51–60 of 117 posts
“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a license. It's a purchase of an item that becomes your own possession, and a law that covers what you can do as far as resale (also applies to books). It's not a license because it cannot be revoked by whoever sold it to you.
> It's not a license. It's a purchase of an item that becomes your own possession, and a law that covers what you can do as far as resale (also applies to books). So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world? And if I have it but am not allowed to listen to it, what is that lack of playing-permission called if not 'not owning a license'? > It's not a license because it…
I don't recall the precise case law that applies to CDs. There's certainly a version of things (probably the one desired by record companies) in which one or both of these is true (a) you can't rip it (b) you can't listen to the rips after you've sold it.
Remember, methods of enforcing such a legal regime are distinct from the regime itself.
> Licences can be irrevocable, so this isn't a necessary property of a licence.
With networked digital technology, it is not always a matter of the legal terms of the license. If the playback mechanism requires contacting a remote server, whether you have a license of not does not matter if said server is no longer in existence.
And sure, licenses can be irrevocable, but those connected with digital media, in general, have not been.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, there's no chance that this golden goose could ever be killed in a modern democracy. If the companies would still be profitable paying 50% royalties, then the 38% difference between that and 12% royalties represents the amount the industry will be able to spend (without thinking about it for a moment) to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks, and settle cases like this.
> to bribe politicians, create fake public-interest organizations and think-tanks In other words to fool you, the voter. But if you've been fooled, how do you know these things? Are you acting on your knowledge and voting against those corrupt politicians and against those who agree with the propaganda? How does nobody else know this?
“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.
I think he's talking about the original copyright law from 1790, back before congress lost the ability to pass productive legislation
“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.
Congress doesn't even bother reading the bills they pass. Most of the actual details are deferred to the administrative bureaucracy. That's where the real power is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress doesn't even bother reading the bills they pass. Most of the actual details are deferred to the administrative bureaucracy. That's where the real power is.
The deep state is a real thing. I don’t think it has to be explicitly negative, but there are a lot of unelected bureaucrats that hold a lot of power with minimal accountability and visibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress doesn't even bother reading the bills they pass. Most of the actual details are deferred to the administrative bureaucracy. That's where the real power is.
The deep state is a real thing. I don’t think it has to be explicitly negative, but there are a lot of unelected bureaucrats that hold a lot of power with minimal accountability and visibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The deep state is a real thing. I don’t think it has to be explicitly negative, but there are a lot of unelected bureaucrats that hold a lot of power with minimal accountability and visibility.
Are you talking about Government employees or lobbyists? BTW, notice that their power is circumscribed by the law. When that changes their powers change.
Is this just wordplay? When you click "Buy now", are you just buying a license? Is "ownership" just a byproduct of physical goods? If I say I own a record, the proof is basically in the pudding. But how do I prove I own an MP3 file? I'd probably need to do something like show a receipt for it. But then again, what if I have shown that receipt to 100 people I've sold "my" copy of the MP3 file to? With physical reality…
And then, along came the blockchain and NFTs... one receipt per purchase?? This obviously doesn't help the streaming services, but, this - or something similar would help solve the quantum entanglement of digital music.
Blockchain might be amazeballs but it doesn't seem to scale THAT well.
“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.
Yes, and the problem is not limited to copyright