This truly makes no sense. If the First Amendment trumped the Copyright Clause, there would be no copyright. Just look to the quote I posted elsewhere in this thread from Eldred. If the First Amendment trumped the Copyright Clause, why would the Supreme Court be talking about how the two must be balanced? Clearly it's because they are to be read together, and dare I say it, balanced.
Dare I say it, copyright must be balanced against the first amendment precisely because it is trumped by it, which can only be remotely begun to be worked around with the idea/expression dichotomy and fair use provisions.
Funny how your citation implies that copyright does not trump the first amendment by very definition of having to strike balance between protecting an idea and fixed expression, for fear of running foul of the first amendment. Copyright is only compatible so long as:
a) This "balance" between the 2 occurs, and
b) The fundamental assumption of why copyright is needed holds true.
This is something that becomes plain as day when actually looking at documents from the founders themselves.
Nor does the question of whether copyright is an ownership right have any effect on the validity of the analogy between theft and infringement.
Erm, yes it does. Theft is an issue that is entirely based around the fact that if I have something you do not - my having an item may disadvantage you in not being able to have that item and potentially any benefits that item brings. Taking that item from you deprives you of something literally and of the benefits of that item - a case that occurs out of property and rights associated with that. Copyright infringement on its own involves the deprivation of the ability to interfere with other peoples property and what they can do with it.
y privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy...what? I think you forgot to complete that sentence.
I think you forgot to read it properly in your haste to reply. Copy is not referring to anything specific like a song or a table, it refers to the overall ability to copy regardless of the item.
Not sure what you're saying here. How does what one would "ordinarily have" relate to the literal meaning of copyright?
Everything. Copyright suspends a natural ability of ownership - the ability to copy or reproduce the item you own. Infringement bears no resemblance to theft simply because of that.
Theft and infringement are similar in terms of denying the "owner" to use the "property" in the way that they so choose.
Nothing about infringement:
Stops you being able to listen to your song.
Stops you from being able to perform it.
Stops you from trying to produce copies of it.
Stops you from trying to sell it.
The only thing it can be said is to harm the potential market for the third, which is increasingly coming under fire it seems. It is not a guaranteed right to make money from something, only to have the opportunity to do so.
Except that copyright isn't a right of ownership, it's a granted privilege. Your privilege to be able to deny other people the ability to copy - including when they already own the property that "contains" a copyrighted work. You get to deny other people normal things they'd enjoy from ownership rights, not a protection of ones you'd ordinarily have.
Ah, how lovely it is for psychology and branding wars to have become so mainstream. It's fascinating how companies go through so many efforts of rebranding and marketing to change discussions and emotional reactions to make things more favourable to their ends. I especially like it when companies seem to try and make it appear as if DRM is enabling features.
That's without going into the poor, starving artist fallacy.
Not when it comes to statements that involve suggestions of factual nature, like x action will produce y output that can be measured, studied, and shown to occur (or not), like the granting of a monopoly to produce the result of more published works through monetary incentives.
Then the issue of differing views is moot. If a view is said to have no weight, then bringing up that someone has a different interpretation is pointless. It is a fact that people can have different viewpoints - what we care about is how much weight they should be given depending on other factors.
Two people can look at the same evidence and walk away with completely different but reasonable interpretations of what the evidence suggests. See every Supreme Court decision that wasn't unanimous, for example.
And not all of those interpretations are deemed correct, and are later reverted or changed based on multiple factors like new evidence, or indeed the law that made that process of interpretation necessary removed entirely. There is also a huge difference between moral grey areas which introduce philosophical questions like abortion and factual statements of x system produces y output. Copyright can and does fall under the latter, and is itself exactly a system built in that way - an assumption that x system (the granting of a monopoly to copy and/or publish a given work) will produce y output (more works from the monetary incentive given to authors).
My point is that the phrase means different things to different people, and no one position is "right."
Then you must give equal weight to my interpretation that copyright law is about maintaining the dragon population. Different people can have different views, but that does not mean those views carry equal weight in relevance to history or other facts.
I agree, but I see a problem in execution. Evidence that you may think is dispositive, somebody else may think to be only probative. Two people can look at the same evidence and think it demonstrates completely different things. Happens all the time.
~
Then either it is insufficient evidence, one of them is misinterpreting or one of them is naive on the subject that the facts involve.
Then I'm sorry, but I can't help you. There is in fact an objective truth that can be pointed to by well gathered research and evidence. An argument does not merely stand in a vacuum outside of context, and that context is indeed evidence.
If evidence can be thought of to point different ways, then it's either insufficient evidence or indeed a complex situation, but that is not an argument for treating different sides or interpretations with equal weight just because.
No it doesn't. Evidence tends to support the truth, as in fact. Some times people try to force interpretations that fit their current beliefs, or use techniques to produce things that may look to be supportive evidence, but on closer inspection is riddled with problems in how the evidence was gathered,
Though maybe I'm wrong and there is equal evidence or merely some evidence that should be given equal weight to indicate that gravity does not exist and that the Sun does in fact revolve around the Earth.
Which is a phrase that could mean so many different things to so many different people...
My interpretation of copyright is that it's about increasing the amount of dragons in the world. The fact that dragons are extinct must mean we need stronger laws.
By your own argument, your interpretation holds no more weight.
Who gets to decide exactly what "to promote the progress" means? Why is one interpretation better than another?
Also...
Yes, IP is intended ultimately to expand the public domain, but noticeably you're leaving out the part where it does so by "securing" "to authors" "exclusive right[s]" "for limited times." In other words, under the Constitution authors are explicitly entitled to a monopoly, albeit a limited one.
Once again, you're confusing the means with the end. The ability to grant monopoly is based on the assumption that it does indeed promote the progress of science and the useful arts by increasing the output of works through monetary incentives/compensation. If that assumption can be shown to be false, than granting the monopoly does not promote the progress and that power should not be exercised, if not taken away completely.
Congress gets to decide what they think promotes the progress.
And no one has argued that the politicians in congress does not currently have the power to do so. We just don't agree that they're right, or even that this power should be granted any more, and thus the law should be changed, as they are prone to do so from time to time. Congress is not the arbiter of truth and the decider of the universe, it can and does make mistakes, and can make interpretations or arguments that others do not agree with, especially when influenced by the exchange of money through party/election donations and lobbying often used by companies and industry groups like the RIAA.
These things have been dealt with in the open source/free software world for some time. Companies that make use of but are not considered to contribute back to the software (most focused on is usually the Linux kernel) are typically publicly scorned for it in one way or another, even though there's no legal requirement to send code upstream or even to release it publicly in some cases.
Re: Sounds like a great idea... for elite music fans and musicians who want to be pimped out to the highest bidder
Sending brilliant artists on a path without a record label to support them results in almost zero chance of breaking through, and sending them to spend intimate time with their fans for 1 week, as in this case, is like asking them to become a prostitute as well as a musician.
On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems...
Re: Re: Re:
Dare I say it, copyright must be balanced against the first amendment precisely because it is trumped by it, which can only be remotely begun to be worked around with the idea/expression dichotomy and fair use provisions.
On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
a) This "balance" between the 2 occurs, and
b) The fundamental assumption of why copyright is needed holds true.
This is something that becomes plain as day when actually looking at documents from the founders themselves.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Erm, yes it does. Theft is an issue that is entirely based around the fact that if I have something you do not - my having an item may disadvantage you in not being able to have that item and potentially any benefits that item brings. Taking that item from you deprives you of something literally and of the benefits of that item - a case that occurs out of property and rights associated with that. Copyright infringement on its own involves the deprivation of the ability to interfere with other peoples property and what they can do with it.
I think you forgot to read it properly in your haste to reply. Copy is not referring to anything specific like a song or a table, it refers to the overall ability to copy regardless of the item.
Everything. Copyright suspends a natural ability of ownership - the ability to copy or reproduce the item you own. Infringement bears no resemblance to theft simply because of that.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing about infringement:
Stops you being able to listen to your song.
Stops you from being able to perform it.
Stops you from trying to produce copies of it.
Stops you from trying to sell it.
The only thing it can be said is to harm the potential market for the third, which is increasingly coming under fire it seems. It is not a guaranteed right to make money from something, only to have the opportunity to do so.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re:
When I "steal" songs from your iPod, you can still listen to them as I do.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: War of words....
That's without going into the poor, starving artist fallacy.
On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not when it comes to statements that involve suggestions of factual nature, like x action will produce y output that can be measured, studied, and shown to occur (or not), like the granting of a monopoly to produce the result of more published works through monetary incentives.
On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then the issue of differing views is moot. If a view is said to have no weight, then bringing up that someone has a different interpretation is pointless. It is a fact that people can have different viewpoints - what we care about is how much weight they should be given depending on other factors.
And not all of those interpretations are deemed correct, and are later reverted or changed based on multiple factors like new evidence, or indeed the law that made that process of interpretation necessary removed entirely. There is also a huge difference between moral grey areas which introduce philosophical questions like abortion and factual statements of x system produces y output. Copyright can and does fall under the latter, and is itself exactly a system built in that way - an assumption that x system (the granting of a monopoly to copy and/or publish a given work) will produce y output (more works from the monetary incentive given to authors).
On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you must give equal weight to my interpretation that copyright law is about maintaining the dragon population. Different people can have different views, but that does not mean those views carry equal weight in relevance to history or other facts.
~
Then either it is insufficient evidence, one of them is misinterpreting or one of them is naive on the subject that the facts involve.
On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If evidence can be thought of to point different ways, then it's either insufficient evidence or indeed a complex situation, but that is not an argument for treating different sides or interpretations with equal weight just because.
On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though maybe I'm wrong and there is equal evidence or merely some evidence that should be given equal weight to indicate that gravity does not exist and that the Sun does in fact revolve around the Earth.
On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My interpretation of copyright is that it's about increasing the amount of dragons in the world. The fact that dragons are extinct must mean we need stronger laws.
By your own argument, your interpretation holds no more weight.
Also...
Once again, you're confusing the means with the end. The ability to grant monopoly is based on the assumption that it does indeed promote the progress of science and the useful arts by increasing the output of works through monetary incentives/compensation. If that assumption can be shown to be false, than granting the monopoly does not promote the progress and that power should not be exercised, if not taken away completely.
And no one has argued that the politicians in congress does not currently have the power to do so. We just don't agree that they're right, or even that this power should be granted any more, and thus the law should be changed, as they are prone to do so from time to time. Congress is not the arbiter of truth and the decider of the universe, it can and does make mistakes, and can make interpretations or arguments that others do not agree with, especially when influenced by the exchange of money through party/election donations and lobbying often used by companies and industry groups like the RIAA.
On the post: How Social Mores Can Deal With 'Unfair' Copying, Even In Absence Of Copyright
FOSS
On the post: Japanese Band Sells Hawaiian Vacation With The Band
Re: Re: Re: Sounds like a great idea... for elite music fans and musicians who want to be pimped out to the highest bidder
On the post: Japanese Band Sells Hawaiian Vacation With The Band
Re: Sounds like a great idea... for elite music fans and musicians who want to be pimped out to the highest bidder
This is blatantly false.
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/
http://www.joshwoodward.com/
http://tryad.org/
Tr yad's music was even used by CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/living/2010/08/06/snake.river.surfing.cnn.html
Others could provide plenty more examples.
On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to loosen the blinders a bit.
On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...
4) Agreeing with the first person who says anything bad about Mike, even if that person is a known troll and idiot.
Next >>