TED Conversations

Chris Hollander

student researcher ,

This conversation is closed.

SOPA wants to modernize penal and enforcement policies, should we also modernize definition of Intellectual Property?

Anyone who has used any form of creative software has at some time utilized templates, loops, backgrounds, fonts or any number of preconceived designs in the process of generating their own work. Under our current standards these designs are considered intellectual property the same as the more traditional forms; books, music, movies ect. Typically, a company like Microsoft will allow use of the Helvetica font under its licensing of its product, Word, but does the nature of the explosion of reuse and reformation of designs to create entirely new and imaginative expressions demand rethinking of how we determine the value and definition of digital intellectual property?

Are there other areas of Copyright law that need similar scrutiny ?
(GMOs, Life Patents, Trademarks ect.)

Can the argument be made that we have outgrown Copyright law as a society?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Timo X

    • 0
    Jan 20 2012: "Whats more interesting is that (I believe it was viacom) recently attempted to sue Youtube for copyright infringement, but it was infact viacom that was uploading the video clips in the first place because (Drum roll, please) it generated additional interest in the shows itself."
    Hahaha, that's quite an amazing story.

    I definitely believe intellectual property laws are outdated, not only because they fail in enforcement, but also because I believe current interpretation of intellectual property itself has been outdated. Nevertheless, I do not think that society has outgrown the idea altogether. As I have argued elsewhere: intellectual property is not actually property, but a society-sanctioned, temporary monopoly on the products of ideas. There are thus three variables in the equation: the length of the exploitation, which products should a priori be considered for protection, and finally, under which circumstances these products should be protected and under which they should not.

    Intellectual copyright laws have changed in the direction that they cover more products, under more circumstances and for longer periods of time. Not only should we stop this trend, we should head in the opposite direction. Why should the rights to a television show hold for twenty years, or whatever, after the creation of the work? Why not until after it's been aired and the DVD has been sold? Most of the demand is satisfied immediately anyway, the copyright holders do not gain much after it (other than through copyright violations of course). Obviously, this is not a very well thought-out idea, but I will not claim any right to it, so feel free to develop it further.
    • Jan 22 2012: Why do you feel people who produce TV shows owe you something? Were you an investor in these shows? Did you work on the crew? Why do you feel owed a free lunch?

      You are also ignorant of the fact that really risky shows like The Wire can get financing because of their hoped longevity via "cult appeal".

      TV and movies are barely surviving anymore, and the whole youtube thing does not pay a living wage. Why are you so eager to curtail revenue further.
      .
      • thumb
        Jan 22 2012: Should the makers of TV shows be paying the estates of the pioneers who created camera techniques or editing conventions?

        It's all borrowing from the past; these people like to pretend they are the original innovators when they aren't either.
        • Jan 22 2012: Actually, they do pay. All the technology on a set is legally licensed from its creators - this is why digital cameras and other film equipment cost so much - we are paying for the IP their creators put in - which to me is fair enough.

          Film pros share some of their tricks out of tradition of apprenticeship, but never all of them - and it's their choice what to share. Many techniques, like the Matrix effect, are licensed from the guys who invented them, even though there is no physical tech involved.

          You know, if ideas are free, that means our thoughts are worthless, and one could only help to make a living through.manual labour.
        • Jan 27 2012: Idea, thoughts are worthless until they produce something other want, being it a physical product or an artist production such as music, movies etc, in the end they all requires some manual labour.
      • thumb
        Jan 23 2012: Ah, I mean the techniques themselves, something as banal as the sight-object inserts, match dissolves, jump cuts, etc.

        The conventions, not the technology.

        These have all become the fundamental building blocks of cinematic language and we take them for granted.
        • thumb
          Jan 25 2012: One could also argue that the stylistic conventions in film are treated in much the same way as other expressions of art: patterns or forms in writing/poetry, music, photography, painting, presentations, etc.
      • thumb
        Jan 24 2012: "You know, if ideas are free, that means our thoughts are worthless"

        I think this comment is interesting in the sense that it involves the question of value, and property by definition is something of value. And that is what its' all about, you mentioned, "Why do you feel people who produce TV shows owe you something," I on the other hand would ask the question, "What are the people who produce TV shows providing me?"

        Sincerely trying to answer that question I come up with entertainment and popular culture. Neither of these things have inherent value like any other form of property, so why should I ascribe it a monetary worth?

        Your answer to ideas being worthless is that we will all have to make our living doing manual labor, which is sufficiently scary, however not quite sufficient as an argument against the sort of copyright law abuses that Timo points out.

        Do you think TV and Music have value in the same context as land or machines as they are presented to us today?
        • Jan 25 2012: At last a debate about the concept of value. There can be no 'culture' without value, but value is not necessarily only economic. It seems that the debate is divided along generational lines. The younger generation see freedom of information and information sharing as a 'good' thing. The older generation see 'Intellectual Property' as something earned, a matter of education. In the world of the internet it is not uncommon to hear someone say "I learned it on the internet". Doubtless what was leaned was of value to the student. The question not asked is - how much value? Would you trust your life to a heart surgeon who learned his trade on the internet? Would you cross a bridge designed by an engineer who learned his trade on the internet? Sorry to keep bringing in the real world here, but it seems to me that the advocates of the free exchange of virtual information presume that this information has no relevance to the world of real things. Music and entertainment, art and literature are cultural tangibles that must have value in order for them to make a contribution to the cultural environment. The result of making 'intellectual property' freely accessible will be a devaluing of cultural worth, because things of real cultural value, things that may only be transmitted between two human beings, a teacher and a pupil; a master and his apprentice, cannot be transmitted by the internet. These critical values will be lost and you will find yourselves dealing in a continually narrowing world of quotation and re-quotation, in a descending value spiral. I would say we are already witnesses to this process on the internet, but perhaps the younger generation will not be experienced enough to perceive this process at work.
      • thumb
        Jan 25 2012: Indeed, Simon, that is precisely what I am saying.

        Attempting to circumvent works going into the public domain is denying the fact that those who have created have extended the works and discoveries of those who have gone before.
        • Jan 26 2012: But removing sources of revenue from art creators, even if it's just shortening the time limit, means fewer will be able to afford to find the time to make said works. Hollywood is slowly going bankrupt (MGM recently went bankrupt), the majority of indy production companies that existed 10 years ago are now full-on bankrupt. Lots of people might have had the pitch for the next Little Miss Sunshine or American Beauty, but while you guys discuss Marxism and the concept of value, they had nowhere to go with these ideas, and instead continued to work at Starbucks. We'll never find out what they would have created - and cheap cameras don;t change the fact that you need a LOT of money to make a watchable film, and a LOT of time. Youtube proves this (where is the home-made feature that is anything more than a cheap laugh?) . This "new business model" is a few cents on the dollar - it's just not viable, and the only people making indy films now, for rare exception, are rich trust fund kids and people who do so after 3 shifts at other jobs. The net result of starving artists is most often that they give up (this in reality, not in some ivory tower academics's fantasies about the way things "should" be.)

          You may have also noticed that Hollywood is releasing fewer and fewer films (half as many as 15 years ago, almost exactly.) This means that as consumers, we have fewer and fewer choices. Isn't this free sharing on the Internet wonderful? Let's all hug and do a hippie dance.
      • thumb
        Jan 26 2012: And I'd like to feel sorry for Hollywood, but they produce things like Jack and Jill and let Madonna act and direct. People are clearly willing to pay to be entertained, but not for crap. Which is diametrically opposed to Hollywood's need for formulae and producing clones of films.

        For example: How many months were there LINE UPS for Avatar (that sticks in my mind because I was going to something in early March - more than 2 months after the film had been released - and I was STILL passing roped off line ups to get in to see that film).

        I wouldn't even call it a particularly good film.

        I am a former Associate Director of the byDesign eLab at the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology (based out of McLuhan's original coach house) so I'm going to fall back on a quote from Marshall McLuhan:

        "A new medium is never an addition to an old one, nor does it leave the old one in peace. It never ceases to oppress the older media until it finds new shapes and positions for them."

        Each replaced medium has to figure out what it does uniquely well and then use that. Radio didn't replace newspapers or books; TV didn't replace either film or radio; but always there is this panic and re-shuffling as people adapt (or refuse).

        There's no putting genies back in bottles.
        • Jan 26 2012: Amateur youtube filmmakers produce almost 100% crap.

          I hear this argument all the time - and to this I say - if it's crap, why do you want to illegally download it? Just don't watch it. Hollywood produces greatness and crap, yes, but this is true of any business, any artistic medium.

          Hollywood is not some monolithic, single entity. There are many producers, good and bad, many of whom have never met each other, strongly disagree with each other and have zero control over anything but what they themselves produce. Why should one producer be punished for what some other producer did, without his or her consent or even knowledge?

          Most Parisian poets produce crap, but some are brilliant ones. Same principle. Should we slam down the good Parisian poets because others, whom they might not even know about, are producing bad work in the same city?

          None of this justifies stealing. The next step in this kind of reasoning is that if you go to a mediocre restaurant, it's OK to run off without paying. Besides who are you to judge what is crap. Hollywood tries to make products that people will like and sometimes they fail. Again, like any business. Some people might like what you don't like, it's their business. You are not the taste police. If nobody likes something and box office is zero for that reason, the INDIVIDUAL producers responsible will likely have a hard time raising money next time. Fair enough. But if box office is zero because millions of people stole their work, I can't see how that's fair.

          What you're essentially saying is that until no working member of Hollywood any longer produces any films you personally dislike, you feel it's OK to steal from all working members of Hollywood. You will only feel they deserve to be treated like any business must be treated for our economy to continue (i.e. protected by law from fraud and theft) only if no single member ever makes any mistakes. Does any business currently meet your stringent criteria?
      • thumb
        Jan 26 2012: "Amateur youtube filmmakers produce almost 100% crap."

        Yes, and they aren't charging me $14 to watch it.

        "What you're essentially saying is that until no working member of Hollywood any longer produces any films you personally dislike, you feel it's OK to steal from all working members of Hollywood."

        Apparently, I can't even blame this piss-poor syllogism on the American education system.

        I don't even know what bizarre premises you used to come up with this outcome.

        I said, "People are willing to pay for entertainment," and gave an example of a $2billion+ generating film.

        I then said that losses Hollywood experiences are the direct result of producing crap and not things that people want to watch - because CLEARLY people are willing to pay to watch things, probably more than once.

        And then you thought [something] that apparently when combined with what I said leads to my unwillingness to pay for films (despite paying to go to the cinema almost weekly, and being a PAID member of TIFF) negated everything that was said and resulted in:

        "What you're essentially saying is that until no working member of Hollywood any longer produces any films you personally dislike, you feel it's OK to steal from all working members of Hollywood."


        Are the Underpants Gnomes now helping people with logic and not just business theory?
        • Jan 27 2012: No, I've had a fine education courtesy of France and Quebec. No Americans to blame here. :-)

          Sorry if I misunderstood you - and I never meant to claim that YOU personally were stealing content, only that you were giving such stealing by others a moral pass. "People are willing to pay for entertainment" could imply it's Ok for people to not pay for what is less entertaining - which led to my restaurant analogy. But I think I misunderstood what you meant to say.

          Avatar is exactly the kind of film that can survive despite piracy. Not because it's good, but because it is based on a huge visual spectacle that is not well replicated via an over-compressed, lowish resolution illegal download viewed on a 2D computer screen. What is in danger are films like Down The Rabbit Hole, who's main value is plot, and which CAN be quite well enjoyed via a torrent. What is happening now, due to piracy, is that Hollywood is producing fewer films, and almost no films like Down The Rabbit Hole. How could Hollywood (or any film producer, anywhere) do this? Where would the money come from when piracy has replaced so much of what used to be a home video market that was a huge percentage of how films like that could break even in the past, let alone make a profit?

          Piracy free home video used to allow all kinds of really cool and weird stuff to get made, because home video allowed a soft cushion for failed experiments. Now there is no room for failure, and so producers have become much more conservative.

          This narrowing of the scope of films made has the exact same net result as severe censorship. Hollywood doesn't have government grants (and government money seem to lead to cronyism and other forms of censorship, as easily observed in Canada, where most of the government money mostly goes to the same 5 or 6 boomers the government officials went to school with, regardless of consistently abysmal box office track records).
        • thumb
          Jan 28 2012: LOL! The underpants Gnomes might have done a better job than the apologists for obsolete business models!
          No one is saying that artists do not deserve their funding - only how it is delivered to them - and what are the destructive side-effects of persisting with an outmoded model.
          THere is a way forward, draconian restrictions will close the door to our forward development. Hollywood is swarming with creative people - they will find the way - with or without protective legislation - they are the real underpants gnomes - stage 2 always turns up if you're creative enough!
        • thumb
          Feb 9 2012: Thank you Robert & Gisela & everyone for participating so much in this discussion!

          I will continue to follow and hopefully write a few more comments, but overall I have found much of the discussion here quite thought provoking, TYVM!

          I wanted to say just a few things that I am currently 23, and growing up I had computers everywhere. My father worked for HP and my mother taught computer courses. I was completely, and remain completely, enveloped by the digital world. I got my first job and used my first paycheck to buy the first iPod. I have bought maybe 10 CDs and possibly 20 DVDs total in my life (One of them being "What the Bleep" btw). But on the other hand I've been to countless concerts. I've seen 311 live more than 11 times now. I have seen hundreds if not thousands of movies in the cinema.

          This debate to me is not about the qualities of movies or music or about legitimacy of artists. It is about realistically, and fairly, discussing a system of commerce that has exploded over the past decade (eCommerce) and has demonstrated that when you buy a TV or a Stereo off of Amazon, you are receiving an inherently different product than when you buy a song or download a movie. It is important to me that we as a global society come up with solutions that involve everyone and empowers those who truly add to the culture and interests of the people and to not allow the reformation of these industries become subverted by the wealthy and already powerful. There is a global shift, as demonstrated by these media wars, and the people in power are scared. They are scared they are going to lose their grip on everything they have accumulated and because they are scared, they will use whatever tactics they can to maintain their control. Rupert Murdoch spoke up for SOPA. The same Murdoch implicated in hacking and bribing police for decades! He and many like him stand to lose a lot, but that only means we need to be even more ardent making sure the game isn't rigged. xD
      • thumb
        Jan 27 2012: Pulp paper and dime novels killed serialized stories in newspapers.

        Television effectively killed radio plays.

        A new medium will often kill something about the old, and the old needs to find a new role in something it does uniquely.

        The old medium can rail against the gods all it likes, but it will eventually lose out and need to change. Hollywood was already taking fewer and fewer risks even before the advent of the Internet. Whether TV or movies, you have seen for a while one person will take a gamble, then the rest jump on the bandwagon.

        They don't want to do what the medium does well.
        • Jan 27 2012: I have no problem with the examples you state. Video games are also a new medium that has eroded youth audiences from film and TV, as has time spent on Facebook. No problem, cool.

          But Internet piracy is not a new medium - it offers no new ways for creative people to express themselves that would not exist without it. Pirate Bay and torrents are only a delivery method of old media forms, based on theft, that actually make it harder for people to get creative projects off the ground, because it steals so much of their potential revenue from them.

          People say Hollywood doesn't pay enough to creators, but Pirate Bay and their ilk pay nothing at all, while making millions and millions on advertising - Pirate Bay has even worse terms than organized crime with its product suppliers. You can't go any lower than $0.

          Pirate Bay and Megaupload have never created a single thing, have never helped any artists, never taken any risk on art at all, big or small. You can rally against what Hollywood produces all you want, but whatever they produce, it is something, and creates some opportunity for people to make a living and learn, compared to pirate sites' nothing.

          Hollywood was not taking any fewer risks before the advent of piracy. Hollywood was churning out a mix of low and high risk, low and high prestige projects. Until piracy almost eliminated the possibility of anything but visual spectacle blockbusters, that same mix held true for decades, even though people tend to recall past decades with rose colored glasses because The Godfather endures, whereas Towering Inferno 3, made at the same time, is forgotten, while current day stinkers are still in our faces.

          Still troubling, and not answered by you or anyone here, is the underlying notion that its OK for society to suddenly declare some area of business activity to longer be deserving of protection by the rule of law. I wonder what business will next be declared unfit for protection from theft. Cars? Beer?
      • thumb
        Jan 27 2012: My contention is that the producers are blaming the wrong thing.

        The claim that internet piracy has replaced a willingness to pay is patently untrue. Everything is clearly NOT being usurped by pirates. (Yarrrr!)

        We've seen that people will pay for content (and not just porn) online.
        We've seen that people will pay for content in the theatres.

        So why people intent on creating crap and then blaming the inability to profit from it to online piracy?

        If I worked in the industry, I think I would want to work with people who created projects that actually had a future and understand how to create things in the new climate.

        If someone cannot get a project off the ground because there isn't a paying audience for it, then it's the wrong project -- or the wrong delivery system. My little secret is that I order Bollywood movies online all the time. The service I use doesn't require that I install a rootkit on my computer to watch them, and it doesn't charge me an exorbitant amount to watch them (especially older movies). It doesn't tell me that I can't view it because I am in Canada and not in the US or somewhere else. It gives me the option to watch it for 48 hours or pay a little more to buy it and play it as often as I want -- no strings attached.

        This is not how Hollywood works. Hollywood doesn't get it. Hollywood doesn't even want to get it.

        Joss Whedon got it -- and he also got the whole "make the money from the merchandise" -- which is still tangible, and shipped, and paid for willingly because it is collectible. (Hollywood didn't even understand the whole merchandising thing until George Lucas showed them just how profitable it could be.)

        Trying to cripple the Internet in order to prevent the world from moving on without them really doesn't elicit any sympathy from me.
        • Jan 27 2012: Well actually, dozens of consumer surveys prove you wrong. Many consumers have replaced legal renting and purchasing with piracy. Actual numbers are probably higher than those who admit it, but basing ourselves on the results of many, many independent questionnaires piracy costs film producers (not just Hollywood, any film producers) roughly 50% of the revenue they used to have. Software, publishing, all are hurt by this. To think that film, books, software and many other industries do not lose revenue to piracy is ludicrous.

          People pay at the theaters for grand visual spectacle. Mostly gone forever are the many genres that depended on home video to be economically viable (like adult sophisticated thrillers, or more urbane romantic comedies) because they are more quiet and intimate, less optimized for a grand night out. Hollywood HAS adapted, but the only solution was to narrow production

          Not all movies lend themselves to merchandising easily the way Star Wars does. What Schindler's List merchandise would you suggest? In fact, very few movies would credibly lend themselves to that kind of merchandising. Besides, people eventually run out of room for merchandise.

          Also, the minute you bring in tie-ins for toy companies, you have the marketing executives from those companies having a big say on the script i.e. serious censorship. There is nothing more free than for pay content - this is why HBO can be so much more daring than network TV - because there are no sponsors to worry about upsetting.

          The service you use to watch Bollywood movies is identical to what is offered on Playstation, XBox and iTunes. It costs about $6 to rent a movie for 48 hrs via download. No one has any problem with that. Hollywood has actually embraced these services - virtually all current and past studio films are available there - I'm not sure what it is you feel they don't get.As for rootkits, Sony Music (not the film division) had one once, many years ago. No one else.
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2012: "Many consumers have replaced legal renting and purchasing with piracy."

        So maybe the rental market is dead. That may indeed be the way of the world from this point on.

        If people aren't making these films, there's nothing for pirates to steal, is there? Either people will miss them and figure out a way to finance them in advance, or they won't.

        "The service you use to watch Bollywood movies is identical to what is offered on Playstation, XBox and iTunes. It costs about $6 to rent a movie for 48 hrs via download."

        Can't say I have checked out what is available on these other services as a) I don't trust them not to install unwanted crap on my computer, and b) I actually go to the movies.

        Sounds to me like they've got an answer, then, to their problem that doesn't involve breaking the Internet.
        • Jan 28 2012: I'm sorry but you are showing a typical disconnect between academics and the real world. It's fine to not know something, but academic don't let that stop them from developing theories about it.You cannot install something on your computer via an Xbox or PS3, it is a standalone device only used for playing games/movies/TV shows. iTunes does not install any malware on your computer, and besides any Mac comes with iTunes pre-installed. Any fear sin this regard are yet more propaganda form companies who profit off stealing other people's hard work.

          All these legit services would make their due money if they were not competing with free. The problem is not that no one LIKES certain kinds of films, it's that they do not PAY for that content, because it is so easy to steal. I don;t feel it is OK for films, from now on, to ONLY be things like Avatar and Rocky Horror Picture Show. I think that's sad.

          Also almost bankrupt are many types of software. technology would advance much faster if theft were not such a huge issue, and legal copies would cost a lot less.

          It is also pure fiction to say that anti-piracy rules would "break the internet". This is propaganda created by huge corporations, much larger than any film studio, such as google and Internet service providers, who make a lot of money off piracy.
        • Feb 15 2012: "It is also pure fiction to say that anti-piracy rules would "break the internet". This is propaganda created by huge corporations, much larger than any film studio, such as google and Internet service providers, who make a lot of money off piracy."

          Really? I do not have the time nor the legal skills to verify this, so I ask someone else to confirm what I have heard. If what I have heard is correct, it would be possible to:

          1) DNS servers in the US would be forced to block an entire domain upon any notification from an alleged IP owner. That would have to be done immediately, before any approval from a higher authority or prior investigation. This way, a troll could post a link to thepiratebay right here in this comments section and notify ISP to block both TED's domain and Google's domain (as Google links to TED, which would link to thepiratebay). After weeks of investigation, even if these organizations were forgiven, and the troll severely punished, they would still have gone "offline" long enough to get seriously hurt.

          2) Another way to break things down would be to claim that any cryptographic software is a tool for supporting piracy, as these tools would make it harder for ISP to open internet packets and verify their legitimacy (yes, they would be forced to do that because of these laws). If this claim passed, it would be forbidden to encrypt your credit card and password data, so either you send these sensitive data in plain text or you would stop using all services that depended on some cryptography (that includes email, online shopping and all wireless communications).

          If these situations were to become possible with the proposed laws, I'd have very serious and very well grounded concerns about the future of the internet.
        • Feb 15 2012: "You cannot install something on your computer via an Xbox or PS3, it is a standalone device only used for playing games/movies/TV shows. iTunes does not install any malware on your computer, and besides any Mac comes with iTunes pre-installed. Any fear sin this regard are yet more propaganda form companies who profit off stealing other people's hard work."

          Malware would not have to be "installed", they would come bundled with your hardware or software. It is not (yet) allowed even in these new anti-piracy laws, but we are not too far from that. Video game consoles ARE general purpose computers, and therefore cannot be made in a way to prevent copying of very specific yet dynamic list of contents. Unless...

          Unless they came bundled with a piece of software running in the background out of your reach (or control) as a user, sending information about everything you do or don't in that specific piece of hardware. Oh wait, isn't that what malwares do? The difference would be that this kind of malware would be "installed" by law, so you cannot simply choose to disable it (that would be illegal).

          "Also almost bankrupt are many types of software. technology would advance much faster if theft were not such a huge issue, and legal copies would cost a lot less."

          Yes, yet software development is still thriving, more than most other businesses. Especially open source software (in fact, I think much of the anti-copyright movement depends on it, although they absolutely do not endorse stealing IP). Good programmers do not starve, especially if they participate in an open source project, because they either get a good job more easily (by becoming more visible), or they find another way of monetizing using their software and skills.

          Only the old software companies that depend on selling their "product" are really dying. The companies selling their "services" are thriving. And faster than any other business.
      • thumb
        Jan 28 2012: I should also point out that the screening I attended of Wender's Pina was packed.

        Again, there's an audience for what works uniquely in the cinema, on the large screen, possibly in cases where something is more enjoyable en masse (seriously people could just play the DVD of the Rocky Horror Picture Show and yet they go to be with each other).

        If what you are producing is effectively competing with some guy on YouTube (and there are some fine pieces on there if you know where to look) then you need to up your game or go home.
      • thumb
        Jan 29 2012: Ah but iTunes IS on the computer (not mine), not a standalone machine, and that is what I was speaking about. The other two are somewhat irrelevant to me as I tend to game on my PC (though I work in *nix environments, I have a PC locally so that I can game - or at least that used to be the theory as I haven`t had any time of late).

        "iTunes does not install any malware on your computer, and besides any Mac comes with iTunes pre-installed. Any fear sin this regard are yet more propaganda form companies who profit off stealing other people's hard work."

        Arguably, iTunes IS malware. I don't use it because I do not believe in their proprietary file format and their DRM. It's not on my computer and it never will be. And yes, I know I can convert to mp3 using other apps + lame, but I have long since decided Apple will never get a cent of my money (the last straw having been the BeOS fiasco, so that should tell you how long I have been holding that grudge).

        But then, I also go to the movies. I see that my taste in films usually means that my companion and I are two of an audience of maybe a dozen much of the time. Herzog's film, von Trier, and Wenders being the exceptions of late.

        And yes, it would be sad to not be able to see some of the pieces we select, but we also realize that such small audiences really can't be sustainable. If people don't want to pay for these films, then there is effectively no market. Period. Doesn't matter if they would be willing to download for free, they won't pay.

        And you can't tell me that "breaking the Internet: is only a myth of Wikipedia and Google -- I don't know if you weren't paying attention, but Pakistan took down Youtube globally using the technique that was grudgingly removed from the legislation last month. It's pretty clear the people drafting these bills don't understand the Internet, and now they want to penalize the wrong people.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.