Inauspicious Start For Chris Dodd At MPAA; Starts Off With 'Infringement No Different Than Theft' Claim
from the they-pay-you-$1.5-million-to-lie dept
No surprise, really, but former Senator Chris "I won't become a lobbyist" Dodd has begun his new tenure as a lobbyist for the MPAA on an inauspicious note -- by falsely claiming that infringement is no different than "looting.""You know if you walk down main street people would arrest you if you walk into a retail store and stole items," Dodd said. "It's called looting in some cases. That's exactly what is happening with intellectual property. It's being looted and that needs to stop."So, it looks like more of the same from the MPAA: more focusing on the wrong problem. More blaming everyone else for their own failures to adapt. More playing the victim. And, for that, they're "only" paying Dodd $1.5 million, an increase from the $1.2 million they paid predecessor Dan Glickman. The entire MPAA budget is about $100 million per year, and they spend almost none of that money on actually helping the industry adapt, but throw tons of money away lobbying for laws that won't help (and that trample the rights of others). Can't we just skip ahead to the inevitable failures and try something different?
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: chris dodd, lobbying
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Exactly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly!
No that would be far too punny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exactly!
They're really bad at this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's exactly like looting
I don't leave nearly as much damage behind now that I've accustomed myself to tabbed browsing. But the gung-ho looting spirit is still alive and well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Integrity? The dickens you say!
Nice paycheck to pull for having all your thinking done for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Integrity? The dickens you say!
I will say anything (once) for 1.5 million dollars.
If the spoken thing is bad enough, I will then change my name and retire to a small country with a good exchange rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Integrity? The dickens you say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As much as I'd like them to get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As much as I'd like them to get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As much as I'd like them to get it...
can we use a battleship?
Pleeeeeeeeeeeease?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft and Infringement
A lesson on the difference between physical property and intellectual property, between theft and infringement.
1. Physical property is any tangible thing that you own. The piece of paper on your desk is your physical property.
2. Intellectual property is an idea or expression of an idea that you own. In your mind, think of an imaginary creature that no one has ever seen before. You own that thought—it is your intellectual property.
3. Draw your imaginary creature on your paper. You now own both the paper (physical property) and the creature on it (intellectual property).
4. A property right is the freedom you have to do whatever you want with anything you own.
4. My physical property rights mean that I can do whatever I want with my piece of paper. I can draw on it, write on it, fold it into a little hat, tear it up, or eat it. You can do whatever you want with your paper, too!
5. My intellectual property rights mean that I can do whatever I want with my imaginary creature. I can give him a name, write stories about him, draw more pictures of him, or make a movie about him. You can do whatever you want with your creature, too!
6. Infringement is preventing someone from exercising his rights. If I prevent you from drawing on your paper, I am infringing on your physical property rights. If I prevent you from writing a story about your imaginary creature, I am infringing on your intellectual property rights.
7. Theft is the act of stealing, or taking something without permission. If I take your paper without your permission, I have committed a theft. You no longer have the paper—I do. By stealing your paper, I have prevented you from doing anything with it, so I have infringed on your physical property rights.
8. What happens if I draw an imaginary creature that looks just like yours on my paper? Have I taken your creature from you? If you still have the idea of the creature, and you still have your drawing of the creature, then I have not taken it—I have not committed theft. Have I prevented you from drawing more pictures of him? If I have not prevented you from exercising your rights, I have not infringed. Drawing a picture of your creature is neither theft nor infringement; it is exercising my physical property rights to my paper.
9. What happens if you try to prevent me from drawing an imaginary creature that looks just like yours on my own paper? Look at paragraph 6. Preventing me from exercising my rights would be infringement; you would be infringing on my physical property rights.
10. If you can do anything you want with your imaginary creature, and I can do anything I want with your imaginary creature, then who really owns your imaginary creature? Who holds the intellectual property rights? The answer is nobody! It is impossible to own an idea. You cannot have property rights to an imaginary creature because it is imaginary. Even if your imaginary creature is really, really original, and you thought about it for years before you drew it, and you actually spent millions of dollars on fancy pencils to draw it with—it’s still imaginary, still an idea, and you cannot own an idea.
11. Unfortunately, that’s not how the law works. Legally, you can prevent me from exercising my physical property rights by accusing me of infringement. If I use my paper to draw a copy your imaginary creature, you can sue me, or even have me arrested--for infringement. And yet, it is you, not me, who is preventing someone from exercising their rights.
12. Obviously, the law is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft and Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
your response is "I heart teh USG and they can do no wrong"?
way to lawyer it there, buddy. really quick argumentative wit you got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
sadly, entirely understandable as people do say things like that seriously :S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
If ignorance is bliss, you sir, are a very happy man.
And I don't envy you one bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
I sincerely hope that this is sarcasm (and maybe bit of a jab at AJ).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
That's close, but not quite correct. The expression of your idea is protected against unauthorized duplication and distribution. The idea and the expression are not your property. The paper is your property, the copyright is your property, but the idea and its subsequent expression is not your property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
Your recent post was your first assignment on that topic, and you failed miserably!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theft and Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theft and Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately we lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunately we lose
Stop fearing the government and go make them afraid of you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfortunately we lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately we lose
Well that's simply not true....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately we lose
gotta watch out for those unintended consiquences though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately we lose
Anyone got a sniper, a few "Pulic Domain" bullets and the address of their next meeting ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately we lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately we lose
I GOT IT WRONG ON PURPOSE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's take it further. If you went into your local bestbuy, and started ripping DVDs onto your laptop, and then left with those ripped movies on your machine, do you not think you have stolen something? You came in with a laptop, and left with a laptop full of movies. Did you not obtain "something for nothing"?
You can tapdance on the head of a pin, but in the end, you have something that you didn't pay for, don't have the rights for, and obtained without permission. That pretty much all adds up to theft.
Remember, when you "buy" a DVD, you aren't buying just the shiny plastic disc, but you are also buying "rights". Even if you replicate the contents of the disc, you still have not purchased the rights. Thus, you have stolen something.
I know, you guys will kick it around and around and say it isn't theft, nothing was stolen, blah blah... it's all self-justification at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually it does. It's called infringement (hence the term "copyright infringement"). The debate is "is it a bad thing?" The answer is "no."
Calling it "stealing" is the same thing you claim we are doing; self-justification. You justify violating human rights by claiming something was stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then governments started codifying copyrights and lo and behold, they did not use the already codified stealing and theft laws to enforce it. Instead, they created a whole new concept of copyright infringement. So yes, thankyouverymuch, our legal system has a way to describe it. It's called copyright infringement, and it doesn't involve the taking of someone else's property. It involves the illegal duplication of someone's creative works.
As for your Best Buy analogy, I ask, what did you take? Nothing. Best Buy still has the DVDs. You made copies of copyrighted works. Hence theft isn't in the equation. You made a copy of a work you weren't supposed to make a copy of. That is called copyright infringement for a reason. Theft requires you take something from someone else. Copyright requires that you copy something without permission. It's all very simple, and our legal system very much has ways to describe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
UK law (Theft Act of 1968): "A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
US Law, Federally it's just Larcency: "larceny is the trespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation, removal) of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to deprive him or her of its possession permanently" (Source: Wikipedia)
While at the state levels in pretty much every state it's defined the same way with differences being what constitutes grand theft and petty theft.
Since me making a copy of something doesn't deprive them of possession, it's pretty difficult for me to "Steal" music.
I could of course go in and lobotomize the musicians so they can no longer play the music, destroy all other copies of the music and make a copy of myself, and that would very well fit the definition, and would be a good thing to do if it's Justin Beiber, no jury in the world would convict you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By your logic, the only way real theft could occur would be if you stole the master tape of an album or master print of a movie so that no copies could ever be made again.
That's why everyone just rolls their eyes when you say "it's not theft, it's just a copy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can steal a CD. You can infringe the copyrights of a song. You can even steal a CD for the express purpose of infringing on copyrights. But those are still two different acts. If you steal the master copy, you have taken a physical thing. That is stealing. If you make copies from the master copy but leave it alone otherwise you have committed copyright infringement. If you steal the master copy and make copies from it, you have committed two crimes - namely theft and copyright infringement.
Once again, they aren't the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is an internet meme that piracy isn't theft, it's only infringement. It's both. Here's why:
Someone below was nice enough to point out the legal definition of theft, "person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
So the meme is that since the owner still appears to have his property, that he hasn't been permanently deprived of it. The problem is that part of the basic tenets of property is control, and what we are concerned with legally is constructive possession. When a copy is made illegally, that makes a change to the property. In both tangible and intangible ways.
So indeed, the owner no longer has the same property he had prior to the illegal copy being made. It has, in effect, been stolen from him.
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sigh, please elaborate... how has the holder's property changed "In both tangible and intangible ways." because.. well one control is relative, you control the medium, but not what people do with it. If said copy was derived from a legal one, then your argument falls apart.. Second it's utter nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to property, control is everything. It is the fundamental legal right of property.
Real property, personal property, and intellectual property are all subsets of property law. But control is common to all three.
Let's say the creator of a DVD or CD decides to press 1000 copies. Those copies, along with the original work, comprise the tangible definition of that particular piece of property. The intangible aspect is how many more he can choose to make at his discretion, which will affect its scarcity, and thus its value. Either way, he has control.
If someone makes copies without his permission it fundamentally changes the value of the property, and thus the property itself.
So you can't say an owner has still kept his property untouched when a copy is made without authorization. Therefore trying to dismiss the theft analogy doesn't work.
control is relative, you control the medium, but not what people do with it.
Wrong. On the back of every CD/DVD are the terms of what you can and can not legally do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Price and value are 2 different things.
No it clearly doesn't. It may affect wider demand for new recreations of that item, but it does not change the original item at all. By the same token chair makers should get to exclude people in exactly the same way as copyright.
And people continue to do the things they're not supposed to en masse. Just because you have legal control does not mean you have effective control, without which the legal aspect becomes useless. See: prohibition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition#Prohibition_in_the_United_States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what? So is copyrighted music and chairs. See below.
It may affect wider demand for new recreations of that item, but it does not change the original item at all.
Yes, it does. I just showed you the tangible and intangible ways that it does.
By the same token chair makers should get to exclude people in exactly the same way as copyright.
This might be the most moronic analogy I've ever seen on this site. Congrats, junior.
And people continue to do the things they're not supposed to en masse.
So stop whining about the fact the law is finally being enforced.
Facepalm.
End of convo...
[ 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: Re:
No you didn't. There is no connection between the change in demand of an item and a change in an item itself. There is no tangible change that occurs through others being able to create/duplicate their own version, only a difference in the price that the original owner may charge, though that depends on a dozen and one other factors.
Congrats on not even being able to understand your own logic.
If property is solely a means to control value of property, then it's equally justifiable under your own argument in favour of copyright to ban any other chair makers other than the original from making one, as the production of a variety of other chairs either decreases value of the original chair, something the original creator apparently should have a means of controlling by restricting entirely independent individuals and creators from doing so, regardless of their own effort, materials and money used entirely separate from your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you sell a popular service, and I start offering a much cheaper competing service of equal or better quality, I have fundamentally changed the market for your service. I have directly affected your ability to sell your service at its current price by creating competition.
Have I infringed on your rights in this case? Are my customers criminals because they didn’t buy your service? Of course not. You are still free to try and sell your service at any price you want. You can even make use of any efficiencies my entrance to the market may have created or highlighted. If you fail to compete, that’s your fault, not mine or my customers’.
This is effectively what happened with electronic file sharing. The old media method was slow and expensive. The new method is fast and cheap. No prizes for guessing which option the consumers prefer.
It’s competition, not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There aren't EULA's for CD/DVD's .... yet.
In that case since the sticker said you couldn't resell it, it was illegal for it to be resold. The court didn't buy it.
The only terms that matter when it comes to what you can do with a CD/DVD is copyright law, tempered by the First Amendment. No matter what the producer of a CD would like you to do, it's perfectly legal to do all sorts of things;
for example: shred it, shoot it, create abstract art with it, line your bird cage with it. You know things like the First_Sale_Doctrine.
Even when it comes to copying, you are allowed to space shift (make an mp3 out of it), use it in a parody, transform it, etc. You know that Fair Use thing.
So no, what you wrote is a self serving fiction.
On the back of every CD/DVD are the terms of what the producer wants you to think you can and can not legally do with it. [there, I fixed it for you.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
quoting Chosen Reject:
"You can steal a CD. You can infringe the copyrights of a song. You can even steal a CD for the express purpose of infringing on copyrights. But those are still two different acts. If you steal the master copy, you have taken a physical thing. That is stealing. If you make copies from the master copy but leave it alone otherwise you have committed copyright infringement. If you steal the master copy and make copies from it, you have committed two crimes - namely theft and copyright infringement." [my emphasis]
Quoting AC:
"You're confused. Whether you realize it or not, shoplifting a CD or DVD is not only theft, but also copyright infringement.
sounds like someone is confused....wait is it me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he stole it and copied it then he'd be guilty of both.
Yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Secondly, the courts have said infringement is not theft, that the two concepts are distinct and separate, so... you're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you shoplift a CD you just infringed the right of the owner to sell that copy.
US Code Title 17 s106
Secondly, the courts have said infringement is not theft
"deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. "
- US Supreme Court, MGM v Grokster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrat, you just proved the point you were trying to disprove
'Secondly, the courts have said infringement is not theft
"deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. "
- US Supreme Court, MGM v Grokster.'
Looks to me like the Supreme Court is saying that unlawful copying is just as unlawful [a.k.a. that they are both against the law] as theft, not that unlawful copying is theft.
Thanks for playing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you ridiculously ignorant oddball, but it's not ONLY stealing the copy, but the physical product along w/it. That's why it's different. You've taken a copy AND something physical. Sheesh, talk about specious arguments.
"By your logic, the only way real theft could occur would be if you stole the master tape of an album or master print of a movie so that no copies could ever be made again."
Listen to yourself, please, and realize how your old-world thinking does not apply and the grand awesomeness of digital media. You basically said, "People make copies, but you steal the master copy (physcial thing, so you're already wrong again) and prevent people from making any more copies".
Okay, here's all the things wrong with your statement. First, stealing a master, ostensibly recorded on something, means you're taking something physical. If you're only copying it, you can't prevent other copies (a la filesharing). Second, even if you somehow stole this master, any copies already made could be used to make OTHER copies to make sure the culture lives on. That's the sweet-motherfuckin'-titty-goodness of all this. You can't kill the culture through theft!
"That's why everyone just rolls their eyes when you say "it's not theft, it's just a copy.""
Those people you see rolling their eyes are doing so at someone else's arguments. Wanna guess who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing specious in the least. And there's nothing different about the two at all. You're just apparently unable to deal with logic.
You seem to think theft can only occur with something physical, which is incorrect and ignorant of the law.
You say it's stealing the copy and the physical product. But the product is the copy of music; the physical aspect, plastic, is only the medium.
Just like that MP3 you swiped was a copy of music; and the 0s and 1s are only the medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talk about being ignorant of the law. The law defines theft as the act of taking something away which, in doing so, deprives the owner of their lost property. How, in any way, does making a copy (which actually makes more of something, not less) result in the rights holder having less than what they had previously? Copying a copyrighted work is an infringement of the author's copyrights applied to that work, nothing more. You're obviously trying to conflate infringement and theft to intensify the social stigma against infringement.
Copying is the majority act of infringement. If you want to make the law treat it as theft, then you're going down a dangerous path that would criminalize the act of copying regardless of intent or purpose. Creative works are not property, that's why it's not theft and it's that way for a reason. They were very careful to call the copyright property and not the thing it applies to. Why? It's because after the copyright expires (because it's not your property, that's why it's "temporary"), it reverts to the public domain which is everyone's property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying when the copyright holder owns it it's not his property, but once in the public domain it's everyone's property?
Nonsensical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said no such thing, you're trying to claim I said something you can easily refute. I'm saying that the art was never your property to begin with because it already belongs to everyone, but the temporary right to control that art is your property. You own the rights, not the art.
Copyrights are your property.
Intangible art is everyone's property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it's sarcasm, Good Play Sir (or madam)!
If they are plants, Good Play Mike!
If not, you're agenda is showing.
Mike, keep it up. "The Man" has finally decided you're blog is important enough to pay some poor idiot (obviously this person is not an idiot, just playing one when its a good argumentative tactic) to troll it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you mean "theft of content", then perhaps. Otherwise, It's quite easy to see that stealing a CD deprives the rightful owner of his physical property (the CD), even if he can burn more afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like "copyright infringement"?
If you went into your local bestbuy, and started ripping DVDs onto your laptop, and then left with those ripped movies on your machine, do you not think you have stolen something?
I may have committed vandalism, if I damage their physical property while doing it (for example, by removing the shrink wrap or scratching the disk).
I am perhaps guilty of trespassing, if they had previously told me to leave.
I might even be guilty of breach of contract, if I agreed beforehand not to rip content while I was in the store.
But guilty of theft? No.
Did you not obtain "something for nothing"?
Sophistry will get you nowhere. Getting "something for nothing" is not the definition of stealing. Removing something owned by someone else is. Copying is not removing, and it is therefore not stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's review this carefully
The discs are still in the store, aren't they? So I sure didn't steal them, so what exactly happened to the movies on my hypothetical hard drive.
They were copied. Copying is not the same as stealing.
You can tapdance on the head of a pin, but in the end, you have something that you didn't pay for, don't have the rights for, and obtained without permission. That pretty much all adds up to theft.
Copyright infringement has to do with the improper use of the expression of an idea. Once an idea is expressed, what natural right does anyone have to keep it? Once you sing a song, how do keep another from remembering it or singing it themselves or their friends? Once you assemble a dress, and it hits the catwalk, what rights do you truly have to dispense permission for others to use the color scheme on it?
The rights and permissions that you assume are so inseparable from ideas exist only because of laws. As a matter of morality isn't it reasonable to find it opressive and forceful, and therfore wrong, for one to express an idea, then spend time preventing others from using it?
Remember, when you "buy" a DVD, you aren't buying just the shiny plastic disc, but you are also buying "rights". Even if you replicate the contents of the disc, you still have not purchased the rights. Thus, you have stolen something.
Since IP has more to do with laws, than good and evil, it makes sense to understand what the purpose of the law is for. A generally accepted definition is an exlusive right to copy, adapt and distribute an original work. That's pretty exclusive, right? I write a book, and I legally get to decide who makes a copy, how it gets out there, and even who can write something based off it? That is a monopoly on an idea, and in many countries, including this one, monopolies are frowned upon as potentially bad for consumers and markets.
So why allow something that we normally see as counter-productive? In the US, the reason was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
IP laws are business arrangements. You get a temporary monopoly, you produce something useful for us. Some people, quite a few, I'd imagine, think that this arrangement has gone out of whack. Instead of an incentive to create, it's an economic bludgeon used to,its worst expressions, extort and suppress. And even worse, these monopolies are becoming even longer. These are bad laws imparting bad rights.
They may be laws, and I may be a person lawful enough to follow them, but that doesn't mean that they are good laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I go to Walmart and "steal" the idea from something and make my own with my own resources and undermines their sales producing and distributitng that same thing am I stealing anything?
Not in my mind, further how people can sleep at night claiming sharing anything is a crime?
The real problem is that imaginary property is not real property and it has no way of being defended in the same way, why do people create this absurd abstract constructs and try to enforce it? People did it before in the middle ages it got so absurd that many revolts started and many many noblemen and clergy got hanged, beheaded, this is not a concept that will endure, and it cannot endure, it harms progress, innovation and society.
Anyone who says I can't share anything with somebody for me is a crazy person. These laws are laws that I don't mind breaking although I find myself in the comfortable position that I don't need to, but if I ever need it you can bet I will not blink an eye to bypass any such nonsense, law or no law I don't care, copywrong is evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is funny, because that is exactly what Japanese people do and you will be hard pressed to find a clerk that will enforce any law on them.
The most educated and respectful people on earth don't care about copyrights apparently as they promptly take their cellphones cameras and take pictures of books, magazines and the like, also it is a custom to get inside a store and open the magazines and read it right there and don't buy it and no one changed that behavior as of yet.
So what I see is some dude trying to create a new set of mores and trying to impose those to others.
I know only one thing, if you or any other person depends on me following those mores you are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This statement is incorrect. As the only thing the movie/music industries need to "adapt" to is people taking their product without paying, they are adapting to the situation perfectly: they are insisting law enforcement enforce the law.
You love piracy, so you don't like what they're doing, but that's just really too bad, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not adapting, that trying to enforce the unenforcable status quo, and it won't work.
You love piracy, so you don't like what they're doing
Even if you don't like illegal copying, there are reasons to be worried about the means being used to combat i. Much like "terrorism" has become the go-to phrase that magically allows the government broad leeway in any unconstitutional scheme they can dream up, the phrase "intellectual property" is rapidly becoming similar. And just like powers granted to the government to "fight terrorism" can be used in an insidious manner for other purposes once that door is opened, so to will the powers we grant them to "fight infringement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(about as useful and polite as the above comment, but more accurate.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can just scream "FUUUDDD!!!" every time a slippery slope argument pops up, but dismissing arguments out of hand isn't constructive. It just gives you a huge blind spot. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How's that working out for them? My impression is that there are still no major movies or pieces of music that cannot be found on the Internet for free and piracy is increasing, not decreasing. So maybe they should consider looking to spend their money on something that will actually have a positive ROI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, ask law enforcement to do their job. No problem. Create ridiculous laws and use shady means to do so. Major problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same is true with every revolutionary new technology. The Old Guard doesn't want to let their position slip, but it's inevitable. Carriage makers can learn how to make automobiles or go broke. They can't stay in business by outlawing cars and forcing people to buy their carriages. So STOP TRYING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...and felony-making. Our four chief weapons are surprise, lack of due process, wiretapping, felony-making...
...and heads on pikes. Our weapons are...
I'll come back in again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft
" person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
There is no act of even for a moment depriving somebody in the case of infringement.
It could actually be argued that, as copyright law continues to push for longer terms, that the various copyright agencies (RIAA, MPAA, ...) are colluding with the government on the wholesale theft of IP from the general population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moar IP stupidity
http://torrentfreak.com/white-house-streaming-should-be-a-felony-wiretap-infringers-110 316/
White House: Streaming Should Be a Felony, Wiretap Infringers
President Obama’s so-called “IP Czar” Victoria Espinel yesterday delivered a 20-page white paper containing her recommendations for future legislation, calling on Congress to make changes in order to make it easier to clamp down on copyright infringement. Among the recommendations are calls to turn streaming into a felony alongside authority to wiretap in copyright cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moar IP stupidity
We covered that yesterday. :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/08424413499/administrations-new-ip-enforcement-recommendat ions-will-only-serve-to-make-ip-less-respected.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why change?
It's the studios that must change, not the MPAA (or the staff that comprise the MPAA).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A strange game...
What they need is leadership smart enough to figure out that the only winning move is not to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A strange game...
They are not winning. Even when they "win" lately, they have inadvertently hurt their own business. Their continued failure to adapt to the digital world is actually making it harder for them to long-term. They are getting laws imposed that will actually hurt them later. Can you imagine if the entertainment industry had prevented the VCR from being sold all those years ago?
And, unfortunately, everything they have been doing matters because it is slowing our technological and economic progress and funneling money into our legal system. Is that really where we want all of this money going?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A strange game...
There, I fixed for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee, an elected representative acting as industry lackey? Can't be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dodd
will Communists allow them in? NO!
OPED for New York Times, NYC
WASHINGTON -- DC
Former U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd, who is now director of the
Motion Pictures Association of America, will fly to China this month for
talks with Chinese officials there about increasing the number of
Hollywood movies allowed to be shown inside the communist behometh.
Dodd is seeking to elevate the association’s profile in Washington,
and he has made opening doors in China one of his top priorities since
assuming the job in March. While visiting the Shanghai International
Film Festival this month fro a week in mid-June, Dodd hopes to
schmooze with motion picture
bureuacrats in China in an effort to build relations with film officials there.
But will China open up its vast movie theater audiences to more
Hollywood product that the current quotas allow, or as Time magazine
recently put it in a candid headdline: "Can Hollywood Afford to Make
Films China Doesn’t Like?"
The answers to both questions will be telling, and while Time didn't
answer the question its headline posed, time will tell. Most likely,
China will not open up to Hollywood any more than it has to, according
to World Trade Organization regulations, and while Hollywood would
love to crack the China market for its overseas releases -- in
addition to its gold mines in Japan and
Taiwan -- the people who run Hollywood's studios and distribution
groups have little patience for comnunist dictators and censorship.
Then again, money talks.
At the moment, China allows only about 20 popular Western films into
the communist country each year, but under a new set-up being
discussed with Hollywood movers and shakers, Beijing would allow in as
many 40 foreign films per year, according to sources in the film
industry.
And if all goes as planned under this more generous plan, Beijing
would agree to provide greater market access to Hollywood by allowing
an additional company to distribute foreign films. Currently, the
Chinese Communist Party-controlled China Film Group dominates the
import of foreign movies into China.
Dodd hopes to up the ante and bring some good news back to Los Angeles
and Washington after he concludes his visit to Shanghai and Beijing.
It's true that China’s growing influence is reaching Hollywood, and
Dodd is aware of this. American producers and directors are now
factoring in the China market when making movies,
just as they did when they eyed the lucrative Japanese market earlier
this century. But while Japan did not censor Western films and allowed
anything to be shown there, as befits a
democratic country, China has other issues with Hollywood and the
West. Censorship and Western film quotas are still the rule inside
China proper, although Hong Kong and Macao
are still allowed some semblance of freedom when it comes to screening
Hollywood and European flicks.
China is another story. However, since the film market in China is so
huge, some changes might be in store, some good and some bad,
according to sources in the film industry.
China is now the fifth largest market for Hollywood films, and
Hollywood producers would like to crack that market bigtime, and the
sooner the better.
So if China's movie handlers tell Hollywood not to export films that
champion freedom or themes of the underdog or the little guy, studio
executives just might go along.
Look at the bottom line: Did you know that China was the second
highest earnings market for james Cameron';s blocklbuster "Avatar",
just behind the North American market
and higher than Japan or Taiwan? Yes, according to Artisan Gateway, a
Beijing entertainment-business consultant firm. Some Hollywood
insiders are now saying that China's box office would overtake the
U.S. market within the next tens years. That means that by 2020, China
might be Hollywood's most important overseas market, and films might
be tailor-made (read: self-censored) for viewers and motion picture
propaganda chiefs in China. It won't be a pretty picture if that
happens.
China does not have a film-rating system, and all movies -- both
domestic and foreign -- must secure government approval from
government censors before being shown commercially. Hollywood movies
about Tibet or Tiananmen Square won't pass muster, of course.
When Brad Pitt made the 1997 film ''Seven Years in Tibet,'' playing a
character who crosses the border that separates India from Tibet and
this making a Hollywood connection with the Dalai Lama, China's
propaganda chiefs were not amused and they have banned Pitt from ever
settting foot in China again. The Chinese mindcontrollers didn't like
Hollywood's sympathetic portrait of the Dalai Lama, and they surely
won't let in any new Richard Gere movies in any time soon, either.
In the end, I don't think liberal Hollywood will give in to communist
China's movie theme demands. But there will be pressure to do so. Just ask
Christopher Dodd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]