Comments on: Copyright Monopoly Trends And Predictions For 2013

By: Gene Poole

Gene Poole — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:33:00 +0000

“You mean Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Trent Reznor, Rebecca Black and Paulo Coelho – to name a few – never made a living of their art.”

to be fair, Reznor doesn’t belong in that list. He made a name for himself using Copyright before giving things away for free. But then, the information superhighway also didn’t exist during Pretty Hate Machine, and I’m pretty sure it was him leaving usb sticks filled with “leaked content” in the bathrooms at his concerts. No big respect for copyright there.

Still, his is a different situation than the others above, there.

By: Gene Poole

Gene Poole — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:17:00 +0000

Hey, man, I put that ring on her finger, it’s symbolic of the ring around her neck. I paid for that ring, she wears it, that means she’s my property. I own her.

((just don’t let my wife know I said, this, she’ll kill me!!))

By: Gene Poole

Gene Poole — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:15:00 +0000

“Rick’s original statement on Pirate principles does acknowledge trademark and name as the only valid part of IP

With that said, just as a follow up, Rick has also said before that anyone is more than welcome to plagiarize him, to take his work and present it as their own if they wish (Something about the Creative Commons he releases his stuff under?) and that social conventions and social pressure prove to be far greater disincentive than any potential legal action ever could be.

By: Wallace

Wallace — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:50:00 +0000

Now privacy equals theft?

By: Bobmail_and_asashiis_mom

Bobmail_and_asashiis_mom — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:46:00 +0000

Could you and your brother bring your dirty underwear up from the basement for me please? It’s washing day. Thanks, honey.

By: SoundnuoS

SoundnuoS — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:52:00 +0000

Rebecca Black gets her money because copyright enables her to. Without copyright someone else would have sold her song on iTunes earning practically infinity roi on an investment of near zero.

Trent Reznor (like Radiohead when they did the same thing) has the recognition needed to pull off a stunt like that.
That recognition (for both) was created during their time in the major label system. That system with the significant investments made in them enabled them to build the name needed for this.
During their time in that system copyright was the only thing they had to protect them from total exploitation.

Without copyright someone else would be selling their records.

Note that neither Reznor nor Radiohead have chosen to repeat the experiment.

And last I heard Reznor is back with a major label for distribution. They must be of some use after all.
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012/10/trent-reznor-david-byrne-on-diy-vs-major-labels.html

Without copyright someone else would have sold Paulo Coelho’s book instead of him.

Your point?

As an aside, considering my attempt to debunk it in one of the threads above, I’m still interested to hear your motivation as to how article 27 in the UN declaration of human rights validates filesharing?

By: BJonesTF

BJonesTF — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 05:24:00 +0000

The thing is this, we have your IP, we have a timestamp, can we just accuse you of piracy and get a ‘strike’ against you?
Prove you didn’t do it, you can’t.
Did you do it? Do what? It’s just a claim, there’s no EVIDENCE, it’s an unverified accusation, and one you can’t defend against, because there’s no actual way TO defend against it.

By: SoundnuoS

SoundnuoS — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:39:00 +0000

@MadAsASnake

Thanks for taking the time to talk. I understand your concern for privacy and share it to a point, but disagree slightly about how far it can be defended.

Conserning HADOPI i found this bit of research: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1989240

which seems to show that HADOPI might not be such a bad idea.

French sales are up over 20% compared to the control group since the introduction of HADOPI.
This is for digital sales from Itunes only, so it’s quite possible total sales for all formats are up even more.

29 pages long but it could be interesting reading for anyone interested in the subject.

By: MadAsASnake

MadAsASnake — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:45:00 +0000

I’m signing off from this discussion. I understand your points, but there are a couple of things you don’t seem to get (and they are the ones I care about)
1. My privacy will not be blythely pushed aside because of your business interest. I have not pirated your stuff and have no interest in doing so. It is not my problem.
2. Any technical measure you can take to track those that *may* have pirated your stuff will violate 1. and will do so for the vast majority of the population. (you are about to piss of a potential fan, of course) You might know something about music, but you clearly know nothing about computing.
3. Have a look at HADOPI, and consider why it is failing. I mean it is failing TOTALLY, and expensive to boot. Have a look at the DEA – same problems. One element of the DEA is that they have to find reasonably technical measures to prevent piracy. They can’t. It has already been shown in a court of law that even a competent network technician cannot do this using typical home networking gear. The logs and traces do not exist.
4. And no, the whole planet is not going to install spyware just because of piracy. Why should I pay for that shit. The bigger problem is that it will undoubtedly be abused. This cannot be allowed to happen.

I’m not commenting here on whether piracy is good or bad. It is a fact, and one that will not go away. Legislation won’t help. You could legislate for pink elephants as well, you won’t get any.

By: SoundnuoS

SoundnuoS — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:48:00 +0000

To add to the post below: a quick point about commercialized exploitation.

You mean like the exploitation of creative people being done by torrent sites worldwide?