Also from them the case coming up to the Supreme court, Kirstaeng vs. Wiley, which is (despite appearances) not about copyright. It's about protecting a fading business model that gouges Americans pricewise.
Me, my feelings are simple. I am willing to protect copyrights if the copyright holders make the material broadly available at a reasonable cost. Things which are out of print and unavailable from the source should lose copyright protections. There should be penalties for false accusations of copyright violations on the net, and under no circumstance should an entire website be shut down (like the educational blogs! http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/15/3509800/dmca-takedown-request-pearson-serverbeach-edublogs) because of a violation on one page. That's like burning down the hotel you were staying in because there were prostitutes on the fifth floor, even though your laptop was in your room on the fifteenth floor. This also applies to mediafire or megaupload or whichever one it was. Doesn't matter if the hotel manager knew about the prostitute ring, there were still a lot of people using the service for legitimate purposes.
And on top of which, having the police shut down the entire site throws the economic model of cloud computing into doubt. What happens when someone shuts down google over copyright violations?
No, I'm not on any mailing lists. I've followed the arguments with interest on LJ, but haven't had to form coherent thoughts until... 2 days from now.
> It's about protecting a fading business model that gouges Americans pricewise
This is completely my prejudice in the matter, I'm sorry to say. Businesses always fight new technology or consumer rights. The pittance that goes to the artist is not the motivation behind these laws. It's like Disney going after the janitor who drew Disney figures on the wall to entertain the kids, and was taken to court. Just greedy lunacy, that isn't even self-serving, because they kill their potential markets.
Whoops, sermonizing. I shall read and wallow. Thanks so very much!
https://supporters.eff.org/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&id=266 is the most recent mailing I got as a web page.
Also, do you know about the big six ISPs plans to self-regulate? Think I saw it at truthout.org, but ... hm... Nope, Demand Progress email.
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/six_strikes/?akid=1700.1459863.vu9XPV&rd=1&t=3
Also from them the case coming up to the Supreme court, Kirstaeng vs. Wiley, which is (despite appearances) not about copyright. It's about protecting a fading business model that gouges Americans pricewise.
Me, my feelings are simple. I am willing to protect copyrights if the copyright holders make the material broadly available at a reasonable cost. Things which are out of print and unavailable from the source should lose copyright protections. There should be penalties for false accusations of copyright violations on the net, and under no circumstance should an entire website be shut down (like the educational blogs! http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/15/3509800/dmca-takedown-request-pearson-serverbeach-edublogs) because of a violation on one page. That's like burning down the hotel you were staying in because there were prostitutes on the fifth floor, even though your laptop was in your room on the fifteenth floor. This also applies to mediafire or megaupload or whichever one it was. Doesn't matter if the hotel manager knew about the prostitute ring, there were still a lot of people using the service for legitimate purposes.
And on top of which, having the police shut down the entire site throws the economic model of cloud computing into doubt. What happens when someone shuts down google over copyright violations?
have fun!
Reply
No, I'm not on any mailing lists. I've followed the arguments with interest on LJ, but haven't had to form coherent thoughts until... 2 days from now.
> It's about protecting a fading business model that gouges Americans pricewise
This is completely my prejudice in the matter, I'm sorry to say. Businesses always fight new technology or consumer rights. The pittance that goes to the artist is not the motivation behind these laws. It's like Disney going after the janitor who drew Disney figures on the wall to entertain the kids, and was taken to court. Just greedy lunacy, that isn't even self-serving, because they kill their potential markets.
Whoops, sermonizing. I shall read and wallow. Thanks so very much!
Reply
Leave a comment