The History Of Intellectual Property Based On Its Use In Books
from the fun-with-data dept
Google recently announced its funky Books Ngram Viewer, which lets you put in various terms, and see how often they appear in books throughout history. Just for the hell of it, I decided to see how often the terms patents, copyright, trademark and intellectual property appeared in books from 1776 forward, and got the following chart:
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: books, copyright, history, intellectual property, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ngram searches are case-sensitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ngram searches are case-sensitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ngram searches are case-sensitive
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Intellectual+Property,intellectual+property& amp;year_start=1600&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
The lines are mostly in line with each other until around the late 70s, when the generic term suddenly becomes very popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used it for witch and magician with pretty suprising results
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I used it for witch and magician with pretty suprising results
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I used it for witch and magician with pretty suprising results
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Show_with_David_Letterman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a totally pointless graph !!
What does it matter what terms where used in books and when, did you think to factor in the number of total books at any one time.
Or did you happen to think IP, copyright, patents, and tradements are ALL FREAKING IP ???
So what point are you trying to make with this Mike ?? that there are more books produced today than there were in 1800 ?
Or that the terms IP, and so on are becoming more common due to our rapid technological advancements in the past 50 years..
Perhaps you would like to explain how this is significant or meaningfull in any way what so ever.
And what does it contribute to the debate on IP and copyright ?
But this you would havce to assume, IP rights are becoming more popular with technological advancement. From your 'graph' it appears advancement and IP go hand in hand.
So I guess you are saying IP and copyright, and patents are good, because its enabled a great deal of technical advancement that otherwise would not have occured.
advancements we all benefit from.
Its nice to see you come out in support if IP rights for once Mike :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
For the most part, this looks sort of like an attempt to find fact where none really exists. It once again smacks of desperate and whiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
"It shows nothing, except perhaps that different terms are used to describe different things at different times."
It shows a few things.
The terms Copyright and Patents have been used frequently for the last century (with no abnormal proportion). However, the term "Intellectual Property" has only begun to be used recently, which means that the idea that you can "own" "intellectual" goods has only begun to gain traction recently (and I would hazard to guess that it coincides with the appearance of computers and better/cheaper recording equipment, such as VCRs and such).
Also, the term Copyright has (obviously) been popping up a lot lately, which explains the spike in the graph around the year 2000.
Unlike what you try to imply, different terms aren't being used at different times to explain the same thing (as you can see from the graph). The graph actually shows how the recording/movie industry has been pushing this (stupid) idea that you can own random assortments of bits/words/musical notes in the past few years, trying desperately to slow down their inevitable death (instead of embracing the new technologies to take EVEN MORE money).
Oh, and
"It once again smacks of desperate and whiny."
Right back at you buddy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
The graph actually shows how the recording/movie industry has been pushing this (stupid) idea that you can own random assortments of bits/words/musical notes in the past few years, trying desperately to slow down their inevitable death (instead of embracing the new technologies to take EVEN MORE money).
As always, there are a few different problems with your commnet. The bits aren't random, anymore than the Sistine Chappel is a random placement of paint drops. It isn't the bits that matter, it is what they are. If you stand too close to the roof of the chappel, you cannot see the work, and if you stand too far away, you might not see it at all. It is one of the things that TD regularly does to stories, often pushing small exceptional situations and trying to portray them as the norm. If you get too close to a digital image, it is only 1s and 0s. Nobody is claiming ownership of the 1s or the 0s, just what the represent when you pull back far enough to see an actual image.
There is certainly not "more money" to be made. Not only are recorded music sales down, but even concerts have reached their zenith, and now most are predicting dropping ticket prices in 2011, as the supply of concerts far exceeds the public's demand and willingness to pay. They money may have changed places in some cases, but for the most part, the music industry is growing mostly because of licensing.
People are quite simply running out of the money to keep paying for the scarce, especially the transient scarities. They love to listen to music, but they have a hard time justifying attending expensive concerts.
Most importantly, without widespread piracy, it is very likely that the music industry would be in the middle of a huge boom. With larger and larger Ipod style MP3 devices, and a larger demand for music by consumers, under normal circumstances the supply / demand curve would be in favor of recorded music. Consumption of recorded music is at an all time high. Yet the music industry as a whole (even considering live event income) is essentially flat.
There is no proof that there is more money. Some areas are up, some areas are down, but net, all done, the great shift isn't doing much of anything to the overall picture.
Again, it is the TD way to focus on the increases in "performer income", often without explaination that the performers are often now faced with expenses after gross income that they were not facing in the past. More importantly, when you pull back a bit and look at the overall music industry, things are pretty much flat.
Figured don't lie, but... you know the rest :)
In the end, this article is trying to prove something using a method that reveals little. One could easily conclude from the data that the widespread adoption of the internet has put incredible pressure on copyright holders, who have had to respond in force. We could also conclude that the internet has more rapid exposed mis-use of trademarks and the like in various parts of the world. We might also conclude that the internet era has made people more aware of copyright, and that almost every page online has a copyright notice on it.
There are plenty of conclusions to pull, and few of them agree or feed the TD fires. It's why it is important to learn that opinion isn't fact, and someone reading something into a poorly collected pile of data doesn't mean much, no matter how often they repost or relink to it and say it's the truth.
TD, desperate and whiny for the win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
I didn't see your opinion on this article. Want to tell the class how you feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
In their earliest years, these vehicles were termed "utility vehicles".
What do you suppose that marketing research confirmed about the addition of the word "sport" to the name of this category?
Likewise, with respect to copyright, patents and trademarks, there has been a substantive change in written law, and in the application of those laws in recent years. These changes were not limited merely the rise of a new term to describe the government granted privileges.
Are you trying to argue that a change in descriptive words doesn't matter?
What you call things does matter greatly. It is true regardless of whether it you are in automotive sales, or whether you are a lobbyist trying to sell the idea of expanded privileges to legislators and regulators. Given the current economic conditions, "essentially flat" is essentially a win. Certainly income is down across many types of businesses. Do you think the average architect or even physician would like to have had his/her income remain essentially flat during the past couple of years? People are spending less on many things these days, entertainment included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
Especially when dealing with luxury goods during a period where the economy isn't doing all that well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
To all others that want great music with somewhat reasonable licenses go to Jamendo.
Happy now?
Have a nice day.
ps: Why keep trying to guide the blind when he doesn't want to see anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
Yeah, but the video game industry is doing amazing. Same for the internet industry. It's almost like these different industries compete for everyone's time and money.
So music isn't a winner but it looks like the world is okay with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
To pretend otherwise is foolish. People pirate small, non-DRM games at the same rate as music/movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
The major incentives not to "pirate" games at the moment are for services that have nothing to do with DRM (e.g. WoW community, achievements/trophies, you will get kicked off XBox Live for using a hacked console, etc.) and perceived value for money (average album = 80 mins of entertainment, average movie = 2 hours, average game = 15-30 hours). But, everybody has a limited entertainment budget, so there has to be some give, and the lesser valued music industry is the first to give way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
It's funny, Darryl, just yesterday, you insisted that you only comment on factual information, yet I keep catching you making factual errors. As seems pretty obvious from the graph, the x-axis is *percentage* of books, not total number. The total number is meaningless. Kinda funny that you base so much of your complaint on that point, and you (once again) get it factually incorrect.
So I guess you are saying IP and copyright, and patents are good, because its enabled a great deal of technical advancement that otherwise would not have occured.
Your lack of reading comprehension skills never fails to astound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
A New Years resolution for you ...
Non pascunt troglodytae
Have a happy new year ;)
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
I understand that, but "Don't feed the people fishing" really doesn't work for a latin tee shirt, or a New Years Resolution. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
Meos suaviari
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
You utter utter bastard you ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
I'm on a horse or a camel most of the time and don't have time for donkey's ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
/on second thought, don't answer :S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
*hands ya a cold one*
Now shut the frick up will ya. trying to party like its gunna be 2011 here
Happy new Decade to all and sundry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a totally pointless graph !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
singular versus plural
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL! Great post. Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even the creation of the CAFC as the appellate body for patent cases did not cause any discernable shift. Patents were still called patents.
What did shift, however, in the 1980's was the types of lawyers who decided to begin associating themselves with these various laws and incorporating them into their legal practices. Whereas for decades, if not centuries, the law had been an area of true legal specialization, with the majority of practicitoners well versed in all of the subject matter areas, newcomers lacking the ability to practice the full gamut of the law began to adopt one or more, but certainly not all, of the associated subject matter areas. Trademark and copyright law were quickly adopted by many because, quite frankly, they were perceived as being "easy", and did not require the investment in time necessary to practice with alacrity across all of the subject matter areas. Unfortunately, their limited focus was a handicap since most professional associations were titled with names such as the American Patent Law Association (now the AIPLA), the ABA Patent, Trademark, and
Copyright Section (now the ABA IP Section), etc. Hence, pressure was exerted within these professional associations to adopt the term "intellectual property", with the end result being that a wave of new attorneys were now able to label themselves as practicing IP law (a highly misleading statement since mastery of all the subject matter areas is a "must" in order for one to competently and professionally represent client interests and needs).
At the same time, firms devoted almost exclusively to litigation "discovered" that money was to be made litigating such matters. Thus, whereas litigation had generally been limited to what some term "botique" firms, things shifted in a direction that has long troubled me, with the catalyst being almost exclusively the opportunity to expand money making opportunities.
I guess the point I am trying to make as being one within the system, intellectual property entered the legal lexicon coincident with the entry of numerous attorneys with limited legal credentials. It was not that the term was needed to better describe the subject matter areas of law, but that it was needed by the newcomers to in large measure hide the fact they were ill-suited to provide proper and professional client representation and counseling.
In a very cynical way, utilization of the term "intellectual property" was less about accurately describing the subject matter areas under a common term, and more about the marketing of legal services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I stopped reading here, on the assumption that the rest of it didn't make any more sense than the opening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting! Thanks for the info I wasn't aware of this.
Another thing that happened in parallel was the rise of economic liberalism or Neoliberalism as a political movement. The idea of intellectual property as property was heavily promoted by Neoliberals during the 80's. Before that intellectual property was regarded as an administrative tool to temporarily protect investments from rogue business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright, patents, and trademark have existed for hundreds of years. The Internet and Internet piracy have existed for 10-20 years. But you would suggest IP is the ephemeral flash?
If you want to accomplish your goal of abolishing IP, you'll have to do better than that.
How about a dissection of the millions of jobs and billions of dollars that directly derive from Intellectual Property industries? Perhaps you could start with your beloved copyright - movies, music, books, software, games, apps, porn?
How about an analysis of which market sectors are going to soak up all those workers, or compensate for those lost billions in production?
Please don't try to tell me they should all be ad-funded by physical goods manufacturing - physical goods manufacturing is rapidly dying thanks to third world outsourcing.
When you're done with that, please try even scraping the surface of patents or trademark for the same.
You constantly advocate for the destruction of industries through idealistic "thought experiments" completely ungrounded in reality. You give no consideration to the ramifications of what would happen economically if those "thought experiments" were put into play.
If you want Intellectual Property abolished, paint a picture of how that would in any greater way improve the economy as we know it.
For all the hot air you waste on tangential "analysis" like this, surely you can do so, right?
Come back to reality. Try a little intellectual honesty for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although there are a few who comment here who espouse the idea of abolishing IP, this has never been advocated by Mr. Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
According to Masnick: the rights are fictional, enforcement is a waste of resources, and there is only upside to their violation. I think that makes his position quite clear.
He's just not willing to own up to it in any responsible way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, any real look at what's actually going on shows that there is not yet (and might not ever be) a metiod to enforce copyright in a sadisfactory way. This is a reality of the marketplace and Mike M. is only warning of it so artists don't wind up as deer in the headlights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oops
Oh well, my point comes across so it's not that big a deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? When has he ever talked about a downside? I would love to read about it.
any real look at what's actually going on shows that there is not yet (and might not ever be) a method to enforce copyright in a sadisfactory way.
Again, really? I guess it depends on your definition of satisfactory. As one example, I think if pirates were forced to pay penalties on the order of a parking ticket for each case of traced infringement, it would cut down dramatically on piracy. It's not like it's remotely difficult to trace 90% of pirates on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regarding patent and trademark protection, the logical choice is ISP level domain/IP filtering. No, it does not need to block 100% of the illegal sites 100% of the time to be effective. But I think few (except maybe Mike) would argue that a pharmacy operating out of (for example) North Korea should be freely permitted to sell counterfeit drugs to American citizens online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe people should start getting all those drugs patented that already expired and start manufacturing them in their cities, neighborhoods and even houses, there is a risk of course that some of that drugs will turn up bad but the alternative is to die without or get no care at all.
But people like you would want to make that criminal and try to portray that as a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
HADOPI is a failure, lets see if sales will skyrocket since nobody is buying, we will see a peak right?
Those laws also ignore the fact that people can just live without you.
They don't have to buy anything from you, and free, open, good enough legal alternatives already exist, how will you deal with that?
Jamendo is good enough and free no pirates there.
What happens when people migrate to open licenses and stop using your dear creations?
You think laws will solve that for ya?
You have no support from the people and want to make things worst?
Go right ahead, keep pushing the enforcement button and see where it will lead you to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You live in a fluffy cloud don't you?
Pirates have been around since the introduction of electronic entertainment(i.e. pong and its endless stream of bootlegs), that is since the 60 more or less.
If it was easy to trace anybody this wouldn't be happening now would it?
More your ignorance about the technology underlying the internet is funny.
If it was easy people in Japan would be going to court by the thousands, but Winny users don't get caught that often, in fact after years only 2 men were prosecuted and that was after the policy found a flaw on the forums after failing to crack the encryption of the software. Japan have some of the most draconian copyrights in the world.
Now if you want to track people try tracking all these software on the anonymous-p2p.org
Now to track people even in Bittorrent is not that easy, first ISP's make mistakes and their logs are not 100% accurate(just ask the people who where redirected to others people's accounts recently because of a mistake in the routing system of some ISP's), second Bittorrent poison IP request sending fake IP's from time to time so one needs to stablish a connection and actually download something from that IP and maintain a log of the transactions to have any real proof, third even then if people are using something like I2P, Freenet, Netsukuku, TOR or other anonymizing service you are not actually seeing the IP of that person but the proxy who will gladly send you a boilerplate rebuttal to any copyright infringement.
Now consider this, a friend of mine can send me an ISO file of a movie through an encrypted channel(i.e. GNUNet, there is no snooping around there, after that to create a DVD or Bluray is actually very simple and can be distributed offline to all the people I know and are close to me. How are you going to track that?
Will you try to ban DVD burners?
Will you try to outlaw encryption?
You can't do anything about it, not now not ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of those are perfectly traceable as average users use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I don't think fining filesharers is going to do much other than spur the use of better encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The goal is not to stop it. The goal is to reduce and manage it.
With piracy, there is no evidence to date this is an impossible task. No country has yet even enacted robust laws with real consequences for average pirates to address the issue.
As for better encryption/anonymization, the same might be said for any other online law. Going after child pornographers on LimeWire pushed them onto Tor. But does that mean we shouldn't have pursued them when they were on Limewire? Does that mean we should "give up" now that they are on Tor?
I think you'd find few politicians or members of the public who would agree with such a defeatist stance. Except perhaps Mike Masnick. He seems to think any law is unenforceable online. Or maybe it is just the ones he enjoys breaking himself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Are you claiming moral equivalence with the officer who arrests a child pornographer?
2. Does Jammie Thomas have moral equivalence with, for example the members of Medellin cartel?
The above activities are notorious because they destroy the lives of others.
I think the public has no problem seeing the dangers of issue 1 and 2 above. What the public can't see is that copying a file is anywhere near # 1 or 2 on a moral scale. I believe the public views it more like speeding.
So since you, and others seeking to enhance their argument like to bring up file sharing in the same breath with drug dealing and child pornography, please explain the moral equivalence between these. At least with speeding, someone could get killed.
--When you do so, don't just bring $ numbers that you made up. And BTW, I run a business. I know how profits and losses work. I understand business expenses. So don't talk to me about how your employees aren't getting paid. It is a fact you (or your clients) are making a profit. Currently the studios are making better profits that ever before. Their expenses are paid, and their profit remains. What they want is more profit. Their employees' lives haven't been ruined.
Finally explain these robust laws with which you want the government to ensure your profit margin. Is it that you want the government to surveil my personal communications without probable cause? Are you going to argue that merely having an internet connection constitutes probable cause? Do you want to make it the law that ISPs must surveil my personal communications and report their findings to others? How would it be constitutional for the government to pass a law that requires a private party to surveil for incriminating evidence.
I am neither a pirate or a sharer, but I don't want you, or anyone like you, lobbying to get my elected representatives in Congress to vote for laws that weaken my constitutional rights. I fear these "robust laws" you are looking for would indeed put our government at moral equivalence with China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2. Does Jammie Thomas have moral equivalence with, for example the members of Medellin cartel?"
Moral equivalence is irrelevant. TECHNOLOGICAL EQUIVALENCE is the key.
These violations all take place using the same technologies. If you are telling me there is no way to pursue one online, you are telling me there is no way to purse any.
Frankly, I think that's BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When the activity is child porn, there are people with cameras taking pictures and video of children. You use the online material to find those people and arrest them.
With file sharing copyright infringement, there is nothing else happening other than what's online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and how well is that working? The "war on drugs" is a pathetic failure that destroys lives of innocents and has done little except create an underclass of slaves working in privately owned prisons. "Piracy" has increased exponentially every single year since enforcement was implemented. It's a failure.
"Going after child pornographers on LimeWire pushed them onto Tor."
Introducing such comparisons makes you an idiot. Seriously. Comparing "piracy" to CP is stupid.
Even so, this just shows how stupid the whole thing is. Child porn, which has actual victims, actual lives destroyed and real consequences cannot - by your own admission - be completely blocked online. How, then, can "piracy", whose only enemies are the business models of their producers and the apathy of the general public be contained?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are multiple generations of kids growing up in areas like South Central LA who know nothing but gang life, thug life, street code, and smoking blunts and standing on street corners selling crack. They don't think there is anything wrong with it. Morally, they have hit the same area piracy has hit, where they no longer consider it wrong.
CP, drugs, piracy, speeding ticket... it is all the same thing in the end. It is against the law. The laws were written by the people, for the people. You may not like them, you may not agree with them, but they are there.
Perhaps you would do better to stop trying to attack the comparisons and instead address the main issue: piracy is dramatically hurting the music industry. Any other industry hurt to this extent by crime would have the federal government creating agencies similar to the DEA to address it. Isn't it time to realize that if you don't like the laws, elect people to change them. If you cannot do that, consider that maybe your view isn't the will of the people.
As TD's guru would say "oh grow up".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they're not anything like the same. For a start, copyright infringement is a civil offence, not criminal.
"piracy is dramatically hurting the music industry"
...a claim that has not yet been proven with anything approaching actual figures. I would also argue that the damage done by the industry's wrong-headed attempts to fight "piracy" have done more to damage it than anything the "pirates" have done (e.g. DRM dramatically fragmenting the download market in its infancy, stunting growth).
" Isn't it time to realize that if you don't like the laws, elect people to change them. If you cannot do that, consider that maybe your view isn't the will of the people."
Or maybe industry lobbyists actually have more power than "the people" in today's political world. Something that's sadly easy to show.
"As TD's guru would say "oh grow up"."
I wish you people would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now criminal = civil?
This doesn't work pal, trying to pass disobedience as a crime doesn't work on me.
And your text is wrong here is the corrected version:
The people had nothing to do with copyright laws, because if they had, there would be no such absurd.
Why? people don't need it, they can just disregard the law and continue doing what they are doing, they also can find legal alternatives that are good enough, so why bother?
On the other hand awareness of the situation is growing.
If this was not the will of the people the industry wouldn't have a problem now would they? Because nobody would be sharing anything with anybody, but as it stands your claims are just piss in the wind, with no real basis on reality.
The reality is, people are sharing more then ever and it won't go away, and it has been that way for at least 40 years and it appears it will stay that way for a long time to come.
Honestly I don't really care about copyright of dubious artistic value, music is not that important in my life, nor are movies, books I have thousands of free books from thousands of years of recorded history to read, so I can say that this industry will never see money from me ever again, why do I need to care about the laws?
I can just ignore you and your kind forever and there is nothing you can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The unfortunate problem is that one cannot elect a person, one can only elect a politician and politicians don't actually care what people want, they only care about what a few people want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The industry instructs the government, whose agents remain at their beck and call, to carry out its directives.
In response, the US government needs to create a new agency to protect the entertainment industry's profit margin
You know what this sounds like? It sounds like you want to deputize the mall cops and pay their salaries with my tax money.
More precious than my tax money however, is my sense of what freedom is all about in this country. If you want a country where the government uses every intrusive measure possible to ensure that there is no crime, then what you have is a totalitarian state.
In recent years, the government has made the claim that the need to defend against terror is so exigent that ever more intrusive surveillance and scrutiny of its citizens is required. The entertainment industry proposes to extend the indications for surveillance from national security to protection of their profit margin. (Proposals that ISPs be directed or incentivized by the government to perform deep-packet inspection looking for infringement)
If the mere financial needs of a single industry are sufficient to free the government from the restraints of the 4th amendment, then I'm not sure there are any restraints to government power whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Filesharing is not CP, you keep trying to blend those 2 in the same category but they are far apart. For one CP to occur somebody physically must be abused and I want to make it clear that the abuse part is imperative to me, children discovering their sexuality and agreeing to sex with whomever they choose should not be viewed as CP in my opinion.
For the part of going after sexual predators I believe that people should, but not by implementing censorship or things like that, it makes it difficult to go after them and harms society in the process, so how you go about that is very important and as you said the actions taken where not productive at all, should people continue in a path that is not producing any results or should they change course and actually do something that will reduce those occurrences?
Now about drugs, even the U.S. Police is not willing to enforce those laws anymore because they realized it is a waste of time(see LEAP, and I agree drugs abuse is a personal choice and it is bad, but maybe is a bad thing that people need to be able to experience it to make a choice in life with all the uggly consequences that that entails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But don't let reality or history interfere with your ideological purity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]