Rant Buy real books, not DRM-laced bits

[Ark]

It really makes me want to just download everything off The Pirate Bay and send the companies a check, because I actually feel like I own the pirate stuff, and I'm not just renting it.

 

[Hielor]

It is just like FSX. I bought an original because I wanted to respect the work of those who created it, and if I format my hard disk, I will have to call Microsoft call center to get a key to install. If you do not have a phone, you are screwed. It would have been easier to buy a pirate copy with a crack. (Me = Idiot for buying originals).

It seems that I have the property of a worthless disk, and Microsoft has the custody of its contents since they have the keys.

What was the advantage for me as I bought an original FSX? None.

What was the advantage for Microsoft? They made money.

I know for a fact that you have at least two activations with FSX before you have to call.

I'm also fairly sure that if there's only minor changes to your system for a reinstall on the same computer, you don't use one of those activations.

The call takes like 5 minutes. I imagine that the set of people who have computers but no access to a phone is rather low.

The advantage for you for buying an original FSX is that you can play online. If you're using the same pirated key as a thousand other people, you can't.

 

[TSPenguin]

The advantage for you for buying an original FSX is that you can play online. If you're using the same pirated key as a thousand other people, you can't.

Scenereleased pirate copies don't have that disadvantage. So this point does not apply to FSX. However it holds true for many many other programs.

 

[ijuin]

What hurts on copyrights isn't that they exist so much as that the time span on them is inflexible and is too long for the majority of works while being too short for a handful of long-running works.

For example, Disney has an interest in keeping control of Mickey Mouse even now nearly eighty-five years after Mickey was first created. However, just because Disney wants to keep copyright on an eighty-five year old character does not mean that every character ever created by anyone should automatically have an eighty-five year long or longer copyright period. Extending the copyrights for every and all works for such a length would basically mean that if any work was not created years before you were born, then you would not see it in the public domain within your lifespan.

On the other end of the spectrum are media that the owner loses all interest in selling or even producing copies of after the initial burst of popularity has faded. Books, movies, and games as little as five years old are no longer available except as used copies--clearly the owner sees no profit to be made from continuing to offer them. Why then should such works be kept from the public domain for a further seventy or more years if the owner has no intention to make profits from them?

I propose a relatively simple solution to this dilemma. Instead of having fixed-term copyrights, have ones that can be renewed from year to year for a token fee (e.g. twenty bucks per published work per year). Having the token fee would give a gentle incentive for owners to release the rights on works that are no longer expected to generate income, while keeping the fee low enough will ensure that those works that are expected to generate income get renewed. The registration on a work could be renewed one year at a time for an unlimited span (as long as the issuing government stays around at least), and the government would NOT be allowed to deny re-registration without specific cause (so few instances of the government trying to force you to let your ownership expire).

 

[ar81]

I can imagine a modern Mozart being "hired" by a modern emperor Joseph II from RIAA and music not credited to Mozart because Joseph II record company had the copyright to publish his music. I can imagine Mozart being a slave of Joseph II company until Mozart doctor kills him when young, with overdose of medicine and then tabloids come to make money over his death and Joseph II makes millions.

This is the irony of IP. Authors are not necessarily owners of their work. Money determines who is the owner. Authors need to sacrifice authorship to make a living.

 

[agentgonzo]

It gets even stranger. Big content feels that if they sell you music that is laced with DRM, they are under no obligation to keep the DRM servers running. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ous-to-expect-drmed-music-to-work-forever.ars

Extrapolating from this a bit to make a point, they think it's OK to sell you a piece of music and then the next day take down the servers and deny you the ability to listen to it at all.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah. Happens if you pay money without reading the contract.

Boycott DRM music, as long as DRM means you have not an equal position as customer.

 

[ar81]

Make your own music. No one can deny you your music.

Or you may download freeware music.
http://www.ocremix.org/remixes/
www.ctgmusic.com
There is enough freeware music out there so you will not have too much time for commercial one.

BTW, I made a remix of 2001 Space odyssey myself. Would it violate copyright if I upload to orbithangar?

 

[Urwumpe]

Make your own music. No one can deny you your music.

You have not seen all strangeness of the media law, if you can get sued for whistling a pop tune, because it was considered a public concert.

 

[insane_alien]

Make your own music. No one can deny you your music.

no, but they will try their best.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2333006,00.asp

and similarly

http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2007/08/viacom-hits-me-with-copyright.html

 

[TSPenguin]

More free music at http://jamendo.com

 

[cjp]

What hurts on copyrights isn't that they exist so much as that the time span on them is inflexible and is too long for the majority of works while being too short for a handful of long-running works.

For example, Disney [skip]

On the other end of the spectrum are media that the owner loses all interest in selling or even producing copies of after the initial burst of popularity has faded. [skip]

I propose a relatively simple solution to this dilemma. Instead of having fixed-term copyrights, have ones that can be renewed from year to year for a token fee (e.g. twenty bucks per published work per year). Having the token fee would give a gentle incentive for owners to release the rights on works that are no longer expected to generate income, while keeping the fee low enough will ensure that those works that are expected to generate income get renewed. The registration on a work could be renewed one year at a time for an unlimited span (as long as the issuing government stays around at least), and the government would NOT be allowed to deny re-registration without specific cause (so few instances of the government trying to force you to let your ownership expire).

$20 per work per year is really nothing. Even the bureaucracy required for such a system costs more. And even when a work is only moderately popular, to the point where it is no longer commercially interesting, it generates revenues that are orders of magnitudes larger.

Increasing the fee would have the effect that it benefits the big corporations over individuals who would like to keep the copyright to themselves, but can't afford the financial risk.

Besides that, even if long lasting popularity (like Mickey Mouse) was more rule than exception, that would not justify such extremely long copyrights. Interests of the creator have to be balanced against the interests of consumers. Highly popular works have already created more than enough revenue within a short amount of time, to compensate for the investment and the business risks. Also, the high number of (potential) consumers associated with popular works means that their interests should have more weight.

IIRC, the Bern convention says at least 20y copyright, the EU says something like 50 or 70 years, and the US says anything Disney wants. I say:
20 years for books
10 years for movies
5 years for software, music and photographs
And automatically turn into public domain 1 year after the copyright holder doesn't sell it anymore.
And make laws that prohibit DRM.

 

[ar81]

no, but they will try their best.

Not if you keep the music in your own hard disk and don't tell anyone that you are infringing your own copyright.

 

[Urwumpe]

IIRC, the Bern convention says at least 20y copyright, the EU says something like 50 or 70 years, and the US says anything Disney wants. I say:
20 years for books
10 years for movies
5 years for software, music and photographs
And automatically turn into public domain 1 year after the copyright holder doesn't sell it anymore.
And make laws that prohibit DRM.

Yeah, I can agree to that, I would even reduce book to 10 years.

The copyright holder is not the intellectual property owner - nobody can EVER remove your intellectual ownership of a book or a song, and you have legal ways to enforce this ownership, for example if somebody else claims to have written your book, which don't run out so easily. What you loose is the exclusive right to sell your book. Which would mean it is available to the society after a fair period of time. And I think 10 years is a lot of time even for a book.

 

[ar81]

IIRC, the Bern convention says at least 20y copyright, the EU says something like 50 or 70 years, and the US says anything Disney wants. I say:
5 years for software, music and photographs
And automatically turn into public domain 1 year after the copyright holder doesn't sell it anymore.
And make laws that prohibit DRM.

I can imagine Microsoft Windows going public domain, I bet Bill gates will embrace this gladly...:lol::rofl:

 

[Ghostrider]

I can imagine Microsoft Windows going public domain, I bet Bill gates will embrace this gladly...:lol::rofl:

Releasing the code for the earlier versions wouldn't make him a world of bad. Actually releasing it (although the Bill is no longer the Dark Lord of MS) would be like saying: "See, I'm so confident my code monkeys are good that I challenge you to do better. HAHAHAHA (evil laugh) you cannot beat me! I'm inveeeenceeeble!"

 

[RichWall]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_en_ot/us_tec_amazon_kindle_lawsuit

It will be interesting to see if this suit goes anywhere.

After all, it is more like buying a rental agreement than ownership for sure.

Now, in the USA, many Libraries will put a warrant out on you for late book returns.

Yea, buy the book.

 

[Andy44]

Well, you mentioned libraries: they aren't the beneficient font of knowledge they once were, anyway. For starters, many of them are very weak on content, they are influenced by popular political agendas of the current day, and of course thanks to the PATRIOT ACT and computerized catalogues and library cards, you can no longer borrow books in the confidence that the library isn't turning your reading habits over to the government for inspection.

I have this recurring dream where I run my own private library, a book club where you pay a fee to hang out there, drink coffee, borrow books in confidence, and buy those you wish to keep. If I knew how to run a business and thought there was a market for this, I'd do it. And I'd ban Kindles on the premises.

 

[Ghostrider]

I have this recurring dream where I run my own private library, a book club where you pay a fee to hang out there, drink coffee, borrow books in confidence, and buy those you wish to keep. If I knew how to run a business and thought there was a market for this, I'd do it. And I'd ban Kindles on the premises.

Hey, like Starbucks with books! You would already have two customers!

 

[ar81]

I have this recurring dream where I run my own private library, a book club where you pay a fee to hang out there, drink coffee, borrow books in confidence, and buy those you wish to keep. If I knew how to run a business and thought there was a market for this, I'd do it. And I'd ban Kindles on the premises.

Why not trying?
Rent a place in a place where you know people may go, and open during your spare time.

Make it be a quiet place to read, nice atmosphere, nice temperature, decoration, fresh air, good chairs and table, for a 50% of the price you intend to collect, where people can bring their own books, and then you bring a PC and make a software survey where you collect data from readers as they pay, so you know what books they really want to buy or any other relevant data that you may want.

You may try to buy a few to see how it goes.

Crappy coffee for free, good coffee with a price tag.

Then you turn it into a library for 75% price, and then you sell books for 100% price. Let customers know that this price is a starter business promotion, so they know the price will go up.

It may take about 1 or 2 years to make a brand presence and start to get profit if your pricing is good, according to the volume, and price is good from customer perspective. And the only thing you need is to perfect your survey and be there. Since it is run in your spare time, any losses would be just the "cost of the experiment of dreaming", and if it succeeds, you have a business.

If you play Orbiter there, you'd be using headphones.

There is no way to know if there is a market, unless you try.

I'd like to see you achieving a dream, and if you succeed, you'd be creating jobs in the future, that are so desperately needed.

Hmmm... sounds like a storyline for Space Orbinomics library...:lol::rofl: