Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
from the words-words-words dept
Certain terms crop up time and again in the arguments around copyright infringement and file sharing. Words like "theft" and "stealing" clearly represent an attempt to frame the debate in a certain way. That's hardly a new insight: many posts on Techdirt have pointed out these attempts to manipulate the discourse.But until now, no one has stepped back and looked at this phenomenon as whole, placing it in a historical and legal context, or tried to analyze how it is related to the battles for the future shape of the Internet currently taking place. That's just what Stefan Larsson has done for his doctorate at Lund University in Sweden, in a thesis entitled "Metaphors and Norms - Understanding Copyright Law in a Digital Society" (available as a PDF.)
Here's how the accompanying press release (yes, even theses have them these days) explains the central question it seeks to answer:
What is it about copyright that doesn't work in the digital society? Why do millions of people think it's OK to break the law when it comes to file sharing in particular? Sociology of law researcher Stefan Larsson from Lund University believes that legal metaphors and old-fashioned mindsets contribute to the confusion and widening gaps between legislation and the prevailing norms.In other words, the problem arises when we transpose concepts from an analog context into a digital one, where those concepts are used as metaphors that fail to work because of key differences between the two worlds.
Our language is made up of metaphors, even in our legal texts. Stefan Larsson has studied what consequences this has when digital phenomena, such as file sharing and downloading, are limited by descriptions intended for an analogue world.
One of those metaphors is "theft":
"When legal arguments equate file sharing with theft of physical objects, it sometimes becomes problematic", says Stefan Larsson, who doesn't think it is possible to equate an illegal download with theft of a physical object, as has been done in the case against The Pirate Bay.Another is "copy":
Using the compensation model employed in the case against The Pirate Bay, the total value of such a site could be calculated at over SEK 600 billion. This is almost as much as Sweden's national budget, says Stefan Larsson.
In Stefan Larsson's view, the word 'copies' is a hidden legal metaphor that causes problematic ideas in the digital society. For example, copyright does not take into account that a download does not result in the owner losing his or her own copy. Neither is it possible to equate number of downloads with lost income for the copyright holder, since it is likely that people download a lot more than they would purchase in a shop.Both of those will be familiar terrain to Techdirt readers. But Larsson believes that these misleading metaphors have something in common:
"The problem is that these metaphors make us equate copyright with ownership of physical property", says Stefan Larsson.That is, the very idea of "intellectual property" is a metaphor that encourages people to make critical mistakes about what we can do with it, and what the ethical framework governing it should be. I certainly agree with that analysis � it's why I prefer to call copyright and patents what they are: time-limited, government-backed intellectual monopolies. But maybe that's just another metaphor....
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: copying, copyright, language, metaphors, sharing, theft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (@Greevar)
Think of the farmers. They will go hungry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misleading..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: misleading..
Online sharing is when files, ideas, and opinions are distributed among a group of people (in this case, anyone on the internet that can find it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: misleading..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: misleading..
but I can't help it, think of it as an illness
The expression is not TOWING the party line,
that makes no sense whatsoever,
no one is pulling the party line behind them.
The expression is toeing the party line.
You need to toe the line here and use the correct word or you will cause people with my disability no end of torment and distress.
If you like causing such distress, then you may have no soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: misleading..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe we need
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: maybe we need
MAFIAA
done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally, sensical arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally, sensical arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally, sensical arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally, sensical arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally, sensical arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Finally, sensical arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://boingboing.net/2010/10/14/piracy-jesus-did-it.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every Time You Say �Sharing� Instead Of �Stealing� ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every Time You Say �Sharing� Instead Of �Stealing� ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every Time You Say �Sharing� Instead Of �Stealing� ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every Time You Say �Sharing� Instead Of �Stealing� ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every Time You Say �Sharing� Instead Of �Stealing� ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The author would prefer everyone throw away their old way of viewing things, since in the internet age it became possible to obtain something illicitly without fear of repercussions.
What an incredibly pompous and shortsighted view.
I would suggest the author acquaint himself with other technological innovations in history and how the law adapted along with it.
In a free society, the law naturally follows developments, rather than leading with them; this is because to do otherwise would represent overt repression.
After the invention of the automobile, it became possible for bank robbers to flee to another state, thus legally obtaining asylum from the law.
How long did that situation continue?
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The author would prefer everyone throw away their old way of viewing things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like when Sony won the Betamax case and Hollywood had to adapt to the new marketplace rather than depend on theatrical tickets - and created a highly profitable secondary market as a direct result?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually I'd argue that reducing the whole argument to "Don't steal my stuff!" significantly de-intellectualises a complex issue, so this article is more about bringing the intellectual level up to something more appropriate.
"After the invention of the automobile, it became possible for bank robbers to flee to another state, thus legally obtaining asylum from the law."
Horses couldn't cross state lines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moral Panic
Actually, it has already been done:
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Panics-Copyright-William-Patry/dp/0195385640
By a pretty high-powered lawyer and legal scholar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Panic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral Panic
In multiple private conversations with Mr. Patry, he's pointed out that while that's true, it's the entertainment industry who has taken it to ridiculous extremes, pushed for bad laws with such metaphors, and generally undermined the basic principles of copyright law.
The other side has not.
Of course, that's obvious, because if you read his book, nowhere does he point out examples of any of this on the side of those of us who disagree with the entertainment industry's views on copyright. If he believed it was as "equal" as you imply, wouldn't he at least mention a single example in the book? He didn't. Because he knows that one side is abusing this much more than the other.
And, his new book shows the same thing too. Can't wait to see you try to brush off the details in that book as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moral Panic
The other side pushes for laws to be ignored, to be torn down, and to be abandoned. They use pretty, kind words like "sharing" and promote "infinite distribution", but fail to acknowledge what exactly is being shared, and how it ends up there to be shared to start with.
You don't see it because you agree with one side, and not the other. That is a very closed minded way to operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral Panic
There isn't just one "other side" that all agree with one another though. Some want copyright reformed, some want it abolished. Some intentionally infringe, some don't. Some of the ones who don't infringe think others shouldn't infringe either, and some of them don't care.
[push for laws] to be torn down, and to be abandoned.
Yeah, what's wrong with that? Is there something sacrosanct about a law that means it should never be abolished?
They use pretty, kind words like "sharing" and promote "infinite distribution", but fail to acknowledge what exactly is being shared, and how it ends up there to be shared to start with.
Who is failing to acknowledge that, and where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral Panic
If they are bad laws, yes. If they have unintended consequences or collateral damage far beyond the intended scope of the law, yes. If they cannot be fixed or adjusted to fix such issues then yes.
Otherwise, not so much. Try not playing this as a team game where you have to be on one "side" and you might understand this. Else you're supporting bad laws and loss of freedom because the "other side" doesn't like it, which is pretty pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Panic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Panic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moral Panic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moral Panic
Of course, I suppose there doesn't have to be a lot of correlation between the contents of the books and their visions of balanced copyright. I still find it surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big time
elrinconsabor@hotmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Is Not Property
Intellectual property cannot be possessed nor defended nor can it be taken away. For instance if I have a thought it is my possession. I can share it with others and they can for their own thoughts based on mine but they have not taken anything from me. I still possess my thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP Is Not Property
Content is often put forth by Glyn, Mike and others as an infinite resource. I think it is actually a conditionally infinite resource but otherwise agree with the underlying concept. What I find most people doing in this debate though is not applying the concepts that logically follow. Infinite resources cannot be owned; cannot be sold and cannot be purchased. This means, then that musicians do not sell music, authors do not sell stories and you cannot buy a song and so on and so on.
Caveat Emptor! If you cannot steal it then you cannot legally own it, you cannot legally sell it and you cannot legally buy it. To me it is part of the sense that should be more common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
In music you sell the artist's time, a seat at a show, a tangible good (like ol' faithful, the t-shirt), getting credit for supporting the artist, a vinyl record, etc.
We know the vocabulary sword cuts both ways. We keep trying to show the trolls that, but they don't listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
Oxygen bars, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
Oxygen bars, anyone?
Bad example. Oxygen bars do well only in places where clean air is a scarce resource.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
Another example is a movie in a movie theater. You are not paying to see the movie but rather paying for access to inside of the theater and to occupy a particular seat for a set time. The movie itself is intangible and thus cannot be bought or sold directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
For the people that don't believe it, the only benefit is (possibly) help for altitude sickness. Which would really only be temporary relief, and not worth it in the long run since you would just be increasing the amount of time it would take your body to acclimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
Maybe you're right, I just remember hearing about them starting up in really polluted cities. Maybe it's some of each. But even if you're right it's still not a good example of selling infinite resources, because hyper-oxygenated air is a scarce resource. It could be a good example of selling scarce resources to stupid people though. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
This brings us to your oxygen bar example which is a good case of knowing what you are paying for. You are not paying for oxygen but rather the manipulation of air to create the rarified gas as well as containerization and delivery to you. This is no different than what medical supply houses do for hospitals and scuba supply shops do for divers. In other words, you would be paying for a specific type of access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Is Not Property
Once art is created, it can be consumed by all without ever losing it's luster. In fact, it gains value (to society) as more people consume it, since with a larger audience it becomes relevant to a greater number of people.
However, access to art is only limited (naturally, anyways) BEFORE it is created. Once it's created, you need to monetize other things. A person doesn't buy a picture, they buy a painting. You don't buy a story, you buy a book.
You don't buy a movie, you buy the (relative) assurance that you won't get your pants sued off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's an usufruct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an usufruct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's an usufruct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's an usufruct
Presumably the songs in your example were recorded in some way, even if they weren't distributed. I agree with you that your personal thoughts are yours only (in fact this is an assumption in a well-known philosophical argument which attempts to justify dualism). The minute that the songs were recorded in a way that could enable society to use them if their creator were to suddenly die or otherwise abandon them, or they were communicated to even one other person, it then makes sense to believe that they "belong" to society --- i.e., that any restraint on their use would be artificial.
Perhaps it is more clear if I point out that it is possible to own physical property without being aware that you own it. In the same way, the songs could be thought to belong to society even if they haven't been distributed yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why am I on that side, instead of what the pro-copyright law expansionists would have us believe is the right side? Mainly because I like being able to know what I am buying before I give up my cash. Once I realize that the product is worth my money, I buy it. If it isn't I get rid of it. Being that there isn't a way to go into a store and try out most digital products in advance, at least not to any useful degree, I see no other alternative.
Why do I buy it when I know I want to rather than just keep my shared copy? Because I like the support it provides. Having the ability to easily re-download it at will or a disc to reinstall at will is useful for me. Taking away the ability to use the purchased copy whenever I want would effectively turn me off of buying it in most cases. I also shy away from products that force a internet connection to check my "right" to use this product. It is inconvenient, and I don't like it when the servers get shut down and I lose the ability to use what I had, up to that point, considered a valuable product. I consider that theft as much as the pro-copyright expansion people consider the initial download to be theft.
Am I stealing? No. Try before you buy has long been a benefit of going to a store to buy something. If you go and buy a new mattress they encourage you to lay on it for a while to see if you find it acceptable before you commit. New car, new clothes, same thing. Most other industries have some form of testing before purchase. Even a new home gives you a detailed walk through prior to purchase. The concept of it not mattering due to the relative low cost of the product when compared to a car is irrelevant considering the lawsuits damages claims by pro-copyright expansionists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please read before throwing sh!t, we aren't monkeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now I work hard everyday to help bring them down, the sooner the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you make a copy of the experience of going to a movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why people illegally download (IMHO)
Middle class hand wringing was the order of the day. There's a terrible underclass with no respect for the law, who "choose to ignore a law they happen not to like with no compunction, as soon as they think they can get away with it". The newspapers were falling over themselves to analyse this.
But in fact this is no different in principle from speeding on UK roads. Plenty of people clearly choose to ignore laws that don't suit them, providing they can't get caught. If they know there are speed cameras and/or police out, they toe the line. Give them a deserted camera free road at night and they (most people) drive well over the speed limit when it suits them.
And I would contend that if you ask anyone who downloads illegally if they would also walk out of HMV with a CD inside their coat, they would start by saying "that's different, that's theft" but admit under cross examination that they simply feel more likely to be caught doing that.
Sure, everyone will construct a philosophical argument for it, but in truth, it's actually really simple most of the time.
Ask someone would they steal AAA batteries that they needed from the supermarket. Probable answer no.
But if they got home and found some had made their way into their shopping (not paid for) by accident, would they take them back ? Of course not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why people illegally download (IMHO)
I went to purchase stuff today at the grocery store today, and only had a $20 on me at the time. The total came to $20.37.
The cashier said "I've got it." I told him I would be right back.
I went to my car and got a $5, and went back inside, and he was at the counter trying to count out $0.37 from his pocket.
I handed him the $5, thanked him and started walking away.
He was like, but wait, your change, this is more...
I said "It's a tip" and kept walking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why people illegally download (IMHO)
I'm guessing you have absolutely no evidence for this claim. But if you do, I would be very interested to see it because it's a good question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why people illegally download (IMHO)
Never mind that the speed limits aren't about safety and are more a cash grab by the government. That just won't do to discuss will it?
And I would contend that if you ask anyone who downloads illegally if they would also walk out of HMV with a CD inside their coat, they would start by saying "that's different, that's theft" but admit under cross examination that they simply feel more likely to be caught doing that.
Sure, everyone will construct a philosophical argument for it, but in truth, it's actually really simple most of the time
Well, let's see how those illegal downloads are still legal...
- "Download" from radio to a cassette
- "Download" from the TV to a VCR
- "Download" onto a TiVo and skip the commercials
So... If there are laws about downloading, how is downloading a TV show or music any different from these known ways of downloading? Somehow the "illegality" of what you're suggesting doesn't pass the smell test based on the concepts that people are already used to. People already feel that they can copy media for their convenience. Why should they feel guilt if the concepts of time shifting or watching something when it's convenient to them, the consumer, feels ingrained to them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why people illegally download (IMHO)
Because it is different, whether the chances of getting caught are higher or less. Pretending otherwise does not change the fact that they're different actions with completely different effects and consequences.
Sorry if that's too complicated for your brain to comprehend, but this is reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why people illegally download (IMHO)
Now about downloading illegal stuff, well just because you say so it ain't so. You see to something to be a true crime it needs public support and the thing that I see more and more is that copyrights is losing ground fast among people, of course they may not say it in public, but we all know that people are moving to free legal alternatives or just downright ignoring those laws, not even you probably fallow the law to the letter.
I bet you Tivoed something, you probably sent mp3's to someone or a mixtape, you quoted someone, you copied a recipe from a book, you took a photo with your camera of something that you shouldn't, if we look closer we will find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why people illegally download (IMHO)
I bet you Tivoed something
Time shifting is not copyright infringement.
you quoted someone
Probably fair use.
you copied a recipe from a book
Recipes aren't copyrightable.
you took a photo with your camera of something that you shouldn't
It's not infringement to photograph a copyrighted work.
if we look closer we will find it.
Probably true, most people infringe copyright at some point whether they realize it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why people illegally download (IMHO)
"Time shifting is not copyright infringement."
Only because the relevant industry's attempts to say otherwise were shot down by the courts.
"Probably fair use."
Ditto.
"Recipes aren't copyrightable."
Ditto.
"It's not infringement to photograph a copyrighted work."
Ditto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting. So how does this work for say... a Netflix account?
I want to watch a kung fu movie, while my family wants to watch a romance movie in another room. We both sign in to the same account. Should we both have to pay for wanting to watch separate products?
I don't think your "theft is piracy" argument has a lot going for it. Yes, copyright is supposed to give an exclusive right. But that right is quickly eroded by technology and only seems to bring about an artificial scarcity on the market. Can artists make money without trying to command this exclusive right to copy? The signs so far point to yes. It seems the more that copyright concerns are brought to the fore, the worse they get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you copy my car, bolt for bolt, but leave my car in my driveway, I still have full use of my car, no matter how long you keep your copy, even if you keep it forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL @ property rights not being about the physical object.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have something you don't have the rights for. How did you get it? Well, you ___________ it.
The ________ isn't the important part. It's the part before it, where you admit to having something without permission.
Stop playing the name game, and start playing the "stepping up and admitting it's wrong" to ____________ stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because Piracy is a crime when industry people introduce high prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies.
BTW, last I checked, you don't need permission to view media on TV. Why should the rules differ on the internet? Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"you don't need permission to view media on TV. Why should the rules differ on the internet? Just curious."
Permission? Well, let's see. Broadcast TV is sponsor ad supported, and you pay for it with your attention. You don't need permission, but you have to do it on their time schedule (or DVR it to keep your fair use to it).
The rules on the internet shouldn't be different, but because of DMCA safe harbours, they are. But SOPA / PROTECT IP and other moves by the government in the US will certainly change the nature of those safe harbours, and work to bring the internet in line with the "real world". Further, they will allow the government to move to block sites which operate offshore with the intention of delivering the content illegally to US viewers.
It's pretty hard to argue against it, because it will just bring the internet into line with the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's stop right here for a second. The rules on the internet are, there are no rules. You make them up as you go, figure out what works and what doesn't then ??? Profit. Blaming the DMCA safe harbors, Fair Use, or whatever else for not learning how to make a profit is no one's fault but the industry itself.
Tell me, how many MPAA officials have tried to use Bittorrent? How many have tried an ad supported bittorrent site of their own? How about a cyberlocker? Quite frankly, they're all shooting the forest for the trees in thinking it's the law that's the problem when they should all be looking in the mirror.
So that's two things you're ignoring: The cable cutters who are going all internet, as well as new forms of revenue that make the industry money. Fascinating.
But SOPA / PROTECT IP and other moves by the government in the US will certainly change the nature of those safe harbours, and work to bring the internet in line with the "real world".
Yeah, a plutocratic regime based on what the MPAA says is okay is going to work wonders for showing the hypocritical stance of our US government. Promoting freedom around the world but crushing "dissidents" (they like to call em "pirates or terrorists") who want to practice economic freedoms. Really smart of them.
Further, they will allow the government to move to block sites which operate offshore with the intention of delivering the content illegally to US viewers.
Well, it's about time you admit to wanting to use the US government to censor sites. Amazing that you keep using that line of reasoning when it's about as debunked as you thinking this moves the internet into the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The safe harbors don't take away liability from someone who should have had it all along. They only make it clear that users, and not service providers, are the ones that need to be held liable for the actions of users. This is so that it's possible to provide services, because without safe harbors it would be ruinously expensive the first time one got sued for the actions of a user.
Ruining these services is of course exactly what the legacy players want to do, so they say things like "The rules on the internet shouldn't be different, but because of DMCA safe harbours, they are." That makes it seem like the safe harbors are a distortion of the way things should be, and need to be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Downloaded? Copied? Nobody has a problem with words that accurately describe what happened. Well... some people do, but I hope nobody you might consider calling a freetard.
The ________ isn't the important part.
Great. Then stop calling it stealing, and we can stop having the argument.
Stop playing the name game, and start playing the "stepping up and admitting it's wrong" to ____________ stuff.
The problem you're experiencing is that a lot of people don't believe it's wrong to infringe copyright, and a lot more people are on the fence. It's not a semantic problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
..."stepping up and admitting it's illegal" to ____________ stuff.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To answer your second question, the rules are not materially different. Strike a deal with the content providers and things move along splendidly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still, it didn't change the fact that people copied their views back then anyway. Some still do, only they use the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually the form book says that if you do that the content providers will renege on their side of the deal after a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is a sad post and a sad debate
Do you really believe that the people who wrote copyright law didn't understand what they were doing, namely writing down protections of ideas?
By the way, if this matters to you at all, why are you not participating in the discussion? Sad.
Jeff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is a sad post and a sad debate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://ottonomy.net/portfolio/thesis/ See chapters 2 and 4 especially, where I'm using the cognitive metaphor theory introduced by Mark Johnson and George Lakoff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Red Queen would have loved this article
"You may call it "nonsense" if you like," she said, "but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
And if you don't understand that, listen to more Red Queen wisdom,
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Larsson (and Mike) make as much sense as she.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
common sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An interesting and thought provoking article concerning the rationale used by many to justify "sharing" can be found at http://www.fingertipsmusic.com/?p=8898.
BTW, perhaps someone might be able to explain to me how the widesread dissemination of utilitarian things such as software is a "cultural" endeavor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ever heard of a meme? How about played a game that's popular with others in the community, where you and friends pass in-jokes about the game to others? I can tell you about lemons, but to burn your house down, but would you understand the reference?
Also, I find that article to be quite misleading:
I think he ignores context here. People share music, movies, and games that they have a passion for. I personally like the puzzle game Portal 2 and make jokes with that as a source. Further, people do use music to communicate. Does that mean it's not a cultural effort? Should The Johnny Cash Project be discounted when it's had hundreds of people showing respect for a man that died, leaving his music to influence further generations?
It's amazing how he seems to dismiss the social music scene that's occurring. Of COURSE, people won't have time for all music. But everyone finds tributes, dedications, new music, and new art through all of the filters. The technologists are solving the problem of making communication easier. I don't have to go to Israel for the newest thing. I can find out about their music at the clicks of a button.
How surprising the gentleman doesn't see that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, he most certainly does not ignore context. In fact, he addresses the issue you note quite specifically. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate to a fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In essence, he's shooting the forest for the trees. Here's his math problem:
It's as if he's never heard of the concept of filtering, which everyone does. I'm biased towards jazz and game music, ignoring country and rap. Does that mean neither get created for another audience? No, it does not. And now, there are more tools to help artists create music to be listened to and find an audience. That's what he's missing.
Sorry, but "meme" and "cultural exchange" do not compute, and certainly this is true in the area of utilitarial software
I notice that you mainly bring up software which is quite expensive for the consumer base. I was talking about culture in the sense that people use software to spread in-jokes or create new jokes or stories. But if you're talking about software there's two things that are occurring.
1) Piracy, which happens to be the industry's best friend
2) Open software alternatives that compete with the highly priced software.
As I'll say now, $800 for the newest Photoshop is absurd. Why do you think so many people download it? But the key here is the lock in effect. Someone using PS now will pay for the license, either through a company or individually, later on. That's the concept of sharing. The short term thinking that piracy hurts all sales discounts the fact that there are other benefits to sharing media and ideas on a global scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misleading and unjust metaphor, which comes from the word "property".
However, the term carries another more devious confusion, because it
is not a synonym for "copyright". It is used to refer to a dozen-odd
other laws too, and these have nothing in common, in practical terms,
with copyright law. To say anything whatever about all those laws as
if they were one topic is a mistake. To avoid spreading confusion, we
should never use the term "intellectual property".
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps like you, I have never been enamored with the term "intellectual property", not because it contains the word "property, but because it is an attempt to genericize various separate and distinct bodies of law. As a consequence, counsel with only an imperfect (and all too often inadequate) understanding of the law hold themselves out to the public at large as experts in the field. Experience informs me that most of the problems that have arisen over the past 30 or so years giving rise to litigation can be traced to the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do go on, then. State copyright laws aren't "other laws" by the way, when one of the categories of law mentioned is copyright law. So far I've seen four: copyright, patent, trademark, and publicity. I'm starting to think the dozen mentioned is just hyperbole. I don't mean to sound contentious, it was just an interesting tidbit and a claim I'd never seen before so I was curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New name
I'd love to hear suggestions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]