Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Careers - Employment
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


View Poll Results: ?
Do it, man! It's for the greater good 36 48.00%
No way! Companies need their $$$$ 27 36.00%
42 12 16.00%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #251  
Old 11-05-2014, 08:57 AM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 42,118
Default

So, let me see if I have CS's argument right:

Copying is now cheap and easy
It is hard to completely prevent individuals from copying intellectual property
Therefore, we shouldn't try, and there should be no laws against it

footnote: before the invention of "copyright", people did create stuff.

Is that correct?

If that's it, I don't think your argument is completely without merit. In general, morality does follow economics, and the economic reality is that copying is now quite cheap.

But I think you are undervaluing the role of editors/publishers/curators in promoting useful intellectual property and making it available in the sea of worthless material. And THOSE people/corporations can't violate copyright laws (if those laws exist) because by their nature, they are doing their thing in the public eye. So, for example, people who prepare exam study material for actuarial exams usually advertise it here. And from time to time, people come and offer illegal copies (affordibly produced illegal copies) of the same material. But they do it here, so students will see it. And then the owners of the copyrighted works can see that, and report it, and the user who is offering the illegal copy gets banned from this site. (and if it were a major violation, and not a guy pretending to re-sell his legally obtained copy, I imagine the copyright owners would also seek legal remedy against those parties.)

This same dynamic plays out all over the place. So in fact, the laws currently have some teeth. And it's not just the IP owners who report those posts -- lots of regular users do, too, because many ordinary people feel there is some fairness in copyright laws. Those same people often choose to buy stuff they could download for free. It seems safer and more moral.

My argument is that one of the problems with copyright law right now is that it is SO inclusive that it is losing moral ground. There are lots of works that can't be legally obtained, due to the overhead the current copyright laws create. For example, my brother, who has ties to the comic-book industry, says that it is unlikely the 1960s TV show "Batman" will ever be released in any format not covered by the contracts written at the time because the copyrights are so messed up that it's cost-prohibitive (and perhaps impossible) to obtain clean rights. The DVD release of "Get Smart" was delayed for about a decade due to similar problems. Many fewer people feel moral qualms about pirating something that can't be purchased than about pirating something that can be purchased for a reasonable price. This weakens the moral support in the community for copyright laws in general.

My proposal is an attempt to fix that. To re-jig copyright laws so that most stuff becomes public domain fairly quickly, while allowing Disney and other very high-volume publishers of valuable materials to continue to sell their stuff at a profit. (stuff that is nonetheless affordable to most customers.)

Will it prevent every person from every copying something illegally? Of course not. Might it prevent enough persons from doing so that there continues to be a profitable market for IP that is expensive to create? I think it might.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 11-05-2014, 09:06 AM
Colonel Smoothie's Avatar
Colonel Smoothie Colonel Smoothie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
College: Jamba Juice University
Favorite beer: AO Amber Ale
Posts: 49,071
Default

I only read the first part I'll read the 2nd later. My correction to you is that I don't really care too much about the cost of copying. I believe that copying a work is fine. I believe if you want to blatantly take Pride and Prejudice, cross out Jane Austen's name and then put your name on the cover and try to sell it, you should be allowed to do so, even way back in 1813.
__________________
Recommended Readings for the EL Actuary || Recommended Readings for the EB Actuary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigmeister General View Post
Don't you even think about sending me your resume. I'll turn it into an origami boulder and return it to you.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 11-05-2014, 09:11 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 89,051
Blog Entries: 6
Default

great news!

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketc...103-story.html
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 11-05-2014, 09:12 AM
Devastator's Avatar
Devastator Devastator is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 19,712
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie View Post
I only read the first part I'll read the 2nd later. My correction to you is that I don't really care too much about the cost of copying. I believe that copying a work is fine. I believe if you want to blatantly take Pride and Prejudice, cross out Jane Austen's name and then put your name on the cover and try to sell it, you should be allowed to do so, even way back in 1813.
I think we've officially jumped the shark
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 11-05-2014, 09:58 AM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 42,118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
Woo Hoo!

(I thought it was already out of copyright. At any rate, I have a nice ebook version which I obtained free, through legal channels. So whoever gave it to me thought it was out of copyrught. I guess if there weren't a disagreement, it wouldn't be in the courts, though.)
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 05-21-2019, 06:43 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 89,051
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I wound up in this thread this morning for some reason, and was reading something else related... so why not?

https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-...copyright-law/



https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...public-domain/
Quote:
Mickey Mouse will be public domain soon—here’s what that means
The Internet stopped another copyright extension without firing a shot.

Spoiler:
As the ball dropped over Times Square last night, all copyrighted works published in 1923 fell into the public domain (with a few exceptions). Everyone now has the right to republish them or adapt them for use in new works.

It's the first time this has happened in 21 years.

In 1998, works published in 1922 or earlier were in the public domain, with 1923 works scheduled to expire at the beginning of 1999. But then Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. It added 20 years to the terms of older works, keeping 1923 works locked up until 2019.

Many people—including me—expected another fight over copyright extension in 2018. But it never happened. Congress left the existing law in place, and so those 1923 copyrights expired on schedule this morning.

And assuming Congress doesn't interfere, more works will fall into the public domain each January from now on.

Next January, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue will fall into the public domain. It will be followed by The Great Gatsby in January 2021 and Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises in January 2022.

On January 1, 2024, we'll see the expiration of the copyright for Steamboat Willie—and with it Disney's claim to the film's star, Mickey Mouse. The copyrights to Superman, Batman, Disney's Snow White, and early Looney Tunes characters will all fall into the public domain between 2031 and 2035.

The expiration of copyrights for characters like Mickey Mouse and Batman will raise tricky new legal questions. After 2024, Disney won't have any copyright protection for Mickey's original incarnation. But Disney will still own copyrights for later incarnations of the character—and it will also own Mickey-related trademarks.

James Grimmelmann, a copyright scholar at Cornell Law School, tells Ars that this is an uncharted area of law because licensing practices for modern characters are "so much more intensive and so much more comprehensive now" than in the 1920s and 1930s. "We never had megacharacters in the same way" prior to the 1920s, he says.

Internet activism made another extension untenable

Dennis Karjala was a law professor who helped lead the doomed resistance to the 1998 extension. He passed away in 2017, but when I interviewed him in 2013, he told me that it was "basically the Gershwin family trust, grandchildren of Oscar Hammerstein, Disney, others of that ilk" who pushed for ever-longer copyright terms.

Most copyrighted works become commercially worthless within a decade or two. But a small minority of famous works from the 1920s and 1930s were still generating significant revenues in the 1990s. Retroactively extending copyright terms meant an enormous windfall for the companies and families that owned the copyrights.

"There was not a single argument that actually can stand up to any kind of reasonable analysis," Karjala said. But the public domain had few defenders. So even though the arguments for longer copyright terms weren't very strong, they won the day in Congress.

Until recently, I assumed that the same interest groups would try to extend copyright terms again in 2018. But the political climate for copyright legislation has changed radically over the last 20 years.

A year ago, Ars Technica broke the news that three of the nation's most powerful rights holder groups in the country, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the Authors Guild, were not even going to try to pass legislation extending copyrights.

"It's not something we are pursuing," an RIAA spokesman told me.

The reason was simple, Grimmelmann argues: they knew they weren't going to win.

"There's now a well-organized, grassroots lobby against copyright expansion," Grimmelmann tells Ars. "There are large business interests now on the anti-expansion side. Also a wide popular movement that they can tie it into."

The rise of the Internet and its remix culture means that a lot of people now benefit from a growing public domain in ways that weren't true in 1998. That includes big companies like Google, but it also includes grassroots communities like Wikipedia editors and Reddit users. This emerging copyright reform coalition flexed its lobbying muscles in 2012 when it overwhelmingly defeated an Internet filtering bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act.

So if the usual suspects had pushed for another copyright extension, they would have had a serious fight on their hands. Digital rights groups, online activists, and lobbyists from big technology companies would have swarmed Capitol Hill, making the case against copyright extension. Evidently, major rights holders didn't have the stomach for another battle like that.

Of course, it's possible they could make another effort in the future. But such an effort would face long odds: today's opponents of copyright extensions are vastly better organized and better funded than the ragtag band that tried to stop the 1998 copyright extension.


__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 05-21-2019, 08:22 AM
Sredni Vashtar's Avatar
Sredni Vashtar Sredni Vashtar is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Favorite beer: pilseners
Posts: 8,312
Blog Entries: 1
Default

This is a weird thread.

I assume someone's pointed out that all of the actuarial study materials completely depend on individual sales?

I suppose you could make some sort of argument that the exams process could be redefined, but it's pretty obvious that the current methodology is only possible because most of us are willing to not pirate.
__________________
L’humour est la politesse du désespoir

Last edited by Sredni Vashtar; 05-21-2019 at 08:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:09 AM
Vorian Atreides's Avatar
Vorian Atreides Vorian Atreides is offline
Wiki/Note Contributor
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: As far as 3 cups of sugar will take you
Studying for ACAS
College: Hard Knocks
Favorite beer: Most German dark lagers
Posts: 65,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
This is a weird thread.

I assume someone's pointed out that all of the actuarial study materials completely depend on individual sales?

I suppose you could make some sort of argument that the exams process could be redefined, but it's pretty obvious that the current methodology is only possible because most of us are willing to not pirate.
One selling point of getting the "new" manual is having "insights" on items from the latest sitting (at least on the CAS side) in addition to company support for getting study material.


YMMV
__________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing

Why should I worry about dying? It’s not going to happen in my lifetime!


Freedom of speech is not a license to discourtesy

#BLACKMATTERLIVES
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 05-21-2019, 09:14 AM
Sredni Vashtar's Avatar
Sredni Vashtar Sredni Vashtar is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Favorite beer: pilseners
Posts: 8,312
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides View Post
One selling point of getting the "new" manual is having "insights" on items from the latest sitting (at least on the CAS side) in addition to company support for getting study material.


YMMV
I assume the OP can pirate new material as well as old material.

But yes, the changing curriculum requires makes it reasonable to pay extra for the latest updates.
__________________
L’humour est la politesse du désespoir
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.27856 seconds with 11 queries