Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 73 74 75 76 77 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
The irony of allowing camcording as legitimate copying seems to have escaped them completely.
But that's only if you're a teacher. Still, they'll be able to moonlight as bootleggers, which would solve the issue of their being chronically undersalaried.
-
Still, they'll be able to moonlight as bootleggers
And it makes me feel better when I walk into one of the local pirate DVD hypermarts. All MPAA sanctioned....
In other news, EMI makes massive profit (even allowing for one-offs) in era when piracy has destroyed the recording industry..whoops...hasn't made the RIAA media releases this one. And it's before the Fab 4 bonanza coming in the last 1/4 of this year.
-
Putting this one here as there isn't a relevant thread at the moment:
Axioms for 21st Century Media - missing on the copyright front, but relevant for publishing. -
implying they've done something rather bizarre and irrational.
really, you think its bizarre and irrational to not want to give away the key to your copy protection, some of which works quite well? One recent disc would not yield to any crack but would still play perfectly in the dvd player.
what are the implications of allowing schools to copy and how would it happen?
do they give em software which allows a work around?
do they issue them with un copy protected versions?
I can see the immediate flaw in both of those ideas.on top of that I can't really see a reason to copy a dvd for teaching purposes other than maybe to show selected excerpts to film students but that's what scene selection on a dvd is for isn't it.
-
Not sure why it's worse than saying they're nuts, implying mental illness. Although for all that it seems to be fairly common phraseology in this part of the world implying they've done something rather bizarre and irrational. And so they have.
Sorry I should have been more specific - I was in complete agreement with you. It's low, even for the MPAA. It's astonishing they could even consider touting that as the solution.
what are the implications of allowing schools to copy and how would it happen?
do they give em software which allows a work around?
do they issue them with un copy protected versions?
I can see the immediate flaw in both of those ideas.on top of that I can't really see a reason to copy a dvd for teaching purposes other than maybe to show selected excerpts to film students but that's what scene selection on a dvd is for isn't it.
Would be nice if the text rule (no more than 10% is it?) applied, though you're right about it being difficult to allow only limited access. Perhaps watermarking as educational with the name of the organisation would be enough.
As far as video excerpts converted from dvd for teaching go I can think of a few examples. Embedded in powerpoint for the lecture, available online for students, easier frame captures for notes etc, could probably go on.
-
@David
sorry, my misunderstanding. I agree. Perhaps they could encourage teachers to sketch the movie instead, scene by scene -
Perhaps they could encourage teachers to sketch the movie instead, scene by scene
What's wrong with buying a copy?
-
What's wrong with buying a copy?
Gawd, robbery- yer so 20th century. Get with the digital culture of abundance, mate!
Still, the "approved copying method" isn't so silly to non-digital-natives. I did just that off a data-projected dvd the other day, and the quality was fine.
And I work with a lot of teachers. Fine folks. Setting up a camera to point at the screen is more in the tech-can-do zone for most of them, than rip and burn.
Specially if it's legal. -
I doubt it's any more legal under NZ law, though I suppose you can't be nailed for circumventing copy protection that way. In either case, have you seen the budgets schools work with? I'm sure they'd rather pay for everything.
-
Except for the really young teachers - they've probably just got no respect for culture, not like in our grandparents' day.
-
quote>and the quality was fine. </quote>
bluray disc, high res screen,
3 ccd camera....
just a tad better than the suggested sketch method, but don't let that get in the way of being dramatic. -
Tad more expensive too...
-
Tad more expensive too...
There are literally hundreds of acres of screen space out there laughing about this...how to open your self to derision and damage one's case. I liked this quote
that's like typing up a quote from a book, taking it outside, chiseling the words in a rock, photographing the rock, scanning the photo, and running OCR on it
Ironically Colleges and Universities are allowed todigitally copy for educational purposes..it's just those evil primary and secondary teachers who can't.
Idiots........
-
Tad more expensive too...
absolutely right, I don't know why they ever abandoned the old slate and chalk approach.... still many schools do have this stuff and universities definitely have it coming out their ears. I used to work in an av centre at a university. the waste of money on hardly used equipment that went on was a vision to behold.
its easy to over react but who in reality is requiring excerpts from dvds? Universities? then they already have all they need to address the issue. primary schools? maybe not so much.
-
primary
so run it by me again what level of educational use of drm protected motion picture industry own work is needed at primary school level that requires the dismantling of their copy protection system. Been a while since I was at primary school but I can't remember enrolling in a film studies course for pre teens that looked at the shot composition of an excerpt of a motion picture. Maybe that was just my school though, It was a pretty rough area of fendalton after all. we did watch a few movies in their entirety though, until it was time for afternoon nap.
-
Time stands still.
-
Far be it for me to try and bring the voice of wisdom to the thread, but I think if the MPAA is running seminars about 'ways to copy DVDs for teaching', there might be some teachers that are 'copying DVDs for teaching'. Why they aren't allowed to do it under the same basis as a University I have no idea.
Those damn pesky primary school teachers using technology in their teaching.
-
but I think if the MPAA is running seminars about 'ways to copy DVDs for teaching',
This was actually made to be shown to a committee of The Library Congress. I doubt it would make it past that given the widespread and almost universal mirth it's caused.
Then we have the hypocrisy angle
And there was I thinking that colleges were hotbeds of piracy
-
The Independent reckons Apple might buy Twitter - if they ever decide to sell.
Why would Apple want Twitter? Because, I suspect, locking Twitter into their iTunes store and iPhone network would provide valuable individual brands like @oprah and @aplusk with a very effective marketing and sales platform to distribute their products.
The Twitter-Apple cat then would be truly amongst the old media pigeons. Merging the revolutionary Twitter into insurrectionary Apple would be one more nail - perhaps the final nail - in the coffin of traditional record labels, publishers and television and movie networks.
-
The French reverse themselves, in spite of the EU directive. The HADOPI bill has been passed 296-233 in the lower House. It still has to pass the Senate, but that is expected on Wednesday. France will then have to open negotiations with the European Council.
-
now isn't that so much better than trialing it in your own back yard. you'll be able to critique with glee from a distance, I'd say that's worked out great for everyone, except the french.
-
How does recognition that a fundamental principle of economic exchange (i.e. that scarcity is inversely proportional to value [or at least price]) has changed become advocacy for not paying for content. Hint: it doesn't, and I haven't said so.
Sorry to be hugely late, but this is complete and utter bollocks; viz. the value of a functioning lighthouse bears no relationship at all to its scarcity, and even if it does the curve certainly isn't `inversely proportional'!.
That is to say, this is a public goods problem; the issue of scarcity doesn't arise , by definition. It is possible for something to be both ubiquitous and hugely valuable.
By the way, the claim that copyright is a response to scarcity has at the very least one gaping hole in it; if you have access to a good technological history of Europe and a good legal history of copyright you should be able to spot it pretty quickly.
in the English Common Law approach that serves as the basis for NZ legislation,
Factually false; copyright is currently entirely a statute right, not a right at common law (and has been since the Statute of 8 Anne c. 19 at the latest, and probably earlier). The existence of any form of common law copyright is disputed to say the least (see Boyle's Shamans Software and Spleens and Pfrozheimer's Historical perspectives on copyright law and fair use. In G. P. Bush (Ed.), Technology and copyright: Annotated bibliography and source materials. )
It is possible (but not universally or even generally accepted, I don't think) that there was a common law copyright, but that was alleged to have lasted indefinitely, which is not what I think you are arguing. At least one Stewart (actually, I think Interregnum, but) proposal for copyright reform advocated that the public domain should begin 1000 years after the death of the author -- Livy, Cicero etc.
-
Software piracy costs $50 billion a year, according to BSA
zitzot article -
viz. the value of a functioning lighthouse bears no relationship at all to its scarcity, and even if it does the curve certainly isn't `inversely proportional'!.<quote>
And there's such a huge market in used lighthouses, isn't there, Keir? Or did you miss the amending of "value" to "price"? Are you saying that things that are really scarce aren't going to command a really high price? I'd refer you to the cost of oil as one example. What's yours?
<quote>That is to say, this is a public goods problem; the issue of scarcity doesn't arise, by definition. It is possible for something to be both ubiquitous and hugely valuable.
And yet no example. Light houses may be a public good, but it's odd to see you trying to align that to works that are under copyright.
Let's examine this "public good" concept, courtesy of Wikipedia:
In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good.
From a technical point of view, I could argue, based on this definition, that digital content is a public good - consumption (copying) does not affect simultaneous availability(non-rivaled) and does not exclude others from the entity. I don't think anyone, apart from some extremists who want to abolish copyright altogether (and I repeat that I'm not one of those), take this as a serious position. Rather, they see work under copyright as private work for the term of the copyright, and so does most law, as far as I am aware.
Wikipedia goes on to note:
In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods approximate the concept closely enough for the analysis to be economically useful.
So, that's an interesting theory you bring to the discussion, but not one that has too much relevance to the mechanics of buying and selling stuff. Because we're not talking about public goods, but things that get bought and sold on a market.
By the way, the claim that copyright is a response to scarcity has at the very least one gaping hole in it
Please cite any instance of me saying that, with a link to the item, or you're just making shit up.
-
Look, of course content is a public good; this is pretty broadly acknowledged amongst economists who work on these problems. (Wikipedia isn't actually the best place to go on these things it turns out. Writings by actual professionals who make this their life's work are much better at it.)
Copyright effects the provision of a public good by a private regulated monopoly; it doesn't change the basic nature of information as a public good.
And I think you utterly missed the point of the lighthouse example; consider the difficulty in charging to use a lighthouse, and then consider the way in which a series of individually rational actions create a social inefficiency.
Are you saying that things that are really scarce aren't going to command a really high price?
Er, in some important cases yes. Metcalfe's Law and so forth. (Come on, if you are writing on the internet and you can't spot something which becomes more valuable with ubiquity --- !)
Please cite any instance of me saying that, with a link to the item, or you're just making shit up.
It's merely to acknowledge that scarcity no longer exists, and this is the main problem that faces publishers - they can't control scarcity and therefore revenue streams.
P. 94, post made at 6.03 on April 25th.
It doesn't state it exactly, but I can't be arsed bending over backwards for someone who is quite willing themselves to make very ropey factual claims (with no acknowledgement of the stuff up by the way). Given that you were quite prepared to be utterly offensive because you didn't recognise quite a standard term of the art in the very field we're discussing, I don't think I need to apply the strictest standards of intellectual charity here.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.