So you are in favor of using 'noneconomic'/subjetive considerations to determine lengths yet you are against the use of subjective beliefs being used to determine what is best.
Of course not. My point is that we determine what is best based, in part, on our own sense what is just. Many of the doctrines in copyright law were created by courts of equity--the chancellor imposed his own view of the right and good ("et aequo et bono"). This is where first sale, fair use, implied licenses, common law copyright, etc. come from. Subjective considerations about things such as distributive justice have always been a part of copyright law. Many of the doctrines that people here value come from those subjective determinations of what justice requires. This happens in all law, not just copyright.
What objective considerations do you have to support whatever length it is that you support? Oh, that's right, you already admit that you don't have any because it's not something that can be scientifically calculated.
I think there are good arguments based on economic reasoning. For example, a work is commercially valuable for a shorter time than the copyright subsists. That implies that maybe we should have shorter terms. But then there are countervailing interests in the author's just deserts and personhood. How to balance those requires subjectivity. That's what I'm saying. Do you have a perfectly objective system for copyright that you think would work better?
I vehemently disagree with this. Yes, encouraging the authors to disseminate their works via the marketplace is a good place to start, for a limited time. (Personally, I feel 20 years or so to be about the maximum term for copyright).
But, you seem to be forgetting the most important part of how human culture and knowledge evolves - by building upon the works of others. By locking works up for 150 years (or forever, if Disney keeps up their antics) you have effectively curtailed human creation. Is that within the stated purpose of copyright?
That's right. it's because it's important to build on the works of others that copyright is for a limited time. But how long is too long? The answer to that question requires normative judgment calls. It's often spoken of as "balancing." But I think balancing is code for injecting one's subjective beliefs of what is best.
My question is this: Why is that fact pointedly ignored by copyright maximalists? If filesharing is considered to be morally OK by a large swath of the population, why have we been ratcheting up the penalties for personal filesharing into the realms of the uncomprehendable? Shouldn't we be moving in the other direction?
Ignored by many, yes, but how many pirates really think they're morally justified in benefitting from a work they didn't pay for? I dunno. I doubt it's a large percentage. The penalties may be steep, but they're basically a joke for the right holder. I think we are moving in the other direction at the same time. Fair use is broader than ever. More uses are understood to be personal and non infringing. The First Amendment is more robust than ever. I think we're witnessing a seismic shift in copyright policy because of the internet. I support meaningful rights for authors with plenty of privileges for the public. I have no trouble with the shift away from more protection. I think it's probably a good thing. But I also think the rights that do exist should be meaningful, that is, enforceable and enforced. /ramble
My question is this: Why is that fact pointedly ignored by copyright maximalists? If filesharing is considered to be morally OK by a large swath of the population, why have we been ratcheting up the penalties for personal filesharing into the realms of the uncomprehendable? Shouldn't we be moving in the other direction?
Ignored by many, yes, but how many pirates really think they're morally justified in benefitting from a work they didn't pay for? I dunno. I doubt it's a large percentage. The penalties may be steep, but they're basically a joke for the right holder. I think we are moving in the other direction at the same time. Fair use is broader than ever. More uses are understood to be personal and non infringing. The First Amendment is more robust than ever. I think we're witnessing a seismic shift in copyright policy because of the internet. I support meaningful rights for authors with plenty of privileges for the public. I have no trouble with the shift away from more protection. I think it's probably a good thing. But I also think the rights that do exist should be meaningful, that is, enforceable and enforced. /ramble
Mike states his opinion very clearly right in this very article (and every article he writes):
"Given that, it makes absolutely no sense that these works are not in the public domain."
Sounds like a statement of opinion to me.
That is an opinion. He has no trouble telling us that in this case, there should absolutely be no copyright. But this is a safe thing to say. I'm asking him to discuss the more difficult issue of whether other works should be copyrighted. That's a tougher question.
I would think that progress, in this context, is realized only by using any given work to create another and so, in effect, your usage of the word progress is entirely and exactly the opposite. Long lengths only has potential to create "profit" - bereft of progress.
I think progress means dissemination: We advance knowledge by encouraging authors to dissemination their works by way of the marketplace. It's not about disseminating at all costs. it's about disseminating on the author's terms.
I quoted a leading treatise and provided a link to the original. That's substantiation. Can you demonstrate any courts rejecting the natural law view? I can find many applying it. I provided a cite to one case. What have you cited?
Again you are attempting to impose your presumed superior moral opinion on others. This is morally wrong. The government should not regulate morality. Different people have different moral opinions. Your arbitrary moral opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. If you wish to follow your arbitrary moral opinion go ahead. But you have absolutely no right to impose it on others.
Are you suggesting that morality has no connection to positive law? People have different moral opinions, but that doesn't mean that there's not a general consensus. For example, most agree that murder is wrong, morally speaking. That's why it's illegal. The morality of the act and the legality of the act are intertwined.
Nobody wants to have your boring first-year law student debate about whether "we should have copyright". Nobody is required to engage with you on the reductive and counterproductive playing field you've defined. Some people are actually focused on ways to move forward to everyone's benefit, not on feeding your fragile intellectual ego.
A second ago you were chastising me for not stating my believes, and now you're saying nobody cares. If people ask, I'm happy to answer. If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll be here.
All you are doing is saying "I think it should be morally so, and here are a few other people who somewhat agree."
You haven't explained your moral opinion at all. You just keep restating it. Stop avoiding the question and give an honest answer. Why do you think it should be so?
It’s not just some people who agree with me. This was the dominant view. I’m not just inventing this stuff for the first time. It’s been around a long time.
Here is my answer: I think that a person has a moral claim to the fruits of his labor. This is the labor-desert view. I subscribe to that theory. I am a Lockean. Are you just unfamiliar with the theory? I don’t know how I could be any clearer. I think that if a person mixes his labor with something to create something new, he has a moral claim, superior to others, to that thing. There are provisos, but that’s the gist. Why do I believe this? Because it resonates with my subjective understanding of the difference between right and wrong.
But I’m not only a Lockean. I also subscribe to the Hegalian personality theory, as well as to the economic incentives view. I hold a plurality of views. I think all of these views have a moral element. All positive laws are steeped in normative judgments. Before you say I'm dodging the question again, i suggest framing the question more precisely so that I may answer more precisely. I'm clearly trying to respond to the substance of your question. I know you're just trolling. But I'm obviously not running away. I am stating, explicitly, what I believe and why I believe it.
You're dodging the question. Why can't you give an honest answer? You conflate the ancient and natural ideas about the physical fruits of one's labour with the much-less-natural-and-obvious assertion that it's more true for the non-physical fruits of mental labor. And you do this intentionally, because you know that you have a much weaker moral case to make when it comes to that second assertion. There is, at least, an equally strong moral argument to be made that infinitely replicable, non-physical, non-rivalrous things such as ideas and creative output are naturally nobody's "property" at all, and that attempting to limit their dissemination is itself fundamentally immoral.
Stop dodging the question, stop giving dishonest answers, and stop making weak and vague appeals to supposed authority. Why do you think that things which have none of the natural properties of "property", and abide by none of its physical laws, should be subject to such control? For whose benefit do you believe it should, and on what basis do you say that is morally correct?
No need for the drama. I’m happy to answer your questions. I’m not dodging anything.
I disagree that the case is weaker for mental labor than for physical labor. As one treatise author noted in 1870:
What property could be more emphatically a man’s own than his literary works? Is the property in any article or substance accruing to him by reason of his own mechanical labour denied him? Is the labour of his mind less arduous, less worthy of the protection of the law?
There’s a Lockean argument for why the moral argument is stronger, but I’d have to start with the provisos and walk you through it. There’s a good journal article that does this. If I can find it, I’ll give you the link.
You should read the beginning of that treatise if you have time. It places the foundation of copyright on the natural law. There’s no mention of consequentialist/economic reasoning. And that treatise was the leading treatise of its day.
If you read older case law, you’ll see that it’s replete to citations to natural law. For example:
The same conclusion is reached on principle and apart from authority. It is generally recognized that one has a right to the fruits of his labor. This is equally true, whether the work be muscular or mental or both combined. Property in literary productions, before publication and while they rest in manuscript, is as plain as property in the game of the hunter or in the grain of the husbandman. The labor of composing letters for private and familiar correspondence may be trifling, or it may be severe, but it is none the less the result of an expenditure of thought and time. The market value of such an effort may be measured by the opinions of others, but the fact of property is not created thereby. A canvas upon which an obscure or unskillful painter has toiled does not cease to be property merely because by conventional standards it is valueless as a work of art. Few products of the intellect reveal individual characteristics more surely than familiar correspondence, entries in diaries or other unambitious writings. No sound distinction in this regard can be made between that which has literary merit and that which is without it. Such a distinction could not be drawn with any certainty. While extremes might be discovered, compositions near the dividing line would be subject to no fixed criterion at any given moment, and scarcely anything is more fluctuating than the literary taste of the general public. Even those counted as experts in literature differ widely in opinion both in the same and in successive generations as to the relative merits of different authors. The basic principle on which the right of the author is sustained even as to writings confessedly literature is not their literary quality, but the fact that they are the product of labor.
This type of language is quite common in older opinions. I realize that statutory copyright supersedes common law copyright. But the point is that both, at least in part, are situated on natural law. We give authors rewards as incentives for them to labor, but we also give them rewards because they deserve it because they labored. I think it's both. The Supreme Court agrees. See my Eldred quote above.
As far as the moral claims of others to use works they did not labor to create, I don’t think that claim is very strong. Prof. Gordon has a great piece on this. I’ll post the link if I can find it. I think the view that authors deserve rewards based on their labors runs far deeper than you are acknowledging. And I'm not sure what moral basis you see to reap where one has not sown. I agree that there is a public interest, but I think it's weak early on. The benefits go to the author first and then the nation second because the author deserves them first as a reward for his labor.
I’m out the door. I’m happy to address any more questions you may have. I’m enjoying the conversation. I could do without the insults, but you keep throwing out if they make you feel better. I’m immune at this point, so I don’t care either way.
True. and his claim that "I've read lots and lots of case law, treatises, commentary, etc. that supports my view." is equally suspect. He wants to have an honest discussion yet he keeps repeating the same lies over and over. There is no honesty in this person. I can only hope that he would one day change but I highly doubt it.
How am I lying? What lies have I told? Please be specific. If you're to attack my integrity, back up your claims. What lies?
There's no centuries of jurisprudence here. Copyright is fairly new. Prior to it the artists got money from patronage or for their own performances.
Sure there is. Even if you start with the Statute of Anne, it's three centuries. But the natural law stuff goes back much farther. Early copyright law is replete with references to natural law. I should dig up some quotes. If I have time later, I will.
I'd ask you to stop being a moron but it's in your nature. The views Mike holds are crystal clear if you take your time to read this blog but worse, he specifically replied directly to you with all the answers but you chose to ignore them and keep acting as a spoiled kid.
They aren't clear. We're all sharing our views of why we have copyright and what it should look like. I'm just curious if Mike thinks we should have copyright. He's mentioned before that his answers aren't perfect. None of us have perfect answers, because none can exist. But we all have opinions based on what we think is right. I'd like to hear his views on that.
No you don't. That said, suppose I see a movie and get an idea that involves using most of its setup to make a completely different plot that's novel and would be simply awesome. If the copyrights expired within my lifetime the world could maybe see my works. But if it lasts more than the lifetime of virtually anybody able to produce further culture on top of it then it is actively hindering creativity and not contributing to the growth of culture.
I'm sure there are some close cases where the line between derivative work and transformative fair use are hard to define. I'm not sure how it could be any other way, unless we create some better-defined uses that are fair. For example, we could saying that quoting 10% of a book over 400 pages long is fair use by definition. I see that as a problem that needs to be worked on, so I think there we agree to some extent. I don't agree though that it's necessarily a bad thing for culture. Culture seems to be thriving to me. Now more than ever. I'm having trouble seeing the doom and gloom because there's a few close cases. I'm all for broader personal use rights. I say just make them clearer so there's not so much guess work.
Nobody does. If they are not needed they can go die in a corner. Nobody cares about buggy whip resellers nowadays.
I think you're downplaying the importance of these middlemen. They provide funding, much like VCs in Silicon Valley. They provide resources. We all love (well, most of us love) the high quality stuff these people put out. I know I do.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your maximalist version of copyright is pure evil or wrong. And you refuse any arguments that hurt your beloved point of view. So far you haven't added anything that can remotely support your opinion whatever it is. If you have nothing to add get lost.
I don't think my view is the only reasonable one. I'm not that black and white. I'm genuinely interested in why people infringe. I think copyright is gravely misunderstood, and I think TD is part of the problem. That's why I'm here.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", to interpret that in any other way seems dishonest.
I think it's dishonest to say that that phrase is only capable of one interpretation. That it's susceptible to more than one interpretation is common knowledge.
So from what I gather you think copy protection lengths should be based on your arbitrary moral opinion because you arbitrarily think that your moral opinion is better than mine and the government should give your moral opinion superiority over mine and should enforce your moral views on me and others.
I think everyone's notion of the proper term for copyright protection is arbitrary. That's one of my points. The economic view, which purports to deliver a scientific answer, is nonsense. Many things can't be measured, and if they could be measured, they can't be compared to other things, etc. It's all arbitrary.
And there's the rub. Virtually everyone here disagrees with that moral assessment. You waste all your time here attempting to start a million idiotic debates when fundamentally they are all about the same thing: a different value system and a different moral opinion.
So finally the onus falls to you: why is your moral stance correct? It does not extend from natural law nor is it common in human history, so you better make a case for it. I'd also like to know how you feel about room in the world for differing perspectives on moral questions -- you've frequently rejected the idea that morality is personal and not the subject of Techdirt, calling it a cop-out. But, personally I think it's fine for you to have a different opinion on that, I just think it's ridiculous and pointless for you to spend so much time on what are ultimately secondary debates. So, please, explain the foundation of your view that creative output is morally the author's personal property, and explain why we should be convinced by it. Realize that the onus is on you to find a common ground of values and morals in order to have all the debates you want to have -- without one, you are just a fool screaming at aliens. Your answer will not be deemed complete until everyone here has explicitly stated that they accept it. Your answer must also be attached in full to every comment you make in the future, and you must re-state it and re-engage in the entire process of discussing it whenever anyone requests, even if doing so requires hundreds of comments and hours of your time. Any failure to do any of these things in a timely manner will be labelled "running away" and deemed to automatically invalidate all other points you have made or are attempting to make.
Haha. That's some bar you've set. I'm happy to explain. The idea that the fruits of one's labors are his property, and morally so, is an ancient one. Grotius, Pufendorf, Blackstone, Locke, etc.--these are some of the bigger names. Are you seriously asking me to defend multiple centuries of jurisprudence? This natural law view runs through the case law, and it was commonly understood by many--including the Framers--to be fundamental to the law. I think it makes sense to many when the fruits of one's labor are physical: You fell a tree and build a chair, it's your chair. But I think the case is EVEN STRONGER when it's mental labor. I'm not just making this stuff up. Read some case law or treatises from the 1800s--this is what they say. The incentives/access paradigm rarely is mentioned, if at all. The foundations of copyright law are in natural law, but modern scholars tend to focus elsewhere. I don't care what basis others have for copyright. I'm not demanding that Mike or anyone else share my views. I'm just curious whether Mike thinks there should be any copyright--for any reason. Any more questions? I'm happy to answer them. I probably won't have time to produce the research paper you seem to be asking for, though.
I suppose you can read any document any way you personally want but that doesn't really change how the document was written or intended. Why should we care how you personally choose to read the constitution vs what it actually says?
It's not just a view I made up. I've read lots and lots of case law, treatises, commentary, etc. that supports my view. I think the words are susceptible to multiple interpretations--as are many words in the Constitution. The problems of discerning the Framers' intent are well-known.
Again this seems to be something you made up. The constitution and the founding fathers seem to disagree with you.
Thomas Jefferson wasn't there when they wrote the Constitution, right? Regardless, Jefferson's views ran the gamut. He changed his mind several times. So what? He's not a Framer, and even if he were, there were others. I know copyright opponents place great weight on what Jefferson thought. I've never understood why. It's cherry-picking.
How am I not trying to have an intelligent conversation? I'm asking questions, I'm supported my legal arguments with citations, I'm explaining what I believe and why I believe it, etc. I don't get the need to pretend like I'm not trying to foster an honest debate. You guys create an incredibly hostile environment for anyone who doesn't subscribe to your views. I think that's shameful. You should welcome diversity, not punish it.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course not. My point is that we determine what is best based, in part, on our own sense what is just. Many of the doctrines in copyright law were created by courts of equity--the chancellor imposed his own view of the right and good ("et aequo et bono"). This is where first sale, fair use, implied licenses, common law copyright, etc. come from. Subjective considerations about things such as distributive justice have always been a part of copyright law. Many of the doctrines that people here value come from those subjective determinations of what justice requires. This happens in all law, not just copyright.
What objective considerations do you have to support whatever length it is that you support? Oh, that's right, you already admit that you don't have any because it's not something that can be scientifically calculated.
I think there are good arguments based on economic reasoning. For example, a work is commercially valuable for a shorter time than the copyright subsists. That implies that maybe we should have shorter terms. But then there are countervailing interests in the author's just deserts and personhood. How to balance those requires subjectivity. That's what I'm saying. Do you have a perfectly objective system for copyright that you think would work better?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, you seem to be forgetting the most important part of how human culture and knowledge evolves - by building upon the works of others. By locking works up for 150 years (or forever, if Disney keeps up their antics) you have effectively curtailed human creation. Is that within the stated purpose of copyright?
That's right. it's because it's important to build on the works of others that copyright is for a limited time. But how long is too long? The answer to that question requires normative judgment calls. It's often spoken of as "balancing." But I think balancing is code for injecting one's subjective beliefs of what is best.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignored by many, yes, but how many pirates really think they're morally justified in benefitting from a work they didn't pay for? I dunno. I doubt it's a large percentage. The penalties may be steep, but they're basically a joke for the right holder. I think we are moving in the other direction at the same time. Fair use is broader than ever. More uses are understood to be personal and non infringing. The First Amendment is more robust than ever. I think we're witnessing a seismic shift in copyright policy because of the internet. I support meaningful rights for authors with plenty of privileges for the public. I have no trouble with the shift away from more protection. I think it's probably a good thing. But I also think the rights that do exist should be meaningful, that is, enforceable and enforced. /ramble
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignored by many, yes, but how many pirates really think they're morally justified in benefitting from a work they didn't pay for? I dunno. I doubt it's a large percentage. The penalties may be steep, but they're basically a joke for the right holder. I think we are moving in the other direction at the same time. Fair use is broader than ever. More uses are understood to be personal and non infringing. The First Amendment is more robust than ever. I think we're witnessing a seismic shift in copyright policy because of the internet. I support meaningful rights for authors with plenty of privileges for the public. I have no trouble with the shift away from more protection. I think it's probably a good thing. But I also think the rights that do exist should be meaningful, that is, enforceable and enforced. /ramble
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
"Given that, it makes absolutely no sense that these works are not in the public domain."
Sounds like a statement of opinion to me.
That is an opinion. He has no trouble telling us that in this case, there should absolutely be no copyright. But this is a safe thing to say. I'm asking him to discuss the more difficult issue of whether other works should be copyrighted. That's a tougher question.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think progress means dissemination: We advance knowledge by encouraging authors to dissemination their works by way of the marketplace. It's not about disseminating at all costs. it's about disseminating on the author's terms.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I quoted a leading treatise and provided a link to the original. That's substantiation. Can you demonstrate any courts rejecting the natural law view? I can find many applying it. I provided a cite to one case. What have you cited?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you suggesting that morality has no connection to positive law? People have different moral opinions, but that doesn't mean that there's not a general consensus. For example, most agree that murder is wrong, morally speaking. That's why it's illegal. The morality of the act and the legality of the act are intertwined.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A second ago you were chastising me for not stating my believes, and now you're saying nobody cares. If people ask, I'm happy to answer. If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll be here.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You haven't explained your moral opinion at all. You just keep restating it. Stop avoiding the question and give an honest answer. Why do you think it should be so?
It’s not just some people who agree with me. This was the dominant view. I’m not just inventing this stuff for the first time. It’s been around a long time.
Here is my answer: I think that a person has a moral claim to the fruits of his labor. This is the labor-desert view. I subscribe to that theory. I am a Lockean. Are you just unfamiliar with the theory? I don’t know how I could be any clearer. I think that if a person mixes his labor with something to create something new, he has a moral claim, superior to others, to that thing. There are provisos, but that’s the gist. Why do I believe this? Because it resonates with my subjective understanding of the difference between right and wrong.
But I’m not only a Lockean. I also subscribe to the Hegalian personality theory, as well as to the economic incentives view. I hold a plurality of views. I think all of these views have a moral element. All positive laws are steeped in normative judgments. Before you say I'm dodging the question again, i suggest framing the question more precisely so that I may answer more precisely. I'm clearly trying to respond to the substance of your question. I know you're just trolling. But I'm obviously not running away. I am stating, explicitly, what I believe and why I believe it.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop dodging the question, stop giving dishonest answers, and stop making weak and vague appeals to supposed authority. Why do you think that things which have none of the natural properties of "property", and abide by none of its physical laws, should be subject to such control? For whose benefit do you believe it should, and on what basis do you say that is morally correct?
No need for the drama. I’m happy to answer your questions. I’m not dodging anything.
I disagree that the case is weaker for mental labor than for physical labor. As one treatise author noted in 1870: Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=JhkzAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
There’s a Lockean argument for why the moral argument is stronger, but I’d have to start with the provisos and walk you through it. There’s a good journal article that does this. If I can find it, I’ll give you the link.
You should read the beginning of that treatise if you have time. It places the foundation of copyright on the natural law. There’s no mention of consequentialist/economic reasoning. And that treatise was the leading treatise of its day.
If you read older case law, you’ll see that it’s replete to citations to natural law. For example:Baker v. Libbie, 210 Mass. 599, 604, 97 N.E. 109, 111 (1912) (emphasis mine).
This type of language is quite common in older opinions. I realize that statutory copyright supersedes common law copyright. But the point is that both, at least in part, are situated on natural law. We give authors rewards as incentives for them to labor, but we also give them rewards because they deserve it because they labored. I think it's both. The Supreme Court agrees. See my Eldred quote above.
As far as the moral claims of others to use works they did not labor to create, I don’t think that claim is very strong. Prof. Gordon has a great piece on this. I’ll post the link if I can find it. I think the view that authors deserve rewards based on their labors runs far deeper than you are acknowledging. And I'm not sure what moral basis you see to reap where one has not sown. I agree that there is a public interest, but I think it's weak early on. The benefits go to the author first and then the nation second because the author deserves them first as a reward for his labor.
I’m out the door. I’m happy to address any more questions you may have. I’m enjoying the conversation. I could do without the insults, but you keep throwing out if they make you feel better. I’m immune at this point, so I don’t care either way.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How am I lying? What lies have I told? Please be specific. If you're to attack my integrity, back up your claims. What lies?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure there is. Even if you start with the Statute of Anne, it's three centuries. But the natural law stuff goes back much farther. Early copyright law is replete with references to natural law. I should dig up some quotes. If I have time later, I will.
I'd ask you to stop being a moron but it's in your nature. The views Mike holds are crystal clear if you take your time to read this blog but worse, he specifically replied directly to you with all the answers but you chose to ignore them and keep acting as a spoiled kid.
They aren't clear. We're all sharing our views of why we have copyright and what it should look like. I'm just curious if Mike thinks we should have copyright. He's mentioned before that his answers aren't perfect. None of us have perfect answers, because none can exist. But we all have opinions based on what we think is right. I'd like to hear his views on that.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure there are some close cases where the line between derivative work and transformative fair use are hard to define. I'm not sure how it could be any other way, unless we create some better-defined uses that are fair. For example, we could saying that quoting 10% of a book over 400 pages long is fair use by definition. I see that as a problem that needs to be worked on, so I think there we agree to some extent. I don't agree though that it's necessarily a bad thing for culture. Culture seems to be thriving to me. Now more than ever. I'm having trouble seeing the doom and gloom because there's a few close cases. I'm all for broader personal use rights. I say just make them clearer so there's not so much guess work.
Nobody does. If they are not needed they can go die in a corner. Nobody cares about buggy whip resellers nowadays.
I think you're downplaying the importance of these middlemen. They provide funding, much like VCs in Silicon Valley. They provide resources. We all love (well, most of us love) the high quality stuff these people put out. I know I do.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your maximalist version of copyright is pure evil or wrong. And you refuse any arguments that hurt your beloved point of view. So far you haven't added anything that can remotely support your opinion whatever it is. If you have nothing to add get lost.
I don't think my view is the only reasonable one. I'm not that black and white. I'm genuinely interested in why people infringe. I think copyright is gravely misunderstood, and I think TD is part of the problem. That's why I'm here.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's dishonest to say that that phrase is only capable of one interpretation. That it's susceptible to more than one interpretation is common knowledge.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think everyone's notion of the proper term for copyright protection is arbitrary. That's one of my points. The economic view, which purports to deliver a scientific answer, is nonsense. Many things can't be measured, and if they could be measured, they can't be compared to other things, etc. It's all arbitrary.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So finally the onus falls to you: why is your moral stance correct? It does not extend from natural law nor is it common in human history, so you better make a case for it. I'd also like to know how you feel about room in the world for differing perspectives on moral questions -- you've frequently rejected the idea that morality is personal and not the subject of Techdirt, calling it a cop-out. But, personally I think it's fine for you to have a different opinion on that, I just think it's ridiculous and pointless for you to spend so much time on what are ultimately secondary debates. So, please, explain the foundation of your view that creative output is morally the author's personal property, and explain why we should be convinced by it. Realize that the onus is on you to find a common ground of values and morals in order to have all the debates you want to have -- without one, you are just a fool screaming at aliens. Your answer will not be deemed complete until everyone here has explicitly stated that they accept it. Your answer must also be attached in full to every comment you make in the future, and you must re-state it and re-engage in the entire process of discussing it whenever anyone requests, even if doing so requires hundreds of comments and hours of your time. Any failure to do any of these things in a timely manner will be labelled "running away" and deemed to automatically invalidate all other points you have made or are attempting to make.
Haha. That's some bar you've set. I'm happy to explain. The idea that the fruits of one's labors are his property, and morally so, is an ancient one. Grotius, Pufendorf, Blackstone, Locke, etc.--these are some of the bigger names. Are you seriously asking me to defend multiple centuries of jurisprudence? This natural law view runs through the case law, and it was commonly understood by many--including the Framers--to be fundamental to the law. I think it makes sense to many when the fruits of one's labor are physical: You fell a tree and build a chair, it's your chair. But I think the case is EVEN STRONGER when it's mental labor. I'm not just making this stuff up. Read some case law or treatises from the 1800s--this is what they say. The incentives/access paradigm rarely is mentioned, if at all. The foundations of copyright law are in natural law, but modern scholars tend to focus elsewhere. I don't care what basis others have for copyright. I'm not demanding that Mike or anyone else share my views. I'm just curious whether Mike thinks there should be any copyright--for any reason. Any more questions? I'm happy to answer them. I probably won't have time to produce the research paper you seem to be asking for, though.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not just a view I made up. I've read lots and lots of case law, treatises, commentary, etc. that supports my view. I think the words are susceptible to multiple interpretations--as are many words in the Constitution. The problems of discerning the Framers' intent are well-known.
Again this seems to be something you made up. The constitution and the founding fathers seem to disagree with you.
http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jefferson/
Thomas Jefferson wasn't there when they wrote the Constitution, right? Regardless, Jefferson's views ran the gamut. He changed his mind several times. So what? He's not a Framer, and even if he were, there were others. I know copyright opponents place great weight on what Jefferson thought. I've never understood why. It's cherry-picking.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've said it already above. Life of the author, at a minimum, and one generation past. See above.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>