long as people don't see it that way you won't convince them with arguments based on it either. As bad as the situation for the entertainment industry may or may not be (the opinions differ), if the solution's to be found by curtailing the rights of the general public and good-faith companies they're very likely to tell them to keep their problems to themselves, and leave them out of it. That's rather what happened to SOPA, PIPA and ACTA.
Re: Re: Private property
Tangible vs intangible is not at issue here. My point was with regards to the economic definitions of property, and that copyright doesn't fit any of them. The closest would be private property, but for that it would have to be both excludable and rival, which it is not.
Private property
If I understand correctly, the point is this:
The legal definition of copyright may or not classify it as property, depending on who you quote. The SC apparently has classified it as property in some cases, and as non-property in others.
Under economic definitions (which is what most non-lawyers, including the general population, use), copyright would not qualify as property, because it's neither classifiable as open-access property (since it's owned), nor state property (since it's not owned by the state), nor common property (since it's not owned by a collective), nor private property (since it's neither excludable nor rival).
It may share many of the qualities usually associated with private property, but that economic definition requires it to be both excludable and rival, and as such copyright does not qualify.
Property
To quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
Neighbouring rights
Out of curiosity: What is the difference between this proposal and the neighbouring rights as they exist in the EU?
DMCA notice?
Why would Google be liable under Canadian copyright law for not reacting fast enough on DMCA notices from small companies? As far as I know, Canada does not have a notice and takedown system (yet?).
@by senshikaze, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 6:40am
They have the same leg the GPL has, and it's one that's well established by the courts by now. It's called copyright law. You either adhere to the license or to the limitations of copyright law (which is usually stricter than the CC/GPL licenses) or you'll be found guilty of copyright infringement in a court of law. At 150k USD per infringement, that's a lot of leg to stand on, believe you me. :)
I agree with the AC poster above: you either accept the CC license with all its terms or you can abide by copyright law. It's a license, not a contract. Abiding by the terms gives you a valid defense against a copyright infringement claim, nothing more, nothing less. I hope the judge will realize this too.
Re: Re: What's really needed is for people to read and understand
Indeed. VoR makes a hilarious post, but some people here wouldn't know sarcasm if it was wearing a Scottish kilt and holding a big sign with neon letters saying: "This is meant sarcastically."
Threats
As questionable as the ruling may be, do realize that this "theft" was the result of RL threats to the victim. The "cooercing" was not done within the game.
Re: Re: Crime ???
Re: Yes and No
The 50 years was never intended to cover the lifetime of the creator. European copyright law is split into copyright (for the author, 70 years post mortem), and neighbouring rights (for the performer/record company, 50 years). The 50 years represents a "reasonable" time to get a proper return on investment. Under European law, the creator receives an entirely different protection than a performer, and as a regular performer of J.S. Bach's creations I can only agree that such a thing is fair. 90 years for a return on investment is IMHO beyond all reason, and makes no sense from an economical point of view either. Sure, I'd love to be paid for 90 years after doing some work, but that's no reason to alter the law for that purpose. I guess it's time to contact my MEPs and national politicians.
Is that truly what he meant?
Perhaps I'm reading things wrong here, but it seems to me like he's not blaming video on tiny screens for people not going to the theater, but he's blaming video on tiny screens for the commercialicing and dumbing of the movie industry. As far as I read it, he feels that most movies these days are pure crap since they have to make as much money as possible, which in turn implies that they still have to look good on small screens since that's where a large part of the market is. Am I just reading things into his words or ... ?
No harmonisation
What is often overlooked in this discussion is that aside from this difference (50 vs 95) having increased during a "harmonisation" of US copyright law to European copyright law, that even if the terms were equal we would still not have a harmonised copyright law.
The US differentiates between copyright for individuals (life+70 years) and corporations (95 years). The EU differentiates between copyright (life+70 years) and neighbouring rights (50 years). This means that even if the terms were equal, we would still have works that are in copyright in one region, while being out of copyright in the other. Thus talking about "wanting the same rights as in the US" is a strange thing.
What's also interested is that they're not really talking about "wanting the same rights as in the US", but in stead the artists complain about "wanting the same rights as US artists". They already have this! Both US and UK recording artists get life+70 years of copyright in the US, and life+70 years of copyright and/or 50 years of neighbouring rights in the EU. Both US and UK corporations get 95 years of copyright in the US, and life+70 years of copyright and/or 50 years of neighbouring rights in the EU.