What I don't get is how copyright law even got off the ground. It seems (to me) to fly in the face of the notion that nothing exists in a vacuum. There are very few truly original ideas - most advancement (in any field) is incremental. As the great Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants". Ironically, he is also quoted as saying, "I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people". Somehow apt given the crazy state of affairs in the world of copyright.
There's these things called jobs. The young kids of today don't like them cos they reduce the amount of time the young whipper snappers can spend on Facebook. But I'm told they build character, and if you get a good job, you can even get paid lots of money. Mind you, getting a good job usually requires an education - something else the young kids of today seem to avoid. Yikes - I sound like my grandfather. And I'm only 41!
In one of my comments to a different article I made the comment that Australia was way behind the US in the litigiousness department, but that we're slowly catching up. After reading about this suit I would say we are a lot further behind than I previously thought and we may never catch up. Thank God.
It seems to me that the heart of the issue is two-fold:
1. copyright owners want to get paid for their content, and they claim that torrents and other means of file sharing are depriving them of their dues
2. the public (apparently) wants access to content for free (or at least very little)
I don't believe that the majority of Internet users adopt the philosophical or ideological position that they are entitled to free content - I think most people are decent enough to accept that if something is of value, they should pay for it. However, in reference to point 2, I think most people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the price you pay for digital content should be much lower than the price you pay for physical content. iTunes might seem cheap at 99c per song, but at that price it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fill an iPod with music, which is ridiculous. Given the choice between paying exorbitant prices for content, or getting it for free, people will almost always choose free (IMHO).
As much as I like the economic model that is often promoted on this site (CwF + RtB, give away the infinite resource and charge for the scarce resource), my gut tells me that it may not work for all content creators. For example, there are some artists who write great music and can produce an awesome CD, but they suck on stage, or they are not interested in touring.
So, let's assume that we need to satisfy two requirements:
1. people will always want free (or at least very cheap) content
2. the content creators/copyright owners need to get paid (somehow)
I can't help thinking that one solution lies here. Granted, it's an old article and there are numerous subscription style services already out there. But I think this idea is different for several reasons:
1. the consumer is not paying their money to a content provider (eg: EMI, Sony, NBC, etc), so you aren't limited to particular artists or movies or TV shows
2. ISPs don't need to become gate keepers (just look at what the idiotic Australian govt is trying to do with mandatory internet filtering)
3. it helps to guarantee the quality of the content. If you could get access to all the high quality content you wanted, why would you risk getting shitty content (or worse, eg: viruses) from a torrent site for the sake of $6 per month? As an aside, a similar argument can be made about the decriminalisation of drugs - you (mostly) eliminate the criminal trade; you can standardise the quality of the product; and you can regulate/monitor the consumption.
It seems to me that we are in for several years of heated debate, dumb law suits, crappy legal decisions, etc, before the world catches up to the technology. I'm hopeful that (within a few years) the sheer weight of numbers and the nature of the net itself will result in a better system that works for all stakeholders (except the RIAA who are bunch of low life fuckers).
I realise that my comment is slightly off topic, but given our increasingly litigious society (I live in Australia and we are way behind the US in the litigiousness department, but we're slowly catching up), it seems likely to me that this will one day end up with a driver suing someone for distracting them (if it hasn't happened already). If someone can spill their coffee on their lap while driving, and then successfully sue McDonalds for making the coffee too hot, how long before someone sues Toyota/Sony/Apple/ for a billboard on the highway that was so effective it caused the driver to take their eyes off the road?
I have long believed that billboard advertising by the side of roads should be banned. The whole purpose of a billboard is to take your attention AWAY from driving, even if only for a few seconds. But it is just another example of how commercial interests are placed ahead of those of the community. As far as I am concerned my "right" to drive in a relatively distraction-free environment (ie: the roads) trumps a company's "right" to stick yet another ad in front of me.
Marzipan dildo. I love it! That is truly funny. I'd like to use that term to describe truly useless people/organisations/policies, etc. Would I be guilty of copyright infringement?
This is actually one of the "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander (yes, that is his real name). With television the communication is strictly one-way, and to make it even worse, you (as the viewer) have no control over the pace at which the "information" is broadcast. At least with a newspaper you can read a section, think about it, read it again, think some more, etc. TV stations don't broadcast a snippet and then say, "OK, we'll pause for a minute while you digest that bit". Mind you, technology like TiVo gives viewers that ability - although I doubt many would use TiVo for that purpose.
I am not a US citizen - I live in Australia - so perhaps I am not qualified (or entitled) to comment on the media in the US. But as an outsider looking in it seems like the American media has pretty much given up challenging or investigating those in power. (I know that is a sweeping statement and there are lots of examples where the media has exposed corruption, etc). That being said, when George W. was President it seemed like the US media was afraid to criticise the Bush administration for fear of being branded unpatriotic (particularly after 9/11). Now it seems there is a reluctance to criticise the Obama administration because he is seen as some kind of Messiah, sent to deliver America from whatever wilderness it was led into by Bush (et al.). Personally I would be spitting chips if my government spent a gazillion dollars bailing out a bunch corporations guilty of all manner of "sins" ranging from plain ineptitude right up to outright fraud.
Now, as an outsider, I can say unequivocally that I am soooo pleased Obama was elected President. I think I speak for just about every non-American person who takes an interest in American politics. But that doesn't mean he deserves a completely free ride - even Obama needs to be held accountable.
"If any of you quote more than 10 words of this post than I will take you to court for violating my copyright. Consider yourself warned. It is vital to me that I get the protection I so badly need from comment pirates that are destroying the comment industry."
As an Aussie (and proud of it) I am part shocked, part saddened, and part amused at the suit being brought by Larrikin Music. We (ie: Aussies) often joke about Americans being willing to sue anyone and everyone over just about anything. Maybe I should sue my parents because I'm not blonde, and therefore I don't have as much fun?
As for the suit itself, the consensus seems to be that it will be thrown out of court. The similarity between "Down Under" and "Kookaburra" isn't strong. And let's not forget that they still need to prove it was intentional, not a fluke coincidence.
By the way, a larrikin is someone who is a bit of a clown, a joker, is a bit irreverent, and who mocks authority. Doesn't exactly describe Larrikin Music, does it?
RSS
Twitter
Re: Taking my childhood away from me (as Paul Hobbs)
What I don't get is how copyright law even got off the ground. It seems (to me) to fly in the face of the notion that nothing exists in a vacuum. There are very few truly original ideas - most advancement (in any field) is incremental. As the great Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants". Ironically, he is also quoted as saying, "I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people". Somehow apt given the crazy state of affairs in the world of copyright.
Re: Re: Limits (as Paul Hobbs)
There's these things called jobs. The young kids of today don't like them cos they reduce the amount of time the young whipper snappers can spend on Facebook. But I'm told they build character, and if you get a good job, you can even get paid lots of money. Mind you, getting a good job usually requires an education - something else the young kids of today seem to avoid. Yikes - I sound like my grandfather. And I'm only 41!
The land of the Free to Sue thy Neighbour (as Paul Hobbs)
In one of my comments to a different article I made the comment that Australia was way behind the US in the litigiousness department, but that we're slowly catching up. After reading about this suit I would say we are a lot further behind than I previously thought and we may never catch up. Thank God.
What about this idea...? (as Paul Hobbs)
It seems to me that the heart of the issue is two-fold:
1. copyright owners want to get paid for their content, and they claim that torrents and other means of file sharing are depriving them of their dues
2. the public (apparently) wants access to content for free (or at least very little)
I don't believe that the majority of Internet users adopt the philosophical or ideological position that they are entitled to free content - I think most people are decent enough to accept that if something is of value, they should pay for it. However, in reference to point 2, I think most people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the price you pay for digital content should be much lower than the price you pay for physical content. iTunes might seem cheap at 99c per song, but at that price it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fill an iPod with music, which is ridiculous. Given the choice between paying exorbitant prices for content, or getting it for free, people will almost always choose free (IMHO).
As much as I like the economic model that is often promoted on this site (CwF + RtB, give away the infinite resource and charge for the scarce resource), my gut tells me that it may not work for all content creators. For example, there are some artists who write great music and can produce an awesome CD, but they suck on stage, or they are not interested in touring.
So, let's assume that we need to satisfy two requirements:
1. people will always want free (or at least very cheap) content
2. the content creators/copyright owners need to get paid (somehow)
I can't help thinking that one solution lies here. Granted, it's an old article and there are numerous subscription style services already out there. But I think this idea is different for several reasons:
1. the consumer is not paying their money to a content provider (eg: EMI, Sony, NBC, etc), so you aren't limited to particular artists or movies or TV shows
2. ISPs don't need to become gate keepers (just look at what the idiotic Australian govt is trying to do with mandatory internet filtering)
3. it helps to guarantee the quality of the content. If you could get access to all the high quality content you wanted, why would you risk getting shitty content (or worse, eg: viruses) from a torrent site for the sake of $6 per month? As an aside, a similar argument can be made about the decriminalisation of drugs - you (mostly) eliminate the criminal trade; you can standardise the quality of the product; and you can regulate/monitor the consumption.
It seems to me that we are in for several years of heated debate, dumb law suits, crappy legal decisions, etc, before the world catches up to the technology. I'm hopeful that (within a few years) the sheer weight of numbers and the nature of the net itself will result in a better system that works for all stakeholders (except the RIAA who are bunch of low life fuckers).
Where will it end? (as Paul Hobbs)
I realise that my comment is slightly off topic, but given our increasingly litigious society (I live in Australia and we are way behind the US in the litigiousness department, but we're slowly catching up), it seems likely to me that this will one day end up with a driver suing someone for distracting them (if it hasn't happened already). If someone can spill their coffee on their lap while driving, and then successfully sue McDonalds for making the coffee too hot, how long before someone sues Toyota/Sony/Apple/ for a billboard on the highway that was so effective it caused the driver to take their eyes off the road?
I have long believed that billboard advertising by the side of roads should be banned. The whole purpose of a billboard is to take your attention AWAY from driving, even if only for a few seconds. But it is just another example of how commercial interests are placed ahead of those of the community. As far as I am concerned my "right" to drive in a relatively distraction-free environment (ie: the roads) trumps a company's "right" to stick yet another ad in front of me.
Re: (as Paul Hobbs)
Marzipan dildo. I love it! That is truly funny. I'd like to use that term to describe truly useless people/organisations/policies, etc. Would I be guilty of copyright infringement?
Re: This post is copyright (c) property of Tristin (TM) (as Paul Hobbs)
The cheque is in the mail.
Re: (as Paul Hobbs)
This is actually one of the "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" by Jerry Mander (yes, that is his real name). With television the communication is strictly one-way, and to make it even worse, you (as the viewer) have no control over the pace at which the "information" is broadcast. At least with a newspaper you can read a section, think about it, read it again, think some more, etc. TV stations don't broadcast a snippet and then say, "OK, we'll pause for a minute while you digest that bit". Mind you, technology like TiVo gives viewers that ability - although I doubt many would use TiVo for that purpose.
Re: (as Paul Hobbs)
I am not a US citizen - I live in Australia - so perhaps I am not qualified (or entitled) to comment on the media in the US. But as an outsider looking in it seems like the American media has pretty much given up challenging or investigating those in power. (I know that is a sweeping statement and there are lots of examples where the media has exposed corruption, etc). That being said, when George W. was President it seemed like the US media was afraid to criticise the Bush administration for fear of being branded unpatriotic (particularly after 9/11). Now it seems there is a reluctance to criticise the Obama administration because he is seen as some kind of Messiah, sent to deliver America from whatever wilderness it was led into by Bush (et al.). Personally I would be spitting chips if my government spent a gazillion dollars bailing out a bunch corporations guilty of all manner of "sins" ranging from plain ineptitude right up to outright fraud.
Now, as an outsider, I can say unequivocally that I am soooo pleased Obama was elected President. I think I speak for just about every non-American person who takes an interest in American politics. But that doesn't mean he deserves a completely free ride - even Obama needs to be held accountable.
Re: This post is copyright (c) property of Tristin (TM) (as Paul Hobbs)
"If any of you quote more than 10 words of this post than I will take you to court for violating my copyright. Consider yourself warned. It is vital to me that I get the protection I so badly need from comment pirates that are destroying the comment industry."
Come get me.
Crikey! (as Paul Hobbs)
As an Aussie (and proud of it) I am part shocked, part saddened, and part amused at the suit being brought by Larrikin Music. We (ie: Aussies) often joke about Americans being willing to sue anyone and everyone over just about anything. Maybe I should sue my parents because I'm not blonde, and therefore I don't have as much fun?
As for the suit itself, the consensus seems to be that it will be thrown out of court. The similarity between "Down Under" and "Kookaburra" isn't strong. And let's not forget that they still need to prove it was intentional, not a fluke coincidence.
By the way, a larrikin is someone who is a bit of a clown, a joker, is a bit irreverent, and who mocks authority. Doesn't exactly describe Larrikin Music, does it?