In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much.>>
The seeders.... you mean the people who actually load the material to the net? If so, no one is stopping the copyright *owners* from filing lawsuits against Jane Doe. So exactly what damage are you trying to contain here?
They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style.
And if after you keep attacking housewives and children, your image is horrible, well that's your tough luck as well. If people hate you because you're trying to protect a work on which you haven't *actually* made any income in thirty-five years.... that's your tough luck.
I shouldn't use the work "luck" however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the "Knock it off or else" proposal.
Will "Tough Love" Johnson
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much.>>
They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style.
The loss to the economy is staggering. Yet you'd do nothing, apply no sanctions, bitch about rights management, and let $billions each year be filtch from the creative industries. That 13 yo is as much a thief as the person that smashes the jewelers window and throws the contents into the street. Maybe we should have her MySpace and Facebook page branded with THIEF.
And if after you keep attacking housewives and children, your image is horrible, well that's your tough luck as well. If people hate you because you're trying to protect a work on which you haven't *actually* made any income in thirty-five years.... that's your tough luck.
I shouldn't use the work "luck" however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself.
What that someone who creates something that others want is to blame, because others have decided that they somehow have an entitlement to take?
How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the "Knock it off or else" proposal.
The bulk of the theft is contemporary works, not the works from 10 years ago, but the works that were created last week.
That aside if I invest a bunch of money in some stocks that gives me a share in the profits of that companies I've invested in. No one says that in 10 years time my rights to a share in those profits are forfeit, and the rights devolved to some general class of whiners and moaners with an inflated sense of entitlement.
This discussion is utterly and unsalvageably out of scope for this mailing list. If you wish to continue it, please do so on another forum, preferably one which does not result in the inundation of uninterested parties with your opinions on the enforcement of copyright law.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much.>>
They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style.
The loss to the economy is staggering. Yet you'd do nothing, apply no sanctions, bitch about rights management, and let $billions each year be filtch from the creative industries. That 13 yo is as much a thief as the person that smashes the jewelers window and throws the contents into the street. Maybe we should have her MySpace and Facebook page branded with THIEF.
And if after you keep attacking housewives and children, your image is horrible, well that's your tough luck as well. If people hate you because you're trying to protect a work on which you haven't *actually* made any income in thirty-five years.... that's your tough luck.
I shouldn't use the work "luck" however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself.
What that someone who creates something that others want is to blame, because others have decided that they somehow have an entitlement to take?
How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the "Knock it off or else" proposal.
The bulk of the theft is contemporary works, not the works from 10 years ago, but the works that were created last week.
That aside if I invest a bunch of money in some stocks that gives me a share in the profits of that companies I've invested in. No one says that in 10 years time my rights to a share in those profits are forfeit, and the rights devolved to some general class of whiners and moaners with an inflated sense of entitlement.
Hello,
2010/7/2 wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much.
They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style.
The loss to the economy is staggering. Yet you'd do nothing, apply no sanctions, bitch about rights management, and let $billions each year be filtch from the creative industries. That 13 yo is as much a thief as the person that smashes the jewelers window and throws the contents into the street. Maybe we should have her MySpace and Facebook page branded with THIEF.
Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. There is no loss, because most of the music which is freely downloaded would never be bought. These $billions never existed, and there will never exist.
I even think that the opposite is sometime true. That by making a work freely available online, you create an incentive for buying it. Since the cost of the online publishing is marginal, there is an opportunity for profit.
And if after you keep attacking housewives and children, your image is horrible, well that's your tough luck as well. If people hate you because you're trying to protect a work on which you haven't *actually* made any income in thirty-five years.... that's your tough luck.
I shouldn't use the work "luck" however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself.
What that someone who creates something that others want is to blame, because others have decided that they somehow have an entitlement to take?
How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the "Knock it off or else" proposal.
The bulk of the theft is contemporary works, not the works from 10 years ago, but the works that were created last week.
That aside if I invest a bunch of money in some stocks that gives me a share in the profits of that companies I've invested in. No one says that in 10 years time my rights to a share in those profits are forfeit, and the rights devolved to some general class of whiners and moaners with an inflated sense of entitlement.
You cannot blame others if you invest money in the wrong place.
The point is that the publishing industry _has_ to review its economic model with the new technical situation which is the Internet, and whether it publishes music, video or text.
Regards,
Yann
Yann Forget wrote:
Hello,
2010/7/2 wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much.
They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style.
The loss to the economy is staggering. Yet you'd do nothing, apply no sanctions, bitch about rights management, and let $billions each year be filtch from the creative industries. That 13 yo is as much a thief as the person that smashes the jewelers window and throws the contents into the street. Maybe we should have her MySpace and Facebook page branded with THIEF.
Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. There is no loss, because most of the music which is freely downloaded would never be bought. These $billions never existed, and there will never exist.
I even think that the opposite is sometime true. That by making a work freely available online, you create an incentive for buying it. Since the cost of the online publishing is marginal, there is an opportunity for profit.
Online publishing is NOT the cost vector here. The actual material costs are negligible. If supermarkets can fly apples across the globe, sell them for pennies and still make a profit then transport and storage costs aren't an issue either. The cost are for paying the session musicians, the sound engineer, hire of the recording equipment, the mikes, amplifiers, all that sort of stuff. If you skimp on that your song sounds like shit. Then there is all the additional costs involved in getting it to market.
That aside if I invest a bunch of money in some stocks that gives me a share in the profits of that companies I've invested in. No one says that in 10 years time my rights to a share in those profits are forfeit, and the rights devolved to some general class of whiners and moaners with an inflated sense of entitlement.
You cannot blame others if you invest money in the wrong place.
EH! There is protection for someone who invests in an oil rig their investment is protected for life and beyond, or until the well runs dry. But those that invest in creating something that advances science and the arts etc, those that are successful at it, those ones they get their investment taken away. Wow that's fair.
The point is that the publishing industry _has_ to review its economic model with the new technical situation which is the Internet, and whether it publishes music, video or text.
I have the impression that back in the C15 you'd have been there arguing Hey those peasants need to review their economic model of growing crops for market, now that there is this new technical situation which is the gun.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2010 05:44 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I shouldn't use the work "luck" however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the "Knock it off or else" proposal.
Ten years is an awfully short time[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_fame_of_Vincent_van_Gogh
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Cary Bass wrote:
On 06/30/2010 05:44 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I shouldn't use the work "luck" however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the "Knock it off or else" proposal.
Ten years is an awfully short time[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_fame_of_Vincent_van_Gogh
What good would even ten years have done for Van Gogh? Without a lot of promotion by Theo's wife, Vincent could very well have sunk into obscurity like so many artists habituating the streets of Montmartre. Vincent also had no children of his own. What needs to be revisited is the long term of copyright beyond a person's death. Who should really benefit at this point.
I would support a "use-it-or-lose-it" after the initial ten year period. If the owner doesn't make a previously published work available to the public at a reasonable price he should lose the copyright.
Ray
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org