Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?

from the focusing-on-what-really-matters dept

Fri, Apr 13th 2012 12:46pm — Rick Falkvinge

For a long time, the copyright industry has cried foul over technical progress, and demanded taxpayer compensation for how these new developments circumvent their existing privileges. It didn't start with the internet; they've done so for well over a century, starting with complaining about the gramophone and the self-playing piano. But as they are crying over lost sales, real or imagined, why is the rest of the world accepting that this field -- the copyright industry's profits -- is the place where the debate should be playing out?

You've all seen the stories. The sky is falling, the end is nigh, music will come to an end, people sharing their knowledge and culture and thus disrespecting the copyright monopoly rips the bread out of starving artists' children's kittens' mouths, yada yada yada.

What I can't understand for my life is why this industry's profits are even being debated. Who cares how much money a particular industry makes? That is not relevant at all for the form, size and shape of our most basic civil liberties as they apply online.

Let me try an analogy. When mankind communicated privately 30 years ago, our parents sent physical letters in the mail. They wrote a message by hand or with a typewriter on a piece of paper, put the paper in an envelope and sealed it, wrote the recipient's home address on the outside of the envelope, manually affixed a stamp to pay for delivery, and put it in a mailbox. The postal service would then physically carry the envelope with the letter inside to its recipient's home, where it could be read. This delivery took a day or a couple of days, just like when we order new shiny gadgets today and things need to be physically delivered.

So, let's take a look at what rights our parents had in this scenario. First, they and they alone determined whether to identify themselves as sender - on the outside of the envelope, for the delivery services to know; on inside of the envelope, for only the recipient to know; or frankly, not at all. That was their prerogative. Nobody had the right to open letters in transit just to see that they didn't contain any illegal material, and nobody was allowed to track who was communicating (sending letters) to whom.

It is perfectly reasonable that we demand these fundamental rights of our parents' private communications to carry over into the online world, to our children's equivalent environment of life.

Now, once you say that anybody should be able to send anything to anybody on the net without interference, because that's in the civil liberties that our ancestors fought, bled and died for, the copyright industry jumps in and complains. "We can't make any money if you allow this to happen", they would say.

My response is "So what?".

The role of any entrepreneur is to make money given the contemporary constraints of society and technology. They do not get to dismantle civil liberties, even if - and perhaps especially if - they are unable to make money in the face of sustained civil liberties.

If the copyright industry can't sell their products in the face of sustained civil liberties, they get to go out of business or sell something else instead. Mustard, perhaps.

The important trap to observe here is that it's not our problem if the copyright industry's sales are slumping - whether they are or not. It is irrelevant to the debate on civil liberties online. By starting to discuss the profits issue, the copyright industry wins the framing of the debate - that they should somehow have a right to such profit; that society must be shaped so they can continue to make a profit. No entrepreneur gets that luxury.

The copyright industry is not a stakeholder in copyright monopoly legislation. They are a beneficiary. There's a difference.

The only stakeholder in the copyright monopoly legislation is the public. The copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest of having access to culture and knowledge, and the same public's interest of having new culture and knowledge created. That's it. Those are the only two interests that go into the legal wording of the monopoly.

The copyright industry, meanwhile, profits from the current means of achieving this balance - just like Blackwater Security (or whatever their name is this week) profits off of United States foreign policy. (You remember Blackwater, the private security firm that was playing GTA IRL on the streets of Baghdad?) Actually, let's stick with Blackwater for a while. Can you imagine what would happen if Blackwater was considered a legitimate stakeholder in US foreign policy, and whose tantrums were taken seriously when they demanded more opportunities for profits in the foreign policy, violating people's civil liberties in the process?

Can you really imagine what would happen if the concern for Blackwater's continued profits would be allowed to take center stage, ahead of people's sustained civil liberties? I'm betting we would see about the same thing that's happening to the net right now with the copyright industry's equally asinine tantrums. This is the crucial difference between a beneficiary and a stakeholder.

Just because the copyright industry has benefited from this monopoly construct in the past, that doesn't mean that they have any right whatsoever to profit from it tomorrow. That's not a concern at all in reforming the copyright monopoly. In drafting such legislation, our only concern is maximizing the knowledge and culture available to the public.

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

Filed Under: civil liberties, monopoly, rick falkvinge, stakeholder

133 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 12:57pm

I would say that your dislike for copyright in any form pretty much makes your conclusion foregone. It also means that you are only looking at one side for the answer - basically, you started with your answer, and backfilled.

"the copyright industry's profits "

This is really your first problem. It's not about profits per se, it's about the ability to pay the artists, pay the performers, and pay to do it all again next time. One of copyright's best features is the ability for artists to be able to retain ownership of their work, while selling or granting for free selected rights to consumers, or to companies, and such. That ability to decide the fate of a work is often much more valuable to an artist than any cash. The money allows them to keep going though, and to do it all again (usually a desirable result).

I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed. It seems a pretty unfair thing, really. I don't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why should you be able to tell an artist that they must give their work away for free?

When you start with such an extreme view as yours, copyright will never be right for you. Socialism, even in content, is not workable in the long run. We have seen so many countries fall into economic disarray in the last few years because their socialistic tendencies are outspending reality. Do we really need MORE socialist leanings to prove that it's not working out, that we are not advancing as a people because of it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:02pm

The best evidence that Pirate Mike loves piracy? He lets Falkvinge post. Yarrrrrr!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:04pm

You've all seen the stories. The sky is falling, the end is nigh...

I thought you were describing the freeloaders mantra any time a new measure is proposed to keep thieves from unlawfully appropriating the content of others to monetize for their own benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:05pm

Re:
I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed.

The burden of proof falls on the people requesting an artificial structure to prevent what's naturally possible, not on the people simply doing what's naturally possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:07pm

giving works away for free isn't the issue. giving the works away in formats wanted at fair prices are big parts of the issue. trouble is, the entertainment industries that control the release and distribution know what they need to do to get consumers (back) on board but instead of doing that, they moan to the various governments to make more/harsher laws. what is the point of knowing what to do to improve a situation, then ignoring that knowledge and actually doing the exact opposite? all that does is make things harder for everybody, especially those that are moaning the most, the entertainment industries themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:10pm

How cute. Falkvinge has a Masnick quote and picture on his website (http://falkvinge.net/keynotes/). I wonder if they've registered at Target yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:15pm

Re:
You greatly underestimate the "freeloaders" none of these measures will stop them from "unlawfully appropriating content". I have not seen any laws come up that made me worry that piracy would vanish. I have seen some on the other hand that would destroy large chunks of the internet that are perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:15pm

Re:
I disagree. I am for the rights of copyright holders. I have not downloaded music, movies or any of that unless I paid for it. I think they should be able to prosecute when the evidence points in that direction. I hope all those that are pirating copyrighted material get caught and fined. However, civil liberties do trump profits. These organizations need to find a way to profit within the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:16pm

Re:
I don't think anyone is asking for any control over "how someone else's work is distributed". Create whatever you want and decide whether to keep it to yourself or to distribute it in some way, maybe to try to make some money - that's fine.

The question is not about "distribution", but about *redistribution* - what level of control you should have over it after having decided to distribute it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:18pm

Re:
One of copyright's best features is the ability for artists to be able to retain ownership of their work, while selling or granting for free selected rights to consumers, or to companies, and such. That ability to decide the fate of a work is often much more valuable to an artist than any cash. The money allows them to keep going though, and to do it all again (usually a desirable result).

You are correct this is a feature (your word not mine) and not a right. If the feature involves trampling on rights it is the feature that should go not the right.

We've even seen this happen in other industries, when the Path mobile app had a feature that searched and saved user address books, but trampled their right to privacy, path removed the feature. Why should copyright be any different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JPriest, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:18pm

Re:
...

You completely fucking ignored the whole civil liberty issue...

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:20pm

Re:
If the activity is clearly unlawful, why are more measures needed? More importantly, why do the measures have to be so broad as to fundamentally affect how valuable technologies work (SOPA and the internet), or outright violate our liberties (CISPA, and the 4th Amendment)?

Perhaps even more importantly, if these measures are the best solutions our lawmakers have to offer, maybe the laws that prohibit these activities are too broad or no longer relevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:21pm

Wow. You seen to have gotten the dander up on the copyright maximalist up on this one Rick.

Five comments in and four of them are ad hominem attacks. LOL.

#ricksdoingitright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:24pm

"Can you really imagine what would happen if the concern for Blackwater's continued profits would be allowed to take center stage, ahead of people's sustained civil liberties?"

Oh, Oh, I know this one.

What is the current US Foreign Policy, Alex...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:30pm

Re:
Which is why copyright should be 100% unassignable and should immediately end upon the death of the artist.

Make this one simple change and 99.9% of all the problems with copyright go away...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keii (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:31pm

Re:
Commie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:31pm

Re: Re:
I think the point is that they're hell-bent on changing the law, both statutory and common, in ways that preserve/boost their profit, at the expense of civil liberties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:32pm

Re:
I wonder if they've registered at Target yet?

I tried to be a little more thoughtful and sent them my digital copy of an 1871 book about Russian Embroidery. The MPAA notified Homeland Security, and now I'm serving 30 to life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re:
"I don't think anyone is asking for any control over "how someone else's work is distributed". Create whatever you want and decide whether to keep it to yourself or to distribute it in some way, maybe to try to make some money - that's fine."

Chris, the point of piracy is that the end user gets to decide how something is distributed. They ignore the wishes of the artist, they ignore all the legal ramifications and contracts signed, and just decide that yes, today, they are going to seed the file and let millions of people have it for nothing, artist be damned.

Piracy is the ultimate slap in the face for artists. Your work is good enough that I want it, but not good enough that I should respect your wishes.

You can call it "redistribution", but the effect is the same - the end user deciding to pirate the file and seed it for others. That's never a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:34pm

Re: Re:
It's naturally possible do do all sorts of things (murder is natural, if you think about it). It's a false framing of the issue to just say "it's okay because I can".

I don't expect anything deeper from you though, diaper boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:35pm

Re:
Socialism, even in content, is not workable in the long run. We have seen so many countries fall into economic disarray in the last few years because their socialistic tendencies are outspending reality. Do we really need MORE socialist leanings to prove that it's not working out, that we are not advancing as a people because of it?

What is it you're claiming is socialism? Reducing the strength of copyright law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STStone, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:35pm

Re:
Homophobia will not win you friends around here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:35pm

Re:
"If you don't want to let the police kick your door in every night and search your house for contraband, you must be a criminal."

Yawn. Get some new material, shilltroll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:37pm

Awesome
This is beautiful, Rick, one of the best things I've seen on copyright.

The copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest of having access to culture and knowledge, and the same public's interest of having new culture and knowledge created. That's it. Those are the only two interests that go into the legal wording of the monopoly.

I especially like that. I just wish it were true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STStone, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:39pm

The only stakeholder in the copyright monopoly legislation is the public. The copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest of having access to culture and knowledge, and the same public's interest of having new culture and knowledge created. That's it.

I will quote this for years to come.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say it being natural makes it automatically okay - I said it places the burden of proof on the person supporting the unnatural option.

So, I would like you to now please prove that artists have a right to artificial control over their creation. Otherwise, time to shut that ever-flapping mouth of yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:41pm

Re:
Do we really need MORE socialist leanings
Copyright is a government-constructed redistribution scheme that acts as a drain on society in order to transfer wealth to large, monopolist corporations. This blending of state and corporate interests is known as fascism, by the by.

If you really want to defend free market capitalism, you'll go and learn something about economics and moral philosophy, and then come back here and argue to abolish so-called "intellectual property" entirely. Until such time, your comments remain nothing but confused ramblings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:43pm

Love This
The copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest of having access to culture and knowledge, and the same public's interest of having new culture and knowledge created. That's it.
Fantastic!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tired of all the crap..., 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:45pm

Our representatives are nothing but corporate whores.
You really have to ask? The reason is that the people whom we elect to represent us are corporate whores who no longer represent the people. They are nothing but bought and paid for corrupt lofty individuals who believe they are better than the rest of "us".

Its time to take America back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JPriest, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re: Re:
^(equating copyright infringement with murder)

We don't expect a lot from you either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:49pm

Re: Re: Re:
I would think that the "ultimate slap in the face" would be no one caring enough about your music to listen to it, let alone share it with others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:50pm

Re:
I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed. It seems a pretty unfair thing, really. I don't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why should you be able to tell an artist that they must give their work away for free?

This is where you started to lose me. The debate isn't about deciding how other people's work will be distributed.

It's also not about telling anyone how to spend their money, and it's certainly not about anyone forcing artists to give their work away for free.

I am not anti-copyright in concept, but at the same time artists do not need copyright in order to profit from their work.

We have seen so many countries fall into economic disarray in the last few years because their socialistic tendencies are outspending reality.

And this is where you've lost me completely. This has nothing to do with socialism, and I'm confused as to why you brought the subject up. But while we're here, I'll just mention that if you're going to say that socialism has caused economic problems in other countries, then you should be equally prepared to say that capitalism has caused at least as many problems in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:51pm

Just curious if you personally engage in the copying and distribution of someone else's work without regard to their wishes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re:
I would have said it's a nice feature, but not a part of the requirements.

Other than that, I agree with you. (for whatever that's worth...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STStone, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:57pm

Re: Re: Re:
They ignore the wishes of the artist, they ignore all the legal ramifications and contracts signed, and just decide that yes, today, they are going to seed the file and let millions of people have it for nothing, artist be damned.

I'll bring up a quote from a recent post on this blog: "We don't want everything for free -- we just want everything."

The technology of today allows for cheap/practically-free transmissions of information (regardless of what form the information takes). Instead of using this to their advantage, the major media conglomerates (the MPAA, the RIAA, the major book publishers) fought for years -- and still fight today -- to limit the natural functions of the Internet.

Information will spread, whether people spread it legally or not. Laws made to prevent this spread of information work against the best interests of the general public -- so who should receive the biggest voice when it comes to such laws, the media conglomerates or the general public?

Copyright perpetuates the notion of "ownership" over ideas and art. Art stops belonging to a person the moment they put pen to paper or pick to guitar or speech to film. Art "belongs" to all who experience it.

As Rick pointed out: an entrepeneur must work within the confines of civil rights to find ways of making money. Any entrepeneur who cannot make money with their current business model must either find a better business model or bow out and let the world progress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:57pm

Re:
Really? This? What are you, 12?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mischab1, 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:58pm

Re: Awesome
Ok, I'll concede that it is only true in terms of what copyright was intended to be, not in how it is acting at the moment. But I think this is an important point we should remind the politicians of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
As a preface, I am not anti-copyright in principle, although I do thing current copyright law is immoral.

Piracy is the ultimate slap in the face for artists.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean that copyright should be so expansive that copyright holders have the power to cause so much harm to innocent others and society at large. That is the issue.

The point of the article is related to that: why should we as a society allow a tiny portion of society such unusual influence over our laws and life, especially when that influence is being used to harm society overall as well as innocent individuals?

The cure that they keep trying to shove down our throats is worse than the disease by a few orders of magnitude. If that's the only way that these legacy industries can survive, then they need to go out of business for the good of us all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 1:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
What Marcus said, then again, you really think that downloading Avatar is worse than murder?

I'm only saying that because if someone is accused of murder, the cops would still need a warrant to search a suspects belongings and property, you know, a process that would make sure that there's a real reason to root through your stuff and your privacy.

If CISPA were the law of the land, such procedures would not be necessary in regard to your digital belongings. The best way this makes sense in my mind is if infringment was worse than murder. A crime so foul that one's rights as a citizen don't matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:00pm

Re: Re: Re:
It's kind of hard to kill someone with an imaginary property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hfbs (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:01pm

Put simply - I don't give a damn about your profits and I don't see why I should.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: Re:
Piracy is only the "ultimate slap in the face" if your business is selling music, and not the things surrounding the music.

For example, one of my favourite bands is still performing almost 25 years after their inception, and they have reasonable incomes (enough to make what they do a job, rather than a hobby).

If you literally refuse to see that (it's been obvious since I was in nursery), then your business sense is more than off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:04pm

Re: Re: Re:
Ignoring the world doesn't seem to be working out for you guys. But, for all means, keep trying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STStone, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shhh, don't let the MPAA hear you, or they might look to find a way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re:
Nope, just another moron in a hurry. AT least I'm honest about my idiocies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:07pm

Re:
"My father had a saying: Peace is having the biggest stick"

"That's a great line, coming from the guy selling sticks"
-Iron Man
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:13pm

Re:
Yes. Every night when I read my children their bedtime story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re:
sorry if I offended you, not my intention
[ link to this | view in thread ]
M, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:18pm

Re: Re:
Bingo. There is positive things about copyright philosophically. But the kind of copyright enforcement needed does not justify copyright. And without enforcement, copyright is nothing anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:39pm

Re: Re: Re:
Of course it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:42pm

Re: Re:
I do not recall asking for an answer from anyone other than the author of this article.

I suspect he is perfectly capable of answering the question without the help of others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rubberpants, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:45pm

Re:
Very insightful point-by-point analysis of the article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Doyle (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:45pm

Re:
I'm going to pick on this one paragraph:

I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed. It seems a pretty unfair thing, really. I don't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why should you be able to tell an artist that they must give their work away for free?

The article is not talking about telling the artist how to distribute their work - it is telling the artists that they don't get to decide how we distribute other things just because it may also be used to distribute their work. It would seem a pretty unfair thing of you to tell me that I can spend my paycheck any way I like, as long as I only use your currency that you get a % of for every transaction performed. It's akin to Mastercard saying to the public "you must use our card" and then having the government come along and enforce it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rubberpants, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re:
No, just bitter and desperate with a lot of free time on his hands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:50pm

Re:
Since when is abolishing a govt granted monopoly socialism?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re:
Nazi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:58pm

As someone who thoroughly enjoys mustard on a hot dog or burger I am alarmed at the suggestion that these parasites change to that industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STStone, 13 Apr 2012 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
Nickelback fan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:00pm

Re: Re:
@ #52
'The article is not talking about telling the artist how to distribute their work - it is telling the artists that they don't get to decide' how customers want it. ie, if something is available in mp3 and customers want it in flac, it should be their choice to have it or not. if not, it's then down to artists to change the availability or lose sales. simple!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Nemesh, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re:
Maybe this could be a centerpiece of a campaign? Everyone bog down the MPAA's servers with email attachments of public domain works in protest! What do you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re:
No actually the ultimate slap in the face for an artist would be when those that are SUPPOSED to represent them cheat them out of what they agreed to pay them in the first place for their own benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey THAT was a low blow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:21pm

Re:
If it's about the ability to pay the artists, the entertainment industry would cease "negotiating" unfair contracts, using Hollywood accounting, and shorting or entirely refusing royalty payments to artists. They'd have better self-policing of their collection societies to make sure artists are getting paid and officers of the company aren't embezzling the funds. If companies cared about the artist, they'd license their copyrights instead of insisting on the assignment of their copyrights in addition to charging them for the privilege of creating and marketing their copyrighted works.

When you get the artists the money they deserve and reassign contractually "stolen" works back to the artists and license the material at the rates you would charge others, I'll start to believe that copyright enforcement isn't about corporate profits.

Corporations do tell consumers how to spend their paychecks. It's called advertising. But since copyright law was created to benefit the public, the public should have a say in how copyright works. Current copyright law has seen the absurd extension of copyright durations by politicians who didn't have the public interest in mind and therefore the extensions are illegitimate. Work to get copyright durations down to at least 30 years or less and I'll be perfectly willing to let artists do whatever they want with their copyrights.

Consumers as a market force have the prerogative to tell any supplier in the market that they won't pay the offering price for their products. That's just basic economics. The entertainment industry thinks that it can price-fix and collude with other monopolists, so they aren't the best when it comes to understanding how the market is supposed to function.

The fact that you perceive this perspective as radical is pretty radical. The fact that you label realistic pragmatism as socialism is very telling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:23pm

Re:
Yeah they would ruin yet another perfectly good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:30pm

Re: Re: Re:
the point of piracy is that the end user gets to decide how something is distributed.
No - the initial distribution remains in the control of the artist - charge enoguh for that first copy and you don't need to care about what happens afterwards.

They ignore the wishes of the artist
So do the *AA companies!

they ignore all the legal ramifications and contracts signed,

Why should I care about a contract signed by someone else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:31pm

Re:
Recall that TPB has a new section called 'Physibles'. The first time I have to sit through a mandatory 2 minute video telling me what a filthy mustard pirate I am, I'll just cruise over to the Bay and DL some of that tasty condiment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Arthur (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
I don't expect anything deeper from you though, diaper boy.

And, with one sentence, you invalidate everything you said. Insults are the resort of those who cannot argue effectively. With that one sentence, you admit you have no case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STStone, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:39pm

Re: Re: Re:
You made a comment in an open comments system; don't act angry when other people reply to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
random reader, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re:
Thank you!Ask any libertarian, ask any constitutionalists, ask any free market capitalist and they will say this. Not socialism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bigpicture, 13 Apr 2012 @ 3:59pm

Re: Copyright
Yada, Copyright, Yada, Copyright, Yada. Why does one section of society need special rights? Why should they be granted special rights at the expense of others?

I have a restaurant, I have a special recipe that a lot of my customers like, and it increases my business sales. My competitor down the street can get a sample of this dish and lab analyze the ingredients, and make the same dish. Do I get to protect my recipe with copyright, so I can protect my sales? Do I have government granted special rights and privileges with this? (copyright or patent?)

NO I DO NOT, I have to find a way to prevent my competitor, from getting my recipe, or a sample of the food. Just about every other business is faced with these same challenges, except of course those to whom the Government grants these "special rights and privileges.

These "special rights and privileges industries" being the "copyright and patent" industries. That is why the industries with these "special rights and privileges" can overcharge so much for their products. Like drug companies do for their poisonous products, that relieve one symptom and and cause 5 more health problems. This really benefits society in general and the consumer in particular. It is really a great system that offers special money making rights at the expense of civil rights, the American way is really a great system. They have been brainwashed so long with this world view that they cannot see the conflict of interest, or the oxymoron, or just plain moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 13 Apr 2012 @ 4:11pm

Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you understand how "Comments" work...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:49pm

Re:
Except without copyrights artists and companies still would be able to sell those same things and we have concrete examples of real life companies doing just that.

Open source just proved that you don't need the monopolies to exist, survive or be successful.

The only extreme view is the people who believe that a granted monopoly is anything to be proud off or good to anybody, there is a reason nobody likes monopolies they are harmful specially the ones that are forced upon others.

Further, between copycrap, artists and my rights, screw you, the law and artists, nobody is messing with freedom of speech, privacy and free market, no one, no matter what they think they deserve, if they can't make it, let them go visit the Dodo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:52pm

"Piracy is the ultimate slap in the face for artists."

Nope. Speaking as a musician, someone else taking the credit for my work by blatantly plagarizing me is what I'd consider a slap in the face. I could care less if somebody somewhere distributes my work so long as they're not profiting off it financially.

Most songs cost, what, a buck? Now think about the cost of your civil liberties, paid for with the blood of our ancestors, being stripped away for the supposed sake of an artist's work being 'protected.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Drug addict!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:54pm

Re:
Yay! go freeloaders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 5:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
Typical control freak monopolist that doesn't understand how public forums operate LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 6:34pm

Re: Re: Re:
The point is it is a feature that comes from the rights granted in copyright. Because the artist has the initial exclusive right, they can tell sell part of all of those rights on to others.

It's fundamental to a creative system that allows artists to work for the masses, rather than having to suck up to rich benefactors. Instead of getting paid by 1 person to do it their way, each person who wants a copy can contribute some to the artist's well being.

But it really only works with copyright, which creates the legal framework under which the artist can sell those rights. Without it, we would go back to the times of the patron, which is not good for the masses, and not really good for artists either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digitari, 13 Apr 2012 @ 7:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
right, cause http://www.kickstarter.com/ is just a patron
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of their member studios already did. It's called 'The Thin Red Line'...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jem40000, 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:37pm

30 years ago
From original blogpost above :

"When mankind communicated privately 30 years ago, our parents sent physical letters in the mail."

True -- but our parents also spoke via telephone 30 years ago and, at least in the USA, such conversation was subject to a wiretap if the Law guys could convince a court to issue the proper search warrant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:49pm

Re: Re:
"And this is where you've lost me completely. This has nothing to do with socialism, and I'm confused as to why you brought the subject up."

It is in it's own way, all about socialism. It is actually one of the underlying, unmentioned arcs of the whole anti-copyright / pro piracy movement: Music (and movies, etc) should be a common good, not something that anyone (even the artist) really owns or controls. It's a good of the society, thus rending the creation of entertainment as a public work.

The basic concept: As an artist, you will make these things, and make them available to everyone for free. If you won't, we will do it for you. There are no options.

Basically, everyone else gets to decide what to do with your work, and at the same time removes all economic incentive for creating it.

"I'll just mention that if you're going to say that socialism has caused economic problems in other countries, then you should be equally prepared to say that capitalism has caused at least as many problems in the US."

No system is perfect. The capitalistic society has the problem that, often enough, you end up with "greed is good" as a driving factor. It should be said though that capitalistic systems tend to be the ones that grow a society, by motivating it's workers to "work harder", thus raising the GDP and so on.

The only way China got out of the hole was to allow widespread capitalist activity. The reason Russia is in the shitter is that the government cannot control itself, and insists on stopping capitalist endeavors for the good of the state. Socialism isn't a system that drives individuals, in general ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 10:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
The supporters of laws against murder made their case that murder should be outlawed. They made that case very publicly. The discussion about what does and does not constitute murder continues today, in public, and very passionately.

The onus of proof lies with the persons supporting the reduction of liberty. Those against murder freely accepted that onus. The copyright industries make lying attempts to deny they have the onus. That is the difference.

Ad hominem attacks demonstrate your viciousness and immaturity. They destroy your credibility. Try to do better in future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2012 @ 10:43pm

Re: Re:
No, open source proves that you can give away a product, and providing it's complicated enough, you can sell support.

They aren't selling software, and further, they have little motivation to make the product more user friendly or easy to install, because they could work themselves out of business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 2:28am

Re: 30 years ago
If you can convince the courts that taking a flamethrower to get rid of a mosquito is legal, sane and sensible, by all means go ahead. Don't come crying to us when you fail to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 2:42am

Re: Re: Re:
"the point of piracy is that the end user gets to decide how something is distributed."

You're almost there. The point of piracy is to obtain product that cannot be obtained in any other way, or is only offered with restrictions that the end user finds objectionable or renders the end product useless.

No customer gives a shit what contracts you have signed, just as you probably don't care how the distribution is signed for your favourite brand of coffee. The difference with digital content is that people can obtain the song they want, even if they're blocked from buying it. If you succeed with your bullshit and manage to eradicate "piracy" (impossible, but keep dreaming), then they will just be faced with the same choice as the coffee buyer - your chosen brand is not stocked, it's too expensive or you're only allowed to buy it if you have a passport from another country? You buy something else. Your corporate masters still don't get our money.

You *could* offer content in the ways people are demanding it, but apparently accepting our money is against your religion if you haven't obtained it in exactly the way you want... This is your failure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squire Headlong, 14 Apr 2012 @ 2:50am

Re: Re: Re:
> As an artist, you will make these things, and make them available to everyone for free. If you won't, we will do it for you. There are no options.

Incorrect. Anyone can make things and choose to keep them private. But if they make them public, they do not get to tell *other* people what to do with *their* copies. That gives everyone the most freedom.

> Basically, everyone else gets to decide what to do with your work, and at the same time removes all economic incentive for creating it.

Incorrect. Everyone decides what to do with themselves and their own actions. And anyone is free to sell their creative effort, but they cannot tell *other* people what *they* can or cannot sell.

Sounds very like a free market, does it not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 3:21am

Re: Re: Re:
"I don't understand what socialism is, but I'll spout bullshit about it anyway in the same way I spout off about anything I don't understand here"

We know...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 3:30am

Re: Re: Re:
Wasn't this crap proven wrong a few weeks ago, or did you just run from the thread when faced with facts yet again? I forget...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 3:44am

Re:
Yes, although I'm not sure anyone cares what Bram Stoker's wishes were when I let people download copies of the public domain novel Dracula from my blog. That's as it should be - even though people like you wish to rob the opportunity for future generations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 6:11am

Re:
"I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed."

Actually you are correct. The consumer does not have the right to decide how someone else's work should be distributed. Unfortunately that isn't the argument. That's what this post is all about. Arguing about the correct thing.

The problem is that the communications network merged with the distribution network of the content industry, and there are two separate groups of laws that are meant to deal with each network. Now they are in conflict, which is unfortunate, but civil liberties have to trump monopolies.

As for the laws, we have a King Solomon situation. The content industry is happy to split the baby in half to get it's way. The only reasonable solution is to accept that things have changed and the content industry will have to adapt to the change and create new business models while the old laws about copyright infringement are altered to allow sharing on a mass scale.

To answer the original question, there is no valid reason for the consumer to decide how someone else's work is distributed, but the consumer didn't decide, the technology changed and allowed the consumer to choose. You cannot put the Djinni back in the bottle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick Falkvinge, 14 Apr 2012 @ 6:53am

Re:
Actually, that's a misconception. I don't need to justify to one single human being why I rearrange my own property (bits on my hard drive) to match a pattern that I can observe.

The notion that this can be outlawed is highly unnatural and illogical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 7:59am

Re: Re: Re:
True, but you've forgotten the work for hire contracts that see artists cheated out of their dues. Meanwhile other artists are finding ways to prosper by using the pirates as advertising.

Furthermore, Loz Kaye of the UK Pirate Party is a musician and has to work at his regular job to make a living... in music.

The idea that artists will quit if they can't make money via copyright licensing is rendered null by the plethora of examples of full-time musicians who don't rely on the licensing collections agencies for an income and make money from live performances and merchandising.

The IP industry is treated differently from other industries for no good reason. Limiting creativity to those artists who are willing to sign up with the licensing collections agencies can't benefit the artists or society in any possible way.

Besides, that's not even the real problem: the IP maximalists are determined to limit the way we experience content so they can squeeze us for the maximum amount of money via licensing so that content is being paid for many times over.

Put it this way: if the RIAA and MPAA shut down tomorrow would culture die off? Erm, no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 9:14am

Re: Re:
It is publicly reported that you practice polyamory.

Obviously, you have the "natural" right to arrange your "1" is any "0" you choose, and yet the definition of the term provides that agreement by all parties effected thereby have to provide their consent/approval/permission/etc.

What I have a difficult time reconciling is your apparent willingness to take into account the wishes of those close to you, but an unwillingness to do likewise when it comes to the wishes of others in matters pertaining to original works of authorship. Both provide a cultural and pleasurable experience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 10:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it really only works with copyright, which creates the legal framework under which the artist can sell those rights. Without it, we would go back to the times of the patron, which is not good for the masses, and not really good for artists either.

Yeah, except for all the people making money from art without relying on copyright or wealthy patrons. But they must be "the exception" and not worth considering, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 10:38am

Re: 30 years ago
True -- but our parents also spoke via telephone 30 years ago and, at least in the USA, such conversation was subject to a wiretap if the Law guys could convince a court to issue the proper search warrant.

And if law enforcement gets a warrant related to criminal activity to eavesdrop on someone's electronic communication, that's fine. But it's not what this post is about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 10:40am

Re: Re: Re:
So what you're saying is that government needs to interfere with the market and set up artificial monopolies in order to make it a more capitalist system, and that if they just left everyone to conduct business as they please without help from the government, that's socialism?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 10:44am

Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, you have the "natural" right to arrange your "1" is any "0" you choose,

Are you intentionally obscuring your language? Because nothing in your post after that makes much sense to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joshua Bardwell (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 11:20am

"For a long time, the copyright industry has cried foul over technical progress, and demanded taxpayer compensation for how these new developments circumvent their existing privileges."

Rick, this is really a masterfully constructed sentence. There is so much that you've done right in the way you've framed the situation here. Kudos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your quote from my comment, "is" should be "in" (my typo).

Otherwise, take a look at any dictionary and my comment should start to make some sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 1:57pm

Re: Re:
Since "WOOOOO!!! DANGER!!! SOCIALISM!!!" became synonymous with "I disapprove of this idea, regardless of the ideology behind it".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 3:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what's hilarious? That even put as simply as you put it, nasch, he's not going to get the hilarity of that statement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 3:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are obviously too stupid to understand how an analogy works. You're just the kind of brainless fucktard that Pirate Mike and Pirate Rick are recruiting. Kudos. You're in the club for sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 3:33pm

Re:
Of course Rick does. And he encourages others to do so. Rick's whole deal is about violating other people's rights. Just like Mike. It's what makes them disgusting human beings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 3:37pm

Re: Re:
Actually, that's a misconception. I don't need to justify to one single human being why I rearrange my own property (bits on my hard drive) to match a pattern that I can observe.

The notion that this can be outlawed is highly unnatural and illogical.

Absolute bullshit, Pirate Rick. Some rights in those bits on your hard drive belong to others. Those rights were never yours in the first place. Like it or not, the rights are not yours. You are lying piece of piratical shit to pretend like rights are yours that clearly belong to another by operation of law. You are disgusting. Just like Mike likes 'em.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 4:38pm

Re:
They don't have any valid counterarguments, is why they're resorting to insults. Arguing that the profits of the entertainment industries are more important than the rights of the public is an argument for facism.

You know, I'd probably have more respect for them if they just came out and said "yeah, I want to live in a police state". At least that would be honest. I guess even that is too much to expect from these (excuses for) people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 4:48pm

Re: Re:
If you want to take people's basic human rights away, just because you're only making huge amounts of money when you used to make obscene amounts, then you're a fascist.

So who's the real "disgusting human being" here, fascist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 4:55pm

Re: Re:
If you want to take people's basic human rights away, just because you're only making huge amounts of money when you used to make obscene amounts, then you're a fascist.

So who's the real "disgusting human being" here, fascist?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 4:55pm

Re:
They don't have any valid counterarguments, is why they're resorting to insults. Arguing that the profits of the entertainment industries are more important than the rights of the public is an argument for facism.

You know, I'd probably have more respect for them if they just came out and said "yeah, I want to live in a police state". At least that would be honest. I guess even that is too much to expect from these (excuses for) people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 6:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Otherwise, take a look at any dictionary and my comment should start to make some sense.

It's not the words I don't understand, it's the way you put them together. But hey, maybe it's just me and it made perfect sense to everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 14 Apr 2012 @ 6:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You know what's hilarious? That even put as simply as you put it, nasch, he's not going to get the hilarity of that statement.

I'm sure he's not. If he says anything though, it's a win. Either he can clarify what he actually meant and we can proceed with a real discussion, or he can say "yeah, that's what I'm saying" and we can all have a good laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2012 @ 7:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My comment was intended for the author who seems to think he has a natural right to do anything he wants with his "property" without having to account to anybody for his actions. Apparently, he practices a somewhat different philosophy when it comes to his personal "property" in his private life, where accountability does seem to count.

Given what is reported as being his chosen lifestyle, I would think "arrange your "1" in any "0" you choose" is a relatively easy phrase to decipher, and especially by him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eponymous Coward, 15 Apr 2012 @ 12:20am

Re:
"It also means that you are only looking at one side for the answer"

Just because there are 2 sides doesn't mean both are equal, or due equal treatment. In this equation rights-holders are but a subset of society and thus subservient in its greater interest. Society doesn't exist to serve its different subsets, thus why there isn't royalty here in the States. An easy analogy would be the US Marines and the Scout Sniper: being a subset the Sniper exists to serve the interest of the Marines and if the decision is made to change policy/tatics the Sniper follows policy; they don't commandeer it for that is mutiny. Likewise this is a rights-holder "mutiny" where they hold the rest of society hostage to their interests. While you may protest the analogy of using the military as an example on the grounds that society isn't as regimented so to protect the interests of its subsets against their harm by errant policy, but I beg to differ. This isn't a civil rights issue like letting women vote or gays marry where the subset can argue for equal standing with other subsets. This is a greater conflict where the rights-holders stand in the way of advancement of society on the scale of the "founding of the Americas". Thus, them being the Native Americans in this comparison, the rights-holders are, most likely, going to get totally fucked in the end. I see it as a point of inevitability (not to be confused we me actually defending past or future horrors inflicted by society on its individuals) for society will not halt in its progress no matter who gets trampled under foot along the way. One only needs to look into the rear-view mirror of history to see the way too numerous number of bodies left in our wake! So where does this leave us? I think rights-holders should advocate and negotiate for their cause sure, but all while bearing in mind that whatever they get is at Our behest and even that can be quickly taken away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2012 @ 12:45am

Re: Re:
"You know, I'd probably have more respect for them if they just came out and said "yeah, I want to live in a police state". At least that would be honest. I guess even that is too much to expect from these (excuses for) people."

There's a guy over on Torrentfreak who is like these ACs here. I'm pretty sure he is a shill. I find most people have a distinctive writing style, even while anonymous. The guy went from sounding like an idiot for the longest time and saying "you're all thieves" to decent arguments (full of the usual phrases and words) to sarcastic ad homs. I think the name/email has been handed over to others to take over as they get called out/put in their place. But I digress, like I said, he's like the ACs here and he has openly advocated for and said if stopping piracy and freeloading means getting rid of all people's rights then he's for it. I pressed him on the issue bringing up the Constitution and Bill of Rights, he said yep if they need to be done away with he's for it and given the opportunity he'd shred the documents himself.

I found his "end justifies the means" a bit much. But he is 100% serious. It's that kind of attitude that is truly frightening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2012 @ 12:49am

Re: Re: Re:
"Basically, everyone else gets to decide what to do with your work, and at the same time removes all economic incentive for creating it."

Actually your statement above doesn't hold up. To prove my point I ask you are comedians a bygone creative field? No. Even though any of us can freely share their IP, in this case jokes, with each other with no recourse by the rights-holder to stop us, or regain any monetary loss by our verbal sharing of telling another person their joke(s). This human nature to share hasn't removed "all economic incentive" from being a comedian so your statement is way too broad in this regards. Likewise I deduce your statement is also way to broad when it comes to music and movies. Sure, an argument may be made that if there were a way to prevent people from verbally sharing IP there could be the potential for more people to earn a living at being a comedian. Though I highly doubt it for while protecting IP may boost monetization, it does nothing to boost talent which in comedy is greatly needed to overcome this very ease of sharing. Then there are the unintended consequences, of stop people's ability to tell jokes, to consider and the greater impact that censorship capability would have on society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2012 @ 1:00am

Re: Re: Re:
Soon enough the copyright abolitionists will be akin to 'Woooo TERRORIST PEDOPHILES!!!1!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eponymous Coward, 15 Apr 2012 @ 1:29am

Synopsis...
TL;DR fyi FYI! (Fuck Your Industry!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 15 Apr 2012 @ 2:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just out of curiosity, is the facility you're housed in comfortable? I appreciate the fact that delusional sociopaths with the communication skills of a hyperactive 6 year old are allowed on the internet to try to acquire a normal life, I just wouldn't want to think you're being mistreated while you're there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2012 @ 2:35am

Re: Re: Re:
Converting formats is disgusting? And you wonder why most people would consider you psychopathic...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re:
It may interest you to know that pirates spend twice as much as non-pirates, on average, on legitimately purchased entertainment. Please consider this fact and where it places you in the hierarchy if arts supporters the next time you're tempted to parade your smug self-satisfaction online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamF (profile), 15 Apr 2012 @ 1:49pm

Socialism in Copyright

Socialism, even in content, is not workable in the long run. We have seen so many countries fall into economic disarray in the last few years because their socialistic tendencies are outspending reality. Do we really need MORE socialist leanings to prove that it's not working out, that we are not advancing as a people because of it?

I couldn't agree with you more. Except, we are already living in the socialism you warn against. Government legalizes and enforces exclusive monopolies on creative work for the common good of the people. And more recently, government is even passing legislation to keep industries afloat. If that is not a clear example of socialism, what is?
I say, lets go back to free market. Scale back copyright to the single right of having one's name associated with one's work. Why not let the free market sort out the true value of creative content? Or is it not socialist enough for you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JPriest, 15 Apr 2012 @ 9:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any "X is murder / rape / graphic violence etc" analogy is a stupid analogy. And "brainless fucktard" sounds fitting for someone who talks like you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mlang (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 2:47am

Re: Re: Re:
It could indeed be argued that copyright is a socialist concept, because the aim of copyright is to benefit the public. Combine that with a genuine free market and you can get a really good system.

Ironically, given the 'socialism is a bad word' implication in AC's comments, the model preferred by large swathes of the media marketing industry, is closer to communism, ie. "WE TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN BUY, COMRADE".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mlang (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 2:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
random extra comma in there. oops
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mlang (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 2:51am

Re: Re: Re:
cock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 4:42am

Re:
Oh, because the wannabe-fascist US of A is such a model of financial prudence, flair and business sense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 4:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good to see that you've learned to argue at the kindergarden level. Next, try first grade...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 9:30am

Re: Re: Re:
What you forget is that every industry before 1700 *had* to survive without copyright - and funnily enough, 'artists' survived. Stuff was invented. Society progressed. Even until last century, many things currently covered by copyright weren't. So don't tell me that somehow we have all become such greedy lazy bastards that no-one will invent/create anything without serious financial benefit.

By that argument, why should people work when they can claim welfare? That's all copyright is - a form of welfare to enable certain segments of society to get by. Not to automatically become millionaires and sit on a gravy train for the rest of their life and that of their grandchildren.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 16 Apr 2012 @ 9:36am

Re: Synopsis...
Isn't that Tl;DR? [T(l)ech;DiRt]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
well, 20 Apr 2012 @ 7:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
thats why they invented guns. to make people like him less of a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 9:49pm

oh, your a pirate, you only care about you, getting your stuff for free, of course you hate other people haveing rights to the things they created, your a filthy subhuman creature
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 May 2012 @ 8:05am

Re:
oh, your a pirate, you only care about you, getting your stuff for free, of course you hate other people haveing rights to the things they created, your a filthy subhuman creature

It's getting really hard to tell what's parody and what's real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unrepentant Iconoclast, 24 Aug 2012 @ 8:09am

Re:
First, the artists, performers, producers, etc. had already been paid when they sold the copies to buyers. The copies which had belonged to the buyers were EXCLUSIVELY the buyers' property and the buyers can do whatever they want with those copies, including multiplicating them. How can the "copyright-holder" "own" the data in those copies anyway? This is analogous to Shakespeare "own" the sonnet 18 memorized and imprinted in my head.

Copyrights violated the property rights of the owners who owned the REAL, TANGIBLE copies which they had legitimately acquired.

Second, Socialism never exists, Soviet-style state capitalism isn;t socialism, nor is crony capitalism free market!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unrepentant Iconoclast, 24 Aug 2012 @ 8:09am

Re:
First, the artists, performers, producers, etc. had already been paid when they sold the copies to buyers. The copies which had belonged to the buyers were EXCLUSIVELY the buyers' property and the buyers can do whatever they want with those copies, including multiplicating them. How can the "copyright-holder" "own" the data in those copies anyway? This is analogous to Shakespeare "own" the sonnet 18 memorized and imprinted in my head.

Copyrights violated the property rights of the owners who owned the REAL, TANGIBLE copies which they had legitimately acquired.

Second, Socialism never exists, Soviet-style state capitalism isn;t socialism, nor is crony capitalism free market!
[ link to this | view in thread ]