The employer has the right to set the terms of employment, within certain restrictions against discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, etc.
Since this isn't the government, it's not a free-speech issue, but an employment issue.
However, you could change this, if you wanted to: good luck getting a constitutional amendment saying that using social media is a fundamental right.
Employers have every right to restrict non-work-related activities during work. So, yes, the players should be concentrating on the game at hand, not tweeting about the game or planning after-game activities or anything else. So the player ban is not problematic at all to me. There's plenty of time on non-game days (or even outside the ban's restriction on game day) for this.
Banning the refs from ever using social media is more problematic, but is not a "free speech" restriction. If they don't like it, then they don't have to work for the NFL.
As for journalists, again, more problematic, but the NFL does have the right to put restrictions in place for credentialed journalists.
None of these seem especially "bad" moves by the NFL, as in moves that are going to "hurt" them with fans.
If they have ads on the site, then they are likely making money. So, even if they aren't charging you directly, they are indeed making money off of your looking at their site.
Though I haven't re-read the whole thread, I believe I was the one who "insisted that there haven't been any lawsuits over lyrics online" here.
However, I didn't "insist" anything. What I wrote was: "I've not heard of any suit for copyright infringement over lyrics online" which is a far cry from "insisting"
Now I have heard of one, so thanks.
But my point in that comment was that you can still find lyrics (and sheet music online) for free, and that point is still true. Your linked article clearly says that there are a number of other sites that obtained the needed licenses.
The clearest evidence that copyright promotes progress and creativity is that we've had copyright since the founding of the republic, and have also become the most creative and inventive (and innovative) country on the planet.
It's not just the profits of large corporations that are protected, but those of authors, artists, etc. It also protects the jobs of millions who work in industries that produce protected content. Society still benefits hugely from this creativity, even with copyright.
IP utopians seem to think that the benefit to society always trumps a benefit to an individual (or even a corporate) creator, author, or artist. Society doesn't have a right to the fruits of my physical labor, but somehow has a free right to the fruits of my intellectual labor?
Copyright is intended to balance rights of the individual and society.
If you think soulless corporations are bad now, I doubt you'll like them better when they can freely appropriate unprotected content at will.
I would shudder is someone like you were in government. Without regard for individual rights you have nothing but your tyranny. :)
I agree with much of what Patry says here (and look forward to reading the book). The extension of the term of copyright in the late 90s was a mistake, but fixing that mistake will be difficult, if not impossible, due to industry push-back and international treaties. Copyright may become irrelevant to creators and publishers in that it may become in their best interests not to enforce it, but it's going to be on the books for a long time.
In the meantime, there are changes that can be made in the law, and not just on the margins, that would help greatly. One is expanding fair use. Patry says that its codification in law should be removed (which may be difficult to do in the current political climate), but another option would be to ammend how fair use is defined to broaden its reach (for example by making non-commercial copying for personal use expressly legal). Another issue is so-called "orphan works": works that are out-of-print and off the market and for which the copyright status and owner are unknown. There have actually been efforts to get Congress to deal with this issue by changing the law such that good faith efforts to ascertain the copyright status and owner (say by posting notice on a centralized web site) without response automatically presume the work is in the public domain.
But any change would take advocacy. Patry mentions Giest in Canada and says
"We do not have anyone remotely like him. It's not enough to rail about things you don't like, or have a following of people who idolize you. And that, unfortunately, is the rut we are in here."
Too bad there's no one with a media pressence that might become that advocate.
But the best part, a voice of sanity:
"There are works though, especially those involving large investment, like motion pictures that do need the ability to secure financing through the asset of copyright and to go into court to stop massive unauthorized copying. This is also true for commercial label music. I think ideology or displeasure with business practices has interfered with recognition of these legitimate needs.
For all the reasons mentioned, most large companies aren't going to make the jump (or start to make the jump) until the market reaches the middle of the curve or higher, and by then it's likely too late.
It's not just management, CEOs, Boards of Directors, and stockholders that have to be convinced to look beyond quarterly profits, but investment markets in general. If companies don't meet quarterly profit projections, they get hurt. That happens often enough and management gets fired.
About the only thing that will make these companies deal with the changing market in meaningful ways is if they're profits really tumble. And even then, only the forward-looking businesses that have already started the process of managing change (assuming they've fully realized Mike's first point) will be in a position to recover.
The wise managers would be maximizing revenue in the legacy market while ramping up plans for exploiting the new market.
Listen, if you can't prove a law is effective then you shouldn't be advocating for it IMHO.
There is nothing "faith-based" about copyright law and there is plenty of evidence that it is effective...depending on what you expect it to do. Which is why the defining what is meant by "promoting progress" is important.
Mike's question was whether evidence-based copyright law could ever be put in place. And that depends on what you want the evidence to show.
Ultimately, though, it's kind of a meaningless concept. Laws are judged, though perhaps not frequently enough, on whether they are achieving an intended outcome. For example, laws on sentencing for possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine are being "reviewed" in that there is an on-going discussion about whether the harsher penalties for crack should be brought in line with the penalties for powder coke.
I take from Mike's post that he has something more concrete in mind, but I have no idea how that could be implemented.
The story's been changed. Did it have any impact at all?
Well, I appreciated it. At least there's that impact.
Actually, Mike, you know quite well that I don't disagree with you on everything. There are, in fact, many areas where we do agree. I've actually posted some comments where I heartily agree with you, especially in cases where copyright holders overreach in claiming protection for content where there is none.
Where we usually "disagree" is when you misstate facts or use misleading language (like saying someone has been "silenced" when compelled to remove infringing material), or misconstrue something to make it better fit your argument. Such as when I point out that you side-stepped the use of the word "stealing" relying on the relatively safer ground of "theft" in the exchange above.
And I understand the fervor of your defense in such cases as such writing might undermine your credibility. However, it's usually more credible to admit and correct; if you can graciously acknowledge when your wrong, it tends to support everything you write.
He does this pretty regularly, and it's quite amusing to me, because I can't believe a grown man would spend so much time trying to find something wrong with what I've written
It's not obsession. You are an influential writer on what I'll term the "free content" side of the "copyright wars." Your writing gets picked up by other blogs and even news outlets and cited as an authority. I think that you do try to be an honest partisan voice on these issues, but you do in fact sometimes use misleading language and/or misstate facts (or write as if supposition has become fact). I understand that you may disagree on what's misleading, but it's not obsession, it's trying to keep the facts straight. For example, many commenters here have sometimes show a very wrong understanding on what copyright even is; information is essential to a reasonable debate, misinformation kills it.
This seems to me to be a mini "Streisand Effect" in that your defending what you regard as minor error on somewhat shaky ground and by doing so only calling more attention to the error.
Not at all. Don't be ridiculous. As I said, the difference in theft or file sharing actually has an impact on the story, and is used to mislead. That's not the case with calling a "pre-action discovery" "suing."
"Theft" and "infringement" in file sharing do have a legal component. "Stealing" however, is more often used colloquially to mean "taking something you have no right to" which would fit in illegal file sharing. Yet, that term, too, is verboten. (Would "filch," "pilfer," or "purloin" be acceptable? "File-filching" has a nice right to it!)
"Pre-action" means before the action...before a lawsuit. In fact, Cohen hadn't (and to my knowledge hasn't) actually sued anyone. Google said they wouldn't turn over the information without a court order; Cohen asked the court to issue the order and the Anonymous Blogger objected (Google really didn't do much in the proceeding at all).
So, whether other journalists were using term or not, writing that Cohen "sued Google" is a fundamental misstatement of fact. You were called on it. And instead of just admitting that the wording was poor, you accuse Sheffner of being "nitpicky" and trying to make you look bad. But he was right.
As I said, I find it interesting that you insist on technical accuracy of words in certain contexts, but not in others, usually tending toward whether they help or hurt your positions.
But I'd argue that I wasn't wrong colloquially....The difference between "theft" and "infringement" is usually a key point in the stories we discuss.
Even if used "colloquially," the words "theft" and "stealing" used in regard to illegal file sharing in violation of copyright are cause for righteous indignation. If you're going to be a stickler for precise terminology when it tends to support your position, you shouldn't object when others call out for the same precision on your part when writing critically of others.
I agree with Dark Helmet.
Most of the time when I comment here, it's more to point out factual errors or misleading statements. Sometimes, as here, I get the impression that you're just in a hurry and get a bit careless with your writing. But since you are an influential writer on tech and copyright (among other topics), carelessness, to me, only undermines your credibility.
In common parlance, the company was sued, which is why pretty much every reporter wrote it up that way.
In common parlance file-sharing is often referred to as theft or stealing. Do I take it you'll no longer be objecting to the use of those terms here, because reporters write it up that way?
And as far as the whole challenging copyright thing goes, you can't just brush that off. It's a serious problem that it takes huge amounts of money to challenge copyrights held by big companies, and there are no penalties for falsely claiming copyright. Meaning anyone with money has every incentive to cling to a copyright long after a work should have become public domain.
I'm not sure how or why you'd "challenge copyright". The only way to "challenge" copyright is to copy something and see if you're sued. If you do your homework, it shouldn't be a problem. Except in a few instances, what is public domain and what is copyright still isn't that complex.
However, I suspect that's not what you're driving at, but rather instances where someone claims a copyright over content that is not covered by copyright. How serious a problem it is, I'm not sure, but I would definitely like to see copyright law reformed so there is a penalty for anyone who files a suit claiming copyright where there clearly is none or for content that is not copyrightable.
Are you done? Because that took forever to say nothing.
Actually, no. The point is that these are serious issues that call for at least fact-based discussion; the litany of "things you can't do" was a bit light in the "fact" department.
People often assume that I'm in favor of just tossing out all copyright law. I'd argue that I'm more agnostic on the subject than anything else. I don't care about "copyright law" per se. I care about what's going to best promote the progress. If someone can show me that copyright actually can do that, I'm willing to understand how. But if we can't present the evidence of how, or actually defend what good copyright does, the I'm left wondering why it's there at all.
The Constitution give Congress the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
When this clause is quoted around here, the "why" of copyright (to promote progress) is usually cited, leaving off the "how" (exclusive rights).
In other words, to encourage people to create, whether it be art or science, the law provides incentive: the right to control the creative expression and usually use that creative expression for financial reward.
Would people still create content, processes, inventions in the absence of copyright? Sure. Would they do so to the same extent? Maybe, but maybe not.
Why would someone bother laboring over a film, a novel, an invention if they knew from experience that a large, wealthy, rapacious corporation would sweep in, copy the work and exploit it without recompense to the creator? Some would, but many would be discouraged and some measure of creativity would be lost.
I can hear the counter-argument that creators just need to come up with better business plans to thwart those evil corporations, but this isn't just a matter of competing better.
The progress of art and science is a public benefit, but not an unfettered public benefit. Copyright (and patent) has always been a balance between pure public benefit and protected rights as incentive to create. I'd agree that the balance has gone too far toward protecting exclusive rights, but the public progress of art and science still occurs, and at a rather rapid pace.
There might be marginally more "creativity" and innovation without copyright, but there might also be a loss of creativity and innovation without the financial incentives provided by IP rights. How much of either is speculative, but if you claim one you have to at least acknowledge the other.
Which is why in my comments here I've often urged copyright reform rather than abolition (which is politically unlikely anyway). Balance is indeed important.
Evidence-based copyright law is likely unworkable. How are you going to measure progress or the inhibition of progress? If one can point out a single instance were "progress" was inhibited, do you throw out the law or just rescind copyright protection in that specific instance? "Evidence-based" copyright law would likely promote litigation and eventually would be tantamount to no law at all.
This is a false dichotomy, especially in terms of copyright. As you've correctly pointed out many times here Mike, copyright in no way protects "ownership of ideas," in only protects the unique and specific expression of ideas. Therefore there can be no plagiarism of ideas: though good scholarship and common courtesy would urge crediting the source of an idea one borrows, it doesn't require it.
Property isn't about allocation, it's about control. The purpose of property rights is to codify who controls (owns) and has use of a resource. While property rights are fundamental to the existence of markets, it is purpose of markets to allocate resources (whether efficiently or not depends on the market).
Ergo, my friend, property rights may be involved in allocation of resources, it is not their "entire" purpose.
After all, the entire purpose of property rights is to efficiently allocate resources in the presence of scarcity.
Uh...not so much. The efficient allocation of resources in the presence of scarcity would be the purpose of markets. The concept of property and the purpose of property rights is, in part, the necessary backbone that allow markets to exist. Efficient allocation of resources is certainly not the "entire purpose" of property rights.
Terms like "intellectual property," "piracy,"...are all misleading and biased.
Terms like intellectual property and piracy have been in use in the context of copyright since the mid 19th century. You may not like them or agree with them, but they are in no way misleading or biased.
And if you think they are, how is calling illegal copying of protected content "sharing" any less biased?
Thomas-Rasset and Tenenbaum had fair trials (Thomas had two) and the juries came to quite reasonable verdicts: both defendants broke the law. (The question of damages is another issue.) It had nothing to do with the language used to describe their illegal actions.
Don't misunderstand me. The entertainment industry in all sectors is facing a huge challenge, and is going to have (and in many ways is already) change to meet that challenge.
I would support changes to copyright law to reduce the length of term of copyright, expand fair use, and deal with the issue of "orphan works" whose copyright owner can no longer be found.
But I comment here when Mike confuses opinions with facts or misstates or exaggerates to make his point...and sometimes when he goes over the line in snarky condescension of those who support copyright. Such polarizing rhetoric does nothing to advance the debate and more likely hinders it.
If Mike can't find at least some common ground with someone like me who sees that change is necessary, but so is copyright, then he's just preaching to the choir. Hyperbole make make for good blog reading, but it can also get in the way of reasoned discussion or debate.
Yet, when you talk to such folks one on one or in small groups, and start going through the real details... and when you explain to them how copyright is used to stifle speech and innovation...
In other words, Mike, when you only provide one side of the issue, regardless of business models, you might convince some folks that your opinions are somehow fact. What these jury verdicts indicate is that average Americans most likely still believe that creators and inventors should have protection by which to profit, if they can, from their creations. At it's most basic level, most people think it's a fundamental issue of fairness.
Apparently, the Founding Fathers thought so, too, since they included copyright as part of our fundamental law in our foundational document, the constitution.
Also,
Fourth, in both of these cases it was clear that the defendants broke the law. The jury's job is made clear to them, and it is to make a determination on the law....Saying that this is somehow representative of the actual views on the activities is again, quite misleading.
As was pointed out above, juries do not make determinations of law, they make determinations of fact. It is also clear that anyone who engages in file-sharing of copyrighted material is breaking the law.
Hey! A way to stop P2P music sharing in its tracks!
Mike, you have hit on a great idea! Of course Facebook will cease to be "cool" once the parents start joining. That's the nature of evolving technology. The kids will move on to the next cool thing.
Which leads me to speculate that the way to stop P2P music sharing dead in the water is to convince the parents of the world to start doing it. Once kids see their parents doing it and are overwhelmed by the Perry Como tracks, they'll be begging to pay for music on "cool" sites again!
On the post: NFL: Refs Banned From Using All Social Media; Press Can't Live Tweet
Re: Re: Re:
Since this isn't the government, it's not a free-speech issue, but an employment issue.
However, you could change this, if you wanted to: good luck getting a constitutional amendment saying that using social media is a fundamental right.
On the post: NFL: Refs Banned From Using All Social Media; Press Can't Live Tweet
Concentrate on the Game
Banning the refs from ever using social media is more problematic, but is not a "free speech" restriction. If they don't like it, then they don't have to work for the NFL.
As for journalists, again, more problematic, but the NFL does have the right to put restrictions in place for credentialed journalists.
None of these seem especially "bad" moves by the NFL, as in moves that are going to "hurt" them with fans.
On the post: Music Publishers Now Suing Lyrics Sites And Their Execs
Re: About those lyric websites
On the post: Music Publishers Now Suing Lyrics Sites And Their Execs
Correction
However, I didn't "insist" anything. What I wrote was: "I've not heard of any suit for copyright infringement over lyrics online" which is a far cry from "insisting"
Now I have heard of one, so thanks.
But my point in that comment was that you can still find lyrics (and sheet music online) for free, and that point is still true. Your linked article clearly says that there are a number of other sites that obtained the needed licenses.
On the post: Could Evidence-Based Copyright Law Ever Be Put In Place?
Re: I have faith your right!
It's not just the profits of large corporations that are protected, but those of authors, artists, etc. It also protects the jobs of millions who work in industries that produce protected content. Society still benefits hugely from this creativity, even with copyright.
IP utopians seem to think that the benefit to society always trumps a benefit to an individual (or even a corporate) creator, author, or artist. Society doesn't have a right to the fruits of my physical labor, but somehow has a free right to the fruits of my intellectual labor?
Copyright is intended to balance rights of the individual and society.
If you think soulless corporations are bad now, I doubt you'll like them better when they can freely appropriate unprotected content at will.
I would shudder is someone like you were in government. Without regard for individual rights you have nothing but your tyranny. :)
On the post: Interview With William Patry: Understanding How The Copyright Debate Got Twisted
A Sane Voice
In the meantime, there are changes that can be made in the law, and not just on the margins, that would help greatly. One is expanding fair use. Patry says that its codification in law should be removed (which may be difficult to do in the current political climate), but another option would be to ammend how fair use is defined to broaden its reach (for example by making non-commercial copying for personal use expressly legal). Another issue is so-called "orphan works": works that are out-of-print and off the market and for which the copyright status and owner are unknown. There have actually been efforts to get Congress to deal with this issue by changing the law such that good faith efforts to ascertain the copyright status and owner (say by posting notice on a centralized web site) without response automatically presume the work is in the public domain.
But any change would take advocacy. Patry mentions Giest in Canada and says
"We do not have anyone remotely like him. It's not enough to rail about things you don't like, or have a following of people who idolize you. And that, unfortunately, is the rut we are in here."
Too bad there's no one with a media pressence that might become that advocate.
But the best part, a voice of sanity:
"There are works though, especially those involving large investment, like motion pictures that do need the ability to secure financing through the asset of copyright and to go into court to stop massive unauthorized copying. This is also true for commercial label music. I think ideology or displeasure with business practices has interfered with recognition of these legitimate needs.
On the post: Reminder From The Innovator's Dilemma: Markets Change Whether You Like It Or Not
Re: Re: fiduciary responsibility
It's not just management, CEOs, Boards of Directors, and stockholders that have to be convinced to look beyond quarterly profits, but investment markets in general. If companies don't meet quarterly profit projections, they get hurt. That happens often enough and management gets fired.
About the only thing that will make these companies deal with the changing market in meaningful ways is if they're profits really tumble. And even then, only the forward-looking businesses that have already started the process of managing change (assuming they've fully realized Mike's first point) will be in a position to recover.
The wise managers would be maximizing revenue in the legacy market while ramping up plans for exploiting the new market.
On the post: Could Evidence-Based Copyright Law Ever Be Put In Place?
Re: Re: What Is Promoting Progress?
Listen, if you can't prove a law is effective then you shouldn't be advocating for it IMHO.
There is nothing "faith-based" about copyright law and there is plenty of evidence that it is effective...depending on what you expect it to do. Which is why the defining what is meant by "promoting progress" is important.
Mike's question was whether evidence-based copyright law could ever be put in place. And that depends on what you want the evidence to show.
Ultimately, though, it's kind of a meaningless concept. Laws are judged, though perhaps not frequently enough, on whether they are achieving an intended outcome. For example, laws on sentencing for possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine are being "reviewed" in that there is an on-going discussion about whether the harsher penalties for crack should be brought in line with the penalties for powder coke.
I take from Mike's post that he has something more concrete in mind, but I have no idea how that could be implemented.
On the post: Outed Blogger Plans To Sue Google; Skank Model Mess Gets Messier
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I appreciated it. At least there's that impact.
Actually, Mike, you know quite well that I don't disagree with you on everything. There are, in fact, many areas where we do agree. I've actually posted some comments where I heartily agree with you, especially in cases where copyright holders overreach in claiming protection for content where there is none.
Where we usually "disagree" is when you misstate facts or use misleading language (like saying someone has been "silenced" when compelled to remove infringing material), or misconstrue something to make it better fit your argument. Such as when I point out that you side-stepped the use of the word "stealing" relying on the relatively safer ground of "theft" in the exchange above.
And I understand the fervor of your defense in such cases as such writing might undermine your credibility. However, it's usually more credible to admit and correct; if you can graciously acknowledge when your wrong, it tends to support everything you write.
He does this pretty regularly, and it's quite amusing to me, because I can't believe a grown man would spend so much time trying to find something wrong with what I've written
It's not obsession. You are an influential writer on what I'll term the "free content" side of the "copyright wars." Your writing gets picked up by other blogs and even news outlets and cited as an authority. I think that you do try to be an honest partisan voice on these issues, but you do in fact sometimes use misleading language and/or misstate facts (or write as if supposition has become fact). I understand that you may disagree on what's misleading, but it's not obsession, it's trying to keep the facts straight. For example, many commenters here have sometimes show a very wrong understanding on what copyright even is; information is essential to a reasonable debate, misinformation kills it.
On the post: Outed Blogger Plans To Sue Google; Skank Model Mess Gets Messier
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. Don't be ridiculous. As I said, the difference in theft or file sharing actually has an impact on the story, and is used to mislead. That's not the case with calling a "pre-action discovery" "suing."
"Theft" and "infringement" in file sharing do have a legal component. "Stealing" however, is more often used colloquially to mean "taking something you have no right to" which would fit in illegal file sharing. Yet, that term, too, is verboten. (Would "filch," "pilfer," or "purloin" be acceptable? "File-filching" has a nice right to it!)
"Pre-action" means before the action...before a lawsuit. In fact, Cohen hadn't (and to my knowledge hasn't) actually sued anyone. Google said they wouldn't turn over the information without a court order; Cohen asked the court to issue the order and the Anonymous Blogger objected (Google really didn't do much in the proceeding at all).
So, whether other journalists were using term or not, writing that Cohen "sued Google" is a fundamental misstatement of fact. You were called on it. And instead of just admitting that the wording was poor, you accuse Sheffner of being "nitpicky" and trying to make you look bad. But he was right.
As I said, I find it interesting that you insist on technical accuracy of words in certain contexts, but not in others, usually tending toward whether they help or hurt your positions.
On the post: Outed Blogger Plans To Sue Google; Skank Model Mess Gets Messier
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if used "colloquially," the words "theft" and "stealing" used in regard to illegal file sharing in violation of copyright are cause for righteous indignation. If you're going to be a stickler for precise terminology when it tends to support your position, you shouldn't object when others call out for the same precision on your part when writing critically of others.
I agree with Dark Helmet.
Most of the time when I comment here, it's more to point out factual errors or misleading statements. Sometimes, as here, I get the impression that you're just in a hurry and get a bit careless with your writing. But since you are an influential writer on tech and copyright (among other topics), carelessness, to me, only undermines your credibility.
In common parlance, the company was sued, which is why pretty much every reporter wrote it up that way.
In common parlance file-sharing is often referred to as theft or stealing. Do I take it you'll no longer be objecting to the use of those terms here, because reporters write it up that way?
On the post: Music Publishers Force Lyrics API Offline; How Dare Anyone Make Lyrics Useful
Re: Re: Re: Keep it straight...
I'm not sure how or why you'd "challenge copyright". The only way to "challenge" copyright is to copy something and see if you're sued. If you do your homework, it shouldn't be a problem. Except in a few instances, what is public domain and what is copyright still isn't that complex.
However, I suspect that's not what you're driving at, but rather instances where someone claims a copyright over content that is not covered by copyright. How serious a problem it is, I'm not sure, but I would definitely like to see copyright law reformed so there is a penalty for anyone who files a suit claiming copyright where there clearly is none or for content that is not copyrightable.
Are you done? Because that took forever to say nothing.
Actually, no. The point is that these are serious issues that call for at least fact-based discussion; the litany of "things you can't do" was a bit light in the "fact" department.
On the post: Could Evidence-Based Copyright Law Ever Be Put In Place?
What Is Promoting Progress?
The Constitution give Congress the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
When this clause is quoted around here, the "why" of copyright (to promote progress) is usually cited, leaving off the "how" (exclusive rights).
In other words, to encourage people to create, whether it be art or science, the law provides incentive: the right to control the creative expression and usually use that creative expression for financial reward.
Would people still create content, processes, inventions in the absence of copyright? Sure. Would they do so to the same extent? Maybe, but maybe not.
Why would someone bother laboring over a film, a novel, an invention if they knew from experience that a large, wealthy, rapacious corporation would sweep in, copy the work and exploit it without recompense to the creator? Some would, but many would be discouraged and some measure of creativity would be lost.
I can hear the counter-argument that creators just need to come up with better business plans to thwart those evil corporations, but this isn't just a matter of competing better.
The progress of art and science is a public benefit, but not an unfettered public benefit. Copyright (and patent) has always been a balance between pure public benefit and protected rights as incentive to create. I'd agree that the balance has gone too far toward protecting exclusive rights, but the public progress of art and science still occurs, and at a rather rapid pace.
There might be marginally more "creativity" and innovation without copyright, but there might also be a loss of creativity and innovation without the financial incentives provided by IP rights. How much of either is speculative, but if you claim one you have to at least acknowledge the other.
Which is why in my comments here I've often urged copyright reform rather than abolition (which is politically unlikely anyway). Balance is indeed important.
Evidence-based copyright law is likely unworkable. How are you going to measure progress or the inhibition of progress? If one can point out a single instance were "progress" was inhibited, do you throw out the law or just rescind copyright protection in that specific instance? "Evidence-based" copyright law would likely promote litigation and eventually would be tantamount to no law at all.
On the post: Which Is More Important? Ownership Of Ideas... Or Community, Knowledge & Learning?
Both, of course.
On the post: Why Virtual Property Doesn't Make Sense
Re: Re: Definition fail
Ergo, my friend, property rights may be involved in allocation of resources, it is not their "entire" purpose.
Mike should know this.
On the post: Why Virtual Property Doesn't Make Sense
Definition fail
Uh...not so much. The efficient allocation of resources in the presence of scarcity would be the purpose of markets. The concept of property and the purpose of property rights is, in part, the necessary backbone that allow markets to exist. Efficient allocation of resources is certainly not the "entire purpose" of property rights.
On the post: Can There Be A Fair File Sharing Trial When The Language Is All Biased?
Perfectly Good Words
Terms like intellectual property and piracy have been in use in the context of copyright since the mid 19th century. You may not like them or agree with them, but they are in no way misleading or biased.
And if you think they are, how is calling illegal copying of protected content "sharing" any less biased?
Thomas-Rasset and Tenenbaum had fair trials (Thomas had two) and the juries came to quite reasonable verdicts: both defendants broke the law. (The question of damages is another issue.) It had nothing to do with the language used to describe their illegal actions.
On the post: Correcting A Few 'Facts' From The RIAA... For Which We Feel We Deserve Payment
Re:
Don't misunderstand me. The entertainment industry in all sectors is facing a huge challenge, and is going to have (and in many ways is already) change to meet that challenge.
I would support changes to copyright law to reduce the length of term of copyright, expand fair use, and deal with the issue of "orphan works" whose copyright owner can no longer be found.
But I comment here when Mike confuses opinions with facts or misstates or exaggerates to make his point...and sometimes when he goes over the line in snarky condescension of those who support copyright. Such polarizing rhetoric does nothing to advance the debate and more likely hinders it.
If Mike can't find at least some common ground with someone like me who sees that change is necessary, but so is copyright, then he's just preaching to the choir. Hyperbole make make for good blog reading, but it can also get in the way of reasoned discussion or debate.
On the post: No, A Jury In A Trial Is Not A Representative Sample Of Views On Copyright
Only One Side?
In other words, Mike, when you only provide one side of the issue, regardless of business models, you might convince some folks that your opinions are somehow fact. What these jury verdicts indicate is that average Americans most likely still believe that creators and inventors should have protection by which to profit, if they can, from their creations. At it's most basic level, most people think it's a fundamental issue of fairness.
Apparently, the Founding Fathers thought so, too, since they included copyright as part of our fundamental law in our foundational document, the constitution.
Also,
Fourth, in both of these cases it was clear that the defendants broke the law. The jury's job is made clear to them, and it is to make a determination on the law....Saying that this is somehow representative of the actual views on the activities is again, quite misleading.
As was pointed out above, juries do not make determinations of law, they make determinations of fact. It is also clear that anyone who engages in file-sharing of copyrighted material is breaking the law.
On the post: Are Parents Making Facebook Uncool?
Hey! A way to stop P2P music sharing in its tracks!
Which leads me to speculate that the way to stop P2P music sharing dead in the water is to convince the parents of the world to start doing it. Once kids see their parents doing it and are overwhelmed by the Perry Como tracks, they'll be begging to pay for music on "cool" sites again!
Next >>