John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back
from the sad dept
We recently wrote about John Mellencamp's complaints about how the internet and file sharing are destroying the music business. While the actual evidence suggests something entirely different, what may be even more interesting is Mellencamp's rather blatant hypocrisy about such things. One of our commenters, coldbrew, points us to an interview with Mellencamp from a year and a half ago, where he gleefully explains how he not just takes inspiration from the works of others, but he claims "ownership" over their works in a sense. The interviewer asked about Mellencamp's process for writing a song, and he responds:Well you know, as I've matured as a songwriter, I realize that if it's out there, it's mine. You know, everything I see and hear, I don't care if Shakespeare wrote it, or Tennessee Williams wrote it, or if Bob Dylan wrote it, or I see it on a sitcom. If I hear words, they're mine.Now, obviously, he's talking in a symbolic way, but the stark contrast shows a rather incredible sense of entitlement. Basically, everything is "his," and nothing can be anyone else's. He wants to take possession over anyone else's work, but refuses to give back, and claims that others doing a similar process are somehow "destroying" his own work.
And so I will take ideas from anyplace, anywhere, anytime, and life has become a song to me. I'm always looking for a song.
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: culture, inspiration, internet, john mellencamp, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not surprised
The world owes me a living. I owe nothing back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply put
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simply put
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simply put
...wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simply put
Just as I lose no sleep over all their damn whining because they actually have to work again rather than collect eternal payment for a little work they did 20-30 years ago (though I'm sure their doing much better than the rest of us anyway).
In regards to either of them, I have no place... it's all yours. Welcome to it. There's no place in my life for "wanna be" rockers with an "I'm God's gift to the world" complexes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Simply put
And in my sarcasm, there's a serious point. There is more compensation for rock stars than the mere million$. Fame, women, and the best table in the restaurant also fall at their feet. And one of those three has been known to be a strong motivator through the ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simply put
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John's unwilligness to share on the net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Mellencamp has a long and distinguished record as a social activist and humanitarian. Together with Willie Nelson and Neil Young, he organized the first Farm Aid concert in 1985 to raise awareness about the loss of family farms and to raise funds to keep farm families on their land. Farm Aid stages America's longest running annual concert event that unites farmers, artists, consumers, and concerned citizens to build a powerful movement for good food from family farms. Farm Aid has raised more than $30 million to promote a strong and resilient family farm system of agriculture.
In addition, Mellencamp has long worked for peace and social justice through his songs and personal appearances, including his participation in the 2004 multi-artist "Vote for Change" Tour. Social awareness has been a hallmark of Mellencamp song lyrics since the 1985 album, Scarecrow, which featured the hits "Small Town" and "Rain on the Scarecrow." More recently, Mellencamp's 2007 release, Freedom's Road, included the songs, "Jim Crow," "Ghost Towns Along the Highway" and "Our Country." This past April, Mellencamp poignantly demonstrated his support for the men and women in uniform (in spite of his opposition to the war) by performing a concert for 200 wounded veterans and their families at Washington's Walter Reed Hospital. In October 2007, Mellencamp released the topical song, "Jena," in response to the racially charged situation in that Louisiana town. Mellencamp was recognized with the Woody Guthrie Award in 2003 by the Huntington's Disease Society of America. Most recently, Mellencamp was nominated for a 2008 Grammy for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance for "Our Country."
Commenting on the award, ASCAP Foundation President Marilyn Bergman said: "John Mellencamp has always been known as a "people's artist," a performer who touches a common chord across class, age and regional lines. In helping to establish Farm Aid, he was instrumental in bringing awareness of the plight of small farmers to wide attention. His fearless advocacy on issues ranging from peace to racial prejudice is to be applauded. For these reasons and more, we are proud to present John with the ASCAP Foundation Champion Award for music in the service of humanity."
So, John Mellencamp is a hypocrite? I think we can see where the real hypocrites are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stay on Topic
It's unrelated that he does farm aid. OK, it means he's not a total Asshat, and probably a good guy. But that doesn't mean he's not a hypocrite on IP issues.
He could give half his $millions to charity, but it would not change the Techdirt position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remind me again, when did he do *his* time in the military?
By the way, I've heard that Bill Gates is the world's greatest humanitarian. There's not a greedy bone in Bill's or John's bodies, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, actually a douche nozzle.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So in other words, he's one of those wannabe, media-whore humanitarians who thinks he's making a difference in the world just by making self-serving public appearances to "bring attention" to something? Because he's obviously SO important, everyone will pay attention if HE tells them to, right?
I *hate* that mentality...
"In October 2007, Mellencamp released the topical song, 'Jena,' in response to the racially charged situation in that Louisiana town."
You mean the "racially charged situation" the media invented?
He jumped on the media bandwagon of anti-Southern prejudice to create an incident where there really was none. The Jena incident was "non-news" that stayed in the headlines for entirely too long thanks to people like him.
"Most recently, Mellencamp was nominated for a 2008 Grammy for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance for 'Our Country.'"
Proof positive of how irrelevant the Grammies have become.
"So, John Mellencamp is a hypocrite?"
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not once was it claimed that he stated such. The article was clearly comparing his words to his stance on unauthorised file sharing.
"He stated that file sharing was ruining the music business and the article flips this to state that he claims that its ruining his own work, something he did not say."
Are you telling me that he doesn't consider himself part of the music business? By the way, he said that it had destroyed the music business, not was ruining it.
"Also they atricle claims the John Mellencamp refuses to give back? That is just irresponsible journalism and very untrue. Heres a bit of John Mellencamps selfishness for you. "
How does being a 'social activist' and 'humanitarian' make him any less a hypocrite? The article was about his views on copying, not whether he's a good or bad guy. That you would write three paragraphs to tell us all the good things he's done, which have nothing to do with the issue at hand, seems a bit over defensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let me rephrase that for you ...
By the way, he said that it had destroyed the record labels, not was ruining it.
Fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank You
I am glad you understand the English language and have some insight.
As Mr. Mellencamp has said before, "Downloads are killing the 'record' business." That does not mean the music business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank You
I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be, but you made me think of all the typos or spelling errors in the parent post.
"As Mr. Mellencamp has said before, "Downloads are killing the 'record' business." That does not mean the music business."
Perhaps he said so elsewhere, but in the Reuters article he was quoted as saying "destroyed the music business". Oddly enough though, Mike has repeatedly made the distinction between the recording industry and music industry on this very site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
nnnrrr... don't care. If he doesn't like sharers let him rote with his stone-age recording industry buddies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is saying that he takes ideas, not that he's taking other people's unique expressions. Ideas aren't copyrightable, so it's perfectly OK. Other people can take his ideas too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I found this page to be helpful: http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/articles/ideapt1-20.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, IP is intended ultimately to expand the public domain, but noticeably you're leaving out the part where it does so by "securing" "to authors" "exclusive right[s]" "for limited times." In other words, under the Constitution authors are explicitly entitled to a monopoly, albeit a limited one.
The purpose of giving these exclusive rights is to incentivize authors to create such works. This stuff is basic, common knowledge. Not sure why your view is so narrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean it's not as simple as it should be. Well, that's why things should change, it should be simpler.
"Who gets to decide exactly what "to promote the progress" means?"
To promote the progress of the science and the arts.
"Why is one interpretation better than another?"
My interpretation is in the constitution itself, it's the interpretation that the founding fathers meant. Whatever brings more works into the public domain, whatever does the most public good, is what copyright should do. Our current system does nothing to promote the progress.
"In other words, under the Constitution authors are explicitly entitled to a monopoly, albeit a limited one."
No, they are not entitled to a monopoly for any period of time. Congress has the discretion to grant a monopoly only if it promotes the progress. Congress does not have to. Your reading comprehension problems makes your interpretation suspect.
"The purpose of giving these exclusive rights is to incentivize authors to create such works."
Sure, only to the extent that these monopolies promote the progress. However, they can also be used to prevent people from creating works.
For example, when corporations have a government imposed monopoly over broadcasting spectra and cableco and the only works that get delivered over those spectra are works that corporations control then that prevents others from getting competing permissibly licensed or public domain works out, since there is only so much that can be broadcasted at once. If works not controlled by big corporations are prevented from being distributed because they must first go through a monopolist gatekeeper, that gives those who create such works less incentive to create such works (since they can't get as much recognition which makes it more difficult to make money from things like concerts or to find other ways to use their recognition to make money). The result is that the copyright works, by displacing the free works, is hindering progress.
Also, people build on each others works and fair use is very narrowly constructed and even if someone exercising fair use would win a case the cost of a potential lawsuit could discourage them from building upon the works of others or independently inventing works that are similar to others and hence this is another way that copyright can be used to discourage progress. Because corporations wrongfully control most of the information distribution channels (pretty much all of them outside the Internet) and they insist that only content controlled by big corporations can be distributed it makes it more difficult for artists to be able to find works that they can build upon, again, hindering progress. Copyright also enables collection societies to be able to sue restaurants and other venues or demand fees for playing independent music the pretext that someone might infringe which prevents independent artists from gaining recognition. Copyright enables this nonsense.
"This stuff is basic, common knowledge."
No one is arguing against this.
"Not sure why your view is so narrow."
My view is narrow because the founding fathers made it clear that these laws should only be used to promote the progress. Our current system does nothing to promote the progress or expand the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe they should be simpler. You could certainly make that argument.
To promote the progress of the science and the arts.
Which is a phrase that could mean so many different things to so many different people... Congress' interpretation is the one that counts though.
My interpretation is in the constitution itself, it's the interpretation that the founding fathers meant. Whatever brings more works into the public domain, whatever does the most public good, is what copyright should do. Our current system does nothing to promote the progress.
So you're going with an originalist interpretation? That's just one of many possible interpretations, which is my point.
No, they are not entitled to a monopoly for any period of time. Congress has the discretion to grant a monopoly only if it promotes the progress. Congress does not have to. Your reading comprehension problems makes your interpretation suspect.
You're right. I should have said the Constitution grants Congress the power to secure the exclusive rights, and then Congress takes it from there. Congress gets to decide what they think promotes the progress.
Sure, only to the extent that these monopolies promote the progress. However, they can also be used to prevent people from creating works.
For example, when corporations have a government imposed monopoly over broadcasting spectra and cableco and the only works that get delivered over those spectra are works that corporations control then that prevents others from getting competing permissibly licensed or public domain works out, since there is only so much that can be broadcasted at once. If works not controlled by big corporations are prevented from being distributed because they must first go through a monopolist gatekeeper, that gives those who create such works less incentive to create such works (since they can't get as much recognition which makes it more difficult to make money from things like concerts or to find other ways to use their recognition to make money). The result is that the copyright works, by displacing the free works, is hindering progress.
Also, people build on each others works and fair use is very narrowly constructed and even if someone exercising fair use would win a case the cost of a potential lawsuit could discourage them from building upon the works of others or independently inventing works that are similar to others and hence this is another way that copyright can be used to discourage progress. Because corporations wrongfully control most of the information distribution channels (pretty much all of them outside the Internet) and they insist that only content controlled by big corporations can be distributed it makes it more difficult for artists to be able to find works that they can build upon, again, hindering progress. Copyright also enables collection societies to be able to sue restaurants and other venues or demand fees for playing independent music the pretext that someone might infringe which prevents independent artists from gaining recognition. Copyright enables this nonsense.
I think those are some great arguments. There are also some great arguments on the other side. Congress gets to decide which arguments win the day though.
No one is arguing against this.
Good.
My view is narrow because the founding fathers made it clear that these laws should only be used to promote the progress. Our current system does nothing to promote the progress or expand the public domain.
Again, you've made some great arguments, and I appreciate that. I must say though that I don't see those arguments being adopted by Congress anytime soon. I look at things like the Copyright Act, the CTEA, and the DMCA, and it's pretty clear Congress is going in the other direction with things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My interpretation of copyright is that it's about increasing the amount of dragons in the world. The fact that dragons are extinct must mean we need stronger laws.
By your own argument, your interpretation holds no more weight.
Also...
Once again, you're confusing the means with the end. The ability to grant monopoly is based on the assumption that it does indeed promote the progress of science and the useful arts by increasing the output of works through monetary incentives/compensation. If that assumption can be shown to be false, than granting the monopoly does not promote the progress and that power should not be exercised, if not taken away completely.
And no one has argued that the politicians in congress does not currently have the power to do so. We just don't agree that they're right, or even that this power should be granted any more, and thus the law should be changed, as they are prone to do so from time to time. Congress is not the arbiter of truth and the decider of the universe, it can and does make mistakes, and can make interpretations or arguments that others do not agree with, especially when influenced by the exchange of money through party/election donations and lobbying often used by companies and industry groups like the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, IP maximists seem to be forming some sort of legal cult.
Three hallmarks of a cult.
A: Most of what they claim is faith based.
B: They completely and obviously misinterpret the writings of others.
C: Members can only read and listen to pre-approved publications and opinions.
IP maximsits:
The notion that copyright and patents promote the progress is mostly faith based.
They completely and obviously misinterpret the constitution (no offense, but kinda like how Jehovah's witnesses misinterpret the Bible).
As much as we post the writings of the founding fathers to support our interpretation of the constitution, they still seem to be completely unaware of anything the founding fathers said as if they never read any of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your own argument, your interpretation holds no more weight.
My point is that the phrase means different things to different people, and no one position is "right." Except for maybe Congress, since their interpretation is controlling.
Once again, you're confusing the means with the end. The ability to grant monopoly is based on the assumption that it does indeed promote the progress of science and the useful arts by increasing the output of works through monetary incentives/compensation. If that assumption can be shown to be false, than granting the monopoly does not promote the progress and that power should not be exercised, if not taken away completely.
I agree, but I see a problem in execution. Evidence that you may think is dispositive, somebody else may think to be only probative. Two people can look at the same evidence and think it demonstrates completely different things. Happens all the time.
Personally, I think the evidence that suggests copyright does not promote the progress is only probative--I don't think it necessarily proves anything. It only hints at it. I'm just not convinced. Nor do I pretend to know or think that I'm necessarily right. Like most things in this world, I think both sides have great arguments, and neither side is necessarily correct. I really am centrist in most of my views.
And no one has argued that the politicians in congress does not currently have the power to do so. We just don't agree that they're right, or even that this power should be granted any more, and thus the law should be changed, as they are prone to do so from time to time. Congress is not the arbiter of truth and the decider of the universe, it can and does make mistakes, and can make interpretations or arguments that others do not agree with, especially when influenced by the exchange of money through party/election donations and lobbying often used by companies and industry groups like the RIAA.
You might be right that Congress has it wrong. I don't pretend to know. I do bet though that we'll never find out. Not in our lifetimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, to some incompetent people up means down and right means left. but those who aren't part of the IP cult understand perfectly well what the founding fathers meant.
"Evidence that you may think is dispositive, somebody else may think to be only probative."
But when you eventually reach a point where all the evidence says one thing and you completely ignore it in favor of a faith based belief people will start thinking you're insane.
"Two people can look at the same evidence and think it demonstrates completely different things. Happens all the time."
If I throw a ball up it will come down. Sure, you can interpret this to mean it will go to the moon but then people will think you're crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you must give equal weight to my interpretation that copyright law is about maintaining the dragon population. Different people can have different views, but that does not mean those views carry equal weight in relevance to history or other facts.
~
Then either it is insufficient evidence, one of them is misinterpreting or one of them is naive on the subject that the facts involve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said there are different interpretations, not that the varying interpretations should be given equal weight. I give your interpretation zero weight.
Then either it is insufficient evidence, one of them is misinterpreting or one of them is naive on the subject that the facts involve.
Not necessarily. Two people can look at the same evidence and walk away with completely different but reasonable interpretations of what the evidence suggests. See every Supreme Court decision that wasn't unanimous, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then the issue of differing views is moot. If a view is said to have no weight, then bringing up that someone has a different interpretation is pointless. It is a fact that people can have different viewpoints - what we care about is how much weight they should be given depending on other factors.
And not all of those interpretations are deemed correct, and are later reverted or changed based on multiple factors like new evidence, or indeed the law that made that process of interpretation necessary removed entirely. There is also a huge difference between moral grey areas which introduce philosophical questions like abortion and factual statements of x system produces y output. Copyright can and does fall under the latter, and is itself exactly a system built in that way - an assumption that x system (the granting of a monopoly to copy and/or publish a given work) will produce y output (more works from the monetary incentive given to authors).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're interpretation is completely ridiculous, like your example with dragons, then it gets no weight from me. Perhaps other people will give it weight, just not me. This doesn't moot the possibility of people giving different weights to different opinions, it bolsters it.
Of course different people give different weight to the same argument. That's my point.
And not all of those interpretations are deemed correct, and are later reverted or changed based on multiple factors like new evidence, or indeed the law that made that process of interpretation necessary removed entirely. There is also a huge difference between moral grey areas which introduce philosophical questions like abortion and factual statements of x system produces y output. Copyright can and does fall under the latter, and is itself exactly a system built in that way - an assumption that x system (the granting of a monopoly to copy and/or publish a given work) will produce y output (more works from the monetary incentive given to authors).
Copyright theories are far from being factual realities. Like most, if not all, issues of policy, there are several competing theories.
Two people can and do look at the same data and walk away with different takes on what the data represent. Neither would be wrong.
Copyright just isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. If it were, there'd be no debate. As you well know, there is plenty of debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's kinda the point, the IP maximists interpretation is completely ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The evidence. and the evidence says that copyright isn't needed.
"Why is one interpretation better than another?"
The evidence is better suited to determine truth than the faith based claims of a bunch of monopolists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but what evidence and whose interpretation of that evidence? Ultimately though it's Congress' take on things that controls copyright policy.
The evidence is better suited to determine truth than the faith based claims of a bunch of monopolists.
And I'm sure there is evidence to back up the claims on both sides of the debate. Evidence tends to do that in such situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though maybe I'm wrong and there is equal evidence or merely some evidence that should be given equal weight to indicate that gravity does not exist and that the Sun does in fact revolve around the Earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though maybe I'm wrong and there is equal evidence or merely some evidence that should be given equal weight to indicate that gravity does not exist and that the Sun does in fact revolve around the Earth.
I don't see the world in such black and white terms. I've yet to see a policy debate where I didn't think both sides had good arguments. I think all of the same criticisms of research that supports copyright could be aimed at research that is against it. Copyright isn't one of those scientific facts like whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. It's much grayer than that. Both sides have good points. Whenever I see someone claiming that their side is necessarily correct, I cringe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet the mainstream media only allows one side to receive MSM attention and only one side to present their viewpoints and that's the pro IP side. Could it be that the reason for this is that they know the pro IP cult holds an indefensible position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If evidence can be thought of to point different ways, then it's either insufficient evidence or indeed a complex situation, but that is not an argument for treating different sides or interpretations with equal weight just because.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When talking about policies, there are always reasonable arguments on both side of the debate.
Again, if one side claims to be the only correct way to look at something, I cringe.
The world's gray, my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not when it comes to statements that involve suggestions of factual nature, like x action will produce y output that can be measured, studied, and shown to occur (or not), like the granting of a monopoly to produce the result of more published works through monetary incentives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one said the works would be the same, perhaps it'll be even better. The point is that works will be created and advanced just as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You cannot demonstrate definitively that works will be "advanced just as well" without copyright. Any such proclamation is speculative at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
to...
tightly...
No...
Room...
Can't...
breathe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Joe's not tooo bright Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes one can. Try another system and compare the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Open Source!
There just proved it would advance "just as well"
Want to see more proof?
Cavemen, Romans, Persians, Ancient Chinese all advanced without IP laws.
There is no speculation there, it happened before so there is no theoretical part to it, people will do what they need to do, but those monopolies granted are not for society they are for the ones trying to make others obey them.
Want recent examples, Microsoft, Ford, the textile industry all started without the need for IP they even were against it.
Now do tell were do you get this idea that IP is necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this were true someone would have provided evidence to support patents and copyrights by now. So far, as long as I have been on techdirt, no one has. Not a single shred of evidence has been presented, neither by you nor by all the other pro IP people arguing on techdirt. I am forced to conclude that either patent and copyright advocates are either too incompetent to find and provide evidence or that no evidence exists.
I can provide plenty of evidence that art and music will continue without copyright, just look at all the CC based work out there for instance. Hollywood was built on piracy. Plenty of works were made without copyright. Beethoven, Mozart, many sculptures like Michelangelo. Plenty of art and music was made and then copied and remade differently and modified and advanced and evolved from other works without copyright.
If you want a monopoly the burden is on you to justify it. Now justify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can provide plenty of evidence that art and music will continue without copyright, just look at all the CC based work out there for instance. Hollywood was built on piracy. Plenty of works were made without copyright. Beethoven, Mozart, many sculptures like Michelangelo. Plenty of art and music was made and then copied and remade differently and modified and advanced and evolved from other works without copyright.
If you want a monopoly the burden is on you to justify it. Now justify.
If you're getting all of your information from techdirt, then you aren't really exposing yourself to different points of view. Obviously this site is pretty one-sided.
To me the evidence is pretty clear that copyright is working just fine. I see the U.S. as the IP capital of the world. The rest of the world wants what we have. Ever been in a foreign country and turned on the TV? You'll see lots of U.S. copyrighted works. If the system is completely broken down, why are we creating the best IP on the planet? And then I look at composers like Jason Robert Brown. He's explicitly stated that he wouldn't compose like he does unless he received copyright in his work. Clearly copyright is incentive for him to create, and the world loves his creations. Right there is evidence that copyright is working.
And of course plenty of works get made without copyright, but that doesn't necessarily mean that copyright doesn't work. People can choose to retain all of the rights in their work, they can choose to license their work as they please, or they can choose to give it away 100% for free. Copyright lets them do what they think is best.
As far as demanding that the burden is on copyright to prove itself, I don't think that makes sense. Copyright is the status quo. In order to change the status quo, the burden is on the system purporting to be better to prove that it is so. That seems pretty obvious to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're here and I'm reading what you're saying.
"I see the U.S. as the IP capital of the world."
The fact that IP laws cause IP works to be produced doesn't mean IP is good.
"Ever been in a foreign country and turned on the TV? You'll see lots of U.S. copyrighted works."
You see lots of works in the language of the country that you're in produced by people of that country.
"The rest of the world wants what we have. "
Mostly because the rest of the world has fewer freedoms than we do. It's our freedoms that has advanced us, not the restrictions on our freedoms that IP imposes. The founding fathers even recognized this and they were very skeptical of IP and even noted that countries without it did at least as well as those with it. The founding fathers skepticism of IP is what advanced us.
but as our freedoms get taken away more and more the rest of the world does not want what we have so much.
"why are we creating the best IP on the planet?"
Define "best" and just because something is the best IP content doesn't mean it's the best content overall. and, again, it's our relative freedom that allows us to make better content than what other countries make.
"Right there is evidence that copyright is working."
How is that evidence that copyright is working? It just means that one person claims that he won't compose without copyright. Who cares, others will be glad to take his place, including whatever places he had on public airwaves and they will get recognition as well. If he composes, good for him, if not, he can find another job.
"As far as demanding that the burden is on copyright to prove itself, I don't think that makes sense."
Of course it does, if you want a monopoly the burden is on you to justify it. Taxpayers shouldn't waste their tax dollars on paying for the enforcement of an unjustified monopoly.
"Copyright is the status quo."
Slavery was the status quo at one time but that hardly justifies it.
"In order to change the status quo, the burden is on the system purporting to be better to prove that it is so."
So if slavery and infanticide is the status quo lets place the burden on those proposing a better system to prove that it needs to be changed.
The status quo is irrelevant to who holds the burden. The people who want something or are getting something from the system, those who are getting copyright and an unowed monopoly, should always be required to justify what they are receiving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the world just doesn't work that way. The side calling for change has the burden of proving why change would be better. If your side is so clearly right and other side so clearly wrong, then you shouldn't have much difficulty winning. As I already said though, I don't see it happening anytime in our lifetimes. The techdirt anti-copyright agenda will always be fringe at best. Just my two cents. Go ahead and get the last word--I feel we've reached the point of diminishing returns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't mean it shouldn't work that way.
"The side calling for change has the burden of proving why change would be better."
Depends on the nature of the change. In this case, you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it could work that way, but it doesn't.
If I think my widget is better than your gadget, does your gadget have to prove itself to be superior? Or do I have to prove my widget is better? Clearly its the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So why is it that they don't have to justify their position with logic, but only money and campaign contributions and the like, but someone wanting things changed does have to? Why is it that their wishes were put into place and still exist with no justification whatsoever yet if someone wants things changed back to the way they were they have to justify it? Justification is good for one side and not the other? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Who has to justify a position is independent of what the current status quo is. The reason you must justify IP is because my right to copy you is an alienable right. Your privilege to prevent me from copying is unnatural and not owed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you just making this stuff up, or are you just willfully blind? This statement has no basis in reality.
The justifications for including the IP Clause to the Constitution are public knowledge. See the writings of James Madison, for example.
The floor debates and arguments for the CTEA are also public knowledge. So too are the arguments and briefs that went along with Eldred, which you'll recall was the case where the constitutionality of the CTEA was challenged. The arguments are there for anyone to see.
You have every right to say you don't agree with the arguments, but to say the arguments were never proffered makes no sense at all. I can't even imagine how you could make that argument in good faith.
Who has to justify a position is independent of what the current status quo is. The reason you must justify IP is because my right to copy you is an alienable right. Your privilege to prevent me from copying is unnatural and not owed.
You're right to copy is an alienable right? That is true. I gather from the context of your statement that you meant it is an inalienable right. That it is not. Copyright in this country is purely statutory. The natural rights arguments actually favor the pro-IP side, not the side you're promoting. I think you're confused about this in more ways than one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Making up a reason for something to exist doesn't justify its existence. I can claim that the justification for me ruling the world is that I will be a great leader and the world will have more public knowledge but that hardly makes it true and that hardly substantiates the justification. I want substantiated justification, not merely claims for justification. There is no evidence whatsoever that IP increases public knowledge and so its justification is moot. The justification to eliminating it is public knowledge and the justification for keeping it does not exist.
"See the writings of James Madison, for example."
I've seen them and you ignore them. James Madison himself was very skeptical of IP.
"The arguments are there for anyone to see."
The fact that something was argued doesn't mean it was justified.
"but to say the arguments were never proffered makes no sense at all."
No one said that arguments were never made, that's a reading comprehension problem on your part. The fact that arguments were made doesn't justify IP.
"The natural rights arguments actually favor the pro-IP side, not the side you're promoting."
No, because an institution is required for IP to exist, no institution is required for it not to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The founding fathers disagree with you on that. Of course you will interpret what they say in such a way that can make up mean down and left mean right but if you read what they plainly say they obviously disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(I'm only entertaining you at this point because I'm bored... No Saints game today... We're way past the point of diminishing returns.)
So you think the Founding Fathers wrote the Intellectual Property Clause into the Constitution because they were against intellectual property? That makes no sense at all. None.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that's just another reading comprehension problem on your part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, then explain why the IP Clause was included in the Constitution if the Founding Fathers were so anti-IP.
You have yet to explain this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and I said they were skeptical of IP, not that they were against it completely. Thomas Jefferson was initially against it but later said it could exist only if it were very limited in time and scope. It's your reading comprehension problem that's getting in the way of your proper interpretation of what the constitution and the founding fathers said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a conclusory statement which you cannot possibly prove.
And maybe you haven't noticed, but IP isn't going anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With absolute proof, no, but science doesn't deal with absolute proof. But there is plenty of evidence in support of my claim and there is little to no contradictory evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just walk through life with blinders on, don't you? Look all around you. IP is everywhere. IP is strong. IP is going nowhere. Dream on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IP is being challenged right now and will be transformed in one way or another.
There is little chance of passing legislation today to expand IP laws, but there is a growing chance that IP could be weakened, the pressure is on to reduce IP laws not the other and that means reduce its scope, are you saying that is not possible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The president of Mexico was complaining about how hard it is to live besides the biggest drug consumer in the world which also happens to be the biggest gun seller, which creates the perfect environment for gangs to appear that use guns to enforce control.
Then I remember the LEAP(Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).
http://leap.cc/cms/index.php
Even people who are in charge of enforcing those laws turning against it.
Little curiosity about the war on drugs. It cost 100 of billions of dollars, generated a prison population problem and there is no signs it helped in any way whatsoever with the problem that drugs pose.
The same misguided assumptions are also being applied to P2P that is more like TV and Radio to users, for which they should not be punished by capricious arbitrary rules that only can be found on the realm of the imagination.
False assumptions that leads to false morals, that get trashed in the public forums everywhere.
Those blinds you are talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People just need to apply IP laws differently and start using in different ways and those old ideas will be dead anyway.
It probably will be superseded by a competing way of thinking like open source, that is more useful to people.
What IP laws will mean then? How would legacy players view that? they probably try to change the rules again but this time getting rid of IP laws because it no longer suits them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the correspondences exchanged between them, the topic was divisive with many of them against such a thing, so one can assume with some degree of certainty that they probably thought monopolies could be managed in pro of society not individuals, they were wrong of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The clause is actually nothing to do with granting monopolies, but securing the natural right authors and inventors have to exclude others from their intellectual work - which obviously/naturally only applies to those works in their private possession. Plainly, no-one can have a natural right to exclude others from what has been given to them, for such would require super-natural or inhuman power (such as that which may be lent by the state by way of privilege).
I can naturally exclude you from my writings that are in my possession. However, if I later give or sell you a copy and thus naturally include you, I cannot then simultaneously, naturally exclude you (from certain acts you are naturally at liberty to do). For such perverse and unnatural exclusions I need a corrupt state to help me.
If I've written a song or story I can naturally exclude you from it - until, that is, I sing or tell it to you, whereupon I have no natural power (or right) to prevent you singing or telling that story to anyone else.
Obviously, grants of monopoly are fundamentally illegitimate (instruments of injustice), and so it's not surprising that their corrupt proponents will pretend them to be natural rights. It's truly astonishing to see them claim that people have a natural right to prevent anyone re-singing the songs they sing or re-telling the stories they've told.
It's just as egregious to pretend that the legislation of US copyright in 1790 (a slightly edited version of the Statute of Anne) is the securing of an author's natural exclusive right to their writings (as Congress was only empowered to do by the 1787 Constitution).
Notwithstanding any of this, there were Framers such as Madison who were keen for copyright to be granted (to enact the Statute of Anne) for the benefit of the press and state in the US - irrespective of their lip service and pretence of hand-wringing angst with respect to the granting of monopolies. The problem was, the Constitution couldn't empower the granting of privileges such as monopolies. The most it could do was to empower the securing of self-evident natural rights. Hence we have a natural rights based Constitutional clause that copyright supporters pretend sanctions the re-enactment of the Statute of Anne, and the granting of a monopoly. This is further supported by insinuating that 'legislatively granted right to exclude others from making copies' is the (natural) 'exclusive right' referred to by the Constitution (which obviously couldn't refer to a privilege that hadn't yet been granted).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LoL
2 words for ya "export deficit"
You may think that but people around the world are not spending their money on your words, I wonder why?
IP capital of the world LoL
Just wait and see others starting to patent everything and start charging the U.S. then you will see what IP laws are for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've made this argument before, and I suspect you yourself know that it doesn't really hold water.
The reason the U.S. is the IP capital of the world, is because historically we're the wealthiest nation in the world. Our economic system allows the creation of mega-corporations, who are allowed to bully the rest of the world into accepting their agenda.
It's exactly like saying, "Copyrights must work, because the only music on the radio is from major labels." Or: "Patents must work, because Monsanto is rich."
Not to mention the facts that we are one of the largest countries in the world, with a (mostly) unified language, and whose liberties have attracted refugees from around the world (whose knowledge we could then use).
On the other hand, let's look at one industry - the music industry. (I chose this one because it's the one I know the most about.) Examine the musical styles that are selling around the world. Which of those would be possible if all the musicians had obeyed current IP laws?
Soul? Nope. Folk? Nope. Punk? Nope. Hip-hop? No way. Jazz? Uh-uh. Country? No. Rock and roll? Not a chance. Dance music? No way.
The music that the IP industries sell the most, would not be possible if they actually obeyed IP laws.
Perhaps that's why not one single musical genre has originated from within the major label system. So by that criteria, the IP system has not created the best content on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I'm pro-IP, but I think the system needs to be improved in lots of different ways. I'd rather focus on changing the IP we have than worry about trying to do away with it altogether. Change is reasonable, tossing the whole thing is not. It'll never happen.
One idea is to take copyright away from Congress and set it up as an independent executive agency that promulgates its own regulations through rulemaking. That right there would be a step in the right direction, IMO.
You know what though, I had an interesting thought. I'm studying when and for what people can sue the government.
It got me thinking that if somebody thinks they can show personal injury caused by copyright law, they could take the government to court. Sue the government for injuring you with copyright law.
Wouldn't that be an interesting case? Maybe somebody like Prof. Nesson would be up for it. Just a thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not a copyright abolitionist either, though others on here are.
I would, however, like to do away with the concept of "intellectual property." It's misleading, as copyrights are not "property," but a privilege granted from holding up your end of a social bargain. It should be thought of in terms of contracts, not "property" or "rights."
If the original contract was actually enforced, there wouldn't be too many problems. That contract is the granting of a monopoly on profits to the artist, in exchange for the creation of more works. Other than giving up the right to directly profit off of works, the public gives up none of its rights, and otherwise has complete and unfettered use of all published works.
In other words, copyright and CC-BY-NC should be one and the same. (Probably -ND as well, but that assumes the original meaning of "derivative" as closer to "translation.")
This is not to say there won't be problems - I'm discussing them with Nina Paley and Crosbie Fitch in another thread. But those problems would be miniscule compared to the problems we have now.
It got me thinking that if somebody thinks they can show personal injury caused by copyright law, they could take the government to court.
It's often crossed my mind that an astute lawyer should set up a class-action lawsuit, and involve all of those who settled with e.g. USCG though they were innocent. I don't know if they would sue the government or USCG, though. I'm guessing the latter would have a better chance of winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Didn't you get the memo about Mike censoring their comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, I thought people were born with rights. Since when were they handed out like candy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, I thought people were born with rights. Since when were they handed out like candy?
You're right, Crosbie. Thanks for pointing out my error. The Constitution gives the power to secure exclusive rights to Congress, and then Congress gives those rights to authors via the Copyright Act.
Aren't rights handed out? Once upon a time, blacks weren't born with the right to vote. Now they are born with that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, power to secure the exclusive rights that authors were born* with.
"Congress gives those rights to authors via the Copyright Act."
No, Congress did very little in the way of securing the exclusive rights that authors were born with. Instead, it simply re-enacted the Statute of Anne, i.e. enacted copyright that suspended the people's liberty and right to copy in order to grant a per-work reproduction monopoly for the benefit of the press.
All men are born equal. If you corrupt the language to exclude blacks, Jews, alleged paedophiles, suspected terrorists, and other pariahs from mankind then you can treat them worse than animals. A similar corruption exists today in corrupting the language to term copyright as an exclusive right in order that it appears to have constitutional sanction.
Money may not be the root of all evil, but it's having a damn good try.
You should really worry that corporations have been legally elevated to have (at least) the same status and rights as human beings (whatever you think 'rights' means these days).
* 'born' is a clue - authors are human beings, not corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, Congress did very little in the way of securing the exclusive rights that authors were born with. Instead, it simply re-enacted the Statute of Anne, i.e. enacted copyright that suspended the people's liberty and right to copy in order to grant a per-work reproduction monopoly for the benefit of the press. . . .
Statutory copyright is grounded in principals of natural rights, but it is nonetheless strictly a creature of statute. I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you simply anti-corporation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the first I've come across to dare say that.
Perhaps you'd like to explain further?
How did copyright exist in nature before Queen Anne granted it in 1710?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in ‘Science and useful Arts.’ Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered." Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
"That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted . . . ." Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834).
Authors have a natural property right in their work. It's natural to expect rewards for your labor. Common law copyright was based on natural law, and Lockean natural rights underpin U.S. constitutional and statutory law. The Berne Convention, DMCA, and CTEA show that natural law-based copyright has reemerged with a vengeance.
This stuff is common knowledge. I know it's not a popular notion on techdirt though, for obvious reasons. The techdirt view is purely an economic one, but the reality is that copyright finds its roots in both natural and economic rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no such clause.
"That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted . . . ."
Sounds reasonable to me.
"Authors have a natural property right in their work".
I agree.
"It's natural to expect rewards for your labor."
That you expect reward doesn't make it a right. I expect to be rewarded for weaving baskets, but I recognise that there's a remote possibility no-one will want to reward me for my work. As to the level of such reward, that is of course determined in a free market - not one in which I've been granted a monopoly.
"Common law copyright was based on natural law"
Wash your mouth out with soap!
"Lockean natural rights underpin U.S. constitutional and statutory law."
Aside from the privileges of copyright and patent.
"the reality is that copyright finds its roots in both natural and economic rights."
Saying it's a reality doesn't make it so. (what are 'economic rights'?)
Such wishful assertions underline your contention, but they don't constitute much of an argument.
Where did Locke say that every man should be granted a monopoly over the fruits of his creativity, or that every man is born the natural power to prevent any other from bringing to market a similar or improved product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The quote says, "That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted . . . ."
It doesn't mean that fruits are guaranteed to be there. It just means that if there are fruits, then the laborer is entitled to them.
It says nothing about propping up monopolies or any other such nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that copyright is by definition a monopoly right. It's granting you the right to exclusivity - that is, the right to prevent others from benefiting from their own labor, if it in some way uses yours.
It's not granting you the fruits of your labor. It's preventing others from buying your fruit and planting their own trees. That's certainly not what Locke had in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're going to base things on Locke then I should point out first that much of his work was reliant on his interpretation of the bible and that I'm not religious.
Under the Lockean definition of property I would argue that the rights are already fulfilled by physical property rights. This is backed up by the fact that he did not define anything approaching intellectual property in his treatise. In other words, Locke refers to a right to the fruits of ones labour, which is sufficiently afforded by ownership of physical property.
If anything, intellectual property impedes on the Lockean idea of property rights. In his Second Treatise Of Government, Locke states: "every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his". As you copy someone their idea also becomes part of you, no less part of you than if you had come up with an idea yourself. Should you labour to create a physical manifestation of that copy then Locke's philosophy would let you claim that as your property.
"copyright finds its roots in both natural and economic rights."
This I agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Authors have incentive to create works without copyright. Your argument is that the purpose is to subsidize the creation of works. Government subsidies tends to promote bad economics for many reasons. I think there are many other, more important, things we can subsidize. There will be no lack of works without copyright and having the government incentivize something that the free market is perfectly capable of producing without such incentives will draw more of their time towards doing that one thing which draws their time away from other, marginally more important, things, which makes for bad economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like the argument. Admittedly, economics isn't my strong suit, so I don't really have much to add to your comments. I will say though that there must be some good arguments that the incentivizing function of copyright works. If the system was so clearly broken I don't think the Senate would have unanimously passed the DMCA, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
95+ year copyright length, the system is so clearly broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a fan of copyright's lengthy terms either, but I wouldn't say the issue is dispositive that the system is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you should say 'Thank Goodness' for anything it's that you aren't currently suspected of terrorism...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd say the same thing, except with sarcastic emphasis on "must" and without "incentivizing", which isn't a word.
"If the system was so clearly broken I don't think the Senate would have unanimously passed the DMCA, for example."
Why not if they passed all the other bills that made it broken in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Isn't it the present participle of "incentivize"?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incentivizing
If it's in a dictionary, does that make it a word?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incentivizing#English
Why do you get to decide what is a word and what isn't?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentivize
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was part of the joke. Sorry it wooshed, it's kinda British. We don't like people replacing our s' with zs, let alone turning it into 'zing'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The bill in the Senate was adopted via Unanimous Consent.
Unanimous Consent is defined as "A procedure for adopting noncontroversial measures without a vote."
Its used by the gutless who don't want to be on the record .
What Average_joe "doesn't think" about is documented as yet another lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said the DMCA was passed unanimously by the Senate. You are also saying it was passed unanimously. What's the problem? Where's the lie?
I didn't know it was unanimous consent though. Thanks for the info. The fact that it was so uncontroversial as to qualify for unanimous consent only reinforces my point.
I didn't lie. Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further more even John Mellencamp admits that the freedom to experiment and use ideas and work of others is important to him as a creator, it is the fundamental base of creation and in case you missed here it is again "experimenting" is not just something you can ignore and let it go, this is not how things get done, we experiment, we fail and we do it again, that is how all things get created, there are very few and far between Teslas on this world but for every Tesla there is a million Edison's who relentlessly experiment with everything, that is what IP blocks and reduces innovation, because it blocks the spread of knowledge creates an environment of fear that decimates the transfer of knowledge and today promotes not progress but stagnation.
Ever wonder why countries were IP can't be protected advance rapidly? Because everyone can do and exploit everything they have an infinite canvas where to paint and create new things and despite all the difficulties people keeps creating and advancing, that doesn't happen in mature markets that are full of companies and individuals that promote such a destructive concept as copyright and IP laws.
Everybody knows what a monopoly is and know that nothing good can come from if it stays that way for long, that is why AT&T was broken down, that is why the Oil giant from the pass was broken, because they reach a point were they just immobilize the entire market and produce nothing of value, that is why copyright will die and people will ignore it, because it is getting in the way of progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reduce copyright terms.
...an excellent reason to argue against expansive copyright.
Eliminate copyright and you eliminate the problem.
A work being in the public domain in a timely fashion turns a situation that would other wise be a nasty, expensive and time consuming litigation into a total non-issue.
The longer the copyright term is, the more likely some jack*ss like Mellencamp will sue some rising new star.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
James Cameron Terminator story is a good example of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know a guy who knew him back in Indie, he is a douche and a hypocrite. He started out as a pink haired punk singer but saw there was more $ in acting "authentic". The simple fact that his fame was produced by the payola system wipes out all of the pr bs that you mentioned. Sorry but them's the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you should all go work for mainsteam media since you like to put your own spin on things.
and show me one picture of when Mellencamp was ever a 'pink haired punk singer'. granted, he had a stint with glam rock way back in the day, but who didn't back then.
you should all research a little bit and find the truth before you go posting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, most people.
you should all research a little bit and find the truth before you go posting
Maybe you should follow your own advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh, that's funny because you don't even know who you're replying to, do you? What are you, a twit or just a troll?
[ 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 ]
by John & Elaine Mellencamp
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1022-13.htm
Well now that people are taking charge he complains LoL
What does he do when things get tough? Cry directly to big daddy to do something, that is right the punk complain about special interests and when it suits him he ask the same special interests to help him, what a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprised
Also, he apparently has a tall, attractive wife who looks down on him (Hah!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprised
So what? I always thought it was incredibly funny that Bogart had to wear plateaus in some of his movies so he could look down in the woman he was kissing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry that you no longer make wothwile songs of value John Mellendump. I'm sorry that you can no longer make a living doing what you used to. However, I urge you to wake up and realize that millions of other people no longer can make a living doing what they used to. They don't make public addresses whining that it is eveyone elses fault thet they lost their job. No, many take it as a life building step and proceed to look forward to their new chapter in life with a different career. You are no different John Mellendump.
Time to wake up and smell your shitty music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"and show me one picture of when Mellencamp was ever a 'pink haired punk singer'. granted, he had a stint with glam rock way back in the day, but who didn't back then. "
You just admitted that I am correct and then tell me to do my research. huh?? Are you saying that the "pink hair" (which my bud who was there says he had) is a part of the substance of my comment? The point was that he pretended to be "authentic" for the money. Then used a cynical payola system to build his fame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"and show me one picture of when Mellencamp was ever a 'pink haired punk singer'. granted, he had a stint with glam rock way back in the day, but who didn't back then. "
You just admitted that I am correct and then tell me to do my research. huh?? Are you saying that the "pink hair" (which my bud who was there says he had) is a part of the substance of my comment? The point was that he pretended to be "authentic" for the money. Then used a cynical payola system to build his fame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's MY sycophant with a wiki style cut n paste on MY great accomplishments ??
Cuz when I do something nice, I like to have it be about me- rather than the individuals that were effected!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a crok.. !!! --- refuses to give back ??
Mike, you put this under the subheading "Culture", and what Meloncamp was talking about is HIS EXPERIENCES, and yes, they are HIS, they cannot be anyone elses.
Whatever he hears, sees, reads and so on are all HIS experiences, just like (believe it or not) Mike, Whatever you experience are you own personal things, you cannot give your experiences back, and they are 100% YOURS.
When you sit down and write a TD article Mike, DO YOU NOT draw on all the experiences, all the things you've seen, and heard and done when it comes time to create the article you are writing ?
You would **NOT** say that your creative expression of your writing is not a product of all that you have experienced?
The the product of your writing, is a (small) way of "giving back" what you have gained from the sum total of all your lifes events, actions, and experiences.
So if he hears a song, the song itself is not his, but his experience of that song, to him, is unique and cannot be anything else but his experience.
You might hear the same song and experience it in a totally different way.
So until you can do better than misquote, and make FALSE CLAIMS about him not "giving back". Seem you are having trouble coming up with anything like good (or even true) examples of the evil of copyright or whatever it is your are fighting against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a crok.. !!! --- refuses to give back ??
The problem is, some wicked cabal in 1710 persuaded a Queen to deny this, to enact a law that said culture could be excluded from the public (then a decade or so, now a century or so). Three centuries later we are realising why this law must be abolished, why it corrupts even the likes of Mellencamp into hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a crok.. !!! --- refuses to give back ??
He can't take this point of view, THEN bitch about "piracy," without being a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mirrors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Known for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the internet is bad then remove yourself from it.
No personal websites
No facebook pages
NO CONTACT TO YOUR FANS
What a Shmuck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On another note he never wrote an original song in his life. First he was like a rocked up version of Dylan (Copycat) and now he pretends to be a rocker. But he sucks and I never bought one of his records anyway. So in reality who gives a shit what he thinks. I say Welcome to the real world asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at what Radio did to it. See?
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike,,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's in a name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't like it, don't put your stuff out there.
As for JCM, he's rich, so anything he gives back is proportional to what he has. A poor man giving $1 is a much greater deed then JCM giving $1 million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You appear to contradict yourself here. Why should no one criticise his right to speak his mind if you are doing the same thing to them? Do we all have to 'earn' the right to have our own opinions in your eyes? I'd suggest opinions are a natural product of exercising independent thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ya right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean... Leave John alone!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
am i the only one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: am i the only one?
For one thing, it lessens my enjoyment of art if I find out the artist is a jerk, a douche, or a whiner. Also, I genuinely believe that by downloading and sharing their material, I'd be contributing to their popularity...and why would I want to benefit a jerk, douche, or whiner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: am i the only one?
If he doesn't want anybody to download music from him that is ok by me.
Same for everything else, video, books, photos, art etc.
They can all keep it, I'm not giving them a penny of my hard earned money.
But I do teach everyone who wants to know, how to bypass any security(DRM) to backup what they bought, but I always point them to alternatives also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: am i the only one?
that got him !!! poor mellencamp will be crying himself to sleep tonight.
Ofcourse you realize you've done NO damage to mellencamp, you downloaded music you would not have purchased, and not listened too.
All you have done is burn some of your download, and filled some of your hard drives.
Its funny what some people will do out of pure hatred and bile.
"these articles" are a fabrication of Mikes imagination, read what Mellencamp said, and read Mike interpretation of that statement, and you "MIGHT" be able to work out what I mean.
You should be attacking Mike, for making these wild, unfounded claims, and statements. Not the person that Mike is 'attacking' by misinterpreting his statements, or just plain getting it totally wrong,, much like you have.
Did any of you morons actually read what Mellencamp said ?
Or did you just look at Mikes interpretation of it ?
How on earth can you make page after page of bitter, nasty claims about Meloncamp based on totally wrong interpretation of his comments by Mike ?
I guess reading, is easier than thinking, and its even easier to just let Mike dictate what we should think and feel. Its much easier than having our own opinions..
thanks Mike for taking the burden of having the reason and think.. we've got you to do that for us now..
"The leader is good, the leader is great, we give up our will, as of this date"
NANANANANA leader !!!!
"BATMEN,, oh I mean LEADER"..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: am i the only one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: am i the only one?
It's funny how often you contradict yourself. Of course, when your are barely capable of thought, it isn't too surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: am i the only one?
Finally the punk admitted that piracy have negative impact on the market.
But he is to stupid to have even noticed what he said LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: am i the only one?
no negative impact on the market that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/john-mellencamp-internet-has-destroyed-the-music-busi ness/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/18/john-mellencamp-calls-the-internet-the-most-dangerous-in vention/
He is being trashed everywhere.
And here is my opinion of the guy, if you don't like cussing don't read any further.
This prick, can say anything I don't care, never heard of him and probably never listen to his music either, he and his kind I never seeing a dime from me.
I wish the music industry was destroyed but that is wishful thinking, anything that hurts those bastards is ok on my book.
Die legacy music die!
Let the new empowered sounds come to the forefront.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"
mellencamp's long storied history as a singer,songwriter, performer and as an artist, a humanitarian, a social activist and as an all around good guy in the music/entertainment business is irrefutable and his reputation is above and beyond reproach. to say otherwise is just nonsense to say the least. poll anyone and everyone who has been around the industry the past 35 years and you would be hard pressed to find someone to say a bad word about him. is he a saint or ? of course not and he would be the first one tell to say so! weather you agree with his views on the state of the music industry today and the technological influences on it and everything else that it entails is up to you? i happen to agree with him. no one however should try to soil mellencamp's reputation or his talent as an artist or criticize his right to speak his mind. i think he's earned his right to have his own opinion and to voice it as he see's fit............john mellencamp is everything rock n roll was meant to be.....
"
He started out as a punk/ new wave or whatever you want to call it type and switched to wearin' jeans and talking like plain folk because that is where the money was. That my friend is a hypocrite, but it does not stop there, he made his fame and money using the payola system. The payola system has caused huge and irreversible damage to American culture. It has destroyed regional and local music forms (which happen to be the niche that young Mr.Cougar was filling). His life stands as a symbol of what is wrong with American culture, it packages a watered-down version of itself and uses illegal means to promote that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like David H. Koch?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
Is he financing fake grassroots too?
Since the 80's people have known that philanthropy has its rewards it doesn't say jack s"#% about the character of someone though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@average_joe
lawyer
no human being there
and as to mellen head
he sold out and loads a people know it LONG ago
hes not a peoples man, hes a capitalist and is anohter in a long line of lazy good for nothings that just adds a tax on society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @average_joe
Grow up and learn how to put a sentence together. Are you capable of critical thought? I sincerely doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @average_joe
To say that something should be because it's the status quo is nonsense. If I steal your $100 from you, that money doesn't suddenly rightfully become mine because suddenly the status quo is that I have position over it. No, I have to justify my position over it, maybe you broke my window and hence owe me the money or there is a justification. But if not, I should have to give that money back with interest, the status quo of me possessing the money alone isn't enough to justify me having that money.
Likewise, a monopoly is unowed, you want it you must justify it. Just because you stole my inalienable and natural rights from me with no justification doesn't mean that you shouldn't be forced to return them, with interest even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
You might think they owe you an explanation, but they do not. There is no legal basis for saying they have the duty to explain it to you. Ridiculous.
Look, I'm not saying that IP shouldn't change. I'm all for changing it. In fact, I plan to work towards changing it. I'm starting already by resurrecting the IP group at my school. I want to network with people who are in a position to implement change.
What I'm not for is just saying throw the whole thing out. That simply won't happen. I'm a pragmatist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
So? Slavery was a huge regime and those who wanted it made arguments for its existence yet that hardly justifies it.
"You might think they owe you an explanation, but they do not."
Of course they do.
"There is no legal basis for saying they have the duty to explain it to you."
Then the law needs to change.
"What I'm not for is just saying throw the whole thing out. That simply won't happen. I'm a pragmatist."
Saying that its existence needs to be justified is different from saying that it should be thrown out entirely. but our current system has huge problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
Nor is there any basis to believe they in fact owe you that duty that I know of.
If you think the law should change, then work to make it change. I'm all for that.
Have a great one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
Of course they do, I do not owe them my restraint from freely copying and redistributing anything I please without their permission. If they want to restrict what I can do in such a manner they need to justify their restrictions to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
You really are sounding completely ridiculous at this point.
If they owe you that duty, point out the law that says they owe it to you.
You cannot. That law does not exist.
The best you can say is that you believe they should owe you that duty. And that's completely different than what you are saying.
If you got busted for infringement, do you really believe the judge would agree that you do not owe the rights holder your constraint from copying or distributing their content?
The judge would not agree. No judge would ever agree with you because you are unequivocally 100% wrong.
Your position is completely and totally not based on reality. Don't pretend that the way you wish things to be is actually the way they are.
If you think I'm wrong, then point to the exact law that backs up your position. You simply cannot because you are so incredibly wrong.
Good grief, friend, don't you know the difference between how things are and how you wish them to be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
It is the law that is being challenged and the alleged justification for having the law in place. It's silly to say that the law is right because the law claims itself to be right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
Nope. You're dodging the question.
You stated that they legally owed you a duty to explain it to you. I said they do not. You have yet to point to the law that establishes that they owe you such a duty.
You cannot point to such a law because no such law exists.
You are confusing your opinion of how things should be with the fact of how things actually are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
No, that's just how your reading comprehension problem interprets what I said.
"You are confusing your opinion of how things should be with the fact of how things actually are."
No, I am just pointing out that because things are one way doesn't mean that they should be that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
Listen, drop the "reading comprehension problem" bullshit. I read just fine.
Shall I quote the exact language for you?
You: "They still owe me justification or else I want IP removed and I want those who put it in place to pay society back what they took with interest."
Me: "You might think they owe you an explanation, but they do not."
You: "Of course they do."
Me: "Nor is there any basis to believe they in fact owe you that duty that I know of."
You: "Of course they do"
You insisted that they owed you an explanation. You insisted that they had a duty to explain it to you.
How can you possible deny this? You are so incredibly wrong, again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
No you do not.
To say that they owe me justification doesn't mean that there is a legal basis for what they owe. The law itself can be wrong and that is exactly what we are arguing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
You: "Of course they do"
LOL! You can't really deny you said that.
To owe you something means they have a duty to do something. They don't, so deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @average_joe
Perhaps not a legal basis but they do owe me justification for taking away my inalienable right. Otherwise I do not owe them my restraint from copying whatever I please.
Also, the constitutional basis is that IP should exist only to the extent that it promotes the progress of the science and the arts. So the only thing that can legally justify it is if it promotes the progress of the science and arts. Hence, for them to take away my right to copy they need to justify it by demonstrating that them doing so does indeed promote the progress of the science and arts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I don't do is say that people who differ from me on policy views are "wrong." I emphatically don't like such binary thinking. It's just not productive or accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He is expressing himself, he is not a lost sale, he is a statement of public sentiment, you know the underlying of all societies and all of that.
His little act of civil disobedience in this case is not something unique is the state of society mindset, slowly growing, his little act is a political statement about how citizens find themselves uncomfortable with the current state of things.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
P.S. To follow along you need to switch to "threaded" view above the first comment. It stills gets hard to read though after too many replies--the text gets squished into a column. Why there's no "quote" function is beyond me. I've never been on a board that was set up like this, and thankfully so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I second that.
Mike says he's not anti-IP and he's not pro-piracy, but anyone who reads techdirt can tell that is so obviously BS.
[ 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:
Well, maybe not that last one but okay . . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fail. Digital data cannot be stolen.
"This pro-piracy techdirt stance is getting really old."
Techdirt is not "pro-piracy," it's "pro-reality." Why do some insist on debating the morality of what pretty much the entire world does? You'd probably have more luck banning cell phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People will just stand in their corners and keep doing whatever they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This site is so clearly pro-piracy and anti-IP that it's not even funny. That's why almost all of the posters are pro-piracy.
Mike can't be honest about his stance. He chalks it up to pro-reality. Murder's a reality too, but you don't have to make a site that glorifies it like techdirt glorifies piracy.
He can't be honest about anything as far as I can tell. He's just not a stand up guy.
Not pro-piracy? Right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A week ago you were screaming about people comparing the current copyright situation to physical crimes and how wrong it was.
Also, you sort of proved my point that you are a legalistic dill-whole:
"My point is that the phrase means different things to different people, and no one position is "right." Except for maybe Congress, since their interpretation is controlling."
You bad mouth people for having no critical thinking skills and yet you apply none to the law. A+ in irony for being such a hypocrite in a thread related to an article about a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as the difference of opinion of how to interpret "to promote the progress" goes... maybe you aren't familiar with the concept, but people have been debating what the different clauses of the Constitution mean for centuries. I bet if you asked every sitting Supreme Court Justice what they thought it meant, you'd get 9 different answers.
I apply critical thinking skills to the law day in and day out. I'm so good at it I'm at the top of class in law school. Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The difference? Murder has not been committed by nearly a quarter of the world population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I hear a song on the radio am I stealing anything?
I didn't buy the song, I certainly did not paid anything for it so where is the stealing part coming from?
Now that is really tiresome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Old and decrypted like copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the Sky Falling on the Content Industries?
Mark A. Lemley
Stanford Law School
August 10, 2010
F#$% IP laws and their defenders. They are a bunch of chicken s#$ little's that is what they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
J.C.M. and the Pathetic Article
I find inspiration everywhere. It may be a couple having a discussion about their child's future, or having a fight or whatever else, as I sit sipping coffee somewhere. Once it was Dolly Parton commenting on how wrong it was to deport Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens, the guy who wrote & performed Peace Train) when he's anything BUT a terrorist. If I write a hit song, do I owe that couple in the booth next to me for it? I might appreciate the inspiration, but I don't OWE them anything. Same thing with Dolly's one-liner. I don't owe John Denver or Hank Williams or JCM, or Melissa Etheridge, or Rob Thomas or 3 Doors Down anything either, though they have all affected my writing. Such is life. Yours is a story that was no story... and now I've made yet another story out of that same nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: J.C.M. and the Pathetic Article
LOL
Apparently, "proper" differs between people - go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: J.C.M. and the Pathetic Article
Because a lot of people sue others for that kind of action and they do win all the time, wanna know why?
Because some stupid f#$% put "and derivative works" right there in the f'ing law. So if you take inspiration and it is obvious or you somehow confessed to it you are screwed and that is why many call others thieves they expand the concept like the douche Mellencamp and keep asking for more, Mellencamp and all copytards should just die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: J.C.M. and the Pathetic Article
You owe them a song as much as anyone else owes you a story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate's Creed...
"Take what you can... give nothing back!"
One of my favorite sayings... second only to:
"We just got a new shipment of Rum!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a person who:
A) is a professional 'content' producer (i.e. I am a musician and sample developer by trade), and
B) who has never knowingly 'pirated' anything, not even a single mp3, and
C) who disagrees with Mike all of the time,
I am going to call bullshit.
I am especially going to call it on this statement:
"Mike can't be honest about his stance. He chalks it up to pro-reality. Murder's a reality too, but you don't have to make a site that glorifies it like techdirt glorifies piracy."
I have seen websites that glorify piracy. Websites like Dogs on Acid are filled with links to pirated content. I have never seen one such link on Techdirt.
I am sure there are people who frequent this site who pirate things, and it is true that Mike never scolds them. But why should he? They don't bother him. They obviously bother you, so why not start your own blog? It's really easy to do these days.
And comparing IP piracy to murder is ridiculous, and an insult to people who have lost loved ones to that most heinous of crimes.
Seriously, you aren't improving the reputation of your chosen profession with this kind of talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And then...
People who exercise their rights and go after pirates are evil and the scum of the Earth.
One reality is OK, but the other is not.
Standard techdirt modus operandi.
The reality is that rights holders have rights, and they have the right to protect their rights.
We all know what Mike thinks about this reality though. He can't stand it.
Only a blind person couldn't see Mike's bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So called 'holders' are called 'holders' because they hold 'rights' that have been legislatively granted to them (or to others who have handed them over to them). Such granted rights that maybe transferred are properly termed privileges.
Rights in the natural sense (as used to be the only sense before rights were granted by law) are imbued in man by nature and are inalienable. This is why no-one 'holds' their (natural) right to life or their right to privacy, and why no-one can sell it.
If by 'piracy' you mean people enjoying their natural right to liberty, their natural right to engage in cultural exchange to share music, etc. and this enjoyment being contrary to the suspension of their natural right to copy by the 18th century privilege of copyright, then yes, this is natural for Homo Sapiens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you kind of sound like a crazy person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rights (as in natural rights) cannot be transferred - even by contract.
If you have grown up with the rather modern idea (largely through to indoctrination by copyright) that everyone's rights are granted to them by law and can be reserved, waived, assigned, transferred, or sold, then yes, the idea of a natural right must indeed sound crazy.
You would probably find Thomas Paine as crazy as he would find you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rights (in the original, natural sense) are not transferable.
Perhaps you'd like to cite a case in which someone successfully surrendered their right to life, or transferred their right to privacy to a TV company (qv The Truman Show), or sold their right to liberty to the owner of a cotton farm.
The law is sometimes wrong, so you may well find some cases in which the alienation or transfer of a natural right has been upheld. When I say 'rights are not transferable' I mean they are not ethically transferable (and so shouldn't be legally transferable), notwithstanding some jurisdictions in some eras (such as slavery).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The exclusive rights of copyright are transferable.
"Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred . . . ." 17 U.S.C. 201
This is the law. It is an indisputable fact.
Say what you want, but it doesn't change the law as written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I'm saying is that rights (in the original natural sense) cannot be transferred (neither ethically, nor in most jurisdictions, legally). They're with you from birth to death.
That lawyers describe copyright as a legally granted 'right' or 'right' for short, in order to term copyright as a 'transferable exclusive right' or 'bundle of rights' does not change the nature of human rights.
If we create androids that we call 'artificially created people' that we can command and own as property, that doesn't mean that when we get in the habit of calling them 'people' for short that we can start saying that 'people' can be commanded and owned as property, and so by induction make it into a generalisation applying to human beings.
Copyright is not a right just as much as an android is not a human being. Corrupting the language to pretend otherwise doesn't change anything, though it certainly does help pull the wool over the eyes of people unfamiliar with the terminology.
Liberty is a right (inalienable/non-transferable - or we get back to slavery).
Copyright is a privilege (the suspension of the right to copy).
See Wikipedia re Rights of Man:So, calling copyright a right is a perversion of terms. It's a privilege - or a legally granted 'right' as publishers' lawyers prefer to term it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps, because you work too closely with the law, it keeps you from seeing it as an ordinary person does and so that makes it hard for you to understand how most other people feel about what's going on. Such myopia is understandable, though it's just a guess on my part.
Still waiting on the chain of causality, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then...
People who exercise their rights and go after pirates are evil and the scum of the Earth.
One reality is OK, but the other is not."
1. I don't know if piracy is natural and normal, but it does seem unavoidable. Every kid under the age 20 that I know thinks that trading mp3s is OK. Every single one. Somehow, suing an entire generation of people seems kind of counter-productive.
And again, I say this as a rights holder. I don't see a way to stop this kind of infringement without creating a police state. And I don't want to live in a police state.
2. The people 'exercising their rights' often seem to be, not artists, or coalitions thereof, but rather, teams of lawyers who start entrepreneurial litigation companies. These lawyers often represent people who represent other people who are supposed to represent artists. But there is reason to be skeptical of the transparency of this process.
For myself, I simply don't like entrepreneurial litigation as an idea. I think it is a perfect example of a scam, something that supposedly does one thing (punishes wrongdoers, vindicates the wronged), that in fact does little more than give teams of lawyers billable hours that they can charge their clients for.
Sure they have the 'right' to do this, but I can't see how any of this is making the world a better place for anyone but lawyers.
"We all know what Mike thinks about this reality though. He can't stand it."
Neither can I. And again, I am a rights holder.
"Only a blind person couldn't see Mike's bias."
I certainly never said that Mike has no bias at all. I said that this bias wasn't accurately described as 'pro-piracy'. And it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People have the right to exercise their rights against those who infringe on those rights. This reality is a little too inconvenient for Mike so calls anyone who does this despicable.
Mike claims to just be reporting reality, but in reality, his bias comes through and some realities are better than others. In other words, he's just an opinionated person like everyone else. I don't buy his "I'm just reporting on the reality of piracy" one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If there is no copyright there is no infringement.
If people's natural right to copy is no longer suspended to enrich the press with a reproduction monopoly, then people are once again at liberty to engage with their own culture.
What would you rather have? Your right to copy restored, or publishing corporations able to bankrupt you at will if they think you're infringing on their monopoly?
Your right restored, or their privilege enforced?
It sounds like you're a pro-rights kind of guy, so I guess it's the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me create an unauthorised copy and derivative of Paine's words:
The right to copy is inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters such as the Statute of Anne, by annulling that right, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . It . . . consequently is an instrument of injustice.
I'm no longer permitted my right to copy my own words. Instead I'm simply the initial holder of the privilege to copy them, which I can sell to a publisher. Have you ever thought it strange that musicians can end up unable to sing, perform and make copies of their own songs and recordings? Before copyright everyone could sing each others songs and tell and improve each others' stories. We called this folksong and folktales.
But, thanks to the Stationers' Company of England and a bit of jolly good lobbying of Queen Anne, this all came to an abrupt halt, just so that powerful guild could have their protection racket (their de facto monopolies) established as a statutory monopoly. Obviously this was to be presented with the pretext it would all be a most excellent means of encouraging the learning of England's poor and ignorant peasants.
Today our primordial cultural liberty is a distant memory and regarded as backward - we have Hollywood and the big four record labels now - and youngsters sued for millions for daring to take back even an ounce of their natural liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exhibit A: Reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For someone who yells at me for being inaccurate, please admit that the statement above is ridiculously inaccurate.
I do not call everyone who exercises their rights "despicable." I call those who abuse the system outside of its intended purpose, and solely for profit, despicable. And I include those -- such as yourself -- who cheer them on.
No one has ever denied they have a legal right to do so. But the way in which they do so is, frankly, sickening, and way outside the intended purpose of copyright law.
Mike claims to just be reporting reality, but in reality, his bias comes through and some realities are better than others.
Again, you make false allegations. Odd for someone who claims to be such a stickler. I am an opinion writer. I write my opinion. I do not report.
But my opinion is very much based on knowledge and factual information on what reality presents.
And, despite your (again false) claims, I do not support unauthorized distribution or reproduction of copyrighted materials. I do, however, believe that the evidence shows that there are good reasons for copyright holders to embrace those actions, in that they can earn more money doing so. That is, I support embracing such things as it's simply a smart business move.
What I find despicable are actions -- even if legal -- that not only make the world worse off, but can make the content creator worse off as well. I don't like situations that shrink the pie, because, economically speaking, that's repugnant to progress.
But I do not support breaking copyright law. I have no infringing works. I've never used a file sharing program myself. I have used BitTorrent a couple times in the past to download *legal* and *authorized* offerings, but not in a while (and my current laptop doesn't even have BitTorrent installed). I think it would be great if there were more creators making authorized content distribution that way, but thanks to confused and ignorant people spreading stories about artists enforcing their rights being a good thing, it seems like those days will be far, far in the future.
Too bad. It's sad that people support such laws think they're saving culture, when they're really doing significant harm to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
According to you, someone who intentionally breaks the law and illicitly downloads isn't despicable. But someone who exercises their rights and enforces their copyright is despicable.
IMO, you've got it 100% backwards. I don't agree with you and neither does the law.
Just because a rights holder could decide to embrace file-sharing is of no moment. Nor are any appeals to saving culture. None of that matters in a court a law.
If rights holders enforcing their rights is "way outside the intended purpose of copyright law" then why is it possible to do what they do while remaining 100% within the law? That makes no sense.
And why don't you admonish people who illicitly pirate IP, people who by definition are "way outside the intended purpose of copyright law"?
The answer to me is pretty obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why do you? Constantly?
According to you, someone who intentionally breaks the law and illicitly downloads isn't despicable. But someone who exercises their rights and enforces their copyright is despicable.
I never said that. There you go exaggerating again.
I look at the economics of the situation. Someone downloading works for personal, non-commercial use is not having a major economic impact on the market. A person doing new creative works using the works of others may be having a positive impact on the market.
However, someone abusing the legal system solely to squeeze money out of such uses, is harming the market and creating massive chilling effects. I find that to be despicable.
IMO, you've got it 100% backwards. I don't agree with you and neither does the law.
Fair enough. If you honestly believe the proper solution is one that makes the world worse off, that is for you and your own moral demons to deal with.
Just because a rights holder could decide to embrace file-sharing is of no moment. Nor are any appeals to saving culture. None of that matters in a court a law.
Indeed. And you don't find that to be a problem?
If rights holders enforcing their rights is "way outside the intended purpose of copyright law" then why is it possible to do what they do while remaining 100% within the law? That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense if you knew anything about copyright law, and didn't just discover it last year as a 1L.
And why don't you admonish people who illicitly pirate IP, people who by definition are "way outside the intended purpose of copyright law"?
I have admonished people who do that, but those folks are not abusing the law for profit, so it is not as big a concern from an economic standpoint.
The answer to me is pretty obvious.
Ah, ignorance is bliss, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't. That's your bag.
I never said that. There you go exaggerating again.
I look at the economics of the situation. Someone downloading works for personal, non-commercial use is not having a major economic impact on the market. A person doing new creative works using the works of others may be having a positive impact on the market.
However, someone abusing the legal system solely to squeeze money out of such uses, is harming the market and creating massive chilling effects. I find that to be despicable.
How did you determine that they are using the legal system solely to squeeze money out of such uses? That seems like a completely baseless position to be taking. And funny how you're not even talking about just one plaintiff. You speak as if it's necessarily true no matter who the plaintiff is. Unlike you, I think such a determination would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. But you exaggerate to make your point. Standard techdirt logic.
LVRJ has said they are motivated to deter future infringement. Arguably that deterrence appears to be working. Yet you exaggerate and pretend like you know their sole purpose. You simply do not, and you ignore evidence of other purposes.
I'm not a big fan of Righthaven/LVJR either, but I don't pretend like their sole purpose is profit. Nor I pretend like it's a fact that they are "harming the market and creating massive chilling effects." You don't know that. That doesn't stop you from pretending like it's true though. Exaggeration to make his point. Classic Mike.
Fair enough. If you honestly believe the proper solution is one that makes the world worse off, that is for you and your own moral demons to deal with.
I'm not convinced it makes the world worse off. You may think it does, but that's just your opinion. It's not a fact.
Indeed. And you don't find that to be a problem?
Nope. That's a job for the legislature, not the judiciary.
It makes perfect sense if you knew anything about copyright law, and didn't just discover it last year as a 1L.
Noticeably, you didn't answer my question. You just said "it makes perfect sense" yet offered no explanation of how it does so. Then you misrepresented me (my grade level, and when I became interested in copyright) to try to dodge the question. Classic Mike move.
I have admonished people who do that, but those folks are not abusing the law for profit, so it is not as big a concern from an economic standpoint.
If you've admonished piracy, I have yet to see it. And you do realize there's more to the issue than an economic viewpoint. Try not to be so narrow in your analysis.
Ah, ignorance is bliss, eh?
I wouldn't know.
[ 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:
LAWYER: Looks at the present but especially, the past. Why would a lawyer look towards the future? The law is past/present based.
As far as art and culture goes, I'll trust the instincts of an artist's viewpoint over that of a lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh.
And to think that I actually had a tiny amount of respect for you a week ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's facts and there's opinions. Facts can't be disputed. That rights are legally transferable is a fact. Opinions on the other hand are in the eye of the beholder. I'd never say an opinion was wrong. I would only say my opinion differs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're going to try to take me down, get your facts straight.
Find somebody to play with. I'm not interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]