4 ms·

At the risk of being flamed... I actually do think the DMCA is a similar example of how we all flipped out, and how it's actually been pretty good for companies

by randall 15y ago

At the risk of being flamed... I actually do think the DMCA is a similar example of how we all flipped out, and how it's actually been pretty good for companies in general. I remember writing a paper (college?) about how evil the DMCA seemed to me... but now it seems less sketch than before, especially since a few of my employers have benefited from safe harbors. I don't think Gucci et al need to be saved from the evils of counterfeiting, but I do think that intellectual property is currently a societal right, and trying to give people a non insane way to fight international infringement isn't necessarily a bad thing. Could it be door-in-the-face? Maybe, but I feel like if they would have presented an ITC mandated court proceeding, I, for one, wouldn't have flipped out as much.

jerf 15y ago
The DMCA is a collection of several laws. What people flipped out over (and are still disgruntled about) are the grotesquely overreaching DRM circumvention provisions and penalties. Safe harbor was generally ignored at the time the real furor occurred, and subsequently people have tarred the whole law with the same brush, but I've pretty much always thought the safe harbor provisions were reasonable. And I'd echo rbanffy's basic point. The solution to the problem of SOPA isn't an Overton-window step-2 watered-down SOPA... it's nothing. Society doesn't have a significant problem that so desperately needs solving that we must run the risk of shutting down the growth engine that is the Internet and online economy, which has long since dwarfed the loud-but-much-smaller content industry. If I had to lay money, I'd bet this passes. But a wise Google and a wise Internet would continue to push back even on the watered down version to make the point. The DMCA safe harbor is just fine as it is.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I agree. I think the solution to SOPA and PIPA is nothing, not a "lesser evil" or a "compromise". The music labels may die, but I don't think it's the Government's job to save them, just like it's not the Government's job to save the print media against Internet bloggers. I also don't think that there will be less music if the current music labels die. Copyright extensions have become ridiculous, and I think the labels have had their way for way too long in influencing the Government against the public and against the new creators. I think it's time to be reminded once again of Larry Lassig's TED video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs Also when you watch it, and see the airplane example, think about it how it could've been if they "compromised" on saying "Airplanes are free to pass over properties, but helicopters not". It would've still been just as ridiculous. Perhaps not the perfect analogy, but something to think about.
bad_user 15y ago
I do think that intellectual property is currently a societal right This line of thinking misses the point - you cannot talk about a societal right if it goes against human nature. And it is in human nature to share, much like making sex or having free will. It isn't hard to imagine a society in which your daughter is your property and you can marry her to whomever you want, selling her to the highest bidder. Such societies still exist in 2011. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that if the ration of women to men would get balanced, then some women are going to become independent and get married for free, slowly destroying a perfectly valid business model ... so what should people do in such a case? Push for legislation to fix it? So if your society gives rights that go against human nature, then your society is broken, really ;-) The real question is - how can we reward authors in a world where distributing digital works has zero cost? I can think of many options, including introducing an optional monthly tax for anything you may download without a license to do so, which would at least work for another 5-10 years. Otherwise technology has been invalidating business models since forever, so maybe it's time to grow-up, quit the winning and think of other ways to make money - like doing good old fashioned concerts that can't be cloned or pirated - Michael Jackson understood this simple fact and made a lot of money off concerts, however I could see this not working so well in the long run for the likes of Bieber and Britney Spears.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  In the end, it's like trying to save the ice industry from the competition with refrigerators. You will never again be able to sell, or profit from, goods that have zero cost of reproduction. Producers must find ways to sell what cannot be easily reproduced. Crowdfunding is just one of many models that solve this problem. The world has changed. It's about time those "rightsholders" got over it.

by randall 15y ago

jerf 15y ago

The DMCA is a collection of several laws. What people flipped out over (and are still disgruntled about) are the grotesquely overreaching DRM circumvention provisions and penalties. Safe harbor was generally ignored at the time the real furor occurred, and subsequently people have tarred the whole law with the same brush, but I've pretty much always thought the safe harbor provisions were reasonable. And I'd echo rbanffy's basic point. The solution to the problem of SOPA isn't an Overton-window step-2 watered-down SOPA... it's nothing. Society doesn't have a significant problem that so desperately needs solving that we must run the risk of shutting down the growth engine that is the Internet and online economy, which has long since dwarfed the loud-but-much-smaller content industry. If I had to lay money, I'd bet this passes. But a wise Google and a wise Internet would continue to push back even on the watered down version to make the point. The DMCA safe harbor is just fine as it is.

nextparadigms 15y ago
I agree. I think the solution to SOPA and PIPA is nothing, not a "lesser evil" or a "compromise". The music labels may die, but I don't think it's the Government's job to save them, just like it's not the Government's job to save the print media against Internet bloggers. I also don't think that there will be less music if the current music labels die. Copyright extensions have become ridiculous, and I think the labels have had their way for way too long in influencing the Government against the public and against the new creators. I think it's time to be reminded once again of Larry Lassig's TED video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs Also when you watch it, and see the airplane example, think about it how it could've been if they "compromised" on saying "Airplanes are free to pass over properties, but helicopters not". It would've still been just as ridiculous. Perhaps not the perfect analogy, but something to think about.

bad_user 15y ago

I do think that intellectual property is currently a societal right This line of thinking misses the point - you cannot talk about a societal right if it goes against human nature. And it is in human nature to share, much like making sex or having free will. It isn't hard to imagine a society in which your daughter is your property and you can marry her to whomever you want, selling her to the highest bidder. Such societies still exist in 2011. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that if the ration of women to men would get balanced, then some women are going to become independent and get married for free, slowly destroying a perfectly valid business model ... so what should people do in such a case? Push for legislation to fix it? So if your society gives rights that go against human nature, then your society is broken, really ;-) The real question is - how can we reward authors in a world where distributing digital works has zero cost? I can think of many options, including introducing an optional monthly tax for anything you may download without a license to do so, which would at least work for another 5-10 years. Otherwise technology has been invalidating business models since forever, so maybe it's time to grow-up, quit the winning and think of other ways to make money - like doing good old fashioned concerts that can't be cloned or pirated - Michael Jackson understood this simple fact and made a lot of money off concerts, however I could see this not working so well in the long run for the likes of Bieber and Britney Spears.

rbanffy 15y ago
In the end, it's like trying to save the ice industry from the competition with refrigerators. You will never again be able to sell, or profit from, goods that have zero cost of reproduction. Producers must find ways to sell what cannot be easily reproduced. Crowdfunding is just one of many models that solve this problem. The world has changed. It's about time those "rightsholders" got over it.