"If a student's router is being used to infringe, the investigation will begin with that student."
That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the college is handing over the details of a student based on their IP address. Handing over details isn't an investigation, it's forgoing the need to investigate at the expense of the student's privacy.
"Having a wireless router can bring a lot of trouble to a student. It would be wrong to NOT warn them about this."
That may be the case, but the way the advice is written gives the impression that merely operating a wireless router is an example of infringement.
"In the music business, there are various levels of licensing to cover just this sort of thing. The music industry is in fact very well organized to handle just this sort of thing, with standard contracts, methods, etc."
Let's get this straight. You were arguing that Prince's work isn't art, but covering music is. You then point to the royalty system as justification for cover music being OK, completely departing from the issue of whether it's art or not.
You then go on to suggest that the main issue is that prince is ignoring the copyright holders right to control their work. If that is the main issue then why don't cover bands have to ask permission for every song they use? I don't see where the concept of control enters into it as royalties don't afford control, just money.
I'm really struggling to spot a coherent argument there. You seem to be heading in three directions at once.
"I don't want people just searching the internet with a driftnet, looking for free content they can use to make their scraped content mashups."
What I find interesting about your position is it is exactly the same reason many people choose to use CC. I've never thought about CC licences much, but perhaps they could make one that is incompatible with such content scrapers.
"an amount of years long enough for all concerned to benefit from their work, yet not too long so that all (well, most) people who were around at the time it is released would still be around to be able to enjoy any benefits from the work being in the public domain."
That does seem familiar and I suspect is an idea shared by many. I don't see an obvious reason why it wouldn't be possible to work out a length based on those principles, but I'm still not on board with them myself.
'Hence why there is no actual "hourly wage" for creators: There simply could not possibly be - even the creative people in advertising who 'work 9 to 5' could have that billion dollar idea at 2:30 in the morning'
That is a good example of the issue I wanted to raise. I would suggest a good place to go from there is to look at other industries not covered by copyright in which similar scenarios occur.
One of the issues I've raised in the past as a result of following this line of reasoning is the question of why creativity isn't recognised equally across all industries. Lawyers exhibit creativity in the court room and on paper, they also might come up with the winning idea at 2:30 in the morning. Obviously lawyers don't need help making a living so I end up questioning what factor prevents industries reliant on copyright from coming up with their own business models without copyright.
"So how to determine how much a creator should be paid? I could honestly never answer that as I am a consumer and not generally a creator."
That is a good answer. If you are to come up with an actual number, whatever the thinking behind it, then it needs to be insightful towards its purpose. I believe it's possible to argue in general terms about the issue, but have to question when people use specific numbers without apparent insight.
"I, personally, as a consumer, would be happy to pay for some things and not others, with the price varying."
While I support Mike's excellent ideas for business models and advice to not rely on charity, I find that my own spending habits are geared towards giving money away to artists I like. That's not me being overly generous, or a rube (as some anonymous cowards would have us believe), but because I view money spent on artists I like as an investment.
One of the biggest issues I have with buying music through large labels, aside from how much goes to the artist, is where the rest of the money goes. It's an issue of control. When I spend money I am exercising my power of choice, which is mitigated somewhat when the majority of the money goes into the accounts of a record label that probably represents more music I don't like than do like.
"Obviously, with attributed would come the requirement for permission to use"
Obviously, I can't see the obvious there because I don't see how attribution would necessarily be linked to permission. For example, someone could copy something and attribute it, but without permission.
Given that I don't know of a necessary link between permission and attribution, I was wondering what bearing it had on the issue.
"There are four very active ACs, who are generally easily distinguishable by their styles"
I have trouble determining the differing styles, apart from perhaps the formatting that one seems to use. Usually if I notice something familiar it's because I'm having a feeling of deja vu; such as when someone argued about anonymous and pseudonymous. Generally I just accept that I can't tell the difference and limit inferences to stuff in the same thread.
All that said, it seemed obvious even to me that there aren't anywhere near twenty regular commenters making the same arguments anonymously.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
"I'm always puzzled when I see people saying this."
I often suspect that to be a product of peoples natural incline to search for a middle ground (pardon the not-pun). The legal premise behind copyright in the US and UK is that an artificial economic incentive is a net gain for society, but no burden of proof is acknowledged and no standard is set to determine if copyright fulfils its premise. When people agree with the premise then they may confuse calls to abolish copyright because it is is not fulfilling its premise with calls to abandon the premise itself.
Personally, I think there are plenty of questions to ask about the premise itself as it seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Generally the way our system works is to have minimal restriction and rely on market economics to meet societies needs. The idea that we should interfere to try and improve the efficiency of the system goes against much of what I understand about economics. The premise behind copyright isn't about ensuring a minimal level of service, or standards, it's about redirecting wealth to increase production.
The trouble there is a dilemma of whether to deal with copyright or it's premise first. If everyone held the same premise then I would probably argue that should be the subject of discussion. However, most of the people who fervently support copyright do so with a completely different premise along the lines of authors rights (sometimes without admitting it, but most of the time quite openly). When you shift the issue to the premise then you risk those people actually getting the idea of authors rights codified in law (as it already is in some countries and to some extent in treaties). It is obvious that they wield the most influence over law makers, so that is a serious issue.
"The 700 or so intelligent members of the congress, elected by the people, felt that this is the correct level"
I thought the United States congress only has 540 members, including the five non voting members. Also, didn't the last extension act pass by a vote of 105-298? Not that 700 isn't a nice number too, I'm just unsure how you arrived at it.
"The way to support your favorite musicians is by going to their concerts, not by buying records."
While this is overwhelmingly true for artists on major labels, it may not apply elsewhere. I buy music mainly from sites like Bandcamp, where artists can set up shop directly without a label. Otherwise, I will make sure that an artist is on an Indie label and try and find out what sort of deal they get if I'm buying something from Amazon or iTunes (at last count, I think I've only bought NOFX from iTunes and Adele from Amazon, although I'd never buy from iTunes again anyway).
"You missed the point of much of Warhol's art, which was as much about context and content. "
Which brings us back to 'do we really want judges determining what art is?'.
"I hope you teacher things that when you hand in your next paper :)"
I'm unsure of the parent's point, but it seems worth noting that if they referenced the original as the base of their work then it wouldn't be plagiarism (although it may still fail for being unoriginal).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:AC HAS NO BRAIN
"I really don't understand why there hasn't been an IP ban put into place on this idiot."
I would suggest that IP bans rely on a) people having static IPs (not as much of an issue as it was with dialup, admittedly). And b) services like Tor being blocked.
Both are problematic. Even static IPs tend to be changeable unless assigned and while blocking Tor should be relatively simple, there are countless open proxies out there for people who are inclined to abuse them.
"Now, public domain. I am of the opinion that copyright should be for around 25 years. Why 25 years? Easy: That is a lot longer than most people have to earn money from their work."
I am delighted that you're discussing copyright length. That said, I have to disagree with your reasoning here. You suggest that 25 years is an appropriate length, seemingly based on the fact that it's less than the average life expectancy and provides more money than an hourly wage.
You explain why you chose 25 years, but not how. Assuming the premise, you could have chosen anywhere from enough time to exceed minimum wage (about 0.something seconds for the Beatles, I'd guess) until somewhere around the average human life expectancy (67ish), if everyone who bought the album did so for a child on day they were born (absurd, but that's the point).
I only use such a ridiculous example because I've always failed to get a response to this issue if I've stated it simply. Now, that's the issue I have with people giving me numbers without any calculations to back them up, but I also have issues with the premise.
When you mention hourly wages you neglect to define what they are being paid for. If they are being paid an hourly wage for being in the studio or on stage then it would be unlikely to account for all the hours they actually work. If they are being paid an hourly wage for every hour that they're working then they would seem to be no worse off than any other profession, implying that the issue is in providing extra money as incentive to create, which brings me to the next issue.
You go into quite a bit of detail explaining that while creators want to make a living, the sole purpose of copyright is supposed to be to encourage creation. Assuming that creation needs to be encouraged then we may apply your principle that this could be achieved by ensuring they get an income comparable to or exceeding a wage earning job. I've already raised the issue of how this might be calculated but I also wonder how the amount of money creators get determines their creative output. It may seem obvious that they need enough to live on, but as it is possible to make a living and create without copyright, how does that help determine anything?
Aside from my nitpicking, you bring up many good points. I would probably have done better to post my own analysis on the issue of copyright length with a fresh slate rather than nitpicking your post, but I shall see how this thread goes.
"And while combatting his protohuman-grade logic can be frustrating"
The funny thing about these sorts of trolls is that if you're responding to every one of their posts in an entirely reasonable manner then all they can do is waste more time by responding to you. The more incessantly reasonable you are, the more pointless their antics become because the only 'positive outcome' they can get is by confusing other people. The time they waste of yours is paid for by their own time and the longer the conversation goes on the worse it is for them because they have to put more effort into making stuff up while you have to put less effort into pointing out their errors.
Of course, it's still no fun to have your time wasted even if they're wasting theirs, but hopefully they eventually find something more constructive to do. If it's frustrating to respond to them then it must be doubly frustrating for them to have the added effort of making stuff up.
"The issue is this. FOIA pertains only to "agency records", i.e., records associated with the executive branch. The CRS is not an agency, but a part of the Copyright Office, which in turn is a part of the legislative branch."
I don't think it effects your point, but I'm not sure what you've said here is accurate. As far as I can tell, the CRS is part of the Library of Congress and has no direct link to the Copyright Office, although that is also part of the LoC. More relevant is the fact that if it were part of the Copyright Office then it would likely be subject to the FOIA, as the Copyright Office itself is (despite the LOC not being so).
Those points of detail aside, the argument of the KEI is that the CRS does not retain control of the document: "A record produced by Congress and later acquired by the agency qualifies as an agency record if the agency controls it. U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144 (1989)". If that is the case then whether the CRS is subject to the FOIA would be irrelevant anyway.
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can they do that if the router is wireless?
On the post: Boston College Tells Students That Using A Wireless Router Is A Sign Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the college is handing over the details of a student based on their IP address. Handing over details isn't an investigation, it's forgoing the need to investigate at the expense of the student's privacy.
"Having a wireless router can bring a lot of trouble to a student. It would be wrong to NOT warn them about this."
That may be the case, but the way the advice is written gives the impression that merely operating a wireless router is an example of infringement.
On the post: Why Do Some People Have A Mythical Standard Of 'Newness' To Determine What Qualifies As Art?
Re: Re: Re:
Let's get this straight. You were arguing that Prince's work isn't art, but covering music is. You then point to the royalty system as justification for cover music being OK, completely departing from the issue of whether it's art or not.
You then go on to suggest that the main issue is that prince is ignoring the copyright holders right to control their work. If that is the main issue then why don't cover bands have to ask permission for every song they use? I don't see where the concept of control enters into it as royalties don't afford control, just money.
I'm really struggling to spot a coherent argument there. You seem to be heading in three directions at once.
On the post: DailyDirt: Stuff That Literally Changes The Way We Think
Re:
They needed a study it find that out?'
Great. Possibly the only Daily Dirt article I've clicked on and the comments section starts with a sexist joke. Cruel cosmic not-irony!
On the post: Sometimes It's Better To Just Let People Copy Your Content Than Deal With Licensing
Re: My position on this
What I find interesting about your position is it is exactly the same reason many people choose to use CC. I've never thought about CC licences much, but perhaps they could make one that is incompatible with such content scrapers.
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: I Say 25 Years
That does seem familiar and I suspect is an idea shared by many. I don't see an obvious reason why it wouldn't be possible to work out a length based on those principles, but I'm still not on board with them myself.
'Hence why there is no actual "hourly wage" for creators: There simply could not possibly be - even the creative people in advertising who 'work 9 to 5' could have that billion dollar idea at 2:30 in the morning'
That is a good example of the issue I wanted to raise. I would suggest a good place to go from there is to look at other industries not covered by copyright in which similar scenarios occur.
One of the issues I've raised in the past as a result of following this line of reasoning is the question of why creativity isn't recognised equally across all industries. Lawyers exhibit creativity in the court room and on paper, they also might come up with the winning idea at 2:30 in the morning. Obviously lawyers don't need help making a living so I end up questioning what factor prevents industries reliant on copyright from coming up with their own business models without copyright.
"So how to determine how much a creator should be paid? I could honestly never answer that as I am a consumer and not generally a creator."
That is a good answer. If you are to come up with an actual number, whatever the thinking behind it, then it needs to be insightful towards its purpose. I believe it's possible to argue in general terms about the issue, but have to question when people use specific numbers without apparent insight.
"I, personally, as a consumer, would be happy to pay for some things and not others, with the price varying."
While I support Mike's excellent ideas for business models and advice to not rely on charity, I find that my own spending habits are geared towards giving money away to artists I like. That's not me being overly generous, or a rube (as some anonymous cowards would have us believe), but because I view money spent on artists I like as an investment.
One of the biggest issues I have with buying music through large labels, aside from how much goes to the artist, is where the rest of the money goes. It's an issue of control. When I spend money I am exercising my power of choice, which is mitigated somewhat when the majority of the money goes into the accounts of a record label that probably represents more music I don't like than do like.
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, I can't see the obvious there because I don't see how attribution would necessarily be linked to permission. For example, someone could copy something and attribute it, but without permission.
Given that I don't know of a necessary link between permission and attribution, I was wondering what bearing it had on the issue.
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have trouble determining the differing styles, apart from perhaps the formatting that one seems to use. Usually if I notice something familiar it's because I'm having a feeling of deja vu; such as when someone argued about anonymous and pseudonymous. Generally I just accept that I can't tell the difference and limit inferences to stuff in the same thread.
All that said, it seemed obvious even to me that there aren't anywhere near twenty regular commenters making the same arguments anonymously.
On the post: Sometimes It's Better To Just Let People Copy Your Content Than Deal With Licensing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even if "Take it for free!" was written in bold, red letters...
I often suspect that to be a product of peoples natural incline to search for a middle ground (pardon the not-pun). The legal premise behind copyright in the US and UK is that an artificial economic incentive is a net gain for society, but no burden of proof is acknowledged and no standard is set to determine if copyright fulfils its premise. When people agree with the premise then they may confuse calls to abolish copyright because it is is not fulfilling its premise with calls to abandon the premise itself.
Personally, I think there are plenty of questions to ask about the premise itself as it seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Generally the way our system works is to have minimal restriction and rely on market economics to meet societies needs. The idea that we should interfere to try and improve the efficiency of the system goes against much of what I understand about economics. The premise behind copyright isn't about ensuring a minimal level of service, or standards, it's about redirecting wealth to increase production.
The trouble there is a dilemma of whether to deal with copyright or it's premise first. If everyone held the same premise then I would probably argue that should be the subject of discussion. However, most of the people who fervently support copyright do so with a completely different premise along the lines of authors rights (sometimes without admitting it, but most of the time quite openly). When you shift the issue to the premise then you risk those people actually getting the idea of authors rights codified in law (as it already is in some countries and to some extent in treaties). It is obvious that they wield the most influence over law makers, so that is a serious issue.
On the post: But... But... Piracy...
Re: Re: Re: Heh.
Because it fails to keep up with technological and social trends. Piracy may not be harming the business model, but it's still failing.
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought the United States congress only has 540 members, including the five non voting members. Also, didn't the last extension act pass by a vote of 105-298? Not that 700 isn't a nice number too, I'm just unsure how you arrived at it.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Music and Records aren't the same thing
While this is overwhelmingly true for artists on major labels, it may not apply elsewhere. I buy music mainly from sites like Bandcamp, where artists can set up shop directly without a label. Otherwise, I will make sure that an artist is on an Indie label and try and find out what sort of deal they get if I'm buying something from Amazon or iTunes (at last count, I think I've only bought NOFX from iTunes and Adele from Amazon, although I'd never buy from iTunes again anyway).
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re:
I would be interested to know how you worked that out. Also, how many do you believe share your point of view?
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re: Warhol
Which brings us back to 'do we really want judges determining what art is?'.
"I hope you teacher things that when you hand in your next paper :)"
I'm unsure of the parent's point, but it seems worth noting that if they referenced the original as the base of their work then it wouldn't be plagiarism (although it may still fail for being unoriginal).
On the post: Broadcasters To Sue Time Warner Cable For Making It Easier For People To See Their Shows & Ads
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:AC HAS NO BRAIN
I would suggest that IP bans rely on a) people having static IPs (not as much of an issue as it was with dialup, admittedly). And b) services like Tor being blocked.
Both are problematic. Even static IPs tend to be changeable unless assigned and while blocking Tor should be relatively simple, there are countless open proxies out there for people who are inclined to abuse them.
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: I Say 25 Years
I am delighted that you're discussing copyright length. That said, I have to disagree with your reasoning here. You suggest that 25 years is an appropriate length, seemingly based on the fact that it's less than the average life expectancy and provides more money than an hourly wage.
You explain why you chose 25 years, but not how. Assuming the premise, you could have chosen anywhere from enough time to exceed minimum wage (about 0.something seconds for the Beatles, I'd guess) until somewhere around the average human life expectancy (67ish), if everyone who bought the album did so for a child on day they were born (absurd, but that's the point).
I only use such a ridiculous example because I've always failed to get a response to this issue if I've stated it simply. Now, that's the issue I have with people giving me numbers without any calculations to back them up, but I also have issues with the premise.
When you mention hourly wages you neglect to define what they are being paid for. If they are being paid an hourly wage for being in the studio or on stage then it would be unlikely to account for all the hours they actually work. If they are being paid an hourly wage for every hour that they're working then they would seem to be no worse off than any other profession, implying that the issue is in providing extra money as incentive to create, which brings me to the next issue.
You go into quite a bit of detail explaining that while creators want to make a living, the sole purpose of copyright is supposed to be to encourage creation. Assuming that creation needs to be encouraged then we may apply your principle that this could be achieved by ensuring they get an income comparable to or exceeding a wage earning job. I've already raised the issue of how this might be calculated but I also wonder how the amount of money creators get determines their creative output. It may seem obvious that they need enough to live on, but as it is possible to make a living and create without copyright, how does that help determine anything?
Aside from my nitpicking, you bring up many good points. I would probably have done better to post my own analysis on the issue of copyright length with a fresh slate rather than nitpicking your post, but I shall see how this thread goes.
On the post: Broadcasters To Sue Time Warner Cable For Making It Easier For People To See Their Shows & Ads
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say it's reductio ad ridiculum built on a straw man.
On the post: Broadcasters To Sue Time Warner Cable For Making It Easier For People To See Their Shows & Ads
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The funny thing about these sorts of trolls is that if you're responding to every one of their posts in an entirely reasonable manner then all they can do is waste more time by responding to you. The more incessantly reasonable you are, the more pointless their antics become because the only 'positive outcome' they can get is by confusing other people. The time they waste of yours is paid for by their own time and the longer the conversation goes on the worse it is for them because they have to put more effort into making stuff up while you have to put less effort into pointing out their errors.
Of course, it's still no fun to have your time wasted even if they're wasting theirs, but hopefully they eventually find something more constructive to do. If it's frustrating to respond to them then it must be doubly frustrating for them to have the added effort of making stuff up.
On the post: USTR Refuses To Release Congressional Research Service Study On Legality Of ACTA
Re:
I don't think it effects your point, but I'm not sure what you've said here is accurate. As far as I can tell, the CRS is part of the Library of Congress and has no direct link to the Copyright Office, although that is also part of the LoC. More relevant is the fact that if it were part of the Copyright Office then it would likely be subject to the FOIA, as the Copyright Office itself is (despite the LOC not being so).
Those points of detail aside, the argument of the KEI is that the CRS does not retain control of the document: "A record produced by Congress and later acquired by the agency qualifies as an agency record if the agency controls it. U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 144 (1989)". If that is the case then whether the CRS is subject to the FOIA would be irrelevant anyway.
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would suggest that money isn't everything, but I'm pretty sure the Anon would disagree with me.
Next >>