Posts by Andrew Orlowski

I write about the problems with digital copyright every day. People like the protections that copyright gives them (it's an automatic right - no registration) and they want the system to work well. The "abolition of copyright" movement never even got off the ground. Modern technology allows people to create and share their work more easily but the legal protections haven't kept pace.

A few narcissistic nutters want to weaken the protections, and cling desperately to any evidence they can find that it doesn't work. It's sad they still think that it's 1995. Term length is one of the few "unfairnesses" left. But we are in Comical Ali territory here.

Re: Pot, kettle...

You need to look in the mirror, veti.

" Let's cut copyright terms already, since according to you they make no difference anyway."

If getting copyright to work properly, it probably wouldn't be in the top ten issues to address. Only a few loony obsessives care, who are desperate to avoid reality.

I think a few of the high profile figures have so much of their identity invested in this they don't want to lose face.

No one cares about copyright term lengths. People care about problems with copyright that are real and immediate - like not getting paid, or being able to walk out of the room with a fair deal. Or access to justice.

The loonysphere clings on to term length because it needs to feel aggrieved, and it needs to avoid reality - It's a bit of driftwood for a drowning man.

Re: Re: "when actually allowed to say anything at all by the mods"

@scrubber

I'm not sure why you think repeating something false and misleading makes your point any less false or misleading. Eg: "Your view that only industrial infringers will be hit is naive in the extreme."

It is regrettable you were misled by the article. But a large part of that is because you actively go out of your way to be misled, because you require the persecution complex.

eg, "They have managed to ruin companies like Aereo"

Seriously? Aereo was a short-lived engineering hack around a loophole in the law. It would not have been created otherwise. It failed, and deservedly, IMHO. It makes you sad that a startup designed to rip people off failed, but few people outside the loonysphere of copyright slacktivism would agree with you.

You really won't be able to understand complex copyright politics (and there's lots to fix here) unless you let go of your persecution complex. Yes, huge corporations rip people off - but you're blind to the ripoff.

Do RTFA. It's exactly the mentality I'm describing:

"Instead of adjusting their politics to the reality of Facebook and Google, the activists have become trapped down an intellectual cul-de-sac, and have to adjust reality to their politics."

That's what you're doing: you won't let go of your big political idea, so you've become highly selective with reality. Over and over again. I wonder if some sort of intervention is needed?

Why would you want to rip off a charitable foundation?

Re: "when actually allowed to say anything at all by the mods"

No, you illustrate the copyfighter's persecution complex I describe perfectly.

The 10 year penalty recommended by the Government after a consultation applies only to industrial scale pirates, bringing the law It doesn't apply to home users as the IPO has clarified.

see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/29/slacktivism_robo_responses_shredded/

So to recap. Your persecution complex has led you to a) misunderstand the law because you need to feel you are persecuted by copyright; b) then get even angrier leading to more feelings of rejection, persecution and paranoia. It's a vicious circle only you can break.

You could try being less angry and persecuted. Just a thought.

"I love the implication "If you don't like copyright then you're a dictator!!"

Er, no: RTFA. Authoritarian regimes don't like the individual asserting their rights. Particularly their rights over their cultural works. That's just a fact.

"It currently is not even remotely fair on all sides because it is de facto infinite for any work from Steamboat Willy on."

Copyright comment bingo: the first person to mention DIsney or Mickey Mouse wins the office sweepstake. Well, a) the system currently isn't fair to creators (as you would discover if you tried to assert your legal rights against Facebook, Google or Twitter) and b) millions of works fall out of copyright every year. But don't let evidence get in your way. You must do whatever you need to to keep up the irrational rage against copyright.

Re: Re: It is out of copyright

How would the creation of a enormous grey area the size of planet Earth between Public Domain and In Copyright simplify things, or create legal certainty? Perhaps you need to think this through.

The ebook costs £1.99. It's in libraries. It's not inaccessible.

Re: His (her) Master's Voice

Perhaps you were misled by the headline. The penalty for industrial scale digital piracy is being brought into line with the penalty for physical piracy and counterfeiting. These are not torts.

Given that the games, TV, movie and music industries in Britain employ millions of people (including loads of high quality tech and engineering jobs), I would expect them to a view on industrial scale piracy, wouldn't you? They would be negligent if they didn't.

Re: Re: "Out of print" is a mortal sin

"However the copyright law ignores the market reality, most works have a very limited "shelf-life" after which there is no real market."

Not true in the book world. The sums may be small, but earning potential persists for years and decades. Most books we read are not hot off the presses. The internet has made discovering old works easier, and lowered the cost of warehousing them. So their value should go up, not down.

In any case,the "law" is what it is. Producers and technology couldn't come together to create a market in this case.

I don't think you really understand where the commercial value of Google Books should be: a Spotify for research, with all kinds of bundles and deals on offer ranging from free grazing to metered access.

I use libraries a lot for research, and would happily have handed over a lot of money by now. GB is little more use than a card index.

What's missing from Google Books is the middle ground: between "free grazing a couple of pages" and "buying the entire damn book". There's a lot of opportunity for authors and publishers to profit from that. And a lot of scope for innovation in how it's marketed and presented.

It didn't happen and probably never will.

"anyone to self-publish on the interwebs probably does as much to kill organised scholarly textbook writing"

Erm. Wikipedia has worked out so well!

Re: Asleep at the wheel

The piece is about a weird legal loophole that permits YouTube to maintain an unlicensed supply chain. It has also leveraged two monopolies: a video monopoly and an advertising monopoly. The fairness of the terms of trade is reflected in the market price: a few cents per used are returned by YouTube, for Spotify it's in dollars.

($18 to $1)

You write:

"It's time to dump our labels and the greed that drives them."

That's a pretty amazing thing to write in 2016. Maybe you've been writing the same thing year after year, and not noticed the world has changed: the power is overwhelmingly with UGC platforms. I get that impression from a few comments: minds were made up a long time ago.

Blathering about past injustices is just a way of avoiding what's staring you in the face.

Re: Great . .

"If the user could not access the music for free on Youtube et al then most of them probably wouldn't access it at all. "

That isn't really credible - it's an argument of convenience, that the music must be given away. Maybe sweets have to be given away too. Or cars and houses.

No, Google won't turn the filters on unless you do business with Google, on Google's terms.

Re: Oh dear. What a poor metaphor!

eh?

Re: That is all well and good

"But Prestige Boots would use a take down request to prevent anyone else selling a pair of wellies which looks similar to theirs, or any type of foot coverings to protect their interlectual property."

Are you drunk? What are you trying to say?

You've saved me a review. Only now with the P9 you can't switch to another launcher.

Phew. I'll see you in the pub.

Re: Re: Eh, count me as dubious

"The vast majority of audiovisual content consumed in Europe comes from the US."

The opposite is true.

But it's the internet, so you don't need verifiable facts to support your argument. Just make something up.

Auditors haven't signed off the EU accounts for almost 20 years. It's a very wasteful way of spending a pound. Or Mark. Or a Frank.

@Hobbes

Thanks for sharing!

But you miss the point of the argument.

"The removal of geoblocking...popularity"

The films won't get made in the first place. Differential pricing is a prerequisite of getting the finance. That's just how capital works.

Generic and bland products like Hollywood blockbusters or Mr Bean can be licensed on a pan European basis without these concerns.

Re: Behaviourism

I agree, it's everywhere.

We don't act rationally at all times, obviously. But once you decide a priori that people can't act rationally at all, then behaviourism is about all you have left: hence all the nudging, prodding and hectoring.

Re: Fake debate

"barely veiled neo-liberal landgrab"

Oh dear. 40 pages of Ceefax, and your knickers are really in a twist.

Re: Re: Are these apples or oranges?

Um, they are. That's the whole point of Basics, it is only a few dozen pages and some chat. That allowed them to find a network operator prepared to offer something for free.

Ben Evans noted the irony of Facebook squandering the trust of users over many years, in pursuit of profit. And the one time it gets something right, and profit isn't the main motivation here, few people want to give it the benefit of the doubt. There's a lesson there.

Re: $1 per day

"I don't see why the working class need baths in their homes. They'd only keep coal in them"

Re: It would be the same anywhere

"India's poor are not getting treated any differently."

Demonstrably, they are. Basics is live in 37 countries and has been shut down by the elites in just two.

"Nice propaganda brah. The Indian people themselves are protesting this one without a white imperialist in sight."

A few members of the rich Indian elites have captured their telco regulator. (The same thing happened in the US) Both think Indians can't be trusted to make a choice we managed to make. Guardian racism in a nutshell.