"The purpose of copyright is not to protect a right."
Well, you got me. I was certainly incorrect. What I meant to write, and what is pretty clear from the context of what I wrote, is that the purpose of copyright is not to protect a property right.
All of copyright (and patent law) comes from one and only one source: Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution:
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
As you can read yourself, there is no property interest related to copyright. The copyright holder's only a right to have the content protected by a monopoly. And furthermore, without the right as expressibly provided, no such right exists.
"Tom, all you need is for a single person who intended (or even might have purchsed) getting a copy for free, and that is all the harm that is needed to show harm. There is harm every day."
So if I open up a restaurant next to a different restaurant. And I "steal" his customers, in that they come to me instead of him. And because they would have paid him if they did not pay me. Then it necessarily follows that the original restaurant was "harmed" by my competition, right. That means the original restaurant can ask the government to pass laws making my restaurant illegal, right?
"If you didn't pay for it, you shouldn't have it."
You have no understanding of copyright. The purpose of copyright is not to protect a right. It is a government granted monopoly. In other words, without copyright there is no monopoly. That's different from property rights. Property rights are a part of those god given "inalienable" rights we hear so much about. Those rights exist independent of our laws. (Well, at least that's what we tell ourselves.)
So all copyright does is to provide a monopoly along with exceptions to it. For example, you don't pay to hear songs on the radio, but yet there is no infringing. You might hear your neighbor playing music while sitting in your house, you're getting music for free, you're not paying, but it's not infringing. Under the Home Recording Act you're able to make mix tapes for friends and family, without paying anything, and its not infringement.
The problem you have, and the problem nearly everyone here has, is that you don't understand copyright. You believe the propaganda that it's synonymous with property rights and that it protects property rights. But it doesn't.
You would not waste time talking about open heart surgical techniques, because you know nothing about them. So please do us a favor and stop talking about copyright. At least until you actually understand it.
"They are trying to find ways to discourage copyright infringement."
Which is great. They hold the copyrights so it should be their job to protect them.
"Unfortunately, there is little the recording industry can do to deter such activities themselves."
Then it should go out of business. As I've said before, if your entire business model can survive only if a new law is passed or if lawsuits are filed, then it's time to give up.
The buggy whip manufacturers could have pushed for a law making the automobile illegal. The government could have passed that law and the police could have enforced it. And the buggy whip manufactured could have survived longer than it did. But do you seriously think that was the best solution?
All I did was to show how your analogy was idiotic and offered a better one. You neither defended your analogy or argued against mine, so I assume you conceded both of my points.
I do want to address this comment you made:
It is a "prove it" type situation right now...
That's simply asinine. You seem to think that because it's difficult to prove copyright infringement, that the music industry should get some slack. That someone else should be forced to do it for them or the burden of proof should be lowed to make it easier to prosecute. However, if someone accuses you of a crime, that person should able to prove that you committed a crime. If they can't, they should shut up.
Then you completely defeat your entire argument by writing this:
The amount of time, money, and effort to track down a single file sharer is beyond understanding.
If these alleged crimes are not worth pursing, proving, and prosecuting, then it necessarily follows that they are not serious crimes! Under your argument, you concede that it is not worth the music industry efforts to go after pirates because the costs of pursuing the charges far exceed the harm the pirates are causing.
Think about that for a second. If the harm caused by piracy was so bad, then the costs to prosecute would be more than worth it. However, you admit that the harm is not that bad. That the benefit received by prosecution does not make up for the costs of prosecution.
And for that unintentional argument I give thanks. I finally understand why the music industry is taking such a hands off approach. Piracy is simply not worth the bother to stop.
First, you cannot reasonablly compare theft with infringement. If you're going to analogize infringement to theft, why not go all the way and analogize it to rape or kidnapping? They all make the same amount of sense. I.e., none.
Second, if the music industry does catch infringers, there is nothing stopping the music industry from suing them or having them charged. However, the music industry does not want to police the internet itself, it does not want to "pay a lot of money" for security as your analogy states. The music industry wants ISPs to provide infringement security them for free!
So here's a more accurate analogy. The music industry has a store but refuses to pay for any security. The music industry demands that the owner of the sidewalk perform security for the store because the alleged criminals are entering the store via the sidewalk.
The music industry claims that the owner of the sidewalk is letting criminals into the store and that the owner of the sidewalk should keep such criminals out of its store. The music industry wants laws passed requiring anyone alleged to have shoplifted three times to be banned from using any sidewalk in the country.
"we have the rare opportunity to see if this new law will be good or bad.... Can't congress find good data and use it?"
You seem to have no understanding as to why laws should be passed. We don't pass laws merely to see what happens in the future.
There is absolutely no need for a law to be passed when the market can solve the "problem."
Right now, the RIAA, performers, musicians, and labels can negotiation with radio broadcasters in good faith for payment. Nothing is stopping this from happening.
However, the music industry does not want to negotiate in good faith. It wants its terms imposed on radio broadcasters under force of law. There is simply no reason for such a draconian measure.
This law is nothing more than unfunded corporate welfare to the music industry.
Sure, it's not currently taking place in a free market only because it's illegal. Once the laws are removed, then it could become a free market.
"Because the free market cannot dictate the price of payola"
You're assuming your conclusion. Why could a free market not exist where musicians and labels contract with radio stations for payment associated with airplay. It happens all the time on TV. A production company produces a pilot for show and then takes it around to the broadcasters. NBC, for example, decides it likes it so it pays to buy a full 13 episodes and agrees to put it on its fall schedule. The production company produces the episodes. NBC airs them, on public airways, and everyone is happy.
"The government chose to make it outright illegal"
The government can do a lot things, but that does not mean it should do such things.
"which appears to be in the best interest of consumers."
Yet another assumed conclusion. How am I harmed by the legality of payola?
That's a great idea. I know it's great because I've been saying the same thing for years.
Exactly why do we need a single solution mandated by law?! Let a free market sort this crap out. Let the musicians, the labels, performers and the radio broadcasters work out contracts about who is willing to pay whom. Different solutions would be created based upon different situations. And the government would have no reason to be involved.
The problem is that the music industry has been tied to the government's teat for so long, it no longer even understands how a free market works. Its solution for every problem is to get a new law passed or to file a lawsuit. When new laws and lawsuits are the only means to save your business model, it's probably time to give it up.
So your headline should really read "Music Piracy Boosts Sales of Video Games."
But you're presupposing your conclusion. First you have to show proof that music piracy is hurting the sales of music. Studies have shown the opposite. The most downloaded music is always the best selling music and pirates buy the most music.
My guess is that Laura Martin has never used Hulu so she has no idea that it's based on advertising and that it's a pretty reasonable alternative to piracy. It's certainly easier to use for most people to watch their shows than bittorrent.
Of course it also appears she's as ignorant as a brick too. But that sort of goes without saying. Hulu did not put $300 billion worth of market value "at risk." The declining economy and the consumer did. If consumers are not willing to pay money for broadcaster's content, the market value is worth exactly zero and it's no one's fault at all. Anyone has a right to sell nearly anything, but no one has a duty to value it or buy it.
"That is all true... but... it ignores the other case..."
So your point is that you should do it when and where it makes sense and not do it when and where it doesn't. Unfortunately, that very practical advice probably wouldn't make a very interesting article. Journalism is all about twisting uninteresting events and situations in a one-sided way to create a conflict/controversy were none exists. This week it's phone etiquette, next week it'll be something else.
As the UK becomes more and more like a totalitarian government, I couldn't help but think that no one in the country was reading Orwell's 1984 anymore. Now I'm thinking they're reading it too much, as a guide.
Back in the good old days, such as Doom or Unreal Tournament, I bought plenty of games. Back then you could simply install the game and then reinstall it by simply copying that installed subfolder. It made the game extremely easy to keep around. However, once I had to start re-installing games via multiple discs every single time I changed systems, it became an annoyance.
Why aren't the artists suing the RIAA for this money. The RIAA keeps taking it (to protect the artists, of course) but yet the artists never see any of it.
"scheme for ways to wipe out the used video game market... or at least get a cut of any sale"
That's it exactly. I call it the Microsoft mentality. Microsoft sees someone making a ton of money. E.g., Google monetizing search. Instead of concentrating on Microsoft's own profits on Office and Windows, it has to try and either beat Google or destroy the market so no one makes money.
I swear this mentality must be taught in MBA programs, because it's a relatively new mental condition/impairment.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you got me. I was certainly incorrect. What I meant to write, and what is pretty clear from the context of what I wrote, is that the purpose of copyright is not to protect a property right.
All of copyright (and patent law) comes from one and only one source: Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution:
As you can read yourself, there is no property interest related to copyright. The copyright holder's only a right to have the content protected by a monopoly. And furthermore, without the right as expressibly provided, no such right exists.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
Re: Re: Try Again, Mike
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
Re: Re: Re:
So if I open up a restaurant next to a different restaurant. And I "steal" his customers, in that they come to me instead of him. And because they would have paid him if they did not pay me. Then it necessarily follows that the original restaurant was "harmed" by my competition, right. That means the original restaurant can ask the government to pass laws making my restaurant illegal, right?
"If you didn't pay for it, you shouldn't have it."
You have no understanding of copyright. The purpose of copyright is not to protect a right. It is a government granted monopoly. In other words, without copyright there is no monopoly. That's different from property rights. Property rights are a part of those god given "inalienable" rights we hear so much about. Those rights exist independent of our laws. (Well, at least that's what we tell ourselves.)
So all copyright does is to provide a monopoly along with exceptions to it. For example, you don't pay to hear songs on the radio, but yet there is no infringing. You might hear your neighbor playing music while sitting in your house, you're getting music for free, you're not paying, but it's not infringing. Under the Home Recording Act you're able to make mix tapes for friends and family, without paying anything, and its not infringement.
The problem you have, and the problem nearly everyone here has, is that you don't understand copyright. You believe the propaganda that it's synonymous with property rights and that it protects property rights. But it doesn't.
You would not waste time talking about open heart surgical techniques, because you know nothing about them. So please do us a favor and stop talking about copyright. At least until you actually understand it.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
Re: Try Again, Mike
Which is great. They hold the copyrights so it should be their job to protect them.
"Unfortunately, there is little the recording industry can do to deter such activities themselves."
Then it should go out of business. As I've said before, if your entire business model can survive only if a new law is passed or if lawsuits are filed, then it's time to give up.
The buggy whip manufacturers could have pushed for a law making the automobile illegal. The government could have passed that law and the police could have enforced it. And the buggy whip manufactured could have survived longer than it did. But do you seriously think that was the best solution?
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
Re: Re: Re:
I do want to address this comment you made:
That's simply asinine. You seem to think that because it's difficult to prove copyright infringement, that the music industry should get some slack. That someone else should be forced to do it for them or the burden of proof should be lowed to make it easier to prosecute. However, if someone accuses you of a crime, that person should able to prove that you committed a crime. If they can't, they should shut up.
Then you completely defeat your entire argument by writing this:
If these alleged crimes are not worth pursing, proving, and prosecuting, then it necessarily follows that they are not serious crimes! Under your argument, you concede that it is not worth the music industry efforts to go after pirates because the costs of pursuing the charges far exceed the harm the pirates are causing.
Think about that for a second. If the harm caused by piracy was so bad, then the costs to prosecute would be more than worth it. However, you admit that the harm is not that bad. That the benefit received by prosecution does not make up for the costs of prosecution.
And for that unintentional argument I give thanks. I finally understand why the music industry is taking such a hands off approach. Piracy is simply not worth the bother to stop.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
Re:
First, you cannot reasonablly compare theft with infringement. If you're going to analogize infringement to theft, why not go all the way and analogize it to rape or kidnapping? They all make the same amount of sense. I.e., none.
Second, if the music industry does catch infringers, there is nothing stopping the music industry from suing them or having them charged. However, the music industry does not want to police the internet itself, it does not want to "pay a lot of money" for security as your analogy states. The music industry wants ISPs to provide infringement security them for free!
So here's a more accurate analogy. The music industry has a store but refuses to pay for any security. The music industry demands that the owner of the sidewalk perform security for the store because the alleged criminals are entering the store via the sidewalk.
The music industry claims that the owner of the sidewalk is letting criminals into the store and that the owner of the sidewalk should keep such criminals out of its store. The music industry wants laws passed requiring anyone alleged to have shoplifted three times to be banned from using any sidewalk in the country.
Yes, it's that absurd.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
On the post: How The Recording Industry Changes Its Own Story
Re:
You seem to have no understanding as to why laws should be passed. We don't pass laws merely to see what happens in the future.
There is absolutely no need for a law to be passed when the market can solve the "problem."
Right now, the RIAA, performers, musicians, and labels can negotiation with radio broadcasters in good faith for payment. Nothing is stopping this from happening.
However, the music industry does not want to negotiate in good faith. It wants its terms imposed on radio broadcasters under force of law. There is simply no reason for such a draconian measure.
This law is nothing more than unfunded corporate welfare to the music industry.
On the post: How The Recording Industry Changes Its Own Story
Re: Re:
Sure, it's not currently taking place in a free market only because it's illegal. Once the laws are removed, then it could become a free market.
"Because the free market cannot dictate the price of payola"
You're assuming your conclusion. Why could a free market not exist where musicians and labels contract with radio stations for payment associated with airplay. It happens all the time on TV. A production company produces a pilot for show and then takes it around to the broadcasters. NBC, for example, decides it likes it so it pays to buy a full 13 episodes and agrees to put it on its fall schedule. The production company produces the episodes. NBC airs them, on public airways, and everyone is happy.
"The government chose to make it outright illegal"
The government can do a lot things, but that does not mean it should do such things.
"which appears to be in the best interest of consumers."
Yet another assumed conclusion. How am I harmed by the legality of payola?
On the post: Twitter, Data Center Delay Upgrades Rather Than Cut Off Iranian Communications
On the post: How The Recording Industry Changes Its Own Story
That's a great idea. I know it's great because I've been saying the same thing for years.
Exactly why do we need a single solution mandated by law?! Let a free market sort this crap out. Let the musicians, the labels, performers and the radio broadcasters work out contracts about who is willing to pay whom. Different solutions would be created based upon different situations. And the government would have no reason to be involved.
The problem is that the music industry has been tied to the government's teat for so long, it no longer even understands how a free market works. Its solution for every problem is to get a new law passed or to file a lawsuit. When new laws and lawsuits are the only means to save your business model, it's probably time to give it up.
On the post: The Real Culprit For The Decline In Music Sales? Video Games
But you're presupposing your conclusion. First you have to show proof that music piracy is hurting the sales of music. Studies have shown the opposite. The most downloaded music is always the best selling music and pirates buy the most music.
On the post: Media Analyst Calls Hulu 'Anti-American' For Providing Free Content
Re: Unsubstantiated?
Good point. There is no original link to back up the alleged quotes.
On the post: Media Analyst Calls Hulu 'Anti-American' For Providing Free Content
Of course it also appears she's as ignorant as a brick too. But that sort of goes without saying. Hulu did not put $300 billion worth of market value "at risk." The declining economy and the consumer did. If consumers are not willing to pay money for broadcaster's content, the market value is worth exactly zero and it's no one's fault at all. Anyone has a right to sell nearly anything, but no one has a duty to value it or buy it.
On the post: In Defense Of Mobile E-Mail 'Addiction'
So your point is that you should do it when and where it makes sense and not do it when and where it doesn't. Unfortunately, that very practical advice probably wouldn't make a very interesting article. Journalism is all about twisting uninteresting events and situations in a one-sided way to create a conflict/controversy were none exists. This week it's phone etiquette, next week it'll be something else.
On the post: UK: You Can't Photograph Sensitive Buildings; Photogs: Which Are Sensitive? UK: That's Classified
On the post: Apple's Confused iPhone App Censors: Softcore Porn? Ok.
God, finally a reason to buy an iPhone!
On the post: Is EA Realizing That Pirates Are Just Underserved Customers?
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Against The RIAA For 'Stolen' Money?
On the post: Video Game Companies Still Bitching About Used Game Sales
That's it exactly. I call it the Microsoft mentality. Microsoft sees someone making a ton of money. E.g., Google monetizing search. Instead of concentrating on Microsoft's own profits on Office and Windows, it has to try and either beat Google or destroy the market so no one makes money.
I swear this mentality must be taught in MBA programs, because it's a relatively new mental condition/impairment.
Next >>