Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
from the sorry-adam dept
Adam Mossoff is a law professor at George Mason University. I've come across some of his previous writings in the past, and have been repeatedly impressed at just how disconnected from reality they tend to be. However, his latest piece, for the Austin American-Statesman takes the cake, entitled simply: Copyright doesn't limit online speech. Of course, this is empirically false. Anyone who is even remotely intellectually honest admits that copyright can (and has) been used to limit speech. Just ask the operators of a hip hop blog who had the site seized for over a year based on nothing other than an unsubstantiated claim by the RIAA.Or, how about the Russian activists who were shut down after the Russian government used copyright claims to seize their computers?
So how does Mossoff get around that? Simple. If you can't argue the facts, just make up a scenario that works in your favor. He sets up a perfect strawman, insisting that those who argued against SOPA and PIPA claimed that all copyright violates the First Amendment:
The argument that copyright violates the constitutional right to free speech seems to have particular force on the Internet, because, in the words of one federal court decision, "The Internet is a communications medium." Copyright owners seem to squelch this communication: They compel websites to take down infringing videos, music and writings. The music industry successfully sued widely used peer-to-peer services such as Napster and Grokster, and it continues to use automated programs called bots to track what music people download and from what websites. SOPA expanded copyright owners' legal rights to block websites containing infringing content, in effect relegating these websites to digital purgatory. As a law professor stated at a conference over the summer: "Copyright is the engine of censorship."But Mossoff then claims this is crazy talk, because he has bought into the view that copyright is not the monopoly privilege that it is but that it's "property." Of course, that's hogwash. The purpose of "property" is to best allocate scarce resources. "Property" does not make sense either intellectually or economically for things that are not scarce, such as content. Copyright is not a property right, no matter how many times maximalists incorrectly insist it is. However, even if we accept Mossoff's incorrect assertion, he then layers on the ridiculous by claiming that copyright has no impact on speech other than that which is covered by copyright:
Thus, copyright law secures the fruits of creative labors, but only those specific fruits — the value in the specific text, picture or song created by the artist.Okay. So what about all the original content created on the blogs that the government took down using copyright law? Or the speech of those Russian activists? This is where Mossoff appears to have a total blindspot, common to someone in academia with no experience in the real world. Copyright is not used just to protect the rights granted under the Copyright Act. It is used regularly to shut down other expression.
The right to free speech is the right to express one's thoughts without censorship by the government. Copyright does not prohibit anyone from creating their own original novels, songs or artworks. Importantly, copyright does not stop people from thinking, talking or writing about copyrighted works.
Copyright claims took down the official DNC livestream. Bogus copyright claims took down the official Hugo Awards live stream. Bogus copyright claims took down a negative review of a Universal Music album. Questionable copyright claims took down parody commentary by Dan Bull, expressing his opinion on another copyright lawsuit (while the copyright holder left up tons of other versions of the song). Copyright claims were used to suppress an unflattering photo that some rich dude didn't like. A bogus copyright claim was used to take down a totally unrelated news article, after Fox thought it was about a movie which it wasn't.
And that's all just from the past few months. Anyone who insists that copyright has nothing to do with censorship because it only protects the rights established under the Copyright Act seems to have no credibility on the subject.
Mossoff then further expands his thesis by claiming that copyright doesn't violate the First Amendment... because there are some limits on the First Amendment. Of course, that argument makes no sense either. Yes, there are some limits on the First Amendment. That doesn't mean that any restriction on speech is okay under the First Amendment. This is basic logical fallacy territory. Just because there are some exceptions, doesn't mean that all exceptions make sense or are legal -- but Mossoff honestly seems to be making that argument.
If you actually want intelligent and nuanced views on the conflict of the First Amendment and copyright law, rather than the ridiculous claims from Mossoff, I recommend Neil Netanel's Copyright's Paradox or David Lange and Jefferson Powell's No Law. Both books involve careful and detailed analyses of how and where copyright law and the First Amendment come into conflict.
Mossoff just brushes all that off, saying that since both copyright and the First Amendment are in the Constitution, there's no conflict:
In fact, both copyright and the right to free speech are based in the Constitution — in the copyright and patent clause in Article I, Section 8, and in the First Amendment.Of course, that's neither accurate nor "strange." First off, free speech is a right in the Constitution. Copyright is not. It troubles me that a "law professor" would make such an obviously false claim. The Constitution's Article I, Section 8 only grants Congress the right to create a copyright law -- explicitly for the purpose of "promoting the progress of science" (the "useful arts" stuff was about patents). To suggest that the Constitution establishes copyright as a right is simply false.
Strangely, people are now claiming that one part of the Constitution is an unconstitutional violation of another part of the Constitution.
Second, there is nothing "strange" at all about the concerns people have raised about copyright law. Even if we assume that Mossoff's initial suggestion that both come from the Constitution is accurate, what he ignores is just how massively copyright law has changed since it was first created. In 1976, the US completely overhauled its copyright system, making it so pretty much anything new put in a "fixed" form was automatically granted copyright for life plus 50 years (later expanded to 70 years, thanks to Disney and Sonny Bono). To pretend that copyright law we have today couldn't possibly conflict with the First Amendment because we also had copyright law in 1790 is ignoring that copyright law today looks nothing like copyright law in 1790.
Mossoff, ridiculously, acts as if they're basically the same thing.
It really makes you wonder how anyone can take these claims seriously when they're so uninformed. Mossoff is apparently appearing this week at UT Austin for a discussion on free speech and intellectual property. Thankfully, one of the other people appearing at the same event is Neil Netanel, the author of Copyright's Paradox, mentioned above. Mossoff would do well to actually pay attention to what Netanel has to say.
Let's make this simple: is copyright automatically censorship? No. But can it be used for censorship? Absolutely. I don't see how anyone who is even remotely intellectually honest can deny that. Copyright maximalists are free to suggest that the censorship "costs" are minimal or can be minimized. Or they can argue that this is collateral damage that is "worth it" for the supposed benefits provided by copyright law. But to argue that copyright law is entirely unrelated to free speech violations is simply not a supportable position. Yet it's the one Mossoff makes. And for that reason, he has no credibility on the subject.
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: adam mossoff, censorship, copyright, pipa, property, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Please read carefully what the point of the article is before commenting. I'll highlight the paragraph in which Mike summarizes it in a very comprehensible manner:
Let's make this simple: is copyright automatically censorship? No. But can it be used for censorship? Absolutely. I don't see how anyone who is even remotely intellectually honest can deny that. Copyright maximalists are free to suggest that the censorship "costs" are minimal or can be minimized. Or they can argue that this is collateral damage that is "worth it" for the supposed benefits provided by copyright law. But to argue that copyright law is entirely unrelated to free speech violations is simply not a supportable position. Yet it's the one Mossoff makes. And for that reason, he has no credibility on the subject.
Please note that Mike is not condemning copyright but the fact that the law professor is downplaying or ignoring the FACT that it has been used to censor speech. I also invite and recommend you to click the links and find the sources before commenting (which includes clicking the sources for each individual article linked here).
Hopefully we'll have a discussion over the actual point of the article here. I'll bet $10 we won't. Any takers? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is however a rather large difference:
When used correctly and according to directions, both a knife and duct tape do not cause harm. You have to actively do things with them that they are not intended for for them to be harmful to someone.
With copyright however, using it as directed will stifle free speech, by keeping someone from incorporating something someone else has said/done into what they can say. You have to make exceptions/loopholes such as 'free use' to allow it to not do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As wisely pointed copyright wasn't that monster in its early days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I saw the '/s', but I thought it needed to be said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. Just in the same manner that property rights give you control over land, the congress is well within their rights to grant copyright for a term they seen fit.
It's not a limitation on your rights. You are free as they come to write your own songs, to make your own movies, to write your own books...
Falsely backing yourself into a corner and acting trapped doesn't make it reality. It actually makes you look retarded and weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Standard Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Standard Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Standard Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Standard Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Standard Response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The title he came up with for the article was "Copyright Does Not Violate the Right to Free Speech." The publisher changed it. Mossoff explains it here: http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/09/17/copyright-does-not-violate-the-right-to-free-speech/
Mosso ff states: So before you go off all half-cocked, maybe take such considerations into account.
And honestly, Mike, attacking his credibility and being so incredibly hostile and degrading because you disagree just makes you look bad. Ever wonder why you're seen as an extremist? It's because of stuff like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe I'm missing your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2010/06/23/copyright-heritage-minister-moore.html #ixzz0rp15aklR
"The only people who are opposed to this legislation are really two groups of radical extremists," Moore said at a meeting of the International Chamber of Commerce in Toronto on Tuesday. "There are those that pretend to be for copyright reform, but they don't believe in actual copyright reform. There are those that are cited as experts by the media endlessly who are not in favour of copyright reform."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Mike, attacking his credibility and being so incredibly hostile and degrading because you disagree just makes you look bad."
Its modus operandi for the likes of the greedtards like yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At least he lived up our expectations of trolldom. There is something to be said for consistency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The moon is made of green cheese under the assumptions that you are wearing the correct monochromatic glasses and the moon is defined as a specific product in Cheese Shop in San Diego.
Talking about copyright versus free speech as narrowly defined in the US constitution is a free piece, without any contribution to the real debates surrounding grey area use of copyrighted material.
As long as you use broad strokes like: Everything is perfectly defined legally (or the lack is irrelevant/insignificant), everyone knows exactly how copyright works (I would claim that nobody even has a sufficiently exact definition of copyright to make the claim of knowledge of law!) and copyright as defined in the constitution is a singular and universal truth of how the world should work several hundreds of years after it was written for a different society.
Those limitations are cheaply not made clear and the result is a onesided logical tour de force of shooting down a strawman about constitution having a build in contradiction...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How so? Can you elaborate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cohen got arrested for disturbing the peace for wearing a "Fuck the Draft" jacket to court. That violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not the government taking down the YouTube videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Allow me to quote someone you may be familiar with, if I may: "Tell me this (and no one here seems willing to answer this simple question): Can I pick and choose which of your rights I want to respect? If I decide to violate one of your rights, would it be wrong?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok AJ, now that your comment caused me to lose an hour or so (thanks btw) dredging through some of the conflicting rulings concerning the State Action Doctrine I have a question.
I noticed that in some of the rulings (unless I read them wrong - always a possibility IANAL) that the action of the court itself could be considered a "state action" in some instances. If this is true, is it possible that a court ordered injunction removing protected speech in a civil case could be considered First Amendment violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But don't assume that just because the injunction affects protected speech there has been an actual violation of the First Amendment. The injunction is state action so there could be a violation, but there isn't necessarily one.
An example would be the injunction against hyperlinking in the Corley case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=273+F.+3d+429&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=5930508913 825375010&scilh=0
The defendant argued that the district court violated his First Amendment rights by enjoining him linking. The Second Circuit found that the injunction (and the DMCA for that matter) didn't violate the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. I figured that a DMCA notice by itself wouldn't be considered a state action.
But don't assume that just because the injunction affects protected speech there has been an actual violation of the First Amendment. The injunction is state action so there could be a violation, but there isn't necessarily one.
Yeah, I know. Lots of conflicting rulings on this stuff. I was just curious if it could be when it came to copyright. It would be nice if some of this made up to SCOTUS and we had some final rulings.
An example would be the injunction against hyperlinking in the Corley case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=273+F.+3d+429&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19&case=5930508913 825375010&scilh=0
The defendant argued that the district court violated his First Amendment rights by enjoining him linking. The Second Circuit found that the injunction (and the DMCA for that matter) didn't violate the First Amendment.
Interesting. I'll have to read up on that one.
One thing I did notice about the state action rulings I read, it seemed almost as if the courts sometimes came to a conclusion first and then twisted the state action part to fit the results they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've read more on the case. I had not heard that Colting and Salinger's estate had settled. Colting is allowed to publish the book everywhere except the US. I can't help but think that Salinger's estate agreed to that arrangement because they don't believe that 60 Years Later actually violates their copyright, or that it only violates it in the US. In which case, you have US copyright law that violates the first amendment.
All of that is actually getting away from the point. Your claim is that the article title changes the content of his article. His article is still wrong. He uses the example of being able to talk about Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged. Copyright stops people from distributing that exact work, but not from people talking about it. That's true. But cases like that are easy. What about when someone changes the work. Fair use is supposed to be a release valve to prevent first amendment violations. Any court that rules on the fair use of a work, is also ruling on whether the first amendment is being violated. Unfortunately, there is no separation there. You don't have one court ruling on the first amendment issue with another ruling on the fair use issue, so of course, any ruling on whether a work is fair use is going to automatically have a ruling on the first amendment issue. However, even though a fair use ruling automatically makes a first amendment ruling, courts don't consider the first amendment implications. You can tell this because one of the factors for testing fair use has to do with a market. In first amendment cases, no one ever asks about the economic impact of anyone involved. Any case where a work is determined to not be fair due to using that factor (whether alone or in part) is a candidate for first amendment violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're sure you read this article all the way through?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
DNC livestream - A shutdown of political speech.
Hugo Awards - A shutdown of protected speech, given that the time it was shut down was over the showing of works by an artist who was accepting his award!
Dan Bull - Parody is fair use under copyright law (clearly you are NOT a lawyer or you'd understand that)
The one about the unflattering photo - The rich dude (IIRC he's some bigshot at a US football team) did not take the photo nor did he have the rights to it, therefore by making a copyright claim, he violated First Amendment free speech rights!
Ditto goes for the news article - Fox took one look at the title and took it down.
God...Joe, this is why you are so difficult to work with. A normal person would, upon being given evidence that their viewpoint is wrong, (in this case, COMPLETELY UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE) would change their views.
You don't. You somehow work outside the normal laws of argument and debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
aj seems not to understand that one can lose a debate and still come out on top. It's a form of educated thinking. If you're willing to accept the undeniable facts that makes your initial argument wrong, and reexamine your own view point, you end up literally thinking better in some measure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he was, he'd be here discussing with everyone ways to get copyright law fixed for the realities of the 21st century. But, that's not the way copyright maximalists operate. They have too much of a financial stake in ensuring that the current mess that is copyright law remains intact.
They're trying to maintain control when they've already lost control. They're not getting control back. Ever. The internet will route around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When given undeniable examples you were wrong, you just simply declared you weren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prove it.
Stop the endless ad-hom attacks. Realize that the current copyright laws do not (cannot) work with the realities of the 21st century. Be willing to admit the well-documented abuses of copyright power and reduction in public domain contribution are not providing consumers with many reasons to love the content industries, namely the gatekeepers. Provide ideas for changes to copyright law that bring it more in line with 21st century realities. Accept that content industries must adapt in order to compete with the on-going massive disruption. Accept that new and more draconian legislation, the sole purpose of which is protectionism for (at best) ineffective or (worst) obsolete business models, is not the way forward in the 21st century.
Or, continue to bury your head in the sand and insist on doing what you've been doing.
But, don't be surprised when people continue to label you a troll and don't take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(laughing) That's funny, but no. Anyone can debate. Mike doesn't do it because he's busy doing other things more important than wasting time trying to argue with you over how you're right and he's wrong. He has a site to run and stories to look at and write. He has a life in the real world. Your life? Well it's pretty obvious what you do on a regular basis.
Anyone can debate, Joe. Mike doesn't want to do it because it is getting old trying to get any sense into you, plus he has other things to worry about instead of babysitting you and some other stupid trolls bugging him to "debate" with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People spend all their time 'accusing' or defending'....
I'd like to see more of the suggestions for amendments that i know the intelligent people here are quite capable of, instead of being distracted by all the head-butting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The inherent conflict.
vs.
Copyright Doesn’t Limit Online Speech.
...
Bob, do you really not see the conflict between the concept of "free speech" and "limit online speech". Both have speech in common, which makes them related. Concurrently one has "free" and the other has "limit" in it, two diametrally opposed values. You can't have one AND the other. One of the two has to abdicate.
It's either "limited speech" and "limited online speech" or "free speech" and "free online speech".
To simplistic?
I'll tell you what: When the philosophical concepts that led to our current laws were conceived, the possibility of instantaneous transmission of information wasn't in the minds of the wise people that finally based these laws.
I'm sure paywall speech was not in their minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm amazed you irony alarm wasn't set of as you were typing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
GTFOH
either bot, or total authoritarian whack-job, which is it ? ? ?
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The actual quote is a reference to the problem with working ntirely in ntheory and not actual practice. In theory, Mitt Romney is going to be a Fantastic president. However, given the way he ran his companies, I doubt he has the practical skills needed to run the presidency efficiently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking about copyrighted works
This quote from Mossoff did not address the heart of the matter: the right to read, watch or listen to copyrighted works.
Does the First Amendment protect or imply the right to hear speech?
Or does the First Amendment allow the government to enforce a tax against me for simply reading, watching or listening to something? Because if that's allowed, the amendment is useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking about copyrighted works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thinking about copyrighted works
The Supreme Court has identified the First Amendment right to receive speech several times, e.g. Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982).
I don't think anyone would have a right to receive copyright infringing speech though since ideas can't be blocked but particular expressions can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thinking about copyrighted works
Can the government block an individual from recieving speech which is not infringing?
More specifically, can the government compell one party to block non-infringing speech to another party?
What if the government is not compelling through use of force, but through the threat of financial ruin, or potentially ruinous liability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically through copyright, the creator is creating an artificial scarcity. The product itself is not scarce, but the distribution rights associated with copyright create a monopoly for the creator. So I would suggest that it is more of an "artificial" property only created by the copyright itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if there are those that can't agree on that, having to create artificial scarcity is, in economic terms, a major friction on the the economy and will prevent the efficient distribution of resources. And in business terms, it generally has a negative impact (is a friction) between you and your consumers. Consumers aren't stupid, they can tell when you are artificially restricting access to something for dubious reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm really not trying to argue, but I think your idea is basically Copyright abolition. Every work created would have to go directly into the public domain, since the very idea of copyright creates an artificial scarcity. I personally don't agree with this philosophy and would consider myself a moderate.
Personally, I think copyright terms are way extended beyond a reasonable amount of time and I think more exceptions are needed for derivative works, but total abolition would create more problems than solve in the long term imho.
Basically with that in place, it would create a grey market for every digital good to be purchased once and resold to anyone at any price thus cutting off all digital markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's already true, with a resale price of zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not in favor of more laws to combat piracy, as I know that will always exist. I'm in favor of laws to promote growth that will enable developers, artists, etc to continue to develop new ideas off of the old. This is why I donate to TechDirt, The Internet Defense League, et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And yet the digital markets haven't died. People still pay for content and software even though it is available through other means.
But the other important thing to consider, is that the friction of which I speak can be minimized--if copyright terms are reduced and if businesses learn to stop using them as a giant bludgeon there would be hope.
Instead, head the other direction and it will continue to be a giant drain on resources that could be used by producers and consumers for other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And yet the digital markets haven't died. People still pay for content and software even though it is available through other means.
But the other important thing to consider, is that the friction of which I speak can be minimized--if copyright terms are reduced and if businesses learn to stop using them as a giant bludgeon there would be hope.
Instead, head the other direction and it will continue to be a giant drain on resources that could be used by producers and consumers for other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking about copyrighted works again
The giverment cannot require me to obtain licenses for simply listening to someone's speech. That is a clear violation of the spirit First Amendment. It's an end-around comparable to teh poll tax.
The government also should not say to me, "I know you were only using your computer as a communications tool to watch a movie, but because of the technical mechanics of how your communications tool works, we have a legal loophole we can use to punish you as if you were a street vendor of bootleg DVDs and we're going to use it." This is punishment for accessing speech, and it won't be tolerated.
Finally, a third party, even a copyright holder, cannot be given government backing to step between an author and reader and say, "Drop that book. You don't have a license."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking about copyrighted works again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thinking about copyrighted works again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thinking about copyrighted works again
takerment to everyone else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking about copyrighted works again
Interesting point. In the pre-internet world, in some countries, record companies could not go after retail live bootleg distribution without the explicit legal support of all copyright-holders thus the artists themselves. Thus could do nothing most of the time, to the point large retail stores were threatening the record companies to also distribute them.
I'm pretty sure if that explicit creator/artist consent was made a requirement to any present takedown request, it would bring back some sanity in a system driven mostly by the copyright-holding corporations claiming to represent them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking about copyrighted works again
You are correct. But you can only do that when the speech is freely provided without requirement for license ahead. However, if the speech is copyright, and not currently being given public performance, then yes, you need a license to listen to it.
Quite simply, you cannot force someone else to provide you their speech. Free speech is a two way street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jackpot!
And no, that's NOT /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jackpot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This includes error- and abuse- prone:
* automated censorship systems, including on live news streams
* unbalanced take down processes based on allegation
* unbalanced take down processes with no accountability enforced for abusers
* unbalanced take down processes with no appeal and time-limits enforcement
* mis-appropriation of material for profit (thanks Content ID)
* monitoring of people's communications and exchanges
* criminalization of natural non-profit social sharing behavior
* scapegoating regular people with disproportionate lifetime debts
* promotion of self-censorship for legit news & content side (protection for site who might infringe)
* News organization claiming copyright on news - how to best suppress embarassing news if you can't show the proof anymore
* shifting to a pre-emptive permission culture from impossible to locate rights holders
* transforming a pragmatic temporary leased incentive copyright monopoly of the creator into a near-permanent ever-extended "property", ensure no public re-appropriation can happen in one's lifetime.
* no obligation to copyright-holders to ensure creation preservation until it reaches the public domain - a kind of indirect lost culture censorship
* ...
We owe implementation & laws enabling easy unaccountable suppression of speech to copyright-backers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Average_Joe...care to have a rebuttal? Maybe not to me, since I'm on your ignore list, but to the AC above, since they're not? Is that an acceptable cost for society to pay simply so an author can (maybe) have a cushy retirement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
* automated censorship systems, including on live news streams
* unbalanced take down processes based on allegation
* unbalanced take down processes with no accountability enforced for abusers
* unbalanced take down processes with no appeal and time-limits enforcement
* mis-appropriation of material for profit (thanks Content ID)
* monitoring of people's communications and exchanges
* criminalization of natural non-profit social sharing behavior
* scapegoating regular people with disproportionate lifetime debts
* promotion of self-censorship for legit news & content side (protection for site who might infringe)
* News organization claiming copyright on news - how to best suppress embarassing news if you can't show the proof anymore
* shifting to a pre-emptive permission culture from impossible to locate rights holders
* transforming a pragmatic temporary leased incentive copyright monopoly of the creator into a near-permanent ever-extended "property", ensure no public re-appropriation can happen in one's lifetime.
* no obligation to copyright-holders to ensure creation preservation until it reaches the public domain - a kind of indirect lost culture censorship
* ...
We owe implementation & laws enabling easy unaccountable suppression of speech to copyright-backers."
Wow, what a bunch of horse shit this is.
All of that balances against:
"unbalanced use without license, without restriction, and without any punishment when caught (DMCA)".
As for your non-profit social behavior, if it was only between you and your small social group, nobody would notice or care. But since you seem to think that everyone on the internet is in your immediate social circle, you have gone past the point of being reasonable. Don't expect the other side to be reasonable with you.
The rest of your stuff reads like a 'Tardian hate screed. I think you need some professional help for your obvious anger. Oh and turn off your music and TV, because clearly you are violating copyright! Stop feeding the system!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The other side was never reasonable. They made that much clear when they decided that catching dolphins was an acceptable exchange for using driftnets (Cara Duckworth). That you claim the other side is reasonable when they spent years going on a misguided campaign of suing everybody is absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You aren't a pirate if you don't partake. But if you support and use the structures used to pirate (such as pirate torrent sites, file lockers, and the like) then you are still part of the game.
"The other side was never reasonable. They made that much clear when they decided that catching dolphins was an acceptable exchange for using driftnets (Cara Duckworth). That you claim the other side is reasonable when they spent years going on a misguided campaign of suing everybody is absurd."
Honestly, I think you need medical help, perhaps lithium. You have so many things mixed up in your head, that you cannot function. How you go from copyright to drift nets and think it's normal is beyond me. Do you honestly think that EVERYONE is out to get you?
How do you live?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Naked king: "All our customers must pay for their crime"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll donate, if I have to :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had hoped to read the two publications you mentioned, but it appears that they are only available by purchase of each. In contrast, all articles I have looked for authored by Professor Mossoff I have found free of charge and in downloadable PDF format.
BTW, "property" is a legal construct that is not limited to the scarcity you continually proclaim is a necessary condition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come on. Tell me why. You can't just state "You're wrong" without providing a reason. That is not how debates work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Property comes into play as a legal construct by defining the relationship of one or more persons to such things. For example, you have "property in and to" your shoes, which is another way of saying that you are recognized under the law as having dominion and control of your shoes, and the law is available to secure your right in the event some third party interloper decides to interfere with your legal right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Property, as it is being used in this discussion, is meant to be using the *economic* definition. The reason for this is that the discussion is not about ownership, it is about the efficient use and distribution of resources. Things that have natural scarcity require, and by their very nature enforce, mechanisms for dealing with that scarcity. Generally the laws of physics enforce those mechanisms.
Things with artificial scarcity require the ENFORCEMENT of the scarcity to be artificially generated, which is the friction and the fundamental problem here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright IS Censorship...
Without people calling themselves government claiming a monopoly on the use of force, there is no "copyright".
I prefer consensual relationships.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A working form of TD's business model successfully demonstrated AGAIN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The purpose of "property" is to best allocate scarce resources. "Property" does not make sense either intellectually or economically for things that are not scarce, such as content. Copyright is not a property right, no matter how many times maximalists incorrectly insist it is.
Property is a legal term of art. You are using a very narrow, economic definition of the word. He is using the legal definition, which is broader. To imply that he's wrong or intellectually dishonest is itself wrong and dishonest. You pretend like your narrow definition is the only one that matters. Since he's talking about the law, it makes sense for him to be using the legal definition.
And why don't you tell all of your readers about how even you admit that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the U.S. Constitution, Mike? Please, tell everyone that you believe that. And given that even you believe that copyright is property under the Constitution, isn't it dishonest of you to then pretend that it's dishonest to say that it's property?
Afraid to let your readers know the truth?
Mossoff just brushes all that off, saying that since both copyright and the First Amendment are in the Constitution, there's no conflict:
In fact, both copyright and the right to free speech are based in the Constitution — in the copyright and patent clause in Article I, Section 8, and in the First Amendment.
Strangely, people are now claiming that one part of the Constitution is an unconstitutional violation of another part of the Constitution.
Of course, that's neither accurate nor "strange." First off, free speech is a right in the Constitution. Copyright is not. It troubles me that a "law professor" would make such an obviously false claim. The Constitution's Article I, Section 8 only grants Congress the right to create a copyright law -- explicitly for the purpose of "promoting the progress of science" (the "useful arts" stuff was about patents). To suggest that the Constitution establishes copyright as a right is simply false.
Mossoff said: "In fact, both copyright and the right to free speech are based in the Constitution — in the copyright and patent clause in Article I, Section 8, and in the First Amendment."
That is true.
You twisted it to say: "First off, free speech is a right in the Constitution. Copyright is not."
That's not what Mossoff said. Mossoff said that copyright is "based in the Constitution," and then he even cited Article I, Section 8. You had to lie and pretend like he said copyright is a right in the Constitution.
You set up a strawman only to knock it down.
I could go on and on, but I know you just want to shit all over Professor Mossoff's piece like an irate zealot. You don't actually want to have a nuanced discussion of the issues. You never do.
This article demonstrates everything that is wrong with you, Mike. There is no reason to be such a fucking asshole. Mossoff makes great points, and you're too much of a coward to even discuss them like an adult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More importantly, what about this quote from Mossoff?
" Importantly, copyright does not stop people from thinking, talking or writing about copyrighted works. "
Copyright does stop speech about copyrighted works! That's why fair use was invented, to say that although when Person X reviews Movie Y on Youtube and shows clips, it is determined he is not infringing. Otherwise, you'd have to ask to review or talk about copyrighted content, which is a crazy world to live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'cause you had below-average joe's number when you called him out on this a couple threads back, and as i recently posted:
like many bots/authoritarians (impossible to tell apart without a tissue sample), below-average joe will not let lack of evidence influence the truthiness of what he is told to believe; conversely, NO AMOUNT of evidence contrary to his position will convince him otherwise...
you've seen it time and again: *generally* picks microscopic nits; moves the goalposts from one sentence to the next, WILL NOT be pinned down on any answers, engages in personal invective, then goes on to bitch about how *OTHERS* engage in personal invective, repeats his 'winning' arguments ('mike is afraid to 'debate' me, blah blah blah') more times than an actual -or sane- human is capable of doing...
bot or not ? ? ?
does it matter ?
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And where in the copyright clause of the Constitution is the word "property" used?
And you can pretend all day that the article was full of hatred, and but I don't recall Mike ever calling Mossoff a "fucking asshole," a "coward," or anything even similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I said in the Constitution, but not in the Copyright Clause specifically. Mike said that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause. The guarantee that no one can be deprived of property without due process of law includes copyright. In other words, since copyright is property, the government can't take it away without due process. If copyright weren't property, the government could take it without due process. So under the Due Process Clause, copyright is property. Just ask Mike. He agrees. So when he pretends like copyright isn't property, he's not being entirely honest (he's using a narrow, economic definition of the word "property," ignoring the constitutional meaning of the word that he admits includes copyright).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That copyright has violated first amendment rights is easy to show through the examples. I personally feel that criminal prosecution or loser pays would greatly reduce the amount of false DCMA notices and bring justice to the system. But the fact is that copyright, in general, is far from the societal ideas of the people has created a system that is flawed in the first place, so proper reform seems to be the only answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you point to one specific example above where copyright actually violated someone's First Amendment rights? Let's get specific.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Goodwin had his property on the Megaupload servers. The First Amendment argument there is even weaker than dajaz1.com. It's a property issue. Goodwin himself dropped his silly First Amendment argument: http://ia600807.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.275313/gov.uscourts.vaed.275313.91.0.pdf He's only arguing Fourth and Fifth Amendment right violations.
Universal using the DMCA to take down an ad is not the government acting--without government action, there can be no First Amendment violation: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/State_action_doctrine
Same problem with your last two examples.
You're just finding situations where copyright had an effect on speech, but not situations where copyright caused an actual violation of someone's First Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
How is it that a law passed by the house and senate on copyright infringement does not violate the first amendment, when it has clearly been shown to censor not only public domain works, but also political commentary by both democrats and republicans?
Explain to me in simple language, such as School House Rocks. (Hopefully, this won't be censored as it's actually educational material.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is off-topic I know (sorry everyone) but I don't think you're a troll. I think people misinterpret your comments because you're not having the same conversation as everyone else. There are also a lot of actual trolls here too so people are a bit quick with the accusation.
The majority of participants here frame their comments as subjects of (or empathetic towards) unjust laws. You, a vocal minority, frame your comments from the perspective of a lawyer working within the law.
Surely you can see how in such a situation a lawyer-type would be the definition of a troll entirely by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In what way does he not feel constrained by the actual law? Give solid examples with proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prof.Mossoff's amnesia,& anti-SOPA Objectivists.
I will simply say that I believe that Intellectual Property rights are Property Rights ,& leave it at that (though legally of course they are treated differently as there is no fair use exception to my ownership of my physical property).
That said, as a Objectivist (like Prof.Mossoff) I feel compelled to point out that Prof.Mossoff does not speak for all (or even most) Objectivists when he offered his straw man defense of SOPA. (Anymore than I speak for all or most Objectivists) Indeed,a number of us devoted a great deal of time & effort to defeating SOPA. My reason for opposing SOPA was very simple:It was, and is defacto censorship;not because it prohibited the violation of intellectual property rights,but because,in practice,it needlessly placed the rights of the innocent at risk,& needlessly put Non-infringing content at risk of suppression.
(That and the trivial little matter of possibly fragmenting the DNS system,& possibly delaying DNSSEC)
It is absurd to argue that SOPA did not violate free speech rights, so long as it was intended to protect
Intellectual Property rights. It's comparable to saying that requiring a DNA test of all men who live in a neighborhood where women have been raped, cannot violate individual rights, since there is no "right to rape" .
It's akin to saying that requiring the Clipper chip to have been installed wasn't a violation of individual rights ,since the police have the right to get a warrant to wiretap phones.
Were we to apply Prof.Mossoff's standard ,we would not debate whether the state had the right to use this particular method to ensure that criminals could be wiretapped with a warrant,we would simply argue about whether the police should ever wiretap anyone, ever. We could even say that the clipper chip CAN'T be
unconstitutional since,after all,the constitution permits searches with warrants.
However there is one other point I wish to make: After the defeat of SOPA Mossoff published a Facebook note in which he addressed the due process argument ,essentially by saying that the requirement for a bond was adequate,(I disagree).(And no ,I don't have the link right now, if I find it, I'll post it).
He also said that those who said that SOPA was censorship,or that it would break the net,were spreading ”package deals” (the Objectivist term for the fallacy of equivocation ) or ”vicious lies”. He presented no evidence that the internet engineers were doing either.
I find it interesting, however ,that he seems to have forgotten that he ever knew of the actual arguments made against SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the shills are out in force
[ link to this | view in chronology ]