It Is Time To Stop Pretending To Endorse The Copyright Monopoly
from the but-but-piracy dept
There is a saying in the political discussion in Sweden: "Anything you say before but in a political statement doesn't count." We've seen a lot of that practice in recent years with increasingly horrendous cultural monopoly laws.
People in corporate and political suits alike are climbing on top of one another to be the most statesmanlike in stating "We are fully committed to the copyright monopoly, but these proposed enforcement laws are just nuts," worded in all the synonyms you can find in a thesaurus.
Why? Why do people feel forced to phrase their views on policy like that?
If the enforcement laws are nuts, but still needed for the monopoly to be effective, why is the part before the "but" there -- where people say they support the copyright monopoly, but are firmly rejecting the laws needed keep it in effective existence for a few more years?
For I believe that the copyright industry is actually right that these ridiculous laws are needed to sustain the copyright monopoly. General-purpose networked computers, free and anonymous speech, and sustained civil liberties make it impossible to maintain this distribution monopoly of digitizable information. As technical progress can't be legislated against, basic civil liberties would have to go to maintain the crumbling monopoly. And these are the laws we're seeing on the table.
There comes a tipping point when somebody says that this entire system of cultural monopolies is absurd. A tipping point where the part before the "but" is unceremoniously and collectively dropped, the part that didn't count anyway. A tipping point where everybody just stops pretending to support it. I think it is time to create that point on the history line.
For what is the copyright monopoly, anyway? It is a set of monopolies from the era of guild-regulated commerce, when privately dictated monopolies were the norm and the expected. Specifically, the eldest tradesmen in every guild dictated what, where, and how trade happened within that craft. The copyright monopoly is a remnant from this era that should have been thrown out with the establishment of free enterprise laws in the 1850s.
Also, it is not really one single monopoly, but five quite different ones that are lumped together under a common umbrella term.
The first two types of copyright monopoly are commercial monopolies on duplication and public performance. These are the monopolies usually broken by today's free communication, the monopolies that can't coexist with today's technology and sustained civil liberties.
Then, there are two kinds of moral rights - droits morals. There is the right for the creator to prevent any performance, derivation, remix, satire, etc. of a piece that they do not approve of, and there is the right for a creator to be credited as such.
(I actually support this last right -- the right to credit. But does it really require legislation? The social, corporate and academic penalties for plagiarism are much higher than those of the law. Why is that particular law needed, then?)
The fifth monopoly isn't technically part of the copyright monopoly, but is frequently called "copyright" anyway. It is the so-called "neighboring rights" that were the result of the record industry's corporativization as IFPI in then-fascist Italy: the duplication monopoly over specific recordings. This, too, is broken by today's free communication.
I sometimes hear the old guard say that there would be no culture if there was no copyright monopoly. That is an outrageous insult to creators all over the world today. We create not because of a monopoly, but because of who we are; we have created and shared culture since we learned to put red paint on the inside of cave walls. Today, about eight years' worth of video are uploaded to YouTube every day.
People today create not because of the copyright monopoly, but despite it.
The second common question is how the artists shall get paid. That, too, is a red herring. First of all, it is not a policy problem, and second, it is not a problem at all.
This pretense from the old guard goes well in hand with the origins of the copyright monopoly. It was never for the artists at all. When the copyright monopoly was first created on May 4, 1557, it was a means of censorship of political dissent. It lapsed in 1695. When it was reinstated in 1709, it was at the request of printers and distributors who had gathered their families on the stairs of English Parliament to claim that no culture would be printed or distributed if they didn't get their monopoly reinstated.
Nobody at the time thought to claim something as preposterous as the copyright monopoly being a precondition for people wanting to create culture. It never was.
On the contrary, it is a guild-era instrument. To show a parallel, buttonmakers in France in the 1600s went berserk when tailors bypassed them and made buttons out of cloth instead. They demanded the right to invade people's homes and search their wardrobes for violations of the guild privileges. Sound familiar?
Another parallel also happened in France, where certain popular printed cloth fabrics were monopolized. People manufactured them anyway, and the nobility responded with increasingly harsh punishments for violations of their monopolies, up to and including death by torture. Even the death penalty didn't stop that copying. How far is the copyright industry prepared to go? They never answer that question.
Any law must be necessary, effective, and proportionate: it must identify a real problem that needs legislation, it must solve that problem, and it must not create worse problems in the process. No aspect of the copyright monopoly meets these three legislative quality criteria. Therefore, I reject the concept as a whole.
I reject and oppose this monopoly that was never for the creators, but always for the distributors: a guild whose time is up and obsolete, and which has no business trampling on our civil liberties.
Let's see more people drop that part before the "but". If the copyright industry is right in saying that these laws are required to maintain the copyright monopoly, and I think they are, then that just underscores how we should stop pretending to endorse this guild-era monopoly, and instead say it is time for it to go.
And nobody will think the worse of you for stating that opinion. Quite the opposite. Nobody expects an honest politician or corpsuit.
Rick Falkvinge is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party. Follow him as @Falkvinge on Twitter, read his private blog, or get him for a keynote.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The ones they have put in place so far have done nothing but harm and haven't changed the effectiveness of the copyright monopoly one bit and I really don't see how the new ones they are proposing are supposed to do it.
On the other hand, copying has been trivial for over a decade and the publishing industries that depend on copyright continue to release record sales numbers while constantly complaining that "it should be more"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How could they possibly be needed to sustain the monopoly if they didn't do it?
People being able to copy stuff is hardly new, anyway. The whole "piracy is destroying ous" cry has been going on forever and copyright seems to get by passably well on the honour system alone. I'd also like to know what makes him think the sky is fally cry is not a load of crap like it always has been every other time with cassettes, vhs, pencils, printing press, etc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Logically, necessary != sufficient. Necessary means "If we don't have these ridiculous laws, then the copyright monopoly cannot be sustained." Sufficient means "If we have these laws, then the monopoly will be sustained." The post never said anything about the laws being sufficient, just necessary (eg, "Even if wew do have these ridiculous laws, the monopoly cannot be sustained").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still don't even give them that much credit. I don't see anything in there that I can see having a notable impact at actually fighting piracy. If they block dns, people will just start passing IP addresses around instead of hostnames until someone fixes it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In any case, the monopoly enforcement laws are grossly disproportionate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it's more likely the more their attempted solutions cause everyone grief in their daily lives and work like these laws are bound to, the faster we move toward the end of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all it is known that in a police state there is no crime... that is if you don't count the crimes committed by the state.
It's like a state monopoly on crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I never meant to imply it's impossible to make restrictive laws to prevent piracy, just that that isn't what they are doing. I'm not even sure it's actually their goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I recently heard that you said "that there would be no culture if there was no copyright monopoly." I guess the library of Alexandria is a myth, there are no Greek tragedies, the Bible doesn't exist, the Koran is a fairy tale, that fairy tales are recent fakes, philosophy from the times of Thales and Aristotle is one of my delusions, and we do not have extant literature from Sophocles and Euripides.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
David
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"They do now, although they moved the really creative people from the screenwriter department to accounting."
Just ask Rudyard Kipling's estate about how Disney waited until The Jungle Book entered public domain before beginning work on their animated version...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The time for abolition is nigh!
BTW regarding the comment about the Bible and Koran being fairy tales--well, yeah, they are, but not in the sense you mean. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The time for abolition is nigh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like the Matrix to me. And what is the Matrix?
Control.
How apropos to the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually
Sure you can!
It might be the political equivalent of saying "hey world, our country quits. Please invade/conquer/kill/displace us in about 50 years, thank you." but you totally CAN legislate against technical progress.
I mean, really, isn't that what the MAFIAA's been trying for?
Sad thing is, they just might get it, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually
It doesn't mean "our country quits". It's a matter of degrees, it's more like "our country isn't going to try as much". You can also strong arm other countries to similarly legistlate against technical progress and make everyone suffer more or less equally :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually
Am I the only one who noticed my computer from 2000 still runs pretty much as well as the one I bought yesterday?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually
For a low-tech parallel, look at moonshine vodka. Outlawed pretty much everywhere, and yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually
One can legislate against it as much as one likes. Won't change reality a tiny little bit, but one can legislate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually
The first time we ever have a worldwide understanding of change and embracing it would be significant, but I don't see that happening in anyone's lifetime who's alive right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually
If the Vatican had wanted to hold back mankind's scientific and technological progress then patent law would have been an excellent way to do it... hmmm... maybe the Vatican IS behind patent law? Dan Brown?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually
The Vatican was canny in predicting that greed would make licensing fees prohibitive for all but the largest multinationals - who still end up in court for millions through having not paid license fees.
To make censorship seem like a good idea you just say it's to protect the children. To make a literary monopoly seem like a good idea you just say it's to feed poor starving artists. To make a patent seem like a good idea you just say it's to persuade inventors to let the rest of the world have access to their amazing gadgets and discoveries.
A big problem with monopolies and other state suppression of individual liberty is that it's far to easy to hoodwink the masses into believing that these things are in their own best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/the-end-of-the-patent-system/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually
> progress.
I agree. North Korea is a great example of how technology can be legislated (if that's what you want to call the decrees of a dictator) out of existence. A good number of North Koreans have never even heard of the internet and cell phones are non-existent in the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is why we don't get anywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Amen
to cut it short, he wants to be a lawyer, to be a lawyer you have to be pure scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amen
Searching......................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ...................
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
Fame will always be exploited and tapped by others leading to concerts and TV appearances. Even song writers will seek out good musicians to partnership with.
So there is no need for the RIAA at all except in the case of musicians wanting to go down the old route. Just keep in mind who owns the copyright when some record company wants to loan you a million dollars to make an album. A good position to be in to then have them screw you over as they please.
If there is viable life outside the RIAA, and there is certainly that, then the RIAA should not be allowed monopoly status. So in the case of SOPA tell them to sod off and compete in an open market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA might have changed that. It has certainly brought together a lot of forces that favor reform and it has taught them to organize politically.
If we are going to have copyright, then the following reforms would be a good starting point in my opinion. I am also assuming that we are not going to immediately withdraw from the Brene convention:
1) False claim of copyright has statutory penalties equal to the current levels for copyright infringement. There should be treble penalties if the claim was used to suppress free speech, criticism, or competition in areas other than the copyright itself.
2)Explicit recognition and definition of fair use as an affirmative defense. Failure to recognize fair use would constitute a false claim of copyright.
3)Dismantling of the various federal "reports" that are nothing but industry propaganda used to bully other nations.
4)Reduction of copyright terms to the minimum required by the Berne Convention.
5)If we are going to have an IP Czar, then the position should be redefined according to the constitutional rational for IP laws. That means that the IP Czar's job should be to promote the movement of ideas and art into the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3) It's very difficult to change when that's been the MO of certain trade industries for 2 decades...
4) It's a shame that more hasn't been done to expose this problem. The ones promoting it are the ones that benefit the most from copyright extensions.
5) We would have to change the laws of PROIP. Reason being, she has to report to the industry, not the public. This is the same with all czars though. They all respond to business interests over the people who are affected the most by bad laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To address your points:
1. This is absolutely necessary. Copyfraud claims should be punished by the maximum penalty for infringement at a bare minimum. If anything it should be on an order of magnitude since those bringing the false claims are the only ones that truly have the ability to know if the claim is legit or not.
2. 100% agreed! Anyone using a fair use argument should not have to prove the use is fair. Those registering the complaint should have to prove the use is not fair. PERIOD!
3. I don['t know if I could agree with this one since the job loss to all of the report preparers would be astronomical and where else would we get relevant statistical information to base policy creation on? /s
4. Agreed, although they still might be too long.
5. This I couldn't agree more with! Any public official should be representing the public's interests. Copyright was implemented so that the creator could exclusively profit from the work for a limited time before it was turned over to the public. Making sure this bargain is honored and material is increasing the public domain should be priority one for anyone in this position!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Summary (after Cory Doctorow)
http://liberation-computing.blogspot.com/2012/01/general-computing-in-firing-line.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credit to where credit is due.
That last one, the credit, is the only actual scarcity that copyright does create artificially. Thus, it is the only thing that can actually be "stolen". Someone could take credit for other's work, and then claim it as their own.
But Rick is correct that copyright, as conceived today, is very much unnecessary for this problem of protecting this scarcity. Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, Cervantes wrote Don Quixote, and Divinci painted the Mona Lisa. They got credit, and still have credit, for their works in a time long before the Statute of Anne.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credit to where credit is due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Credit to where credit is due.
I would go a little farther, and say that because of the today's copyright industry (created by past and present copyright laws), in some cases, credit is easier to obscure.
Examples:
Let's take the average Pixar movie. Outside of the copyright industry, who really knows who wrote the story behind Toy Story? Who can name even a single animator or modeler behind a character? Sure, the movie as a whole is a team effort, but publicly those individual writers and artists rarely get the credit they deserve. The credit goes to a faceless corporation.
What about the individual songwriters or musicians behind a major RIAA artist such as Lady Gaga or Rihanna? We all know they don't write and compose everything themselves (and if they do, apologies, just insert another performer). All the public credit goes to the performer, and yes, she's an artist herself, but what about the songwriters, composers and musicians behind her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Credit to where credit is due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credit to where credit is due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ultimatum
Too long have we allowed you to suppress and destroy our cultural and technological progress. Your latest attempt to circumvent our most fundamental democratic processes by the secret ACTA negotiations and IIPA lobbying have made clear that you do not intend to respect any of our rights as a free and democratic peoples. Your actions threaten our liberties so we need to draw a line in the sand and make clear to you the consequences of continuing these efforts.
We will no longer debate your views of perverted copyright laws on your terms. You must address our demands for a fair and just intellectual property framework based on cultural diversity, 21st century technologies and the interests of the people.
We no longer accept your premises of the moral validity of endless copyright extensions. If you seek legal protection from our nation-states then the burden of proof of the societal usefulness of these protections is up to you. Prove the societal value of copyrights and we may have a basis for further discussions.
Failing to do so will force us to unleash unto you an economic rain of ruin the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth. Bittorrent and terabyte hard-disks are just the beginning. There are many more of us than there are of you and we are smarter, more technologically advanced and intrinsically motivated to take this fight to whatever end is required of us. Step back or be ruined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He eventually realized these proprietors were unyielding in their continued effort to (successfully) abuse the legal system for the benefit of themselves and the detriment of society at large, and completely beyond any sort of reasoning or compromise. That his country and his principles had become divergent to the point of being irreconcilable and a choice had to be made.
This country has not quite reached that level of divergence, but is headed that way at pretty good speed. If left unchecked the time for people to start making that choice will be here sooner than most realize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE Seriously?
Which is what's going to happen. Maximalists are old and feeble and will die soon enough. We will destroy their world and build a new, better one on its ashes. You can either come along, or you can join them in oblivion. Choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE Seriously?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16424659
"It is quite divorced from reality and is reflective of Swedish social norms rather than the Swedish legislative system," said music analyst Mark Mulligan.
This person claims that something that reflects social norms is divorced from reality, and contrasts it with what the legislations looks like.
Normally, things would be entirely the other way around -- legislation would be completely reflective of social norms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE Seriously?
If Swedish legislators are not reflecting the social norms of their citizens, they are very bad at their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, this site isn't pro-piracy. LMFAO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cheers,
Rick
[ 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:
In the not too distant future, when copyright has been abolished, audiences will pay for movies to be produced, and the market for DVD copies will be a free one. Fine for actors and audiences, cameramen and cinemas, but not so good for the monopolists in the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds like "pirate in denial" talk. Normal people don't go around saying "I'm going drive within the speed limit today" or "I'm not going to murder anyone today".
Just saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You do understand that wanting to get rid of a monopoly, as I do above, is actually the same thing as endorsing a free market, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think AJ does understand this. The problem is that AJ is currently in school to get his law degree and has expressed some interest in being an IP lawyer. I believe he wants the monopolies to continue and the fights revolving around IP to escalate because that is what will make him money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
BTW, as I noted on my C4SIF post about this here http://c4sif.org/2012/01/it-is-time-to-stop-pretending-to-endorse-the-copyright-monopoly/, Falkvinge's piece is good, but "a couple of quibbles: I disagree that there is a "right" to attribution, though he doesn't think it should be a law, so it's not really a (legal) right he's talking about. And his comment here:
'Any law must be necessary, effective, and proportionate: it must identify a real problem that needs legislation, it must solve that problem, and it must not create worse problems in the process,' presupposes that law is legislation, that legislation is the way law is or should be made. It is not. Legislation requires a (criminal) state, for one, so is for this reason alone is illegitimate. And even if you have a (minimal) state, a decentralized, court-based legal system such as the Roman law or English common law, is preferable to a legislature, for the formation and development of law. (See, on this, Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
It is one thing to advocate a position on an issue, and quite another to cast aspersions on those who may reasonably disagree. Doing so materially diminishes the forcefulness of your arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
There's a reason for this: there NO good arguments for IP.
http://blog.mises.org/9499/there-are-no-good-arguments-for-intellectual-property/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
I made no argument for or against precisely because that was not the gravamen of my comment.
During my many years as an attorney I have had the good fortune to work with many as to whom your general description would be inapt. Then again, I have dealt with many as to whom your general description would be an understatement. Sadly, the latter exist in far larger numbers than the former, lending credence to my observation (cutting across all professions) that 10% actually know what they are doing and add value, and the remainder push paper quite nicely.
Perhaps some day you will have the opportunity to work much more closely with the 10% than with the remainder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
http://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
Capitation was expressly set aside by the provisions of the amendment authorizing the levying of a tax on income.
The election of senators by popular vote expressly set aside the prior prior provision for the election of senators by state legislatures, as well as the prior means for recalling senators by the legislatures.
The common thread through these and other amendments was that they expressly called out and changed the prior "rules".
The First Amendment does no such thing, and those who argue for a "but it came later in time" interpretation run suarely into the problem and fundamental doctrine that provisions of the constitution may not annuled by implication, and this has been a rule of constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court since the constitution's inception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
The author's/inventor's exclusive right to their writings/designs is a natural right that Congress is empowered to SECURE. One right is not secured by the annulling of another. Privacy is NOT secured by abridging liberty, annulling the right to copy published works (qv abridging freedom of speech). The granting of monopolies by the state abridges liberty. To secure privacy, the exclusive right to one's writings/designs, you provide legal remedies against burglars - you don't throw kids in jail for iPhoning cinema screens (copying that which they have been made privy to), or bankrupt them because they shared music (making copies of that which they have purchased).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man#Arguments
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
TO SECURE THESE CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS
The author has an unalienable right to exclude others from their writings - a right that should be secured.
The author is NOT endowed by his creator with the power or right to prevent others making copies of his published works - those works which he has voluntarily ceased to exclude others from.
Copyright and patent are unconstitutional privileges, but of course this is heresy.
* It is amusing that even the Wikipedia entry is insistent that the clause be known as the 'Copyright clause' - despite the fact that 'copyright' isn't mentioned - perhaps as if by induction people will eventually believe the clause does grant copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
Madison, James, The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: � WEDNESDAY SEPr 5. IN CONVENTION:
(Transcript restored from notes in copy; hyperlink to definition added.)
�
As Ochoa and Rose (2002) put it, �The clause was unanimously approved by the delegates with no debate.� (Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
Grants of monopolies on the other hand, were controversial. This is why Madison couldn't insert a clause that explicitly empowered Congress to grant monopolies such as copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
That's a curious move there, Mr Fitch.
But if we're going recap forty-seven years of argument following ratification, then we ought to move the discussion back to the left side of the page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
http://jessefeder.com/copyright/copyright_laws.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:This is common in my "profession"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copying is not theft
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The proud victim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If copyright was abolished then there would be no piracy - therefore if you are anti-copyright then you are also anti-piracy! What is more this is the only way in which piracy can actually be stopped!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They go; "it's a huge problem! Millions and millions are downloading illegally!"
I respond; "I agree that it's a huge problem that 250 million Europeans are doing something on a weekly basis that is actually illegal. The solution is to make it stop being illegal. For at the end of the day, these are not problematic teenagers we're talking about, but voters."
Tends to get the politicians' ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20208/pyongyangs_survival_strategy.html?bread crumb=%2Fexperts%2F1079%2Fjennifer_lind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great quote. To bad, that in pretty much every nation on earth, the majority of the laws being created, are being used to create or maintain monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but ... but ... but ... campaign contributions!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think he had a childhood, and I bet he never ate CTRL+V
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Either that, or he did eat the CTRL+V, but the heavy metals and other toxic substances in the CRT monitor that he ate at the time(it's all they had back when he was a kid.. no digital flat panels) have gotten into his blood stream and had an impact on his thought processes....
This could explain a lot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You didn't get a hint before about the state of his mentality?
"I demand an apology"
"I demand an apology"
"I demand an apology"
"I demand an apology"
"I demand an apology"
Fucking cry baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There have been times when Joe seemed like a reasonable, intelligent dissenter with whom you could have a substantive debate - so the first few times he showed signs of idiocy, cognitive dissonance and, yes, a hard case of fucking crybaby syndrome, I think the community was ready to let it slide, and even to offer him encouragement. But, after a point, patience wore thin... And now he's gone and snapped.
But I have to admit, part of me wonders (nay - knows) that this community and any community that is aligned on ideological grounds has a tendency to ostracize outsiders and dissenters. That's natural, and anyone showing up as a dissenter should be expecting it - but the reality is that we did play a role in driving Joe to this state of manic, incredulous childishness that he's suddenly entered.
I don't think we deserve all the blame. But some, yes, maybe some... He'll snap out of it though - after all, he's really good at that cognitive dissonance thing I mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I disagree with the rest. I don't think that as a group we are that biased and close-minded. Present a logical argument and most here will listen to it with reason. Even if they don't agree.
Prove yourself to be a troll, you'll be banished to the dark side of the bridge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explain
It might be my view as a capitalist, but I think creating is a fair and honest job that has potential to create great renevue, but not without an insurance of payment of some sorts.
True, the laws as they are now are too restrictive and are going only farther with the restrictions. But not all restrictions are bad. It just needs to be a restricted one (restricted restriction :P). DRM in programs for example, that allow you to make full use of the program, without making any uncomfort to you, is to me a fair one. The best example of this is imo the steam program, meant to protect the copying of games. A requirement such as being online while using in this day and age isn't restrictive at all. Make all the home copies you want, just use it with your one account.
I'm derailing here. Back to what I was writing about originally, how do you expect creators to make a career out of it? The author wrote that people have created since the dawn of men, but how many have really created content as a primary occupation? And out of those that did, how many made enough money to live a life without needing to seek another occupation? You give examples such as Divinci, but how much did he really make from his art?
Or are you counting on people's good nature to pay for something they can easily get (and legally) for free?
I'm honestly asking here, cause I would love to hear a solution for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain
Making copies comes afterwards, and with a free market those copies will be at market rates (in the case of digital copies that's roughly $0).
A free market in copies is a problem for manufacturers of copies at monopoly protected prices. It's not a problem for artists or their audiences.
Weep for the immortal publishing corporations. Do not weep for the poor starving artists they pretend to represent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain
I can tell you haven't been reading Techdirt for very long. :-)
Mike's main idea is that creators need to 'connect with fans' and give them a 'reason to buy'. Do a search on the first term and you will find on average 1~3 posts per month highlighting artists and other creators doing that in different ways and making a decent living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain
There's no such thing as DRM that allows you to make full use of the program. It's literally impossible. Steam is a great example, it's restrictive in many ways just to tie into the steam client. Skyrim is a huge recent game and they literally had to rescrit the ability of third party programs to enable LAA through an executable in the page to keep the game with-in steam. That's a restriction on making full use of the program and that's just one example. Once you lock-down the executable of a program so it can't be altered by the user you've restricted it's use. DRM can't not do that. It's fundamental to what it is to do that.
You're hopelessly out of touch with the reality in a significant portion of the US much less the rest of the world if you think always online isn't restrictive at all. Furthermore you're completely dismissing cases like the road warrior that just wants to unwind after a long day of meetings and conferances in his hotel room or the deployed soldier that just wants to play some games after working in a hostile environemnt all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain
Arguing an artist needs to connect with his or her fans presupposes a fan base. If there isn't one, how is one to be obtained? Is the artist supposed to expend all thier scarce resources attempting to reach out to people who may or may not enjoy what they have done? In addition to being an artist do they need to have expertise in marketing, promotion and search engine optimization? Think of your favorite singer/band/author and remove the existing commercial means of distribution and promotion. How would you have heard of them? Do they even live in your country? Thinking of the number of people who don't get their media from the internet but from print or television will show a web presence won't be enough to reach the general public, particularly if the demographic you are attempting to reach aren't the most tech savy. Think of the number of people who buy bootleg DVDs because they don't know how to download for themselves.
In the 1500s an artist's audience was outside thier doorstep, today it's wherever there's bandwidth. The logistics are not the same, and refering back to a time when the circumstances were something other than what has created the situation being refered to does not make for a potent argument.
So, the question remains, and those like myself who are unknown, love the internet, and also hope they can one day write the great novel or song conveying some universal message should be holding their breath waiting for the answer: How does the creator reap the benefit of creating? Credit isn't enough, the creator has to be rewarded with enough to both motivate future creation, and to sustain them enough to be able to keep concentrating on the act of creation. They have to be shown there is at least the potential to raise a family on their efforts in order for it to be viable. We don't expect someone will launch a website or start a grocery store with no expectation of profit, only credit, so we can't engage in mass exploitation of creators and just say "That's different, they're artists". If we do, we're no better than the industries we ridicule on a regular basis for taking advantage of artists.
Having said all that I feel I should at least propose a solution for the next poster to do dance upon :). Here it is: Copyrights should have a similar lifespan as drug patents. For drugs the creating entity has exclusive rights for 12 years, then the generics can hit the shelves. I would favor something similar with regard to works of art entering the public domain. I think it is a sufficient amount of time for an artist to benefit from thier work, and for a company (publisher, distributor) to feel they can profit by promoting the artist work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Explain
Furthermore I'm not saying the death of 'artists' as a profession wouldn't or couldn't happen I'm saying I don't care if it happens. I'm perfectly ok with 'artist' no longer being a viable career even if you are not. I'm confidant we would still get art and culture even if it did happen not because of what happened in antiquity but because of the bevy of culture we currently enjoy from artists that are not able to support themselves financially through their art yet still create (which you have to admit is the vast majority of current artists). It's irrelevant that one cannot support a family on art alone if there is still art. If artists don't currently earn the vast majority of the money that copyrights actually earn, and they don't which I think even you would have to agree, then what difference would eliminating copyrights really make to artists financially? Sure there would be fewer lottery winners (read: pop-stars) because there would be no copyright industry to shear the hundreds of millions from average artists to give just enough to the super successful ones to continue generating interest in their scheme but what big loss would that be? If the progress of the arts can be promoted without curtailing the rights of the public then that's what I would call a win-win.
I can't believe you seriously attempted to argue that reaching an interested audience was easier in the 1500s than it is now. The logistics are indeed not the same, they're infinitely easier today. It's easier and cheaper than ever before to reach a target audience no matter where they are. The reality of the internet is that your audience is on your doorstep no matter where else they happen to be and the fans can and will do much of the marketing for you. Word of mouth is many times more powerful in the internet age than it was in antiquity because communication is so much easier. Servicing the long tail is something that's only been financially viable since the internet sprung up.
Having said all that I feel I too should at least propose a compromise (which I will shamelessly copy from another poster downstream): Non-transferable copyrights which grant commercial monopolies on duplication and public performance (defined strictly as a live performance, not the playback of an existing recording). I'd agree to 12 years term under those conditions at least long enough to see what shakes out of such a set-up. I'm convinced that such a set-up would result in companies that profit from copyrights inventing contract terms that transfer copyrights to them despite them being non-transferable however so I'm not particularly hopeful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain
Adding to what's been said..
If you want to create a major work that will require upfront funding then you set out your stall and invite people to "commsion" you. There are many platforms now available on the internet for this - the best known is kickstarter but there are others - eg unbound (a uk site for authors) and quidmusic (juswt to mention a couple at random.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE New Copyrights
So lets have this "law" passed alone with SOPA/PIPA, the ORIGINAL creator can have copyright, no one else can buy or sell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE New Copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE New Copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(/sarcasm)
Excellent and insightful post. I'm bookmarking this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the Basis for Creators Asserting Their Ownership of New Rights?
To explain. When you buy an old fashioned printed book, you can read it at anytime and anywhere. However, if you buy a DVD, it is region coded to restrict you from seeing it in a different region. Attempts have also been made to restrict people from recording programs that they seek to watch at a later time.
Of course, I have to mention the removal of Orwell books from the Amazon.com Kindle and Sony "disabling" the the PS3 post sale. In both these situations the content holder remotely reached out to trespass onto these devices to make changes that the device owner may not have approved of.
Beyond the obvious (simple) assertion of the copyright's holder right to control their content, there seems to be a lack of philosophical questioning concerning how the copyright holder can assert new property rights out of thin air just because a certain technology exists. There needs to be greater push-back saying that new technologies do NOT translate into automatic increased copyright privileges. If you can read a printed book anywhere and at anytime, you should be able to watch you DVD anywhere and at anytime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Domain
Without copyrights and patents, corporations would lock much information away as trade secrets, never publishing patent applications or creative works and never contributing to the public good.
The problem with U.S. copyrights are the endless expansion of terms. For a work published today, the term is 70 years after the author's death or, for corporate works, 95 years after publication. That's insane. That kills public domain and breaks the above social contract. We need to protect public domain, not kill copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain
In any case, one is not supposed to be able to contract away one's inalienable liberty (however many virgins you are promised in heaven as a consequence).
There's nothing wrong with locking information away. You may have heard of such a thing as privacy? In any case, corporations have to rely upon their human constituent for any kind of secrecy, and as we know, their employees' freedom of speech cannot be abridged (even if the corporation does fancy a competitive advantage).
Consider at least the possibility that the monopolies of copyright and patent are fundamentally unethical derogations of individual liberty. I know it's difficult if you've been taught to believe they're as right as apple pie, but do try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Public Domain
The Statute of 8 Anne, c.19 was enacted in 1709.
Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, by Thomas Hobbes (1588�1679); was published in 1651.
Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke (1632 - 1704); was published in 1689.
The Statute of 8 Anne, c.19 was enacted in 1709.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Public Domain
1) There is no social contract in which the people in forming the US government agreed to sacrifice their cultural liberty in exchange for allegedly greater cultural output (or technological liberty for progress). This is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution, but people still insist that the US Copyright act of 1790 is part of such a social contract.
2) There is no social contract giving rise to the Statute of Anne. It was simply an expedient privilege to restore printing monopolies back to the Stationers' Company. That is has a pretext of encouraging her subjects' learning does not make it a social contract.
In any case, even if the US Constitution had empowered Congress to grant monopolies, the idea that a social contract even could be about people surrendering some of their natural rights in order to receive consequential benefits (viz liberty in exchange for imagined greater prosperity from monopolies) is simply more sophisticated corruption. People can surrender a share of their alienable property, sure, but not their inalienable rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Domain
Not my assertion. I think you are confusing me with the original poster, Matthew Nelson. Different snowflakes, see? Or you just got the threading messed up.
With regards to the substance of your assertions, it looks to me like you're attempting to make a learned and subtle argument in bad fashion: No personal slight intended. It may be the nature of the beast that learned and subtle arguments come through badly when written on a postcard�or a blog comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Domain
But yes, I can rattle off blog comments a little too hastily. You were right to pick me up on my poorly qualified statement. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain
Ever hear of "Open Source?"
Eventually, most Corp. would realize that sharing benefits them as much, or more, as the next guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain
But don't forget that people can independently discover and create what is locked away to have it enter the public domain. Also btrussel noted the concept of "open source". Since people can create without the existence of copyright, there is no mandate for the existence of the copyright privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Domain
> lock much information away as trade secrets, never
> publishing patent applications or creative works and
> never contributing to the public good.
Without patents, I don't have to worry about some large corporation claiming ownership on something that's trivial for me to reproduce.
Lack of copyright never stopped a real artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immorality has enough excuses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immorality has enough excuses
Want to reduce infringement? How about restoring copyright to its original intent and time span (14 years). I suspect, that you would rather continue to making the improper assertion of "theft" with demands for evermore draconian laws to fight the so-called "theft" rather than return to a reasonable application of the copyright privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immorality has enough excuses
You then offer this gem: "Turning protection for the individual into a scheme against human rights is self-serving hogwash."
This cuts both ways in case you hadn't noticed. You are stipulating that copyrights are a human right and that the attempt by others to protect their own rights is a scheme against your human right to copyright protection. It's disingenuous at best to wish ill on that line of thinking while attempting to obfuscate the fact that it is your own line of thinking. Unless, of course, you perversely recognize copyrights but not property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immorality has enough excuses
That's the basic problem with "intellectual property". It is not.
You have no right to a copyright or a patent.
Copyright maximalists have distorted the laws and discours on these issues and turned it into something it was never intended to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immorality has enough excuses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Immorality has enough excuses
Making laws stating people can't copy is the same as making laws saying we can't walk upright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing for something just in case.
1) Composers and Performers must have a way of being compensated for their work product!
2) Around 1984 there was a lawsuit brought by Composers and Performers for inadequate compensation. Why? When the CD was introduced there was such a demand for them that most retailers added a $4.00 premium to the MSRP. A CD with a $12.98 MSRP was sold for $16.98. As a result of the lawsuit record labels were forced to increase compensation to Composers and Performers based on the actual selling price of a CD.
3) The RIAA attempted to place a ban on high fidelity cassette recorders but were unsuccessful. Through intense lobbying efforts the RIAA was able to have a law passed requiring manufactures of High Fidelity Cassettes pay a Surcharge of around of $0.50 for each High Fidelity Cassette sold. The fee was paid to the Copyright Control Agencies. More draconian laws were applied to home compact disc recorders. Including the Serial Copy Management System. The law also required that CD recorders only accept blank discs for which a surcharge had been paid to the Copyright Control Agencies. I still have a pile of High Fidelity Cassettes that I have already paid a surcharge to the Copyright Control Agencies for, that I never used to record anything.
4) The Copyright Control Agencies wanted a law passed requiring Broadband Subscribers to pay them a $5.00 monthly fee, collected by their ISP, just in case the subscriber used their connection to download copyrighted material. Fortunately for Broadband Subscribers that law never was passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same argument for DUIs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same argument for DUIs
Drunk drivers kill others using very heavy projectiles.
Infringers kill...baby unicorns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same argument for DUIs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End Copyright?
All these people work only if they get paid. But they can get paid only if the work product they produce is sold, with proceeds returning to the producer.
So if copyright is eliminated, as many think it should be, we will not have this kind of movie any more.
But hey, no matter. We can all watch You Tube instead, and see free videos of cats peeing in toilets , right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: End Copyright?
You have been hypnotised by the cartel to believe that without those monopolists getting extremely wealthy on monopoly profits (Hollywood accounting that gives them the lion's share of revenue from movie goer to movie maker) movies will no longer be made. If you remove the monopoly you simply remove the monopolistic middlemen, you do not remove the demand or the supply. While there remains a demand for movies and a supply of people able to make them (at far better value for both vendors and customers given free market pricing) then there will be an exchange of movies for money.
Try checking out http://vodo.net as one of many ventures exploring film production/distribution/financing without monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]