7 ms·

As a non-lawyer, the fact that we are still trying to halt the progress of technology in the name of protecting anachronistic business models is the most troubl

As a non-lawyer, the fact that we are still trying to halt the progress of technology in the name of protecting anachronistic business models is the most troubling part. The problem is not what a "public performance" means; the problem is that we are still thinking in such terms.

rayiner 14y ago
Painting these debates as "trying to halt the progress of technology" is utterly absurd. Nobody is going after Aero for setting up a television streaming service. People are going after Aero for setting up a television streaming service with their content.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  The only way to maintain exclusive ownership of "their" content is to lock it in a vault and keep it out of the public culture. Eventually rightsholders, legislators, judges, and even attorneys will come to understand that simple truth.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    So might makes right? I don't get to maintain exclusive ownership of my car if I don't keep it locked in a vault?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I for one would not hesitate to download your car. Better keep it locked up.
      - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
        I would also download a car, especially if I had a printer big enough to make use of it.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        That's an interesting consideration, and it's worth thinking through. What happens when it does become possible to download and print cars? Who will still design cars if designs are not protectable? Hobbyists? If that's the case, will they be any good? You can point to top-notch open source software, but so much of it became really good only because some company figured out how to monetize it. Maybe some company will figure out how to monetize digital cars without charging for the designs. It'll probably be worse than just paying for the designs (e.g. advertising). Or, maybe nobody will figure out how to monetize it, like open source games, and the results will be crap. And even if hobbyists do design say sports coupes, will they also design say minivans? If they don't, that's a market failure--there is a demand for minivans, and people capable of designing minivans, but no way to monetize the designs hence no minivans.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        I do not think that 3d printing is really the game-changer that people think that it is. You can already make things at home, even copying industrial designs. For example, lots of people seem to be concerned about the implications of printable guns, but making your own guns can already be done with a surprisingly modest collection of machining tools, and done better with those tools to boot. Much more accessible and popular, you can copy clothing patterns with modest sewing skills and equipment that you can pick up at nearly any yardsale. (In fact, if I am not mistaken, DRM has already reared its ugly head in some particular niches of fashion...). I would even go so far as to say that printing your own car will be unpopular/uncommon for the exact same reasons that sewing your own clothing is currently unpopular/uncommon (it will be labor intensive, take a lot of space, and acquiring the correct materials will be a chore). My hope would be that everyone keeps a level head about 3d printing and thinks before going nuclear^W legal. In answer to your question "What happens when it does become possible to download and print cars?": barring hyperactive lawyers overreacting, probably very little of any consequence.
        chii 14y ago
        current amature manufacturing tech is way below par when copmpared with industrial manufacturing tech. When downloading digital media, the reproduction is perfect, and takes no effort. Current home kits for making things are far from perfect, and takes a lot more effort in comparison to digital media reproduction. This is why 3D printing hasn't really taken off. When the day you can recreate a perfect car/bike/toaster like the one you buy from a shop, printed at home with a click of a button, then you'd see the car manufacturers sueing people for laser scanning their model/designs and uploading it - just the same as the media conglomerates doing so right now. When the masses can perform what used to be the domain of the specialists, the specialists would necessarily have to disappear.
    - count 14y ago
      Might has always made right, always. From the American Revolutionary War to the Arab Spring. In modern society, the laws of the land are enforced under physical duress by the police (and sometimes military). If you break a law, the might of the nation will physically detain you and lock you in a room for years, or even kill you outright, depending on the conditions of the violation. The question is, who's might makes right - does 'society', in control of the police and the 'might' side with 'culture' or 'business' in these cases?
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      Property rights don't apply to other people's property, apparently.
      - CamperBob2 14y ago
        These "property rights" you speak of are not natural rights. They were spun from whole cloth very recently. They have changed before, and they will change again. What we're seeing here is the social pressure that will drive that change, for better or worse.
        rayiner 14y ago
        There is no such thing as "natural rights." Rights are utilitarian, or otherwise based on the morality of the society (relative, not absolute). Property is certainly spun from whole cloth. Animals after all do not have property rights, merely possession. As for copyright being recent: there have been protections against copying creative works pretty much as long as it's been possible to copy creative works. In Britain, within 50 years or so of printing presses proliferating in the country, printing became the subject of government-granted monopolies (only those with a charter could print). Copyright was introduced in surprisingly recognizable form with the Statute of Anne in 1710.
        betterunix 14y ago
        "there have been protections against copying creative works pretty much as long as it's been possible to copy creative works" Funny how in ancient times, there were cities that required that any books brought into the city be copied and stored in the library. It was because of the copying activities of monks and scholars that we have man ancient works, and nobody complained about them copying things. Restrictions on copying entered the picture because of censorship. You talk about the pre-Statute of Anne copying restrictions as though they had anything to do with the creators of written works; those restrictions existed solely for the purpose of censoring authors. The side of effect of those approaches in English law was the creation of a large, powerful publishing monopoly, which is how the Statute of Anne was created in the first place (the lobbying effort was led by and almost entirely consisted of the businesses that had benefited from the previous system).
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      I don't get to maintain exclusive ownership of my car if I don't keep it locked in a vault? Sigh. Yes, and nuclear weapons are also a useful subject to raise when arguing about gun control.
- betterunix 14y ago
  No, this is about killing modern technology. The broadcasters want to prevent the Internet from becoming a distribution system for entertainment, because once that happens there will be no profit in broadcasting. They are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that the only way for entertainment to be distributed over the Internet is for the Internet to become a fancy cable TV system. Aereo's technology is not standalone. They are using the Internet to do exactly what the Internet is supposed to be used for, which is the sharing of computing resources. This is a debate about whether or not that kind of technology is acceptable, not about whether or not antenna arrays are acceptable. There would have been no antenna arrays if the copyright lobbyists had been shown the door; we got to this point because outdated industries want to stop technological progress that threatens their antiquated business models.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > The broadcasters want to prevent the Internet from becoming a distribution system for entertainment, because once that happens there will be no profit in broadcasting. The internet is already a distribution system for entertainment. I don't see the MPAA/RIAA suing Youtube because people are posting funny videos of their cat on there. They're suing to keep the internet from being a distribution system for the entertainment they create. > Aereo's technology is not standalone. They are using the Internet to do exactly what the Internet is supposed to be used for, which is the sharing of computing resources. Aereo didn't get sued for its technology. If they had been broadcasting their own content nobody would've cared. Look at it another way: where is all the wonderful Kickstarter-funded, Creative Commons-licensed, torrent-seeded content that everyone is just dying to watch? There are zero legal hurdles to replacing the existing content industry if you can come up with a product people actually want.
    - jchavannes 14y ago
      The underlying issue is that broadcasters are creating an artificial scarcity to drive demand. I find that to be more unethical than exploiting a loophole.
      - 14y ago
- csallen 14y ago
  The problem lies with believing that you're entitled to a successful, non-threatened business model. The problem lies with believing that the law should be changed primarily to protect your business model. Sorry, but just because something is "your" content doesn't mean you should be guaranteed to make money off of it, or control every aspect of it. For example, if I set up a stand on a street corner that creates an amazing aromas, it would not suddenly become my right to charge passersby for smelling these aromas, even though they are "mine". Rather than trying to get the law changed to guarantee I make money, I should instead modify my business model to one that doesn't suck.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > The problem lies with believing that you're entitled to a successful, non-threatened business model. The problem lies with believing that the law should be changed primarily to protect your business model. Nobody is entitled to a non-threatened business model. At the same time, Congress is entitled to limit unfair competition and free-riding off peoples' work, and in this case it has seen fit to do so. That's the crucial distinction that anti-copyright folks ignore. This isn't just about protecting a business model from technological change. It's about protecting a business model against a different business model: profiting from selling content you didn't create and didn't pay for. It would be one thing if nobody wanted to watch big-budget Hollywood movies anymore, and MPAA were lobbying for laws to shut down P2P and Youtube so indie content producers couldn't distribute the movies that people did want to watch. But that's not what's happening here. Demand for Hollywood movies has never been higher, and despite a total lack of legal roadblocks, indie content has not become popular hardly at all. What's happening is that companies like Youtube and Aereo, etc, have figured out there is profit to be made by being middle-men between the big-budget Hollywood content people demand and the consumers. Ideally, for them, there would be no copyright so they could get content for free attract viewers to peddle their advertising to. It's one thing to prop up your business model against technological obsolescence that eliminates demand for your product. It's another thing to protect your rights against people free-riding on your creations, creations for which demand is higher than ever. > For example, if I set up a stand on a street corner that creates an amazing aromas, it would not suddenly become my right to charge passersby for smelling these aromas, even though they are "mine". But could you sue someone for putting up a big fan to blow the aroma into the air and charging people to stand in front?
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  Is it a television streaming service or a format shifting service? If you take the line that it is merely format shifting, then what stake does a copyright holder have in that argument?
- runn1ng 14y ago
  If I get it correctly (not being an US citizen), they are streaming something that already got over the air for free in one area and streaming it to more areas, right? In that case, the Big Owners are already giving it away for free in New York and nobody gets hurt, if people somewhere else see it for money, right?

rayiner 14y ago

Painting these debates as "trying to halt the progress of technology" is utterly absurd. Nobody is going after Aero for setting up a television streaming service. People are going after Aero for setting up a television streaming service with their content.

CamperBob2 14y ago
The only way to maintain exclusive ownership of "their" content is to lock it in a vault and keep it out of the public culture. Eventually rightsholders, legislators, judges, and even attorneys will come to understand that simple truth.
- rayiner 14y ago
  So might makes right? I don't get to maintain exclusive ownership of my car if I don't keep it locked in a vault?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I for one would not hesitate to download your car. Better keep it locked up.
    - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
      I would also download a car, especially if I had a printer big enough to make use of it.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      That's an interesting consideration, and it's worth thinking through. What happens when it does become possible to download and print cars? Who will still design cars if designs are not protectable? Hobbyists? If that's the case, will they be any good? You can point to top-notch open source software, but so much of it became really good only because some company figured out how to monetize it. Maybe some company will figure out how to monetize digital cars without charging for the designs. It'll probably be worse than just paying for the designs (e.g. advertising). Or, maybe nobody will figure out how to monetize it, like open source games, and the results will be crap. And even if hobbyists do design say sports coupes, will they also design say minivans? If they don't, that's a market failure--there is a demand for minivans, and people capable of designing minivans, but no way to monetize the designs hence no minivans.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        I do not think that 3d printing is really the game-changer that people think that it is. You can already make things at home, even copying industrial designs. For example, lots of people seem to be concerned about the implications of printable guns, but making your own guns can already be done with a surprisingly modest collection of machining tools, and done better with those tools to boot. Much more accessible and popular, you can copy clothing patterns with modest sewing skills and equipment that you can pick up at nearly any yardsale. (In fact, if I am not mistaken, DRM has already reared its ugly head in some particular niches of fashion...). I would even go so far as to say that printing your own car will be unpopular/uncommon for the exact same reasons that sewing your own clothing is currently unpopular/uncommon (it will be labor intensive, take a lot of space, and acquiring the correct materials will be a chore). My hope would be that everyone keeps a level head about 3d printing and thinks before going nuclear^W legal. In answer to your question "What happens when it does become possible to download and print cars?": barring hyperactive lawyers overreacting, probably very little of any consequence.
        chii 14y ago
        current amature manufacturing tech is way below par when copmpared with industrial manufacturing tech. When downloading digital media, the reproduction is perfect, and takes no effort. Current home kits for making things are far from perfect, and takes a lot more effort in comparison to digital media reproduction. This is why 3D printing hasn't really taken off. When the day you can recreate a perfect car/bike/toaster like the one you buy from a shop, printed at home with a click of a button, then you'd see the car manufacturers sueing people for laser scanning their model/designs and uploading it - just the same as the media conglomerates doing so right now. When the masses can perform what used to be the domain of the specialists, the specialists would necessarily have to disappear.
  - count 14y ago
    Might has always made right, always. From the American Revolutionary War to the Arab Spring. In modern society, the laws of the land are enforced under physical duress by the police (and sometimes military). If you break a law, the might of the nation will physically detain you and lock you in a room for years, or even kill you outright, depending on the conditions of the violation. The question is, who's might makes right - does 'society', in control of the police and the 'might' side with 'culture' or 'business' in these cases?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Property rights don't apply to other people's property, apparently.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      These "property rights" you speak of are not natural rights. They were spun from whole cloth very recently. They have changed before, and they will change again. What we're seeing here is the social pressure that will drive that change, for better or worse.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        There is no such thing as "natural rights." Rights are utilitarian, or otherwise based on the morality of the society (relative, not absolute). Property is certainly spun from whole cloth. Animals after all do not have property rights, merely possession. As for copyright being recent: there have been protections against copying creative works pretty much as long as it's been possible to copy creative works. In Britain, within 50 years or so of printing presses proliferating in the country, printing became the subject of government-granted monopolies (only those with a charter could print). Copyright was introduced in surprisingly recognizable form with the Statute of Anne in 1710.
        betterunix 14y ago
        "there have been protections against copying creative works pretty much as long as it's been possible to copy creative works" Funny how in ancient times, there were cities that required that any books brought into the city be copied and stored in the library. It was because of the copying activities of monks and scholars that we have man ancient works, and nobody complained about them copying things. Restrictions on copying entered the picture because of censorship. You talk about the pre-Statute of Anne copying restrictions as though they had anything to do with the creators of written works; those restrictions existed solely for the purpose of censoring authors. The side of effect of those approaches in English law was the creation of a large, powerful publishing monopoly, which is how the Statute of Anne was created in the first place (the lobbying effort was led by and almost entirely consisted of the businesses that had benefited from the previous system).
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    I don't get to maintain exclusive ownership of my car if I don't keep it locked in a vault? Sigh. Yes, and nuclear weapons are also a useful subject to raise when arguing about gun control.
betterunix 14y ago
No, this is about killing modern technology. The broadcasters want to prevent the Internet from becoming a distribution system for entertainment, because once that happens there will be no profit in broadcasting. They are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that the only way for entertainment to be distributed over the Internet is for the Internet to become a fancy cable TV system. Aereo's technology is not standalone. They are using the Internet to do exactly what the Internet is supposed to be used for, which is the sharing of computing resources. This is a debate about whether or not that kind of technology is acceptable, not about whether or not antenna arrays are acceptable. There would have been no antenna arrays if the copyright lobbyists had been shown the door; we got to this point because outdated industries want to stop technological progress that threatens their antiquated business models.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > The broadcasters want to prevent the Internet from becoming a distribution system for entertainment, because once that happens there will be no profit in broadcasting. The internet is already a distribution system for entertainment. I don't see the MPAA/RIAA suing Youtube because people are posting funny videos of their cat on there. They're suing to keep the internet from being a distribution system for the entertainment they create. > Aereo's technology is not standalone. They are using the Internet to do exactly what the Internet is supposed to be used for, which is the sharing of computing resources. Aereo didn't get sued for its technology. If they had been broadcasting their own content nobody would've cared. Look at it another way: where is all the wonderful Kickstarter-funded, Creative Commons-licensed, torrent-seeded content that everyone is just dying to watch? There are zero legal hurdles to replacing the existing content industry if you can come up with a product people actually want.
  - jchavannes 14y ago
    The underlying issue is that broadcasters are creating an artificial scarcity to drive demand. I find that to be more unethical than exploiting a loophole.
    - 14y ago
csallen 14y ago
The problem lies with believing that you're entitled to a successful, non-threatened business model. The problem lies with believing that the law should be changed primarily to protect your business model. Sorry, but just because something is "your" content doesn't mean you should be guaranteed to make money off of it, or control every aspect of it. For example, if I set up a stand on a street corner that creates an amazing aromas, it would not suddenly become my right to charge passersby for smelling these aromas, even though they are "mine". Rather than trying to get the law changed to guarantee I make money, I should instead modify my business model to one that doesn't suck.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > The problem lies with believing that you're entitled to a successful, non-threatened business model. The problem lies with believing that the law should be changed primarily to protect your business model. Nobody is entitled to a non-threatened business model. At the same time, Congress is entitled to limit unfair competition and free-riding off peoples' work, and in this case it has seen fit to do so. That's the crucial distinction that anti-copyright folks ignore. This isn't just about protecting a business model from technological change. It's about protecting a business model against a different business model: profiting from selling content you didn't create and didn't pay for. It would be one thing if nobody wanted to watch big-budget Hollywood movies anymore, and MPAA were lobbying for laws to shut down P2P and Youtube so indie content producers couldn't distribute the movies that people did want to watch. But that's not what's happening here. Demand for Hollywood movies has never been higher, and despite a total lack of legal roadblocks, indie content has not become popular hardly at all. What's happening is that companies like Youtube and Aereo, etc, have figured out there is profit to be made by being middle-men between the big-budget Hollywood content people demand and the consumers. Ideally, for them, there would be no copyright so they could get content for free attract viewers to peddle their advertising to. It's one thing to prop up your business model against technological obsolescence that eliminates demand for your product. It's another thing to protect your rights against people free-riding on your creations, creations for which demand is higher than ever. > For example, if I set up a stand on a street corner that creates an amazing aromas, it would not suddenly become my right to charge passersby for smelling these aromas, even though they are "mine". But could you sue someone for putting up a big fan to blow the aroma into the air and charging people to stand in front?
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Is it a television streaming service or a format shifting service? If you take the line that it is merely format shifting, then what stake does a copyright holder have in that argument?
runn1ng 14y ago
If I get it correctly (not being an US citizen), they are streaming something that already got over the air for free in one area and streaming it to more areas, right? In that case, the Big Owners are already giving it away for free in New York and nobody gets hurt, if people somewhere else see it for money, right?