America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
Notice they are all Governors, not legislators.
The Disney thing doesn´t surprise me at all. When I lived in California, I knew a family that would rent a wheelchair for the day and take turns pushing each other around, so they could go to the front of the line.
Good article and informative. A little optimistic about the Senate though. 51 Senators is as good as 8, meaning not good at all. It´ll take 60 or nothing in this broken Congress.
I´ve received the abridged version in the mail, along with 2 crisp $1 bills.Only one question: What are the top 3 shows you´re watching _right now_?Doogie HouserNew GirlTwilight ZoneYes, doesn´t really work in the modern on demand era. I suppose the person who received the survey was really scratching his head.
What do Klingons have to do with Star Wars?
Although the SOPA and PIPA acts are too broad as written, I´m not against the concept in general. Suppose for a moment that there was no internet, but services like YouTube did exist. Say instead they were delivered in a fashion similar to traditional services - a dedicated wire leading to your house or some other non-revolutionary medium. Most crucially, imagine these services were not a portion of a grander technological revolution - the internet.In such a world, those services would have to pass copyright scrutiny on their own merit. They would not be propelled along by the inertia of being aboard the internet juggernaut. I have no doubt that services like YouTube, Google Books, image search, news aggregators, and the like would have never survived the scrutiny of copyright enforcement in such a world. Judged completely on their own merit and in the traditional sense, these are copyright violators.But we don´t live in that world. Instead these services are delivered through a new interconnected medium - the internet. Because the potential and promise of the internet was so great, legislators and law enforcement largely stood back to watch rather that impede development. “Fair use” copyright laws were reinterpreted (thumbnail searches, inline links), IP owners compromised with violators with the hope of finding mutually beneficial arrangements (Google Books). The law only got heavy handed in the most egregious cases (Napster). The internet was like a precocious child, allowed to explore, discover, and develop so as not to stunt its growth.A strong argument can be made that this approach has been net positive. Given the chance to mature, services like YouTube have been able to develop methods of policing their system. Today, copyrighted video uploaded to YouTube is automatically detected, and a notice sent to the IP owner. Then the owner can choose to remove it or not. Such technology would not have been developed had YouTube been extinguished at first violation. So the system as a whole has matured better and faster given a laissez-faire approach.But even the most promising children must grow up and live by the laws of society. That day is fast approaching. At some point, businesses, service providers, authors, artists, lawyers, judges, society at large, must have well defined and enforceable law. For a mature Internet, ill-defined law becomes a hindrance to growth. Artists and businesses alike need a steady platform to build upon.SOPA and PIPA are too influenced by hard-charging big-media lobbies to be fair. But something in a similar vein is needed. Balanced fair legislation that tames copyright violation, ensures owner’s value for their IP, and provides business a defined platform for development.
I´d suggest Steven Tyler is a bigger threat than any of the others mentioned.
All Comments »
Website powered by Foundation