3 ms·

I can't tell if this is meant to be sarcastic or not. It looks like in taking the Devil's advocate position, you just drew a pretty close parallel between what

by yebyen 12y ago

I can't tell if this is meant to be sarcastic or not. It looks like in taking the Devil's advocate position, you just drew a pretty close parallel between what the "other" "real" incumbent entertainment industry companies themselves actually do all day long masquerading as "legitimate enterprise" and what Mega-co the competition is doing. Of course copyright is not actually licensed as FRAND like in the case of a patent accepted by some standards body, but I'm not sure why it shouldn't be when the alternative seems to be violent state-sponsored actions against foreign nationals like Kim Dotcom, protecting interests of incumbent super-companies and using various kinds of taxpayer dollars to invoke the police and para-military in the process.

anon4 12y ago
Looks like an ifbywhiskey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
- yebyen 12y ago
  Huh. I wonder why this is addressed as a fallacy. I was thinking this is poignant. To me it reads more like "can't have your cake and eat it too." Like, if you are selling access to content, the producers are reasonably entitled to a share of your revenue. But if the producers sign their rights away (granting "entity" an exclusive license to sell reproductions) they are entitled to whatever you signed to pay at the dotted line, only. That's how the content industry was run since forever. When those licenses are written as non-exclusive, you might have a gnarly mess of Guitarist and Singer authorize Band authorizes Agent authorizes Advertising Partner authorizes Radio Station authorizes Distribution Company authorizes Pandora/Netflix authorizes Partner, and Friends. If one of those contracts goes south (non-payment or expiration), are all of the subcontracting child parties suddenly violating criminal law and liable for jail time because they're now distributing copyrighted works without authorization? Of course not, they are in breach of contract, or in a contract dispute, or a failure to achieve a meeting of the minds, or whatever. You don't go to jail. Not in any reasonable society, at least I would argue. Not before one of the entitled parties says "cease and desist," and after you fail to comply within a reasonable period of time, and even then certainly not before a judge says so.

by yebyen 12y ago

anon4 12y ago

Looks like an ifbywhiskey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey

yebyen 12y ago
Huh. I wonder why this is addressed as a fallacy. I was thinking this is poignant. To me it reads more like "can't have your cake and eat it too." Like, if you are selling access to content, the producers are reasonably entitled to a share of your revenue. But if the producers sign their rights away (granting "entity" an exclusive license to sell reproductions) they are entitled to whatever you signed to pay at the dotted line, only. That's how the content industry was run since forever. When those licenses are written as non-exclusive, you might have a gnarly mess of Guitarist and Singer authorize Band authorizes Agent authorizes Advertising Partner authorizes Radio Station authorizes Distribution Company authorizes Pandora/Netflix authorizes Partner, and Friends. If one of those contracts goes south (non-payment or expiration), are all of the subcontracting child parties suddenly violating criminal law and liable for jail time because they're now distributing copyrighted works without authorization? Of course not, they are in breach of contract, or in a contract dispute, or a failure to achieve a meeting of the minds, or whatever. You don't go to jail. Not in any reasonable society, at least I would argue. Not before one of the entitled parties says "cease and desist," and after you fail to comply within a reasonable period of time, and even then certainly not before a judge says so.