If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
from the it's-not-about-what-anyone-deserves dept
For many years, we've explained why the debate about copyright is not a moral issue at all. Yet, whenever we get into discussions on it, sooner or later, someone makes an argument about how this or that creator "deserves to make a living" from their art. There are two things wrong with this statement. First, it assumes, incorrectly, that the way you make a living is from copyright. It is not. In fact, much of what we discuss on this blog are ways in which artists might be better off by not enforcing all of the privileges copyright grants them. But, more importantly, the use of the word "deserves" is especially problematic.Julian Sanchez, who has been doing excellent work on copyright issues of late, has a nice post about how such arguments are totally irrelevant to copyright policy. He notes that it's no surprise that artistic and creative people want greater copyright privileges, and fewer exceptions such as fair use, but that's meaningless:
These will often be wonderful, likeable, creative people, and the correct policy response to these objections as such is: Cry me a fucking river; now piss off.And the reasoning why is that copyright policy is not about what someone deserves or about rewarding people based on some moral grounding. Its purpose is and has always been clear: to provide incentive to promote progress. There are tradeoffs in these policies, and the end argument should never be about what someone deserves, but about what is the best net result for society on that progress bar. As Sanchez explains:
Wise assessment of copyright policy should have nothing to do with how you feel about the person or entity who holds the right at any particular time, because copyright policy is not about identifying wonderful and meritorious people and ensuring--certainly not as an end in itself, anyway--that their income is proportioned to their intrinsic moral desert--or lack thereof. We are all the massive beneficiaries of millennia of accumulated human scientific knowledge and cultural output, and not one of us did anything do deserve a jot of it. We're all just extremely lucky not to have been born cavemen. The greatest creative genius alive would be hard pressed to create a smiley faced smeared in dung on a tree trunk without that huge and completely undeserved inheritance.Exactly right. Yet, somehow, I get the feeling that people will continue to toss out moral arguments. They can't resist... and since they tend not to have the empirical data to support their position, it always gets reduced to irrelevant moral arguments.
So banish the word "deserve" from your mind when you think about copyright. Nobody "deserves" a goddamn thing. (I say this, for what it's worth, as someone who makes his living entirely through the production of "intellectual property.") The only--the only--relevant question is whether a marginal restriction on the general ability to use information incentivizes enough additional information production over the long run to justify denying that marginal use to every other human being on the planet, whether for simple consumption or further creation.
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: copyright, deserve, moral argument
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If they don't want to consume it, walk away and don't pay anything.
But don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for.
This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a simple and moral concept that I never see you address here. I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
if you cant offer anything more than "you're wrong" and nothing to back it up.... then YOU my friend, are the one that is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have something to back that up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The underlying principal of all economics is that for every satisfied want, there is an opportunity cost- Another want which cannot be satisfied due to limitations on resources. Price is a measure of scarcity; one must sacrifice more to obtain an expensive good than a cheaper good.
Unlike a house, car, or piece of furniture, an item of "Intellectual Property", one created and available for distribution at no extra cost to the producer, is no longer scarce, as there is nothing that must be sacrificed to obtain the good. Because no scarcity exists, and price is a measure of scarcity, such goods should be available without cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
sorry dude but that's some old-school economics you're using. =]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lame
Do you understand markets and the concept of what makes for plentiful supply (easy copying) versus low market demand. (crappy products) Someone invented coping devices for sale to the public, and it was not musicians, authors, record labels etc. but musicians, authors, record labels want to control them, in fact they wanted to stop Sony from making cassette players. BOO HOO it will disrupt our business model. Well there are no more horse carriage manufacturers because someone disrupted that business model, and so we move on.
Let's see where the price of cars go when they invent replicators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lame
All of a sudden there are personal teleportation devices and car manufacturers will be arguing they should be illegal, or at least subject to a tithe to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lame
All of a sudden there are personal teleportation devices and car manufacturers will be arguing they should be illegal, or at least subject to a tithe to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did you paid Ford Motors for all the R&D necessary to produce that car? Did you paid the engineers for the project?
Of course you didn't paid the full price, you didn't even paid enough to pay one designer for a year and those things could take a decade to come to market, so what you paid by your own standards is not enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's morally right to give to charity, but it's not a moral obligation. and it shouldn't be a legal one either.
"but we all expect compensation."
Who are you to speak for everyone.
and the flute player who plays his flute on the streets in hopes that people who enjoy his music will put money in his can also expects compensation for his labor. But if a passerby enjoys his music and doesn't provide compensation, is there anything wrong with that? Should the law force that person to compensate the flute player? Just because someone expects something doesn't mean the law should provide it. and, if many people like the persons music, they may compensate him. The flute player may expect compensation for his work, but it's not a moral imperative that everyone who enjoys his work should compensate him and neither should it be a legal imperative. and the flute player can get some compensation from those willing to pay without the law requiring it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did someone solicit him to do that in order to consume his music? No. How could he expect payment then? He couldn't, and doesn't.
The rest of your post becomes irrelevant because of that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you argument is that compensation only becomes a moral obligation if the author/creator/performer is hired by some third party? I don't understand your logic, please explain it to me.
He couldn't, and doesn't? Perhaps it might not be logical for the flute player to do so in your book, but he most certainly could if he wanted to and in doing so would be no different than all the other so-called artists out there. That is the crux of the problem; most of them, whether hired or not, do tend to expect compensation of some sort. This brings us right back to the whole "I deserve" problem.
Here is the other side of it. Humans have an inborn tendency to also believe they don't deserve all kinds of things, no matter how small or insignificant. I hit my shin on the coffee table the other day, and feel I definitely didn't deserve that. We all lack a certain amount of humility in this regard, believing ourselves to be the pinnacle of evolution when the reality is that what we deserve or don't deserve doesn't matter one iota in the grand scheme of things. An asteroid could wipe out all life on earth tomorrow and the universe would go on. It doesn't care what we think one way or the other.
Like my favorite line in the movie Unforgiven, deserves got nothing to do with it. It is your right to believe you deserve something in return for any kind of work you do, just as it is the right of others to believe you don't (for starters). You can attempt to turn what you think you deserve into a debate about morality, and that is perfectly fine. Just remember it can be a double edged sword as you may not hold the moral high ground as firmly as you believe. After all, a lot of "pirates" do what they do on the basis of morality too, and feel every bit as justified. That is what happens when corporate entities attempt to trample the natural freedoms and rights of those they oppose, for their own gain.
Who has the ultimate authority to dictate what is right and what is wrong? The government? The people? Those that believe they are the most deserving? What is moral today can easily become immoral the next. Change is the only certainty we can rely on. It is the fundamental principle of the natural world and those whom oppose it do so at their own peril. All I know for certain is that there is an unending litany of examples where those whom couldn't or wouldn't adapt, met their demise because of it. What do you think the dinosaurs felt they deserved at the end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Same thing with a book. You expect compensation, you can first prove your work is compensation worthy. Then you can charge people for the initial release. What they do after the initial release is their business. Just like with the hammer that I sold to my friend, what he does with it later (make copies, sell it, give copies of it away, etc...) is his business, not mine. I don't expect compensation every time someone else uses and benefits from that hammer or a copy of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The cost of a hammer includes the entire cost of production plus profit. And if you wanted to make a copy of it, that cost is also already covered, minus your labor.
So here's an idea: You like music but don't want to pay for it? Go make your own.
Problem solved. I hope you have hours of listening pleasure with your creations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You copying a song doesn't.
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it is pretty obvious you are wrong. Before one can copy anything in the digital realm, they first need to invest in a computer, either pre-built or one they build themselves using parts from various manufacturers. Then they need to invest in an internet connection. Finally, they need to invest in providing power so both the computer and internet connection can work.
Perhaps in addition to going after ISP's, the entertainment industry should also consider going after the manufacturers and power companies? ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You assumed wrong. Auto workers don't get residuals. And every time those things are resold in the future, they won't get a cut of those sales either. But to be fair, if we're going to give authors copyrights, then we should probably give everyone else rights in anything they help create, like your Ford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Adapated from a previous comment of mine:
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. Locke refers to a right to the fruits of one's 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact that you worked on the novel for two years is your problem, not mine. By forcing me to go through the trouble of figuring out what is and what isn't infringement over each piece of content that comes my way and potentially getting punished if I accidentally infringe on your content because someone else gave it to me and falsely told me that it's released under a CC license, you're making it my problem. I don't care if you spent ten years writing that novel or digging a hole, don't make it my problem. I shouldn't have to hire a psychic to determine what content is permissibly licensed vs what content isn't just because you decided to spend your whole life writing a novel. and no burden should be placed on service providers either because they'll just pass that burden back down to me via higher prices, less/no service, or whatever.
If you do sell your novel to someone under a certain license and they break their end of the agreement, your only problem is with the person who broke his/her end of the agreement. Don't get everyone else involved.
Maybe at most you can have a system that forces me to either pay for the the novel or to destroy my copy of the novel after I discover it is infringement if I don't want to pay for it. and that's only provided it doesn't serve an undue burden on my part. No further punishments beyond that. Something reasonable.
But then such a system will get really complicated really fast.
but the point is that, at the very least, I should never get punished for unknowingly infringing on something when there is no reasonable way for me to have known. I'm not psychic and our legal system shouldn't require me to be.
You may say that ignorance is no excuse to law, but that's in the case where I have open access to the law. I have no open access to the information required for me to know what is and what isn't infringement. In a sense, a copy'right' holder is creating a secret law that's not on the lawbooks, a law that says that copying his works is punishable by law but there is no central location for people who acquire your works to know that it's against the law. Someone else could have removed the license and redistributed the copy'right' holders works. How are others going to know that it's against the law to copy such works. Ignorance is an excuse in this case. Sure, the law says that generally infringing on protected material is against the law, but the key here is that there is no way, outside of being a psychic, for us to know what is and what isn't protected by law. Ignorance is an excuse to a secret law whereby I have no reasonable way of knowing that I am breaking the law and in this case the law is secretly making it illegal for me to copy some works and not others without telling me what works I'm not allowed to copy. This is my biggest problem with copy'right' law. This needs to be resolved in a reasonable manner. I should NEVER be punished for breaking a secret law but copy'right' practically forces that possibility on me or else it forces me to consume no content in fear that I might be punished for accidentally consuming content that I thought I could consume. This needs a resolution and I am against ANY copy'right' system that doesn't solve this problem in a reasonable manner. PERIOD. and passing the burden over to Youtube or ISP's or any service providers isn't an acceptable solution either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm surprised copyright supporters haven't jumped on your comment yet to tell you that almost all copyrighted material bears the © logo, pretty much nullifying the ignorance defense. Of course, one has to wonder what is going to happen to all those original works that will continue to bear this mark even after they've become public domain. I believe the mark will eventually become useless because of this dilution, provided the copyright maximalists haven't managed to achieve retroactive copyright in perpetuity before then. It is certainly an argument to consider in regards to creating a system where all creative works must be registered and tracked in order to prevent such confusion. Wouldn't want the infringers, innocent or not, to have an excuse that might hold up in court one day, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, have you started paying your parents back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just to name a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
but my condolences if that was your situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you just took them anyway? THIEF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
that must have been one helluva jacked up childhood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that must have been one helluva jacked up childhood.
He didn't say they did, and neither did he say "don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for", and the person he was replying to did. But, perhaps your own "helluva jacked up childhood" keeps you from seeing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The OP's "don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for" quite clearly is in reference to what he wrote in the previous sentences about taking something for sale without paying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The OP's "don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for" quite clearly is in reference to what he wrote in the previous sentences about taking something for sale without paying.
Sorry, no one said otherwise, so the failure seems to be yours. Keep trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Were your parents slaves or did they generally expect payment for their work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By passing it on? That sounds a lot like file sharing, to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If anybody tried to claim that you didn't buy something but rented after it they were told what they bought was a real sale anyone would call the other guy a thief, still somehow it is ok to let artists rent things and call them sales I wonder why that is?
If anybody sold me a house and comeback to me and told me I couldn't profit from it without paying him more or I couldn't rent the house to others without asking for permission I would say to him to sod off and still somehow art is different.
I don't see those people addressing those really serious concerns and I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If car companies started charging cabs because they make a living out of the creators cars would that be ok?
Would it be ok if you bought a house and the creator of the house charged you because you rented the house to someone else?
You claim copyright is fair, how that is fair? How that is morally justifiable when no one else could possibly do such things and be called and honest person, but somehow artists apparently live in another reality where that is perfectly normal and I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone knows why, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You above all should not be the one trying to make a moral claim, because copyright is so absurd and proof of that is that you wouldn't find it fair if the creators of the instruments you use to make a living come calling you asking for more money because they feel entitled to the money you make with their "property" that they "created".
That is how absurd your position is, that is how everybody sees it except you and your gang apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you wouldn't find it fair if the creators of the instruments you use to make a living come calling you asking for more money
You seem to have jumped ahead a few too many steps. I didn't ask a question about copyright. I'm talking about taking something without paying; whether its copyrighted or not is irrelevant to that question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well and if you are talking about taking something without paying you are in the wrong thread because I see nothing in the post that refers to that, care to point out where in that article it says it is ok to take something without paying?
You can't and we all know why don't we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Is it immoral to take something from someone without paying for it?"
Here's my answer to that question (again, if that's not the question you are asking, correct me). I think it's morally wrong to take something from someone without paying them an amount that they agree to.
However, morally speaking, I don't think there is anything wrong whatsoever to copy something that someone is selling. Legally speaking may be a different matter. But morally, I have no problem copying something that someone else has, even if they are offering it for sale. So the keyword here is take. So take without just compensation? Sure, that's morally wrong. Copy without any compensation? No. No moral objections whatsoever.
[ 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: 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:
I too have absolutely no moral compunction with copying something that is on sale elsewhere. Also, I honestly don't care if you morally object to my morals.
This is the very problem with the moral argument - it's meaningless unless your personal morals coincide with the moral argument, which makes it self defeating because you will of course agree with your own morals.
This is why you, and your paytard elk will always fail.
Pathetic. Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The whole idea was to get people to verbalize the depth of their moral depravity, and everybody came through with flying colors.
Having people voluntarily offer up numerous examples of why they are sociopaths and bloodsuckers was the plan all along.
Now go feed your content addiction, little boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But none could match yours, could they?
[ 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:
http://ur1.ca/3tuqi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your stance does not coincide with the morality of the Christian religion on which western civilisation was built
If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Luke ch 6.
If that verse is true even for physical goods how much more is it true when the "taking" costs you nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I seem to remember a story about a man who replicated some food for a gathering of people. I think his name was Jesus. You think Jesus was immoral? Yeah, well, your type would.
Copyright is evil.
Abolish copyright.
[ 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: Re:
Is it morally wrong to purchase an item under specific conditions and then violate the terms of the purchase? Morality is impossible to discern under the best of conditions. The real question whether or not sellers should be allowed to dictate terms of sale on products they create, and if those terms are legally binding when the agreement is entered into willingly by both parties. My personal opinion is - if you find the terms of sale constrictive or repugnant, don't buy what the seller is offering. But just because you disagree with the terms set should not give you a free license to break the terms once you have what you want.
[ 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:
No one is forced into any form of copyright agreement. You are free to turn your back on any offering. Just because you disagree with the terms set should not give you a free license to circumvent the purchase price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why can't they just ask for a 100K and when that is achieved put the work for the world to do whatever they want to and have no further claims just like everybody else in society?
Why do they need to be different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basically you're asking why art should not be sold as if it weren't art. Because it's art. Not a car and not a house and not textbooks and not medicine. Not everything should be treated exactly the same in regards to economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who else do you know that sells anything below the cost of production?
There is no such thing, either they give it away to make money elsewhere or they charge the full price of production of that item, why are artists any different from other industries?
Why can't they make money from merch, live gigs or ask for people to give them money to directly produce and release that without further claims like every other industry out there?
[ 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: Re: Re:
What is not common is to have any further rights, I don't see the barber saying to me how I should wash my hair or which products I am authorized to use in his hair cut.
I also don't see car manufactures claiming royalties from cabs do you?
I also don't see them being able to stop me from manufacturing my own parts and putting on that car, I also don't see how they could possibly stop me from modifying that car?
Now why can't you just ask the price for something and let it go?
Why should people be forced to fallow your rules that are being imposed, not agreed like in a rental or something like that but imposed upon the consumer, how is that good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They should stop that. They are, at best, selling you a license. However, if you understand copyright law at all, then you understand that you are buying a limited license. So you have minimal excuse to be angry.
also don't see car manufactures claiming royalties from cabs do you?
No, but if a car manufacturer wanted to be able to sell a car to a cab company at a substantially reduced price, but with royalties for use, I think they should be able to do that. They probably don't not because it's not possible, but because the car company doesn't want to risk losing money on a car just because the cab company doesn't use their car effectively. However, if the car company were convinced that more people would ride in cabs made by their company (because the car was ultra-luxurious, for example) then they might be incentivized to make such a deal with cab companies.
I also don't see them being able to stop me from manufacturing my own parts and putting on that car, I also don't see how they could possibly stop me from modifying that car?
Again, if they put that in the sales contract for the car, and you agreed to it, then why shouldn't they be able to do this? Let's say, hypothetically, that Toyota suspects that all these "unintended acceleration" cases were caused by aftermarket modifications using non-Toyota parts. The ones being damaged by that accusation are Toyota, and they would have an interest in minimizing these incidents. That would be an incentive to put a clause in their contract that says that no unauthorized modifications are to be made. If you don't like the contract, go buy a car from somebody else. If everybody has that in their contract, start your own car company without that clause.
Now why can't you just ask the price for something and let it go?
Some people get too attached to their work to let it go for any price. I would bet you that most artists would sell you the copyright on their work for some price. It will be substantially higher than the price for a copy. Why can't you just pay full price for a copyright, instead of paying for a copy? Once you own the copyright, you can put it in the public domain for everyone to enjoy.
Why should people be forced to fallow your rules that are being imposed, not agreed like in a rental or something like that but imposed upon the consumer, how is that good?
Those rules were agreed upon by your legislators that you elected. They are not "my" rules, they are "our" rules - they are as much your fault and responsibility as mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nested Commets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nested Commets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nested Commets
Haiku of nested comments
Hardly poetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And one of those looks a lot like fraud to me, artists are tricking people into higher price renting without being told assuming that they bought something, when they hold no real rights to it apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legally, not morally.
[ 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:
Legality does not equal morality. That's why the wheels fall off the IP-tards carts when they start arguing morality, which was kind of the point of Mike's article.
[ 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: Re: Re:
Which is why there is moral argument for copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if the law made killing your first born mandatory, then doing so is moral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Morality is an empty word that only means what we decide it to mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good example. There were even then people who said those things were immoral, and those who didn't (like today's IP supporters). You can add copyright to that list now.
Copyright is immoral.
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also my personal opinion on the fact that those restrictions are just ridiculous and impossible to enforce is that if somebody want to get paid they do what car manufactures do, they ask for an acceptable price and release that product to be used for whatever purposes others want to without further claims.
If that is not acceptable nobody is forcing them to release anything they can just not produce and hope people will beg them to produce something and pay more upfront for it.
Now creating absurd terms and expecting others to respect those term ain't happening, people told them loud and clear already that they won't respect crazy claims no matter how loud those people complain about it.
Recently 12 years old girls all started taking pictures from the big screen, would anybody have the balls to send them all to prison, or initiate legal proceedings that would ruin their families financially?
The day that happens is the day, artists will have to buy bullet proof armor because I doubt the ruined parents of those kids will take it kindly and that is how I know those laws are just crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are many, MANY different kinds of transactions currently at play within our society.
The problem with the "acceptable" price idea is that the cost of creating art and the value to the individual are rarely going to be in accord. A book might take a few days to read but more than a year to write. So in an effort to make a reasonable price available... we have the current system.
The "nobody is forcing them to release anything" argument might hod value if it wasn't also true that nobody is forcing you to consume what the artists release. You think that people should be discouraged from releasing their endeavors into the public if they do not meet your specific expectations? To meet the specific demands of each person everywhere? Isn't it easier for you just not to participate?
If you don't like the terms of sale - Walk Away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Car owners sell cars and charge you if you use it to make money off of it?
Car creators hold rights to their cars after being "sold"?
Car creators complain about all that money invested in R&D?
Quote:
You think car manufactures should sell their cars for $10 dollars and have claims over every penny you make?
Why can't artists just ask for the money they need up front and have no further claims down the line just like every other industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Art is art. Trying to force it into the economic framework of something that is not art does not work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see Sellaband working, I see PledgeMusic working, I see Jamendo working, I see Magnatune working, I see open source working, everywhere I look I see people making money directly or indirectly for art without the benefit of full copyrights and you are saying it does not work? are those people imaginary people like imaginary property?
Even this blog has several examples of alternatives that work and you willfully ignore them why?
Copyright need to change or go away.
[ 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: 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:
[ 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:
I see.
[ 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:
Only legally (which isn't being questioned), not morally. Legal doesn't mean moral.
[ 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:
It maybe of little value to an amoral person like you, but that doesn't mean that it's of little value to others. Just because you have no morals outside of law doesn't mean others don't.
"I'm discussing the legal aspect. Not the moral one."
But we're discussing the moral aspect, not the legal one. We all know the legal aspect, but that's not what we're discussing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last I checked, you were not the arbiter on what can and cannot be discussed.
It is true that framing the discussion as one of morals is false, as the article above claims. But that is true of anything in society. Morals change depending on society. Basing laws off morality alone only creates absurd laws. Which unless I am mistaken, was one of the original points made in the original article.
Maybe you should check exactly what is under discussion again. I'm not sure you grasped it the first time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What?
"Last I checked, you were not the arbiter on what can and cannot be discussed. "
No one said I was. You can continue to look foolish by going off topic and not addressing the points made, but don't expect others to take you seriously.
"Morals change depending on society."
So if a society thinks murder is moral, then it must be so.
"Basing laws off morality alone only creates absurd laws. "
What should laws be based off of, immorality? and if copy'right' laws aren't based off of morality, then what are they based off of?
"Which unless I am mistaken, was one of the original points made in the original article."
There is a difference between saying that laws should be based off of morality and saying that not everything is a moral issue. Whether I choose to drink a glass of water right now vs 10 minutes for now is not a moral issue and there is no law dictating when I must drink my glass of water. But if a law is to exist, there generally should be some moral basis for its existence. Laws that prohibit behavior should generally only prohibit immoral behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly what I said. Morality is a reflection of the values of society. That morality is subject to change depending on the perceptions of society.
"You can continue to look foolish by going off topic and not addressing the points made, but don't expect others to take you seriously."
What point or question directed at me have I not addressed? My inclination is to call bullshit on your accusation.
"So if a society thinks murder is moral, then it must be so."
Ever hear of war? How about human sacrifice? How about burning people at the stake for being heretics? How about the Crusades? How about execution? Historically speaking, the killing of others has been considered a moral act on many occasions. I should not need to explain this basic fact to you.
"What should laws be based off of, immorality? and if copy'right' laws aren't based off of morality, then what are they based off of?"
Laws should be based off of the benefit to society, not the perceived "moral" value. Which was the point made in the original article as I read it.
"There is a difference between saying that laws should be based off of morality and saying that not everything is a moral issue. Whether I choose to drink a glass of water right now vs 10 minutes for now is not a moral issue and there is no law dictating when I must drink my glass of water. But if a law is to exist, there generally should be some moral basis for its existence. Laws that prohibit behavior should generally only prohibit immoral behavior."
And who decides what constitutes said "immoral" behavior? You?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Where did I ever make that claim?
"If you want to claim it's immoral..."
Seriously, where did I ever make that claim. Quote me. I dare you.
"...if you want to restrict my behavior, then you need to justify it."
I have already explained that your behavior is not restricted in any significant way that could be alleviated without restricting the options of the seller. You have the right to decline purchasing anything at any time. You are not forced to participate in anything you do not care to participate in. Abolishing copyright removes the choice of how to distribute artists products from the artist.
Over and over you accuse me of making determinations about your morality. To that I have little to say other than to tell you that you need to work on your reading comprehension. Desperately.
[ 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:
So then are you saying there is nothing immoral about making such copies.
"I have already explained that your behavior is not restricted in any significant way that could be alleviated without restricting the options of the seller."
Your argument is akin to saying that slavery abolition restricts the options of the slave holder, now he can't own slaves.
Copy'right' is an imposition, it requires a government to exist. Government impositions that restrict my behavior should serve my interest and the will of those that the law is imposed on. Copy'right' abolition is not a government imposition. As a citizen, it is my will that these laws get abolished. They impose an undue burden on me and the government that upholds them needs to represent its citizens. I'm encouraging other citizens to hold my views and to demand that our government repeal these laws. If the citizens demand these laws be repealed and they get repealed, then there is nothing wrong with me copying as I please being that you don't really believe in any morality outside of law. Lets abolish copy'right' and make freely copying moral.
"You have the right to decline purchasing anything at any time."
and I should have a legal right to make copies of what I please at any time as I please. and I encourage others to hold that position and I'm expressing my position to others and to the government in hopes that it will encourage them to consider the will of its constituents when making policy. and if and when these laws are abolished, then you would have no problems with me making copies as I please, because morality is based on law according to you.
"You are not forced to participate in anything you do not care to participate in."
I am forced to make the effort to determine what is and what isn't infringement if I want to consume non-infringing content. In many instances, I need to be psychic to know. Copy'right' material displaces permissibly licensed material on public airwaves and so it forces such material off of public airwaves yet I'm forced not to broadcast whatever I please (including permissibly licensed content) on such public airwaves and I am forced not to copy and redistribute the content that is published on such airwaves. These are impositions I could do without.
The problem here is that you are restricting my rights, you are restricting what I can participate in. Your argument is akin to saying that preventing me from drinking water doesn't force me to participate in anything that I don't want to participate in. Free speech is banned in China, but they're not forced to participate in going to the movies if they don't want to. That misses the point. You're still restricting my rights through a government imposition. Copy'right' abolition restricts no ones rights through a government imposition. I do not want my rights restricted through a government imposition in this manner, I do not want my government telling me that I can't copy as I please. and while I'm not the only member of society and so the government shouldn't represent me alone, the only way that citizens can really get the government to represent them is for us to express their will to the government and to others. and that's what I'm doing. If enough people like me resent copy'right' and resist it and express their opinions against it, it will be abolished. I'm just one of those people expressing my opinion against it. Maybe I'm alone, and if so the government will likely ignore me. Or maybe more people will agree with me. But if I don't express my opinion against it and no one else expresses their opinion against it and everyone is against it, then how can the government know the will of its constituents to implement it? If you wish, you can express your opinion in favor of the law and be represented just as well. You have a vote too. That's called democracy. Unlike the mainstream media, where IP criticisms are systematically filtered out and restricted from being communicated on wrongfully monopolized distribution channels thanks to our corrupt government. That's not democracy, that's tyranny.
"Abolishing copyright removes the choice of how to distribute artists products from the artist."
Removing slavery removes the choice of being able to enslave slaves by the slave holder. So what. Artists can find other choices. Other choices exist outside of copy'right'. I don't want my government implementing an artificially created choice.
Lets give a group of pencil makers a monopoly too. Not doing so removes their choice of being the only pencil makers around. Think of the pencil makers.
[ 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:
Addendum: the government should implement universal health care because not doing so restricts a citizens rights towards getting free health care. No, that wouldn't be a valid argument for universal health care. A valid argument might be, we are all better off with it than without. Not that the government not imposing it restricts our rights to have it. It's not our right to have it and it's no ones right to have the taxpayers fund their healthcare. If it's done it should be done because taxpayers think everyone is better off with it and maybe because taxpayers are philanthropic enough in your time of need, not because you feel that removing such a healthcare program restricts your rights. You have no such right, the government owes you nothing and neither do taxpayers. They do not owe you a monopoly and they do not owe you universal healthcare, to the extent it's implemented it should be for the public good.
Same thing with welfare and workers compensation. No one is entitled to workers compensation and welfare and artists aren't entitled to a governmental monetary subsidy for their work either. "but the government not handing them money for their work takes away an artists option of getting paid by the government for your work." You're not entitled to such payment by the government or by taxpayers. Just like you're not entitled to a government imposed monopoly and the options that it provides. The people get to decide what the government can provide for you and if the people decide that the government should give you welfare, then it can. If they decide it shouldn't, then it shouldn't. Same thing goes for copy'right'. I do not want my government providing you with copy'rights'. Heck, I'd rather them just give you money for your work than to provide you with copy'rights' and restrict my rights in the process. Maybe I'm alone and maybe not, but just like you and everyone else, I get a voice too. So do you. That's called democracy.
[ 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:
If we go with the argument that all aspects of rights should be determined by majority rule, where would we be on the various civil rights issues?
[ 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're the one that argues
"If our society deems piracy immoral, it is. If our society deems murder a moral act, it is."
By your logic, if society deems piracy a moral act, then it is. Then the law should change to permit piracy. I'm taking your logic to its logical conclusion by stating that I'm a member of society and I deem piracy moral and copy'right' immoral. Now, if enough people agree with me, then by your logic it's true. Why should our legal system pass immoral laws?
[ 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:
Isn't filesharing already disagreeing with you?
And add to this the fact that other cultures don't have a problem with gay couples except for the religious end of America. So saying that immoral laws haven't been passed is a little misleading.
If you must pull up an old example, Jim Crow comes to mind.
[ 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 point in the original article is that morality is not what copyright law is about. I agree. But the standard applies in both directions. Furthermore, you're treating this as if it were a binary scenario. Just because something isn't immoral does not equate to it being moral.
[ 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:
[ 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:
[ 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:
"If our society deems piracy immoral, it is. If our society deems murder a moral act, it is. I don't think morality is an issue in this equation at all, which I have stated repeatedly from my first post on this topic onward."
(U.S) copy'right' not being a democracy suggests that it's disagreed on by most people. By your very own standards, (U.S) copy'right' is immoral, since society doesn't agree with it. Lets abolish it (or at least change it) so that it's a democracy and agreed on by most so that it can be moral.
[ 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:
As I have clearly indicated, morality is subjective. If our society deems piracy immoral, it is. If our society deems murder a moral act, it is. I don't think morality is an issue in this equation at all, which I have stated repeatedly from my first post on this topic onward.
My personal beliefs lean towards empathy and respect. If someone paints a picture and puts it in a gallery with a sign that says "no photography", I respect that request.
"Your argument is akin to saying that slavery abolition restricts the options of the slave holder, now he can't own slaves."
No, because art is not a human being with legal rights. In slave trading there are three parties. The slaver, the slave and the buyer. In the trading of art there are only two parties. It's not like we abolished slavery so that the buyers of slaves wouldn't have to pay.
"Copy'right' is an imposition, it requires a government to exist."
So do roads and streetlights and speed limits and emergency medical services and so on. I don't care if government is required in the establishment of something that is arguably beneficial. The only thing that matters is if the issue in question is genuinely beneficial.
"you don't really believe in any morality outside of law."
I never said that I believe in no morality outside of law. I said that morality is subjective and determined by society.
"and I should have a legal right to make copies of what I please at any time as I please"
What makes your desire to freely copy more important than the desire of the artists to distribute their work as they see fit?
"The problem here is that you are restricting my rights, you are restricting what I can participate in."
Is Disneyland restricting your rights by charging admission?
"Lets give a group of pencil makers a monopoly too. Not doing so removes their choice of being the only pencil makers around. Think of the pencil makers."
If you don't need a pencil, don't buy one. The pencil makers will go out of business or adapt. That's fine. But forcing the pencil makers to sell according to your specifications? No.
[ 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:
They're not forced to sell according to my specifications. They can choose not to sell pencils.
[ 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:
Yes, they are, but are restrictions of rights that I more or less agree with. The restriction that copy'right' imposes on me are restrictions that I do not agree with.
"What makes your desire to freely copy more important than the desire of the artists to distribute their work as they see fit?"
No one is preventing them from distributing their work as they see fit. I don't want my government imposing these artificial distribution mechanisms that don't exist outside of government. Aside from that, they can distribute their work as they see fit. The government shouldn't provide for every distribution method that an artists may want. For example an artist may want a distribution method that allows him to distribute their content by forcing me to fund its delivery through the postal service. That's not a distribution method I want them to have. Neither is copy'right'. Outside of government, they can distribute their work how they see fit (so long as it doesn't involve harming someone or damaging property or something like that). I don't want my government giving them copy'right' as an artificial distribution method.
I don't even have to justify why I believe that copy'right' shouldn't exist to your satisfaction, or at all. As a citizen, I should still have a say in these matters just like any other citizen. and I am expressing my say and perhaps others can express their say and if enough people agree with me maybe we can get our say. That's what democracy is. You get a voice too.
"So do roads and streetlights and speed limits and emergency medical services and so on."
and these are impositions that I agree with. Copy'right' is one that I do not agree with.
[ 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:
The only thing that matters is if the issue in question is genuinely beneficial.
On this, I think most of us agree, amazing as it seems.
Is Disneyland restricting your rights by charging admission?
No, but Disneyland could do this without copyright. What copyright allows is Disneyland restricting my right to create another Disneyland, completely at my own expense, whether I charge admission or not.
This is a pretty critical point, which seems to get lost quite often. Copyright does not grant anyone the ability to create works, and taking it away would not prevent anyone from creating works. The only thing copyright does is allow some people to prevent others from creating works.
Until that is universally understood and recognized, a sane discussion on the topic is not really possible.
What makes your desire to freely copy more important than the desire of the artists to distribute their work as they see fit?
Without copyright, you have both. The artists can distribute their work as they see fit, and everyone else can freely copy. With copyright, you only have one.
But forcing the pencil makers to sell according to your specifications? No.
Except that's exactly what copyrights* do: force the pencil makers to sell according to someone else's specifications - the pencil designers.
Many of us "pencil-makers" have this attitude towards the copyright holders: "The pencil designers will go out of business or adapt. That's fine. But forcing us to sell according to their specifications? No."
*Yeah, in this case it would actually be patents, but it's just an analogy.
[ 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:
Nice, isn't it?
"No, but Disneyland could do this without copyright. What copyright allows is Disneyland restricting my right to create another Disneyland, completely at my own expense, whether I charge admission or not."
Yes, but this is the problem with long dialogs and analogies. The point is that sellers can currently operate with or without copyright. Choosing to price themselves out of business is a choice they should be allowed to make. And if they make that choice, they're not restricting your rights. The reason this is the case is because you are not obligated to participate.
Taking the choice out of the hands of the artists makes little sense to me. Reforming copyright law, sure. But abolishment is excessive.
"Without copyright, you have both. The artists can distribute their work as they see fit, and everyone else can freely copy. With copyright, you only have one."
No, because without copyright artists lose the legal ability to decide how and when their work is disseminated and reproduced.
"Except that's exactly what copyrights* do: force the pencil makers to sell according to someone else's specifications - the pencil designers."
They're free to design their own pencils. In the analogy you're quoting, consumers are still consumers - the purchasers of pencils. Not the pencil makers. Regardless, the point remains - while no one is required to keep any business in business, no outside party one should have the ability to "decide" how to keep said business in business.
If artists want to price themselves out of the market, that is their choice. Right now, work can be protected by copyright or it can be distributed freely. It's a choice made by the creator. Take away that choice and you have less options - not more.
If the market will truly only support free distribution minus copyright protection, it will correct itself.
[ 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:
Good. Then let's get rid of it.
The truth is, without copyright people (note that I'm not so elitist to think "artists" are special) can still choose how to distribute their works. They just can't then tell *others* on down the line how to do so. Of course those elitists who think "artists" are "special" think they should be able to tell everyone else what to do.
[ 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: 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're asking the wrong question. What do you propose for making breathing air profitable. You're breathing air, I'm not profiting. So what? Even if creating art isn't profitable, art will still be created and not everything has to be profitable to someone. Profitable to whom, the big corporations? The artists? No one is saying they can't make a profit, just that they can't use government impositions on me like copy'right' to do it. If they can make a profit in a free market, I'm fine with that.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not seeing any definitive evidence that a complete abolishment of copyright creates the benefits you believe it will create. I'm in favor of reform, but relying on the free market alone seems a recipe for disaster.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No I don't. Why should the laws that I'm required to follow revolve around the level of artistic output of your choice?
Even if copy'right' abolition reduces the current output of art, I'm happy with whatever artistic output that will exist without copy'right'. Artistic output will exist without copy'right'. I do not want to subsidize any extra artistic output at the cost of my right to copy. If you want more artistic output, you can subsidize it with your own money and your own efforts. Comply with copy'right' principles on your own, don't impose them on me and don't force me to give up my rights to subsidize more artistic output just because that's what you want. That's rather selfish if you ask me.
"I'm in favor of reform, but relying on the free market alone seems a recipe for disaster."
Depends on how you define the word 'disaster'. A disaster for whom, middlemen? A disaster for corporations. A disaster for the **AA? That's fine with me. A disaster for artists who want these laws? So what, they can find other jobs. The current situation is already a disaster for me. My rights are being impeded by a government in a way that I could do without. Even if less artistic output is produced, I don't care, I don't see that as such a huge disaster. If anything, it's creates economic efficiencies. Much of that labor that was artificially directed towards art production would go somewhere else and produce economic efficiencies elsewhere. I don't see that as a disaster. Art production requires labor which diverts labor away from other sectors of the economy. By subsidizing art production with artificially monopolies, you're artificially diverting labor away from other sectors of the economy, marginally. It's not the governments job to determine where labor should be directed. If anything, that's a disaster. What we already have is a disaster. I'll live with whatever 'disaster' results from copy'right abolition. I'm fine with it.
[ 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really, such pedantry is only a waste of time. You already know what I mean.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if it does lead to such a dramatic decrease in artistic output, that maybe a disaster to you, but not to me. Why should I be required to follow a law just to satisfy your desired level of artistic output?
You not giving me a million dollars is a disaster for me. Now I'm a million dollars short. You have dramatically decreased my income. That's a disastrous result.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me not giving you a million dollars maybe a disaster to you, but if you want a million dollars, make it yourself. Don't force me to give up my money because you want a million dollars. If you want more art production, contribute to it yourself. Don't force me to contribute my rights just to subsidize your desired level of artistic output. Subsidize it yourself.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretending that something is being taken away from you personally by copyright is a pointless game. It's not about you (the individual), but about society overall. That's the context of this discussion if you care to follow along.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holding slaves imposes rules on those slaves, copy'right' imposes rules on the behavior of others, copy'right' abolition imposes rules on no one (since its abolition can exist without a government that imposes such rules and it can exist without anyone around to make rules). So your argument makes no sense.
I'm not the one using the law or a government (or any other) imposition to hold slaves, you're the one using a government imposition to impede on my human right to copy.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like the terms of sale, walk away. Your rights then remain intact.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't intent to. Copy'right' isn't a restriction I want imposed on me though.
"That's you imposing and impeding rules on the behavior of others."
No, because what I want requires no government, and so I'm not imposing rules on them, since governments are required to make laws. I want these rules that the government creates removed. What I want is the default position that exists outside of government, what I want imposes nothing on anyone since governments are the imposters and what I want can be done without government.
"If you don't like the terms of sale, walk away. Your rights then remain intact."
No, because I'm still not being allowed to copy some things without breaking a law, so my rights aren't in tact because that right has been removed from me.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't like the terms of sale, no one is forcing you to participate.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But operating without copyright is a choice I made as an artist. The existence of copyright did not prevent this. Copyright is simply an option - a tool - that creators can use if they want. If that choice leads them out of business, so be it. That's the free market. I firmly believe that copyright does encourage artistic growth, and that if it is to be abolished (as opposed to reformed) there needs to be a reasonable and substantive plan in place beyond "I hate copyright".
[ 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and,besides, what makes the intent of copy'right' important enough to impose its rules on its citizens against their will? As a citizen, it's my will that these laws get abolished. Sure, I'm only one citizen, but I do have a vote (and so do you).
[ 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
You're being asked to support the hypothetical outcome that no copy'right' means less artistic output. If copy'right' abolition doesn't result in less artistic output or if it results in more artistic output, then copy'right' isn't supporting its alleged intent. Just because some people believe that copy'right' results in more artistic output and this belief has shaped its existence doesn't mean that copy'right' does indeed result in more artistic output.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't but it's difficult to get data on this because no one is willing to compromise at all on copyright. It's usurped for larger businesses and ironically, the ones it's supposed to help (artists) seem to be left out in the cold.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
The funny part is that this comes from the same country that is famous for scams, so is safe to assume that there is no meaningful copyrights to be found there 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand, but the point that I'm making is that whatever negative output that will likely result isn't important enough to me when compared to the rights that I'm giving up. It's insignificant. My right to copy is more important to me. and, as a citizen, I want my government to, at least in part, represent me. Not me alone, but if many others agree with me and no one expresses their position then the government can't know our position to represent it. So I'm just expressing my position to you, to others, and maybe to elected officials if they're reading 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Additionally: Your rights are not being lost. Terms and conditions in regards to transactions are a part of capitalist society. You don't care for the terms, don't participate. Your rights remain intact.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm simply placing my individual rights over your desire that society produce a level of art that you desire. I consider the government giving me back my right to freely copy a progressive move, so to me, society has progressed when our ability to copy is unimpeded by any government. You say that's not your definition of progress? You have a vote too, but so do I.
"Terms and conditions in regards to transactions are a part of capitalist society."
and that's fine, but terms and conditions can exist without copy'right'. Copy'right' places terms and conditions on third parties that never agreed to them.
and not all terms and conditions need to be enforceable by law. Many states won't enforce non-compete clauses. Just because I disagree with the enforcement of some terms and conditions doesn't mean I must agree with the enforcement of any possible term or condition. As a citizen, I get a say into what terms and conditions my government will enforce (and so do you).
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you out of your fucking mind?
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're the one who wants to change existing system. The burden of proof is upon you. The intent of copyright is to ensure artistic growth, and the context of this discussion is that copyright protection should be discussed on those merits (or lack thereof) as opposed to an artificial morality.
If your answer is "I just want it gone, no matter what the effect", then I have little interest in your opinions or arguments.
"Depends on how you define the word 'disaster'."
What do you think? A disaster in regards to the output of art. That's the intended purpose of copyright, and the context of the discussion revolves around this aspect. You should know this without me explaining it.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The burden of proof is on me to prove what? That the new system will provide the artistic output of your liking? No, I do not have to prove that, because I'm not claiming that the new system will produce the level of artistic output of your desire. I do not have to prove something that I'm not claiming.
What I am claiming is that the new system will stop impeding on a right that I value. My right to freely copy as I please is very valuable to me and abolishing copy'right' will give me my valued right.
I want to change the existing system and I have no burden to prove that the level of artistic output will be to your satisfaction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me wanting to change the system, and to express my desire that the system be changed, without proving to you that the new system will produce the level of artistic output of your desire. I have no such burden and there is nothing wrong with me expressing my desire that the current system be changed without proving to you that the change will produce the level of artistic output of your choice.
"If your answer is "I just want it gone, no matter what the effect", then I have little interest in your opinions or arguments. "
Good, but I will continue to express my opinions and arguments. This is a democracy and I have (or should have) a voice. So do you.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to change the system for everyone, then the burden of proof is upon you.
You are free to voice whatever you like, but the US is not a democracy. It's a republic.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aside from that artistic through output would probably not be undermined even if there was no copyrights in place at all as India and Africa proves that in a rather real terms, there are no meaningful enforcement in those areas and culture is flourishing there with even the president of India giving a speech about "soft-power"(the power to influence others through culture) on TED.
So please, show how exactly culture arts and sciences would be harmed by even the complete elimination of copyrights when we know for a fact that throughout history those didn't stop those things from flourishing can you do that?
[ 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: 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's in the best interest of society is strongly based on what society values. I value my right to copy more than I value your desired level of artistic output. So I get more of what I value with copy'right' abolition than without it. Copy'right' abolition is in my best interest.
Now, you may disagree.
We both vote. I vote copy'right' be abolished. You vote it stays. The majority of people agree with me and so, collectively, we vote copy'right' gets abolished. It gets abolished. Collectively, the government has served our best interests since, collectively, everyone values their right to freely copy more than your privilege to prevent me from copying and the level of artistic output that results. Makes sense?
[ 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now if you want to see how the public view copyright now, just search on Youtube "f. copyright" and you will see thousands of people speaking in no uncertain terms what they think about that right to stop them from doing something.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One thing I'd also like to mention: that is only half of the goal of copyright.
It's not specifically to increase output, but to "promote the progress of... the useful Arts." More output is certainly part of the goal, but the other part of the goal is public use of that art.
Copyright law, if it is to exist at all, must promote two, and only two, things:
1. Greater artistic output.
2. Greater public use of that artistic output.
The two are sometimes in conflict, so what we need to do is find a system that maximizes both variables.
[ 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. I believe the people who want to curtail, or continue curtailing, everyone's freedoms (eg you) should have to provide a justification for that, regardless of the status quo. The only justification so far has been in the form of campaign contributions and made-up facts.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The justification is that artistic output is increased under copyright. If you want to abolish copyright then you need to show that abolishing copyright will meet the ideal standards as currently set. If you can't do that, there is little room for discussion.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Standards as currently set by whom, you? Why should you be the only one to set the standards?
Maybe I don't care if the changes meet your desired standards and so I don't have to prove they do. If you want them to continue meeting the current standards and you believe copy'right' contributes to those standards, go vote. As for me, I vote abolish it.
Or, better yet, if copy'right' is abolished, why don't you continue to contribute to the current standards by finding an artist you like and buying their work and/or paying them money. You can comply with copy'right' principles without forcing such laws on me. If enough people agree with you, then they will follow such principles voluntarily and the current level of standards won't be affected much by the small minority that disagrees with you.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Seriously. Who do you think? Must I hold your hand through the simplest aspects of a dialog?
You can vote on whatever you like. Doesn't mean it's a matter that is or will be determined by a vote.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Questions like "what do you propose for keeping art profitable" suggest that art can't be profitable without copy'right'. You may not have said it directly, but you implied it, otherwise why even ask the question. Then you'll turn around and deny that you claimed art can't be profitable without copy'right'. But you're implying it. You keep asking questions like these, then when it's pointed out that art can and will be created and profitable without copy'right' you claim that you never said otherwise. When you ask the question, "what do you propose for ... encouraging and promoting the development of new art?" you're suggesting that art can't be promoted and encouraged without copy'right'. Otherwise, why ask such a question. It can be. I suggest the government do nothing to interfere with the free market by encouraging the development of anything. What do you propose be done to encourage and promote more breathing or people drinking more water? Should the government impose rules on me to do it? No. It's something the government shouldn't encourage or promote. The free market can do it. Same thing with art creation. May to some extent, I don't mind them funding publicly open museums, but they shouldn't impose rules on me to encourage new art, just like they should impose rules on me to encourage breathing or drinking water.
If you want to encourage the development of new art, find an artist you like and pay them for their art. That's what I suggest you do to encourage the development of new art. Don't impose rules on me to encourage new art, go out there and encourage it yourself by paying for it. That's what I propose.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
just like they shouldn't impose rules on me to encourage breathing or drinking water. *
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your assumptions about what I am implying are noted and dismissed. I say what I mean. You inferring incorrectly and applying said inferences to me are pointless.
Regardless - Art under copyright has been shown to be profitable, thus encouraging the production of more art. The cost of production is split amongst multiple customers, consequently making art affordable to all people while still allowing artists to make a living. I never claimed that other approaches could not be profitable. But the burden of proof is upon you, the one who wants copyright removed.
You talk about the free market, but you want to limit the options allowed to those who sell. The true free market is you voting with your wallet.
There are no rules upon you. You can step back and not participate at any time.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why are you claiming that
"The suggestions you make for copyright free transactions would be ineffectual when considering large scale distribution."
Large scale distribution of hammers exists despite the fact that hammers aren't subject to copy'right'. Copy'right' is needed to pay for large scale distribution? Techdirt itself is supporting large scale distribution of my typing. Youtube supports large scale distribution of plenty of content that doesn't benefit much from copy'right'. Many songs are released under CC licenses, designed to at least in part circumvent copy'right', and the Internet supports large scale distribution of those songs. People will continue to make content and that content will continue to benefit from large scale distribution without copy'right'.
"But the burden of proof is upon you, the one who wants copyright removed."
The burden is on me to prove what, something I'm not claiming?
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look at Africa, every street vendor creates a market where he is and thus create wealth where there was none before, if it was just only one distributor he would hoard more money for himself but it wouldn't be able to supply the entire market alone, this is true for every monopoly that ever existed, if we are talking about effective then copyright is a problem for effective economic growth because it can't supply all segments of the market, excluding the bottom markets to cater tor the upper portion of it, it also prevents start ups from appearing because of the high prices asked by incumbents slowing down innovation, services and products that would benefit society are no longer able to be implemented because of copyrights.
All indications show that copyrights are not needed at all, in fact history shows in practice that we don't need them to flourish otherwise we would never have had a Roman Empire.
Now please show everybody how would the absence of copyright reduce production of said art, when we know that in places where there is no meaningful copyright protections those are the parts of the world that are seeing a kind of renascence in the arts.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even then: If such a Renaissance can exist in a world WITH copyright, what is the problem? An abundance of art free from restriction is already available to you.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For some things it maybe easy to determine what is infringement (ie: very popular stuff), but for other, small item things, it may not be. Situations like this could arise. For all I know, the person who has 'rights' over such content may have been the one to upload it under a CC license just so that he can later deny that he uploaded it under a CC license and sue others (be it service providers or consumers) for consuming it and using it. If I have to be afraid of what I copy and how I use what I copy, in fear that I might be infringing on something that I thought was released under a CC license, then I'd be less likely to consume CC licensed content. That not only hurts me, it hurts CC content creators who now have a harder time acquiring an audience.
Also, copy'right' material displaces non-copy'right' material over monopolized cableco infrastructure and monopolized broadcasting space and the amount of content over those distribution channels is limited. Not everyone has the Internet to have access to the large library of freely copyable content that it provides.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(and, when it comes to copy'right', copy'right' abuse is legendary. Well, people trying to find ways to abuse the law isn't uncommon at all. So when I say that something like this could happen, it probably has happened. In fact, I remember Techdirt articles about big labels giving certain entities permission to freely distribute songs or samples over the Internet or elsewhere and then later suing consumers of such content. It doesn't seem to happen as much anymore, thanks to public outcries about it, but the point is that where absurd abuses can happen, they likely will, so my above complains aren't speculative and without merit).
Now, really, if copy'right' can find reasonable ways to deal with these possible abuses without punishing me for not being psychic if I accidentally download a song that I thought was released under a CC license and use it in a manner that I thought was allowed, then I won't be so against it. If copy'right' stops being used to persuade/compel restaurant and other venue owners from hosting independent singers without paying some collection society under the pretext that someone "might" infringe, and if it's not used to potentially hold the restaurant liable if one of its performers does infringe and the restaurant didn't know they were infringing, then I'll be much more inclined to accept it.
But I just don't really see that happening. What I see coming from these laws isn't the promotion of progress, but the large scale promotion of abusive behavior.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Beyond this, you're talking about some fairly fantastically paranoid scenarios. A musician uploads a song with a posted CC license and then removes it so he can sue you for playing it in your restaurant?
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copy'right' is legendary for the occurrence of some fantastically ridiculous scenarios. My complaints aren't without merit.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say that because you haven't been paying close enough attention to the fantastically ridiculous scenarios that have resulted thanks to copy'right'.
For example, see
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml
Pay attention. The scenarios that I'm telling you aren't speculative, they have happened. That's why I bring them up, because they're apparently likely enough to have happened before.
and if you look at the whole Viacom case with Google, it appears that Viacom employees were the ones that uploaded the content on Youtube and then Viacom sued Google. See
http://www.komplettblog.ie/8008/viacom-uploads-to-youtube-then-sues/
There is a whole controversy over whether or not Viacom uploaded the content or whether or not its employees did, but the corporation consists of its employees, so as far as I'm concerned, if the employees did it, then Viacom did it. Then they sued Youtube over it.
There were other cases of similar things happening where record labels gave certain entities permission to distribute various songs or samples for promotional purposes and later sued others for it. I don't think that really happens anymore, or at least I haven't seen any recent articles about it (and I don't want to go back and dig, it was a while ago), but like I said, I'm not bringing up these possibilities because I'm speculating some highly unlikely paranoid scenarios. Saying that shows that you haven't been paying attention to the ridiculous scenarios that have resulted from copy'right'. I'm bringing up these possibilities because they, and equally ridiculous scenarios, have indeed happened in the past. So my bringing up of these scenarios does indeed have merit, as much as you'd like to ignore that.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(and I know, this is a bit short sighted and I don't think this is always the case. I apply these standards to Viacom in this case because they persist in an unnecessary lawsuit when all they had to do was tell Youtube to take down the videos that its employees uploaded instead of trying to sue Youtube for ridiculous damages over something Viacom's employees uploaded. If anything, Viacom's target in these lawsuits shouldn't be Google, but its very own employees, but by going after Youtube instead, Viacom is encouraging its employees to participate in this sort of behavior and so they are effectively the ones that uploaded that video).
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The whole case? That's a huge lie.
In fact, how about you list the videos that Viacom is suing YouTube for that were uploaded by Viacom.
This will help you get started:
http://www.google.com/press/youtube_viacom_documents.html
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said if you look at the whole case, not that this is what the whole case consists of.
How is it a lie? At least it's what Google is claiming as part of their defense.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if the author didn't put his works on the Internet? What if the author has no website? How much research am I required to do? 10 hours of research? What if I do all that research and come up with nothing? Someone gave me a song and told me it was a CC licesned song. The true author never put the song on the Internet, has no website, etc... the song itself does not tell me who the true author is, I use the song for a public performance, I get sued.
Not everything is located on the Internet. Someone may give me some independently made movie that has no website because the author made a website. Your "search Google for it" assumes its on Google and then it assumes that I even know what to look for. What if the true name of the song has been renamed, so I don't know the title of the song to look for. Say I search for the renamed title and it comes up short. "Well, I can search for the lyrics." Lyrics are copy'right'able too, so if copy'right' law had its way, no I can't. You're assuming the artist gave some website permission to post those lyrics.
Your, "Google" it solution doesn't always work.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if the author doesn't want his content on the Internet. Then how am I supposed to find out who the true author is or that the song really isn't released under a CC license.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're doing nothing of the sort.
You're using outliers to create FUD.
I'm aware that's a standard debate tactic on this site, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if true, winning the lottery is an outlier, yet many people play. On average, people lose money even. and studies will show that people (and especially corporations and businesses) can be very risk aversive. Outliers affect our behavior. Implementing some safety mechanism in a piece of equipment may cost a lot of money, but not doing so may cost a company a whole lot more, even if the danger of someone getting hurt from not implementing such a safety mechanism is an outlier.
If people have to worry about what content is and what isn't released under a CC license when downloading and publicly playing content that they thought was released under a CC license, as the above link (with the Flikr post) shows, it will affect people's behavior. Less people will consume CC licensed content and publicly play it and so that will discourage people from producing CC licensed content (since content production is often assisted by consumption). For me to have to worry about which songs are truly released under a CC license or not is a huge risk that I'm not willing to take. Unless you can address that, copy'right' should be abolished.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People choking on the spaghetti I make is an outlier. For me to have to worry about that is a huge risk that I'm not willing to take.
Unless you can address that, spaghetti should be abolished.
[ 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright isn't going to be abolished because you didn't bother to figure out whether or not something was legal or not. There are abundant avenues for determining that, which make your "abolish copyright" remedy absurd.
And if on the very small chance you were actually sued(FUD btw) for the situation you describe, maybe you could try this:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2008/08/12/teenager_filesharing_damages_reduced/
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those avenues don't always work. Authors may not want their songs or content showing up on a search engine.
As far as your link goes, that case was appealed and the lowered damages were overturned.
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100226%2F1553078323&threaded=true&s p=1#comments
Furthermore
"As you may know, copyright law does allow for reduced statutory damages on innocent infringement, "where the infringer sustains the burden of proving . . . that [she] was not aware and had no reason to believe that . . . her acts constituted an infringement of copyright.""
In other words, if I unknowingly infringe on something, even if there is no reasonable way for me to know that I'm infringing, I can still face punishment. That's unacceptable. The government should not create unreasonable risks like this. and, as the above flikr post shows, these risks can affect people behavior in a way that's detrimental to society.
and this isn't FUD. The only FUD is the argument that copy'right' abolition would result in the creation of no work or in a huge detriment to society or that 95+ year copy protection lengths are necessary or less progress will be promoted.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is also a burden placed on service providers. Service providers have to police that. and there were instances where content was wrongfully taken down that wasn't infringing because someone wrongfully claimed that it was. Service providers then don't want to face the risk of an expensive lawsuit and they don't want to spend the time and money necessary to determine if something is infringing or not. So they often just take down content on request without spending the cost necessary to determine if the takedown notice comes from the true copy'right' holder or not. Then the service provider may get sued by the person who originally posted the content for taking it down. More expenses on the service provider that wouldn't exist without copy'right'.
I may get deprived of such content, at least for a period of time, as a result. and I don't want the service provider to be required to spend the money necessary to make such a determination (because they will pass those costs back down to me somehow). These are real issues. They're a lot more real than any alleged justification for copy'right', which is why I believe copy'right' should be abolished. As much as you'd like to simply ignore them, that doesn't make these issues go away.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See? You've answered your own question.
Have you read up on cases where a songwriter sued for infringement suggesting he wrote a song first and then someone else had success with a very similarly written song? It's enlightening.
But that's creative infringement. So to directly answer you, do you have an example of where the consumptive infringement was
(1)so egregious that someone was sued,
(2)the defendant legitimately claimed ignorance,
(3)yet was still liable for damages
?
If you can't name at least a few, then you're spouting FUD and your stance that copyright abolition is the correct remedy is absurd.
In fact, let's see you give me just one example.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What?
"But that's creative infringement. So to directly answer you, do you have an example of where the consumptive infringement was
(1)so egregious that someone was sued,
(2)the defendant legitimately claimed ignorance,
(3)yet was still liable for damages
?"
The above link is an example of it. and the quote that I showed shows that even if the infringement was accidental and the infringer had no reason to believe the content was protected (reduced) damages are still possible. They should not be. No damages should be possible. At most, the infringer should be given a choice to either pay for the content or destroy his copy.
Here is an example of another ridiculous case that won't exist if it weren't for copy'right'.
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680
Even if the plaintiffs lose, the cost of lawsuits in time and money is not cheap. That's partly why I want these laws abolished, they encourage these sorts of lawsuits.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're hilarious.
Bonehead doesn't avail himself to the protection copyright gives him, and gets screwed because he used CC instead.
And in your opinion that's an argument for copyright being abolished?
Most amusing.
Go beg for change on a corner somewhere.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm referring to the potentially expensive lawsuit the defendants have to face for doing nothing wrong. Copy'right' encourages this nonsense. This discourages people from consuming CC licensed content because they don't to face a potentially expensive and time consuming lawsuit, even if they'll win. Discouraging consumption discourages production.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're missing the point. Copy"right" is opt out, which means no one is required to provide an avenue for me to know that consuming such content would be infringing. There is no central database that people are required to register on that I can simply look up. I may not know what to search for. There is no requirement that protected content show up on any search engine and some content may not (if no one put it on a website, how would it?). Or I may look up a word and get a million results. I can't search through every page to figure out which one is the relevant one. So these avenues aren't reliable and they can be very time consuming.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am actively lobbying Congress for this exact thing; to be online and available to everyone via a .gov website.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I don't see that happening. These laws are abusive in nature, they have a long history of abuse, they originated by abusive entities that intended these laws to be abusive. Abolish 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: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Importantly, however, beginning with the entry into force of the Copyright Act of 1976 when formalities were removed from US Copyright Law in order for US law to conform to the requirements of the Berne and other later international conventions, it could no longer be said that the Coryright Office's database was the authoritative source on what is and what is not subject to valid copyrights under federal law. Neverthelsss, it remains the most valuable database concerning copyrights. Importantly, in order for a work secured by copyright to be entitled to assertion against others, it must be first formally registered with the Copyright Office and, thusly, added to the database. Additionally, copyright holders are well advised to formally register their claims to copyright with the Copyright Office in order for such holders to be able to avail themselves of all remedies provided by US Copyright Law. This is particularly true if a copyright holder desires to be able to seek "statutory (AKA, "in liew") damages.
Prior to 1989 the US retained the requirement under law for copyright holders to adhere to longstanding marking practices (i.e., mandatory copyright notices meeting stated formalities to be effective). Of course, copyright notices are nevertheless encouraged, and it is a foolish author who does not use such notices in its ordinary course of business.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The copyright holder can still sue for injunctions and actual damages even if it's not registered.
Of course, copyright notices are nevertheless encouraged, and it is a foolish author who does not use such notices in its ordinary course of business.
Where do you put the copyright notice on an MP3?
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignorance is an excuse to a secret law. If there is no reasonable way for me to know that something is infringement, and such a case is very possible, then the law places an undue risk on me by secretly making the consumption of certain content illegal.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no government in the world capable of stopping that trend.
Doubt?
Can you watch me inside my house?
Will you wipe out all recording devices from the face of the earth?
Can you police the internet?
Can you break encryption?
Can you stop emails?
Could you stop anonymous IMs(instant messengers)?
The simple answer is no, so your "rights" are not going to be enforced on the public and we all know you can't do anything about it.
Shaming didn't work, enforcement didn't work, there are more people sharing today than 5 years ago.
Further legal alternatives are coming up everywhere so you will be forced if you want to sell anything to abide by the rules of those legal alternatives eventually and they are nothing like what you want to keep, not to mention that ultimately the consumer can survive without you, but you probably can't survive without support from the public.
Is that simple.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a difference between a legal system creating a risk against its citizens for doing nothing wrong (ie: coping and publicly playing a song that they were under the reasonable impression was released under a CC license) vs people having to face the risks that the legal system isn't responsible for. Sure, risks exist outside our legal system, but our legal system, the laws that it creates, shouldn't be responsible for subjecting people to unreasonable risks (spaghetti abolition is a law, its allowance isn't, and so by allowing it our legal system isn't the one responsible for creating any risks since the existence of our legal system isn't required for such a risk to exist).
[ 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. A decision by a judge at the district court level is never binding precedent. The decision may be found by other judges to be particularly well-thought out and compelling, but the decision does not bind them to apply it to any case at hand.
2. Decisions by federal appellate courts are binding precedent, but only in the appellate distict over which the courts preside. A decision by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is not binding on, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It should be noted that there are some appellate courts whose jurisdiction is national in scope, e.g., the Court of Appealls for the Federal Circuit. In such cases their decisions are binding everywhere.
3. The ultimate arbiter of what is binding precedent is the Supreme Court. Its decisions are required to be followed by all inferior courts, district and appellate courts alike (including courts that are not what are known as "Article 3" courts).
I mention the above solely to assist others to understand what "precedent" actually means within our legal system.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The above example was an appellate court making a decision.
and a federal district court making a poor decision also sets bad precedent because it confirms the possibility that future federal district courts could make bad decisions forcing people to have to fight expensive appeals and forcing others to have to fight expensive district court trials. Most people don't want to fight expensive lawsuits.
The only good decision would be for the district courts to sufficiently punish plaintiffs for
A: False accusations (accidental or intentional).
Unfortunately the potential punishment for such false accusations is far less than the potential punishment for infringement. This encourages many careless mass infringement suits that often target innocent victims, perhaps because the offenders (ie: the **AA) know that many innocent victims will rather pay than to face an expensive lawsuit. "But mistakes happen", copy'right' isn't important enough to warrant the possibility of these mistakes. People shouldn't face the possibility of an expensive lawsuit, with the risk of huge penalties for not settling, just because the plaintiff made a mistake, with the small possibility of being rewarded a very small compensation in comparison if such turns out to be a mistake.
B: and for the law not to punish people at all who accidentally infringe who had no reasonable way of knowing that what they did was infringement.
Anything else is a bad decision.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In contrast, the Supreme Court is required to hear appeals in only limited instances. In all other instances it has the power (but not the obligation), via a writ of certiorari, to voluntarily take up a case for consideration by the full court.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was also to point out the a federal appellate court subordinate to the Supreme Court must hear appeals. It does not have the discretion to do otherwise.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is another situation where this also holds true. If the Supreme Court hears a case, but then cannot establish a majority position, the case is treated as if it had never been considered. This happened quite recently in a case before the Supreme Court where one justice recused hilself/herself, leaving 8 justices to hear the case, and they later evenly split 4-4.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the federal district court decided on a federal matter and the appellate court refused to hear the case, that suggests that there is nothing wrong with the federal district court's decision. It's sets a persuasive precedent for other courts to rule similarly.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.un.org/apps//news/story.asp?NewsID=30707&Cr=nigeria&Cr1=
Both countries lacking any meaningful copyright enforcement capabilities.
Should I believe my eyes or your words?
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So one can argue that copyright actually reduces the ability to a country to produce more culture.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Woodstock was paid concert, and when the organizers got their money back, they oppened the gates for everyone to go inside.
Maybe the rights should be the same thing, artists should set a reasonable value for their work and when reached rights are dropped automatically.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually agree with the rights issue as you suggest (and think it's one of the better suggestions I have heard), but I think that level should be reached by the existing system so that the distribution of art is not impeded.
[ 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: 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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And they have to pay taxes on the amount they set as the value.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re:
It is, at that.
The point is that sellers can currently operate with or without copyright. Choosing to price themselves out of business is a choice they should be allowed to make. And if they make that choice, they're not restricting your rights. The reason this is the case is because you are not obligated to participate.
Well, "not participating" is exactly what downloaders do. (Actually, that's not what they do, because downloaders buy significantly more than non-downloaders, but never mind.) They don't like the price, so they go with a competitor - exactly as the free market is supposed to work.
Taking the choice out of the hands of the artists makes little sense to me. Reforming copyright law, sure. But abolishment is excessive.
I'm a reformer myself, rather than an abolitionist, but we must understand what copyright actually is: it is the legal grant to eliminate competition, backed by force.
No, because without copyright artists lose the legal ability to decide how and when their work is disseminated and reproduced.
That's not really true. The reason artists have rights is not because of copyright. Like all other types of workers, they have rights because of collective bargaining. Copyright didn't increase anyone's wages; going on strike, did.
They're free to design their own pencils.
If their design is too much like someone else's design, they are not free to design their own pencils.
In the analogy you're quoting, consumers are still consumers - the purchasers of pencils. Not the pencil makers.
If that were true, they couldn't be pirates. What is unlawful about piracy is reproduction and distribution.
Regardless, the point remains - while no one is required to keep any business in business, no outside party one should have the ability to "decide" how to keep said business in business.
Pirates do no such thing. Even with piracy, you are free to choose how to conduct your business. You are simply not allowed to decide how other people conduct their own business.
If the market will truly only support free distribution minus copyright protection, it will correct itself.
The problem is that copyright is fundamentally a restriction on the market. The market truly does support only free distribution; but instead of accepting that, IP-dependent industries use the law to try to force the market into compliance. They have a legal tool to quash competition, prevent newcomers from entering the market, and protect their own interests above all others. In their eyes, that's what copyright is for.
[ 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: Re:
Acquiring and using the material while knowingly and intentionally circumventing the cost is still participation.
"That's not really true. The reason artists have rights is not because of copyright."
If you scan in a book and re-distribute it without permission you have taken the decision of how said book is disseminated and reproduced out of the hands of the artist.
"If their design is too much like someone else's design, they are not free to design their own pencils."
Right. So they must try to conceive of a new and creative way of designing a new pencil. Which hardly seems like a bad thing to me. In my line of work, I encounter this all the time. I discard ideas that feel to similar to the work of others and try to conceive of something original. It pushes me to be more creative and has improved my work in many ways.
That said, you can't really copyright the most common design elements.
"If that were true, they couldn't be pirates. What is unlawful about piracy is reproduction and distribution."
I wasn't talking about piracy or pirates, but about copyright abolishment.
"Pirates do no such thing. Even with piracy, you are free to choose how to conduct your business."
As above, you're losing the context here.
"The market truly does support only free distribution
If that were true, no one would be able to sell anything.
[ 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: Re: Re:
Then you need to change your argument. You previously said that consumers are free to not pay the asking price. Now, you're saying that consumers who don't want to pay the asking price are not allowed to participate at all in that market.
If you scan in a book and re-distribute it without permission you have taken the decision of how said book is disseminated and reproduced out of the hands of the artist.
Not exactly. You have not prevented the artist from disseminating and reproducing the book as he or she sees fit. They can still charge whatever they like, and put whatever conditions they like on disseminating or reproducing that book. The artist has not lost any rights or abilities whatsoever.
What they have lost is the ability to prevent others from doing the same. The government has given them a monopoly on material that is similar to theirs. Copyright is simply a restriction on competition; it is a monopoly, with all of the bad things that implies.
Now, that monopoly could be beneficial to the public. In fact, I think that it was. It is not any longer, and we need to scale that monopoly back, in my opinion.
Right. So they must try to conceive of a new and creative way of designing a new pencil. Which hardly seems like a bad thing to me.
So, every single artist must re-invent the wheel, and none are allowed to use any of the knowledge from the centuries that came before them. Do you honestly think this is a good thing?
If (say) perpetual copyright was allowed, and everyone who avoided parallel 5th intervals in music was required to pay a royalty to Bach's descendants, would this actually result in more (or better) works?
Yes, that's an extreme example, but we're living in pretty extreme times, copyright-wise.
I wasn't talking about piracy or pirates, but about copyright abolishment.
The whole dichotomy actually came to me after watching your exchange with Nicedoggy (and others). You are looking at it from a viewpoint of "maximizing the art that is produced." They are looking at it from the viewpoint of "maximizing the public's use of the art (me being a member of the public)."
My point was that you are both right. Their unrestricted use is the entire purpose of copyright law, but they can't use something that isn't produced. So, the question becomes - how to we tweak the laws so that you're both happy?
"The market truly does support only free distribution"
If that were true, no one would be able to sell anything.
Quite the contrary. They just would have to sell something other than mere distribution.
Last I checked, Netflix was doing a great amount of business. Despite the fact that all of the content that they distribute can be acquired without payment.
Hell, I pay for it myself. I do that for a couple reasons: it's cheap, and it's a hell of a lot more convenient than putting up with "pirate sites." I've been a member for some years now, despite the fact that I had a couple of accounts at local movie rental stores. I even bought a DVD player so that I could stop renting VHS tapes.
This is the direction that content is going in the future - according to the free market. It's also the direction that IP-dependent industries are lobbying to make illegal, because they're "stealing" the content. At this time in history, copyright only serves to help those industries shut the upstarts down.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
I believe I made that aspect clear enough early on, though the thread is pretty thick at this point.
"Not exactly. You have not prevented the artist from disseminating and reproducing the book as he or she sees fit. They can still charge whatever they like, and put whatever conditions they like on disseminating or reproducing that book. The artist has not lost any rights or abilities whatsoever."
If I create an art book, meant to be printed in newsprint only because of the way the colors are absorbed by the paper or because I believe the texture is an integral part of the artistic experience I have crafted, and you scan in that book and transform it into something else, you have usurped control over my art. You have changed it into something it wasn't meant to be.
You may not find those aspects important. They're actually not important to me at all. But I value the opinions of many people in my field that feel very passionately about these things. These are people who have been producing art for the sake of art and money be damned - for at least 25 years. What drives them is a deep passion for their work, and it's simply human nature for that passion to come with a high need for control.
"So, every single artist must re-invent the wheel, and none are allowed to use any of the knowledge from the centuries that came before them. Do you honestly think this is a good thing?"
As I already stated, there's quite a bit copyright does not cover. No one has to re-invent the wheel. They simply need to refine it.
Yes. I honestly say this is a good thing.
"If (say) perpetual copyright was allowed, and everyone who avoided parallel 5th intervals in music was required to pay a royalty to Bach's descendants, would this actually result in more (or better) works?"
One - I know nothing about music, so your terminology looked like something from a sci-fi novel to me.
Two- I've told you many times that I favor copyright reform. What I have been speaking out against is full abolishment.
Three - So no, of course I don't. I think art should be released into the public. I just think that there needs to be a limited term protecting said art from infringement.
"My point was that you are both right. Their unrestricted use is the entire purpose of copyright law, but they can't use something that isn't produced. So, the question becomes - how to we tweak the laws so that you're both happy?"
You're asking the wrong person. I've already engaged in a discussion on this thread of alterations that could be made to copyright. Most of the others I spoke to were arguing for full abolishment. In short - yeah, I'm all for compromise. Address the question to the ones that are not.
As for the last bit - I think you've completely missed what I have been saying. That if no one will buy anything then the market will correct itself and those that insist on selling rather than freely distributing will be forced to change or vanish. You seem to be just reiterating that back to me.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Possibly, but I'm not sure you're quite getting the distinction.
For most people, piracy is simply their way of saying "I'm not paying your price for that." They wouldn't pay the asking price for the content even if they couldn't get it for free.
So, in neither case does anyone make any money. The only difference is that in one scenario, the public still gets to use the content; in the other, the public does not. All else being equal, I think the latter is a better situation.
If I create an art book, meant to be printed in newsprint only because of the way the colors are absorbed by the paper or because I believe the texture is an integral part of the artistic experience I have crafted, and you scan in that book and transform it into something else, you have usurped control over my art. You have changed it into something it wasn't meant to be.
Trust me, I know many people who are the same. (To some extent, I'm one of them.) You can't be a passionate artist without worrying over details like this. For example, lots of people I know hate file sharing, not because of fans getting free stuff, but because they hate the sound of MP3's. A few (myself included) hate to see the art they've slaved over put into the same cultural basket as Lolcats.
But really, this is the type of control that an artist should not have over their work. If we were to grant artists this kind of control, fair use goes right out the window. Plus, as Nina Paley has pointed out, the value of the work ultimately comes from the public, not the artist. Both as consumers, and as re-creators.
So, no matter how much my musican friends hate the sound of MP3's, they shouldn't have the right to prevent the public from creating them. If someone wants to listen to a beautiful symphony on crappy iPod headphones, that's their business. And if someone wants to take that newsprint book and read it on their Kindle, that's their business too.
One - I know nothing about music, so your terminology looked like something from a sci-fi novel to me.
Ha, fair enough. (FYI, it's one of the rules of harmonizing voices, especially in four-part harmony - each voice is meant to be distinct, and if you allow two of them to "travel" in parallel 5ths, they aren't distinguishable enough.)
Two- I've told you many times that I favor copyright reform. What I have been speaking out against is full abolishment.
I don't happen to believe them, but there are good arguments for full abolishment. Those arguments affect reform as well.
Three - So no, of course I don't. I think art should be released into the public. I just think that there needs to be a limited term protecting said art from infringement.
Part of the debate is what "infringement" actually is. In my view, it should not include public, non-commercial use - especially since maximizing that use is the ultimate goal of copyright (in America and England at least).
You're asking the wrong person. I've already engaged in a discussion on this thread of alterations that could be made to copyright.
True, but my point is that you seem to be only taking the artists' perspective into account. Like it or not, once anyone publishes anything, its "ownership" belongs to the public and the artists, equally.
As for the last bit - I think you've completely missed what I have been saying. That if no one will buy anything then the market will correct itself and those that insist on selling rather than freely distributing will be forced to change or vanish.
Yes, but copyright prevents the market from correcting itself. Yes, the market will correct itself - but only in the long term, after the current copyrights expire, and legacy players are indeed forced to change or vanish. Until that happens, we will have all sorts of bad laws written, all kinds of people will be put in jail, and the public will be denied the fruits of innovation that would have happened otherwise.
Netflix, thankfully, appears to be safe - despite the fact that movie studios (and others) have been attacking it since its inception. Not so lucky is Hulu. I like that service too, but if things keep going the way they are, I don't think Hulu is long for this world, and it's due 100% to copyright laws and legacy industries. Similar things are happening in music streaming.
This is one reason the abolishionists have a point: no laws are better than bad laws. Right now, we have bad laws. In a sense, the current laws are only fueling the fire for full abolishment.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure how your point relates to mine. I certainly think that we face a better scenario if the public has access to content than if they do not, but that is only presenting things in the most binary terms. My belief is that when a large scale customer base circumvents payment while still enjoying the work in question, they undermine the economic structure that the product rests upon which (in my belief) can lead to a diminished creative output. You say they would not have paid anyway. Maybe, maybe not.
"But really, this is the type of control that an artist should not have over their work. If we were to grant artists this kind of control, fair use goes right out the window."
Why does fair use go out the window? Legally speaking, we already have fair use while having copyright measures more stringent than either of us support.
"If someone wants to listen to a beautiful symphony on crappy iPod headphones"
Those same headphones sit less than a foot from me as I read your post, and I question what kind of monster I have become.
Anyway, I agree that the consumer base should have some freedom with work they have purchased. If you want to transform the art you purchased for your personal use - that's going to happen no matter what and I think it's fair. If you're going to then re-distribute work that you have altered... that's where I take issue. Even then my issue with this is only short term, compared to current copyright law.
"Part of the debate is what "infringement" actually is. In my view, it should not include public, non-commercial use - especially since maximizing that use is the ultimate goal of copyright (in America and England at least)."
I take issue with large scale re-distribution. That's likely a sticking point on this topic between us.
"True, but my point is that you seem to be only taking the artists' perspective into account. Like it or not, once anyone publishes anything, its "ownership" belongs to the public and the artists, equally."
Not according to current law. And how else do we measure this? Idealism?
Anyway, to a degree you are correct. My argument does favor the artists first and the consumer second. Because without the artist there is no art, and I believe the system should be oriented to helping artists monetize their work so that further works are created.
"Yes, but copyright prevents the market from correcting itself. Yes, the market will correct itself - but only in the long term, after the current copyrights expire, and legacy players are indeed forced to change or vanish."
If nobody buys the art from these legacy players, then said copyright holders will be forced to change or vanish sooner. This is something I agree with fully. I only take personal issue when people take this stance but help themselves to the art in question anyway.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point was that diminished creative output is only half of the equation. The other half is public use of that output. If we have enormous creative output, but the public is not allowed to use it, then copyright has failed.
Why does fair use go out the window? Legally speaking, we already have fair use while having copyright measures more stringent than either of us support.
If your friends want to prevent the public from making a copy of their book for their own use, then they're going beyond what fair use currently allows. And in the abstract, allowing artists that degree of control would give them veto power over what is currently fair use. Many would like veto power over scathing parodies, or the ability to sue news organizations that show their works in an expose. (Though not a copyright case, the recent Lindsay Lohan lawsuit comes to mind.)
If you're going to then re-distribute work that you have altered... that's where I take issue.
In my opinion, it depends upon what you mean by "re-distribute." If they charge for that re-distribution? You probably have a point. But someone who turns your friend's book into something people can read on a Kindle, then distribute it non-commercially? I have an issue with making that illegal.
I take issue with large scale re-distribution.
My issue is not at all with re-distribution, nor with scale. It's with profiting off of my content without permission. You're a fan who shares a million MP3's of my music for free? Go for it. You're a guy who sells a hundred CD's of my music on a street corner? Now I have a problem.
This may seem pretty nonsensical, but the reality is that giving away something (especially when it's an infinite good) is vastly different than selling an infringing product. Sure, some of it is purely motivated by economic self-interest. A law that allows the street-corner CD-seller will also enable mega-corporations to do the same, and we both agree that this would be a terrible thing for artists, and probably for art in general; plus, counterfeit goods have a much higher "substitution rate" than mere filesharing. But another consideration is for the public: if they buy this guy's product, they are almost certainly getting ripped off.
Some on here (especially Mike and Nina) argue that both I and the public would be better off, economically and artistically, if I allowed the street-corner vendor to hawk his wares. Their arguments have merit, but at present I'm unconvinced.
Not according to current law. And how else do we measure this? Idealism?
According to the intent of copyright law, they do. More importantly, it's the only realistic viewpoint. Once you make something available to the public, they will use it as they see fit. It's natural and, frankly, unstoppable.
Anyway, to a degree you are correct. My argument does favor the artists first and the consumer second. Because without the artist there is no art, and I believe the system should be oriented to helping artists monetize their work so that further works are created.
As I said above, this is only half of the equation. The ultimate goal of copyright, remember, is to maximize the public use of art. Obviously they can't use work that is never produced, but production - in and of itself - is not the ultimate goal of copyright.
If nobody buys the art from these legacy players, then said copyright holders will be forced to change or vanish sooner. This is something I agree with fully. I only take personal issue when people take this stance but help themselves to the art in question anyway.
As I said, I don't see a problem with members of the public who won't or can't pay "helping themselves to the art" anyway. The only "bad" thing that happens is that more people have my art. I don't see that as a problem.
I do see a problem with legacy industries blaming "piracy" for what is really the market correcting itself. Losing money? Call everyone who doesn't pay you a "pirate" (like the RIAA did with terrestrial radio), have the government write bad laws that hurt everyone for decades to come, and then fail anyway. That's what's happening now.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On a completely different subject:
Once you get some scratch, you should buy yourself a pair of Grado's. I personally think the SR-80's are the best bang for the buck, but really you can't go wrong with any of them. Your ears will thank me.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strawman, false dilemma and false dichotomy.
If you're cornered into using these tactics, then you have no argument.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strawman? He presented you with an openly hypothetical situation and asked your opinion on its implications. How is that a strawman?
False dilemma / false dichotomy (they're both the same thing)? Where did he present you with 2 choices, and pretend those were the only options? He simply presented you with a situation and asked a question with at least 3 different possible answers (yes, no and this would have had no effect).
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just for clarification: He asked me the question and I answered (to the best of my ability). The AC who you are responding to that declared the question to be a logical fallacy was someone else.
[ 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:
Yes, I know many people think that morality is "subject" to be what they want it to be. Some people belong to social groups (gangs, etc.) that define morality in terms that most benefit themselves. These people may then define murder, rape and such things as perfectly moral in their minds. Kind of like what IP supporters do with copyright.
Is Disneyland restricting your rights by charging admission?
Do gangsters restrict your rights by charging protection fees?
If you don't need a pencil, don't buy one.
But whatever you do, don't make your own! Because that would be stealing!
/s
[ 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:
[ 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 very simple fact is that to you morality is based on what you can get away with. That seems pretty easy to grasp.
[ 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: 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:
The "options of the seller" to restrict your freedom, eh? That is, indeed, a significant restriction.
You have the right to decline purchasing anything at any time.
And you have the right to decline selling. But once you do, you should have no future control over the buyer.
You are not forced to participate in anything you do not care to participate in.
Now you're really piling it on. No force? Really? Why do you think it's called law "enforcement"? Because it is by FORCE. And copyright is in turn a government granted monopoly backed by FORCE.
[ 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:
As I have already pointed out, that is akin to claiming that Disneyland has restricted your freedoms because they don;t let you in for free. Or that a car company has restricted your freedoms because they charge more than you want to pay.
As a customer you are completely free. Free to refuse to purchase any product you do not want.
"Now you're really piling it on. No force? Really? Why do you think it's called law "enforcement"? Because it is by FORCE. And copyright is in turn a government granted monopoly backed by FORCE."
For fucks sake. Seriously? Try that again but spice it up with a little bit of context and reading comprehension please.
[ 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:
Preposterous. It's more like Disney trying to put a gag order on you for the rest of you life to keep you from saying anything they don't approve of about your experience there.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We were discussing the moral aspect of copy'right' and you changed the subject by talking about the legal aspect.
"I'm discussing the legal aspect. Not the moral one."
Instead of addressing the points made.
"Morality is a reflection of the values of society. "
So first you say you're not discussing the moral aspect, and now you're discussing the moral aspect.
"Laws should be based off of the benefit to society, not the perceived "moral" value."
and my point is that copy'right' hurts society more than it benefits it and so we are better off abolishing it. I have given reasons for that. You haven't addressed them and you haven't provided reasons why copy'right' should remain beyond the speculation that less work might be created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. In my very first post I addressed the moral question afterwards I expanded the subject. There's an important distinction between the two that you seem to have completely missed.
"Instead of addressing the points made."
Because I already addressed the moral point. Like I said, find one I have ignored.
"So first you say you're not discussing the moral aspect, and now you're discussing the moral aspect."
Yes. It is capable to have two concurrent but separate discussion within one thread. And I'm only discussing the morality because people like you keep demanding I address the morality. And my answer to that has been consistent since my first post. Morality is subjective. It changes according to the demands of society, so there is no reasonable way to frame this issue as a moral question.
"and my point is that copy'right' hurts society more than it benefits it and so we are better off abolishing it. I have given reasons for that. You haven't addressed them and you haven't provided reasons why copy'right' should remain beyond the speculation that less work might be created.Which I believe was Mike's point.
And what aspect of this have I not addressed? Your simple statement of opinion? Was there more to it than that? Be specific. I fail to see how abolishing copyright is of benefit to society. Reform? Yes. Abolishment? No.
[ 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 conveniently conflate them too, huh?
And I'm only discussing the morality because people like you keep demanding I address the morality.
The real reason you should be discussing the morality is because that was the topic of the article. Or did you not bother to read it?
[ 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's funny considering how ignorant your response to me is. I have been discussing the topic of the article from my first post onwards. The point of the article, as I understood it, is that morality has no place in these matters. I acknowledged that fact with my very first post. You claim I'm conflating topics when you don't even understand what the topic really is...
[ 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:
The topic is the place of morality in copyright, not the legality of copyright (which you keep trying to inject).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This will apparently come as a shock to you, but many people *do* actually find those things to be immoral. Maybe not you and your type, but others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why I clearly stated "historically speaking".
Maybe "your type" of person has difficulty with context?
[ 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:
"Historically speaking" there were lots of people who considered those things immoral at the time. But powerful, special interest groups often influenced things. Kind of like the IP lobby does today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He didn't claim to be, either. What's more, he can point out when you're trying to change the subject too, whether you like it or not.
You have no morals outside societal conditioning. You might think otherwise. But you're wrong.
Funny. That is, itself, a perfect example of a morally bankrupt argument. I've noticed that those with no morals tend to like to pretend that morals are whatever they want them to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Morality is fluid. You can try to turn that fact into an insult all you like. It won't be any less factual.
The fact that morality is fluid is exactly why the morality argument has little place in the discussion of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For you, obviously so. In fact, I suspect that, for you, morality boils down to what you can get away with.
Sorry if the facts insult you. Them's the breaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Printers killed the market for instant photo revelation should I care about those business? nope
Digital distribution killed CD's should I care about it? nope
If some people want to get paid ask for the money before to create it and have no claims after that, you know work like others have to and be done with it.
http://www.pledgemusic.com/
Maybe the future of music is in pledge systems, live gigs and merch, but I'm certain copyrights will be changed sometime in the future, because it is so abusive right now.
[ 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:
You seem to be making assumptions about who I am; perhaps you should sign in so everyone can see that you are indeed who we suspect...
SRSLY?
[ 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:
Can you show us where in the article it says it is ok to take something without paying?
All I see is something written clarifying how we should look at copyrights, but you don't answer that and I wonder why?
Instead you jump to conclusions and go on a tangent trying to sense your way to try force a moral issue and when confronted goes running and trying to hide shame on you dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ditto yourself.
I'm talking about taking something without paying; whether its copyrighted or not is irrelevant to that question.
So now you're saying that even using non-copyrighted, public-domain stuff without making a "payment" to someone is somehow wrong? Wow. Just wow. What a sense of entitlement. But typical of your type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm still answering replies to my original post about taking something offered for sale without paying.
So sad Mike, that you must twist things to to try and further your agenda.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, if I offer non-copyright, public domain stuff for sale, then according to what you've said everyone who uses that stuff should pay me what I ask. Okay, I offer for sale the use of the English language. Now, pay up or shut up, hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See how the question of copyright is irrelevant?
Keep twisting and avoiding the point of the original question. It's all you've got left, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've noticed that multiples times this weekend you responded to an anonymous commenter, and referred to them as me. I'm not sure why you did so. I always comment signed in with my name. I was not near my computer this weekend as I had family engagements.
It's really kind of childish for you to suggest that others' opinions are mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One word: Scarcity.
The underlying principal of all economics is that for every satisfied want, there is an opportunity cost- Another want which cannot be satisfied due to limitations on resources. Price is a measure of scarcity; one must sacrifice more to obtain an expensive good than a cheaper good.
Unlike a house, car, or piece of furniture, an item of "Intellectual Property", one created and available for distribution at no extra cost to the producer, is no longer scarce, as there is nothing that must be sacrificed to obtain the good. Because no scarcity exists, and price is a measure of scarcity, such goods should be available without cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I see that you seem to be unable to read. The very title of the article for these comments has the word "copyright" right in it, so it seems to be you who is trying to change subjects while accusing others of the same thing. What a hypocrite, but then that's what I usually see from your type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I haven't read all the replies yet, but someone is bound to mention patents and trademarks, which also do not appear in the original article, and are also red herrings, a.k.a. personal philosophies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here let me do it for you...
Two hundred years ago, you could invent a new plow, patent the design, and either manufacture and sell them or license the right to do so to another. I could then buy one of your plows to use on my farm. If I were a blacksmith as well as a farmer, I could make a plow based on the one I bought and put my son to work plowing a second field while I used the “store bought” plow in my first field. Because I did not sell the plow I made and thereby did not enter the marketplace you had no legal claim over me or my actions.
If a friend comes to my house and brings a book of poetry to read over wine after dinner, that reading is beyond the reach of copyright restrictions because it is not a public performance. If I am moved by a particular poem, my friend can pass me the book and I can use pen and paper to copy the poem. If I am very skilled and have the right type of pen and paper, I may even make a copy using elaborate calligraphy that I'll frame for my wall. Because I and my friend are not participating in the marketplace, our actions are entirely beyond the reach of copyright law and restrictions founded on copyright law have no force in that situation.
If while I'm copying the poem, my friend asks me to pass her a Kleenex has she committed a trademark infringement because the box of tissues were manufactured by a competing company?
If while I'm doing my calligraphy thing, my friend stands to admire the art print on the wall above the table, I may suggest that she photograph the print so she can print a smaller version for her desk in her home office. Depending on the type of printer she has, she may even be able to print a copy large enough to hang on her wall. Again, even though I do not own the copyright to the painting from which the art print was reproduced, our actions are beyond the scope and reach of copyright law because we have not entered the marketplace with any of the copies we have made.
Now, you may argue that once my friend and I move from around my table to the internet all bets are off. But I will only yield ground to the extent that we enter the marketplace. The fact that we both have internet service from a commercial ISP is insufficient to establish that we have entered the marketplace for the same reason that my purchase of pens and paper did not render my private copying a market activity.
This is the same reasoning that applies to the singing of the happy birthday song. Sing the song at a private party and copyright is a non-issue. But if you own a restaurant and your employees sing at a customer's table, then you had better make up your own song or be prepared to hear from one of the music licensing agencies. Again, the difference is actions in the marketplace and actions outside of the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here let me do it for you...
Screw around with their bottom line, however, and you stop flying under their radar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here let me do it for you...
In the various situations that I described, what law is broken by the actions described? Am I mistaken in thinking that private acts not involving active participation in the marketplace have historically been beyond the purview of copyright/patent law and that the inclusion of such acts as legally actionable violations of the law is a relatively new application of the law?
Comparing today's digital file sharing with the copying of vinyl records onto cassette tapes of the late '70s and early '80s – have the laws changed or is it only the application of the law that has increased in situations which were in the past overlooked as not worth the effort to pursue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There could be a time where you washing machine would not accept "unauthorized" detergent brands, or it could tweet to the police if an unauthorized technician tried to open it.
Those things the crazy defenders of copyright never address and I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because you offer something for sale doesn't mean anyone has to pay you for it. Now if someone takes it away from you without paying for it, that's theft and we consider that to be wrong, both legally and morally. However, if someone acquires what you have without taking it away from you and still doesn't pay for it, that's not theft and there is nothing morally wrong with that. Due to copyright laws, there may be legal consequences, but there is nothing morally wrong with it.
Can you refute that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That you never address and I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one is entitled to a monopoly on anything.
I'm not entitled to the air I breath. It's my right to breath it. It's my right to copy as I please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says who?
I like this idea of making up rules that work for yourself without consideration of anyone else.
I've made up a new one too: I have the right to come over every morning and repeatedly kick you in the balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The founding fathers for one. But that's irrelevant. No person said it, it's the fact that I can do it without government that makes it a natural right.
"I like this idea of making up rules that work for yourself without consideration of anyone else."
Copy'right' is a rule that works for IP maximists and with little consideration for others. IP abolition isn't a rule that works for me without consideration for someone else, it's the lack of a rule. I'm not making up rules that work for me without consideration of anyone else, you are, and I am saying that these made up rules shouldn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The founding fathers said nothing of the sort.
This is easily the best thread in TD history. I set that shizz up on a tee, and you freetards hit it out of the park.
Stoked that Victoria Espinel supposedly reads this site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect you have been around techdirt long enough to know better and you are simply being disingenuous here.
See
http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ide as/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml
http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jeffe rson/
and there are other quotes with the same type of language from them. The founding fathers were very skeptical of these laws and they did not consider them to be natural rights. They considered their absence to be the normal state of nature and thought that they should exist only to the extent that they promote the progress.
[ 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:
I see nothing about the "founding fathers" saying people have a "right to copy"; taking an artistic work that is for sale without paying for it.
The fact that you guys have to stretch and spin this hard says everything.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The context of patents and copy'right' were often discussed together and they were written together. The same general attitude about ideas that apply patents can reasonably apply to their concept of copy'right' as well. Heck, Jefferson didn't even really believe anyone had a natural right to his house or land.
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance."
How much more do you think that applies to ideas and books (read what he wrote). No one is entitled to a monopoly on anything and its everyone's natural right to copy as they please. These laws exist for one reason and one reason alone, to promote the progress, not to enforce a right that artists don't have.
"By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common"
It's everyone's natural right to copy whatever they please as they please. The founding fathers believed this. Just like its everyone's natural right to use any piece of land that as they please, the same thing applies to ideas and expressions, even moreso. That's why the constitution allows their existence only for the purpose of promoting the progress, not for the purpose of protecting some 'right' that artists allegedly have. They believed no such right existed. Provide me quotes that suggest otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? If she reads the comments, it's likely this site has set back the anti-IP crowd back decades further than the most effective RIAA/MPAA lobbyist could ever have dreamed.
[ 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:
In case you hadn't noticed, the shizz getting hit out of the park are your balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See? I knew you were from the copyright industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says who?
It is just the obvious default position. On the contrary, people like you made up the rules that say you can't.
I like this idea of making up rules that work for yourself without consideration of anyone else.
As I said, people like you like making up rules to impose on others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bzzt. Wrong. If you don't like the terms, you are free to walk away. Nothing is imposed on you whatsoever. This was pointed out in the very first post. Try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument is similar to saying that the Chinese government restricting free speech isn't an imposition because it doesn't force people to express their free speech. No, it's still an imposition. The government is imposing its will that people can't express their free speech on others.
The government is imposing its will that I can't copy whatever I please without complying with your terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're using the government to force me to avoid repeatedly kicking you in the balls without complying with your terms. That's an imposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water. But, by your logic, just because I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water, now I must disagree with them preventing you from punching me in the face. No, that's nonsense. I do not have to agree with every possible imposition just to agree with some.
but I do think that I have a much better chance of getting many people to agree with my position of copy'right' abolition than you have of getting others to agree with your position that the government lets you kick others for no reason. If you want the imposition that restricts you from kicking me abolished, go vote. I vote it stays, I vote copy'right' goes. If enough people agree with you, maybe you can have your way. If they agree with me, maybe I can have my way. It's called democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with copyright. Not being able to kick you in the balls is an imposition that I don't agree with. Just because some impositions are desirable doesn't make all impositions desirable. I don't have to agree with every possible imposition that the government can come up with just to agree with some.
I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water. But, by your logic, just because I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water, now I must disagree with them preventing you from punching me in the face. No, that's nonsense. I do not have to agree with every possible imposition just to agree with some.
I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water. But, by your logic, just because I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water, now I must disagree with them preventing you from copying music without the creator's permission. No, that's nonsense. I do not have to agree with every possible imposition just to agree with some.
but I do think that I have a much better chance of getting many people to agree with my position of copy'right' abolition than you have of getting others to agree with your position that the government lets you kick others for no reason. If you want the imposition that restricts you from kicking me abolished, go vote. I vote it stays, I vote copy'right' goes. If enough people agree with you, maybe you can have your way. If they agree with me, maybe I can have my way. It's called democracy.
but I do think that I have a much better chance of getting many people to agree with my position of being able to kick you in the balls than you have of getting others to agree with your position that the government should abolish copyright. If you want the imposition that copyright is to you to be abolished, go vote. I vote it stays, I vote not being able to kick you in the balls goes. If enough people agree with you, maybe you can have your way. If they agree with me, maybe I can have my way. It's called democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is why you get so upset, if it helps I don't pirate anything, I get my software from open source, my music from Jamendo, my video needs from Miro which allows me to search for specific licenses like CC Commons and books from Librivox.
Well, I did copy all my DVD's to my NAS so technically I'm a pirate because it is against the law, but I'm not going to fallow that inside my own home with things that I have already paid for, no matter what the law says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh, you couldn't make the moral argument stick, so now you're falling back on the legal argument. Legal doesn't mean moral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
License with purchase? Either you licensed it's use or you purchased it, not both. Those terms are mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People expect that if you don't want to allow others to copy your work, no one is forcing you to distribute it, but don't expect others or a government to enforce a monopoly for you if you choose to distribute it. Monopolies cost time and money to enforce, others have to spend the time and effort to determine what is and what isn't infringement and that time and effort is worth money you aren't entitled to the benefits of the time and effort spent to enforce your monopoly.
"This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why."
No, it is addressed. If you don't want others to copy something you said or distributed, simply don't say it and don't distribute it. No one is forcing you to. But don't expect others to let you monopolize something that you choose to distribute. That's the moral of the story. Copy'right' isn't about making sure that people get paid, the founding fathers didn't intend for it to be. The founding fathers recognize that no one is entitled to a (free or non-free) monopoly. It's about promoting the progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quality content costs time and money to create.
If you don't want to pay me for my work, then don't avail yourself to my labor. That's a simple contract that society follows, in case you haven't noticed.
And you obviously value it a great deal, as you are so addicted to it that you must obtain it illegally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So?
"If you don't want to pay me for my work, then don't avail yourself to my labor."
A: Don't tell me what to do. If you don't like me copying your work then find another job.
B: If you don't want me to have your content without paying then I won't consume your content period and you won't get paid. I'll respect your wishes, and so would many others, but I do not want the law to enforce your specific wishes.
"And you obviously value it a great deal, as you are so addicted to it that you must obtain it illegally."
I do not obtain it illegally. I do follow the law.
"That's a simple contract that society follows"
I never agreed to this contract and I want it abolished.
"in case you haven't noticed."
I think most of society doesn't follow it and hasn't followed it in the past. Ie: see China. It's an imposition that the government wrongfully imposes on us, it's not a contract that I ever agreed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, wait, you were serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't tell me what to do. If you don't want to pay for someone's labor but still want the end result...
Do it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
no one is telling you what to do. If you don't want to find another job ... I guess we have a welfare program for you. You don't have to find another job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile others are growing and having a blast on the market, have you visit Jamendo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mix tapes, VCR, Walkmans, Discmans, MP3 players, digital readers, photocopiers and so forth, at some point you violated the laws you don't want other to break now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright applies automatically. There is no "time and money" test applied to qualify for copyright. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of "quality" content produced for little time and money, and plenty of crap produced with lots of time and money. So your time and money = quality thesis is just another example of more copyright bunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No danger of that. Although if you don't want anyone to view or listen to content you create, you should probably considering not publishing it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I didn't address your question, because it's a dishonest question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As soon as the wealthy start paying back to society the wealth they have extracted at the expense of the rest of society, they and their advocates will have to forgive my inability to pretend that they have any moral high ground from which they can preach about thinking you're entitled to benefit from someone else's labor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If something is offered for sale than it is up to the consumer/market to either accept that offer, negotiate a better one, or refuse it.
That is basic common sense and I don't see anyone saying different here.
Though having sold the item in question after the acceptance was done by the purchaser what copyright is then allowing the offerer to do is change the terms of that offer after acceptance has occurred.
Say I you bought an item 50yrs ago. At that time you were under the absolute knowledge that in 50yrs time or so that item would be out of copyright and you could then do WHATEVER you wanted with it.
40yrs later all of a sudden the offerer goes running to the government sobbing and creating FUD screaming that they require more money from things they had already sold. THE DESERVE IT. They are struggling artists/publishers/fraudsters/whatever and they cannot survive and neither can their silver spoon fed offspring without the terms of the ORIGINAL SALE being changed retrospectively.
So, I am now left with an item that is valueless to me under one of the the original conditions of why I purchased it in the beginning.
But hey lets not talk about forfeiture of contract, unconscionable behaviour, estoppel, fraud, etc because its all about copyright.. its different.. *eye roll*
Think of the artists and what they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know that actual base precedent law that has been around since before the USA was a republic and is the foundation of all transactions in commerce everywhere in the world nowadays.
Contracts cannot be retrospectively changed without full consent of all parties to the contract.
Contracts of Sale on the other hand cannot be changed at all since once the sale has been finalised the contract has been completed and therefore NO variation on terms of that contract can be changed by any party since there is no longer an actual contract. Though there is a contractual agreement and caveat on the ORIGINAL INSTANCE of sale
If copyright law had been extended with the priviso that it will only affect copyrightable items that had been created AFTER the extension had been passed into law then we wouldn't be having this major problem we currently do.
But alas, artists need to feed their families for stuff they did when they were alive or decades before, that had already been sold for some sort of value. They deserve it.. whereas if I did the exact same thing to artists and retrospectively had the law changed that the original sale of their item was now TAXED differently and that either they or their extate had to pay it NOW all hell would break loose..
Tell me, what is the difference between my proposal to retrospectively Tax the original sale, and what artists (and their agents) currently have allowed to happen? Since one could equate retrospective copyright extension as a ' private tax/fee'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly for you, it wouldn't be that easy. A step in the right direction is still only one step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly for you, it wouldn't be that easy. A step in the right direction is still only one step.
As I suspected, retroactive copyright extension is indeed a red herring for you. It's your Sudetenland. It's what you use to distract people from your full but hidden agenda.
Color me unsurprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, you copywhiners frequently behave as if you're only talking to one person, so I'll forgive you if you're confusing me for someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everybody knows you're addicted to content, resent that you are and that you have to rip people off to feed your addiction like an alley crack bum.
You also resent the fact that creators live a much more exciting life than you could ever dream of having. You're all very sad, pathetic creatures.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jamendo owns your freaking face...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just wanted to point out that my comments above were not in response to ahveing read that article but are actually dealing with basic moral, ethical, and LEGAl reasonings on contract law and SALE of goods.
Also it must be noted that this does NOT apply to licensed items of copyright since retrospective action can occur since the contract was NOT a contract of sale. Licensing is a whole new quandary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess we can count ourselves fortunate that not everyone thinks the way you do.
Still, you're missing the point that Mike has said many, many times that he agrees with you: if a copyright holder chooses not to make their works available the way you want to consume them, then the correct legal choice under the current system is to walk away.
The reason many people don't walk away, and go for an illegal copy instead, is that they figure they're using their own resources (power, bandwidth, time) to create a new copy, rather than taking anything from anyone. Is someone taking a photo of the Eiffel Tower stealing it? Enjoying benefits they aren't entitled to? That's the kind of point of view you're railing against here.
And that brings us to another point Mike regularly brings up: it doesn't have to be this way. Many artists have shown that you can give fans what they want (convenient access to your work) and still make a decent living. Probably not the obscene mega-profits of the winners of the current hit-based lottery systems, but certainly enough to sustain a comfortable middle-class lifestyle for the artist and their family.
One way adds a lot of net misery to the human condition (artists stressing about people "stealing" their work, fans struggling to get their hands on the products of their favourite artists, law enforcement barging in on adolescents and grandmothers). The other way... doesn't. We can do better. We should do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the context of current intellectual property laws and the associated public debate, discuss the following proposition: "Tourists taking their own photos of the Eiffel Tower are stealing from local professional photographers and postcard vendors."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
not even close to what the article was talking about... but kudos for the attempt and oh by the way, your post pretty much just proved one of the points of the article.
as to your post itself:
you can think all you want that if someone creates something and offers it for sale that it must be paid for.
but dont think the world owes you a living just because you created something.
your last sentence can only mean one of three things
1. you dont actually read everything here
2. you are stupid
3. you are intentionally being misleading
your moral crusade is addressed here all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you put your couch up for sale, and I want to buy it, AND we agree on the value of it, you get paid I get the couch.
If I want to consume your ideas because I value them, I buy you a beer and become your friend. Then I have access to all your ideas for free. (yes, it reductive and cynical, but it will serve for the purpose)
Added value only exist in the second case as the collision of our ideas can and usually ends up creating something that is greater that the some of its parts. This is what copyright keeps from happening and why its limitations can only be 'balanced' against the loss for society has a whole.
Now if you want to sell your ideas, you have to prove first that they are worth buying... like everyone else. You don't deserve to get paid just cause you decided your ideas are worth something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But if I put my couch up for sale, and you want to buy it, BUT you don't agree on the value, I don't get paid and you still get the couch?
Bzzt.
That's not how it works and you know it.
The only difference is you can take the "couch" (media) without paying and without fear of being charged by law enforcement.
Problem needs a solution.
Law enforcement must be able to somehow protect the "couch" owner.
And that is indeed what law enforcement is finally doing.
Which makes Mike Masnick and the rest of the freetards here very angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The day that I can freely make copies of your couch is the day that your argument makes sense. The difference in this analogy is that, just because I get the couch doesn't mean you lose the couch. You still have it. I just made a copy. Sure, I get the value of the couch, but you get the value of the air you breath and you're not paying me for it. So what?
"The only difference is you can take the "couch" (media) without paying and without fear of being charged by law enforcement."
No one is taking the couch, we're just making copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only because taking the couch deprives you of it. But making a copy of it does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm selling you the air that you're breathing. You don't agree on the price, you want to pay nothing, but I'm still not getting paid and you're still getting the air that you're breathing. Now pay me.
Just because someone isn't getting paid for something doesn't mean that they can morally deprive someone else of it. You have no moral basis of depriving me of a copy of that couch. So what if you don't get paid, I'm not getting paid for the air that you breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No,you get to keep your stinky old couch and I can go build my own copy if I want to.
That's not how it works and you know it.
That's exactly how it works (although you may wish I *didn't* know it).
Law enforcement must be able to somehow protect the "couch" owner.
From the couch copier? Sounds kind of corrupt to me.
And that is indeed what law enforcement is finally doing.
What a shame.
Which makes Mike Masnick and the rest of the freetards here very angry.
And the IP-tards very happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one in a business venture deserves anything. They must work to build a market for their creations. A market has two components supply and demand. Demand also has two components and that is how many people want the product and at what price they are willing to pay. For example if there is a high demand for your product but your price is very high then even though there is a high demand the actual market will be very low because only a few will be willing to pay that price.
The Internet has created a dilemma in normal market forces of supply and demand. Normally in a real market when something is scarce it adds value to it especially when there is a large demand however the internet has made supply equal to demand, there will always be a download for every person that wants it. There is no scarcity which is always going to lower prices and will even tend to zero if that is where the market sets it.
Copyrighters decry piracy but piracy is in fact a market unto itself. This market is actually separate from the copyrighter's market. Copyrighters claim they are losing billions to unauthorized copying but are they really? I would suggest no, because their market and the pirate market, for the most part, are separate and have very little overlap. People who buy or take bootlegs will not buy the legitimate item even if the bootleg was not available. On the flip side those that are willing to pay the asking price for the product are not the ones buying bootlegs. So even if the movie or music or software or what ever industry was to completely stomp out all illegal forms of distribution they will not see a significant increase in their revenues because the market for the bootleg items was never theirs and never will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why.
Funny you claim this, because it was addressed, point blank, in the article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As well, your strawman is ridiculously oversimplified, and glosses over the issues. Typically many people pirate because they want consume something in a fashion other than it is offered.
Consider movies. I don't want to shell out $20 bucks a ticket, find a sitter, schlepp to and from the theater, line up for an hour to get decent seats, get gouged at the concession stand, and sit in a smelly, poorly maintained theater with some idiot who brought their crying baby, while some other asshole tries to take pictures of the screen with their flash on (I've had this happen, took the theater an hour to do anything about it) in order to see a movie, when I can watch it in my home.
Consider the success of netflix despite widespread availability of exactly the same material over bittorrent.
The arrogance of trying to control how people consume what you sell is the fallacy. Further, with anything digital which can be downloaded, it's downright stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The basic logical/physical fact is that abstract objects are infinitely reproducible. So a law or rule that constrains transactions to only symmetrical pay-for-copy is necessarily restricting what would otherwise be available.
Why restrict a beneficial abundance, where there is no essential need? Any rule that does that really ought to seem immediately suspect morally. And for any 'natural rights' position it seems impossible that it can ever give a satisfactory answer.
The response that pay-for-copy pays for production fails, because there is nothing *essential* in that arrangement. Logically, the copies depend on production, not the reverse; and it is quite possible for production to be paid for in other ways. So pay-for-copy is neither forced by necessity, nor provides something otherwise unavailable that would compensate for loss of use of copy abundance.
The response that pay-for-copy benefits the 'owner' fails, because it is not a *universalised* justification. A moral rule is one that makes sense for all. It is justified not simply by its gain for an individual, but as something that works for everyone. Since pay-the-'owner'-for-copy restricts access to the abundance of copies, but only to the benefit of an individual, or in aggregate to no net benefit, it is not persuasive morally.
The only reasonable argument for pay-for-copy is the orthodox economic one of supporting and sustaining a market. This is a pragmatic moral argument: one that is a matter of evidence and practicality (neither of which currently stands up well) -- so if you want to argue for copy-restriction, you need to set to work there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh goody, because I offer licenses for sale to people allowing them to breath the air on planet Earth.
"But don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for."
Really? How much did you pay for the benefit of posting your comment here? Are you breathing the air? Have you bought one of my licenses?
This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why.
Perhaps you have reading problems, because it's been "addressed" here many, many times. Now you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So people should be allowed to pollute as much air as they want without paying for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can prove that I have the right to my license, the one for music.
Can you prove that you have the right to your license for the sun?
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since the discussion is about moral rights, I have every bit as much right to that license and anyone does to any IP license, which you have been supporting. Now pay up, freetard!
Oh, wait, you're not a freetard. You're a hypocrite. I guess you won't pay then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The moral right? Go ahead, prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You don't usually pay the creators directly, you pay their representative and assignees. There are plenty of churches out there willing to take your money. If you can't find one, let me know and I'll start one for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius
What if Michael Angelo had been raised by monkeys?
Red Hat is now only after a short time a Billion dollar company. You can download their product for free and legally off the internet. So how do they make their money, you figure that out genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Genius
Many companies are realizing this and switching to CentOS instead, which is the free version of RHEL. RHEL is already purposefully behind the curve and CentOS is now lagging the latest RHEL release by five months. So can you really get RHEL for free? No, you can't. They use trademark law to make it painful for people to get their actual, real product for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Genius
Hey I work for the largest company in the world, and they have an IT department too, a Microsoft house if you will. And you really don't want to know what I and all those that work with me think about that. It seems that they have outsourced to Disney Land when they should have outsourced to Google. A corporate service level should not "Waaaay" be lower than what I get at home for free.
Maybe you should read the book "Idea Man" by Paul Allen and his experiences with Bill Gates the shark champion of monopolies, patents and copyright. I have a copy of Bill's original letter to the hobbyists if you want to see it.
But again the point, "copyright is not required to run a viable business" there are many others whose product can be downloaded by the user for free. Canonical, Google, Yahoo etc. etc. come to mind, but I suppose you will have some problem with them too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Genius
About support, yah, yah, yah is all about fear right?
Not because people need something they can use and don't have the money to expend on other solutions and the proof that it makes money despite being free is that RHEL is almost a billion dollar company already.
Also there Oracle Linux(from Oracle LoL WTF), Scientific Linux(from Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory), Yellow Dog Linux, ClearOS and others is that free or what?
I just believe you are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
Quote:
I could even become an unauthorized reseller if I wanted too.
Quote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Now please shows us all were in the law says I can't do that.
Because you know without the specific law, you are telling stories about unicorns LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
Why am I an idiot when you're the one that's clearly wrong?
Read the following very carefully. If it doesn't make sense, read it again. If it still doesn't make sense, ask a smarter friend to explain it to you.
RedHat has done an "end-run" of sorts around the GPL by incorporating their trademarks throughout the software. Trademark law is a completely separate branch of law than copyright law. The GPL does not also require you to donate your trademarks. So, while you can certainly download RHEL and even the source code for it, you then have to go through an onerous auditing process to scrub all of RedHat's (and other) trademarks out of the system before you can legally redistribute it. This is what CentOS and other distributions have to do.
Apparently this is not very easy, since RHEL 6 came out 5 months ago, and CentOS 6 (the equivalent build) is not ready yet.
Here is a list of all the packages that still have to be manually audited in preparation for a release of CentOS free of trademark restrictions.
Now please shows us all were in the law says I can't do that.
This is that law. There. Now please kindly apologize for calling me an idiot when it is your ignorance on display here.
If you still refuse to believe any of this, you might want to head over and update the Wikipedia entry for RHEL to correct the following statement, which you assert is wrong:
While trademark restrictions prevent free re-distribution of officially supported versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, compliance with open source licenses requires Red Hat to freely provide the source code for the distribution's software.
Please don't complain when your changes are swiftly reverted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
Source: Red Hat Enterprise Agreement
Here is my apology:
I'm an idiot, and acted like a jackass longing for some public shame, my sincere apologizes for calling you and idiot, you were right about Red Hat being able to stop others from using a verbatim copy of the enterprise edition without scrubbing the trademarks.
Also I want to thank you for enriching my knowledge.
However that doesn't mean I will not act like an idiot in the future and not call you one again. I reserve the right to be an idiot from time to time :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
Red Hat does not write, and their user agreements are not, the law. Quoting their self-written agreement as "the law" is a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
If I recall correctly, that's only if you modify it. I could be wrong but that's the way I remember it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
You are correct. Red Hat's trademark only prevents you from making your own distribution and passing it off as Red Hat. It does not keep you from passing on unmodified copies (as claimed above) as Red Hat if they are genuine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius
That is because they are distributing a different product, not actual RHEL. Calling their product RHEL would indeed violate trademark law. Understand?
This is that law.
Except "that law" doesn't say what you claimed. Nice try.
If you still refuse to believe any of this, you might want to head over and update the Wikipedia entry for RHEL to correct the following statement, which you assert is wrong:
While trademark restrictions prevent free re-distribution of officially supported versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, compliance with open source licenses requires Red Hat to freely provide the source code for the distribution's software.
You don't seem to know how to use Wikipedia. Just being written there doesn't make something true. You need to check the source. In this case, that statement is based on another statement by a person named Eric S. Raymond. Raymond is a famous computer programmer, but that doesn't make him a lawyer or a good source of legal information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reply to AC's OP.
If they don't want to consume it, walk away and don't pay anything.
But don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for.
This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why."
Your argument is missing a few key items and making false assumptions. Firstly, what are you selling? Are you selling physical property or the services of an author/artist? If it is your exclusive physical property, then no individual has the right to take it. If you're talking about a service, there is nobody that can take it from you against your will.
There is no law or statue that gives you the right to demand payment for anything you demand payment for. For example, you cannot demand payment for property you do not own. Thus is the situation with creative works. You don't own them exclusively, because they belong to everyone. Copyright assigns the right of control of the work to you for a limited amount of time. This the biggest false assumption every supporter of copyright makes. They think that copyright gives them title of property over the works they create when, in fact, it does not. The copyright belongs to you, but not the work it applies to. The works belong to everyone. Why else would the copyright be temporary? Copyright is the exception to the public domain. The public domain is the rule.
If was truly your property, should it not be your property forever? It isn't forever, because it's not your property. It is a temporary monopoly to restrict the use and distribution of a work to create an opportunity to earn a profit from the work. Copyright does not grant the holder the right to be paid, only the opportunity to sell it while others are excluded from doing the same. If the copyright term expires and you made no money from your work, the terms of the copyright are still satisfied, because it is not a right to payment.
You may not have mentioned copyright specifically, but that was an attempt on your part to obfuscate the argument in your favor by passing off false colloquial concepts that do not exist in our codified laws because they set up a standard that would be damaging to the rights of all people. And specifically, it would damage our ability to create and assimilate new cultural symbols.
This "moral" concept you posit is not discussed here because it is false, illogical, and doesn't hold muster against our existing laws. The reason you discuss it is because you don't understand what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find it extremely amusing that you choose the internet to spout your stupidity in this area. Decrying "freeloaders" on a platform that owes its very existence to multiple acts of "freeloading", and its success to even more such acts. Yet, you're happily using this while claiming that art itself is dependent on restrictive contracts and paid rentals. Your own arguments contradict themselves, and your actions contradict even those arguments that are consistant.
I also see your moronic comments later on down, somehow attacking Red Hat for managing to make money from a "free" product while displaying a total misunderstanding of what the GPL actually is.
Your reading comprehension is also rather suspect, being that you responded to an article about the fallacy of moral arguments by presenting... a moral argument - one that is so simplified and irrelevant that it would amaze me if it weren't your typical M.O.
Your ignorance and arrogance are astounding. If only you took the time you waste on here educating yourself on simple facts and conversational manners, you would actually learn something. Instead, you choose to display your ignorance to the entire planet. Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a rather blanket statement that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.
1. I find air a very beneficial resource, but I generally don't pay anyone for the privilege of breathing.
2. As the article points out, our current technological works are based on thousands of years of progress that you reap the benefit of, but that you don't pay for. On behalf of all the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of Zog the Caveman you don't pay royalties to, you're welcome.
3. I am not "entitled" to any work you create. That is, to say, I cannot force you to give me a copy of a particular work, if you were to choose to not release it (for example). Nor do I have a right to demand that any given person on the internet send me a copy of the work. However, if you (or someone on the internet) choose to give me a copy of that work, I will accept it graciously. That is not the same thing as feeling "entitled" to receive it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
IP-tards would like to change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you saying you think it's ok to take something that is for sale without paying and without permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The creator of your car have the right to be paid every time you use your car, you can't lend it without paying the creator. The creator of your car also have a legitimate claim to your earnings since you use it to make a profit right?
Do you pay the car creator every time you use their property to make money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To put it another way: A book might take a years worth of labor to write. What you pay for said book is a fraction of the cost as measured by labor. To make this system work, the purchase comes with specific limitations attached. Limited rights to distribution and reproduction. That way the cost of the book is spread out amongst many people.
But when you buy a car? You pay the full price of materials and labor plus a heft percentage. Same with a house.
Now, if you WANT to buy the equivalent rights to a book, if you want to own it fully, you often CAN. But the cost is higher. Just like when you want to own a house instead of renting one or own a car instead of renting one. You take that economic plunge, you can do with your property what you wise. Within reason, of course. Restrictions on rights of homeowners do still exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They could just ask people to pay for the production of their work like in pledgemusic and have no further claims that would save millions in enforcement costs and liberate the courts to keep track of some serious crap that needs to be addressed like real criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are not the same, in the same way that copyright infringement is not theft because the original creator/owner is not deprived of anything other that artificially created rent. If I steal your shovel, you've lost a shovel. But if I make a copy of your shovel, you haven't lost anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, the "rent" IS artificially created. That's why the price is a fraction of the cost one would normally be expected to pay for a years worth of labor. Displacing the cost amongst many helps allow art to be sold at a price much lower than would normally be dictated according to labor involved. Trying to make the economics of art analogous to the economics of cars or houses or tangible property ignores the very real differences between these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You incorrectly assume that copy'right' is the only way to recover the cost of art. No, art has been and will continue to be created without such laws. People will find other ways to recover the cost of art. The cost of the original art, for instance, is generally worth far more than the cost of a copy and in many instances collectors and museums are willing to pay that cost. They can then distribute those costs over to their visitors by charging them an entrance fee. Just because visitors may have copies of that art online doesn't mean no one will ever go to a museum and pay the entrance fee. If anything, those online pictures will often encourage more people to go see the original.
There are many other ways people can recover the costs of creating art. Heck, many people who create art do it as a hobby out of enjoyment and they would be more than happy to release that art to the public to freely copy. Art will continue without these laws. Even if some won't create art without these laws, I'm fine with that, they can find other ways to contribute to the economy by finding other jobs instead. I don't want the government directing people to create art over the labor that people would otherwise produce elsewhere because that creates artificially less labor elsewhere in the economy.
[ 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:
That is a one solution that is a problem for society right now and it will get changed.
[ 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:
Even if some won't create art without these laws, I'm fine with that, they can find other ways to contribute to the economy by finding other jobs instead.
Spoken like a true enemy of the arts.
Good thing the Constitution protects us and provides for a way "to promote the progress of the arts"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The comment you are responding to was not from me. Why claim it was?
But, if we are to take your specific point, I am a content creator -- and, as some note, a rather prolific one. But, really, that's besides the point. I do not comment on creating art. I do comment on a subject I am familiar with, which is the *economics* involved.
By your reasoning, since we are not talking about art, but the economics of creation, then I assume you will now bow out of the discussion until you show us your economics degree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You already know how that would work for you.
You're naive if you think we don't understand why you're obsessed with the New York Times.
The only worth this place has is eyeballs for your ads. And I personally have generated plenty of page views for you this weekend lol.
And it's nothing to me; a way to kill time and rest my ears while taking breaks from...
Creating art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FFS
Why do we have so many clubs who have nothing better to do than be annoyances...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh?!? That makes no sense. A paywall has nothing to do with value at all. I mean, this is a fundamental mistake that shows you are not an economist. You are proving the exact point that I have been making. By your reasoning, you should not be commenting on this topic since you do not have the fundamental understanding on it.
(And for anyone who isn't reading the thread, I am making this argument based on his reasoning -- that only artists can comment on art. My point is that *if that's true* then clearly only economists can comment on economics. That conclusion is just as silly as saying only artists can comment on art.)
You already know how that would work for you.
Yes, it would work poorly, just as every paywall works poorly. Because paywalls are a bad business model. I'm not sure what you think you're proving here.
You're naive if you think we don't understand why you're obsessed with the New York Times.
Hmm? I like the NY Times and I don't want them making a bad business decision. I think I've said that before. I don't see how my position on that is hidden.
The only worth this place has is eyeballs for your ads. And I personally have generated plenty of page views for you this weekend lol.
Significantly less than half of our revenue comes from ads. So, no, you're wrong.
Again.
Will you admit it? Of course not.
And, you're also wrong that you've generated plenty of pageviews. While there are lots of comments on this post, it hasn't generated many more pageviews than an average post.
Creating art.
Good for you. Hopefully your art is better than your economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has nothing to do with your definition of value. That isn't really a surprise though, is it?
How about you put up a paywall and we'll see whose does better, yours or the NYT's.
Or skip that step and we'll just agree that more people value the NYT's content than yours...
I am making this argument based on his reasoning -- that only artists can comment on art.
Don't put words in my mouth, Mike. It's a douchebag move.
Artists have a better perspective on what affects them than you do. Live with it.
Significantly less than half of our revenue comes from ads.
Significantly less than half of the blog's (just Techdirt) revenue comes from ads? ok, seeing as you're such a beacon of transparency, where does it come from?
While there are lots of comments on this post, it hasn't generated many more pageviews than an average post.
ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your definition of value is profit? So the air you breath has no value because you don't pay for it? No, value and profit are two different words with different meanings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sloppy work there, pal.
I wrote:
"we'll just agree that more people value the NYT's content"
Does the sentence
"we'll just agree that more people make money from the NYT's content"
make sense?
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"How about you put up a paywall and see how much your "content" is really worth."
Paywall = for profit. Something doesn't have to be profitable to be valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not my definition of value. The actual definition of value.
How about you put up a paywall and we'll see whose does better, yours or the NYT's.
Um. Which part of *a paywall is a stupid idea* did you not understand?
Or skip that step and we'll just agree that more people value the NYT's content than yours...
Um, duh. Of course more people value the NYT than Techdirt. We're a small site. They're the NY Times. But that's got nothing to do with a paywall.
Don't put words in my mouth, Mike. It's a douchebag move.
Seriously dude. Do you really want me to highlight the many many times you put words in my mouth? I mean, you did so just above in this thread, where you flat out LIED and claimed I said that touring was the only business model.
You do it nearly every day, claiming that I support file sharing. You do it nearly every day when you say that I do not support artists.
You put words in my mouth when you falsely claim that I dislike artists. You put words in my mouth when you claim I support "Marxism."
Seriously, you owe me an apology. You claim it's a "douchebag move" to put words in someone's mouth? Look in the mirror.
Artists have a better perspective on what affects them than you do. Live with it.
Economists have a better perspective on what impacts the economy. Live with it.
And that's the whole point. You don't ask the sugar monopolists if they prefer a monopoly or not. That's why asking you whether or not you want a gov't monopoly is pretty silly, isn't it?
Significantly less than half of the blog's (just Techdirt) revenue comes from ads? ok, seeing as you're such a beacon of transparency, where does it come from?
No, significantly less than half of Floor64's revenue comes from ads. The rest comes from other work that we do, including the Insight Community, research, consulting, speaking and our own direct e-commerce.
ha
I prove you wrong and that's the best you can do?
Anyway, seriously, you owe me an apology, or at least an admission that you called yourself a douchebag.
Will you apologize? Doubtful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value
Which part of *a paywall is a stupid idea* did you not understand?
The part where you actually explain why it's a stupid idea. Like the part where nobody uses it. Like the part where Murdoch's Times paywall didn't work.
Do you really want me to highlight the many many times you put words in my mouth? you flat out LIED and claimed I said that touring was the only business model.
Is that a quote?
Nope it's not.
When confronted about recouping album costs, the FIRST thing you said was "that's not true. We've already seen that many musicians make a lot more money touring than on albums"
I said "OIC, so musicians must now go on the road in order to make a living?"
Funny thing, I don't see the word 'only' in my post. You put words in my mouth while you were arguing about me putting words in your mouth. Nice.
But why stop there:
"You do it nearly every day, claiming that I support file sharing."
I call you a piracy apologist, because you are a piracy apologist. You post about every piracy news item, and essentially every time figure out a way to side with the pirates. A few times a year you throw in a token post amongst the thousands you write that isn't biased, just to try and claim you're impartial.
No, significantly less than half of Floor64's revenue comes from ads.
oh, so now it's Floor 64, after I said "The only worth this place has is eyeballs for your ads", obviously referring to Techdirt.
And you say I owe you an apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm trying to figure out how that means putting up a paywall proves your value?
The part where you actually explain why it's a stupid idea. Like the part where nobody uses it. Like the part where Murdoch's Times paywall didn't work.
The Times paywall didn't work. We went through the numbers. They're making a very small amount of money for the staff they have compared to similar *open* publications. If you don't think we've shown that it's stupid, you're not paying attention.
And since when is the definition of "stupid" that "no one uses it." There are lots of stupid people out there who make stupid decisions, in large part because they're clueless about economics.
I said "OIC, so musicians must now go on the road in order to make a living?"
Funny thing, I don't see the word 'only' in my post. You put words in my mouth while you were arguing about me putting words in your mouth. Nice.
Saying *must* pretty clearly shows that you claimed I was saying that was the sole business model that works. It is not. You put words in my mouth and lied. According to you, that makes you a douchebag.
I wouldn't go so far, of course.
oh, so now it's Floor 64, after I said "The only worth this place has is eyeballs for your ads", obviously referring to Techdirt.
Floor64 makes nearly all of its money *because* of Techdirt. Those other parts of the business don't make money without Techdirt. And that's the point, which you still can't seem to comprehend. You can embrace free in one part of your business, and make a ton of money elsewhere. Of course, that involves having to be able to hold two thoughts in your head at a time. I guess that's difficult for some people.
And you say I owe you an apology.
You do. You flat out lied about me, and then called me a douchebag when you *falsely* claimed I put words in your mouth just minutes after you put words in my mouth.
I'm still waiting for the apology. Of course, you're not going to give it. I won't say what that makes you, but most readers here can figure it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, WTF is with people trying to label others instead of debating the damn points?
What the hell are you going for by dismissing Mike as some kind of piracy apologist? You can't outargue him so you want to go into a childish game of "You're a troll?"
Seriously, I've been reading this thread and if all you can do is call someone names, then what the hell is the point of coming here to get some lulz? Ok, you're a troll. We get it. But the least you could do is back up your arguments based on some kind of fact. I have more respect for memyself because he's pretty reasonable with his debating stance along with Nicedoggy.
You? You just want to spread rhetoric around, thinking it's an opinion. That's just sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cars don't just get made. They are also developed, engineered, designed, tested, perhaps for years, prior to getting made. They are technical and creative endeavors, like many an artform.
On topic: most people would not take a physical book without paying for it. It is a well understood offensive act. Most people would happily borrow a book from someone who had paid for it. Maybe they'd even give it back someday, heh.
Without a physical format, no one can take or borrow a digital file, it must be copied, whether purchasing is involved or not, there's no avoiding it.
Relying strictly on payment for digital files that have no physical format, that literally cannot be borrowed or taken but only copied, for which it is a certainty that "unauthorized" copies will appear...it's a losing battle. It's actually preposterous to believe it won't happen or can be stopped, slowed, or shamed. It will happen, out of ignorance, apathy, ideology, by mistake. It is not an issue of morals but of simple human behavior.
One might as well try to police our very thoughts, so ingrained is sharing in humans. Sharing equals communication, it is hardwired, it is how we learn...it is a main reason we create anything at all and decide to expose those creations to others. If we wish to not communicate, we don't. We keep secrets, we keep it to ourselves, we keep a civil tongue.
Copyright, as it is these days, perverts and attempts to prevent such a basic human thing, sharing. That is a tremendous moral failure, in my opinion, but beyond this it is inevitable that it will be a Herculean task to stop anyone from sharing anything. Stricter laws haven't worked, neither will even stricter laws. The laws of human behavior will always win out.
Because copyright is a wholly UNnatural thing for humans to follow, dependence upon it is a false security, doomed to be violated at any time. It attepmts to impose morality upon the simple acts of seeing, hearing, speaking, showing. It's actually grotesque when you think of it that way, but too many want to use it to do exactly that.
I believe it's better to focus on how to earn a living from artistic endeavors as if copyright did not exist...
...but since it does, probably get sued someday for something. These days copyright's value lies mainly in lawsuit ignition, seems. What a shitty, artless way to generate revenue, huh?
/ramble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LoL
You guys crank me up.
Even drugs has less protections and rights and they take decades and billions to produce but somehow copyrights are fine even though they can be used to protect real stuff in the real world that should not have those absurd protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People will write books without copy'right' so systems of writing books will continue without such copy'right' protections. Sure, you may argue that copy'right' can also participate in certain systems of writing books that "work" but that doesn't mean they "work" for the public good. A system where the government charges you $100 per glass of water may "work" but that's meaningless.
Take textbooks as an example. They cost a fortune. If you look at a calculus book from one semester vs the next edition for the next semester, the only difference? The chapters were flipped around a bit, problems were changed a bit, etc... but because the publisher stopped making books for the last edition and the school needs to provide all students with textbooks, students are forced to buy new textbooks. The publisher makes a TON more money than the cost of making a new edition. Just like with the pharmaceutical industry, the costs are largely exaggerated. IP gives incentive for such exaggerations to attempt to justify the artificially high prices.
If the books were allowed to go into the public domain within a reasonable period of time, the school can simply make its own copies of the old editions and sell them to students at a reasonable price. Students can also make their own copies. Then publishers will have to compete to sufficiently improve the content of their books in order to sell new ones. but even without copy'right' if publishers can produce books that are worth the additional cost, they can charge the school for the books ahead of time (the school can then roll over those costs into tuition. Either way, students are paying regardless, so I would much rather pay for my books and be able to copy them as well). Publishers can then initially sell them in huge bundles to make back their money and the school and others can then make as many copies as they like. Book creation will still continue. People will find alternative ways to fund the creation of books.
But copy'right' encourages special interest groups to get involved in the political process of what set of books colleges buy and that causes the whole thing to become politicized in a way that isn't in the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Outside of that: I never said there weren't other systems. You quote me referring to a specific and then point to a general? To what purpose? Yes, to make the specific system work, the one where books are often sold for under ten dollars, limited rights (no distribution or reproduction) help ensure that the artist in question can sell enough copies so that the cost of producing the work in question is recouped. That's the way the system under discussion works. This doesn't mean that other systems do not exist.
That said: I don't find your promise that books will continue to be written sufficiently compelling on it's own. By all means, please expand on how exactly we can be ensured that the current artistic output would be maintained without copyright - assuming that tis what you are implying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead of asking to publisher they just need to go directly to the public and set a fixed price like everybody else do, and have no further claims on the final product like every other industry.
Why can't that be done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should there be only one way? Why should every artists be required to sell according to your rules? Doesn't it make more sense to allow the seller to set their terms and then let the consumer decide on a case by case basis if those terms are reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why can't it be decided what people are willing to accept without the use of laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Put it another way. Say you want to mow my lawn for 10 dollars. I tell you I will pay you 5 dollars. This isn't something you find agreeable. Should I be allowed to force you to work under my terms
As for the question of abolishing law altogether? No thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and that's fine. But say someone broke their end of the bargain and gave me a copy of that song. I never agreed to anything and so I can keep that song and make as many copies as I please and distribute them as I please and there is absolultely nothing morally wrong with that on my end. Your problem isn't with me, since I agreed to nothing, your problem is with my friend who broke his/her agreement with you.
[ 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:
A plea of ignorance to the law in this matter certainly can carry some weight - for the truly ignorant. You are clearly aware that the terms exists and you are clearly aware how the terms apply. By circumventing payment and by redistributing, you are still making yourself a participant in the transaction - and then violating the terms that you clearly understand.
To be clear with what I am about to say: I am not equating copyright violation with theft or any other specific crime or infraction. Copyright violation is copyright violation. Analogies are rarely 100% and are only meant to suggest rather than draw perfect parallels. That said - The getaway driver didn't rob the bank. He's still a participant. Your defense of innocence is a poor one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but there is nothing morally wrong with acquiring a song without meeting the terms. I never agreed to the terms. Even if you never agreed to have me copy your song, that's not your decision to make. Copying is a natural right that I have that exists outside of government and so there is nothing morally wrong with me making such a copy with or without your permission.
"A plea of ignorance to the law in this matter certainly can carry some weight"
We're discussing whether the law should exist, not whether I violated it or not.
"He's still a participant. Your defense of innocence is a poor one."
Again, we're not discussing whether I broke the law, we're discussing whether the law should exist to begin with. My argument is that it should not. I don't want this law to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't want the law to exist that makes it illegal for me to repeatedly kick you in the balls.
How about we call it even and proceed?
[ 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:
Particularly one that was written to protect someone else's personal rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lets make it a law to require everyone to punch you in the mouth every day. You say you want that law abolished because it's an annoyance to you? How ludicrous.
"Particularly one that was written to protect someone else's personal rights."
Preventing me from copying isn't their right. The law doesn't protect a right that existed to begin with, it created a legal right that doesn't belong. You made the argument that abolishing copy'right' can interfere with your ability to make contracts with others. When I pointed out that this is not true, you changed the subject by going off into how it may not be breach of contract for me to copy something without agreeing to the contract, but it's still against the law. But that's irrelevant being that we're discussing whether the law should exist to begin with. That's what you seem to be missing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no logical reason for this. If my serenity is fucked up, it will cause thousands of dollars in damage to society because I won't be able to concentrate at work for days. If you get kicked in the weenus, you will be back at work on Monday. It is also less likely that you will have children. Children put more of a strain on the environment than nearly anything else, so fewer children is a good thing.
Are you some kind of shill for the weenus-protection lobby? You are, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course there is. If everyone were allowed to harm anyone else as they please, it could create a lot of violence and that's really bad for the public interest. Everyone would be far worse off. The logical reason for anti violence laws to exist is because we could all be far worse off without them. I would be much worse off and so would you.
If people were allowed to copy each other as they please, the worst that will likely happen is that ..... (insert doomsday scenario here)
I believe that everyone would be much better off without copy'right' laws. This includes myself. However, if it is true that I would be better off without these laws, then that suggests that it's true for most others. After all, I'm a member of society just like most others, why shouldn't what's good for me as a member be good for many and perhaps most other members as well? I'm explaining why I would be better off without these laws, and perhaps others would find that my reasoning for not wanting these laws also applies to them and so they would be better off. Laws exist to serve the public good, not to serve some special interests like the artists or record labels/publishers. This not only applies to physical property laws, they also apply to intellectual property laws. If it's true that copy'right' isn't in my best interest for reasons xyz and if others read those reasons and determine that they apply to them as well, and if it's true that the general public is worse off without these laws then with them, then we should abolish them.
Much of it also has to do with what we value. I value my right to copy as I please more than I value the reduction of content, if any, that would be lost as a result of these laws being abolished. Different people value different things. I'm expressing my values and perhaps others would agree with my values as well after reading them. If it's true that others agree with me, then perhaps everyone would be better off without these laws being that what we collectively gain from their abolition is more valuable to us than what we lose.
You're arguing that some artists might be better off with these laws. Irrelevant. People who dig holes and fill them back up for no reason would be better off if the government subsidized them. Advertisers would be better off if the government paid their advertisement bills. The laws shouldn't promote a specific class of workers and it shouldn't direct more people to join that class of workers, it should promote what's in everyone's best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But as far as the part that I wrote, basically you don't believe intellectual property is real. I've pointed out many times such a notion is essentially Marxism; a philosophy that has been proven to be unworkable.
Get some sleep. Your kid is going to be up soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where? How is it Marxism?
The founding fathers initially did not believe in patents or copy'rights' but later allowed it under very limited conditions. There is nothing Marxist about their abolition. Their abolition requires less government, not more, and socialism/Marxism requires more government. I sense you're just making things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
Except, of course, this is not why copyright was written. It was written "to promote the progress," not to "protect the rights" of anyone.
Those rights were granted to authors by the public, and it is primarily for the public benefit that those laws exist.
The moment it does not benefit the public first and foremost, is the moment the laws need to be re-written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
copyright does promote progress by protecting artists.
see what I did there? That was easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not meant to promote the progress of the protection of artists, it's meant to promote the progress of the sciences and the arts. You're confusing the sciences and the arts with the scientists and the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, another ad hominem attack by a faceless coward whose understanding of the law is even worse than mine.
copyright does promote progress by protecting artists.
Nowhere in copyright law, nor the Constitution, does the phrase "protecting artists" appear. Who's reading into the law now?
On the other hand, here are some phrases that do appear in case law:
- Wheaton v. Peters
- Feist v. Rural (citations omitted)
You could argue that it's possible for copyright to benefit both the public and artists, and that the underlying "contract" between the public and artists was fundamentally sound. In fact, I would agree with you.
But as the law stands right now, this is absolutely not true. It does not benefit the public very much at all. And, in fact, it does not benefit artists very much, either. The primary beneficiaries are the rich and powerful "patrons" (i.e. corporations) who hold the purse strings, who dictate what can and cannot be published, and who have a legal monopoly used to quash the competition.
[ 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:
I disagree with copy'right' laws because they violate my inherit right to copy what I please when I please and I disagree with them for the many reasons I listed above as well (along with other reasons).
We were discussing copyright laws and whether or not they should exist. You were on the right track for a while. Then, when you seemed to have no response to me pointing out that me violating a contract that I never agreed to by copying something isn't a breach of contract on my part, you went off into how it's still illegal. I'm not disagreeing with you that it's illegal, I'm making an argument that it shouldn't be illegal. It still doesn't violate your right to make contracts with others, but if they break their end of the deal, then your problem is with them, not with me who agreed to nothing and made a copy. The law disagrees, but that's irrelevant, being that the discussion is about whether the law should be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record I have never once agreed to any stipulation not to kick you in the weenus. You have no reasonsble justification why I should be bound by this restriction on what I can and can't do in my personal life, especially after fucking with my serenity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one is arguing that just because I didn't agree to a law, the law shouldn't exist. What I'm arguing is that just because something is a law doesn't mean the law should exist and I'm providing multiple reasons why copy'right' is one of those laws that shouldn't exist. You haven't addressed any of those reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My defense isn't one of 'innocence', In my hypothetical I'm guilty of making the copy without following your terms that I'm aware of. The point is that, as a third party, I never agreed to the terms, but that doesn't prevent you from making terms with a second party and enforcing legal punishments on that second party for violating his side of the agreement. What copy'right' enables you to do is to punish me, a third party, for violating terms that I never agreed to. You're allowed to set the terms of sale to those who receive the content directly from you without imposing those terms on third parties who simply copy that work. Copy'right' isn't necessary to enable you to set the terms of sale, it's necessary for you to impose sanctions on those who copy your work without agreeing with those terms. But the terms aren't violated by the third party who copied the work because they weren't agreed to by them begin with. Saying that you can set the terms on someone who never agreed to those terms is similar to saying I can set the terms on the air you breath. You're breathing the air without paying me, you're aware of my terms, you violated my terms. So what? Copy'right' isn't needed to set the terms of sale, but making a copy isn't a sale. Forcing someone who never agreed to a term not to copy something may technically be a term that they violated, but it's not a term that they ever agreed to. The law doesn't need to enforce your terms on those who don't agree to them and end up getting a copy of that work anyways in order to allow you to set the terms on those who you do sell the work directly to. You can sell the work to my friend under whatever terms, if he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to buy. If he does buy and violates those terms by giving me a copy, then your problem is with him, not me. I never agreed to those terms. I may have technically violated them, but you violated my don't breath air without paying me terms. That's irrelevant, you never agreed to such terms. Just like I never agreed to your don't copy your work without paying you terms. Me violating such terms doesn't prevent you from setting terms with those who get copies directly from you.
[ 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:
So you support and encourage the punishment of those that buy a CD, rip it and then upload it?
Copy'right' isn't necessary to enable you to set the terms of sale, it's necessary for you to impose sanctions on those who copy your work without agreeing with those terms.
Yes, it is indeed that. So what's the problem?
Society has decided to help those who create and have given them a way to recoup the time and money invested in their creation. Not just one government, but society as a whole, as copyright is used world-wide.
If a musician sold one album, and then every other consumer simply copied that one, it would not be possible to recoup the time and money invested in its creation. The US wished "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" and as a result, creators have a way to spend their time creating, rather than mopping floors.
And it seems the public agrees that music is indeed very important, as the vast majority consume it every day.
Saying that you can set the terms on someone who never agreed to those terms is similar to saying I can set the terms on the air you breath.
You agree to the terms when you choose to live in a nation that has copyright laws.
You can disagree with laws, but until they're changed you can't disobey them with the excuse that you don't like them.
Ask tax protesters.
So it seems to me that willful ignorance is necessary to your mantra of 'I never agreed to those terms'. If someone is smart enough to use a computer and P2P software, they're smart enough to find out what's legal and what isn't. It's not difficult in the least. And you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that's not true. We've already seen that many musicians make a lot more money touring than on albums, and many choose to give away their work for free -- and many have more than made up the cost of time and money invested.
So why did you say it would not be possible when clearly it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OIC, so musicians must now go on the road in order to make a living?
Is that consistent with what the Constitution mandated as progress for the arts?
What if someone like, I don't know, The Beatles or Steely Dan, decided to not tour but focus on the recorded arts? Are you going to tell them they can't do that in your business model?
In order for your business model to be valid, you must have many examples of success to prove its validity.
Do you have examples of people like the above who consistently recoup the cost of making their art without selling their music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, seriously, WTF?
Ever heard of free choice? Did someone tell them to go and tour and make money or did they figure this out by themselves?
"Is that consistent with what the Constitution mandated as progress for the arts?"
Serious non sequitar here. The Constitution has not one damn thing to do with a band deciding to tour for themselves.
"What if someone like, I don't know, The Beatles or Steely Dan, decided to not tour but focus on the recorded arts? Are you going to tell them they can't do that in your business model?"
The Beatles only toured for four years IIRC, and they made a good shitton of money during those 4 years. They weren't all that happy recording the music onto vinyl so that's a poor example. The business model that you seem to be sniping is for the artist to find their OWN way to make money that is unique to them. You know, free choice?
"Do you have examples of people like the above who consistently recoup the cost of making their art without selling their music?"
I'm just saying, you must be on something... What is it? We can find help for you... Maybe then, this sentence would make actual sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say that. I'm not sure why you would so misrepresent my position. I simply pointed out factual information, that many musicians make more money from touring than from albums.
That did not imply implicitly nor explicitly that it means anyone "must go on the road to make a living."
What if someone like, I don't know, The Beatles or Steely Dan, decided to not tour but focus on the recorded arts? Are you going to tell them they can't do that in your business model?
There are lots of other business models. Many of the ones we have discussed do not rely on touring.
In order for your business model to be valid, you must have many examples of success to prove its validity.
I do not believe that is so, actually. Based on that, no business model is valid until tons of people do it. Do you realize how silly that claim is?
Do you have examples of people like the above who consistently recoup the cost of making their art without selling their music?
Yes, we have discussed many artists who have recouped album costs without selling the music directly. But, you are making a false distinction. Many still offer up a priced version of their music, even as they offer it up for free. We're not saying you can't try to sell your music as well. So I'm not sure why you are making such a misrepresentation.
Anyway, look on Kickstarter, by the way, if you'd like to see many artists recouping the cost of making their albums without having to sell the music directly or to tour. Many, of course, still do both because it makes good business sense.
And, no, by giving you the example of Kickstarter, I do not mean *that* is the only business model. I don't know why you always like to make such false claims. Among the many business models we have discussed, it has included touring, selling access, selling unique tangible goods, selling subscriptions to the artist, advertising/branding (selling attention), crowdsourced pre-funding, etc.
Point is, that there are all sorts of business models, and you can mix and match them to match your preference. Do all of them work for all artists? Of course not. But the "classic" business model today doesn't work for most artists.
So, again, I have to ask why you would so misrepresent my position? You've spent plenty of time on this site. I find it highly odd that you would choose to misrepresent my position when you know what you are saying to be false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, we have discussed many artists who have recouped album costs without selling the music directly.
Again, post some examples of non-touring artists that have done that.
the "classic" business model today doesn't work for most artists.
And why is that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No business model works for everyone, including the one you are so in love with.
Again, post some examples of non-touring artists that have done that.
Most of the bands tour also, because they know that's smart. But that doesn't mean they don't make significant revenue without touring as well.
And why is that...
Markets change. If you understood economics or innovation, you might get that. I've been trying to teach you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if someone makes poor quality music that no one likes, you want the government to provide them with a business model that works for them?
It's not the governments job to provide for job security by guaranteeing you a business model that can work for you. This isn't communism. In a free market, not all business models work for everyone.
and copy'right' doesn't work for everyone either, so by your logic, it's not effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regardless, most people are well aware that copyright violation is not legal. And by procuring something by circumventing payment that is under copyright protection you are no longer a third party. You are a direct participant. It doesn't matter if you're not the original customer if you still know the terms and you ignore them anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't know much about the law you are arguing for, do you? Most people are not able to determine copyright infringement. In fact, it usually takes a whole court to determine that.
[ 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:
Wrong. The vast, vast majority of people, if they can operate a computer (and know how to use p2p software), have no problem figuring out if something is copyrighted.
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A quick example: Fritz Lang's Metropolis - public domain or copyrighted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getawy Driver
What if the same bank robber gets on a Delta Airlines flight to Italy? Is the pilot an accomplice? What about Delta Airlines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getawy Driver
If you want to make an analogy, don't remove the aspects that make it analogous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your analogy would be better if I had the power to say to you that only I could mow the lawn and you would have to pay me whatever I ask or not mow the lawn at all.
Copyright is not an agreement is an imposition, we didn't agree on the terms voluntarily you are forcing me into the deal and saying take it or leave it.
The funny part, you don't even has the power to stop me just as I would never have the power to stop you from mowing your own lawn, but you still persists.
About the abolishment of copyrights you don't have a say on it. If people choose to ignore it you have no power to make them comply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You agreed on the terms when you were born in, or moved to, a country with copyright law. Along with zillions of other terms.
Would you also abolish the "impositions" that likely benefit you? Would you repeal Magnuson-Moss? I certainly do not hear you complaining about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet even you agree to that one.
Now copyBS, ask anyone on the streets if they agree to it and you hear the answer loud and clear.
CopyBS only benefits a minority that can't even justify it properly so why again people should respect and uphold that crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You spend too much time in the echo chamber. Read the comments on any tech site that's not this one:
Here, for example, and you'll see that widespread hatred of copyright simply doesn't exist. And that's on Slashdot, the original "this year will be the year of Linux on the desktop!" site. Imagine how wrong you are with respect to the general population.
[ 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:
[ 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:
But, of the unanonymous commentors (and techdirt has many of those as well) I do notice that the pro-IP blogs have fewer than the anti-IP blogs. and the Internet seems to have far more anti IP unanonymous commenters than pro IP unanonymous ones. Or at least commenters that disagree with our current system. The number of unanonymous commenters is a much better indication and that's where IP maximists seem to fail miserably.
[ 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: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then where are all the pro-IP blogs with open comments? Why is it that only these anti-IP blogs can get such a large audience but pro-IP blogs can not? So much so that IP maximists have to leech off of the bandwidth of anti-IP blogs to promote their propaganda? Could it be because IP maximists know that no one would visit their own blogs?
Your point is that slashdot and techdirt allow people like you to comment. The mainstream media, on the other hand, uses the government to wrongfully enforce its monopoly on public airwaves and then they deny IP critics like MM the ability to comment. Despite this, IP maximists generally don't start their own blogs with open comments because they can't get enough of an audience on their blogs that agree with them. So they go where the audience is, anti-IP blogs. But why are the audiences located on anti-IP blogs? Maybe it's because the audience doesn't like IP?
Just because IP maximists like yourself are allowed to comment on anti-IP blogs hardly means that the population is in favor of IP. If anything, the fact that anti-IP blogs have a much larger audience suggests that people don't like IP.
Despite the fact that IP maximists use taxpayer money to fund their propaganda, despite the fact that they use government imposed monopolies to deny others criticisms over various information distribution channels, despite the fact that these things do affect public opinion, they are still having a hard time acquiring an audience. Why is it that IP maximists must resort to the censorship of criticisms where possible (ie: public airwaves)? Is it because they know very well that the population would be far more intolerable of these laws if they were exposed to those criticisms and if they weren't only exposed to pro-IP propaganda?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two words: Operation Payback.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1: It's a bullshit thing to do.
2: I don't want to waste my time reworking your exceptionally poor sense of spelling and grammar.
3: I don't need to. Your argument falls apart just fine without my involvement.
[ 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:
I was thinking the same thing about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're assuming that without copy'right' there is only one way.
"Why should every artists be required to sell according to your rules?"
A: an artist isn't required to sell anything. S/he can find another job instead.
B: If people want the artists work bad enough, the artist can find ways to monetize his work. Otherwise, perhaps people simply don't want the artists work badly enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without scarcity, demand for a work can be insanely high and that doesn't mean bupkus for the price of the good.
Artists may be able to hold future work that has not yet been done for ransom, but why is it a good thing that people should pay for something that they have basically no way to predict the quality of?
[ 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:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When what they did was look where the band said they found the data and found nothing.
Was that not a misrepresentation of the facts?
Maybe honest mistake but a miss no less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is exactly how I feel about your endless diatribes about your rights that never seem to take into account nobody else.
[ 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:
I got tired of the cool-aid references, I got tired of the accusations against Mike character that has nothing to do with the issues but keeps coming up every time, I got tired of those of you that keep saying "but...but...my rights" without never putting forth a real good reason why you people should a) have any rights b) need those rights.
And I have discussing this crap for 10 years now, so you are not the only one tired.
[ 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:
Where in there I said anything about you?
I though I was clearly explaining my reasons for being tired, apparently not clearly enough though :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should there be only one way? Why should every artists be required to sell according to your rules? Doesn't it make more sense to allow the seller to set their terms and then let the consumer decide on a case by case basis if those terms are reasonable?
Because the two systems are incompatible. To work properly each requires that you make an assumption about any work you come across. The assumption that everything is free to use without constraint is necessary if the economics of the free model are to succeed fully (otherwise you get what are usually called "chilling effect".
Likewise, as your discussion with the AC's shows, once people start assuming anything but "all rights reserved" the copyright system is undermined. The 'AA's and the BSA know this well and consequently often complain about CC and GPL as a result.
The world really has to make up it's mind. In the end I think the free distribution/pay upfront model will win out but there will be a lot of whinging before we get there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The artist isn't being required to do anything. If the artist doesn't like the terms offered, then the artist doesn't have to sell.
and copy'right' doesn't have to exist to enable an artist to make various terms. The artist can set terms of the release of the first copy (ie: price), charge what s/he wants, and groups that enjoy the artists work can pitch in their money (each member contributing a small fee) to acquire the initial copy of the work. It's more of a negotiation, the artist sets the terms of the initial sale and if the buyer(s) agree, they buy. If not, they don't. Both parties set the terms.
If someone buys a hammer from me, what they do with that hammer afterwords (ie: make copies of it and give copies to their friend) is their business. I sell the original hammer at whatever price I deem fair. Others can then put that hammer in a museum if it's considered a work of art. Maybe the value of the hammer maybe partly determined by how much the owner can get by placing it in his/her museum or maybe selling initial copies of it. If the hammer is valuable, then the initial owner who paid a lot for it may perceives that s/he will find ways of making back his/her money and maybe a profit. Will s/he? Maybe, maybe not, it's a gable. The risk was considered as part of the initial price. But if the hammer is valuable, then people will pay the original creator a lot for it.
These anti copy laws don't apply to hammers. The seller doesn't get to use these laws to prevent the hammer from being copied by others. but the hammer seller isn't required to sell the hammer under the buyers conditions. He can choose not to sell. Or both of them can negotiate conditions of sale without copy'right'. but why should artists get special copy'right' laws and not hammer makers. Hammer makers should protest, they should get these rights too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you don't think that books will continue to be written without copy'right'? I find that absurd.
"please expand on how exactly we can be ensured that the current artistic output would be maintained without copyright - assuming that tis what you are implying."
That's not what I said. Even if less content is created, those content creators still have to find other ways to contribute to the economy to make money and so they will find other jobs and hence contribute to the economy elsewhere. It's really not the governments job to subsidize content creation with these laws because that takes away from marginally (though not absolutely) more important activities elsewhere.
Even if there are fewer jobs created as a result of abolishing these laws, job creation isn't an end in itself. Digging a hole and filling it back up is a job, but it doesn't necessarily add anything beneficial to the economy. The purpose of having an economy is to produce things and artificially diverting more labor towards content creation, for instance, isn't going to create more food (it may even divert labor away from food creation). It's not the governments job to artificially choose where labor should be diverted to. The free market is better at that.
If the cost of creating a piece of content is worth the benefit of consuming it, people will find ways to fund its creation. Otherwise, the total cost of production is not worth the total benefit of production and so it should not be produced. Instead, the labor hours should go elsewhere in the economy. If you want the content created badly enough, you can fund it yourself and pay what you want.
In the case of the existence of copy'right' the cost also includes the cost of enforcement, which adds economic inefficiency, an economic inefficiency that could otherwise divert resources towards more content creation or wherever else the economy demands labor to be diverted to if that inefficiency were eliminated. The cost also includes the economic inefficiency caused by the time and effort required by each person and entity to determine what is and what isn't infringement, and these days you often have to be a psychic to know. No, it's not worth it to me. My right to copy whatever I please as I please when I please without having to worry about such things (or to hire a psychic to tell me) is worth more to me than the cost of whatever content gets lost as a result of copy'right' abolition. I'm willing to take that risk and to deal with any doomsday consequences that one maybe speculating even in the highly unlikely event that any of them are true.
The fact that people have to magically know what is and what isn't infringement encourages them to license content at a fee instead of obtaining permissibly licensed content because if they obtain permissibly licensed content and it turns out not to really be permissibly licensed, they can get sued. For example, see
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110319/00355113560/if-you-think-writing-free-undermines-yo ur-profession-just-dont-do-it.shtml#c381
This also discourages the production of freely available content since content production often require consumption and with less consumers you will have less producers (since many producers of freely available content can find other ways to fund their content, ie: perhaps via donations or charging for concerts or other things. but they can't as easily do that if everyone is afraid of consuming their content). This can also encourage people to nefariously upload content under a CC license and later sue those who consume it while claiming that they aren't the one who uploaded it. Again, this discourages content consumption and hence production. Without copy'right' we don't have these problems.
If you want the current artistic output to continue, you can voluntarily fund it on your own by paying whatever you like for content. You can get a bunch of your friends to join you. If enough people join you, the content you like will be funded. But don't require others to subsidize the content creation of your choice by requiring them to expend the time and effort necessary to comply with and enforce these laws.
When it comes to music, most musicians didn't/don't even make most of their money through CD sales. They made/make their money via concerts. The only reason why they need a record label is because corporate interests wrongfully control the information distribution channels (ie: public airwaves, cableco infrastructure) necessary to efficiently distribute the content and acquire an audience and those corporate interests don't distribute content that they don't have the 'rights' over. But content has been created without copy'right' in the past and, thanks to the better information distribution of today, plenty of content is created today under licenses designed to circumvent copy'right' at least to some extent. and in places that don't respect these laws as much, plenty of content is still created (as has been shown on tecddirt elsewhere).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, they never were written before copyright, were they?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is about protecting the interests of the people, not creators. Content creators complain about the "entitlement" problem they see people as having, where we feel that eventually their works should add something to society. Do they not suffer the same entitlement problem for feeling that their work, even if it took them 3 years to create, should by law be a nest egg for them, their children, and perhaps their grandchildren, depending on how long they live?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you assume that these limitations are necessary for a system of book creation to "work" and that copy'right' is necessary for such a system to work. No, systems of book creation will work without copy'right', people will make books without such protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and I want that choice abolished.
"Taking that option out of the hands of the artists does not seem reasonable to me."
Why should I care what seems reasonable to you?
[ 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:
After all, why should copy'right' last 95+ years just because big corporations want that? The government is clearly not representing the will of the people and that's partly why I think things should change.
[ 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:
OK, you're wrong. That's what happens when you make stuff up.
[ 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:
It isn't.
If it's not, you could have clarified.
What part of "you're wrong" is unclear to you? The idea that you could possibly be wrong? And as long as you keep making stuff up, you will likely continued to be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists should just produce, receive their payment and have no further claims on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They can do that. Copyright gives them an additional option, which is more efficient: they can elect to take more risk and sell copies at a substantially-discounted price. This allows more flexibility in who takes the risk. If you have to buy art outright, then the consumer takes all the risk. If you sell copies, the artist can take more of the risk. It also permits things like albums of music and multi-million line pieces of software and makes them available for pennies while still compensating the creators (or the risk-takers to whom they have sold their work).
You want a world that is far less efficient, I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you lease your car, then the person that bought it outright does get paid effectively every time you use your car. Well, when you use the owner's car; you're only leasing it. If you use his car too much, you will pay him more.
The creator of your car also have a legitimate claim to your earnings since you use it to make a profit right?
And those payments will come out of your earnings.
Do you pay the car creator every time you use their property to make money?
If you are leasing your car, you pay the person who owns it every time you use it - to make money or not.
If you license some content, then you pay whatever the terms of the license are. If you buy the copyright outright, then you can do whatever you want with it. You can do that, you know. Why don't you buy the copyrights from copyright holders?
You don't expect that if you lease your car, you can sell it, right? Or that you'll get to keep it if you stop paying the owner, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As a percentage calculate in addition to renting the car?
You know just like royalties are calculated.
Also you do realize that if somebody tells you, that you are "buying" something that is not a lease right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh that is right only you have the right to molest others about those things because somehow you are more important than the rest of society and you deserve the right to charge for every use of your work but others don't.
I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It depends on how I acquired the instrument. If I acquired the instrument through an all-out sale, then I wouldn't have to pay anybody a cut. If I rented the instrument, and the terms of the rental said that I didn't have to pay anybody, then I wouldn't either. If I signed a contract with the renter that said I would pay them for every performance, I would have to pay him a cut.
Copyright effectively sets the default terms of a contract between the owner and the users of content. Unlike a regular contract, you do not have to sign it because it's part of the law. Like a contract, the parties are free to negotiate alternative deals as they like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you make money out of their creations they are entitled to have a cut of your earnings is that not right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legally, not morally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's a legal, not moral, basis. Legal does not mean moral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you look yourself in the mirror after stealing from me?
If so, then feel free to download a bittorrent client of your choice and start torrenting any copyrighted movie of your choice. There really is no difference.
If however, you do want to pay me for this post, please reply and we can work out the details of how to process that payment. If no payment is received and you still read this post, then you really are acknowledging that there really is nothing morally wrong with not paying someone for something they offer for sale and yet take it anyway.
However, even if you find yourself realizing there is nothing morally wrong, you still legally owe me $5. I hope that clears up any confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe you waived that right when you posted here, but check his TOS if you're not sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As far as I know, you haven't illegally copied it, so legally you are in the clear. But this discussion isn't about legality. It's about morality. In that regard, you came in here trying to make a moral argument. By reading my post above without paying for it, you have failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you just sent your comment into public domain, didn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately for you, however, this wasn't a legal discussion but a moral one. You asked if it was "ok to take something that is for sale without paying and without permission". I didn't grant you permission. I offered it for sale. You didn't pay. Yet you seem to think that what you did was OK. So I ask you the same thing:
Are you saying you think it's ok to take something that is for sale without paying and without permission?
[ 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:
There are no laws that say you have to do what is moral. If you want to be immoral, that's up to you. If you want to break the law, then the government will get involved, but feel free to be as morally bankrupt or upstanding as you see fit. Morals are all that's involved in this discussion and that's how you wanted it to be.
You claim that it is immoral to consume without payment that which is offered for sale. You "consumed" my post that was offered for sale and you did so without payment. Therefore, you are immoral by your own standards. To get out of that conundrum, you can either pay me $5 to be back on your own moral high ground, or you can admit that you don't find it immoral. If you don't take either of those steps, you remain hypocritical and immoral by your own standards. So which is it? Is it immoral or not? Are you immoral or not? Simply answer the question. I did it for you above. Why do you find it so hard now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I read your post above in the same way I read all other posts here; since the owner has stated it is all free to disseminated as any one cares to.
If attempting to trick me is the only way you feel you can bring me down to your moral standard, then you haven't done a very good job of it, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If so, I counter with the ease of obtaining any copyrighted movie, show, book, video game, song, picture or other work. I can easily obtain Harry Potter (in book, movie, or video game form) from lots of places. Are you saying you shouldn't have to pay because the seller hasn't made it difficult enough to obtain it without payment?
Again, if that is what you are saying, then you are also saying there is nothing morally wrong with using an adblocker to obtain content that is on sites whose business model includes advertising.
Again, if that is what you are saying, then you are also saying that bypassing the New York Times paywall is morally OK.
I could go on. The point is, of the above two, only one is illegal. But for the sake of this thread, we put aside legality and are only looking at morality, and we did so by your request. I posted a link to something I created. I am offering it for sale. You didn't pay for it, yet you read it. As for this statement of yours: It's correct that I didn't say anything in regards to the posts dissemination. You are free to copy it as you please. I only ask that you pay me for reading it. You read it. By your own claimed morals, you owe me for it.
Again I'll state that you have no legal obligation to pay me, only your own moral obligation. Or you can admit that you don't find it immoral to do so. You've already lost moral ground. The only way to get it back is to admit that you don't find it immoral, or pay me $5.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I say, if you can provide a moral dilemma for me that doesn't involve tricking me, and I fail it, then I've lost the moral high ground.
In the meantime, as I don't download copyrighted material without permission, and you, I gather, do, you're going to have a very difficult time saying I'm on the same moral ground as you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So by your own admission, ("I didn't read your post all the way through the first time") you did read my post.
By your own admission ("I read the first line, chuckled and responded."), you don't actually know what you are responding to.
There was no trickery. You stated it was a "simple and moral concept" to pay for something offered for sale if you're going to consume it. I stated in that post right up front that I was going to charge for reading it. There was no trickery involved. You failed it. You read it. You've lost the moral high ground. I have offered repeatedly how you may gain it back. Yet you don't. I can only assume that you are either morally bankrupt by your own standards, or that your standards are not what you publicly state them to be.
In the meantime, while I have almost zero respect for copyright law as it stands, I still follow it as closely as I can. I have found that I'm a much bigger stickler for following copyright laws than anyone else I personally know. I've been in debates with friends and colleagues who make their living from copyright who violate it more often than I do, and who are regularly amazed at what copyright law really means (e.g., you can't copy that sheet music for the choir). If I have infringed on a copyright, it was by pure mistake. Your accusation is as false as your own publicly claimed standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to give me an addy, I will indeed send you a fiver. You deserve it.
cheers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You never had any moral high ground to loose.
Copyright is trickery.
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or when you people say that IP is like real property and keep trying to compare it to real things and when the obviously retort comes back that if real property was anything like imaginary property we would have a absurd world, you people go back and claim that imaginary property is different.
All smoke and screens to hide the fact that imaginary property is a imaginary construct that can't be enforced, that produces absurd results and doesn't work that well when applied to the general population and try to shame people with misleading statements about morals that have no ground in reality but only in the fertile imagination of the speaker that try to create connections where there are none.
[ 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: 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:
You didn't pay me when I offered it for sale. This is a "simple and moral concept". I offered it for sale, you enjoyed its benefits, yet you didn't pay for it. I'd tell you how you already did, but you already know. By all means, try to publicly twist your way out of it by saying that since you have no legal obligation to pay that you don't have to (and really, you don't have any legal obligation to pay). But everyone here already knows where you stand. You stated that it was a "simple and moral concept". So are you going to pay up to gain your moral high ground, or are you going to admit that you are immoral by your own standards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I specified a moral argument and so did you want to keep it that way. I was explaining that to memyselfandI.
But you presented a false dilemma to me. Do you have a real one?
I already know that you can't charge me for something you write here. So I haven't lost any moral ground.
You know that material you take is copyrighted and is supposed to only be for sale. Yes, you know that.
See, I know you know the difference. And so does everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your own admission, we're discussing morality. So when you say he "can't charge you" for something he writes, either a) you believe it's immoral for him to charge for consuming his content, on his terms, or b) that your actions are not immoral solely because they are within the bounds of the law.
If you believe a), then you're morally wrong by your own standards. If you believe b), then you believe that morality is dependent upon legality.
So, there would be nothing immoral about repealing copyright in its entirety? That's the only way you could possibly be consistent here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, I never said that.
But coming from you, a person that consistently winds up on the incorrect side of every debate or discussion on this site, that is no surprise.
If a person doesn't understand a situation, they're usually safe either morally or legally, karma/jeopardy wise. Trying to maliciously trick or entrap someone is quite often neither legal or moral. Feel free to nitpick and find some example that you think will negate most examples tho. I need a good chuckle today.
But to address yet another one of your infamous sloppy false dichotomies:
a) you believe it's immoral for him to charge for consuming his content
I believe nothing of the sort. In fact, I invited him to charge for something, and offer it for sale to me.
that your actions are not immoral solely because they are within the bounds of the law.
bankers get paid to legally do things I believe immoral.
So needless to say, no.
So, there would be nothing immoral about repealing copyright in its entirety?
As always, 2 + 2 = 5 to Karl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, then.
Funny, I never said that.
I must have misunderstood this sentence:
I already know that you can't charge me for something you write here.
If you didn't mean he "can't charge you" for something he writes, what do you mean exactly? Andy why not? He morally can't charge you, or he legally can't charge you? Or do you mean he doesn't have the physical ability to charge you? Or something else entirely?
Trying to maliciously trick or entrap someone is quite often neither legal or moral.
He put his terms in the first sentence of his post. As did I. There is no trickery involved. Just ask anyone who didn't abide by a EULA that they clicked without reading, or a girl who downloaded an MP3 without any copyright information on it.
I believe nothing of the sort. In fact, I invited him to charge for something, and offer it for sale to me.
If you're not going to pay me at least $1, then by your own standards, you "think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for."
bankers get paid to legally do things I believe immoral.
Fair enough, but then what's with this comment?
I'll tell you what, if you can show that your post makes any sense legally, I'll happily mail you 5 bucks.
As always, 2 + 2 = 5 to Karl.
I was only going by the moral stance that you presented. Perhaps I misunderstood. I'll ask you flat-out: if Congress were to repeal all copyright laws today (which they have every legal right to do), would that be immoral in any way? Why or why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This didn't work when the first guy did it. It particularly doesn't work when half of your post is made up of quotes written by someone else.
There is a reasonable expectation created through years of precedent that posts made on this forum are intended and available to the general public without any prohibition to the use of said material. The same cannot be said for the person who clicks through the EULA or the girl who downloads the mp3.
Additionally, as it is not your site I don't think you have a clear right to prohibit how the publicly posted material is shared.
But if you can successfully register a copyright on your post I will concede this point and send you three dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're not talking about the law, we're talking about morality.
Is it moral for me to place those restrictions on my post? Especially to do so unilaterally, and without taking into account any consideration of public use of the material?
That is, essentially, the question we're all debating here.
As for my opinion: No, it is not moral. If I'm to be allowed to do such a thing, I must take into account the reasonable expectation of availablity to the general public without any prohibition to the use of said material. The moral decision ultimately rests on whether it maximizes the public good.
[ 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:
To be specific: the original poster and I were talking about morality.
You seem to have a more functional approach, which I actually agree with.
[ 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:
Actually, his approach isn't all that bad to be honest. He's actually somewhat sensible on the subject and has been very civil in participating in a civilized debate.
Memyself, it's been nice debating you. Good job on being civil about the debate and being patient and you do bring up some good thoughts to the conversation and add to it. Stick around and keep contributing your ideas.
[ 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:
It does the "view in chronology/thread" button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sound like some kind of freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He put a specific license on his creation. You think think it's "reasonable" to ignore licenses when it suits *you*? Yeah, I see how that works.
The same cannot be said for the person who clicks through the EULA or the girl who downloads the mp3.
Oh, because you're so much more special than they are, huh?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, this is a legal gray area, at least in the United States. If you write a post, you hold the copyright on the post. It is unclear what rights you have transferred to Techdirt by hitting the post button. If you tried to sue Techdirt for then making your post available to the entire world, you would have a case, but it's unlikely that it would be worth your time. However, it's unclear what they would find.
My best guess is that they would assert that this is a case of fair use. Who knows what the rationale would be. Fair use is broadly-enough defined that if a judge says something is fair use after considering the four factors, it is. The Betamax decision, for example, established that time-shifting is fair use, but the rationale seemed mostly to be a judgment call rather than a strict application of the four factors.
Most websites make an effort to reduce this uncertainty by posting a terms of use somewhere that establishes what the website expects the license on posts to be. Generally you grant the website some kind of perpetual non-exclusive license to republish your post in various formats. Whether or not (or to what extent) these terms of use are enforceable is a different story, but I can guarantee they would figure in any court case that were to come up.
Mike chooses not to reduce this uncertainty by publishing terms of use for your posts, so the uncertainty remains. While he can put whatever he creates into the public domain, I don't think he has unilaterally done so for our posts. He could post a terms of use document that says that anything you create and post on the website is contributed to the public domain as a condition of posting, and this would reduce uncertainty further, but he hasn't done that.
It would be interesting to see whether a court would find terms of use that gave everything a non-exclusive license more or less enforceable than terms of use that put everything into the public domain. Can a website operator make a reasonable argument that you should be required to allow work you post to be shown on their website? Sure. Exploited by them in certain ways? Probably. Given away to be exploited by other, unaffiliated people? Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In either case, I'm not prohibiting access to my post. You are free to copy it as much as you want for all I care. I simply ask that you pay me to read it. You have no legal obligation to do so (as I've stated multiple times). You only have a moral obligation to do so if and only if your morals dictate that it is immoral to take without payment that which is offered for sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I only have..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But I only have..
You're in luck! For a one-time payment of your firstborn child, you will have lifetime access to all his comments. It's a steal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But I only have..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go ahead and file for copyright. If you are granted one (you won't be), then you will have made your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He wasn't claiming it for the entire website.
Furthermore, you would be very unlikely to be granted a copyright for the post as-is
As long as you remain so ignorant of the actuality of copyright law, your posts on the subject will probably continue to make little sense.
...you cannot charge people to look at something you posted in public on a public site.
Or to download something you found in a public place? Regardless of copyright? You're arguing against yourself now. (BTW, Techdirt is a privately owned website. You are a guest here.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No need to mail it. Just post your address and he can come pick it up in person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh, you wish, you dirty, rotten copyright violator! Copyright is automatic.
Oh, wait, you've been defending copyright. I guess you're a hypocrite too! (of course)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There he goes again, making crap up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely not. If you offer an eBook on your website for sale and I hack into your server and copy it off, that would be morally wrong. Likewise, if I agreed to buy your eBook for a certain price, received the eBook, and then didn't pay you, that would morally wrong.
However, if someone else on the internet is willing to send that same eBook to me for free, and I accept, there is nothing morally wrong with that transaction. I didn't steal from you (the bandwidth in the first case), trespass on your property (your server, in the first case), nor violate a contractual agreement (the second case).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I purchased...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike usually has it right, in saying that a balanced copyright would balance the creator against society as a whole, not the creator against an infringing party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Length matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame it on human nature. A tentative privilege for utilitarian purposes in the first generation becomes perceived as an entitlement by the second generation who grew up with it, and a right by the third generation.
Not to mention that people are really good with rationalizing their self-perceived self-interest with moral arguments. It's who we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umm.
Try again, its a bad statement and an affront to human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only protection you need is from your peers that can blackball any bad actor not government protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why does your ip keep changing on every damned comment? Browsing on td via tor? Please log in ffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Signing in is not going to happen sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Signing in is not going to happen sorry.
But what if you write something I don't like and I want to punish you for it? How's that going to happen if you're using TOR?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Could you please sign up for a real account (under your real full legal name and national ID) and log in? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quibble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can own the copyright to something you didn't write, so copyright is irrelevant to citation and you can create a clearinghouse that holds a record of publications to theoretically prove original authorship without copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're out of luck, then, because copyright covers neither ideas nor empirical data.
I certainly deserve protection if someone tries to pass my ideas and data off as their own.
Since plagiarism is not against the law, unless it is also copyright infringement, then again you're out of luck.
For example, I could say that e=mc2 is my own idea, and there would be absolutely nothing illegal about it. Of course, that wouldn't stop my peers and professors from booting me out of the scientific community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Deep end of what, exactly?
I write scientific research for a living. Those works are copyrighted. I deserve a reference if anyone uses my ideas and data, and I certainly deserve protection if someone tries to pass my ideas and data off as their own
Whether or not you actually deserve it is one question, but one thing I can tell you for certain is that *none* of what you discuss above involves copyright.
There is no copyright on data or ideas in the US. And, as for passing off your work as their own, that's an issue of plagiarism, which is different than copyright.
Passing off someone's ideas as your own is (mostly) legal. It may hurt your *reputation* if it's later shown that you copied someone's ideas, but for the most part, you'll have no legal recourse, and almost certainly no copyright recourse.
So, not quite sure what your argument is here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously Mike, you need to grow the fuck up, and realize you and the rest of the world can't freeload everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are going to make a moral argument for intellectual property, please tell us how long this moral compunction should last. Why should it have an end? If you morally deserve protection, shouldn't you morally always have that protection? Why should our moral obligations to George Romero fall by the wayside simply because the Walter Reade Organization screwed up? Who deserves more morality, Kutiman, or the people whose samples he made into a song? Why does Disney deserve protection for its transformation of Rudyard Kipling's work, yet we give no protection to Rudyard Kipling for his untransformed work? And especially why does Disney deserve it when they explicitly waited for Jungle Book to lost those protections before making their movie?
There is no morality argument here. If the current length is correct, then shouldn't we retroactively tell Disney they owe Rudyard Kiplings estate? Shouldn't we put Night of the Living Dead back in George Romero's hands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is where your misconceptions fully expose themselves. You make the grand assumption that the point of all of this is to get everything for free and make it impossible for creative people to make a living. That is completely, without question, false. This is about changing the standard to allow the maximum proliferation of the arts and sciences for the benefit of all society while still allowing avenues for people to make a living on art.
This blog shows, day after day, very talented people making a very respectable living from alternative models that function without any dependency on the concept of copyright nor "IP". Your kind frequently disregard these instances as anecdotal evidence, but you fail to see the bigger picture. All of those "exceptions" come together to from a body of data that shows that copyright is completely unnecessary for these to work and they even thrive without its use. What is exceptional is the "stars" that make it big from signing with powerful and rich record labels that make the artist rich. This is a truly rare occurrence because making it big with a major label is like winning the lottery whereas there are equally talented, or even more so talented, artists making a respectable living without the help of major labels because their work is worth paying for in the eyes of their fans.
I suggest that you grow the fuck up and stop living in a fantasy world where it's illegal to do things differently than you wish them to be done despite the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm. Your argument against mine would be taken a lot more seriously if you read the actual argument. I did not say "because I said so." I explained why copyright policy is about net benefit to society, not moral arguments about what an individual deserves. You have offered nothing that responds to that point.
Seriously Mike, you need to grow the fuck up, and realize you and the rest of the world can't freeload everything.
Weird. I have never, ever, suggested that everyone can or should freeload. That argument makes no sense. I'm not sure why you feel the need to make up arguments rather than to address the arguments I actually made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not what I said at all. I clearly stated that I do not find your word (as presented at that time) sufficiently compelling on it's own, and asked you to expand.
I stopped reading your post after you made the above comment. I don't appreciate others putting false words in my mouth.
[ 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 ]
This is not true at all. If I were allowed to kick you in the weenus for messing with my serenity, you'd be a lot less likely to do it in the first place. That would, as I pointed out, save the economy thousands of dollars. If you persisted anyway, I would be able to kick you in the weenus, which would restore my serenity much faster at only a small cost to you, unless it messed with your ability to reproduce. As I said, that's also a good thing, because kids' carbon footprints are huge.
If anti-violence laws did not exist, people would have to be a lot more polite to each other than they are now. It would be a massive improvement for all society. Fear of things like social shaming and getting kicked in the weenus would prevent people from offending each other much more broadly than a vague threat of a tort lawsuit that would never come to fruition.
If people were allowed to kick each other in the weenus as much as they pleased, the worst that could happen would be to (insert doomsday scenario here).
I believe that everyone would be much better off without weenus protection laws. This includes myself. However, if it is true that I would be better off without these laws, then that suggests that it's true for most others. After all, I'm a member of society just like most others, why shouldn't what's good for me as a member be good for many and perhaps most other members as well? I'm explaining why I would be better off without these laws, and perhaps others would find that my reasoning for not wanting these laws also applies to them and so they would be better off. Laws exist to serve the public good, not to serve some special interests like people who get off on messing with other people's serenity. If it's true that weenus protection isn't in my best interest for reasons xyz and if others read those reasons and determine that they apply to them as well, and if it's true that the general public is worse off without these laws then with them, then we should abolish them.
Much of it also has to do with what we value. I value my right to serenity more than I value the reduction of weenus safety, if any, that would be lost as a result of these laws being abolished. Different people value different things. I'm expressing my values and perhaps others would agree with my values as well after reading them. If it's true that others agree with me, then perhaps everyone would be better off without these laws being that what we collectively gain from their abolition is more valuable to us than what we lose.
You're arguing that some serenity-fuckers might be better off with these laws. Irrelevant. People who dig holes and fill them back up for no reason would be better off if the government subsidized them. People who punch themselves in the weenus would be better off if the government stopped them. The laws shouldn't promote a specific class of offenders and it shouldn't direct more people to join that class of offenders, it should promote what's in everyone's best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thousands of dollars is pocket change. Even if it is the case that preventing you from harming others will cost the economy thousands of dollars, you're just an outlier. We'll simply put you in jail if necessary. Sure, jails cost money, but it's worth putting you in jail.
In the case that the government requires me to make sure that piece of content I come by doesn't infringe, I'm no outlier. The social costs are much greater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If thousands of dollars are just pocket change, why don't you send me a few grand?
You're now just making things up. You're just making an inane moral argument. The economics of the situation are clear: it is FAR better for society as a whole if I am allowed to kick you in the weenus. Sure, it might be a small cost for you in the short term, but there are massive benefits for everyone else that far outweigh any tiny impingement on your life that might occur. The thousands of dollars in direct savings are just the tip of the iceberg: think of the savings in police, lawyers, jails, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's pocket change for society to pay it to keep you from harming others when compared to the costs of allowing you to freely harm others. Allowing you to freely harm others could cost the economy more.
So are you arguing that everyone is better off without anti-violence laws than with them?
Anti-violence laws exist because everyone is better off with them than without. Unless you're saying that we're worse off without them, their existence is justified. If Copy'right' is to exist, it also needs justification. Just like with anti-violence laws, copyright shouldn't be allowed to exist without justification. I'm pointing out some of the costs as a way to show that it's existence isn't all that justified.
I'm arguing that everyone, including myself, is better off without copy'right' laws and I'm giving reasons why I think so. You haven't refuted any of them. If everyone is worse off without copy'right' than with it, then its existence isn't justified. Why should copy'right' be held up to a lower standard than anti-violence laws? Why should anti-violence laws require justification to exist but not copy'right' laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. Anti-violence laws have made society soft and unable to resolve personal differences in an efficient and brutal manner. Even in the unlikely event that some anti-violence laws are a net positive for society, society would certainly be better off without a law that prevents me from kicking you, specifically, in the weenus.
Anti-violence laws exist because everyone is better off with them than without.
Prove it. You can't, because it's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
automata**
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just making this up. You have no data to back this up. You have lived with "anti-"violence laws all your life, and so you think this must be the norm and that they are actually preventing violence. But they are not. How much violence do you see on the news? Tons. That is largely due to anti-violence laws having the opposite effect. Small-scale psychological violence (like you are perpetrating against my serenity) goes unpunished because it cannot be enforced by the state. You, and people like you, become emboldened by this, and then it escalates out of control.
Here is a book that totally disproves your claims. Since your claims are now totally disproven, I assume you will drop your support of "anti-"violence laws.
How many arrests for violent behavior have you read about from caveman times before these laws existed? How many cavemen do you know that were thrown in jail for homicide? They didn't even NEED jails. People settled issues like human beings. You are making up data to justify your campaign of emotional and psychological violence, which are protected because of your corrupt weenus-protection lobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the fractal nature of **
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you yourself suggested that you won't kick me because I'll hide behind the laws, so doesn't that suggest that the laws are working?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if I hide behind it dutifully, then it's protecting me right? It's working to reduce violence, right?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what you're saying is that laws work when enforced, and therefore we can reduce copyright infringement through much more stringent enforcement? Ah, I see now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point is that anti-violence laws work to serve a public good. Copy'right' laws work to serve a public disservice and so they should be abolished. See the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But MY point is that copyright laws work to serve a public good. "Anti-"violence laws work to serve a public disservice and so they should be abolished. Since I have the exact same argumentation you do, plus equal or more data than you to back up my argument, why should anybody listen to you and not me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if the public values their right to copy more than they value allowing others to restrict them from copying.
"But MY point is that copyright laws work to serve a public good. Since I have ... equal or more data than you to back up my argument"
IP proponents always argue that everyone copies everything, that's data that suggests that people don't value the privilege of others to prevent them from copying so much and that they do value their right to copy. 95+ year copyprotection lengths are hardly intended to serve the public good which suggests that these copy'right' laws really aren't intended to serve the public good and if they're not intended to serve the public good, that suggests they don't. What data have you provided to support your argument that we are better off with these laws than without.
"why should anybody listen to you and not me?"
They should listen to both of us and decide what the laws should be partly based on what they personally value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if the majority of the public values the cheap labor of a minority race more than they value universal equality, they should be allowed to enact slavery laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and, no, they shouldn't be allowed to enact slavery laws, but a public that values their right to copy as they please isn't the same thing as a public that values their privilege to enslave others. Just because slavery maybe immoral doesn't make copy'right' infringement immoral.
[ 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:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides, none of what you're saying is true and you know it. I said nothing offensive and so you are really unlikely to be offended enough by any of it to harm me. and even if you would had it been legal, I highly doubt that it's illegality has caused you to stop working and hence cost the economy thousands of dollars. The difference is that what you're saying isn't true and you know it. You're arguing for something that you believe to be false yourself. The economy hasn't been harmed thousands of dollars because you're not allowed to kick me. You're still working. and even if what you're saying is true, you're an outlier. We'll place you in jail.
I'm arguing for what I believe to be true and am giving reasonable explanation for my arguments. You haven't addressed any of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not working right now, instead I am doing all that I legally can to reclaim my serenity. It's not helping much, because what would really help is the ability to kick you in the weenus. But since I am hamstrung by terrible laws put in place decades before my birth by the powerful and corrupt weenus-protection lobby, I do what I can.
You are the outlier. You and your small group of people that get off at going all over the place and fucking with people's serenity with impunity are the problem. You want special protection for your weeni so you can continue your campaign of terror. Jails are a weak-minded society's solution to solving personal problems, so of course you would advocate it. Everyone would be better off if I could just kick you in the weenus and be done with it.
You are blinded by your devotion to your anti-serenity group, and have failed to make any cogent response to my perfectly logical arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
** embryos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1.) People are rational. If someone had the legal right to physically harm me for any reason at all, I would treat people no differently than I do now. I would, however, be eternally on my guard for people having a bad day and looking to take it out on someone, people who overreact to minor offenses, and whack jobs who just like hurting people.
2.) People have similar resources and capabilities. If the law were changed as you say, I would be a lot more careful around people physically stronger than me, and they would have a lot less reason to care. Under your hypothetical scenario, if I insulted Arnold Schwarzenegger I would most likely not be having kids. But what incentive would I have not to insult the little old lady down the street, ignoring any moral compunctions I might have?
3.) The abolition of anti-violence laws would save money. Let's see how the economy does when we get rid of laws keeping people civil and the next day half the workforce doesn't show up to work and the hospital systems are overwhelmed with thousand upon thousands of grievous injuries resulting from physical altercations sparked off by a silly insult.
Your argument is similar to one where instead of seat belts we should have sharp metal spikes mounted on the steering column of every vehicle. Sure, in an ideal world it might make people drive more carefully and cut down on the amount of enforcement needed, but do you honestly believe that's going to happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know you're just joking, but actually that does open up a whole can of worms.
What forms of violence (if any) should be allowed in society? For instance, if a white guy calls a black guy the n-word, and the black guy punches the white guy in the mouth, is that justified? Should it be legal? If not, should his assault charges be reduced?
What are the appropriate jail times for assault charges? Should we punish certain forms of assault (e.g. hate crimes) as harshly as we punish murder?
I'm not saying that you or I should actually answer these questions. I'm just pointing out that, even in a "simple" scenario like this, the debate is not at all clear.
It does, however, have a simple justification. Whatever those laws are, they must be written to maximize the public good. Assuming violence should be reduced overall we need to tailor those laws towards that specific goal. This is something pretty much everyone agrees with, or else the life of man would be "nasty, brutish, and short" (to quote Hobbes... without payment, by the way).
Bringing subjective morality into it (e.g. "weenis-punching should get the death penalty because weeners are better than beavers") only serves to derail the conversation.
So it is with copyright law... or at least, that's what the Founding Fathers intended. Copyright exists to maximize the public good, and for no other reason. The problem is, due to propaganda and lobbying by corporate rights holders, this purpose has been all but obliterated. Nearly everyone things of copyright in terms of "artists' rights," and not in terms of "public good."
One of the guys at the FSF (I forget who) told me a story about a meeting with one of Massachusetts' noble public servants (I believe it was Barney Frank). He asked, "How does this new law serve the public good?" Frank responded, "What does the public have to do with copyright?"
So, the article is completely correct. Asking whether "artists deserve to get paid" is asking the wrong question. The right question is asking whether the law benefits the public.
The moment you stop asking that question is the moment you start making terrible laws. Copyright law, at least as it stands now, is a terrible set of laws. And by leaving the public good out of the conversation altogether, the laws are only going to get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the difference between slavery abolition and copyright abolition is that slavery is something that governments generally grant and enforce, they're not something that the government takes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copy'right' is something that the government grants, its abolition is not, being that its abolition doesn't require a government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except that slavery is not in the public good. It benefits nobody except the slaveholders.
If slavery truly were in the best interests of the public, it would probably still be around. Whether moral or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So since copyright is still around, it must also be in the public good. Otherwise it would have been disposed of already, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I want to see anybody try to seize or arrest the millions of criminals in the U.S. alone without having to buy armor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That all depends on how you define "public good". The elimination of slavery definitely hurt the Southern US economy. Still, it was a "public good" to get rid of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
It's all a smokescreen to try and evade the fact that they mainly just think they should be able to avail themselves to someone else's labor without paying for it.
They aren't convincing anyone, but they are publicly demonstrating what a problem they are and why government needed to step in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Just because you define something as a 'problem' doesn't mean the government should step in.
and if people strongly believed in these laws enough they would likely follow such principles without these laws. Perhaps the reason the government 'needs' to step in is because people don't believe in these laws all that strongly.and if people don't really believe in these laws, then maybe the problem is with the laws. The government should represent what the people want, not what you want. Just because others don't believe what you believe doesn't mean there is a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
The government had to step in for the same reason they usually step in: to protect society.
People rip off music because at the moment it's easy and they figure they can get away with it.
That's all it has ever been about and everyone knows it.
All this copyright bs is just to muddy the waters and try to rationalize douchebag behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
1) limit copyright to 30 years, OR life of creator plus five years, whichever is the shorter.
2) copyrights are non-transferable. At all.
3) misrepresentation of copyright (aka 'copyfraud') is as equally punishable as criminal infringement.
As a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Please can I confirm whether those numbers are calculated or arbitrary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
1: Limit 25 years total. Then the work becomes available for re-distribution. Life of the artist plus 10 years before art in question can be sold for commercial gain.
2: Rights transferable to spouse or to children until the age of 25. Still expires in 25 years, but a financial dependent can petition for a 10 year extension.
3:I probably agree with this, but am not sure what it is you're talking about. Could you clarify?
4: Inherent rights non-transferable through sale. That is to say, that an artist cannot sell 100% of their rights away to a corporate entity. This does not alter the expiration date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Changes to copyright
1: Limit 25 years total. Then the work becomes available for re-distribution. Life of the artist plus 10 years before art in question can be sold for commercial gain.
2: Rights transferable to spouse or to children until the age of 25. Still expires in 25 years, but a financial dependent can petition for a 10 year extension.
3:I probably agree with this, but am not sure what it is you're talking about. Could you clarify?
4: Inherent rights non-transferable through sale. That is to say, that an artist cannot sell 100% of their rights away to a corporate entity. This does not alter the expiration date.
Here's the problem I see with copyright. We can come up with a number in the air, but it really doesn't do a bit of good.
There's no data that we need 30 or 25 years of copyright. In fact, the shorter time that copyright is in play, the better it actually is for society it seems. Through this, we don't have a number of people worrying about monopoly rents coming in to mess up their Merry Christmas. The problem as I see it, is all of the vested interests behind the current copyright laws that need to be dismantled before even a limit can be placed on copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Changes to copyright
I admit, the number is relatively arbitrary. It's my personal opinion based on two decades of dealing with copyright from the independent artist point of view while working freelance with companies like Disney and Warner. Those companies should not be allowed limitless access to the work put out by independent artists, and copyright does currently protect them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changes to copyright
I admit, the number is relatively arbitrary. It's my personal opinion based on two decades of dealing with copyright from the independent artist point of view while working freelance with companies like Disney and Warner. Those companies should not be allowed limitless access to the work put out by independent artists, and copyright does currently protect them."
And that's just it, I think that individual artists are harmed a lot less if copyright is given a shorter term.
Imagine if Don Bluth had a shorter term on copyrights so he could make spoofs off of Disney's work. He still had some great films, which forced Disney to make greats like Lion King and Aladdin (1). He was a great indie thinker, that cannot be denied. Imagine that there were more people able to pull from Snow White, Mickey Mouse, and Bugs Bunny for movie rights, if not for copyright stopping those people. Who Framed Roger Rabbit comes to mind (BTW, the book is some crazy mojo...).
If anything, I would say start with a lower limit, see how it works and get data about the effectiveness of copyright. As it stands, all of the signs point to it not really being an effective tool for... Anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
I think corporations and individuals should be held to very different rules regarding copyright. Shorter terms for individuals creating derivative works for free and much longer terms for those seeking to monetize the labors of another. While some of this is covered in existing law, it could go a great deal further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
For a counter-example, check out Alan Moore's "Marvelman."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
... Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
Ha, sorry, I probably should have said "a perfect example of how much copyright empowers artists."
One of memeself's (and others') arguments is that without copyright protection, artists wouldn't have any power; that copyright allows artists veto power over the misuse of their works.
He has a point, but in reality, that protection is mostly an illusion. Moore's fights with movie studios are a prime example: he has publicly stated - repeatedly - that he doesn't want movies made from his graphic novels, because Hollywood will just screw them up.
"The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is a perfect example of how right Moore is. Yet the movie still got made, because Moore doesn't own the rights to most of the work that he creates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
It's a Sophie's choice. He could have not sold the rights, in which case his work would not have been published at all, depriving the public of that work. Or, he could (and did) sign away his rights, and lost all power over how his work is used.
This is exactly the sort of outcome that copyright is supposed to prevent, no matter what your view on copyright. The fact that copyright not only allowed it to happen, but enabled it, is just more evidence that copyright law works against its stated purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
This is exactly the sort of outcome that copyright is supposed to prevent, no matter what your view on copyright. The fact that copyright not only allowed it to happen, but enabled it, is just more evidence that copyright law works against its stated purpose."
I've worked in the same field as Moore for two decades and I have to say that you're wrong on your assessment here. Moore, at the time of the creation of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, was not in a position where his work would have been unseen if one publisher set overly demanding terms. No one could have put him against the wall on this, no one could have forced him, and there is no way in heaven that there was not a willing publisher ready to work with him under whatever terms he chose.
He may have regretted his choices, but they were still his choices to make. Which is absolutely the way I think things should be.
Now, I'm all for limiting corporate control over artwork, and you might be able to bring up some better examples. But this is not one that works with the argument you are trying to advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes to copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
So when that corporation disappears, no-one will be able to use it for 70 years. That makes no goddamned sense whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
A lot of labor has been put into building Techdirt. How much did you pay to use it?
Hypocrite.
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Hmm. Way to change the subject.
You first claimed that there was no way to make money if people got stuff for free. Someone else proved you wrong and pointed out that you did not pay for Techdirt.
And your response is to assume -- falsely -- that the only other way to get paid is through ads.
Yet, we've already shown that's false. We've shown how artists have made millions giving away their work for free. And that didn't involve advertisements.
I'm not sure why you would so misrepresent the arguments made here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
and even if this were the only way to get paid, so what? It's possible to get paid. and must art creation have to be about payment? Art will still be created even without payment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Agreed. Hating it in the abstract is not enough. Active steps need to be taken to eliminate it.
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While your example is pretty nonsensical, the point is a good one. Many things can be argued to be 'in the public good' depending on your definition of public good. I'm not sure how the point furthers your argument though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They key thing many people miss when thinking about whether it is OK to be violent is the bias that creates in society. I'm a young, fit male with years of martial arts training yet I'm still only about 130lbs, which puts me at a natural disadvantage when it comes to violence. The two biggest natural biases when it comes to violence are probably age and gender. If nothing else, when condoning violence, you're marginalising half the population for being female.
So, my opinion is that violence as a reaction to someone being verbally offensive is never justified. (completely off topic, but it looks like I missed the party anyway)
"Whatever those laws are, they must be written to maximize the public good."
There's a phrase to be careful of. If you have a law that is good for the vast majority of the public at the expense of a few then you could still argue that it 'maximises the public good'. That is actually on topic because one thing I consider when thinking about copyright law is that however measurably 'good' something may be, it can still be at the cost of something immeasurable. In terms of copyright, you could have a system set up to measurably increase the amount of creativity at no expense of quality and yet still stop some creativity that would have happened otherwise. By the nature of copyright, it is likely that the increased creativity would be motivated by profit whereas the lost creativity may have been pure artistic whim.
Do we want creativity to just be an economic consideration? Or should it be about freedom for people to express themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike again liar, liar, pants on fire and marginalized.
Not in the USA, it isn't!!
Here, it is your right to get your ass sued and pay lots of damages and perhaps get criminally punished if you copy as you please and a copyright owner or US Attorney decides your mistaken belief and resultant copying is significant enough to make it worth pursuing you. Since 1790 the Constitution has authorized Congress to enact laws granting exclusive rights to authors (and inventors) for limited times to "promote progess" of "the useful arts and sciences". Congress has done so. Therefore it is NOT your right to copy as you please.
Until Tech Dirt intellectually bankrupt copyright thief posters get the requisite number of States to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing copyright (you are SOL on that one)or get Congress to repeal the Copyright Law (then states could just enact their own, and surely would, particularly where studios and publishers are.) your statement is a damn lie, and you know why.
So you dolts are pissing in the wind and it is humorous to see over a hundred posts following Masnick misinformation and also peeing on themselves in this manner.
Mike quotes Sanchez's erroneous statement:
The only--the only--relevant question is whether a marginal restriction on the general ability to use information incentivizes enough additional information production over the long run to justify denying that marginal use to every other human being on the planet, whether for simple consumption or further creation.
and then in dittohead style sycophant language says: "Exactly right."
Actually, exactly wrong, and you know it Mike. Caught you lieing again. You know very well that copyright rarely denies marginal use, it denies non-marginal use. Marginal use is generally not worth pursuing so copyright owners tend to let it go. Non-marginal use, on the other hand tends to catch the attention of copyright owners and get stopped, if done in a jurisdiction like the US where copyrights are widely respected.
Liar, liar, pants on fire, Mike. But then you are insignificant and marginal, so only worth a rare occasional verbal slap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike again liar, liar, pants on fire and marginalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike again liar, liar, pants on fire and marginalized.
If society decides they are better off looking at the licenses and choosing the free ones you and your copycrap are screwed.
Can you change the laws to prohibit those licenses?
That would be the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike again liar, liar, pants on fire and marginalized.
http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/article/suethepresidentcom_up_for_grabs_04191134/
Not even presidents uphold the law anymore what a shame LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike again liar, liar, pants on fire and marginalized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike again liar, liar, pants on fire and marginalized.
Kind of odd that you quote two other people -- neither of which is me -- and then accuse me of being a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral arguments
Everything you "create" is a derivative of things other people "created" in the past. It is immoral to forbid other people from doing the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral arguments
St MAtthew's Gospel puts your point more succinctly:
"Freely you have received - freely give."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh . . .
That's quite a question-and-antlers session . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should I get a broadcast license?
Let's say I want to set up a local radio station. I've gotten an FCC license (or run a low-power station the doesn't require it), taken my purchased CD collection, burned them all to a SAN and broadcast 24x7x365. I've even managed to find local advertisers who want to buy blocks of time and add in my own commentary occasionally.
Why should this radio station have to pay for an additional broadcast license? The music played is legitimately purchased. There's no demonstrable harm to the music producers, the artist or anyone else in the production chain.
Of course, people listening can record the songs from the radio, but they're able to do that regardless of the licensing.
Where is the harm to anyone beyond the producer's insistence they deserve extra money for what's (essentially, if not practically) free advertising for their artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that wouldn't do, would it? So I'm on my way to remove the Techdirt gadget from homepage now. Had enough of the fucking rivers you guys keep crying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUCK THE ARTISTS. STEAL EVERYTHING THEY HAVE. I'm not talking about infringement. I'm talking about going into their house and actually taking things of value. Lets show them what it means to have someone actually steal from them. Infringement won't mean so much then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without copyright, ar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay then.
Without copyright, art would be the reserve of the rich who could pay the living costs of the creators. As it was *before* we had copyright, where you either had a patron who would take direct ownership of anything you produced. Art was something you kept locked away in your private home, or held a subscription to the local opera or ballet. The masses were limited to the basic wandering minstrels who provided only the limited entertainment for what they could earn in tips.
The roadmap you indicate leads either to artists having to give away everything for free and only having rich people be able to be artists, or rich people patronising the arts and much much more limited access to them. Want to see a multi-million dollar movie, better have your own cinema and pay a share of the production costs up-front.
Or if you want a middle road with people able to make a living from art, and still have widespread distribution of art at affordable prices... You need copyright. And yes, sometimes artists give away stuff for free, but they don't give away the copyright on it, and they mainly do it to advertise 'premium' stuff they get money or by putting ads on it. Copyright ensures it's the *artist* who gets to chose what business plan they will follow to sell their works. Removing copyright chokes the Artist into either finding a rich patron, scraping a living off tips for performance, or giving it away for free without any other recourse. And you can forget "Advertising based Income" without copyright. What's to stop a TV channel just showing your TV program with their own adverts, and not paying a dime for it.
Is Floor64 going to stand by the published remarks on Techdirt, and let someone start up a website, copy Techdirt's content, replace all the advertising with their own, and profit of their back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The scenario you just described is exactly how music and movies work right now.
Copyright has not changed this one iota.
And yes, sometimes artists give away stuff for free, but they don't give away the copyright on it, and they mainly do it to advertise 'premium' stuff they get money or by putting ads on it.
And sometimes they "give away the copyright" on it, and make more money than they would otherwise.
Is Floor64 going to stand by the published remarks on Techdirt, and let someone start up a website, copy Techdirt's content, replace all the advertising with their own, and profit of their back?
People already have, and Mike has publicly stated that he's fine with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously? Check history. If you think we're restricted in what can be published in mass media now, check out the times when the Church could dictate what would or would not be allowed to be printed. And the primary reason they got away with it was because they held the biggest purse strings, and could dictate who and who could not receive patronsism.
Copyright freed artists and writers from being under the thumb of powerful vested interests. While they still have sway, they have far less of it than they used to! And that's an argument for Monopoly concerns, to prevent anyone like Murdoch gaining too much influence over any particular sphere of publishing and broadcasting. It is not an argument to abolish copyright.
So far, there hasn't been an argument provided that abolishing Copyright will be for the public good. Reducing copyright terms may well be for the public good, but I've not seen a serious argument presented for why abolishing it wouldn't push us back into stifled creativity of powerful patrons and rich galavants being the only cultural forces.
"People already have, and Mike has publicly stated that he's fine with it."
Mike also seems to have a sloppy understanding of copyright law there. He could well release every article he publishes on TechDirt into the public domain, simply by making an assertive statement forfeiting copyrights on the article. That he doesn't means he retains copyright. I ask him to stand by his words, and start putting an assertive statement forfeiting copyright to his articles.
Then I may well start copying his works. Perhaps adding value by annotating them to point out where he misunderstands copyright law, makes contradictory statements, veers off into crazy libertarian land, and insults his readership by telling them what they are and are not allowed to argue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I know my history, at least of music and publishing. Nobody here is arguing that we should return to the laws of the Stationer's Company.
Those (myself included) who are copyright reformers argue that copyright should serve the public benefit. Those who are abolitionists say that there is not any type of copyright law that would benefit the public more than harm it.
The problem, from your point of view at least, is that those monopolies and censorship periods were only possible because of laws enforced by the government. Getting rid of those laws won't bring back the Stationers; and it won't bring back the Church's censorship powers. It will remove all censorship powers from anyone.
The only thing it might do is "push us back into stifled creativity of powerful patrons and rich galavants being the only cultural forces." But we're there already. Really, think about this statement: "they held the biggest purse strings, and could dictate who and who could not receive patronsism." How does that not apply to major labels? How does that not apply to Hollywood?
And, frankly, there's not a lot of evidence that abolishing copyright would do that. The corporations that "dictate who and who could not receive patronsism" only exist in the first place because of copyright. Getting rid of copyright would probably level the playing field, because these cabals could not exist.
Mike also seems to have a sloppy understanding of copyright law there. He could well release every article he publishes on TechDirt into the public domain, simply by making an assertive statement forfeiting copyrights on the article.
In fact, that is legally false. Did you read the linked article (not the Techdirt article, the one from Stephen Kinsella)? It goes into great (and colorful) detail about how it is pretty much impossible. Here it is, read it yourself:
http://blog.mises.org/9240/copyright-is-very-sticky/
One detail he doesn't mention: Europe's copyright laws (unlike America's or England's) include what are called "moral rights," similar to "inalienable rights" on this side of the pond. This includes the rights of attribution and integrity. These rights cannot be waived, even if the author wishes to do so. That is why a CC0 license cannot be enforced there.
Then I may well start copying his works.
Then do it. As Mike stated in the article I linked, he will not go after you.
Perhaps adding value by annotating them to point out where he misunderstands copyright law, makes contradictory statements, veers off into crazy libertarian land, and insults his readership by telling them what they are and are not allowed to argue.
Mike has a better understanding of copyright law than you do, it seems - probably because he counts several copyright lawyers among his friends. If his statements seem contradictory, then you probably don't understand them. He is a capitalist, not necessarily a libertarian. And he has never, once, told his readership what they are and are not "allowed" to argue, just which arguments make sense in his opinion.
Still, if you want to add this "value," please do so. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How?
"While they still have sway, they have far less of it than they used to!"
But copy'right' is not to be credited for that, taking away power from the monarch is.
"And that's an argument for Monopoly concerns, to prevent anyone like Murdoch gaining too much influence over any particular sphere of publishing and broadcasting."
Allowing Murdoch (and others) to copy doesn't prevent him from gaining too much influence over any particular sphere of publishing and broadcasting. Prohibiting broadcasting monopolies does. Copy'right' exists and, outside the Internet, corporations already have too much control over these particular spheres of publishing and broadcasting. Copy'right' has done nothing to stop it, if anything, it contributed to it.
"So far, there hasn't been an argument provided that abolishing Copyright will be for the public good."
I provided arguments and you ignore them. I value the lack of copy'right' more than I value its existence because I value what I get from its lack (my right to copy) than what I get from its existence. So its lack is better for me than its existence. If the public agrees, then it is in the public good as well. I'm arguing that others should agree with me on this and I'm providing various reasons. That you choose to ignore them isn't my problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In modern I could copy, use and sell, Big Bucks Bunny and others.
Aside from that I want to know when financial incentives cease to exist if ever copyrights disappear.
Are writers not paid to give lecturers?
Are musicians not paid to perform live or to endorse something?
Are movie makers not able to sell anything despite competition?
Are those not financial incentives?
Or is that you think they are just not enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe the mistake you have made is to assume that without copyright there is no financial incentive to publish.
This is doubly ironic since earlier in this thread, you claimed you wanted to republish my stuff. You would not hold the copyright on that, but obviously you felt that there would be some incentive for you to republish my stuff.
And, clearly I publish my work, despite not desiring nor using copyright law. And I am financially benefiting from it.
So why make false assumptions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They had the monopoly, nobody could do squat without paying them up and that is one of the reasons in many of the revolts of the commons why religious figures where slaughtered, the modern day equivalent are artists trying to impose absurd norms to people for which in the end they will get "slaughtered" too, that is why copyrights will grow and be repealed to rise again and restart the cycle.
The difference is that today people don't need to kill artists to accomplish that task they can and will migrate to free legal alternatives.
This is why people don't respect copyright because is the same thing the church was doing in medieval times.
About Mikes copyright instances oh well he made a public statement already saying that there is no permissions needed to copy or reuse his work on this blog and that is valid in any court of law as a contract.
Although it would be practical to have some place with this written for easy access and linking he already gave those rights up and did not apparently revoked that statement.
Can you please show us how the church is different from artists today?
Both claim control over something, both keeps creating absurd rules and now copyrights is feeling the wrath of society just like in medieval times when people got fed up with the monks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.
Women are able to retain all property they owned prior to marriage in the case of divorce. However, this provision does not apply to men.
It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see a lot of "I want it free" weenies arguing against having any kind of Copyright at all. I see very few, if any, of the people who actually produce the content they want arguing against Copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, well, I guess that proves it then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, just because people are arguing against copy'right' doesn't mean they are saying that they want it free. Maybe they will pay for it without such privileges.
"I see very few, if any, of the people who actually produce the content they want arguing against Copyright"
Plenty of content does get produced under CC licenses, licenses at least partly designed to circumvent copy'right' laws. and people who produce that content probably also consume content as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you anti-choice, Mike?
Besides making you pay for content, what is so fucking horrible about copyright, hmmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is used to censor
Copyright is used to limit choices for consumers
Copyright is used to stagnate the market
Copyright is used to limit payment for certain goods
Copyright is used to limit negotiations in contracts
The cons outweigh the pros and either need a true rethinking, or they need to be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is used to limit choices for consumers
Copyright is used to stagnate the market
Copyright is used to limit payment for certain goods
Copyright is used to limit negotiations in contracts
Them's good things for me! Long live copyright!
-- IP-tard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or, I could ask my friends who were in bands on major labels if they believe the current copyright system benefits them over the labels.
Oh, wait, I have.
Look, there's no question that copyright benefits some artists some of the time. The question is, considering all artists all of the time, whether they're hurt or harmed more by copyright laws.
I believe they are harmed, because copyright enables the creation of corporate rights holders, who themselves create nothing, but reap all the economic benefits of creators' works.
And let's not forget that artists and publishers are not supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of copyright law. The primary beneficiaries are the public. They benefit by incintivizing the creation of additional works, for the public's use.
Here is what you should ask your friends. Two questions: "Would you be better off, or worse, if your publishers were not allowed to control the copyrights on your creations?" And: "If copyright was not around, would you still write?"
I see a lot of "I want it free" weenies arguing against having any kind of Copyright at all. I see very few, if any, of the people who actually produce the content they want arguing against Copyright.
I produce music, as do most of my friends. When I let them know of stuff like the ICE seizure of domain names without notice, every single one of them is appalled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, wait, I have."
There's a problem here... "do you believe the current copyright system benefits you over the labels" is a lot different that "do you believe you should have any copyrights in your work at all?" There's a world of difference between "Rights can too easily be taken by abusive labels, and have overly long terms" and "There should be no copyrights at all!"
Try telling your friends that you don't think they should be able to prevent a rival band copying their work and passing it off as their own? See how they'll react to that, because that's what "no copyrights" means.
And I don't have to ask if my writer friends would stop writing without copyright around for them to make profit from the act of publishing. I know they wouldn't stop writing. But I do know they wouldn't put all their time into it anymore. Most of them certainly won't publish again, because getting a book professionally edited to correct errors and make it fit to read costs in the region of $15,000 a book. I have friends who have gone into e-publishing, and they rely on having books that were published in print first so they don't have to upfront on the editing costs. Where they do have a book that's not been edited, they're having to struggle to get the costs sorted out. They currently offset based on their scriptwriting work, which would of course dry up without copyright keeping the film production a big business.
For the most, it would mean turning their careers into occasional pastimes. Mostly for the enjoyment of their friends. Perhaps defraying their costs with donations and merchandise, occasionally getting burnt when someone takes their work and puts them up on their own site with merchandising that undercuts them.
The pool of professional writers would get a lot lot lot smaller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BZZZZZZT! Wrong! Copyright law does not apply to plagiarism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop. Let's back up here for a second. The Huffington Post allows people to write on their platform free of charge. You can go to Blogger and create stories. People write on fanfiction.net for their own benefit by adding to canon.
I'm pretty sure that they can write professionally or set up a website to gain an audience and do it themselves. Copyright doesn't really begin to enter the picture unless it's an argument about how much each book is worth.
"Mostly for the enjoyment of their friends. Perhaps defraying their costs with donations and merchandise, occasionally getting burnt when someone takes their work and puts them up on their own site with merchandising that undercuts them.
The pool of professional writers would get a lot lot lot smaller."
If you're going to put writing on the spot, then make sure to cast the light both ways. Namely, professional writing has quite a number of fees installed. The Writer's Guild of America can be quite frustrating when you HAVE to be a member for Hollywood. Novel shopping can sure as hell be very hard to figure out because of all of the discussions that are involved. Also factor in agents vs self publishing and you have a lot of choices that all writers have to go through.
I doubt the pool will be smaller, just a lot more diversified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, no, copyright isn't about such fraud at all and it is dishonest to claim it is. Congratulations on exposing yourself and losing any credibility you may have had. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, two things on that: first, that's got nothing to do with copyright. Passing something off as your own has to do with plagiarism, not copyright. Kinda weird that earlier in this thread you claimed you were going to school me in copyright, and yet you don't seem to know the basics.
But, second, and more importantly, we've shown multiples times on this site examples of what you describe, and the social mores work quite well in handling it. If you try to pass someone else's work off as your own, it's not hard to call that copier out for what they've done, and they lose their reputation (while you increase your own).
If you want an example of that, look up Judith Griggs and Cooks Source.
The pool of professional writers would get a lot lot lot smaller.
This is false. We've already looked at studies that have looked at areas where copyright gets weaker, and what's seen is an INCREASE in the professional classes of creators, because the lower copyright means fewer gatekeepers, meaning more opportunities.
We're seeing it today. Copyright is close to meaningless for a large number of musicians and there's infringement everywhere... and yet MORE PEOPLE are making money today as a musician than ever before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have a population adjusted citation for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorta the point of the entire thread, isn't it? Asking the person who is granted a monopoly if they should have it is NOT the way you determine whether or not that monopoly is good for society?
Would you determine whether or not sugar monopolies are good for the society by asking the guy who holds the monopoly on sugar?
I see a lot of "I want it free" weenies arguing against having any kind of Copyright at all. I see very few, if any, of the people who actually produce the content they want arguing against Copyright
Hmm. I've been reading through this entire thread, and don't recall ANYONE saying "I want it free." There may have been one or two that I missed (there are a lot of comments), but most of them are arguing something entirely different.
Separately, I find it odd that *in this very thread* it was pointed out to you that *I* who produces a ton of content, is skeptical of the value of copyright law. I'm not an abolitionist, but I would like some evidence of what copyrights actual benefit is before we keep expanding it.
So why would you lie so thoroughly and claim that (a) it's just people who want stuff for free and (b) that content creators do not agree?
It seems odd that you would resort to outright lying. Don't you have a real argument to support your position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Further your assertion that without copyrights, art would be pushed to powerful patrons and rich galavants is ridiculous, copyright empowers the big boys(the powerful patrons and rich galavants) already most movies, films and music are all "produced" by those people buying the rights of small content producers and being controlled by those people, case in point 90 or 80 percent of all music released is owned by 3 labels in the U.S., most movies are from the big studios, explain again how is that different from medieval times again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second. You mistake distributors for publishers. And the difference to medieval times is there were no such thing as "independent labels" at all. In fact, no one published music for sale! If there were such thing as music recordings, no one would sell them, because they couldn't get any return on the investment without some kind of right to restrict copies. You'll have to make do with the occasional performance by a passing musician, who will only perform as much as you pay for each time, and will only perform what they know.
Let's extrapolate on from then to now without copyright.
TV and Radio are live performances only. No actor or singer will consent to be recorded for TV or Radio re-play, since they want the money from performances. If they were recorded, then the TV station could keep playing it without ever having to pay them again! TV Stations that re-broadcast recordings were boycotted by the actors guilds, and sued for loss of income. Private recordings from broadcasts were common till widespread encryption and black-box display devices were forced on the networks by performers guilds.
Films are still a novelty. Since they are so easy to copy, no one ever made the huge amounts actors demand to have their performances recorded. There was no "Gone with the Wind", no one would throw away that amount of money on something for the masses. There are art-house cinema movies, commissioned by patrons who can afford it, and circulated in small numbers to their friends and political allies.
There has been a boom of print on demand... To self destructing paper.
Only the nobel minded publish anything to the internet, and there are certainly no online movie rentals because no one would put their exclusive expensive commissioned art-house film where they can be copied!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But music was still produced.
"TV and Radio are live performances only. No actor or singer will consent to be recorded for TV or Radio re-play, since they want the money from performances."
Actors and singers generally do not hold the copy'right' over such broadcasted performances already, yet they consent to such things.
"If they were recorded, then the TV station could keep playing it without ever having to pay them again!"
That's already the case, because the TV stations often hold the copy'rights' already. Yet these things are still created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ps. I'm a former profesional actor. Don't try to bull**** me over what I got paid to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, even so, T.V. stations need content for people to see their advertising and so they will pay actors to perform without copy'right'. Do you honestly think that "No actor or singer will consent to be recorded for TV or Radio re-play," What about American Idol? I bet you on techdirt alone there are some people who would love the opportunity to have themselves and singing broadcasted to the world because of the benefits they can gain. See, there is value in being broadcasted, and that value can be used to produce content.
"Only the nobel minded publish anything to the internet"
The No true Scotsman fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"State funded" does not equal "government controlled." Certainly, at this point, the internet is not dependent on any government at all.
As an interesting side note, none of the works produced by the government are covered by copyright. Yet they still get produced.
And the difference to medieval times is there were no such thing as "independent labels" at all. In fact, no one published music for sale!
This is completely false. Music publishers were offering sheet music, for sale, long before copyright existed. Likewise, there were privately funded opera houses and theaters that were open to the public. Look at the biography of Handel if you don't believe me.
TV and Radio are live performances only.
Most TV and radio actors did not, and do not, get royalties from re-broadcasting. A few do, most don't. The vast majority are "work for hire," like the majority of people who work for the studios in general. "Work for hire" artists don't retain the rights to their works.
Films are still a novelty. Since they are so easy to copy, no one ever made the huge amounts actors demand to have their performances recorded.
Here's an interesting tidbit: Hollywood was founded on piracy. Look up the Motion Picture Patents Company, aka the "Edison Trust."
there are certainly no online movie rentals
In this age where piracy is ubiquitous, trivially easy, and relatively risk-free - Netflix is making money hand over foot.
Frankly, your scenario doesn't make sense. These things would still be produced without copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Addendum:
I will give you props, though. By asking whether content would otherwise be produced, you are asking the right question. Not only that, you are asking the only relevant question.
The answer may not be what you think, however. Mike has posted some case studies that show how intellectual output increases when fewer copyright restrictions are granted. I'm too busy to hunt them down right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) Look up the Grants of Privilege and Printer Monopoly, and how they were applied to Sheet Music.
3) Understand that Handel was around when Grants of Privilege and Printer Monopolies were being formalised into Copyright Law.
4) Understand that often "Public" theatres and opera houses still required strong patronage to commission the works they produced, merely defraying some of their costs by opening to public subscription.
5) Look up what 'Work for Hire' actually is. Look up what a 'Residual' is and what the SAG basic contract is.
Perhaps consider claiming to know what you are talking about may be a mistake when you do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nuh-uhh! I have my fingers in my ears! I can't hear you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then I may well start copying his works. Perhaps adding value by annotating them to point out where he misunderstands copyright law, makes contradictory statements, veers off into crazy libertarian land, and insults his readership by telling them what they are and are not allowed to argue
Hilarious. Karl proves you totally and completely wrong, and rather than admit it, you still go off the rails and make a bunch more false statements.
Seriously, go ahead, start a site that copies Techdirt content.
And, please, what do you mean by saying you're not allowed to argue? I keep the comments wide open here and welcome people of all viewpoints to make comments. On your own copycat site, will you do that as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So now the IP-tards are resorting to blatant lies (again).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*coughs*
Okay, I was drinking then this kind of came up on me.
There's already a lot of digital alternatives to the patron system you're citing. And some artists might actually want such a system. We already have musicians traveling all around the world for fans. Going to a person's house for a private party doesn't seem like such a stretch when an artist isn't tied to touring for a CD promotion.
"Or if you want a middle road with people able to make a living from art, and still have widespread distribution of art at affordable prices... You need copyright"
Let's really look at copyright for a second here. What exactly does copyright do in gaining an audience, keeping an audience, or allowing a song to be used on the radio? We know that Leonardo da Vinci made sketches of tanks, helicopters, etc before they were known by those names. We know he made the Mona Lisa. If it's about accreditation, that's known. If you're saying it's about money, it's entirely a different ball game we're in.
If you look at copyright law, it's not designed to be artist friendly. So let's move away from infringements and look at all of the licenses of copyright which are as follows:
Link
So if you're saying we need copyright, look there at the confusing patchwork to copyright law. What would be far better is if we allowed the artist to actually negotiate, not look into an individual licence for every. Last. Person in the stratosphere that needs to be paid, debiting the artist of their hard earned cash and soul. Hyperbole aside, it's not that copyright is needed. I would argue that a more stable environment that allows for more negotiation for the artist (read: weaker copyright laws) would allow for a much easier time of helping artists.
"And you can forget "Advertising based Income" without copyright."
False. There's Google adwords and gaining audiences for yourself, which plenty of writers, musicians, and self sufficient entrepreneurs are using along with other tools such as Kickstarter.
"What's to stop a TV channel just showing your TV program with their own adverts, and not paying a dime for it."
What's to stop you from putting the show on your own website and having other ways to earn money? Better yet, if a TV show is being advertised, what's to stop someone from putting up a Bittorrent, cutting out the commercials, and becoming a fan? There's other ways to make revenue here, and you seem to be limiting yourself.
"Is Floor64 going to stand by the published remarks on Techdirt, and let someone start up a website, copy Techdirt's content, replace all the advertising with their own, and profit of their back?"
You do realize that people read the articles and come back here, right? You also realize, that it's highly doubtful that someone else named Techdork, using a Mickey Masnim will fly very far without the infrastructure established?
I suggest understanding where exactly the problem lies with copyright law. People use the TD articles as they see fit. We discuss them free of charge. But if someone wants to profit off the back (say discuss the problems herein with copyright or as a rebuttal to Mike's work) they are free to do so. How that's inherently wrong is what I'm having a hard time understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you figure? In fact, we've detailed many newer artists who have taken control over their own careers by not caring about copyright, but doing new and innovative business models that also let them route around the gatekeepers.
The issue concerning the ability of whether its "the rich" or others who can afford to be a part of art has to do with *gatekeepers* not with copyright. Today there are fewer gatekeepers. If anything the gatekeepers kept the gates up longer because of copyright.
The roadmap you indicate leads either to artists having to give away everything for free and only having rich people be able to be artists, or rich people patronising the arts and much much more limited access to them
How do you figure? Look at things like Kickstarter, which seems to suggest the world is moving in exactly the opposite direction from what you describe.
Or if you want a middle road with people able to make a living from art, and still have widespread distribution of art at affordable prices... You need copyright.
Need? Why?
Copyright ensures it's the *artist* who gets to chose what business plan they will follow to sell their works.
No, it doesn't. Since it most cases you have to give up that copyright to a gatekeeper.
Removing copyright chokes the Artist into either finding a rich patron, scraping a living off tips for performance, or giving it away for free without any other recourse
Only if you don't look around and recognize all the wonderful new business models out there.
Is Floor64 going to stand by the published remarks on Techdirt, and let someone start up a website, copy Techdirt's content, replace all the advertising with their own, and profit of their back
I have said that's fine many times. Go for it. Many others do. Please send me a link when you do, so I can check it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I assume TechDirt also despises people who think we "deserve" things like "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" if "No one deserves anything". Is Masnick really pinning Techdirt's colors to the mast of Ultra Libertarianism, and denying any moral rights exist except the hallowed right of "screw you I want to do what I want to do"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Is Masnick really pinning Techdirt's colors to the mast of Ultra Libertarianism, and denying any moral rights exist except the hallowed right of "screw you I want to do what I want to do"?"
No, some moral rights do exist, but copy'right' isn't one of them. In fact, it's my moral right to copy as I please, so we do believe in moral rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is nothing resembling a majority that say copyright is wrong.
Just a minority that find it annoying; those that consume in society but do not contribute back. Leeches.
it's my moral right to copy as I please
And I think it's my moral right to come over and repeatedly kick you in the balls.
But breaking the law seems rather immoral to me, so maybe you should reassess your copying and I shouldn't put my boots on just yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We have to start somewhere, and these discussions offer a starting point.
"Just a minority that find it annoying; those that consume in society but do not contribute back. Leeches."
You must be referring to the **AA and the corporations, who consume the benefits of their monopoly rents over cableco and airwave broadcasting and content but do not produce anything. The majority of people do not believe in these laws, ie: see China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Techdirt position seems pretty clear: "things" should be granted, by law, only if they maximize the public good. Asking whether we "deserve" those things is asking the wrong question.
Funny you should mention "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Here's what the author of those words said about "intellectual property:"
- Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My understanding of copyright was to allow producers of content enough time to make money from their productions before it became a public good.
As originally envisioned, copyright offered a limited window of exclusivity (if I remember 14 years with an option for another 14 years) before things slipped into the public domain.
This "limited" part has gone away. I don't even see copyright maximalists trying to defend that life plus 70 years is in any way shape or form limited.
Thanks to copyright extension content - even content that the rights holder is not actively making available - is locked up by this over-long copyright to the detriment of the public good.
I can think of a few books I'd lost or have been destroyed that are no longer in print and because of the copyright it's both a criminal and civil offense for anyone to copy and make this available, despite the rights holder clearly not caring that they make no money currently from the work.
How is this for the public good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your faulty assumptions are your own problem.
if "No one deserves anything"
But that doesn't excuse your blatant misquotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Objectivism says in a nutshell, "Greed is good." You sacrifice any altruism, (or ya know, morals), in the pursuit of profit. If Mike were actually practicing Objectivism, he would have been an IP maximalist.
So for you to go on about moral rights means you obviously have no idea what in the world you're talking about.
As said before, morality has absolutely nothing to do with a purchase of goods. If an artist has a song enjoyed on the radio, they can have customers look for the CD.
If I go to a book store and enjoy its free internet, that is not a crime against any artist. Neither is going to the library and reading a book.
The only thing that a person can do is make available a good. They can set a price and see what happens with the feedback. It's not a moral imperative for X amount of people to buy. But people will look and see and possibly find other goods that aren't readily available.
All of this has nothing to do with the buzzwords of Libertarianism, Objectivism, and moral rights that you seem to want to use to paint the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did not say "No one deserves anything." Why would you assume I had?
I merely said that no one "deserves" copyright, and gave an explanation (and linked to another explanation) for why that is. The purpose of copyright law is supposed to be to maximize societal benefit. I did not say we shouldn't have copyright, I just said that the arguments around copyright should focus on what maximizes overall benefit, not whether or not an individual "deserves" something.
I assume TechDirt also despises people who think we "deserve" things like "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" if "No one deserves anything".
So you start with a blatantly false misquote of what I said, and then extrapolate it to something even more ridiculous?
Yeah... moving on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright trolls
That said, I think greed and arrogance have overtaken many so-called artists who are copyright owners, and especially corporate entities like record companies and the RIAA who I believe have found litigation to be a handy way to bring in even more money. To me, it is legalized extortion. It costs the record companies relatively little money to join a thousand or more unnamed defendants in a single lawsuit, find their identities in ex-parte actions, then ambush them with threatening letters stating they will be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, but offer to settle for a few thousand if they will act quickly.
The vast majority of those targeted by these lawsuits are individuals who have shared a few songs with others, and I seriously doubt the record companies have suffered any actual damage from their actions. In many cases this gives them additional exposure, and people if they like a shared song will go out and buy a copy of that CD for themselves, thus actually boosting sales. Others who download "pirated" music probably wouldn't have bought the CD regardless of whether the song they wanted was available through other channels or not, so again the record companies have suffered no real, actual damage.
Another problem is the record companies have used shady investigative techniques in their quest to identify infringers, and in many cases have identified totally innocent people, even infants, small children, elderly grandmothers, people who have never had computers, and even the dead, as offenders. And those who have opted to fight this unjust litigation have found themselves faced with totally outrageous judgments, out of all proportion with any actual damages. Case in point-Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Found to have infringed songs with an actual value of probably less than $50.00, she has been hit with a judgment well in excess of $1 million. In this case it is obvious the intent of the record companies and RIAA is to send a message to anyone they catch in their dragnet, Pay up now or we will destroy you.
What's wrong with this approach? For starters, while this may bring in some extra money in the short term, it is doing them serious damage to their good will long term, and ultimately will anger many who read of these atrocities and turn them away from the big labels responsible for them. And this is beside the point that most of their music (in my estimation anyway) is just pure garbage. Suing your potential customers is no way to bring in repeat business. (And then the music industry wonders why their sales are tanking.)
Secondly, there are other, much more amicable ways this situation could be dealt with. I have no doubt that most of those sharing files would gladly pay a small monthly fee for a license to share files legally, and if enough would participate the record companies could probably bring in much more even than they get with their senseless litigation, and without making enemies of their customers.
Commercial pirates are another matter altogether. These are people who mass produce and sell for money counterfeit CDs and DVDs without a license from the copyright holders. The record companies have every right to go after these mass infringers, as they do real damage to them, not only by taking away money that should rightly go to them, but in reputation as in many cases the counterfeit copies are of poor quality which those buying them may equate with the actual source.
But to sue individuals who upload or download a few songs for their own enjoyment, or for others to hear, for 10s of thousands of times any alleged actual damages? Give me a break!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright trolls
You also must remember that industry figures are no different.
Korea’s Fair Trade Commission fines 15 music distributors for collectively rigging prices
by VITALSIGN on March 1, 2011 at 1:20 am
http://www.allkpop.com/2011/03/koreas-fair-trade-commission-fines-15-music-distributors-for-coll ectively-rigging-prices
• Westchester Premier Theater Affair (1982):
• Solomon Weiss (Convicted of racketeering, fraud and perjury charges and acquitted of tax violations, five years community service and a fine of $58,000)
• Jay Emmett (pleaded guilty in exchange for his cooperation, received a suspended sentence)
November 28, 1982, Sunday
An executive of Warner Communications was convicted yesterday of fraudulently arranging the company's purchase of stock in the Westchester Premier Theater. The jury found the executive, Solomon Weiss, guilty of racketeering, fraud and perjury charges and acquitted him of tax violations. The verdict came on the fourth day of deliberations after a three-week trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan. Mr. Weiss, the 53-year-old assistant treasurer of the giant entertainment company, appeared pale and shaken after the verdict. He could face up to 20 years in prison on the main charge and could be required to forfeit his $2 million of Warner stock to the Government.
• Source:
• http://www.nytimes.com/1982/11/28/nyregion/warner-executive-convicted-of-fraud-in-purchase-of-theate r-stock.html
• http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/752/752.F2d.777.84-1103.1481.html
• 752 F.2d 777; UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Solomon WEISS, Defendant-Appellant.; No. 1481, Docket 84-1103.; United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.; Submitted July 17, 1984.; Decided Jan. 7, 1985.
• Edgar Bronfman Jr., Warner Music CEO (5 million euros fines, 15 month prison suspended sentence)
• Jean-Marie Messier, former head of Vivendi (150 thousand euro fines, 3 years prison suspended sentence)
• Eric Licoys
• Guillaume Hannezo
• Source:
• http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/49808/
• http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/legal-and-management/edgar-bronfman-jr-warner-music-group-ce o-1004139847.story
• Vivendi and Warner Guilty of Price Fixing (2003-08-12)
∘ By Jon Newton, p2pnet.net (2003-08-12)
∘ http://www.musicdish.com/mag/index.php3?id=8580
So if they are immoral, what makes and entire industry with connections with the real mob and numerous cases of repugnant behavior like death by drugs, improper public behavior like Geroge Michael beying arrested for performing a public fellatio, or Paris Hilton listed ironically as a musician and jailed for possession of drugs which she lied about it, or every other musician that use drugs but lie about it?
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Shadowcast/jailed_musicians/
Musicians that are also liars, thief and murders:
La Bella Mafia Lil' Kim
September 2005 - July 2006. Served ten months of a year-and-a-day sentence after being convicted of three counts of conspiracy and one count of perjury in relation to her testimony about a shooting that occurred outside of a Manhattan studio in 2001.
Phil Spector
May 2009 to present. Sentenced to 19 years to life following his conviction of second-degree murder. He was convicted of killing actress Lana Clarkson via gunshot at his home in 2003.
Varg Vikernes
June 1994 to May 2009. Formerly of the one-man band Burzum, he joined Mayhem in 1993 as a bassist and murdered his bandmate, guitarist Øystein "Euronymous" Aarseth, stabbing him 23 times. He was also convicted of the arson of four churches, and sentenced to 21 years in prison (the maximum possible sentence under Norwegian law). He was released on parole in May 2009.
Are you really going to play that card?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
It took some world-class sociopaths like Thomas and Tenenbaum to get these cases into court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
The main reason we only see the less weak cases is because the weaker cases were dropped by the plaintiffs (or never filled), if they failed to pressure the defendant into settling (or paying without going to the courts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Everyone the RIAA went after admitted guilt and settled.
Except the sociopaths Thomas and Tenenbaum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Wow. Then you wonder why people don't take you seriously?
Whether you agree with them or not, both of those people simply exercised their rights to a fair trial and due process. The "sociopaths" in this case were the people suing thousands of their own customers based on the flimsiest evidence because they feared for some profits. Whether you personally believe that they knew they were doing something wrong before they downloaded is irrelevant to their exercising their free rights.
It's a shame that you think that people defending their innocence instead of simply paying fines to corporations with no substantial evidence is "sociopathic", but stupidity and hyperbole are hardly strangers to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/
Tania andersen was sued?
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/06/victim-of-dropp/
http://idolator.com/395836/riaa-ta kes-its-suit-and-goes-home
http://www.shoutingloudly.com/2007/03/28/stern-letter-causes-riaa-to-dro p-suit/
So your assertion that there were any is just fiction apparently, since thousands of suits were dropped because of faulty data, which is why everybody points out that IP's are not reliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
This is flat-out false. The RIAA dropped a TON of suits. It also chose not to pursue many when people simply did not pay up and did not respond.
I'm not sure why you are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
oh really, a ton? ok, post a citation. I admit I'm wrong if you do.
But post it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Others have posted some links. It's not hard to find more. Here's one that lists a bunch of suits dropped.
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/riaa-drop-lawsuits-seven-university-students
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
But IP maximists will deny this. They will ask for examples. We provide it to them. They ignore those examples.
Then IP maximimsts will claim, "but we're being paranoid". We provide examples and evidence that we're not being paranoid. They claim that these are 'outliers'. They provide absolutely no evidence supporting their position and they ignore the evidence opposing it. How can these people possibly be taken seriously? Abolish copy'right'.
They claim IP promotes the progress. We ask for evidence. None is given. They want evidence from us, we often provide, they ignore it, claim we're paranoid, and that our examples are outliers. We ask for evidence from them, none is ever provided.
Just amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Nevertheless, experience informs me that such mistakes and abuses are not the general rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Abuse of a law has to be "the general rule" for it to be a serious problem? Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
They did not win every case, and had to settle a number of them when, in court, it was proven that they over stepped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Everyone admitted guilt and settled except the sociopaths Thomas and Tenebaum, who were found guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
While I do think that "sociopath" is a bit over the top describing JRT and T, I would agree that "ignorant", "stupid", "idiotic", "dellusional", etc. would be apt descriptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Besides we will never now how many innocent people were accused but did nothing of the sort because it was better to just settle those things.
But surely the dead settle with the RIAA.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/print.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Everyone admitted guilt and settled except the sociopaths Thomas and Tenebaum, who were found guilty.
The only one lying is you. The RIAA dropped a bunch of lawsuits. They also did not follow through on a bunch of others. Will you admit you were wrong? Doubtful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
Everyone admitted guilt and settled except the sociopaths Thomas and Tenebaum, who were found guilty."
I want some of what you're smoking. The EFF has a record of the people that successfully won cases against them. Not to mention it was discussed in Lawrence Lessig's book about some of the cases (the most infamous being that they gave a family 60 days to grieve while the man that they tried to sue had died!
Here's more criticism
Deny reality all you want but the records show you're the one lying, not me.
Just remember man, puff, puff, give. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
At least now you officially know I don't work for the RIAA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright trolls
My quarrel is not with copyright itself. My quarrel is with copyright maximalists who want everything for themselves, and nothing for consumers. My quarrel is with corporate entities who want to make everything copyright for ever by way of endless term extensions. My quarrel is with those who have retroactively extended term of copyright on works that otherwise would have gone into the public domain in the 1970s when their copyrights expired, to where they will not expire in our lifetime. My quarrel is with those who want to reclaim copyright on works already in the public domain, and who abuse copyright in other ways. My quarrel is with those who seek multi-million dollar judgments against individuals who have uploaded or downloaded a few songs for others to listen to or for their own enjoyment and who have done little if any damage to those suing them, ruining them for life for an offense that is on the level of an overtime parking violation.
The original term of copyright, when copyright law first came about, was 14 years, with one extension to 28 years at the author's timely request. At the end of this term the work went into the public domain, and could be used legally by anyone for any purpose. Public domain is important because much of the works of today have been built on top of existing works from the public domain, and have been for all of history. With the term of copyright now life of the author plus 70 years, nothing copyrighted today will go into the public domain in our lifetime, and possibly in the lifetimes of our great great grandchildren. And if congress keeps passing term extensions at the whim of some congressman or corporation or other, there will be no more public domain because everything will be copyright for ever, unless the author himself donates his work to the public domain.
And we will all be the losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Age of reason
- Heather Armstrong Salt Lake City Blogger
Now I don't have many issues in life and when new people enter my circle its with no trepidation of fear. I actively seek new experiences and meeting people is probably the most interesting one of them all. Then people constantly remind me of all the time I spend on the computer or more perceptive the internet. Some- times you have to spell it out for them.
Now my firmly held creed is that you can NOT deal with an issue unless your made aware of it. That being said our choices are the issue. The choices that you believe are right and yet your willing to damage a relationship for that belief. This is what we call the axiom of ignorance. Historical perspective its the same as looking at land owning slave owners wishing to be free or aka our founding fathers. If you don't prefer axiom of ignorance you can basically boil it down to looking in a mirror and not knowing a dam thing about yourself. The Vikings may have termed it Loki's Mirror because when you really do the introspection(study of self) & actually look in there your bound to find chaos.
Another creed of mine is one a bit more settle but very pertinent to this. Ya get my point? It covers everything; I don't even have to make a list because your doing it to every choice that we've made in our home that differs from your own and then creating this axiom(direct definition: a saying that is widely accepted on its own merits). Dogma is another word for it.
The creed, if missed, in one word is acceptance... I regret to inform you that this is not a black and white world and if you choose to live in it and then with hindsight take issue with it, ok. Yet, what is not acceptable is making that choice over and over then taking issue with it. The settle difference its your beliefs that raise the issue rather than ideas. Ideas can change given new input, beliefs are much trickier, people die over them.
So next time you decide to bring an issue up that you have with our choices; look in the mirror and ask yourself is it a good idea or a belief. Then MOST IMPORTANTLY; ask your self is it worth it?
Cordially welcoming you to the age of reason,
Chris
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Held for Review
Could you please hold all messages originating from the IP address of commenter #1 for a couple of days for "review by staff" before they are posted? I know you've previously said that such holds don't amount to censorship, so that shouldn't be a problem.
I would be glad to help yo identify other addresses that need to have holds placed on them as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Held for Review
What a ginormous dildo you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Held for Review
Newsflash, Soviets haven't existed under that term since 1992.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USPTO Automates Eight Patent Petition Types
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ePetition-FAQs.jsp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ePetition-FAQs.jsp#heading-3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re (not!) "Deserving Copy rights..." Eactly right!
A textbook example is war photos of INJURED, KILLED, and DISPLACED persons. The photographer, his agency, and his publisher(s) ALL DEMAND "COPY RIGHTS" for those images, the images which often sell newspapers, magazines (and, for example, during Vietnam war, Gulf War 1, & invasion of Iraq) sold TV air time.
But WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS' RIGHTS? For example, Robert Capa's famous photo of Spanish democrat soldier Federico Borrell Garcia falling, the moment he is shot and killed by one of Franco's troops bullets.
http://www.fotoart.gr/photography/history/historyphotos/onephotoonestory/spanichwar.htm
Undoubtedly, LIFE, Capa, and others had copyrights on the picture, but the notion that Capa's heirs are ENTITLED to MONEY from the death of another who gave his life to his fellow citizens & country is not only absurd, but more than a little ghoulish.
btw, I would recommend the book, "REQUIEM" - photos only by Vietnam War photographers who paid the ultimate price -
http://www.amazon.com/Requiem-Photographers-Died-Vietnam-Indochina/dp/0679456570
as THE SINGLE BEST BOOK of the Vietnam war (it starts during the French phase, continues through the American "advisors" & military buildup, to major US combat, and exit.)
The idea that HEIRS should BENEFIT, DECADES LATER, from the sacrifice & terror captured in these photos is sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright and entitlement
BUT, if someone sits around strumming a guitar, or pretending to be an artist, they are "entitled"?
The artists that made a difference (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart - on and on), NONE of them had the "benefit" of a copyright "welfare package"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too many posts...but...
Now, this only applies to things of a digital nature or things which can be reproduced/distributed via digital means, but within those limitations, how can one justify charging or attempting to control something that is unlimited?
An artist writes a song, produces a video, something like that and releases it. Once it's released, the number of 'copies' does absolutely nothing but multiply geometrically ad infinitum. At no point in our future, (barring complete planetary destruction or something similar) will there ever be a day where there are no existing copies of Welcome to the Jungle. How can you try and control that? How can you lay claim to something as uncontrollable and uncontainable as air? The fact is, it doesn't matter who deserves what, or what is 'moral' and what isn't. Copyright law literally tries to do the absolute impossible, by trying to control how someone utilizes an infinitely copyable product.
You can banter back and forth all day about what's the moral thing to do, what's right and what's wrong, who deserves and doesn't deserve what. But at the end of the day, copyright law is like trying to tax breathing...and it is unsustainable. The free distribution of media of all forms is an inevitable force of nature. People can either embrace it, they can simply adapt to it, or they can rail against it, but it's not going to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sell
1 /sɛl/ [sel] Show IPA verb, sold, sell·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price: He sold the car to me for $1000.
dis·pose/disˈpōz/Verb
1. Get rid of by throwing away or giving or selling to someone else.
Notice, nothing in either of those two definitions includes lasting restrictions on the usage of an item.
Part of the argument is that once you sell a product to someone you lose your rights to that product. Anything less is not a sale, it is a lease, or a rental or a usage agreement or a loan...there are a LOT of words that describe a transaction with long-standing terms...sale isn't one of them. As long as they continue to -sell- music, many of us will continue to do with -our property- as we please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Had an apifiny this morning
So do you think adding a short ditty on my tin whistle to all my music will enable me when brought to court for "piracy" and defending myself by questioning is it a courts purview to deem what is and isn't art.
Side tracked here so many times, thought I will contribute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get off the ivory tower...
We all know that with current technology you can scan a book and get it on the internet in a day and some change. If a videogame is released chances are it might be online before it's release date. The key thing is that with copyright that shit is illegal and pushed into the shadows of the internet or what not. If you take away copyright law you could very well have big companies like Walmart grabbing a best seller, scanning it, and selling it for a pittance without giving the author anything. Same thing with CDs, games, and the like.
Yeah I know what you're saying now. That's great, shit's cheaper, it's good for the consumer, and a million other platitudes. But, wait now you've got a producer who now has been shafted even worse than what piracy could do.
Hell with piracy you at least have a chance that someone might "like it and buy it". Now even if someone does "like it and buy it" there'd be a pretty damn good chance they're not buying it from the producer. So now guess what...producers dry up. People don't live in ivory towers where they can make music, video games, literature, and what not for funsies or purely intellectual pursuits. They do it to make money...at least enough to live on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get off the ivory tower...
How does copyright protect you from having your work stolen? I thought there were different laws for theft.
"If you take away copyright law you could very well have big companies like Walmart grabbing a best seller, scanning it, and selling it for a pittance without giving the author anything."
Wouldn't people learn not to buy from Walmart as soon as they found out that it didn't support the authors? I mean, unless they're not really bothered about investing in culture. in which case they shouldn't care when their favourite author stops writing anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get off the ivory tower...
If they steal it from you, you need to call the cops. If they make their own copy, that isn't stealing. Saying it is is lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get off the ivory tower...
The post did not say we don't need copyright. It just said that it should be looked at from the point of view of net benefit to society, rather than as a moral argument for protecting creators.
If I spend time and energy writing or creating something then release it only to have someone steal it from me is a big problem.
If someone steals something from you, there are laws against theft. But that's not what we're discussing.
We all know that with current technology you can scan a book and get it on the internet in a day and some change. If a videogame is released chances are it might be online before it's release date. The key thing is that with copyright that shit is illegal and pushed into the shadows of the internet or what not. If you take away copyright law you could very well have big companies like Walmart grabbing a best seller, scanning it, and selling it for a pittance without giving the author anything. Same thing with CDs, games, and the like.
Yes, good points, in theory. Good thing we have reality to prove that's not the case. If Walmart did that, of course, it would harm Walmart's reputation. Nina Paley lets anyone do whatever they want, including sell, her movie. Yet she has a "creator's endorsed" version, and people prefer to buy that one because they *know* the money goes to her.
Separately, the original creator tends to get the bulk anyway. We have some real world examples on this. David Levine and Michele Boldrine tracked the release of three different public domain books that were popular, and even though they were public domain and multiple publishers could *and did* copy them and resell them in the market days after they came out, the original publishers still ended up with over 50% of the sales.
First mover makes a big difference, and the data shows that.
Hell with piracy you at least have a chance that someone might "like it and buy it". Now even if someone does "like it and buy it" there'd be a pretty damn good chance they're not buying it from the producer.
But if the producer makes it clear how to buy from them such that the money returns to the producer, you solve that problem.
So now guess what...producers dry up
Only if the producers put in place bad business models.
People don't live in ivory towers where they can make music, video games, literature, and what not for funsies or purely intellectual pursuits. They do it to make money...at least enough to live on
Indeed. But your false assumption is the only way to do that is via copyright. That's simply not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's silly.
Wow. Maybe you're right. You did all that work and I only had to add two words to use it to make my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on
But there is definitely a moral argument for supporting the artists whose work you appreciate and consume.
I hope the people reading this article can understand the important distinction. I'm a little bit bothered by the tone of the argument because in its effort to balance the rhetorical scales it makes it seem like the purpose of art is progress. That's not exactly right, either.
Copyright may have had a purpose, but it no longer does. That doesn't mean the reasons copyright was originally put in place are no longer operative. They are as important as ever, but copyright is not the appropriate mechanism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You want people to work for free. Isn't that what slaveowners did?
you're the one using a government imposition to impede on my human right to copy.
You're the one using a government imposition to impede on my human right to repeatedly kick you in the balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. Slavery is forced labor. I'm not forcing anyone to work. If the artist doesn't want to create art, they don't have to. Not everything has to be about profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think a lot of the public pronouncement has been about using copyright as a tool to encourage progress - but to ignore the moral side of it I think is being a bit myopic.
A meaningful argument about whether or not there is a moral or social basis for copyright, and if so what does that entail, I think would be healthy. Rather than just ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is that the only purpose of copyright as authorized by the US Constitution is to promote progress. If you want to talk about the purpose in some other country or in an earlier time period, that's fine and could be very interesting, but does not apply directly to current day US copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Using but one example, the title of the first US Copyright Law enacted in 1790 was entitled "An act for the encouragement of learning...". Of course, this was the very same title employed many years earlier when the UK enacted the Statute of Anne. There is, however, one very important difference between these two laws. For all practical purpose, the Statute of Anne enabled governmental control of the content contained in published works, and especially publications critical of the government. In stark contrast, the nascent principles embodied in what later became the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as now represented by the Fair Use Doctrine formally incorporated by statutory decree, stand in stark contrast to the Statute of Anne.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Using but one example, the title of the first US Copyright Law enacted in 1790 was entitled "An act for the encouragement of learning...". Of course, this was the very same title employed many years earlier when the UK enacted the Statute of Anne. There is, however, one very important difference between these two laws. For all practical purpose, the Statute of Anne enabled governmental control of the content contained in published works, and especially publications critical of the government. In stark contrast, the nascent principles embodied in what later became the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as now represented by the Fair Use Doctrine formally incorporated by statutory decree, stand in stark contrast to the Statute of Anne.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Using but one example, the title of the first US Copyright Law enacted in 1790 was entitled "An act for the encouragement of learning...". Of course, this was the very same title employed many years earlier when the UK enacted the Statute of Anne. There is, however, one very important difference between these two laws. For all practical purpose, the Statute of Anne enabled governmental control of the content contained in published works, and especially publications critical of the government. In stark contrast, the nascent principles embodied in what later became the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as now represented by the Fair Use Doctrine formally incorporated by statutory decree, stand in stark contrast to the Statute of Anne.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of the bands tour also, because they know that's smart. But that doesn't mean they don't make significant revenue without touring as well.
Non answer. No examples given.
Your philosophy is total bunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Almost everyone tours, there is a small number of people who don't.
It is also funny to hear someone trying to say that artists should define the market they are in and not the paying public that don't want to pay in the same form as the old system.
Pirates are the whole population of earth and you want to dictate to them what they should do or not?
Good luck with that, even governments can't stop the trend and failed even to slow it down. Change is inevitable and will hit you like a tsunami unless you decide to go to high ground where your business will not be affected by that change as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um. That's not true. Why do you lie? I pointed out that many smart artists both use other models AND tour.
But there are those, like Jason Parker, who we've written about many times, who is not a touring artist and is making a living. He plays a few local shows around Seattle, but that's it.
Your philosophy is total bunk.
Only if you're not paying attention. I'm not sure how your logic sensors work, but they don't make much sense. Because lots of artists know that touring helps and they tour, that doesn't mean that you can't make a living without touring.
I have pointed to artists who have made significant sums of money from non-touring revenue. That seems to answer your question, unless you are being purposely obtuse, which it appears is your standard operating procedure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is difficult to think of Lockheed Martin as an "artist" when it creates an "original work of authorship" that embodies a several thousand page "manufacturing data package" detailing how to construct a military jet, a space lauch vehicle, a complex MMW targeting system for an Apache helicopter, a flight or other type of simulator system, etc.
Again for emphasis, subject matter encompassed with the scope of US Copyright Law is far larger than merely that associated with what is typically associated with the "entertainment industries".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is difficult to think of Lockheed Martin as an "artist" when it creates an "original work of authorship" that embodies a several thousand page "manufacturing data package" detailing how to construct a military jet, a space lauch vehicle, a complex MMW targeting system for an Apache helicopter, a flight or other type of simulator system, etc.
Again for emphasis, subject matter encompassed with the scope of US Copyright Law is far larger than merely that associated with what is typically associated with the "entertainment industries".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I agree with the general point Mike is making here, the implication (perhaps not intended) that moral arguments are irrelevant is false IMO. The salient point is that the argument is irrelevant to the purpose of copyright not that it is moral. Any law that cannot be justified morally cannot be justified at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just wanted to say...
Seriously?
Do a day's work, get a day's pay. That's about as far as you can go with the "deserve" argument; anything more than that is entitlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just wanted to say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: just wanted to say...
So you agree that something so simplified as "if you don't want to pay for it, you don't get it," serves little purpose, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: just wanted to say...
My comment did not exist in a vacuum. The one I challenged did.
Now, if you're just asking me my opinion on someone making the above statement without any further clarification or discussion, then sure - It's an oversimplification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is exactly the sort of outcome that copyright is supposed to prevent, no matter what your view on copyright. The fact that copyright not only allowed it to happen, but enabled it, is just more evidence that copyright law works against its stated purpose."
I've worked in the same field as Moore for two decades and I have to say that you're wrong on your assessment here. Moore, at the time of the creation of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, was not in a position where his work would have been unseen if one publisher set overly demanding terms. No one could have put him against the wall on this, no one could have forced him, and there is no way in heaven that there was not a willing publisher ready to work with him under whatever terms he chose.
He may have regretted his choices, but they were still his choices to make. Which is absolutely the way I think things should be.
Now, I'm all for limiting corporate control over artwork, and you might be able to bring up some better examples. But this is not one that works with the argument you are trying to advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]