121–130 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming that copyright is the only way to make money out of writing, which is simply untrue.
Okay. So using the J.K. Rowling example: provide a plausible way that she could make money off of her writing, and particularly her first risky book, in the absence of copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make two arguments here, one about degree and the other about kind. As for kind, as others have pointed out, the intent of IP law is to create artificial scarcity . The marginal cost of information is 0, so you have to put turnstiles somewhere. Society has kind of blundered and stumbled into the mishmash of enforcement measures we have today, but the intent is to reward content creators. If you accept this is a g…
The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/drm ) and FSF ( https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html ) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ), it inevitably creates backdoors for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Her first book was also written without her receiving any money to do so. As to revenue Patrons, Trademark, etc also work. Shakespeare for example had zero copyright protection and still wrote quite a bit. PS: If anything the massive sums she received from the HP series discouraged her to write more.
> Her first book was also written without her receiving any money to do so. But she owned the copyright to it, and could trade that copyright for a contract on the book. That is, she had a viable monetization mechanism if her work was good. So once again: absent this, provide a plausible way Rowling could have made money on her first book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make two arguments here, one about degree and the other about kind. As for kind, as others have pointed out, the intent of IP law is to create artificial scarcity . The marginal cost of information is 0, so you have to put turnstiles somewhere. Society has kind of blundered and stumbled into the mishmash of enforcement measures we have today, but the intent is to reward content creators. If you accept this is a g…
The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/drm ) and FSF ( https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html ) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ), it inevitably creates backdoors for…
Just tested with Firefox on Android (Moto E4 phone). Firefox did not block taking a screenshot of this thread. Perhaps you may wish to test Firefox yourself to see if it better obey's you than Chrome does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it's right, but the constitution is wrong?
Then you follow the procedure outlined in article 5 to amend the Constitution.
Aside from the particulars of this case, I feel that the whole subject of copyright is generally anti-competitive and rent-seeking, as codified in the laws and time limits being inflated grossly to suit copyright holders in the current era. In my opinion, the argument that copyright extension incentivizes authors/creators doesn't hold much water. I generally observe that there are plenty of people willing to create a…
You make two arguments here, one about degree and the other about kind. As for kind, as others have pointed out, the intent of IP law is to create artificial scarcity . The marginal cost of information is 0, so you have to put turnstiles somewhere. Society has kind of blundered and stumbled into the mishmash of enforcement measures we have today, but the intent is to reward content creators. If you accept this is a g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judicial branch is supposed to rely on facts and logical arguments. That is not how “America” writ large, however, is “supposed to work.” If that’s what the framers anticipated, they would have have had the other two branches likewise run by unelected subject matter experts with life tenure. But they didn’t. The fact is that the world is too complicated to figure out via facts and logical analysis, and that’s why…
Hey, you're back! Glad to see you didn't leave forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. Also, IANAL, but my understanding is the annotations are de facto required reading for practitioners of law. They give all the background and history of the law, without which, you would be at a severe disadvantage in the courtroom.
I can’t quite agree that the annotations are ‘required reading’ for competent representation of a litigant. Some state’s official printings of statute are pretty bare (Louisiana in particular), but Georgia’s official documents are quite thorough. The area of law, the type of arguments, etc are all facets of what types of references make good arguments. I’m not aging the annotations aren’t a good reference, but that s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/drm ) and FSF ( https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html ) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ), it inevitably creates backdoors for…
> FWIW, my complete crap Chrome browser on my complete crap Samsung Android device refuses to allow me to screenshot this HN thread claiming it is a "DRM protected page". Just tested with Firefox on Android (Moto E4 phone). Firefox did not block taking a screenshot of this thread. Perhaps you may wish to test Firefox yourself to see if it better obey's you than Chrome does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IP laws are anti-competitive and rent-seeking, that's exactly the point. I agree that the amount of time copyrights are good for is ridiculous, but I still think it's better than not having them. Imagine if J.K.Rowling wrote the first 3 Harry Potter books but didn't see a dime because the second they got popular everyone with a printing press started selling them royalty-free. Would she have finished the series? I go…
You're assuming that copyright is the only way to make money out of writing, which is simply untrue.