Invite a famous respected copyright law professor or two to join the discussion.
I'll buy popcorn and watch.
-----------
Me: i live and eat off money generated by it.
Mike : Only if you come up with a business model that works, given the realities of the market. You seem to not want to do that. For the life of me, I can't figure out why.
Me: I think we got a core point here . I live off my Art. Whether I am a good or bad biz person is not the issue.
The laws protect Artists who may not have an MBA , nor can afford lawyers.
Laws that protect rights -- even if those RIGHTS stifle someone elses privileges.
THAT is price you pay for living in a free democracy.
( That basic Pol-Sci 101, or even 8th grade social studies, if you do not grant me that point, any further conversation is useless , and you are a copyright fascist - from the Artist's perspective.)
Artists have copy-RIGHTS. Users are granted certain USE-Privilege's -- only if I choose to give it to them.
I can produce Art , and choose not to to grant ANY privileges for use.
Too many posters here are confusing Artists RIGHTS , with User Privileges -- you seem to be one of them Mike. This a a major crux of my points.
Clearly fair use , and Artist cannot stop, but fair use is only granted for an excerpt and/or part of the Art-- never ( --ok maybe rarely ---)the useful /resell-able whole thing.
-----------
Me: Use w/o pay is stealing.
Mike : If you can't understand the difference between making a copy and taking something away from someone, you have no business taking part in this debate.
Me:
So why are you here Mike ? Clearly you don't.
I write a Poem.
I sell the poem on the streets.
You take poem home. Make copies.
What can you do with those copies ?
Sell them? - Never w/o permission and/or royalties
Give them Away? - only with the poet/artists specific ( i.e. case-by-case ) written permission.
Quote them on your term paper : only with proper citation.
Eat them : feel free to.
----------------------------------------
Me: If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.
Mike : Actually, he's right in the midst of mainstream human history.
Me: I see where these posters here learn their cute tricks from. Make a vacuous platitude statement , claim it is fact , ridicule all who disagree. How Rush Limbaugh of you.
CopyRIGHT Laws - like any laws - are what define a civilized society. ( Do you accept that point? If not you are a lost cause. )
Then you put a long quote for Thomas Jefferson -- the Godfather of copyright as embedded into the American Legal System , w/o specific comment on what element[s] of you long quote supports your argument.
I will finish my coffee ,carefully read , and verify the quote below ,
and will respond.
But maybe in a few days , as a it's a major Jewish Holiday starting tonight at sundown ( "Shavous" or "Pentecost" in latin) , and I will be occupied today preparing, then observing for two days. And G-D willing no one will mention the word "copyright" to me during that holy time.
But promise I will -- happily -- get back to Tommy J.'s quote soon.
------
ME to Mike::-->>>
My friend ::
You have to decide if you want to be the: Rush Limbaugh of the loony techno-left-anarchist fringe"
or the
"Bill Moyers of the techno world"-- balanced fair and Truth seeking -- where your readers are NOT quite sure what side you take , but know you understand the issues. Someone better at asking questions than giving answers -- (which Mike, is when you personally are at you best.)
You Mike are very capable of being either Rush Limbaugh or Bill Moyers. Choose wisely
AND Techdirt's profits margin should be no factor in you choice, as if it does you have surrendered your journalistic dignity for popularity.
I have been reading TechDirt for years. You , Mike , have taught me alot.
Enlightened me to issues I never thought of , and sometimes caused me to often re-examine my views.
You have also at times made me giggle , and even given me a few good belly laughs on issues where we see exactly eye to eye -- like electronic voting , diebold , etc .
But on copyright laws -- as they apply to Artist , I am telling you as a (cyber-)friend and loyal reader: You not only missing the boat , but you don't even see the ocean.
Or you do , but are just playing the "Rush(Limbaugh) - for -ratings game."
Thanks for writing to me.
While I really wish I could ,, I can't live here @ techdirt -- (unless you hire me for pay.)
"because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way": Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
"because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way"
Exactly the truth concerning copyright law -- throughout history.
Good Job.
How do you fail to understand: that iF I create Art , I own it. I control it. i live and eat off money generated by it. Use w/o pay is stealing.
If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.
It's disingenuous to pretend this is a one-sided debate.
"It's disingenuous to pretend this is a one-sided debate."
I really , really would like to think that.
But Sorry no.
Even our malfunctioning U.S. congress writes laws quite well to protect copyrights,, as it basic common sense-(- unless you are a devout anarchist --in which case never the "twain will meet").
i have few complaints about copyright law works and is applied, if anything , most folks in public policy believe stronger fighting of Piracy is needed.
Why do you think illegal downloading , selling counterfeit trademarked products , and those loonies with gunboats off the Somalian Coat ( of Africa ) are called Pirates.
They are not called "nice folks with principles and respect for others"
The Pirates side here , is on the "wrong side of history",, just as slaveholders were in USA
"Also, I made several other comments. Perhaps you can address those. Search the page by username (I suggest threaded view)."
Doing that now .
---
"There's been tons of research put out lately that challenges the assumption that expanding copyright laws leads to greater creativity"
I would love to read them . Please suplly the specific links and/or references.
-------
"""To link that to a historical reference, how about the US Constitution? Which allows, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."""
Well written Gibberish w/o citation : Grade; D- / F
but to save you time:
A: Pay -for-play ,, Radio stations , advertisiers, Broadway play , and bars with cover bands ,, all PAy-Per-play royalities EACH time the "art" is used.
so the shortest answer to :
"The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?"
IT is the core, function and purpose of copyright law .
----------
TO You and everybody else:
READ , READ , READ , and then maybe write a little. It will be rare if you come up with a new question. If you have a new question ,, please do posr it.
"Whether copyright is maintained should be based on the evidence that it serves its purpose to further the arts and sciences, not on faith."
Interesting point.
I would argue , that IF copyright and patent laws stifle creation and inovation -- (which I do not grant you)-- that is the price we pay for having copyright and patent laws.
Freedom has a price, as we often see with national security issues. I do not like the fact that the Gov't snoops -- curtailing my absolute natural right to privacy,, but the gov't has no choice but not to snoop , in order to protect the nation as a whole.
But is it always a good debate -- with strong points on all sides.
" and began to wonder if it was even possible to build a smartphone without getting sued."
As I have mentioned elsewhere, in music , some things can always be copyrighted -- Lyric always can.
Melody can be copyrighted , but it makes for great legal fun sometimes ,, as in My Sweet Lord vs. "he's so Fine"
Chords cannot be copyrighted.
With smartphone patents, are there any parallel?
Things , that can be always patented. Things that can never be patented. Things that can sometimes be patented, but are always fotter for legal dispute.
While I think it is great mike that you post those PDF. I use Google Chrome ,, and the PDF , slows down the scroling down the page, It is annoying. Any way you could put PDF views into an "optional" pop-up window , w/o embedding into your post?
"Laughable. I dispute the artificial monopoly rights granted to artists. Lots of others do, too."
Some people still dispute laws against slavery and human trafficking.
Why do you dispute "the artificial monopoly rights granted to artists" ? Please cite any historical "philosophical and/or political" writings that support such view. ( Or Any comic-books that support such views if that is your level.)
"Technopolitical, your assertion that copyright is a natural right I find somewhat confusing, even with the link you provided. The concept of Natural Right is something that came out of the Enlightenment period of history, involving a particular philosophical bent. Rather than explain how it is a Natural Right, you point to a source of a famous but relatively minor religion that is not even treating it as a Natural Right."
Basically: Fundunmental to any civilizied society are laws and courts to enforce laws. So people are not radomly murdered for a nickel , w/o punishing the murderer.
Laws can be wrong through.
Slavery used to be legal.
Did slave owners have "natural rights" to be slave owners.
While a few may argue that , most would say that a human being has a natural right to be free, in all places and all circumstances. It just took the laws of various legal systems time to catch up to the natural law.
(Yes I know slavery is in the "five books of Moses". 3000 years ago , the Five Book of Moses, vastly expanded the rights of slaves relative to other legal systems of the time. The Five Books of Moses, humanized the slave, at the time a radical concept.)
In a civilized society "copyright protection" is a legal right that needs to developed out of the natural right. and Thomas Jefferson , James Madison and company understood that. Better than I do.
"Blank cassette tapes were taxed" --[in some countries]- "and rights paid to musicians' collecting societies because music would be copied to them without paying additional royalties."
( I neither endorse or dismiss any other views on the cited blog. It was just the first thing that poped up when I search for "Blank cassette tapes were taxed".)
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way":
Mike : Both the law and pretty much all of human history say otherwise, but thanks for playing.
Me: Sorry Mike ,, nice wordplay, but again , {copyright} laws protect victims , not criminals.
Artist own their work ( --but not the physical medium of transmission--), and pirates want to subvert that some or all of that ownership right.
I am sure you read the ASCAP Bill of Rights . IF you got issues with those specific rights -- do a post where you Mike , address them case -by -case.
http://www.ascap.com/rights/
Invite a famous respected copyright law professor or two to join the discussion.
I'll buy popcorn and watch.
-----------
Me: i live and eat off money generated by it.
Mike : Only if you come up with a business model that works, given the realities of the market. You seem to not want to do that. For the life of me, I can't figure out why.
Me: I think we got a core point here . I live off my Art. Whether I am a good or bad biz person is not the issue.
The laws protect Artists who may not have an MBA , nor can afford lawyers.
Laws that protect rights -- even if those RIGHTS stifle someone elses privileges.
THAT is price you pay for living in a free democracy.
( That basic Pol-Sci 101, or even 8th grade social studies, if you do not grant me that point, any further conversation is useless , and you are a copyright fascist - from the Artist's perspective.)
Artists have copy-RIGHTS. Users are granted certain USE-Privilege's -- only if I choose to give it to them.
I can produce Art , and choose not to to grant ANY privileges for use.
Too many posters here are confusing Artists RIGHTS , with User Privileges -- you seem to be one of them Mike. This a a major crux of my points.
Clearly fair use , and Artist cannot stop, but fair use is only granted for an excerpt and/or part of the Art-- never ( --ok maybe rarely ---)the useful /resell-able whole thing.
-----------
Me: Use w/o pay is stealing.
Mike : If you can't understand the difference between making a copy and taking something away from someone, you have no business taking part in this debate.
Me:
So why are you here Mike ? Clearly you don't.
I write a Poem.
I sell the poem on the streets.
You take poem home. Make copies.
What can you do with those copies ?
Sell them? - Never w/o permission and/or royalties
Give them Away? - only with the poet/artists specific ( i.e. case-by-case ) written permission.
Quote them on your term paper : only with proper citation.
Eat them : feel free to.
----------------------------------------
Me: If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.
Mike : Actually, he's right in the midst of mainstream human history.
Me: I see where these posters here learn their cute tricks from. Make a vacuous platitude statement , claim it is fact , ridicule all who disagree. How Rush Limbaugh of you.
CopyRIGHT Laws - like any laws - are what define a civilized society. ( Do you accept that point? If not you are a lost cause. )
Then you put a long quote for Thomas Jefferson -- the Godfather of copyright as embedded into the American Legal System , w/o specific comment on what element[s] of you long quote supports your argument.
I will finish my coffee ,carefully read , and verify the quote below ,
and will respond.
But maybe in a few days , as a it's a major Jewish Holiday starting tonight at sundown ( "Shavous" or "Pentecost" in latin) , and I will be occupied today preparing, then observing for two days. And G-D willing no one will mention the word "copyright" to me during that holy time.
But promise I will -- happily -- get back to Tommy J.'s quote soon.
------
ME to Mike::-->>>
My friend ::
You have to decide if you want to be the: Rush Limbaugh of the loony techno-left-anarchist fringe"
or the
"Bill Moyers of the techno world"-- balanced fair and Truth seeking -- where your readers are NOT quite sure what side you take , but know you understand the issues. Someone better at asking questions than giving answers -- (which Mike, is when you personally are at you best.)
You Mike are very capable of being either Rush Limbaugh or Bill Moyers. Choose wisely
AND Techdirt's profits margin should be no factor in you choice, as if it does you have surrendered your journalistic dignity for popularity.
I have been reading TechDirt for years. You , Mike , have taught me alot.
Enlightened me to issues I never thought of , and sometimes caused me to often re-examine my views.
You have also at times made me giggle , and even given me a few good belly laughs on issues where we see exactly eye to eye -- like electronic voting , diebold , etc .
But on copyright laws -- as they apply to Artist , I am telling you as a (cyber-)friend and loyal reader: You not only missing the boat , but you don't even see the ocean.
Or you do , but are just playing the "Rush(Limbaugh) - for -ratings game."
Thanks for writing to me.
While I really wish I could ,, I can't live here @ techdirt -- (unless you hire me for pay.)
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
"because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way": Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
Exactly the truth concerning copyright law -- throughout history.
Good Job.
How do you fail to understand: that iF I create Art , I own it. I control it. i live and eat off money generated by it. Use w/o pay is stealing.
If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
It's disingenuous to pretend this is a one-sided debate.
I really , really would like to think that.
But Sorry no.
Even our malfunctioning U.S. congress writes laws quite well to protect copyrights,, as it basic common sense-(- unless you are a devout anarchist --in which case never the "twain will meet").
i have few complaints about copyright law works and is applied, if anything , most folks in public policy believe stronger fighting of Piracy is needed.
Why do you think illegal downloading , selling counterfeit trademarked products , and those loonies with gunboats off the Somalian Coat ( of Africa ) are called Pirates.
They are not called "nice folks with principles and respect for others"
The Pirates side here , is on the "wrong side of history",, just as slaveholders were in USA
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
The vast majority of people are law abiding. Yet we pay taxes , to fund the police and courts.
Royalty taxes , would be paid by the majority of fair users, to make sure unfair users pay.
Every Body clear.
---
I come to techdirt , to learn. I like post if I see a flawed -- but other-wise honest and well intentioned , and well though out -- argument.
I post in reply to folks like you , who fail to read and do research , the same way a cat plays with a mouse before he
kills it.
because posting boards can be fun, and i am guilty too , of getting a kick here at someones -- an unread idiot like -- expense.
But I prefer the quality , educated, and thoughful dissussions , that actually might affect the formation of public policy.
Which , I hope is Mike's goal here . Not only to have techdirt be entertaining, but first and foremost to be a serious public policy forum.
-----------------
I am off to play my guitar , everybody have a nice day.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doing that now .
---
"There's been tons of research put out lately that challenges the assumption that expanding copyright laws leads to greater creativity"
I would love to read them . Please suplly the specific links and/or references.
-------
"""To link that to a historical reference, how about the US Constitution? Which allows, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."""
Well written Gibberish w/o citation : Grade; D- / F
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.
READ ;
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?
read this thread:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml
but to save you time:
A: Pay -for-play ,, Radio stations , advertisiers, Broadway play , and bars with cover bands ,, all PAy-Per-play royalities EACH time the "art" is used.
so the shortest answer to :
"The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?"
IT is the core, function and purpose of copyright law .
----------
TO You and everybody else:
READ , READ , READ , and then maybe write a little. It will be rare if you come up with a new question. If you have a new question ,, please do posr it.
On the post: Wired Takes On The Smartphone Patent Thicket And How It Stifles Innovation
Re: Re: Sheesh!!!!!!
that is what is "Correct and well stated"
On the post: Wired Takes On The Smartphone Patent Thicket And How It Stifles Innovation
Re: Sheesh!!!!!!
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
Smash CDs all you want.
The Art on the medium is what is controlled by the copyright, not the medium it is transmitted on.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: copyright is a natural right
Interesting point.
I would argue , that IF copyright and patent laws stifle creation and inovation -- (which I do not grant you)-- that is the price we pay for having copyright and patent laws.
Freedom has a price, as we often see with national security issues. I do not like the fact that the Gov't snoops -- curtailing my absolute natural right to privacy,, but the gov't has no choice but not to snoop , in order to protect the nation as a whole.
But is it always a good debate -- with strong points on all sides.
On the post: Wired Takes On The Smartphone Patent Thicket And How It Stifles Innovation
" and began to wonder if it was even possible to build a smartphone without getting sued."
Melody can be copyrighted , but it makes for great legal fun sometimes ,, as in My Sweet Lord vs. "he's so Fine"
Chords cannot be copyrighted.
With smartphone patents, are there any parallel?
Things , that can be always patented. Things that can never be patented. Things that can sometimes be patented, but are always fotter for legal dispute.
Please answer in as laymans terms as possible
On the post: FTC Gives Ann Taylor A Pass In First 'Blog Disclosure' Investigation
those PDFs embedded in posts
It would be helpful
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some people still dispute laws against slavery and human trafficking.
Why do you dispute "the artificial monopoly rights granted to artists" ? Please cite any historical "philosophical and/or political" writings that support such view. ( Or Any comic-books that support such views if that is your level.)
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Copyright and wrongs...
I cannot sell them that product, and then make a commercial version of the same thing for my own profit, so copyright works both ways."
Very interesting point. Thank you . I never thought of it that way before, as Artist rarely make custom Art -- except in adv.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Copyright and wrongs...
""Because you said so.""
------------
No, because the law of any civilized nation says so.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: copyright is a natural right
Basically: Fundunmental to any civilizied society are laws and courts to enforce laws. So people are not radomly murdered for a nickel , w/o punishing the murderer.
Laws can be wrong through.
Slavery used to be legal.
Did slave owners have "natural rights" to be slave owners.
While a few may argue that , most would say that a human being has a natural right to be free, in all places and all circumstances. It just took the laws of various legal systems time to catch up to the natural law.
(Yes I know slavery is in the "five books of Moses". 3000 years ago , the Five Book of Moses, vastly expanded the rights of slaves relative to other legal systems of the time. The Five Books of Moses, humanized the slave, at the time a radical concept.)
In a civilized society "copyright protection" is a legal right that needs to developed out of the natural right. and Thomas Jefferson , James Madison and company understood that. Better than I do.
Was that helpful?
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
-----
http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2007/08/bardot-french-copyright-and-first.html
"Blank cassette tapes were taxed" --[in some countries]- "and rights paid to musicians' collecting societies because music would be copied to them without paying additional royalties."
http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2007/08/bardot-french-copyright-and-first.htm l
( I neither endorse or dismiss any other views on the cited blog. It was just the first thing that poped up when I search for "Blank cassette tapes were taxed".)
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: a little music from George Harrison,,,,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGbRHxM4X2g&feature=related
Next >>