Today Ephone won the appeal since the court didn't feel that it had been proven that anyone else than the Anti-piracy agency had accessed. In short, there can be no "making public" without the public having access.
The decision was not unanimous (3 against 2). One of the judges who supported the overturning of the previous decision was Kristina Boutz who has as of late been accused of bias in the Pirate Bay trial (although I think those allegations have been dismissed).
You seem to believe that copyright is a natural right, but there are of course many liberal-minded people who think otherwise. Copyright is in my view a utilitarian method of maximizing the public good by imposing some limitations on personal freedom. Labour theory was meant to describe scarce resources and it seems to me that if it were to be applied to immaterial matters that it should cover facts too. I mean, a scientist or a journalist can work very hard to unveil facts that can prove tremendously useful to other people. It's inconsistent to not provide a way to reward them for their work.
Personally I don't have a problem with this utilitarian system as long as there can be shown to exist real benefits and no restriction of an individual's rights is too severe. Today we have people whose works are protected until their 150 years old. We have politicians who, for reasons of law enforcement efficiency, are contemplating dealing out punishments in advance and having trials afterwards if deemed necessary. Clearly this is not the optimal system.
It's meaningless to discuss disagreement of your conclusions when you seem to disagree on the premises. It seems to me that you don't view copyright as a utilitarian way of promoting progress, such as it is described in the US constitution.
If you view copyright as an individual right based on labour theory arguments, then please explain how a time limitation does not amount to state confiscation of private property (and please also give an account of the principles that dicitate that the terms for patents and copyrighted works respectively should be so different).
If you do view copyright as a way of maximizing the benefits to society, then how can it be socialism to restrict state intervation on the free market?
Mike,
I agree with you, although that "maximization of content" part could probably be a bit clearer. However, there is another kind of balance that need to be reached. We have the rights to due process, right to privacy, reasonable damages etc. The enforcement of copyright (at least the laws that the industry lobbies for) often tends to more or less violate some of these fundamental principles.
Of course law enforcement will always need to violate for example the right to privacy when there is reasonably strong suspicion of crime, but there need to be a sense of proportions. So I think the balance is relevant both in deciding how far copyright enforcement laws should be allowed to go, and in the execution of the law enforcement.
It seems to me that you are missing the point. If you ignore silly labour theory justifications of copyright, then special interests are not even part of the equation. If you optimize that equation some people could very well loose money on that, but it's not about balance since their interests are not part of the consideration.
(when you are talking about who's at a disadvantage I assume that you are talking about income secured through copyright and not about access to culture or progress etc.)
"If less copyright really made everyone better off, would there be such a huge lobby for stronger copyright? Are they just unenlightened and acting against their own self-interest?"
I think there are two important points to be made here:
1. Special interest groups have always lobbied for laws that will benefit them. That says very little about the interest of the public.
2. Copyright protects both the latest blockbuster movie and some private person's diary or photo album. It's not certain that we need to protect the privacy of people and commercial products using the same means. When you look at the support for the laws I think it's helpful to view these two areas separately.
Some very good points you make there. Especially the third one is often forgotten. When you say "use" in your second point I have to assume that you by that also include activities and relations similar to those mentioned in your final point.
And in some cases the distinction between creation and use is not that clear at all, so the main point here is to look at culture as something much broader than packaged products.
Btw. When Mike talk about maximization he never really said clearly what should be maximized, so I think it's safe to assume that it was more than just quantity and that he shares this view that not all works are equally valuable.
"It is extremely unlikely that anyone at BREIN created a document like this out of whole cloth. Perhaps an overzealous office working in a law firm, perhaps someone at TPB themselves created it. You never know."
So you mean that TPB possessed inside knowledge of how BREIN contracted the services of Experian and that they somehow infiltrated Experian and had their insider supply false information?
Seriously, your wish to see TPB as the guilty party here strongly clouds your judgement.
How often do overzealous law firm offices have a self-interest in falsifying information? You don't think that that would jeopardize their entire business? Why would they do that?
TPB had very little to gain since they had data from the swedish enforcement authority (Kronofogden) saying that they don't own Reservella which would reasonably mean that they get excluded from the court case. BREIN on the other hand was the only party with something to win since they were about to loose their investment and also loose their chance to impose a significant financial burden on TPB. It is strange that they took the risk, but I guess some people never learn the lesson that you shouldn't lie about things that can easily be checked.
"While 95% of the population of the planet is struggling to keep thier jobs and feed thier families....tell me 1 'artits', just one! that is suffering because of the global recession?"
I read an article about the financial crisis in a local newspaper some time ago and as part of that they interviewed some people on the street about what they thought about it. One of them happened to be a musician and his answer was: "Well, I've been in financial crisis all of my life so it's just about time it happens to everyone else too" ;)
"The net effect will be that CO2 emissions will not be lessened, but some companies will make money selling their cap and others will lose money buying their cap."
You seem to assume that both the total cap and the number of allowances offered for sale on the market will be constant over time. Neither is true.
Whether the reduction of CO2 emissions is beneficial to society or not and whether it's worth the cost is another question, but that's probably beyond the scope of the subject of this blog.
In 1999 the US state demanded from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that 42% of the loans must be given to people with below median income. This and a couple of other measures put a lot of pressure on banks to engage in risky lending and conceil to others just how risky it was. Now when the world leaders point fingers at this market failure some self-criticism regarding the way the market was regulated would probably be in order too.
Gene Quinn wrote: "By the way, what allows companies to push others out of the market is a well developed patent strategy. Those who do not like patents and are philosophically opposed do get pushed out because they have no business sense. With such shortsighted approach to innovation those who allow themselves to be pushed out can hardly be of concern. Those who are so naive would never have achieved success. They are to busy complaining about others using the laws and rules and feeling sorry for themselves than they are succeeding."
Wow, that's an amazing view on the purpose of patents and it's overall place in the market economy. So fitness in the marketplace is somehow measured by the extent to which you employ methods to limit your competitions rather than winning on your own merits?
A thought experiment: let's say that we didn't have any laws or police protection from unjustified violence directed against us. That would probably lead to two things:
1) scared people would probably employ guards
2) a few people would probably use mafia methods like threatening people if they don't pay up
I would argue that these two are morally quite different. Now compare this to the patent situation. If we have laws that allow offensive behaviour, many will try to defend themselves since it's in their self-interest. I don't find that behaviour very offending or surprising. Let's direct our attention at the system itself.
If I'm not mistaken Kinsella's patent related work has primarily been about defensive patenting. That's also something which can hurt society, but it's much more understandable than offensive patenting of obvious solutions.
The reason why people draw conclusions about value from price is that price often (but far from always) reflects how much other people value the goods, which may be useful when you assess the value yourself. It's a way, although not always reliable, to tap into other people's knowledge.
Another reason for why people value free differently from non-free is that the non-free goods normally need to pass through some gate-keepers who ask themselves if this stuff is worth advertising for and taking to the market. So there's some kind of quality control. Social media however introduces these kinds of filters for free content too, so I think it's only a matter of time before we will no longer experience this difference as strongly as we do now.
Lay judge found to be biased due to being employed at Spotify
Today a court found that the lay judge employed at Spotify and whom IFPI objected against has now been found to be biased and will thus not take part in the trial.
No decision seems yet to have been made regarding on of the defendants' laywer's objection to two of the main judges for their connection to intellectual property organizations.
On the post: Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up IP Addresses; Appeals Court Order
Ephone won the appeal
The decision was not unanimous (3 against 2). One of the judges who supported the overturning of the previous decision was Kristina Boutz who has as of late been accused of bias in the Pirate Bay trial (although I think those allegations have been dismissed).
The court's press release (in Swedish)
On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?
Re: Re: heh
Personally I don't have a problem with this utilitarian system as long as there can be shown to exist real benefits and no restriction of an individual's rights is too severe. Today we have people whose works are protected until their 150 years old. We have politicians who, for reasons of law enforcement efficiency, are contemplating dealing out punishments in advance and having trials afterwards if deemed necessary. Clearly this is not the optimal system.
On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?
Re:
If you view copyright as an individual right based on labour theory arguments, then please explain how a time limitation does not amount to state confiscation of private property (and please also give an account of the principles that dicitate that the terms for patents and copyrighted works respectively should be so different).
If you do view copyright as a way of maximizing the benefits to society, then how can it be socialism to restrict state intervation on the free market?
On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?
Other kinds of balances
I agree with you, although that "maximization of content" part could probably be a bit clearer. However, there is another kind of balance that need to be reached. We have the rights to due process, right to privacy, reasonable damages etc. The enforcement of copyright (at least the laws that the industry lobbies for) often tends to more or less violate some of these fundamental principles.
Of course law enforcement will always need to violate for example the right to privacy when there is reasonably strong suspicion of crime, but there need to be a sense of proportions. So I think the balance is relevant both in deciding how far copyright enforcement laws should be allowed to go, and in the execution of the law enforcement.
On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re:
(when you are talking about who's at a disadvantage I assume that you are talking about income secured through copyright and not about access to culture or progress etc.)
"If less copyright really made everyone better off, would there be such a huge lobby for stronger copyright? Are they just unenlightened and acting against their own self-interest?"
I think there are two important points to be made here:
1. Special interest groups have always lobbied for laws that will benefit them. That says very little about the interest of the public.
2. Copyright protects both the latest blockbuster movie and some private person's diary or photo album. It's not certain that we need to protect the privacy of people and commercial products using the same means. When you look at the support for the laws I think it's helpful to view these two areas separately.
On the post: Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?
Re: A different balance
And in some cases the distinction between creation and use is not that clear at all, so the main point here is to look at culture as something much broader than packaged products.
Btw. When Mike talk about maximization he never really said clearly what should be maximized, so I think it's safe to assume that it was more than just quantity and that he shares this view that not all works are equally valuable.
On the post: Peter Sunde Brings Criminal Charges Against BREIN, Claims They Falsified Documents Against The Pirate Bay
Re:
So you mean that TPB possessed inside knowledge of how BREIN contracted the services of Experian and that they somehow infiltrated Experian and had their insider supply false information?
Seriously, your wish to see TPB as the guilty party here strongly clouds your judgement.
How often do overzealous law firm offices have a self-interest in falsifying information? You don't think that that would jeopardize their entire business? Why would they do that?
TPB had very little to gain since they had data from the swedish enforcement authority (Kronofogden) saying that they don't own Reservella which would reasonably mean that they get excluded from the court case. BREIN on the other hand was the only party with something to win since they were about to loose their investment and also loose their chance to impose a significant financial burden on TPB. It is strange that they took the risk, but I guess some people never learn the lesson that you shouldn't lie about things that can easily be checked.
On the post: Peter Sunde Brings Criminal Charges Against BREIN, Claims They Falsified Documents Against The Pirate Bay
Re: Look at it this way....
I read an article about the financial crisis in a local newspaper some time ago and as part of that they interviewed some people on the street about what they thought about it. One of them happened to be a musician and his answer was: "Well, I've been in financial crisis all of my life so it's just about time it happens to everyone else too" ;)
On the post: Same Economy, Different Bubble
Re: Re: Re: Speaking of artifical markets...
On the post: Same Economy, Different Bubble
Re: Speaking of artifical markets...
You seem to assume that both the total cap and the number of allowances offered for sale on the market will be constant over time. Neither is true.
Whether the reduction of CO2 emissions is beneficial to society or not and whether it's worth the cost is another question, but that's probably beyond the scope of the subject of this blog.
On the post: Same Economy, Different Bubble
Also a political failure
On the post: Court Invalidates Key Patent Claims In Acacia's Streaming Media Patent
Incentives for not granting bad patents
How can we setup a better system of incentives in order for patent offices not to grant these kinds of patents?
On the post: Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation?
Re: Re: Re: Gene Quinn's Challenge
Wow, that's an amazing view on the purpose of patents and it's overall place in the market economy. So fitness in the marketplace is somehow measured by the extent to which you employ methods to limit your competitions rather than winning on your own merits?
On the post: Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation?
Re: Re: Re: Nonsense
1) scared people would probably employ guards
2) a few people would probably use mafia methods like threatening people if they don't pay up
I would argue that these two are morally quite different. Now compare this to the patent situation. If we have laws that allow offensive behaviour, many will try to defend themselves since it's in their self-interest. I don't find that behaviour very offending or surprising. Let's direct our attention at the system itself.
On the post: Is It So Crazy For A Patent Attorney To Think Patents Harm Innovation?
Re: Nonsense
On the post: Dean Singleton: Please Explain How Charging For Something Magically Gives It Value
Another reason for why people value free differently from non-free is that the non-free goods normally need to pass through some gate-keepers who ask themselves if this stuff is worth advertising for and taking to the market. So there's some kind of quality control. Social media however introduces these kinds of filters for free content too, so I think it's only a matter of time before we will no longer experience this difference as strongly as we do now.
On the post: Pirate Bay Appeal Lay Judge Employed By Spotify?
Lay judge found to be biased due to being employed at Spotify
Google translated article.
No decision seems yet to have been made regarding on of the defendants' laywer's objection to two of the main judges for their connection to intellectual property organizations.
On the post: DHS Reveals Some Data On Border Laptop Searches
What's the purpose?
On the post: USTR: We Can't Be Open About ACTA Because We Promised We Wouldn't Be (*Lobbyists Not Included)
Answer is offline
On the post: Swedish Regulators Say The Word 'bank' Not Allowed In Any Domain Names... Except If You're A Bank
Next >>