Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
from the please-explain dept
A few months back, Public Knowledge released its five ideas for copyright reform, and we asked people to defend why any of them didn't make sense. Oddly -- despite the vast number of copyright system defenders who populate the comments around here -- not a single person suggested any reason why the five suggested reforms didn't make sense. Some people suggested other ideas for reform, but the regular defenders of the system miraculously disappeared when asked to defend the current system. I'd say it was funny... but, really, it's just sad.PK is now drilling down deeper into each of the five topics, and the latest one is the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, which makes circumventing any kind of "technical protection measures" illegal -- even if you are doing it for perfectly legal reasons. It also makes it illegal to make or distribute tools that can be used to circumvent DRM. In PK's rewrite, those specific problems are fixed:
To remedy the situation, PK proposed two simple changes to the DMCA. First, Section 1201(a)(1), which now bans circumventing a technological protection measure which that "controls access" to a copyrighted work would should be changed "to allow circumvention for the purpose of making a non-infringing use of the protected work."So, once again, I will ask the copyright defenders among the community here: what's wrong with this proposal? I'd like to understand a defense of an anti-circumvention law that makes the tool, rather than the uses, illegal -- and which makes a perfectly legal action illegal just because of the method used. Because, frankly, I've never understood how either provision in today's law makes sense, and I'm sure there must be someone out there who thinks they do make sense.
Second, Section 1201(a)(2) and Section (b)(1), which ban the making and distribution of circumvention tools, should be amended to permit the making and distribution of tools capable of enabling substantial non-infringing use of a work, in order to give those making lawful uses the practical ability to circumvent.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-circumvention, copyright, copyright reform, dmca, drm
Companies: public knowledge
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Catch-22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Catch-22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Catch-22
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devil's Advocate
If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
I could equally argue that the law as stated artificially extends those rights you stated by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend. Why does that not bother you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
But by the size of the comment thread, I'd say I kicked off some healthy discussion, so mission accomplished.
What more is there that I need to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
Under that same logic, Ford would have the "right" to determine what places you could take your car for service, or even what states you can drive it in.
"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
So if Ford were to install a system in a car that prevents the car from going over 40mph, and you removed that system so you could drive 50mph on a road with a 50mph speed limit, taking the system out would be illegal, even if you're still following the speed limit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Whats wrong with that? No one is forcing you to buy from Ford. But you are trying to force Ford into doing business in a way that they may not agree with. Why should you have that power over a company that isn't yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
We're discussing whether or not the creator's wishes should extend beyond their mutually-understood rights to things that the law says are possible and allowable by consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Sellers agree to sell at a price, and when the buyer pays that price, the seller has gotten everything they asked for and are entitled to. Even if the buyer later finds a way to extend the use-value, the seller has still gotten everything they asked for and the buyer's paid everything they owe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
If I would like to remove the governor chip, change the upholstery, add a supercharger, or tint the windows, it's well within my right because I own that car. It's no longer Ford's, and they hold no claim over my property.
A crowbar is potentially a tool for theft, and a gun for murder -- we've already seen how thorny it can get to limit access to those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Would you be ok, if a dvd came with a licenses to only one viewer at a time, but with a bit about how multiple licenses would allow for multiple viewers at once? if you wanted to show the dvd to a family of 4, you need to buy the dvd 4 times. just stick it in 3pt font in the back of the brown label in black text right now and BAM! "but you should have read the terms and conditions on the back, WAAA!!!".
Does craftsman say that you can't use a wrench as a hammer? nope, they sold me a hunk of steel, and I can do what i like with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
I understand that this is seriously being looked at. There would be some sort of sensor in the set top box or DVD player that could determine how many people were in the room and some how charge accordingly. There have been assurances that said sensor would only be infrared and limited to counting people. However, there are many problems with this and I doubt consumers would be happy with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
Nor his place to strip our fair use rights of said works.
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
But the difference is that its the creator's choice. Under the current system of Fair Use, and with the changes proposed above, you are taking that choice away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
What you are suggesting is that creators should have their cake and eat it too. They should be able to gain the benefits of distribution and sale while also restricting activities post-sale. First, that isn't even really possible with physical goods, so you could only practically try to apply it to digital goods. And second, let's suppose we make that change--are you willing to accept that would likely devalue many offerings, often significantly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
It's not really possible with digital goods either. So...yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Exhibit A: Reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Call the Whaaabulance.
Your twisted view of society does you a disservice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Fixed That For You.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Says who, you? So the law should only be followed when you like it, otherwise it should be ignored? Is that what you think? and anything that you don't like about the law should be ignored, only the parts that you like should be followed? and others should just follow the parts of the law that you like, not the parts that you don't like, because the parts that you don't like are loopholes that shouldn't exist and hence should be ignored. You get to pick and choose which parts of the law you like and ignore the rest. Why can't I do the same thing then? With your logic I'll just argue that copyright is a loophole in the law and should have never been placed into law. So I will just ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
> allowing the creator to choose whether their works would
> eventually go public, be public immediately, or never go public.
So you're not only advocating the repeal of the Fair Use provisions in the U.S. Code, but also advocating perpetual copyright, which would require amending the Constitution itself to repeal the "limited times" portion of the Copyright Clause?
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
He may not approve, but it's certainly well within my rights as the owner of the actual book to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
"prevents a creator from controlling their works,"
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
If I buy something, it is mine to do with as I please. If I choose to use my new purchase for illegal purposes, then that's between me and the authorities, not the creator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
If he makes it available in any way or form, he's gonna have to cope with the fact that digital goods spread rather quickly, if they're any good, because people like to share.
And that's a good thing he can take advantage of and make some serious profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
So, if I buy up all the Metallica CDs and DVDs I can find and smash them with a hammer, Metallica should be able to tell me I can't do that? Is that what you're saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
What I am saying is that if Metallica offers to sell their CDs with the stipulation that you can't smash them with a hammer, and you agree to purchase the CD with that stipulation, then you should not be able to smash it. And if you don't agree to that stipulation, then you should not buy the CD to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Smash CDs all you want.
The Art on the medium is what is controlled by the copyright, not the medium it is transmitted on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
My opinion, the idea of "distribution" was very well thought up. Content creators today don't sell their work but distribute it. We don't buy works (because if you buy something you personally should be able to do whatever you want with the product) but are granted "a limited use license". WTF?
A stupid(?) example: "buy" a car with a "license" that states that you may only use cheap crap fuel and not any form of premium fuel and any "work" or "works" done on the car may only be done by the "retailer" or you will violate that license and be processed to the full extent of the law. Wonder if this has been thought up? Maybe I'll apply for a patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
The maker of my kitchen knives thinks that filleting a fish is a travesty of the culinary arts. Too bad, I'm filleting my bloody salmon all I want.
The CD recording company doesn't want me listening to their music on my Netbook without lugging around an expensive USB CD-Rom drive. Too damn bad, I'm ripping it straight into memory.
Anyone who says that creators get to control usage is either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
If your garden includes Azalias, then you should buy Azalia-friendly shears. Why is that so difficult?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
And that will be really GOOD for the health and wellbeing of the creators because it will divert them away from the soul destroying obsessions that start when people get too wrapped up in trying to control the way that others use their works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate
Creators have never had this right. An author could have his or her books printed and offered for sale. People might buy them. If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this. Why should we suddenly make changes to the law? Completely new and revolutionary changes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate : If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this.
your counterpoint :
Creators have never had this right. An author could have his or her books printed and offered for sale. People might buy them. If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this. Why should we suddenly make changes to the law?
My ans: TO "give them away or lend them or borrow them."
is not an issue as no $$ is exchanged , Of PUBLIC use intended.
If money is exchanged -- the book , tape , CD , Picture, Copywrited Software- is re-sold at Amazon let us say ---
then the Orgingal Artist deserves a cut.
If there is NO Public use , then there is NO issue.
If there IS public use ,, the Artist reserves the right to control it.
Got it ?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate : If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this.
The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?
To use an earlier example, VW doesn't expect (and won't get) a cut of my earnings when I resell my Jetta. I've already paid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?
read this thread:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml
but to save you time:
A: Pay -for-play ,, Radio stations , advertisiers, Broadway play , and bars with cover bands ,, all PAy-Per-play royalities EACH time the "art" is used.
so the shortest answer to :
"The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?"
IT is the core, function and purpose of copyright law .
----------
TO You and everybody else:
READ , READ , READ , and then maybe write a little. It will be rare if you come up with a new question. If you have a new question ,, please do posr it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?
These corporate copyright holders are desperate for cashflow, and are overreaching. It's creating massive distrust both in the public eye, and in the minds of he actual creators who don't have their heads in their asses and can see where the industry is going.
Radio, covers, blogs, youtube and filesharing all serve as PROMOTION for the music. If anything youtube should be demanding payments from the MAFIAA for so heavily promoting their product AND footing the bandwidth bill. The symbiotic relationship with no payment is likely the best/easiest for both parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?
"The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?"
IT is the core, function and purpose of copyright law .
No, it is not. The function and purpose of copyright law is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Artists getting paid is a *means*, not an end.
It's amazing that the actual purpose of copyright law is so widely misunderstood among those discussing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Artists getting paid is a *means*, not an end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
Why and how is it false?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
Once I buy the work, it is mine. Now I should get to define how it is used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml
I stand by the GOOD words I quoted from the other poster:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't true. If it were, fair use wouldn't exist. The creator gets many many rights regarding their works, but there are fair use exemptions. Mike isn't discussing circumvention for unlawful purposes, but lawful ones. What the anti-circumvention clause does, essentially, is outlaw fair use.
I could back up all my VHS tapes in case of loss, and that'd be perfectly acceptable. But do that same, perfectly legal act, with DVDs, and it's illegal. There cannot exist a logical justification for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.
"Fair use" is fair. No complaints there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.
READ ;
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.
Creators are granted certain rights. Consumer hold certain rights through fair use. Creators rights do not extend to REMOVING consumers rights. DRM blocks consumer activity that is within our rights.
Ergo, we must have the right to break DRM in order to make our other rights meaningful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ergo, we must have the right to break DRM in order to make our other rights meaningful.
But try lobbying on that point, and try making that point in a court of law..
I hear the laughter already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is that defensible? You can't just throw people in jail for a crime because the state doesn't want the burden of proof on them. Why should a content creator have any more privilege than them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a rather broad generalization. While there may be many readers of TechDirt that would want to abolish the concept of copyright altogether, I think the majority of the critique is of the current copyright system itself, not necesarilly the overall concept of copyright. Your statement indicates an oversimplified understanding of a complex topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rethere may be many readers of TechDirt that would want to abolish the concept of copyright altogether, I
Monty Burns is their leader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because your government made it that way"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because your government made it that way"
Plus, laws are for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being a criminal requires being convicted of something.
Criminals are not always convicted ( and usually they get re-elected or promoted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being a criminal requires being convicted of something.
It would certainly be more efficient if we didn't bother trying to distinguish them from the non-criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't any different than laws against drug use / distribution which discriminate against responsible users in an effort to stop the irresponsible users. It isn't any different than laws against prostitution, which discriminate against those who can't get any tail in the socially sanctioned manner, in an effort to stop skanky sleaze from spreading disease, ruining marriages, and taking over the streets.
Note that in both those cases, the law is selectively enforced in order to more effectively achieve the desired outcome. Same as with anti-circumvention clauses and pretty much any other IP laws.
It's all the same. A few butt-heads ruin it for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't an explanation. It's idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shouldn't they be outlawed since some may use them for infringing purposes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since computers can be used for nefarious purposes, they should be banned?
Since VCRs can be used to infringe copyright, they should be banned?
Bzzt, try again. Laws against certain behaviours and laws against technology which enable both legal and illegal behaviours are not the same thing. The former make sense (sometimes), but they latter generally do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe , but the courts and the President have tilted towards the 2nd admendment freedoms of late.
while CopyRIGHTs are undisputed as inalienable rights for Artists, everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
B: It's only a legal right, it's a natural privilege. But law doesn't dictate morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only a legal right, it's a natural privilege. But law doesn't dictate morality.
If the law has been properly constructed, which is NOT always possible.
Because of powerful lobbyist who advocate unjust, greedy & often"morally criminal" causes -- like "stealing" copyrighted work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some people still dispute laws against slavery and human trafficking.
Why do you dispute "the artificial monopoly rights granted to artists" ? Please cite any historical "philosophical and/or political" writings that support such view. ( Or Any comic-books that support such views if that is your level.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To link that to a historical reference, how about the US Constitution? Which allows, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
If copyright cannot be PROVEN to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" we should get rid of it. Copyright and patent law in their current form are doing more to STIFLE rather than PROMOTE the progress in their fields.
Also, I made several other comments. Perhaps you can address those. Search the page by username (I suggest threaded view).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doing that now .
---
"There's been tons of research put out lately that challenges the assumption that expanding copyright laws leads to greater creativity"
I would love to read them . Please suplly the specific links and/or references.
-------
"""To link that to a historical reference, how about the US Constitution? Which allows, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."""
Well written Gibberish w/o citation : Grade; D- / F
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Harvard Business: http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf
2) Gladwell: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bookclub/2010/02/malcolm-gladwell-selects-drive.html
3) Levine: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
4) US GAO: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
It's disingenuous to pretend this is a one-sided debate.
Secondly, I thought it was obvious that I was citing the US Constitution in the latter part. I guess not. Anyone who purports to be familiar with copyright ought to be familiar with that particular ... since it is, after all, the inception point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's disingenuous to pretend this is a one-sided debate.
I really , really would like to think that.
But Sorry no.
Even our malfunctioning U.S. congress writes laws quite well to protect copyrights,, as it basic common sense-(- unless you are a devout anarchist --in which case never the "twain will meet").
i have few complaints about copyright law works and is applied, if anything , most folks in public policy believe stronger fighting of Piracy is needed.
Why do you think illegal downloading , selling counterfeit trademarked products , and those loonies with gunboats off the Somalian Coat ( of Africa ) are called Pirates.
They are not called "nice folks with principles and respect for others"
The Pirates side here , is on the "wrong side of history",, just as slaveholders were in USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we're thinking about changes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because they want to keep the tools illegal
If you legalize circumvention for "Non-Infringing Purposes", you have to legalize the tools as well. And then it all becomes a matter of what people do with those tools in the privacy of their own homes, where copyright holders can't exert any control. People can use these tools for legal backup copies, or they might copy rented DVDs. In essence the entire anti-circumvention thing is neutered.
What people do with the tools in the privacy of their own homes can't be controlled. Only the making, distributing and selling of the tools, in public, can be controlled and prosecuted. That's why it's illegal.
And yes, I do realize that applying this same principle a lot of other tools with illegal uses could be banned. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
No being a core techie , I am not not qualified to address how a "royalty tax" and Tech tools could work.
Any answers out there ??-- Even if you would be against a "tech tools royaliy tax." -- on how it should, could , would be done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
Guess not. But this is techdirt, so it is par for the course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
But what about the (vast majority) of consumers with no intention of breaking any laws? They still have to pay such a tax. How is that fair? How does that place the blame/consequences on the appropriates parties? Answer: it doesn't.
It's a lazy, stupid solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
-----
http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2007/08/bardot-french-copyright-and-first.html
"Blank cassette tapes were taxed" --[in some countries]- "and rights paid to musicians' collecting societies because music would be copied to them without paying additional royalties."
http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2007/08/bardot-french-copyright-and-first.htm l
( I neither endorse or dismiss any other views on the cited blog. It was just the first thing that poped up when I search for "Blank cassette tapes were taxed".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
The vast majority of people are law abiding. Yet we pay taxes , to fund the police and courts.
Royalty taxes , would be paid by the majority of fair users, to make sure unfair users pay.
Every Body clear.
---
I come to techdirt , to learn. I like post if I see a flawed -- but other-wise honest and well intentioned , and well though out -- argument.
I post in reply to folks like you , who fail to read and do research , the same way a cat plays with a mouse before he
kills it.
because posting boards can be fun, and i am guilty too , of getting a kick here at someones -- an unread idiot like -- expense.
But I prefer the quality , educated, and thoughful dissussions , that actually might affect the formation of public policy.
Which , I hope is Mike's goal here . Not only to have techdirt be entertaining, but first and foremost to be a serious public policy forum.
-----------------
I am off to play my guitar , everybody have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
Um... what? You're saying it's ok for the majority who do not break the law to pay taxes to the music industry to compensate them for the minority who do? Why is this OK? We pay taxes for police and the courts because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way. None of that is true of the blank media tax. It certainly doesn't have widespread support, it is definitely not necessary, and almost everyone is worse off because of it.
Every Body clear.
Definitely not.
You claim to want well-reasoned debate. Well, how about you start off by coming up with some?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way": Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
Exactly the truth concerning copyright law -- throughout history.
Good Job.
How do you fail to understand: that iF I create Art , I own it. I control it. i live and eat off money generated by it. Use w/o pay is stealing.
If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way": Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
Both the law and pretty much all of human history say otherwise, but thanks for playing.
i live and eat off money generated by it.
Only if you come up with a business model that works, given the realities of the market. You seem to not want to do that. For the life of me, I can't figure out why.
Use w/o pay is stealing.
If you can't understand the difference between making a copy and taking something away from someone, you have no business taking part in this debate.
If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.
Actually, he's right in the midst of mainstream human history.
" It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way":
Mike : Both the law and pretty much all of human history say otherwise, but thanks for playing.
Me: Sorry Mike ,, nice wordplay, but again , {copyright} laws protect victims , not criminals.
Artist own their work ( --but not the physical medium of transmission--), and pirates want to subvert that some or all of that ownership right.
I am sure you read the ASCAP Bill of Rights . IF you got issues with those specific rights -- do a post where you Mike , address them case -by -case.
http://www.ascap.com/rights/
Invite a famous respected copyright law professor or two to join the discussion.
I'll buy popcorn and watch.
-----------
Me: i live and eat off money generated by it.
Mike : Only if you come up with a business model that works, given the realities of the market. You seem to not want to do that. For the life of me, I can't figure out why.
Me: I think we got a core point here . I live off my Art. Whether I am a good or bad biz person is not the issue.
The laws protect Artists who may not have an MBA , nor can afford lawyers.
Laws that protect rights -- even if those RIGHTS stifle someone elses privileges.
THAT is price you pay for living in a free democracy.
( That basic Pol-Sci 101, or even 8th grade social studies, if you do not grant me that point, any further conversation is useless , and you are a copyright fascist - from the Artist's perspective.)
Artists have copy-RIGHTS. Users are granted certain USE-Privilege's -- only if I choose to give it to them.
I can produce Art , and choose not to to grant ANY privileges for use.
Too many posters here are confusing Artists RIGHTS , with User Privileges -- you seem to be one of them Mike. This a a major crux of my points.
Clearly fair use , and Artist cannot stop, but fair use is only granted for an excerpt and/or part of the Art-- never ( --ok maybe rarely ---)the useful /resell-able whole thing.
-----------
Me: Use w/o pay is stealing.
Mike : If you can't understand the difference between making a copy and taking something away from someone, you have no business taking part in this debate.
Me:
So why are you here Mike ? Clearly you don't.
I write a Poem.
I sell the poem on the streets.
You take poem home. Make copies.
What can you do with those copies ?
Sell them? - Never w/o permission and/or royalties
Give them Away? - only with the poet/artists specific ( i.e. case-by-case ) written permission.
Quote them on your term paper : only with proper citation.
Eat them : feel free to.
----------------------------------------
Me: If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.
Mike : Actually, he's right in the midst of mainstream human history.
Me: I see where these posters here learn their cute tricks from. Make a vacuous platitude statement , claim it is fact , ridicule all who disagree. How Rush Limbaugh of you.
CopyRIGHT Laws - like any laws - are what define a civilized society. ( Do you accept that point? If not you are a lost cause. )
Then you put a long quote for Thomas Jefferson -- the Godfather of copyright as embedded into the American Legal System , w/o specific comment on what element[s] of you long quote supports your argument.
I will finish my coffee ,carefully read , and verify the quote below ,
and will respond.
But maybe in a few days , as a it's a major Jewish Holiday starting tonight at sundown ( "Shavous" or "Pentecost" in latin) , and I will be occupied today preparing, then observing for two days. And G-D willing no one will mention the word "copyright" to me during that holy time.
But promise I will -- happily -- get back to Tommy J.'s quote soon.
------
ME to Mike::-->>>
My friend ::
You have to decide if you want to be the: Rush Limbaugh of the loony techno-left-anarchist fringe"
or the
"Bill Moyers of the techno world"-- balanced fair and Truth seeking -- where your readers are NOT quite sure what side you take , but know you understand the issues. Someone better at asking questions than giving answers -- (which Mike, is when you personally are at you best.)
You Mike are very capable of being either Rush Limbaugh or Bill Moyers. Choose wisely
AND Techdirt's profits margin should be no factor in you choice, as if it does you have surrendered your journalistic dignity for popularity.
I have been reading TechDirt for years. You , Mike , have taught me alot.
Enlightened me to issues I never thought of , and sometimes caused me to often re-examine my views.
You have also at times made me giggle , and even given me a few good belly laughs on issues where we see exactly eye to eye -- like electronic voting , diebold , etc .
But on copyright laws -- as they apply to Artist , I am telling you as a (cyber-)friend and loyal reader: You not only missing the boat , but you don't even see the ocean.
Or you do , but are just playing the "Rush(Limbaugh) - for -ratings game."
Thanks for writing to me.
While I really wish I could ,, I can't live here @ techdirt -- (unless you hire me for pay.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way":
I have no idea what this means.
Artist own their work ( --but not the physical medium of transmission--), and pirates want to subvert that some or all of that ownership right.
Neither assertion here is true. You do not "own" the work. You *hold* certain rights to that work -- specifically laid out by copyright law. Those who engage in infringing practices may subvert some of those rights, but not the right of ownership.
I am sure you read the ASCAP Bill of Rights . IF you got issues with those specific rights -- do a post where you Mike , address them case -by -case.
ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organization.
And we've already addressed them point by point, in a post written by a songwriter:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080529/2308011264.shtml
Me: I think we got a core point here . I live off my Art. Whether I am a good or bad biz person is not the issue.
Yes, it very much is the issue. Copyright law was never intended to protect bad business people.
The laws protect Artists who may not have an MBA , nor can afford lawyers.
Wrong. The law is to promote the progress. It is not about protecting artists.
Laws that protect rights -- even if those RIGHTS stifle someone elses privileges.
THAT is price you pay for living in a free democracy.
This is meaningless babble that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one denies that laws protect certain rights. The problem is that you are flat out lying about what copyright law does (and doing so in barely comprehensible English).
Artists have copy-RIGHTS. Users are granted certain USE-Privilege's -- only if I choose to give it to them.
False. I'm sorry. Go talk to a lawyer. You are wrong. Copyright is an exception to the public domain, and is a * privilege* doctrine. Users do have certain privileges as well, but many of them DO NOT need the artist's approval. Fair use, for example. Compulsory licensing in certain areas as well.
It's difficult to take you seriously when you don't seem to be aware of the law.
I can produce Art , and choose not to to grant ANY privileges for use.
This is simply false. You are misinformed and/or ignorant of the law.
Too many posters here are confusing Artists RIGHTS , with User Privileges -- you seem to be one of them Mike. This a a major crux of my points.
I fear the problem is that you are severely misinformed as to the law.
Clearly fair use , and Artist cannot stop, but fair use is only granted for an excerpt and/or part of the Art-- never ( --ok maybe rarely ---)the useful /resell-able whole thing.
Contradicting your original statement. You make me shake my head in wonder. You also don't seem to understand fair use.
I write a Poem.
I have no idea what you are saying here. Please take a course in basic logic. Your arguments make little sense.
CopyRIGHT Laws - like any laws - are what define a civilized society. ( Do you accept that point? If not you are a lost cause. )
Then consider me a lost cause. I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.
Then you put a long quote for Thomas Jefferson -- the Godfather of copyright as embedded into the American Legal System , w/o specific comment on what element[s] of you long quote supports your argument.
I'm sorry if it was unclear, but the point was obvious. You claimed that use of an idea without paying was stealing and arguing otherwise was outside of the mainstream of human history. I quoted Thomas Jefferson to show that you were wrong.
But on copyright laws -- as they apply to Artist , I am telling you as a (cyber-)friend and loyal reader: You not only missing the boat , but you don't even see the ocean.
Or you do , but are just playing the "Rush(Limbaugh) - for -ratings game."
Trust me, if I were in this for the "ratings game," I wouldn't be writing about copyright law. Believe it or not, that's not exactly a hot topic with the kids out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way":
What is, I wonder? I guess I don't keep up with this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who engage in infringing practices may subvert some of those rights
exactly. That is why it is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio
The ASCAP B.O.Rs. extends focus of artist rights onto new areas of the digital age, as well better international protections.
That is what I suggested you review and critic them, and they do actually summarize the law as it stands in the USA for printed media , and most digital media. ( But if you read them you would know that. More reading , less writing Mike.)
-----------
Why do we have the best copyright/patent laws?
Because the laws are an embedded institution
within the U.S. Constitution ,
right there with the formation of the President and Congress and the Supreme Court and balance of powers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,
“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times ** to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
(**Limited times are determined by law. If you want to cut the time to 10 days ,, try to get the law passed. Good Luck.)
Free speech is in the "bill of rights" , of the first of the ten amendments to the u.s const.
There was much opposition to granting absolute free speech and press in 1700's.
there was no opposition to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,
If you fail to understand how this torpedoes your worldviews on copyright and patent laws,
,, you, well, should quit your job , or be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio
ASCAP's bill of rights is incredibly one sided, misleading and inaccurate. It presents copyright as a tool to protect, rather than as an incentive to promote the progress.
There was much opposition to granting absolute free speech and press in 1700's.
there was no opposition to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,
TP, once again, you are 100% wrong. Let's see if you'll admit it this time. In discussing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, James Madison wrote:
"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."
He was okay with it, but only in extremely limited arenas.
In response to this, Jefferson sent a letter to Madison, in which he suggested that it include a prohibition on patents and copyright -- noting that he was opposed to the very concept of patents. Madison replied, noting that *if greatly limited* it could inspire ingenuity, and Jefferson replied:
"the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."
You do not know your history.
If you fail to understand how this torpedoes your worldviews on copyright and patent laws,
Well, well. Considering you got it 100% wrong and I got it right... then perhaps I should not quit my job at all.
Anyway, given that you clearly are not interested in debating this with facts or logic, good luck to you. I will not discuss this with you further. I have made my points and you have ignored them.
As for your bizarre claim that I need to discuss this with copyright lawyers, I do so all the time. We have one copyright lawyer who writes for this site on occasion (expect to see more from him soon) and another may be joining soon. Eric Goldman -- one of the most respected copyright lawyers, regularly contributes content and comments and we have done an interview with William Patry -- who perhaps knows more about copyright than anyone else in the world. The man literally wrote *the book* on copyright, which is quoted regularly by judges in copyright cases. I email with him regularly about this stuff, and he tends to support my position.
If you want to see an interview I did with him, it is here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090823/1538545965.shtml
Unless you are willing to admit that you were wrong multiple times in your initial post (falsely suggesting ASCAP's one side view was an accurate description of copyright and then falsely claiming there was no debate over the IP clause) I will not respond to you again. It is not worth my time to respond to people who live in a fantasy world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio
I was wondering if you would catch my off -the -cuff comment on no opposition to copyright laws in the 1700's. I knew is was unsubstantiated -- but not necessarily untrue when I typed it . But there was little opposition, as evidenced by the historical fact that copyright became embedded into the constitution.
(Old yeshiva teacher trick , make a comment or point full holes ,, see if anybody is awake out there and catches it. There is hope for you yet mike.)
But the point again is is : After reasoned discussion by the greatest mind of the day copyright and patent law WAS placed into the constitution, to help the new American economy grow. Seems to have worked well as history bears out ..
More in the morning ,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
, make a comment or point full holes ,, see if anybody is awake out there and catches it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: , make a comment or point full holes ,, see if anybody is awake out there and catches it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: , make a comment or point full holes ,, see if anybody is awake out there and catches it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio
Actually ,i read the ASCAP rights very carefully ,, and they do reflect how copyright law now does stand in the USA. (-- IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. You have yet to point out which clauses of the ASCAP do not reflect current copyright law.)Which quiet frankly has the strongest and the best copyright laws in the world.
The ASCAP B.O.Rs. extends focus of artist rights onto new areas of the digital age, as well better international protections __ In MY humble OPINION based on my reading of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business
"Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "
And will you admit Mike , that your sentence above right here , is a completely unfounded , un- sourced , and now proven -- in my humble opinion-- completely false by various posters.
Mike , you post better , we will all comment better. And then you will make more $$ Mike ,, -- again in my humble opinion
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interview With William Patry: Understanding How The Copyright Debate Got Twisted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for your bizarre claim that I need to discuss this with copyright lawyers, I do so all the time
That is never a way to grow & learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, given that you clearly are not interested in debating this with facts or logic, good luck to you. I will not discuss this with you further. I have made my points and you have ignored the
I hope everyone one here will , as we will all gain by doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response to this, Jefferson sent a letter to Madison,...........................
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless you are willing to admit that you were wrong multiple times in your initial post (falsely suggesting ASCAP's one side view was an accurate description of copyright and then falsely claiming there was no debate over the IP clause) I will not respond
I accept your anarchist philosophy re: copyright and patent.
And you should accept that I believe that a constitutional democracy -- that our U.S. Constitution builds, is the best system of gov't for all areas of life and law ,, including copyright.
If we both come to further posts with that in mind ,, we can have a meaningful exchange.
But you must accept the fact Mike the the USA is NOT an anarchist republic, and copyright law is clearly embedded into the constitution to "promote" ---(and protect too , in my humble opinion) --- economic growth and innovation at all levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is meaningless babble that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one denies that laws protect certain rights. The problem is that you are flat out lying about what copyright law does (and doing so in barely comprehensible English).
Again , bring in some Copyright Laywer Pros, professors , judges, and you Mike discuss with them copyright laws with them in a locked thread, no other posters allowed.
I challenge you. And I hope you are not too chicken to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong. The law is to promote the progress. It is not about protecting artists.
The law promotes progress BY protecting artists and inventors.
That is why Jefferson embedded patent and copyright into the Constitution, he knew the new nation could not build a vibrant economy without proper Copyright and patent laws. It is basic political-economic theory , a "self-evident truth" even.
Did you ever take a high school social studies course, this was there ? Check you notes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False. I'm sorry. Go talk to a lawyer. You are wrong. Copyright is an exception to the public domain, and is a * privilege* doctrine. Users do have certain privileges as well, but many of them DO NOT need the artist's approval. Fair use, for example. Com
It's difficult to take you seriously when you don't seem to be aware of the law."
Site sources mike. Meaningless words with proper MLA citation.
Again do a thread with Judges , lawyers and you. I will watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then consider me a lost cause. I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.
Which is a respectable political philosophy,
Some of my best friend are anarchists -- really .
The Tompkin Square riot
was a lot of friends and co-workers of mine at the time who were squatters. ( i was busy playing guitar in the West Village and missed the party.) en.wikipedia.org/.../Tompkins_Square_Park_Riot_(1988)
If that is how you hold and are an anarchist , well then you are the type of guy , with as rearguards to Copyright and Patent laws, that the Constitution protects us Artists and Inventors from.
Just as the Constitution protects us from Dick Cheney eavesdropping on my phone call. Usually, I just pick up the phone and read poetry into a wiretapped phone.
(No Joke . when I worked for Greenpeace NYC in the late 1980s , the Reagan / Bush Admins was tapping our phones , under warrant even. Greenpeace was classified as terrorist by Ronny & co. in the 1980s. )
(( And as far as my resume , in 1986 while employed at NYPIRG , I had a co-worker who is now our American President.))
My Point. Don't tell me , i do not know what I am talking about. I have been there and done that politically since you where in diapers. I have deep sympathy for anarchist philosophy. However , I do view as unwork-able in practical terms, as long as evil exists in the world.
(I personally , am an extreme personal civil libertarian , but hold that corporations have no rights- only privileges as granted to them by law.. I vote Democrat 90 % of the time. I like Sen.Oran Hatch {R-Ut.} and the late Bill Safire of the NY Times, but often differ with them.)
But as long as you cite sources for for your points in our discussions -- ( and I will too) , and you renounce terrorism, we can talk and be friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we've already addressed them point by point, in a post written by a songwriter:
but again , it is really a thread that a copyright law professor should moderate ,, not some anarchist songwriter,, or any songwriter for that matter ,, including me.
you know our President was a law professor ,, maybe you could get him to comment on copyright & Patent law vis a via Songwriters , Prose writers , and folks who patent lifeforms.
-----------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.s tm
"Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me: Sorry Mike ,, nice wordplay, but again , {copyright} laws protect victims , not criminals." Mike: I have no idea what this means.
As applied here ,, copyright laws protects artist {victim} from Pirate websites { criminal}, that make illegal use of their Art for profit , and fail to pay any of that profit $$ back to the Artist in the manner proscribed by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE: "Copyright law was never intended to protect bad business people."
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
It would be nice if we could raise T.J.'s spirit from the next world , to explain this to us. While there are Kabbalistic formulas for raising the spirits of the dead, Jewish law forbids its practice. ( c.f. `First Samuel chapter 28 , and Leviticus 19:31)
However if on of you pagans out there want to give a shot , and raise T.J.'s spirit form the dead, please do ask him about the root reasons for copyright and patent law. And also that blasted comma in the 2nd amendment on gun rights , that till today is causing so much debate.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=re5&pwst=1&rls=en&ei=0GP2S_ SgGYK78gas67ngCg&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CBcQvwUo AQ&q=2nd+amendment+comma&spell=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re Are you an anarchist Mike ? you say: ""I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws."
Which is -- as I understand it , in my humble opinion --a core anarchist pillar of belief. If you are an anarchist , and are coming at thinks from that prospective, I think you should state so , when needed for context , as it will save your readers a lot and commentators --like me-- a lot of time.
( Bill Safire often pointed out his libertarian prospective when it was relevant for his readers to know that -- if I remember his writings correctly.
I am always willing to exchange ideas and words, if you thought I "stepped out of the baseline" , "to elude being tagged" on mis-statements, I apologize for my sloppy writing. I will state more clearly in the future when i am stating a supported and referenced fact , and just my meaningless -- though usually correct :) -- opinions.
{Remember , "my opinion is fact!!". (sic)}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
" It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.” -- Thomas Jefferson
MY REPLY :
Ok ,, now I see the problem.
As , Daffy Duck would say : “ hmm Adverb Trouble “ : except here it is a noun: IDEA.
Thomas Jefferson is lamenting that you cannot copyright IDEAS.
Take an Average human brain:
The levels of Brain Function:
1]Instinct /Reflex : I digest food. If food bad I throw up. This is deep in the “reptilian brain , and I cannot control.
2] Animal thought : Animal need food, Animal needs sex. , but animals stop there , they do not ove to next level:
3] Human thought: Ideas and concepts. Let us make a spear . Easier to kill Food.
Ideas and concepts , can also , be : Freedom, Love , Woman’s and Human suffrage.
Idea s are nice , but cannot be copy righted thus , Jefferson Lament. Ideas need to next step-
4] execution into physical action.
I have Idea, We Hunt Food. Let us make a spear , or dig a hole in ground to trap our game.
That is execution into physical action. If it is a good spear , with some new innovation – even today ,, I can patent it.
Artist have IDEAS / inspiration : again the IDEA , cannot be copyrighted.
But , Artist make ART . A painting , a song , a play , a poem, a book .
Artist apply for and get copyright to protect work from Pirates.
Pirates sets up website with ART :
Artist call lawyer. Artist: Throw up { see #1}.
Quite Frankly , Mile , I am deeply disappointed, and somewhat heartbroken, that you did not know the difference between “Idea” and “Execution /Creation /Physical Action” that puts the Idea , into the world where is can be copyrighted.( It is high school stuff.)
For with Ideas alone ,, there no copyright , thus Jefferson’s Lament ? No Jeferson’s Ode to the beauty of human thought , to free slaves , heal the sick , end suffering.
So now read Tommy J.’s quote again, with that thought in mind:
…. [I]deas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson
Man , that is beautiful – and if written today , would be covered by copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.� -- Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.� -- Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way": Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
willfully clueless or a flat-out liar,
----------
"willfully clueless"
If you meant mike ,, and not me , with your comment ,, well then , no comment from me is needed.
There is self -evident truth
------
"flat-out liar," [re: Mike}
even i would not say that !!
Mike is honest in his assertions and beliefs. Wrong , but honest,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: willfully clueless or a flat-out liar,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: willfully clueless or a flat-out liar,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: willfully clueless or a flat-out liar,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: willfully clueless or a flat-out liar,
Sometimes I succeed.
Sometime I fail.
But i always try my best.
Too many here don't even do that --
in my humble opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright exists for a reason, to enrich the elite, not to promote the progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright exists for a reason, to enrich the elite, not to promote the progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright exists for a reason, to enrich the elite, not to promote the progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue Me, Sue You Blues
Even Just talking to a lawyer is creepy.
just ask George-
"Sue Me, Sue You Blues"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2JIexhpMNs
(he made it the blues , 3 un-copy-rightable chords to dig in deeper.)
and "This Song"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsUkACDSIZY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes things are made illegal that have other purposes, but the point is that the degree and precision with which those are made is directly proportional to the impact. In one case you impact someone's life and in the other you impact someone's business model. Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and when criminals are punished for their crimes, they are impacted. So what? Yes, people are impacted by law but that's no excuse for us to accept a government that passes unfair laws that unfairly benefit a small minority.
"what you are doing is the typical way of deflecting harm by assigning the harm to some faceless thing"
I am assigning harm to criminals, those who commit crimes to humanity. Sure, their actions may not be illegal according to our broken laws, but they should be illegal and they should be put in jail, just like a criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We consider a corporation a "faceless thing" to the extent that its "existence" limits the liability of the corporation's individual people. If you want us to not consider a corporation a "faceless thing" then remove the limited liability aspect of it. You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We argue that the sky is blue because when we look at it, it looks blue. Your argument is that the sky is purple because when you look at the grass, the grass is green. Irrelevant. Instead of changing the topic, why not discuss why the current laws in this discussion make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One affects fundamental human rights (life) and the other affects a government-granted temporary monopoly...hmmm....
Yup, dramatically different things!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
. copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...
Courts determine if and when there are damages based on the law. Not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...
"Courts determine if and when there are damages based on the law. Not you."
Because the law is infallible and us citizens should not do anything to ensure the law is fair and balanced and courts can't possibly misinterpret laws and so we should never question them ever or seek to change the laws, we should just pretend like courts and the laws are infallible no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...
Regardless, he's either baiting you or being disingenuous--no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages", regardless of the basis of their ethics. He knows that's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages",
Sorry they would ,, and I just did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages",
If you'd like a refresher, I'm sure wikipedia can help you in your review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages",
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages",
was the full phrase . I stand by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus... DRM is a blunt tool. Even the ones that are trying to block out infringment are also blocking out legitimate activities. It it easy to block out everything, but not possible to block out everything except parody, or everything but still allow use for educational purposes, even if the creator wanted to.
Plus... what is legal varies from place to place. If some undemocratic country requires all their news be locked with digital locks, why shouldn't we be able to watch the news if it should be legal to do so here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Computer
- Brain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use is a loophole?
The more I read this, the more foolish it sounds. Are you really saying that news organizations, researchers, reviewers, and parodists (makers of parody) should not have the right to use elements of a copyrighted work? Really? I'd like to know how that's even possible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use is a loophole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use is a loophole?
even as a struggling Artist , I dissagree with that!
Fair use is fair. and the Artist has the right to determine what what is -- and IS NOT- fair use for their art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair use is a loophole?
No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:parody // Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.
(from that article)
DRM circumvents fair use, DRM should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusing work vs. copy of work
Post #2 said "If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right".
The problem here is that the creator is not "distributing his work" - he is selling a copy.
Yes, as long a creator owns his work, it is his right to decide what people can do with it.
But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
Are copies of copies too easy to make? Then STOP basing your business model on producing and selling them!
Sorry Mike, I can't defend the anti-circumvention laws (and can't see how anyone could), but this is just my 2 cents :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
he or she does still control use or re-sale of the art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
[Which should be forever and a day !! AND in any or all universes ,parallel or otherwise that currently or ever have been in existence :)]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
that is why Artist have lawyers , who while also insane, at least know law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a little music from George Harrison,,,,
George Harrison, 'This Song',, one of the earliest , and still one of the best rock videos ever. And relative to this disscusion.
Remember:
* chords , you cannot copyright,
*melody you can copyright ,, but here was the dispute -- George's "My sweet Lord" vs. "He's so fine" - - as it can get fuzzy , there are only 8 notes in any key , "oh Darling Stand by ME,, Do-Ra-ME, Standy by Me, Do-ra me".
* But Lyrics , always clear when plagiarism occurs or not !!
Everybody take a break and enjoy ,
, and play it LOUD
( And if you like , go out and buy the CD and the Songbook --LEGALLY)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a little music from George Harrison,,,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a little music from George Harrison,,,,
"Using the site is free of charge for individuals however there are some restrictions. Please see the policy page"
http://thepiratebay.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a little music from George Harrison,,,,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGbRHxM4X2g&feature=related
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a little music from George Harrison,,,* chords , you cannot copyright,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing work vs. copy of work
Glad I am not alone. Thanks for being here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let us use the car for example, when you buy a car, you own the phsyical object. But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium. Now what is being argued is that because the contents of that medium are easly copied and distributed. The content creator now has to compete with that legal user plus anyone who dicides to not aquaire that object in a legal manner. (Because lets face it folks, how many of us haven't made a copy of a cd for a friend?)
In the car example, lets say you buy a car and have a replicator at home that makes exact copies of this car for little to no cost to you. With the ablity to give out these copies to all your buddies and the rest of the world. Would it be okay for the goverment to crack down on these tools that would limit the amount of replicated cars not from the creator of the content to the open market? or should said car maker find a new business?
Sure you own of that car and have every right to do with that car as you please. But is it fair for that car marker to have to compete with you and every one who purchased that car as well.
While you have your rights as a consumer to a product, the creator has his rights to not have to compete with foriegn distribution entites for his work.
To that, there is no easy answer. Yes, you as a user have rights but so does the producer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Spelling corrected. No harm, no foul.)
Wait. So you're saying a content creator has to compete with people who buy the product and don't buy the product? I don't think that's quite what you meant, but you actually hit on the right idea.
Content creators have to compete to get people to buy a product. Some people will buy it, some people won't. This is more akin to trying to capture market share, or adoption rates.
Also note that I said 'a product'. The product people are 'purchasing' may not always be content, nor may it always be money that they are purchasing with. There are numerous examples of free-to-play games that are free simply because of the theory that those users will pay for add-ons or bonuses later on down the road. The examples are numerous because they work. (I tend to not like them, but OGame and Neveron are two in particular that I can point at.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium.
You really need to read up more before hitting the keyboard. Or stop lying, if you actually know what you're saying is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium.
***** as long as no additional copies are made.!!!!!!! ******
Single copy , to give away to friend is OK. Multiple copies is illegal-- if I read it right, in my humble opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
I think your "a lot of tools with illegal uses" should probably be changed to simply "all tools". I have yet to come across a tool that couldn't be used for an illegal purpose if you happened to try and come up with one."
Yes, lots of tools can be used for illegal purpuses, but there are also a class of 'tools' that are generally used for illegal purpuses, If you have a bomb for example, unless you're a miner you probably are going to do something illegal with it.
If you have a gun, if you are not law enforcement you are bound by laws about how you use that thing (tool).
there are many things that you are not allowed to own many kinds of weapons, substances (drugs, uramium etc), the reason why you are not allowed to own these products is because those products have a very limited use, that is mostly illegal.
The same applies to DRM cracking software, DRM software cracks DRM, so what is it's purpose ?
It's the creators of a products right to do with that product whatever he/she wishes. If he wants to encript it and sell it to only very select people that is his right.
If he wants to put it in the public domain, for anyone to view or download for free. He has that right, and would release the version in a DRM free forms.
But if he chooses to not do that, or restrict who and when he makes that product available, and how, in what form.
And under what conditions that is his choice.
When you purchase a copy of a movie, you do not purchase the copyright, therefore you do not have the right to copy.
If the seller of the product wants to sell you that product under specific terms that is his right, and when you purchase that product under those terms that is the contractual agreement you have entered into.
If that agreement means you purchase DRM protected software, the intension is that you are not allowed to make copies of that, for "fair use" or any other reason.
Those are the terms of the agreement you entered into when you purchased that item.
If you dont like those terms or do not agree with the terms, you do not make that purchase.
So having tools that are for the single purpose to remove the rights of the creator/distributor to determine the means of product distribution. Is an illegal tool, or it's purpose would most probably be used for illegal purposes.
So like high power guns, home make bombs, drugs, uramium and many others things (poisons too), it's an illegal product.
So government if fully within their right to protect markets, manufactures, producers, retailers and you know the economy, by ensuring tools clearly used for undermining commerce should be and are illegal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
It's a privilege, not a right, and the creator has no right to restrict things like fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:It's a privilege, not a right, and the creator has no right to restrict things like fair use.
Cases of 'fair or unfair use' -- if in dispute--- are for courts of law to determine.
And it is CopyRIGHT. The is no such thing as ungranted copy-privileges.
Any granted privileges of use , are at the sole discretion of the Artist
see:http://www.ascap.com/press/2008/0417_billofrights.aspx
A Bill of Rights for Songwriters & Composers
Created by ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so – an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations.
At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys.
We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.
We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.
We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.
We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.
We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.
We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.
We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.
We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.
We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:It's a privilege, not a right, and the creator has no right to restrict things like fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
and this is fine, but if the buyer gives me a copy of the movie and I never agreed not to make copies and I make copies and give them away or re - sell them, I nor anyone else I give the movie to should be held liable. Just the original buyer who made an agreement and broke it. and the law should not force third parties to be held liable for breaking agreements they did not agree to.
Now you may argue that we voted in politicians that made these unfair agreements for us on our behalf. and that's fine, which is why I encourage people to vote for politicians that will remove the existing copyright laws in favor of more reasonable laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and this is fine, but if the buyer gives me a copy of the movie and I never agreed not to make copies and I make copies and give them away or re - sell them, I nor anyone else I give the movie to should be held liable.
IF he had GIVEN you a copy , so you do not have to buy it , that is illegal. With one on one personal transaction , while illegal , it is not realistic to enforce it on small case by case instances.
However if the "giving" become , organized and of a larger scale, call the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
Then it is the copy privilege holder should provide us a method to utilize our fair use. They can't have it both ways, they can't both have a copy privilege on a piece of work and prevent us from utilizing from fair use.
"So like high power guns, home make bombs, drugs, uramium and many others things (poisons too), it's an illegal product."
Except we are not talking about high powered guns, home made bombs, etc... We are talking about something that prevents us from doing something perfectly legal with a piece of art. and to the extent that legal applications exist for guns, etc... the law should allow exemptions for those uses. Likewise, the law should allow exemptions for circumventing DRM for the purpose of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
But this intention violates copyright law. So, by your logic, DRM itself should be illegal since it's use is to violate law. Just like high powered guns, bombs, illegal drugs, the use of DRM is mostly used to violate laws by denying us our right to fair use and to make copies of the work once it enters the public domain. It should be illegal and not used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.
Copyrights laws , simply formalize all legal rights.
Artists rights are natural and inalienable rights--- with or without law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rights are more natural and inalienable
that is natural
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rights are more natural and inalienable
Exhibit A: Reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
When the GOP in the 2008 elections, un-fairly used Springstein songs,, Bruce told then to stop , or he'll sue. They stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
If you do not like that -- Find another planet to live on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.
Better yet, I can seek to correct our laws and our legal system and discuss what's wrong with our legal system with others as part of my effort to correct it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better yet, I can seek to correct our laws and our legal system and discuss what's wrong with our legal system with others as part of my effort to correct it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better yet, I can seek to correct our laws and our legal system and discuss what's wrong with our legal system with others as part of my effort to correct it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.
If you do not believe in G-d, then they are given by Thomas Jefferson , John Locke , and etc & etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, I don't think any religion says any such thing.
Copyright infringement, and any financial damages therein , is considered stealing. Comes up all the time
---
Jewish Law - Articles ("Jewish Law and Copyright")
Jewish Law and Copyright Rabbi Israel Schneider ... The publication [of Jewish works] will cease, G-d forbid, and Torah [study] ... Jewish Law Home Page ...
www.jlaw.com/Articles/copyright1.html -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In fact, I don't think any religion says any such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In fact, I don't think any religion says any such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In fact, I don't think any religion says any such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In fact, I don't think any religion says any such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In fact, I don't think any religion says any such thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not think that Thomas Jefferson et al can give us natural rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I do not think that Thomas Jefferson et al can give us natural rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I do not think that Thomas Jefferson et al can give us natural rights.
start here
search "john locke natural rights"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=john+locke+natural+rights&revid=1143287270& ;ei=lUzwS9jFFIT6lweNgdW0CA&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&c d=1&ved=0CFsQ1QIoAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I do not think that Thomas Jefferson et al can give us natural rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
So first you complain that DRM circumvention tools should be illegal because they can be used to violate the law and you think that the law should be followed. Then you subsequently ignore the portions of the law that you don't like, the portions that allow for fair use, while only paying attention to the portions of the law that you like.
Typical IP maximists. You don't care about the law, you only care about yourselves. You're selfish, and you only care about the law to the extent that it benefits you, otherwise you ignore the law when it doesn't. Just like with the constitution, which says IP should be to promote the progress, you completely ignore the promote the progress part of the constitution and only pay attention to the aspects that you like. Then you turn around and claim this is about following the law and that we have a moral obligation to follow the law. but the parts of the law you don't like don't apply to you. Hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
er , I mean ,, it is !!!
( "Honey , take the rocket launcher off the lawn.... before the children get to it. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
Been posted here for 6 hours , and yet none here commented -- or even noticed --that in many parts of this troubled war-torn world, "Honey , take the rocket launcher off the lawn.... before the children get to it." is a used daily sentance.
Geeks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
So why don't you actually address the arguments being made instead of changing the subject and merely making baseless proclamations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM is used to circumvent fair use. DRM should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cause the mpaa and riaa say so?
sorry couldn't help it its like there stats....
cause they say so....
and ill add cause poor people that wouldn't buy anyhting might enjoy themselves more and the disabled might just be able to smile once a day?
naaaa mpaa and riaa don't want anyone smiling they want CASH
ALL OF IT
NOW
NOT LATER
NOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright
THATS the TRUE meaning.
ITS a right like driving is and we should be able to take it away if you start mass lawsuits
we should be having low terms like 5-10 years
FAIR USE SHOULD be enshrined.
HOW does a 50 year copyright benefit me , a citizen of canada? OR how does 150 + years benefit a USA citizen?
NOTTA ZERO ZILCH.
THIS is why the DMCA and other long term copyright laws should be struck as unconstitutional as they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS on the ENTIRE NATION they are inflicted upon.
patents....
PATENTS on drugs should be extremely limited and NOT ON SOFTWARE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THIS is why the DMCA and other long term copyright laws should be struck as unconstitutional as they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS on the ENTIRE NATION they are inflicted upon.
Will never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Under the current terms of the DMCA, using Nero for any purpose is illegal because IT COULD BE used for illegal purposes. Same goes for Ashampoo, Roxio and all those others.
Nice law you have there, that you want to inflict on others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Under the current terms of the DMCA, using Nero for any purpose is illegal because IT COULD BE used for illegal purposes. Same goes for Ashampoo, Roxio and all those others.
Please explain in {polite} layman terms, w/o using bad or insulting words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Under the current terms of the DMCA, using Nero for any purpose is illegal because IT COULD BE used for illegal purposes. Same goes for Ashampoo, Roxio and all those others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Circumventing DRM, under the DMCA, is illegal
And if for or against , please explain why you are for or against , in layman terms, too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Circumventing DRM, under the DMCA, is illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Circumventing DRM, under the DMCA, is illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Q: Explain why the DMCA outlaws circumventing DRM? A;" Because that's what the entertainment lobby told Congress to do, that's why"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Fair Use Tenant ?
Ie, under what circumstances would copying the entire song or movie be "fair use", which on of the 4 fair use tenants would you apply in court, if you had a copy of DRM cracked song or movie in youre possesion ?
Lets see:
Purpose and Character: of the use (from Wiki).
Is it of a commercial nature ?
Or is it for nonprofit educational purposes.
If you creat it so that you do not have to purchase a copy or so you can make it available for someone else to copy (or make it possible for them to do so) that is a commercial purpose.
And unless you intend to use short segments of a work for NON-PROFIT EDUCATION. that you fail the "purpose and character" test for fair use.
NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK.
So is it a hit movie, or a song you want to listen too, or a book you want to read.
Ofcourse for these purposes you would intend to gain a copy of the complete work, not a small segment.
The work you copy, has value (to you as well as the creator). So the nature of the works you want to copy makes it clear to youre motives for breaking the DRM or other copyright protections.
By the creator of the works protecting their works with Copyright protection, they make their intent clear that they do not wish their works to be copies, and fair use does not give you any rights based on the nature of the works you wish to copy. (songs, music, books, movies, software).
3. The Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work:
Fair use is, or can be used as a defense if you are clearly not using the entire works for youre own personal gains. (financial or material).
4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It's very easy to see that even one copy of a movie illegally downloaded, as opposed to buying the commercial version is a loss of profit, all you have to do is find people who have an illegal copy of a work and not also a legal commercial version.
This means if you have an illegal copy, you have not purchased to legal/commercial version of the works.
It's very hard to prove to a court that this does not represent a loss of a sale. Even if the person says they would not have purchased to legal version anyway. That makes no difference.
Just wanting something, does not give you the right to take it or have it, or give you the right to deny the creators of the works from making profit for their efforts.
Because it's something you want and like, after all, you know youre intension for cracking it is so that you can watch/listen/read to the work. Otherwise why would you care.
You know you not just going to use it for non-profit educational, and youre not going to be at all interested in you were able to crack short segments (limited in number) for educational purposes or paridy.
So you cry "fair use", "fair use" mantra, and it appears you have (as usual) done little or no research on what "fair use" actually is, and in what countries it applies.
So please explain you defense of "fair use" for what you want to do with this anti-DRM software or any other methods that defy the wishes of the produces of the works ?
Just crying "fair use",,, we'll you have to do a little better than that, imagine standing infront of a judge saying "fair use, your honour". Yea,,,, right,, dream on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Fair Use Tenant ?
I suspect that very few here would argue that straight copying is a legitimate form of fair use, but I would ask you to consider that sometimes a strict interpretation of fair use is too limiting. An example would be the RedLetterMedia reviews which cover the whole movies. They are a combination of review and parody and use extensive portions of the movie.
What about the original question, that anti-circumvention clauses prevent legal actions allowed by the consumers? I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend. Why does that not bother you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Fair Use Tenant ? I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend.
you could , but , i doubt it would get through congress , or stand up in courts if it did,
but it might.
Finally a thoughful post from your side .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What Fair Use Tenant ? I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Fair Use Tenant ?
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition?
Please define "copyright defender." The members of our editorial staff, William Patry, Rick Cotton, Jessica Litman, Jane Ginsburg, Lawrence Lessig, the MPAA, the RIAA, Ray Beckerman and the average artist who seeks compensation from creative work all could be defined as "copyright defenders." Yet, there are wide ideological and doctrinal differences among these parties.
The premise of this post (and your request to challenge the Public Knowledge proposals) depends almost exclusively upon a clear definition of "copyright defender." Unfortunately, you've left this open, so it's difficult to say whether your assertion that "copyright defenders" failed to challenge the Public Knowledge copyright reform proposals, or to defend the current copyright system is correct.
Thank you in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition?
In the context of the original post it should be obvious that the definition is directed towards anyone who disagrees with the proposal being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition?
"So, once again, I will ask the copyright defenders among the community here: what's wrong with this proposal?"
Clearly, he is not directing his questions towards those who believe there is nothing wrong with the proposal. His question is what is wrong with the proposal so it is logical to assume that this question only applies to those who believe there is something wrong with the proposal.
"The members of our editorial staff, William Patry, Rick Cotton, Jessica Litman, Jane Ginsburg, Lawrence Lessig, the MPAA, the RIAA, Ray Beckerman and the average artist who seeks compensation from creative work all could be defined as "copyright defenders." "
Yes, the RIAA also argues against infringement because it could undermine humanitarian efforts in Haiti. These people have no credibility whatsoever and the fact that they are included in your staff explains your basic reading comprehension difficulties. I don't even know why our broken government pays any attention to such entities with so little regard for morality. I don't understand how you can even look at yourself in the mirror you dishonest scumbag knowing that society would be much better off without you and all you do is lie and pretend like you're stupid. I hope your business dies, I will make every effort to ensure congress and our government ignores you and doesn't pass a single law in your favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition?
http://www.copycense.com/2009/08/is_creative_commons_good_for_copyright.html
"Empirical question: how much is it worth in publicity, goodwill for creator to use Creative Commons license vs. copyright registration?"
Depends on the creator and his/her specific values. Perhaps some creators value goodwill more than others. Who are you to determine how much something is "worth" to someone. If you mean monetary value, that's a different thing, but don't assume that money is all people value. Perhaps people just want to help out society or something and they want their work to be free regardless of publicity/goodwill. It's up to each individual, not you.
"what percentage of CC license users have read the “legal code” to CC’s licenses?"
I would say most of them. It's not long.
"If the typical CC user understands that language, then he or she can read and understand the Copyright Act of 1976."
I don't know about that. As an extreme example imagine if someone said, "if a typical English speaker understands English, then they understand Spanish." This maybe an extreme example, but the point is that legal jargon in the form of statutory law is more complicated than a simple CC license. and do you really expect each user to understand all of copyright law before deciding if they don't like it? I think basic common sense says this isn't necessary. Copycense even admits in another blog post
"And make no mistake: the Copyright Act of 1976 is horribly written. It’s torturously complex. It is (in many places) nonsensical and even contradictory. Arguably, it reflects the wishes of only a certain set of actors."
http://www.copycense.com/2009/08/your_copyright_responsibility_as_a_citizen.html
You admit that it's complex, yet you believe that anyone who can easily understand a very short CC license can just as easily understand a very long and complex copyright statue. Your position seems to be as contradictory as copyright law.
"Empirical question: If creators don’t understand basic copyright, how can they reasonably distinguish between copyright & Creative Commons?"
First of all I think that most creators have some general understanding of copyright law. They may not know all of the particulars, but they understand some of the generalities.
Secondly, if creators like CC licenses then they can use them regardless of existing copyright. To the extent that they don't, they can create their own licenses or modify an existing license to their liking and use that one instead. If CC and copyright are the same then there is no harm in using CC. If they're different and the creator is satisfied with CC then what's wrong with using it. Your argument amounts to, "if a creator doesn't fully understand the GPL" or "if a creator doesn't fully understand X license" or "if a creator doesn't fully understand Apple's Eula then the creator can't distinguish among these licenses." Does a creator have to fully understand each and every existing license and how to distinguish among them before deciding that they like a particular license? I think not. No, we create a bunch of selection criteria, we attribute value to them, and we find out enough about a bunch of different "licenses" to determine the extent that each meets are criteria. If we find something in copyright that strongly doesn't meet an important criterion, we ignore the entire thing, instead of reading throughout the entire law, and we ensure that we understand certain important copyright laws (like fair use) that will always govern whatever license selection we choose to use. Then we go onto the next license, like the GPL. Say the GPL requires open source code and you don't like that. Instead of reading all of the GPL licenses (since they all require open source code and you don't like that) you skip the entire GPL licenses and move onto creative commons. Etc... This is a basic common sense approach that pretty much everyone uses to determine which licenses they want to apply to their works. Alternatively, if they can't find a satisfactory license they can write their own.
"We hope that in the future, Creative Commons will put more of its considerable intellectual and economic resources toward resolving the problems with copyright law instead of promoting contractual workarounds."
Resolving the problems with copyright law, the laws that the organizations you represent are responsible for creating, is a long term solution. It requires tons of money and is very expensive. There are already groups trying to do that, like the pirate party. In the mean time we have no choice but to make a cheap work around. It has done more to fix the problem then you have ever done.
"In the best case scenario, with a balanced and effective law that serves citizens and corporate owners equally well, a Creative Commons license is unnecessary."
I agree, this is a good long term solution, but the creation of the creative commons license has done more to correct the problem than you copycense has. In fact, it is the industries that you represent that has created the copyright problems to begin with and you have done little to fix them and it seems that you only seek to make them worse.
I find it interesting how copycense doesn't allow comments. What's the matter, can't defend your position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition?
and if by legal code, you mean the entire contract laws and copyright laws and other laws that the wording might depend on, then my answer is that you don't have to read the entire copyright laws in order to understand a creative commons license. That's like saying I need to read an entire dictionary before understanding a book for first graders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition?
and what about retroactive copyright extensions? What about an artist who intended for their works to go into the public domain after X years only to have their works never enter the public domain or end up completely lost in history because no one was allowed to copy it? Now that the artist may no longer be alive (ie: old age) they can no longer actively place their works into the public domain. What about the artist who initially sold their works to corporations under the expectation that their works will enter the public domain after X years and be available to all only to have the copyright on their works extended. Is copyright law fair to these people? At least, to some degree, a CC license would circumvent potential copyright extensions that a creator of a work may be unable to anticipate at the time they created their works. That way their works won't just be lost in history due to never ending copyright extension nonsense. So CC and other licenses like it do have a good purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition?
I'm sorry, I thought you were listing the members of y our editorial staff and the RIAA as being one of them. You were saying that they were also considered copyright defenders in addition to members of your editorial staff. After reading your site a little bit more, it seems like you are honest, UNLIKE the RIAA. Ok, so you asked that question legitimately. I answered it but it just seemed like such a dumb question I automatically assumed you were a troll and that copycense was an industry lobbying organization. My mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition?
The thing is we have so many trolls on techdirt (ie:TAM) that intentionally say stupid things and ask stupid questions that it's so easy for us to automatically snap at someone who legitimately asks a stupid question or says something stupid. I've kinda had it even happen to me before while making jokes even after putting a :) after the joke, I was taken seriously and someone reacted negatively. So while Copycense is a sincere organization (unless the RIAA/MPAA and TAM and many of the IP maximists that troll on this blog) I had assumed, based on the silly nature of your question, that you were being dishonest. Well, now that I see you are honest and you represent an honest organization that actually means well, I apologize. I did answer the question though and the question still stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Definition?
Those defending the *existing* copyright system. I'm sorry if that was not clear from the context. Obviously not implying those who see problems in the system, as those are system reformers or critics. Defenders are those defending the system as it is today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Definition?
Yes, Copycense is quite good, actually. I've been a fan for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition?
The topic you Mike raise at techdirt are useful and interesting and important.
Sometimes out exposition in posting turns into mud-wrestling. To which I plead guilty too sometimes.
Let us all work to get better.
I really do want to learn more and understand better , by coming to techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, Copycense is quite good, actually. I've been a fan for a while.
I plan to be a daily regular reader now.
Right after I scan techdirt for the "news and views" of the day, ( but I am chilling on posting comments for a while :) )
They could be the bridge between us Mike, as both of us confess respect for Copycense .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright and wrongs...
Ah yes, the old defense of 'it's not illegal unless you are caught".
I would say, youre a criminal if you commit a crime.
So according to you, I can kill someone, and it's not murder unless im caught and sentanced.
___
And yes, the creator or producer of a product has every right to determine who, how and when and IF they want to make that product available.
They can also define any terms, restrictions or limitations on that product. And unless the customer chooses NOT to enter that agreement, they will not make the purchase.
If I write a custom software application for a customer, that product is intended ONLY for that particular customer.
I cannot sell them that product, and then make a commercial version of the same thing for my own profit, so copyright works both ways.
It's my choice if I want to make my products available to the public, or to anyone specifically I want.
It's not you're right to claim if it exists, you have a right to have a copy of it.
Thats why we have copyright laws, and thats why copyright laws ramain and will cnotinue to ramain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright and wrongs...
You wish.
"They can also define any terms, restrictions or limitations on that product."
They can define whatever they want, that doesn't mean we should follow whatever it is they define.
"If I write a custom software application for a customer, that product is intended ONLY for that particular customer."
Not only your intents matter.
"I cannot sell them that product, and then make a commercial version of the same thing for my own profit, so copyright works both ways. "
What?
"It's my choice if I want to make my products available to the public, or to anyone specifically I want. "
and if you make them available to a specific person and they break the terms of agreement, only that person should be held liable, not someone who received a copy and didn't agree to the Terms of the agreement.
"It's not you're right to claim if it exists, you have a right to have a copy of it. "
Then don't release it to the public and don't release it to someone who will break their terms of agreement and give me a copy. If you do, go after that person, not after the person who got the software and agreed to nothing.
"Thats why we have copyright laws,"
We have copyright laws because evil lobbyists lobbied for them.
"and thats why copyright laws ramain and will cnotinue to ramain."
Not if I can help it. I will make every effort to either correct our current copyright laws and make them more equitable for everyone or to abolish copyright altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not if I can help it. I will make every effort to either correct our current copyright laws and make them more equitable for everyone or to abolish copyright altogether.
Good. Though I believe they already are equitable for everyone, in my humble opinion.
" or to abolish copyright altogether."
IT would take a Constitutional Amendment to " abolish copyright altogether" and that ain't NEVER going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright and wrongs...
Because you said so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright and wrongs...
""Because you said so.""
------------
No, because the law of any civilized nation says so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright and wrongs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like the law of any civilized nation said that slavery was so. Or that women couldn't vote. What's your point?.
Slavery used to be legal.
Did slave owners have "natural rights" to be slave owners.
While a few may argue that , most would say that a human being has a natural right to be free, in all places and all circumstances. It just took the laws of various legal systems time to catch up to the natural law.
(Yes I know slavery is in the "five books of Moses". 3000 years ago , the Five Book of Moses, vastly expanded the rights of slaves relative to other legal systems of the time. The Five Books of Moses, humanized the slave, at the time a radical concept.)
In a civilized society "copyright protection" is a legal right that needs to developed out of the natural right. and Thomas Jefferson , James Madison and company understood that. Better than I do.
Was that helpful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
" In Jersey anything is legal as long as you don't caught".
The Travelling Wilburys-"Tweeter and the monkey man":
" In Jersey anything is legal as long as you don't caught".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats why we have copyright laws, and thats why copyright laws ramain and will continue to ramain..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright and wrongs...
I cannot sell them that product, and then make a commercial version of the same thing for my own profit, so copyright works both ways."
Very interesting point. Thank you . I never thought of it that way before, as Artist rarely make custom Art -- except in adv.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technopolitical, I'A bit of confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technopolitical, I'A bit of confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah, stupid misstype...
Technopolitical, your assertion that copyright is a natural right I find somewhat confusing, even with the link you provided. The concept of Natural Right is something that came out of the Enlightenment period of history, involving a particular philosophical bent. Rather than explain how it is a Natural Right, you point to a source of a famous but relatively minor religion that is not even treating it as a Natural Right.
Please keep in mind that I am not arguing against your position, merely asking for clarification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is a natural right
Basically: Fundunmental to any civilizied society are laws and courts to enforce laws. So people are not radomly murdered for a nickel , w/o punishing the murderer.
Laws can be wrong through.
Slavery used to be legal.
Did slave owners have "natural rights" to be slave owners.
While a few may argue that , most would say that a human being has a natural right to be free, in all places and all circumstances. It just took the laws of various legal systems time to catch up to the natural law.
(Yes I know slavery is in the "five books of Moses". 3000 years ago , the Five Book of Moses, vastly expanded the rights of slaves relative to other legal systems of the time. The Five Books of Moses, humanized the slave, at the time a radical concept.)
In a civilized society "copyright protection" is a legal right that needs to developed out of the natural right. and Thomas Jefferson , James Madison and company understood that. Better than I do.
Was that helpful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright is a natural right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: copyright is a natural right
Interesting point.
I would argue , that IF copyright and patent laws stifle creation and inovation -- (which I do not grant you)-- that is the price we pay for having copyright and patent laws.
Freedom has a price, as we often see with national security issues. I do not like the fact that the Gov't snoops -- curtailing my absolute natural right to privacy,, but the gov't has no choice but not to snoop , in order to protect the nation as a whole.
But is it always a good debate -- with strong points on all sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright is a natural right
That makes absolutely no sense. That the stated purpose of these legal structures. If the don't serve that purpose, then are are unconstitutional and must be repealed. That the laws promote the progress is a NECESSARY CONDITION for their existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright is a natural right//then are are unconstitutional and must be repealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Techdirt ,re: Artists and copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright is a natural right [Technopolitical]
>Was that helpful?
Nope, neither have any of your other posts. With this particular analogy, you are assuming that the correlation automatically follows suit, with asserting that freedom is a natural right, copyright principles that you are espousing = freedom; therefore, your definition of copyright = natural right.
The problem is the assumption of your definition of copyright = freedom. How do you arrive at that conclusion?
The second flawed argument is that copyright law is necessary for civilization to exist, placing it under the same category as morals such as murder or physical theft. Heck, the concept of the artist as anything more than a tradesman is fairly recent. Tradesmen guarded their secretes in other ways (Da Vinci, for instance, left a fatal flaw in his blueprints so that his inventions, as drawn, would never work).
Third, you are showing a poor understanding of the philosophy of art and the principles of communication. Granted, much of art philosophy is esoteric bull, but one point remains: Art, once displayed, is ascribed meaning by the viewer. That may or may not be the response the artist was intending. Because of that disparagement between what the artist is trying to convey and what is received, the message is already out of the artist's control. Read up on communication theory for more details on this.
Fourth, slavery in the ancient world was quite a bit different than the old south (which has also been romanticized and politicized) or how it was depicted in Ben Hurr. A sizable chunk of Torah law was already standard operating procedure. In Roman times, it wasn't unusual for some slaves to be more educated than their owners, especially clerks. Heck, the biblical/judaic hero Joseph was a slave that did clerical work. The same with Daniel when the Jews were in exile.
Fifth, further posts beyond this one continue fail to clarify just HOW your view of copyright protection is a natural right. So I'm still lost on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fifth, further posts beyond this one continue fail to clarify just HOW your view of copyright protection is a natural right. So I'm still lost on this.
If you still have a question, please specifically point out where and on what point your question[s] is/are , and will do my best to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Any time you Circumvent the law , it is illegal.
in my humble -- unsupported and UN-researched -- opinion.
really don't have the time to look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
That what the deliberative bodies that make law have said.
If the law is unconstitutional , challenge it.
If not , change it by lobbying.
but you will loose there.
in my humble opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
You keep saying things that are so far off base and so wrong you're making yourself look like a total idiot.
Circumvention.
Any time you Circumvent the law , it is illegal.
This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM. I can't figure out how you can claim to know so much about copyright law and clearly know absolutely nothing about the subject.
Please, stop commenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Or I will keep commenting.
What Does DRM Really Mean?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1164014,00.asp
Is circumventing DRM really against the law?
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law]." Some very narrow exceptions are made, but for the most part, trying to dodge DRM systems—even when the restrictions imposed are not reasonable—is a criminal offense. The sale of hardware or software whose purpose is to help you get around DRM is likewise illegal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
I will humbly correct and remove my blog post.
And I will openly admit some lack of expertise on DMCA vis a vi DRM.
But even with that I stand by the comments for a legal wonk perspective, by not as a tech-pro.
It is almost Sabbath ,, i got to go. Enjoy your weekend.
I hope to be back to learn more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
I feel I do have "reasonable cause to believe" that you , Mike , did try to block me from techdirt -- however briefly.
Proof , I do not have , as I do not have the tech skills to prove it from my end of the internet, but "reasonable cause to believe" I do have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
Trust me, TP, I did not block you. Why you would lie, I have no idea. But I would suggest that you reconsider your plan to make false statements about me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
Now , I ask you to apologize to me and Thomas Jefferson for to mis-use of T.J.'s quote and your attacks on me base on the quote thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
I did not misuse the quote. I used it accurately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did not misuse the quote. I used it accurately.
I think most any college prof would too.
Though in academics there IS ALWAYS room for debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.
Let me explain. If we were to block you -- and the only people we block are spammers -- it would say "your comment is held for moderation." It does not pop up a "cannot connect" page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- it would say "your comment is held for moderation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: - it would say "your comment is held for moderation."
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100514/0126329423&threaded=true#c3430
When I replied here you held for moderation. Though you did eventually post.
So you though i was a spammer even that far into my discussions here.
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and to change the sbject ,, you might find this funny
I have been working with cablevision for 2 months now, Multiple home appointments, missed appointments ,, the wrong tech person assigned to the appointment . It has been fun
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/2010/05/it-rains-my-internet-modem-goes-on-and.htm l
enjoy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
We all here have to deal with putting up a good factual post, and then having some nut go flame-war with us and calling us dirty names. At least TP is trying to be nice.
Though he clearly does not know what he is saying and is writing giberish.
Rule of thumb. If you think he is a nut ignore him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Clearly untrue , even to a simple mind,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Mike , it probably just was not worth their time to reply to a ludicrous proposal.
The only folks who want to re-form copyright laws ,,are the people currently breaking copyright laws.
(ASCAP wants to expand them , not re-form them.)
Law-breakers always want to change the law. If they cannot , it means the lawmakers cannot be convinced their claim has any merit.
In my humble opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
Actually DRM is not law , just covered by law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
{as a ]verb.
from thesaurus:::
avoid doing, be cunning, be sly, beguile, bypass, circonvenir, circumscribere, cloak, conceal, confuse, contravene, contrive, counteract, counterwork, cover, deceive, defeat, defraud, delude, disrupt, elude, escape, evade, foil, hoax, mislead, outreach, outwit, pettifog, practice chicanery, prevaricate, proceed by stratagem, scheme, swindle, thwart, tourner la loi, traverse, trick
Associated concepts: circumvent the law
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumventing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1164014,00.asp
Is circumventing DRM really against the law?
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law]." Some very narrow exceptions are made, but for the most part, trying to dodge DRM systems—even when the restrictions imposed are not reasonable—is a criminal offense. The sale of hardware or software whose purpose is to help you get around DRM is likewise illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
[Volume 3, Page 42]
Document 12
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--35
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that [Volume 3, Page 43] these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, Document 12
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.
© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
As given proper citation , even the average techdirt poster could figure out , that you are citing T.J. wrongly and completely out of context.
Any reply Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
I have pointed out the citation many times.
As given proper citation , even the average techdirt poster could figure out , that you are citing T.J. wrongly and completely out of context.
The quote was neither wrong nor out of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
You used this quote to attempt to show haw T.J. would if alive today be in perfect sync , with your outlandish views on copyright and patent law. Clearyl you you are wrong , and are not mature enough to admit it.
"Have you no decency , Sir?" ***
***Army–McCarthy hearings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Army–McCarthy hearings were a series of hearings held by the United States Senate's Subcommittee on Investigations between March 1954 and June 1954. ...
Background - McCarthy Hearings - Homosexuality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army–McCarthy_hearings -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
I did no such thing. I used the quote to show that the idea that monopoly rights were natural thoughout history (a claim you made) was in no way true. I used *different* quotes (not the Macpherson letter) to show that prior to the Constitution, he was concerned about such monopoly rights, and that their harm might outweigh their benefit. I have pointed out, repeatedly, that he was later convinced otherwise. My point in using those quotes is to show that he knew there was both a positive and a negative.
I would suggest, however, that with the evidence in place today, he might reconsider. But, obviously, no one knows that one way or the other.
Please do not claim I said stuff I did not. It only continues to harm your own credibility on this manner. And, once again, as others have pointed out, it might improve our ability to take you seriously, if you wrote in proper English, such as learning what a comma is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
At the time , in the midst of our dissussion, I saw you useing Jefferson to suport you views on copyrights as they stand today. My reaction was is response to that. If that was not you intent to me it was not clear from the context of the diccussion at that time. But I am not perfect.
I did my interpretation based on what I saw ,, and still see -- maybe incorrectly -- on you mis-interpretation of the word "idea" in T.J.'s quote.
I will admit,,,,,,,,,: That I do disagree with ol' T.J. on his view that on copyright & patent -- as he wrote into the U.S. Constitution-- DOES NOT manifist form Natural Right.
I believe CopyRight and Patent Laws ARE a manifistcation of Natural Right.
And I am allowed to do so academically. Just as I did with John Locke's views on "Reason" in this paper here:
" How Voltaire and Samuel Johnson Deal with John Locke’s Emotional Problems."
http://tilliebaum.blogspot.com/2002/05/how-voltaire-and-samuel-johnson-deal_03.html
I might take on T.J.'s views one day , but got other things to occupy my life now-- like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.
As far as the commas:
1] As I stated elsewhere , I am dyslexic. I do not read and see the words the way a "normal" (-- weak but only term that fits--).
When posting here , I find the commas help me and other dyslexics read the posts much easier.
2] Once seeing that commas help my dyslexic brain read online posts and emails, et al ,, ,, , , ,, , I decided to make it an are form. With my keyboard as the artists tool.
3] you will find that my "John Locke" paper (--- -- cited and linked above-- which was written for an honors philosophy/english lit course -- you were able to apply the course to either major ----- for whcich I got an "A" in and was 90% of the grade ----- and this paper to which the prof , not only gave me an "A" but also added how much he enjoyed reading it -----------) there is zero grammatical error.
------
and back to :
"We've covered this silly move in the past by music publishers and songwriters, but they're apparently still at it, and the NY Times is giving them publicity for trying to shut down lyrics sites online. This is ridiculous for any number of reasons, but shows you the state of some parts of the music industry these days. Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml#c2291
"Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "
That is patently false ( pun indented).
AND you owe Robert Hunter (the lyricist for the "Grateful Dead") , AND all "Tin Pan Alley" and "Brill Building" folks ( who put American History into song) , and me, an apology for saying "lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business" .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.
Go find the whole quote if you want .
Do a post on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typohs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dyslexic typ-ohs
even after I posted I have a learning disability : dyslexia .
And even after my explaining the "method to my maddness: of commas.
Making fun of disabled people.
Though when some people insult you , it is a compliment.
Just shows their base character.
If a racist insults my views on race ,, well , i am honored and strenthened.
I will stop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: - like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.
In fact we have posted about how that quote is copyfraud, misstating the law.
You keep demanding we do posts that we've already done, and you keep thinking that private organizations (ASCAP, MLB) that have biased and incorrect views of copyright law are the same as the gov't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep demanding we do posts that we've already done,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and you keep thinking that private organizations (ASCAP, MLB) that have biased and incorrect views of copyright law are the same as the gov't.
I believe that copyright laws are just and fair as written -- and even could be stronger in today's digital age-- and copyright laws covering $$ making websites are also a clear constitutional right.
And also , I personally hold , copyrights and patent laws are manifest from natural law, though T.J. disagrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson
That is patently false ( pun indented).
I was speaking about after they were written. The market post-creation, for lyrics. That was clear from the context. Obviously lots of people get paid to write lyrics. But the market post-creation was non-existent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was speaking about after they were written. The market post-creation, for lyrics.
If you don't . We will have to start over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I was speaking about after they were written. The market post-creation, for lyrics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why it made no sense at all for lyrics sites to pay.
Wanna start again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nor will I respond further to this thread.
You cannot respond.
That is why you quit.
Techdirt posters never admit defeat , they just quit.
No mas!!! ***
--------------
** Leonard-Duran II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
In the closing seconds of the eighth round, Duran turned his back to Leonard and quit, saying to referee Octavio Meyran, "No Mas" ("no more" in Spanish). ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard-Duran_II -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: nor will I respond further to this thread.
That is why you quit.
Techdirt posters never admit defeat , they just quit.
TP, no. I quit because we have gone over this before and it is a waste of my time to do so again. Read into that what you will, but declaring victory would be a mistake. Anyone else reading this thread can see that.
Good luck to you, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nor will I respond further to this thread.
I will meet one as of un-met challenge you have send my way.
To go over ASCAP BoRs , point by point , to show HOW THEY DO reflect current Print laws , and most current digital laws.
I will post on MY blog -- which has no ads nor take comments, and is just a hobby -- when done,, and
"I will be back"
Call it a re-match if you want.
It will be a while-- my be months .
Life comes first.
Techdirt is really of little importance in the scheme of things.
Esp Re: public policy formation on Copyright and Patent law.
As you mike are way to outside the mainstream om copyrights and patents to ever really be taken seriously in any debate there.
In my humble opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: nor will I respond further to this thread.
So would any objective academic. Weather s/he agrees or not with either of us
On the lyric thread ,, i clobbered everybody who came my way, showing why lyrics ,
1] are meaningful ,
2] a difficult artisitc craft that takes much talent ,
3] and is " morally worthy of" and "legally due $$" from profit making websites.
ALL while you sat on the sideline Mike cowering w/o making a comment. A sure sign of fright.
Here in this thread I out pointed you easy.
Next , the ASCAP bill of rights. If you want ,,we can both bring independent referees to both moderate and declare the winner.
I challenge you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously lots of people get paid to write lyrics. But the market post-creation was non-existent.
Search google for the phrase : "market post-creation" (w/ quotes)
Google says :
No results found for "market post-creation".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=A8M&rlz=1R1GPM D_en___US361&q=%22market+post-creation%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=& ;gs_rfai=
---------------
No wonder why your words make no sense in your defense , of your "silly" post on Lyrics Websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the "market post-creation" was non-existent.
Well Mike , you did find a 3-word one : "market post-creation".
We will see if it becomes a "Streisand effect".
Good Luck there Mike.
-----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Mike Masnick originally coined the term Streisand effect in reference to a 2003 incident in which Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully attempted to sue photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have the aerial photograph of her mansion removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"aftermarket creation" ? Re: But the "market post-creation" was non-existent.
It is an industrial term ,, but only mostly used by auto-motive collector types.
Even if what you meant "aftermarket creation" , I goota admit , I am still lost re: copyright & patent law/policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "aftermarket creation" ? Re: But the "market post-creation" was non-existent.
Top Billionaire Investor Says Market Will Crash Soon
... investor Pre profitable this accredited amateur investor The how achieve ***post market creation***** and investor relations audit and 'C' executives' just few ...
www.tradeztr.com/.../top-billionaire-investor-says-market-will-crash-soon
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22post-market+creation%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&h s=Qs6&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___US361&filter=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obviously lots of people get paid to write lyrics. But the market post-creation was non-existent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's point is that writers have seldom been paid much for copies of lyrics they've written in the past.
ANS:Which is a bizarre statement. They have , and will.
once written or created ART is owned by the Owner of the CopyRight
----
"++seldom +++been paid much for copies of lyrics they've written in the past."
ANS: the word "seldom" is unsubstantiated , and also untrue , and was the foundation of mike's premise. Mike said "almost never"
--------
If Market Post Creation is such a cool term , used by academics and economist , it would be all over Google results.
to intrude a term into a debate -- at the very end , and then refuse request to define it ,
and whose meaning known only to you -- if even ,
is intellectually dishonest when engaging in Honest Discourse.
Mike made up a B.S. term -- "market post creation" , to bamboozle his way out of admitting ::
that Mike's original post on the Lyrics thread was , a flat out lie , all nonfactual , grossly inaccurate;;;;;;;; and to use Mike's word : "SILLY."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would suggest, however, that with the evidence in place today, he might reconsider. But, obviously, no one knows that one way or the other.
I re-peat what I said above:
It would be nice if we could raise T.J.'s spirit from the next world , to explain this to us. While there are Kabbalistic formulas for raising the spirits of the dead, Jewish law forbids its practice. ( c.f. `First Samuel chapter 28 , and Leviticus 19:31)
However if one of you pagans out there want to give a shot , and raise T.J.'s spirit form the dead, ,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,please do ask him about the root reasons for copyright and patent law.
And also that blasted comma in the 2nd amendment on gun rights , that till today is causing so much debate.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=re5&pwst=1&rls=en& ei=0GP2S_ SgGYK78gas67ngCg&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CBcQvwUo AQ&q=2nd+amendment+comma&spell=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would suggest, however, that with the evidence in place today, he might reconsider. But, obviously, no one knows that one way or the other.
I clear browsing data in Mozzilla -- by habit ,, at least once and hour. I find if I don't ol' Moz slows down on my 512MB machine, with XP sp 3.
I find techdirt's posting features-- which are GREAT -- thanks Mike --- works best in Mozzilla
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
512MB machine, with XP sp 3.
And I need XP for Creative Soundblaster and my music production .wav editing.
Eventually , I plan to have machines with both XP (offline) and Ubuntu ( online) .
Am I a geek yet ?
( p.s. My Dad is now -- my he live long and be well --a retired "data system analyst" , who learned computer stuff in the early 1950s while in the air force. ( I still remember playing with the computers & "punch-cards" when he brought me to work sometimes.)
Dad very happily retired in 1987 @ the age of 55. After years of NEVER touching a computer , till 2002 , he then at my urging bought a computer ,, a 128 MB for XP.
After a week , he trashed it , and it is now mine to play with.
Now Dad has a crazy space laptop with 3G.
He wants 4G, but not sure if it worth the $$.
Dad was a geek before anybody knew what geek was. He also beats me -- soundly --in political discussions till this day. But Mom helps so it is not really fair.
Hey,, its Father's Day soon, and might be reading this)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike , Really please explain : "The market post-creation, for lyrics. That was clear from the context. "
I Googled & yahooed and even Asked.
You owe me and your readers ,,,,,in all intellectual honestly & fairness ,,,,an explanation of what you mean by " market post-creation".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just my 2 cents
The problem happened with CDs and DVDs. Now that music/movies are digital and can be put into computers, I'll never need to buy a copy of the Beatles White Album or Blazing Saddles again. I imported them into my computer and now I have the freedom to convert it into any format I see fit. That's what they hate. They do not believe that you should have the right to rip a movie into your computer and watch it however/whenever you wish. In truth, they don't believe that you don't really even own the dvd you bought. They believe that you purchase the right to watch the movie. Does anybody remember the support by likes of Speilberg a while back for that format (I can't remember the name, but it might have been DivX) where you buy the movie and then after like 4 plays, it no longer works? That's what they want. So, if you really like the movie, you'd have to continue paying them to view it. You see, they get royalties every time their movie airs on TV, so why shouldn't they get paid every time it plays in your DVD player?
There is a big push beginning in the digital world right now to take everything into the "Cloud". Home storage has become extremely cheap, but certain companies are deliberately making excellent home devices that have no onboard storage. All content has to be streamed. Nobody will have to store all their movies and music anymore. They'll do that for you. Right now it is a small fee to rent a movie or TV show. Then it will likely be just a small monthly fee to access it. Small now, but once all the media is back out of the hands of the consumers, think it will still be so cheap? Just remember, there is a whole lot of money at stake here, and don't be fooled into thinking that there aren't a whole lot of people trying to find a way to take the media out of your hands and put that money back into their pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]