http://techliberation.com/2008/09/04/the-cablevision-case-and-others/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 16:42:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2008/09/04/the-cablevision-case-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-65852 Steve R. Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:19:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12418#comment-65852 <p>Once again, Copyright is being contorted to aggrandize the so-called property right of the content producers at the expense of the consumer and to establish "toll booths" to extort revenue for every conceivable transaction, such as time shifting. <br><br>If the trend of aggrandizing the property rights of the content producers continues it will have chilling effects. First, the concept of "sale" is being eroded. When one buys a car or house one acquires a property right to use that asset. However, when it comes to so-called intellectual content, amazingly the products are somehow never sold since they are claimed to be leased. Which then allows the content producers to place post-sale restrictions on the use of the content sold. I guess Ford could place a requirement that all spark plugs must be Ford spark plugs. The liberty of the consumer to use an asset as they wish is being stripped.<br><br>Furthermore, I find it surprising that property rights advocates are silent on how the property rights of the consumer are being stripped. I guess we have the ye olde double standard.<br><br>I just ran across this quote from John Perry Barlow thanks to William Stepp at Against Monopoly <br><br><i><b>"The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent."</i></b></p> Once again, Copyright is being contorted to aggrandize the so-called property right of the content producers at the expense of the consumer and to establish “toll booths” to extort revenue for every conceivable transaction, such as time shifting.

If the trend of aggrandizing the property rights of the content producers continues it will have chilling effects. First, the concept of “sale” is being eroded. When one buys a car or house one acquires a property right to use that asset. However, when it comes to so-called intellectual content, amazingly the products are somehow never sold since they are claimed to be leased. Which then allows the content producers to place post-sale restrictions on the use of the content sold. I guess Ford could place a requirement that all spark plugs must be Ford spark plugs. The liberty of the consumer to use an asset as they wish is being stripped.

Furthermore, I find it surprising that property rights advocates are silent on how the property rights of the consumer are being stripped. I guess we have the ye olde double standard.

I just ran across this quote from John Perry Barlow thanks to William Stepp at Against Monopoly

“The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent.”

]]> http://techliberation.com/2008/09/04/the-cablevision-case-and-others/comment-page-1/#comment-56071 Steve R. Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:19:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=12418#comment-56071 <p>Once again, Copyright is being contorted to aggrandize the so-called property right of the content producers at the expense of the consumer and to establish "toll booths" to extort revenue for every conceivable transaction, such as time shifting. <br><br>If the trend of aggrandizing the property rights of the content producers continues it will have chilling effects. First, the concept of "sale" is being eroded. When one buys a car or house one acquires a property right to use that asset. However, when it comes to so-called intellectual content, amazingly the products are somehow never sold since they are claimed to be leased. Which then allows the content producers to place post-sale restrictions on the use of the content sold. I guess Ford could place a requirement that all spark plugs must be Ford spark plugs. The liberty of the consumer to use an asset as they wish is being stripped.<br>Furthermore, I find it surprising that property rights advocates are silent on how the property rights of the consumer are being stripped. I guess we have the ye olde double standard.<br><br>I just ran accross this quote from John Perry Barlow thanks to William Stepp at Against Monopoly <br><br><i><b>"The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent."</i></b></p> Once again, Copyright is being contorted to aggrandize the so-called property right of the content producers at the expense of the consumer and to establish “toll booths” to extort revenue for every conceivable transaction, such as time shifting.

If the trend of aggrandizing the property rights of the content producers continues it will have chilling effects. First, the concept of “sale” is being eroded. When one buys a car or house one acquires a property right to use that asset. However, when it comes to so-called intellectual content, amazingly the products are somehow never sold since they are claimed to be leased. Which then allows the content producers to place post-sale restrictions on the use of the content sold. I guess Ford could place a requirement that all spark plugs must be Ford spark plugs. The liberty of the consumer to use an asset as they wish is being stripped.
Furthermore, I find it surprising that property rights advocates are silent on how the property rights of the consumer are being stripped. I guess we have the ye olde double standard.

I just ran accross this quote from John Perry Barlow thanks to William Stepp at Against Monopoly

“The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent.”

]]>