Don't argue with Zomby, don't argue with Zomby....
Don't argue with Zomby, don't argue with Zomby....
At some point you just have to say, "I will not comply."
In reply to HiTempguy:
Musicians make very little money on sales any more. That's why concert ticket prices are so high - it's the only way to make reliable, serious money for a big act. So if you take away revenue one place, it has to come from somewhere.
I think it's perfectly valid to expect payment of some form for your creative efforts...
...unless you CHOOSE to give it away, such as an artist does when putting their work on Toutube or wherever. The point is, they make that choice FOR THEMSELVES. You, or the random pirate, do NOT get to make that decision for them.
Duke wrote: In reply to HiTempguy: Musicians make very little money on sales any more. That's why concert ticket prices are so high
Concert tickets are so high because a Canadian promoter named Michael Cohl (correctly) determined that bands no longer needed to tour at a loss or break even, to support a new album, but the tour could also be an income generator equal to or greater than the album itself. Gone forever was the $5 concert ticket, and simple show, replaced by a marketing event.
Regarding the copyright thing, I find it odd (or hypocritical?) that a country (and people) so dedicated to the idea of a free market system is also the one that most aggressively pursues and enforces the kind copyright laws I disagree with. I have no interest in arguing about it. That's just how I feel.
^Why should tours be a loss leader when you think it should be OK to buy a CD for $15, then turn around and try to sell copies at $5 each.
It astounds me that you don't see the problem with this.
I haven't read the whole thread. Sorry if I'm out of context.
Heard about this on the radio yesterday. Reminded me of my old plan to sell "used" MP3s. I figured if it's okay to sell used CDs (which it now turns out, it may not be) and if I'm paying for the rights, not the medium, than I should be able to sell used MP3s as long as I delete them from my computer when I do.
It was more of a thought exercise than something I was actually going to do.
z31maniac wrote: ^Why should tours be a loss leader when you think it should be OK to buy a CD for $15, then turn around and try to sell copies at $5 each. It astounds me that you don't see the problem with this.
I think you're confused. I made no comment on what tours should be.
Zomby Woof wrote:Duke wrote: In reply to HiTempguy: Musicians make very little money on sales any more. That's why concert ticket prices are so highConcert tickets are so high because a Canadian promoter named Michael Cohl (correctly) determined that bands no longer needed to tour at a loss or break even, to support a new album, but the tour could also be an income generator equal to or greater than the album itself. Gone forever was the $5 concert ticket, and simple show, replaced by a marketing event. Regarding the copyright thing, I find it odd (or hypocritical?) that a country (and people) so dedicated to the idea of a free market system is also the one that most aggressively pursues and enforces the kind copyright laws I disagree with. I have no interest in arguing about it. That's just how I feel.
i have no problem with the cost of concert tickets- it's my choice to choose not to go if the price is too high and if i'm gonna go see someone like Metallica in concert, i am probably going to see one hell of an audio/visual spectacle that will be worth every penny to me personally. would it be better if the ticket was still $20 like it was 20 years ago instead of $100? yeah, but it wouldn't be nearly the same show as it is now and i'd probably just stay home and listen to the Metallica MP3's i've got on my thumb drive- every one of which is from a cd that i personally paid real money for.
foxtrapper wrote: Good. Because this has already long been a problem, particularly with software, and the hardware the software is encoded on. That's why you can't sell your own copy of Microsoft Office legally, because you don't own it, you only have a licence to use the product. It's why Amazon will only allow you to download the CD you thought you bought eight times. The list of problems with this is long. Microsoft was sued, and lost, against this years ago. But the victory for the owner was ignored and effectively rendered moot because of it being ignored (mostly by Microsoft). There is nothing new with the problems of proving ownership. In particular for trying on new clothes at a store, and attempting to walk out of the store in the clothes you wore walking in. If you can't prove you own them, the store can successfully charge you for theft. It's been done, quite a few times, particularly with nasty boutique stores. Purses are another that is not uncommon. So it's long due for some clarification is to what are the rights of an owner or perceived owner of an item with regards to ownership and the transfer of ownership. Remember too, this has already been decided. And you, the perceived owner, lost. The lower court already ruled that you cannot sell your Miata if Mazda says you cannot. This is an appeal of that ruling.
seems this part is easily circumvented ... once I download an album I burn it to a cd ... after that I don't seem to have a problem
Circumvention is only required because you don't in fact fully own it.
Zomby Woof wrote: Regarding the copyright thing, I find it odd (or hypocritical?) that a country (and people) so dedicated to the idea of a free market system is also the one that most aggressively pursues and enforces the kind copyright laws I disagree with. I have no interest in arguing about it. That's just how I feel.
The "free market system" is absolutely founded upon the protection of property rights, and that includes intellectual property such as music, movies, and designs.
Your concept sounds like those people who point to Somalia and call it "capitalism in pure form". They don't understand what Capitalism actually means.
Seriously, if anybody could have built copies of Frank Lloyd Wright houses everywhere without his permission, would he have kept making new designs? Would he have continued to get new clients to support his work?
Duke wrote: Seriously, if anybody could have built copies of Frank Lloyd Wright houses everywhere without his permission, would he have kept making new designs? Would he have continued to get new clients to support his work?
Of course he would, but his business model would be based on those rules, not the ones you have today. The market would look different, but people would still produce things, and make money, just not so much, so easily like it is today. Somebody made a comment like this is what you get when you have corporations running the government. That is essentially the root of the problem.
We could always go the other way; have the government run the corporations. Like they currently do in China or used to in Britain.
Oh, wait...
Zomby Woof wrote: Of course he would, but his business model would be based on those rules, not the ones you have today. The market would look different, but people would still produce things, and make money, just not so much, so easily like it is today.
Wow. Just, wow. Not sure I want to live in your world.
In reply to Duke:
There's gotta be some middle ground, doesn't there? The opposite of Zomby's approach is that nobody would ever innovate if they didn't get a temporary monopoly on the innovation?
Of course, this stuff makes my brain hurt; I'm still angry with Bezos over the 1-click patent thing...
One size does not fit all.
ransom wrote: In reply to Duke: There's gotta be some middle ground, doesn't there? The opposite of Zomby's approach is that nobody would ever innovate if they didn't get a temporary monopoly on the innovation?
Sure! Some people will always be willing to give away (or substantially undercharge for) their work. See my comment about musicians putting their own material up on public share sites, YouTube, etc. If the creator owns the rights to the item, the creator is always free to do with it what they wish. Some people are always going to give their stuff away for the good of mankind, to feel good about themselves, to make a name for themselves, whatever reason.
But the point is, it is the person or entity that created the item that gets to decide, not some yobbo who just happens to be able to rip it off somehow.
There's a whole industry in China which involves producing cheap replicas of the designs of others, right now it's cheap knockoffs of iPhones etc. I dunno if board members will recall this, but in the late '80's/early '90's there was a company in China which was making cheap bolts which looked like the real thing. Problem was, they were not made to the same standards as the real deal. Several bridge projects had to be stopped so the suspect bolts could be replaced. IIRC some of them even made it into the Space Shuttle program.
More recently there were bogus Fram filters (redundant if you think about it), bogus Buss fuses, knockoffs of GE circuit breakers ( there were house fires traced to that), all kinds of stuff.
The point is, sometimes a copyright, patent etc is there for a specific reason.
Curmudgeon wrote: The point is, sometimes a copyright, patent etc is there for a specific reason.
You're making my point for me. If the rules weren't so restrictive, anybody would be able to make the stuff, and there would be no market for the bogus, poor quality product.
Does anybody remember that we almost didn't have video recording machines? The people fighting against it then used exactly the same reasoning, and for almost all the same reasons. In the end we got them, and it's turned out to be nothing but a huge money maker for the same people who said it would put them out of business.
Just keep that in mind when you think that the end of copyright protection would be the end of creativity, or the economic world as we know it.
Duke wrote: But the point is, it is the person or entity that *created* the item that gets to decide, not some yobbo who just happens to be able to rip it off somehow.
OK, so you are the creator of a widget. You sell it to others for a profit. You sell it yourself at a high price through your own store. We'll call that store A. And you sell it cheap to another store for them to sell. We'll call that store B.
Nothing new about this, many tech companies do exactly this. This is why it's almost always cheaper to buy your tech widgets through the likes of Tiger and BestBuy than from Dell or Microsoft directly. Same with textbooks.
Now lets suppose Mr. Yobbo comes along, and buys your widget from Store B. You make your profit just like you always have.
But now Mr. Yobbo sells "his" widget for less than you sell it at through your own store (Store A). And oopsie, you're all upset?
That's what this case is about. That's really all it's about. Regardless of Mr. Yobbo buying and selling one widget (or book), or 1,000.
I understand what this case is about. I'm discussing copyright in general with ZW.
And regardless of that major aside, if the book was originally sold in Thailand with the covenant that it could not be resold to the US, then that covenant holds. If you don't like it, don't buy it. That covenant existed before you bought the book, so you can't get irate when you are busted for violating it.
It's like buying a property or house with deed restrictions, and then pitching a bitch when they won't let you violate them. Sorry, those restriction were there before the purchase and you knew - or should have known - about them before you tacitly agreed to them.
Now, to try RETROACTIVELY applying a restriction to a previously bought item - that's purest bullpuckey.
Duke wrote: And regardless of that major aside, if the book was originally sold in Thailand with the covenant that *it could not be resold to the US*, then that covenant holds. If you don't like it, don't buy it. That covenant existed before you bought the book, so you can't get irate when you are busted for violating it.
Who's restriction and who's jurisdiction? That's a substantial point of the lawsuit. Can a US company enforce the laws of a foreign nation against a person through the US courts?
Normally we have held as convention the answer of no. One has to go to that country to enforce that countries laws. The ruling from the lower court in this case has stood that upside down and said that yes, you can enforce the laws of another land through the courts of the US.
That is a very big deal! The potential ramifications of that are indeed quite alarming to many.
It's like buying a property or house with deed restrictions, and then pitching a bitch when they won't let you violate them. Sorry, those restriction were there before the purchase and you knew - or should have known - about them before you tacitly agreed to them.
This is also commercial law, where there is a requirement of due dilligance on the part of the aggrieved party to take action in a timely manner upon learning of the offending action. Failure to do so constitutes acceptance under the UCC.
foxtrapper wrote: Who's restriction and who's jurisdiction? That's a substantial point of the lawsuit. Can a US company enforce the laws of a foreign nation against a person through the US courts?
He can do anything legal he wants to with the books in Thailand . What he can't do is bring them into the US. The law that needs to be enforced is at - and within - the US boundary. No foreign enforcement necessary. And last I heard, just being from a different country didn't excuse compliance with laws of any country, not just the US.
This is also commercial law, where there is a requirement of due dilligance on the part of the aggrieved party to take action in a timely manner upon learning of the offending action. Failure to do so constitutes acceptance under the UCC.
As far as I know, the publisher found out about it, and took action upon finding out.
Zomby Woof wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: The point is, sometimes a copyright, patent etc is there for a specific reason.You're making my point for me. If the rules weren't so restrictive, anybody would be able to make the stuff, and there would be no market for the bogus, poor quality product.
The heck there wouldn't be a market for cheap bogus stuff. Did you see the bogus airbag thread? There will ALWAYS be someone willing to make and someone willing to buy cheap crap. That's human nature. That's what keeps the Chinese pirate electronics business in business.
Zomby Woof wrote: Does anybody remember that we almost didn't have video recording machines? The people fighting against it then used exactly the same reasoning, and for almost all the same reasons. In the end we got them, and it's turned out to be nothing but a huge money maker for the same people who said it would put them out of business. Just keep that in mind when you think that the end of copyright protection would be the end of creativity, or the economic world as we know it.
IIRC the big complaint about VCR's was that people would fast forward through the ads and thus make the ad time sold less valuable. Counterfeit tapes were a concern too but many of them were copy protected. Yeah, I know that can be gotten around etc.
foxtrapper wrote: Circumvention is only required because you don't in fact fully own it.
but in my opinion I DO in fact fully own it ... same as if I went to BN and bought the same CD ... Amazon is just a different retailer ... I pay them for the CD ... therefore I own that CD
wbjones wrote:foxtrapper wrote: Circumvention is only required because you don't in fact fully own it.but in my opinion I DO in fact fully own it ... same as if I went to BN and bought the same CD ... Amazon is just a different retailer ... I pay them for the CD ... therefore I own that CD
…so if I buy a gun, I should be allowed to do anything with it I please.
You'll need to log in to post.
