This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous commenter responding to the idea that if you support creators and innovators, you can’t criticize copyrights or patents:
I’m pro-copyright and pro-patent. Artists and inventors should absolutely be able to profit from their creations. However, the creation belongs to the world as soon as it’s released to the world. That’s something that many current rightsholders seem to forget. Copyrights and patents are just a deal the Constitution and the People are striking with those creators so that they get to try (and TRY is an important point – they aren’t entitled to money just because they create something) to make money off of the creation for a while before everyone gets to use it freely.
I think copyright and patent have worked well for a long time. However, I think current corporate interests are trying to lock up the creations for longer and longer periods of time, which wasn’t the intent of the Framers. I think that slapping “on a computer” on a previous invention is not innovation. I think that making an insignificant change to a drug to get a new patent is not innovation. I think that making billions from other people’s creations once they’ve gone public domain and then doing everything possible to prevent your creations from entering public domain so that others cannot do the same is cheating the Constitutional deal. I think that negligently, erroneously forcing the removal of other people’s creations from the Internet in an effort to prevent infringement of your own creation is greedy and elitist (why should protection of your creation be so favored over the creations of others?).
It’s not dishonest or disingenuous to support creator’s rights while opposing the current legal implementation of said rights. The corporations that support that implementation and wish to intensify it do not promote the advancement of society, the “Progress of Science and useful Arts” – they are only interested in promoting the flow of money into their bank accounts.
In second place, we’ve got a double winner with an anonymous comment that also took first place over on the funny side. It comes in response to an AT&T executive comparing the forthcoming plans for HBO to childbirth:
The reason Stankey likes to compare childbirth to innovation is because he has zero experience with either.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a response from JarHead to the idea that copyright infringement has ruined modern music:
Nope. As an amateur musician myself, I had an in depth talks about this with my musician friends, and even a label rep at one time.
The reason is, wait for it, sunken cost.
I’ve read somewhere that the cost to the label to introduce new musician to the market is up to $3 million. With this kind of money, the label want those investment to return. So how to ensure that? Make use the tried and true formulas and not deviate from it.
That formula includes every aspect of of music, from songwriting, composition, to mixing/mastering techniques to maximize profit. Dunno about the newer generations, but for those of you in your 30s or above, ever felt that bass is becoming much more prominent in current day music, as opposed to, say, the 90’s? There’s a reason for that, and it is economic.
So claims about how music degenerated because copyright infringement is bunk. It is because music nowadays are economically driven instead of creatively driven.
The return of patronage system and the internet are actually the cure of of that disease. Sadly, copyright which originally intended to spur innovation and creativity, now is the bane.
Next, we’ve got a simple suggestion from Carlie Coats for adding some fairness to takedown systems such as Europe’s Article 13:
Just to be fair…
False takedown notices should be subject to the same penalties as copyright infringement.
Over on the funny side, we’ve already had our first place anonymous winner above, so it’s straight to second place. In our post about Denuvo’s DRM failures, one commenter made the bizarre assertion that computers are “not useful”, to which another commenter replied with a concise story of all the many ways computers have been useful in their life. DB chimed in with a classic rejoinder:
But… what have they done for you lately?
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we remain on the Denuvo post for a moment where one anonymous commenter looked at their marketing history and future:
Denuvo slogans through the years
2014: Denuvo, we can’t be cracked!
2015: Denuvo, we can’t easily be cracked!
2016: Denuvo, you can still at least get a good sales window at product launch.
2017: Well, at least we don’t make it less convenient for your paying customers.
2018: Ok, so we make it less convenient for your paying customers.
2019: If you are calling for a late payment, please contact our bankruptcy lawyers at 1-800-223-4332
And, finally, we’ve got one more anonymous comment, this time in response to a heartfelt complaint about the creeping expansion of copyright:
This complaint is too similar to some one else’s complaint. Please cease and desist or face $500,000 in fines.
That’s all for this week, folks!