Censorship vs. Copyright
from the they're-totally-different! dept
What distinguishes
Copyright from Censorship?
The profit motive.
There’s one more day to back the Mimi & Eunice’s Intellectual Pooperty minibook project! The above comic won’t be in it, alas, since I just drew it yesterday and the book is already at the printer. But there will be 40 other fine selections from the IP category, in full color.
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: censorship, copyright, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
blablablabla unfunny
Blabla Nina sucks bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey!
She may suck good for all you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
blahblah let them eat cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are experiencing some
Butthurt, bro. U MAD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I patented haiku form
pay me royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as an earlier story today portrays nicely, copyright has certainly been used as a means to try to quiet legitimate speech on a private, civil level.
Then again, these are editorial cartoons. I should really just relax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see your point. I think she nails it, though. Copyright censorship is more than someone telling you to 'shut it'. Copyright censorship is 'shut it' backed by the power of the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"...while copyright attempts to promote it."
... what planet are YOU living on?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's blocking an expression, not an idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
-Buffy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
(Peer reviewed) scientific journals. I have a couple of personal subscriptions in which I now and again find papers or articles that are of interest to my colleagues (for the record I work in Law Enforcement, amongst other areas covering the fight against malware).
The copyright of the papers and articles in question is either held by the publisher (the authors and peer reviewers do not get paid and only have boasting rights .. it's an honor you know) or is in some cases held by the author.
If it is held by the publisher, there is an easy way to get permission: pay. Unfortunately this would mean that I would have to pay hundreds of dollars in order to share a particular paper with my colleagues (+/- 20 people). Monthly I will find about 10 papers that are of interest to our work, either directly or indirectly. I would be out more money than I make if I would use the pay-for-the-right-to-copy. I can hear you think: well, let the organization pay. Government budgets around the world are (rightfully) scrutinized and personally I would not be happy with my organization spending money for about 120 scientific papers per year instead of two feet on the ground.
If the copyright is held by the author I used to ask for permission. My experience has given me a somewhat mottled view. Sometimes I hear nothing back, leaving me in limbo. Sometimes I receive permission with the remark "But of course, please do". And on occasion I have received permission after many weeks or months with comments like "Sorry for responding so late, I am busy you know". In the latter case it would often no longer be relevant, and kept a busy person from important work.
Of course I could spent my time writing a blog or synopsis where I highlight the important aspects. But doing so I would not be able to put my time into catching criminals (okay, presumed criminals). Apart from that there is an inherit danger of filtered knowledge: people read and process the same text differently and discussing the different viewpoints actually increases the understanding of all. Just giving my take on the text diminishes the preferred outcome.
So when I fully adhere (and I am not saying I do not) to the existing copyright laws & regulations, I either have to convince my organization to let an officer go and have me spent time on getting permissions, or just shrug and keep us (and with that you) in a worse position to take down malware and the people who write, distribute and profit from it.
Which of the two do you prefer? Or do you have a third option? (And let me be clear: raising taxes to pay for an officer and copyright is theoretically an option, but not a valid one).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
You're clients do not need to read the papers, that is YOUR JOB.
If your level of expertise is the scour the web for possible information that will help your clients, then just providing that info directly to them, (without YOU inbetween as a filter/interpreter).
Then really, what point is there for you in doing ANYTHING ???
As an electronics engineer, if someone asked me to design something, and I just searched the web for something "almost like" what they want.
Then I would NEVER EVER get any work, my clients would drop me like a bomb.
They expect ME to do the research, to find the information and to present that information to my clients in a clear and consice and informative manner.
If I ever forwared them something I found 'off the net' or the result of someone elses 'paper'.
They would think I am an idiot and incompetent.
If I have to purchase data sheets on components that are copyright there is NO way that I would consider that I needed to purchase that information for my clients as well.
No, I buy the data sheets, and I design the system, then when I invoice them for MY work, I include the price of the components, and my time.
those components would include the actual physical component and the data sheets and any other copyrighted material that I had to purchase.
The client does not get the copyright to those data sheets, neither do it, therefore I cannot copy that information and provide it to my clients.
Everyone in the 'loop' understand this process, they know that when they ask me to design something, I will NOT require them to "train" me on how to do my job.
They will NOT expect to pay for any text books, or for my past years of study, they hired me because they understood that I have allready gone to the expese of studying and buying the material I need.
If someone asked me to design and build a radio transmitter and I came back to them with "Sure, but you are going to have to teach me how to do it, or pay for me to learn how to do that"..
They would say "on second thought, we'll get someone else"..
It all boils down to "what are YOU doing for your clients?"
If you just pick the eye's out of others work and 'pass it on to you're clients' with no 'value adding' then I would expect you not maintain that position for any decent period of time, or if you do, you are a good con artist.
Either way, its a bit sad to think that is how most people think that is how they have to work.
that if you cannot use other peoples stuff for free, you cannot do anything creative yourself, independently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
The Web and the Undernet are some of the best possible places to acquire malware information, so that it can be combatted out in the field.
Technical engineering != software engineering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
Yes...
(Darryl to client)...
" I read this really interesting scientific paper last week, it was called Principia Mathematica by this guy called Isaac Newton.
I read it, and understood it, and I feel that some of the techniques and idea's presented in it can be applied to OUR work!"
"Ive read it, and using the idea of an integral and 'the limit' can be applied to anti-malware techniques."
(YOUR CLIENT, BOSS).
Great, will it cost us anything.
(Darryl)
"No, you do not have to read the paper if you do not want too, and you do not have to purchase it either, or even understand it,,, thats MY JOB, after all you employed ME as the expert, im just doing my job, which includes knowing my job, and knowing and keeping up with advancements in science and technology, THAT IS WHY YOU PAY ME, VERY WELL!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
1. He works with the government.
2. He wans his colleges to read the papers, not to found an agency, try to get hired by the government to get the job he's already doing at a lower cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fixed that for ya.
"And do you really think that those who practice actual censorship aren't motivated by personal profit?"
Woh, dude, I think you just discovered irony. Now how can we make some MONEY off it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wish I could mark this as funny more than once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here, I'll mark it as funny for you to help you out.
[ 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:
If that were true, we wouldn't have stories on copyright being used to censor people nearly every day, would we?
I mean just today we had two separate stories on that.
So, yes, it does. And no, fair use does not ameliorate the problem.
I mean are you so in denial as to pretend that what we see happening is not happening?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Righthaven, the entire domain seizure problem, the MPAA's hard stance on copyright enforcement, and the entirety of chillingeffects.com, are a *FEW* problems?
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How does a system designed to limit the distribution of ideas to only those authorized to spread them and the constant use of legal action targeted to stop other people from spreading them block the spread ideas? Gee. The question practically answers itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But... how does copyright block the spread of ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The system limits the dissemination of expression, not ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I really think you are relying on semantics. The idea/expression dichotomy expressed in copyright law means ideas in a totally abstract way. The censorship of copyright is applied to ideas that have been expressed.
The system limits the dissemination of the expression of ideas. Tell me that's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If a person tries to disseminate an expression of an idea that is protected by copyright, that is infringement. The person, not wanting to pay $150,000, chooses not to disseminate the idea. Copyright has thus blocked the spread of the idea.
How is this difficult to understand? It's the whole point of copyright: To give you a monopoly on spreading your idea, as incentive for you to come up with it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought the purpose was to promote the progress by granting a limited monopoly to the author/artist. And more importantly, I think you're confusing the idea with the expression.
If a person tries to disseminate an expression of an idea that is protected by copyright, that is infringement. The person, not wanting to pay $150,000, chooses not to disseminate the idea. Copyright has thus blocked the spread of the idea.
Nothing stops you from disseminating the idea.
How is this difficult to understand? It's the whole point of copyright: To give you a monopoly on spreading your idea, as incentive for you to come up with it!
The monopoly is on the expression, not the idea. No wonder you guys hate copyright so much. You don't appear to understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On idea vs. expression, you're right, but that only gets you so far. The above is where you fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As I've said before, this makes you a fool.
[...] Your music, like your legal analysis, are [sic] the definition of cacophony.
You quite simply are one of the biggest fools that I've ever had the displeasure of meeting in my 20+ years on the internet.
[...] Ah, techdirt. Normally one would have to be in maximum security lockup to meet such wonderful creatures.
Go ahead and get the last word. I won't even bother reading it. I wash my hands of your idiocy.
In case you can't remember: I was arguing that Righthaven is not any kind of legal copyright owner. After you called me a "fool," all their cases in Colorado were put on hold... for exactly that reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So while I'm not sure if the car thing has come up yet, it's not at all crazy. In fact it's much less crazy than some of the things they have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fact, politicians, regulators, police and big business have a similar MO than that of the gangsters. Pick on easy targets that are weak, stupid, alone, discriminated against, na�ve or compromised and exploit the shit out of them. That way people either fall into line with what you are trying to do (not let anyone else sell drugs in your hood without giving you a cut/ not let anyone play music or other media without giving you a cut � ensuring your profit) or you play hard ball (come at them with all you guns and homies/ throw all your lawyers and law enforcement at them � making them wish they had ensured your profit). The age old business model has never disappeared thanks to� profit motive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nina Paley?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do you care who pays her rent? That's none of your business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My ideas.
I could not use them freely
Copyright had me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censor due to copyright
I call them spoiled brats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess truth, and accuracy gives way to "trying" to be 'funny'.
Nina or Mike, I wonder if you know that you CANOT censor me if you do not like what I say, (yes, Mike I know you can censor this web site) but that statement is a complete and utter LIE..
If I do not like what you say, how can I (or ANYONE) use censorship to silence me ? YOU CAN't
Im am sure even Mike would be able to understand that you cannot use censorship to silence someone saying something you do not like !!!..
Perhaps Nina or Mike, you would like to explain to us how someone can go about using censorship in that way? (or how YOU would be able to do that?)
"Silencing you because I can make more maney that way is COPYRIGHT"
Again,,, YA THINK !!!! ?????
So Nina or Mike, plese explain how I could use copyright to silence you?
Because I do not like what you are saying ?
Do I automatically own the copyright to everything you say? and If I can find a way of making more money than you, gives me copyright rights to WHAT????..
Oh thats right, NOTHING... If you do not own the copyright you cannot silence me to make more money or because you do not like what I say..
THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERENT
THEY'RE TOTALLY WRONG
THE PROFIT MOTIVE MAKES IT OK
Nothing makes comments or stupid comics like this OK !!!
Really Nina, you really do have to get out a bit more or something.
Because you're grip on reality is quite tenious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess truth, and accuracy gives way to "trying" to be 'funny'.
ICE seizures of websites for "copyright infringement"
Look at the following two sentences you posted:
"Silencing you because I don't like what you say is CENSORSHIP"
"Silencing you because I can make more maney that way is COPYRIGHT"
Posting someone else's expression is an expression, meaning that you are trying to say something. DMCA takedowns are legalised censorship, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess truth, and accuracy gives way to "trying" to be 'funny'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA & MPAA=MAFIAA
Copyright only affects very narrow realms of expression of speech, particularly those that originated from another individual. Even then, you can simply take the original author's idea and express that very same idea in your own words. Copyright can't touch that (well, ideally, that is. I won't deny that the laws have been abused, but that's the nature of any system, and can be addressed).
Anti-assault laws don't restrict expressions of violence in totality, only very narrow instances where that expression actually impacts another person. And even then, not totally; boxing, wrestling, karate, and many video games are perfectly legal expressions of violence.
So copyright only restricts speech in the same way that the law says a person is not legally protected from yelling "Fire!" for no reason in a crowded theater. It has to do with the way that expression affects third parties. Yelling "Fire!" for no reason in an empty theater is perfectly OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RIAA & MPAA=MAFIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worst so far...
People aren't being silenced from expressing their own work, which would be censorship. People are being prevented from distributing others' work when it's against the rights holder's wishes. Nina can distribute her own material as much as she wants. If she starts to distribute someone else's work � reducing scarcity without permission � they have a right to shut her down.
Same applies to books, music, and movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worst so far...
Curious. What "scarcity" was reduced when "Coming Through The Rye" was released? That's a banned book.
That's censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worst so far...
People aren't being silenced from expressing their own work, which would be censorship. People are being prevented from distributing others' work when it's against the rights holder's wishes. Nina can distribute her own material as much as she wants. If she starts to distribute someone else's work � reducing scarcity without permission � they have a right to shut her down.
Same applies to books, music, and movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worst so far...
Or post up video game materials...
Or put up a 5 minute video of their favorite movie.
Or post commentary of their favorite song.
And you have yet to answer the "Coming through the Rye" question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]