Re: Re: 'Promote progress' never mentioned copyright!
The second sentence is one of these new fangled hyperlinky thingies. If you click on the "18th Century Overture" part of it you'll be able to read a much more knowledgeable opinion - of more than two sentences.
I'd question whether the Guild was un/happy about the Statute of Anne.
That simply instituted the guilds de facto monopolies on a per work basis. That as a consequence the author became the initial holder of the monopoly arising in their work is just a logical inevitability. It doesn't actually give them any power - being able to choose which Guild member gets to print your work doesn't constitute having the same power as a Guild member to exploit the monopoly. Just as today: being able to choose which mobile network provider to use doesn't make you as powerful as a mobile network provider, nor does it diminish the latter. Copyright is as impotent in an author's hands as Sauron's ring is in Frodo's.
One shouldn't be surprised that the Statute of Anne was presented as a transfer of power from Guild to author, but that doesn't mean it was anything of the sort.
But you're right about the brief period in which England enjoyed a free press - and so how easily the crown was persuaded by the Guild as to how dangerous a threat such liberty posed. Obviously, the Statute would pretend, as the copyright cartel does today, that it was all a matter of preventing the poor starving authors being bankrupted by piracy (not the publishers/printers of course), oh, and so encouraging authors to write useful works, the better to educate the masses. Daniel Defoe was one of those awkward authors who had no problem even with commercial piracy - just so long as it printed fair copies. But, instead of law to recognise authors' moral rights, we have a privilege to enrich the guild and regulate the press at her majesty's pleasure.
And they say copyright doesn't abridge freedom of speech?
Not only is copyright a derogation of liberty, but it also starts giving people the idea that liberty is alienable, that it can be signed away.
It's not too surprising that people are seduced by the idea that they can not only prohibit others copying their works, but also gag them by contract. However, that's power corrupting for you. People do not naturally have, and so should not be given, such power over each other (however much people or corporations might fancy it).
First abolish copyright (invidious legislation). Then remind people why liberty is inalienable and what that means. Maybe erect a gigantic statue for this purpose?
Re: Re: Re: The way back machine ... Lottery tickets ... and pop stars as artificial constructs
You need to be clear whether you're talking about those who drafted the Constitution in 1787 (Framers including Madison) or those who assumed the power to re-enact the Statute of Anne in 1790 (Congress - Madison).
In the former, the people empower Congress to secure their exclusive right - to their writings.
In the latter, a British privilege of 1709 is re-enacted to annul the right to copy in the majority, to leave it by exclusion, in the hands of a few - so called 'copyright' holders.
The question you should ask is "How can power to annul a right be provided to Congress via a clause that empowers it to secure a right?"
Re: The way back machine ... Lottery tickets ... and pop stars as artificial constructs
You still have to divest yourself of the fairy tale that copyright was "designed to promote the progress of the art and sciences".
It was designed decades earlier to restore Queen Anne's Stationers' Guild's expired controls over which printer could print which works - primarily because in the space of a few years a free (& seditious) press was beginning to be recognised as destabilising and a threat to the crown. We see this struggle for control over the press repeated today with Wikileaks and ACTA/COICA. The state is on the side of the publishing corporations and their struggle for control - not on the side of the pirates and people struggling for liberty.
And the 'you' in my 'religion' sentence should be read as
'one', thus: If one believes in copyright as devoutly as a religion then one will believe that the Constitution said "And Congress shall have power to re-enact the Statute of Anne to promote the progress..."
So, if copyright was created in 1709, around 80 years prior to the Constitution in 1787, it couldn't exactly have been designed in 1790 to 'promote the progress' given the US Copyright act of 1790 was a 'copyright infringing' rip off of the 1709 Statute of Anne, now could it?
The Constitution doesn't mention copyright, yet so many folk are still happy to say it empowered Congress to re-enact it as a means of promoting the progress. Clearly, it did nothing of the sort. It simply empowered Congress to secure the author's exclusive right to their writings - not to grant the author a transferable monopoly.
If you believe in copyright as devoutly as a religion then you will believe that the Constitution said "And Congress shall have power to re-enact the Statute of Anne to promote the progress..."
A simple mechanism to enable a market to determine the price for a public work or production and publication of a digital art work is The Digital Art Auction. I wrote about it a decade ago here: http://tdaa.digitalproductions.co.uk/history/essay.htm
There is no real need to stipulate an up front target. The vendor simply invites interested bidders to bid their price, and chooses the price that results in the greatest revenue - assuming the revenue reaches an equitable amount at some point (in their view).
If Kate Bush had any gumption she would have used the fricking soliloquy in the first place - and invited the Joyce estate to send her to prison for preparing/singing/recording/performing/distributing an unauthorised derivative.
No doubt it's more a case of being financially persuaded by her copyright exploiting record label to be patient.
If copyright forbids certain art - unauthorised derivatives - then we can divide singers/songwriters into those who produce copyright protected works and artists who produce art. In other words 'copyright supporting/respecting artist' is a contradiction in terms.
An author's (natural) exclusive right to their writings is to exclude others from them (unless permitted/included of course), i.e. those in their physical possession (or otherwise in their private domain).
The right belongs to the individual and applies to the intellectual works in their possession. Clearly anyone can attempt to prevent anyone else rifling through their drawers and removing writings or making copies thereof. However, if you give a writing or copy to someone, then that is obviously no longer in your possession.
It's not the right that ends when you give a copy to someone, but possession.
An individual does not magically obtain power over another simply by reciting a poem they've written to them, or handing them a copy of one. Though, it seems people do like the idea of having such power. Hence, copyright is seductive because it provides power over others (they have to ask the copyright holder's permission if they want to recite a covered poem - or pay a license fee).
So yes, if one person won't give/make you a copy of something, ask someone else who might. Just because several people have copies, that doesn't entitle anyone to steal one. Of course, once you have a copy, you can produce as many further copies or derivatives as you like (but for copyright that annuls your liberty to do so).
So, even without the privilege of copyright, the exclusive right remains, though it should still be secured by law - but not a privilege. You don't need to annul everyone's liberty to secure an individual's exclusive right.
Unless you're going to admit telepathy there is no 'circumvention' possible. In order to copy the writing in my drawer you either need my consent or you must violate my exclusive right.
So, I don't think you get it.
Even if I've previously 'divulged' or given a copy of my writing to a friend this still doesn't diminish/negate/vanish my right to exclude you from the writing in my drawer.
You've still not pointed out where my original post disagrees with the Jefferson quote. A clue that you won't find any disagreement should be that I haven't disagreed with anything in the Jefferson quote.
You're still trying to argue against something I've not said. The fact remains that my original post is not in disagreement with the Jefferson quote.
An individual's rights don't disappear through any action on their part, nor are they negated by any action. Indeed, rights are inalienable. There is nothing an individual can do to alienate themselves from their rights (aside from jump off a cliff).
I have a poem in my drawer and I have a natural right to exclude you from it. End of story, no ifs, no buts.
You might offer me $1 for a copy, and I might take you up on your offer. Let's say you did. You now have a copy. However, I still have a right to exclude you from accessing or copying the original in my drawer. Obviously, you may now have no inclination to burgle me to copy it as you already have a copy of the poem (unless you're after the original, or want a copy of my handwriting as opposed to a typewritten copy). That you lose interest in burglary doesn't make my right vanish. Similarly, you have a right to exclude others from the poem in your possession. Just because two of us now possess a copy, that doesn't make it open season for anyone to burgle us and take copies.
Bear in mind that copyright is quite different to this natural exclusive right. Copyright is a privilege that annuls EVERYONE'S right to make copies of covered works (even the author's). This privilege enables the holder to restore/license the annulled right back to authorised persons, e.g. printers. Because of this privilege, when I write a novel poem, neither of us is legally permitted our natural right to copy it. Instead, the holder of the privilege of copyright is solely entitled to determine who may copy the work. Copyright arises in each original work and is thus initially in the hands of the author, and if the author transfers copyright, they, having already had their right annulled, also loses the privilege to copy their own writing. Copyright is about controlling who can make copies of a work even if the work is in their legitimate possession. Thus thanks to copyright I can give you a copy of my poem AND only the copyright holder (me, my publisher, their receiver, or whoever) can decide if you should be authorised to make further copies (probably not). Such power of course being quite unnatural.
Natural rights do not vanish (unless you class death as the vanishing of the individual and their rights along with them).
What people want to 'bother' doing and what their intentions are is up to them and immaterial to a right. Indeed, we're concerned with what people's rights are, and specifically, with whether what I originally posted is in disagreement with the Jefferson quote.
Rights are not dependent upon intention or what is worthwhile. Such considerations may be claimed as supportive by those finding excuses for the granting of privileges, but again, we're concerned with rights.
If I write a poem on a piece of paper, an etch-a-sketch, a cat litter tray, or on an electronic PDA, I have a natural exclusive right to it, i.e. a natural right to exclude others from accessing it, removing it, copying it, destroying it, or reading it, or anything else I am physically able to achieve. Such a right should be secured by a government created to protect all individuals' rights equally.
If I give/copy/lend/share/sell this poem with/to a friend (or even a joint author), then we both have a natural exclusive right to this poem. The same applies if either of us shares the poem with others, and so on.
Just because there are several other people who now have a copy of this poem, that still doesn't make anyone's right to exclude others from the poetry in their possession vanish. I still have a right to exclude burglars (invaders of my privacy - the region I inhabit from which I exclude unauthorised persons) from stealing & printing copies of the poems in my possession. Just because you don't see much need for such a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that no-one should have it secured.
Instead of flying off into orbit demolishing things I haven't said, why don't you restrict yourself to your original contention, that what I've actually posted (not what you imagine I believe) is in disagreement with what you've quoted from Jefferson?
As far as I can tell, because you haven't told me, nothing I've actually posted is in disagreement with what you quoted from Jefferson.
Given how apparently significant and several are the disagreements you observe in my writing vs that of Jefferson it would seem to be an easy matter for you to pick one of my sentences and tell me which of Jefferson's it is in flagrant disagreement with?
I still don't see any disagreement between what I've posted and your quote from Jefferson, whether ideas or writings.
An author has a natural exclusive right to their writings.
An author has a natural ability and need to exclude others from their private spaces and possessions and that includes intellectual works such as writings as well as material works such as sculpture. Do you imagine that anyone can just walk into an author's home and seize or copy their manuscript to a novel they're writing without even a 'by your leave'? The author has the power and natural right to exclude them from seizing, copying or even reading their writing.
Congress is specifically empowered to secure this exclusive right of the author precisely because intellectual works, especially writing, can be so easily copied (and the exclusive right violated). Securing an individual's exclusive right to their material possessions (aka property) has been long understood, i.e. against theft.
Madison egregiously assumed the power to grant Queen Anne's monopoly of copyright on the pretext that this would help secure the author's exclusive right. Unfortunately, it provided no security and little remedy to all except the wealthiest of authors, and simply enriched the publishing industry at the expense of the people's cultural liberty.
As Jefferson says: "which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself".
Thus two individuals may exclusively possess an idea or intellectual work (mutually) as long they keep it to themselves.
Individuals thus have a (natural) exclusive right to the intellectual works in their possession.
Could you point out more precisely where what you've quoted disagrees with what I've written, or gives rise to your thought that Jefferson would disagree with me?
The Constitution only empowers Congress to secure the author's exclusive right to their writings. It doesn't empower Congress to grant the privilege of copyright. See http://www.p2pnet.net/story/49504
It's astounding how ready some are to believe that The People would create a government to protect their liberty and yet also empower it to abridge that liberty to obtain an enriched and consequently beholden and supportive press (taking its lead from Britain four score years earlier).
An author has a natural exclusive right to their writings certainly, but that doesn't sanction the granting of a monopoly - an instrument of injustice (obtained by annulling the right to copy in the majority to leave it by exclusion in the hands of a few). Doesn't anyone recognise that this is why 'copyright holders' are so called? Because they HOLD a right annulled in the majority (left in the HANDS of a few). The only true rights are ones people are born with, imbued in them by nature - to be recognised and secured by law - not granted by law.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: 'Promote progress' never mentioned copyright!
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: re: This is the forbidden question.
That simply instituted the guilds de facto monopolies on a per work basis. That as a consequence the author became the initial holder of the monopoly arising in their work is just a logical inevitability. It doesn't actually give them any power - being able to choose which Guild member gets to print your work doesn't constitute having the same power as a Guild member to exploit the monopoly. Just as today: being able to choose which mobile network provider to use doesn't make you as powerful as a mobile network provider, nor does it diminish the latter. Copyright is as impotent in an author's hands as Sauron's ring is in Frodo's.
One shouldn't be surprised that the Statute of Anne was presented as a transfer of power from Guild to author, but that doesn't mean it was anything of the sort.
But you're right about the brief period in which England enjoyed a free press - and so how easily the crown was persuaded by the Guild as to how dangerous a threat such liberty posed. Obviously, the Statute would pretend, as the copyright cartel does today, that it was all a matter of preventing the poor starving authors being bankrupted by piracy (not the publishers/printers of course), oh, and so encouraging authors to write useful works, the better to educate the masses. Daniel Defoe was one of those awkward authors who had no problem even with commercial piracy - just so long as it printed fair copies. But, instead of law to recognise authors' moral rights, we have a privilege to enrich the guild and regulate the press at her majesty's pleasure.
On the post: Why Doctors Shouldn't Abuse Copyright Law To Stop Patient Reviews
Re:
Not only is copyright a derogation of liberty, but it also starts giving people the idea that liberty is alienable, that it can be signed away.
It's not too surprising that people are seduced by the idea that they can not only prohibit others copying their works, but also gag them by contract. However, that's power corrupting for you. People do not naturally have, and so should not be given, such power over each other (however much people or corporations might fancy it).
First abolish copyright (invidious legislation). Then remind people why liberty is inalienable and what that means. Maybe erect a gigantic statue for this purpose?
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: The way back machine ... Lottery tickets ... and pop stars as artificial constructs
In the former, the people empower Congress to secure their exclusive right - to their writings.
In the latter, a British privilege of 1709 is re-enacted to annul the right to copy in the majority, to leave it by exclusion, in the hands of a few - so called 'copyright' holders.
The question you should ask is "How can power to annul a right be provided to Congress via a clause that empowers it to secure a right?"
This is the forbidden question.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: The way back machine ... Lottery tickets ... and pop stars as artificial constructs
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: The way back machine ... Lottery tickets ... and pop stars as artificial constructs
It was designed decades earlier to restore Queen Anne's Stationers' Guild's expired controls over which printer could print which works - primarily because in the space of a few years a free (& seditious) press was beginning to be recognised as destabilising and a threat to the crown. We see this struggle for control over the press repeated today with Wikileaks and ACTA/COICA. The state is on the side of the publishing corporations and their struggle for control - not on the side of the pirates and people struggling for liberty.
Have you read 18th Century Overture or The Promise of a Post Copyright World?
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Oops
And the 'you' in my 'religion' sentence should be read as
'one', thus: If one believes in copyright as devoutly as a religion then one will believe that the Constitution said "And Congress shall have power to re-enact the Statute of Anne to promote the progress..."
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Oops
The Constitution doesn't mention copyright, yet so many folk are still happy to say it empowered Congress to re-enact it as a means of promoting the progress. Clearly, it did nothing of the sort. It simply empowered Congress to secure the author's exclusive right to their writings - not to grant the author a transferable monopoly.
Read http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=276 for more.
If you believe in copyright as devoutly as a religion then you will believe that the Constitution said "And Congress shall have power to re-enact the Statute of Anne to promote the progress..."
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: 'Promote progress' never mentioned copyright!
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
'Promote progress' never mentioned copyright!
See 18th Century Overture for details.
On the post: More Data And Thoughts On The Pay What You Want For A Stylus Experiment
Rather than 'pay', try 'bid' or 'offer'
There is no real need to stipulate an up front target. The vendor simply invites interested bidders to bid their price, and chooses the price that results in the greatest revenue - assuming the revenue reaches an equitable amount at some point (in their view).
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: After 22 Years, Joyce Estate Finally Lets Kate Bush Use Lyrics She Wanted
If Kate Bush had any gumption
No doubt it's more a case of being financially persuaded by her copyright exploiting record label to be patient.
If copyright forbids certain art - unauthorised derivatives - then we can divide singers/songwriters into those who produce copyright protected works and artists who produce art. In other words 'copyright supporting/respecting artist' is a contradiction in terms.
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The right belongs to the individual and applies to the intellectual works in their possession. Clearly anyone can attempt to prevent anyone else rifling through their drawers and removing writings or making copies thereof. However, if you give a writing or copy to someone, then that is obviously no longer in your possession.
It's not the right that ends when you give a copy to someone, but possession.
An individual does not magically obtain power over another simply by reciting a poem they've written to them, or handing them a copy of one. Though, it seems people do like the idea of having such power. Hence, copyright is seductive because it provides power over others (they have to ask the copyright holder's permission if they want to recite a covered poem - or pay a license fee).
So yes, if one person won't give/make you a copy of something, ask someone else who might. Just because several people have copies, that doesn't entitle anyone to steal one. Of course, once you have a copy, you can produce as many further copies or derivatives as you like (but for copyright that annuls your liberty to do so).
So, even without the privilege of copyright, the exclusive right remains, though it should still be secured by law - but not a privilege. You don't need to annul everyone's liberty to secure an individual's exclusive right.
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, I don't think you get it.
Even if I've previously 'divulged' or given a copy of my writing to a friend this still doesn't diminish/negate/vanish my right to exclude you from the writing in my drawer.
You've still not pointed out where my original post disagrees with the Jefferson quote. A clue that you won't find any disagreement should be that I haven't disagreed with anything in the Jefferson quote.
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An individual's rights don't disappear through any action on their part, nor are they negated by any action. Indeed, rights are inalienable. There is nothing an individual can do to alienate themselves from their rights (aside from jump off a cliff).
I have a poem in my drawer and I have a natural right to exclude you from it. End of story, no ifs, no buts.
You might offer me $1 for a copy, and I might take you up on your offer. Let's say you did. You now have a copy. However, I still have a right to exclude you from accessing or copying the original in my drawer. Obviously, you may now have no inclination to burgle me to copy it as you already have a copy of the poem (unless you're after the original, or want a copy of my handwriting as opposed to a typewritten copy). That you lose interest in burglary doesn't make my right vanish. Similarly, you have a right to exclude others from the poem in your possession. Just because two of us now possess a copy, that doesn't make it open season for anyone to burgle us and take copies.
Bear in mind that copyright is quite different to this natural exclusive right. Copyright is a privilege that annuls EVERYONE'S right to make copies of covered works (even the author's). This privilege enables the holder to restore/license the annulled right back to authorised persons, e.g. printers. Because of this privilege, when I write a novel poem, neither of us is legally permitted our natural right to copy it. Instead, the holder of the privilege of copyright is solely entitled to determine who may copy the work. Copyright arises in each original work and is thus initially in the hands of the author, and if the author transfers copyright, they, having already had their right annulled, also loses the privilege to copy their own writing. Copyright is about controlling who can make copies of a work even if the work is in their legitimate possession. Thus thanks to copyright I can give you a copy of my poem AND only the copyright holder (me, my publisher, their receiver, or whoever) can decide if you should be authorised to make further copies (probably not). Such power of course being quite unnatural.
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What people want to 'bother' doing and what their intentions are is up to them and immaterial to a right. Indeed, we're concerned with what people's rights are, and specifically, with whether what I originally posted is in disagreement with the Jefferson quote.
Rights are not dependent upon intention or what is worthwhile. Such considerations may be claimed as supportive by those finding excuses for the granting of privileges, but again, we're concerned with rights.
If I write a poem on a piece of paper, an etch-a-sketch, a cat litter tray, or on an electronic PDA, I have a natural exclusive right to it, i.e. a natural right to exclude others from accessing it, removing it, copying it, destroying it, or reading it, or anything else I am physically able to achieve. Such a right should be secured by a government created to protect all individuals' rights equally.
If I give/copy/lend/share/sell this poem with/to a friend (or even a joint author), then we both have a natural exclusive right to this poem. The same applies if either of us shares the poem with others, and so on.
Just because there are several other people who now have a copy of this poem, that still doesn't make anyone's right to exclude others from the poetry in their possession vanish. I still have a right to exclude burglars (invaders of my privacy - the region I inhabit from which I exclude unauthorised persons) from stealing & printing copies of the poems in my possession. Just because you don't see much need for such a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that no-one should have it secured.
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I can tell, because you haven't told me, nothing I've actually posted is in disagreement with what you quoted from Jefferson.
Given how apparently significant and several are the disagreements you observe in my writing vs that of Jefferson it would seem to be an easy matter for you to pick one of my sentences and tell me which of Jefferson's it is in flagrant disagreement with?
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An author has a natural exclusive right to their writings.
An author has a natural ability and need to exclude others from their private spaces and possessions and that includes intellectual works such as writings as well as material works such as sculpture. Do you imagine that anyone can just walk into an author's home and seize or copy their manuscript to a novel they're writing without even a 'by your leave'? The author has the power and natural right to exclude them from seizing, copying or even reading their writing.
Congress is specifically empowered to secure this exclusive right of the author precisely because intellectual works, especially writing, can be so easily copied (and the exclusive right violated). Securing an individual's exclusive right to their material possessions (aka property) has been long understood, i.e. against theft.
Madison egregiously assumed the power to grant Queen Anne's monopoly of copyright on the pretext that this would help secure the author's exclusive right. Unfortunately, it provided no security and little remedy to all except the wealthiest of authors, and simply enriched the publishing industry at the expense of the people's cultural liberty.
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thus two individuals may exclusively possess an idea or intellectual work (mutually) as long they keep it to themselves.
Individuals thus have a (natural) exclusive right to the intellectual works in their possession.
Could you point out more precisely where what you've quoted disagrees with what I've written, or gives rise to your thought that Jefferson would disagree with me?
On the post: ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
Re: Re: Re:
It's astounding how ready some are to believe that The People would create a government to protect their liberty and yet also empower it to abridge that liberty to obtain an enriched and consequently beholden and supportive press (taking its lead from Britain four score years earlier).
An author has a natural exclusive right to their writings certainly, but that doesn't sanction the granting of a monopoly - an instrument of injustice (obtained by annulling the right to copy in the majority to leave it by exclusion in the hands of a few). Doesn't anyone recognise that this is why 'copyright holders' are so called? Because they HOLD a right annulled in the majority (left in the HANDS of a few). The only true rights are ones people are born with, imbued in them by nature - to be recognised and secured by law - not granted by law.
Next >>