Summations Only

You've changed the subject.The question in play is not whether copyright holders make revenue, but instead whether piracy reduces that revenue. I'm looking for abounding your evidence of that.As a side note, I don't think people are using DRM on music anymore.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Tangle's point was that if copyright were abolished, that people would still go to the movies because of the big screen social experience, but that no movie theatre would pay any money to MGM.Why would the cinema operator pay for content he can get for free?

Let me refresh your memory. So where is that "abounding evidence" that the copyright holder would "sell no less copies than they would under our system of legally-binding anti-consumer DRM"?

I didn't ignore i, because it is not necessarily true. Determinging that some yet to be developed solution is better than copying an existing design is not trivial. And without the ability to protect their own invention from copying, Google might not be able recoup their investment.Without the incentive offered by the patent system, Google might not even have bothered doing the research in the first place.

The discussion is not limited to that type of piracy. I addressed a question regarding what would happen if copyright were abolished.

I did not ignore your point. Instead I described a scenario in which competition actually would increase despite the fact that there was a barrier to entry. Without the patent monopoly, perhaps neither party would have developed a capacitive touch screen. That's could happen. And in my Google hypothetical, Google was quite surprised to find out that there was an actual advantage. All Google really wanted to do was avoid paying royalties to Apple. The new improved technology was a windfall. Cute. Just because you don't acknowledge being on the wrong end of an argument doesn't mean I haven't been right. Did you locate that evidence that "abounds" yet?I don't think there was ever a dispute between us about at least one particular advantage of the patent system. For some reason you seem to have decided that there aren't any other advantages.
No crashfrog, you didn't teach me anything regarding the IP Clause of the constitution.Why do you believe we have Cialis and Levitra, when Viagra seems to work just fine? Do you see no advantages to society at all in having more than one solution to a problem.

Jon,Why don't you go back and read the messages between Huntard and Tangle prior to the point where I interjected.

For me, a major concern with the current copyright protection business model is the huge amount of public resources being made available to prop up the model.Both copyright and patents allow civil suits, financed by the owner of the intellectual property, to recover lost profits from misappropriation. Your rights extend to what you are willing to go to court, and pay the cost to defend.But it is only the copyright regime (and to a lesser extent trademark law) that dedicates huge amounts of public resources to propping up a business model that has huge technological holes it it.For example there are provisions for criminal prosecution of copyright infringement where no such provisions exists for even willful and egregious patent infringement. The well monied can ask the Department of Justice, and local federal prosecutors to go after copyright infringers who have made more than X amount of copies or infringed Y number of works. The RIAA or Apple might be able to get federal help in conducting copyright raids on citizens, while Joe podunc software company is forced to sue in civil court at his own expense.SOPA and PIPA are pieces of legislation design to allow copyright holders an even greater ability to get public officials on public money to protect rights that they would otherwise have to go to court and spend their own money to enforce. Yest the DOJ is unlikely to want to bother when the local software little guy needs to get paid because some local government official decides not to honor a contract.In short, the enforcement of copyright law has become a government grant of public money, police protection, and PR for a bunch of wealthy interests. Those interests are the most well positioned to pay their own costs for enforcing their rights.

I would disagree with that characterization. It is possible to have free speech (which in my view is essentially speech as allowed under the first amendment) without allowing people to post MGM's movies with impunity. SOPA and PIPA don't manage to do that, but other measured do.I simply don't agree that there is any moral imperative that requires allowing people to distribute movies for free, just because they don't want to pay the asked for compensation. There simply isn't anything essential about being able to watch LW18. But I also don't believe that a high priorty for the government should be chasing down infringers on behalf of Hollywood in ways that crush speech completely unrelated to any infringment.The law includes lots of balancing acts between free speech and the copyright holder's interest. Copyright is limited by first sale doctrine which allows people to sell, lease, and rent copyrighted material that they have purchases (with some limits), fair use which allows uses like comentary, critique, parody, time and medium shifting, the Audio Home Recording Act, provisions for classroom use, etc. But those provisions still allow copyright holder's to make money by controlling the copying and distribution of copyrighted materials. SOPA and PIPA go much further in disturbing the balance between protected activities and money'd interests.I agree with Tangle. Nothing is stopping you or anybody else from seeking other business models for their music, movies, and other art.

No. That is not what you are proposing.I don't see a single person here defending SOPA, PIPA, or the portions of the DMCA that cover DRM. Most of the remaining portions of the copyright system, other than the length of copyright, are essentially the same thing the US adobed back in the 18th century. Of course even a 28 year copyright term would prevent you from downloading Lethal Weapon 18 before the film industry had a chance to make a profit from the movie.'So IMO, if you really want to persuade people away from their posted positions, it is you who needs to explain why the copyright system datingf from at least the founding of this country and largely inherited from Great Britain, isn't good enough for you.The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA do make it illegal to rip DRM protected material like DVDs, but it is has never been legal to post the ripped material to a public forum even before DMCA was enacted.

That's true, but you seem to object to protecting LW 18 for even a few months. Again, your position seems to extend way beyond the point which your arguments justify.ABE Does your memory record a film in a tangible medium of expression capable of being distributed or copied? Because copyright law does not protect anything else.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Storage in your memory is not considered tangible as defined under copyright law. Further, copyright law does not prevent you from describing movie scenes orally. Copyright law would prevent you from doing a public peformance in which you recited the entire movie dialog from memory, but that isn't what you want to do is it?Perhaps this line of argument is not getting leading to the conclusion you want to promote. I think you are trying to argue that laws preventing you from posting/downloading movies to/from from the internet not only impinge upon your right to free speech, but are a recent configuration that others need to defend. I don't think you can get there this way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Go ahead and talk. People discuss the Hobbit publically all of the time. And they don't need to interfere with any of the rights defined in 17 USC 106 to do so; they can rely on the exceptions granted in 17 USC 107 through 123.Please consider the definitions in 17 USC 101 before arguing about the literal meaning of the statutes cited below.

quote:

---

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

---

quote:

---

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
How Current is This?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

---

I didn't suggest anything like six months. I suggested something between the 14 and 28 years that were established 200 years ago at the founding of this country and which are actually much older than even that. I did pointeout that your own proposal didn't accomodate even a few months.My only point is that the burden is on you to show why copyright law as proposed 200 years ago isn't acceptable. I don't have to defend DRM, SOPA or PIPA, or DVD region, or import/export laws, or any other new fangled stuff because I am not arguing in favor of any of those. As best as I can tell nobody else here is either.

Again, don't believe everything that the copyright holder says. There are no legal obstacles to talking about Hobbits that are not trivially easy to avoid.