Sigh, I don't know why I'm taking this bait, but...
It is neither pure, nor simple. Unauthorized downloading is NOT theft. Theft deprives the original owner of the use of an object. This is not the case in unauthorized downloading. Theft also usually results in a negative economic impact to the original owner, whereas the economic impact resulting from unauthorized downloading is at worst unclear and at best positive, depending on the studies you look at. So, saying it is theft confuses the issue.
Unauthorized downloading is wrong not because it is theft but because it undermines the owner's control and interferes with the exercise of their rights.
Most folks on this site disagree with the scope and validity of those government granted rights, not whether or not unauthorized downloading is wrong.
Wow, hit a nerve. Given the tone and words used throughout your posts, I suspect you might want to look in the mirror before calling anyone else childish names. I jumped in because of your inability to discuss with anything other than a condescending tone and responded in kind.
And, nevertheless, we will still have to disagree--your explanation is still not sufficient for me to agree that those elements are fundamentally, basically, or otherwise similar. While I can agree they are both subject to government discretion, that can be said of EVERYTHING including human rights (i.e., the government can chose to deprive you of them). So, if that's what you mean, I guess I have no response. However, if you mean that something (eminent domain) that is directly controlled through action by the government and something (entering the public domain) that exists because of no government action at all are the same, I can't agree. In fact, things have been entering the public domain since before government existed.
The point here is not that it won't succeed, but that it will not transform the industry in such a way as to save various industry business models that are struggling to survive.
The reason why arguing by analogy is so perilous is because of people who require the analogy to be one-to-one the same for every element of possible comparison. If they are not, they get blinded by only those elements of difference.
The article and blogpost is not about how they are exactly the same, but how there are certain elements of similarity--elements you completely ignored or misunderstood in your response.
Okay, I concede. I can't debate with someone who cannot understand basic concepts like how things that enter the public domain have their rights transfer to *everyone* and things that have their rights transferred to the government for public use (but for which the government can restrict its usage) are not *fundamentally* similar. Until you can explain what fundamental elements are the same everyone but you will continue to be confused. Or, you can just live in your fantasy world where you are a genius and everyone else is a moron.
Eminent domain has nothing to do with "entering the public domain", it is a transfer of land rights from an individual (or business) to the government, not to the public.
Sigh. I love it when the clueless tell everyone else how stupid they are...
Yes, the *designs* for the car *may* be copyrighted and many of the components are covered under *patents*, but the whole car is not covered under copyright. If someone copied the entire car and sold it under a different name, the lawsuits would focus on willful patent infringement, not copyright or trademark.
And the name of the product is not copyrighted, it is covered under *trademark*, yet another different concept.
All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however. No one is saying that the costs of physical items don't include the costs of elements of that item that are covered by copyright, patents, or trademarks. What they ARE saying is that those rights don't extend beyond the FIRST SALE.
Or he has noted that an AC is the same AC of other postings, sometimes outing a first name. But not revealing a poster's complete identity. Its been close, though.
I'm sorry, perhaps my sarcasm detector isn't calibrated correctly, but how exactly do unauthorized links = lawlessness? Aren't there laws against copyright infringement, which include due process (while this one doesn't)?
Mike, I bet you realize this, but I'm not sure EdB does. The harm that he implicitly assumes is from interference with the ability to create artificial scarcity.
It's not the sharing or usage that is the harm, it is the inability to control whether or not others do those things. And I'm one of those that agree, that that control should be severely limited because the deliberate creation of artificial scarcity introduces inefficiency into the market, and as you've shown often, doesn't produce the benefits perceived to be created by the scarcity.
I agree that if someone doesn't want to share their content, they are perfectly valid in their desire (keep it at home, never show it to anyone, don't make it available for viewing). However, if they want that content to enter the *market*, then they are remiss in believing they should continue to have total control. They can't have it both ways. If you wish to be a market participant, then you must be subject to its raw rules without gaming the system through artificial scarcity. In other words, compete or exit.
News is not their product. News exists whether the FT delivers it or not. They have to sell SOMETHING to make necessary revenues, and it has to be something people VALUE.
"dmca and fair use will always be an issue. the type of fair use demanded often would mean opening a product up entirely to widespread piracy or duplication. talk about unintended consequences."
Except that those unintended consequences have already been seen. Products have been produced by individuals since civilization began that have no DRM or legal protections, yet profit can be made. Software has been made and sold for a profit without DRM before the DMCA.
So, exactly what were the dire unintended consequences? Innovation? Progress? Oh wait, those people didn't make enough money, so guess we need government protection...
"Or you can counter that the answer to bad free speech is good free speech, which ignores the reality that most people who read the bad free speech will never hear the good free speech"
And that was true before the Internet and true before television, and and true before reporters, and true for all time except when there was no actual speech.
On the post: NYTimes Ethicist: Not Unethical To Download Unauthorized Copy Of Physical Book You Own
Re: There is theft in this scenario
It is neither pure, nor simple. Unauthorized downloading is NOT theft. Theft deprives the original owner of the use of an object. This is not the case in unauthorized downloading. Theft also usually results in a negative economic impact to the original owner, whereas the economic impact resulting from unauthorized downloading is at worst unclear and at best positive, depending on the studies you look at. So, saying it is theft confuses the issue.
Unauthorized downloading is wrong not because it is theft but because it undermines the owner's control and interferes with the exercise of their rights.
Most folks on this site disagree with the scope and validity of those government granted rights, not whether or not unauthorized downloading is wrong.
On the post: Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Oh, and since we've completely devolved into childish bickering--No, *you're* the asshole.
On the post: Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
And, nevertheless, we will still have to disagree--your explanation is still not sufficient for me to agree that those elements are fundamentally, basically, or otherwise similar. While I can agree they are both subject to government discretion, that can be said of EVERYTHING including human rights (i.e., the government can chose to deprive you of them). So, if that's what you mean, I guess I have no response. However, if you mean that something (eminent domain) that is directly controlled through action by the government and something (entering the public domain) that exists because of no government action at all are the same, I can't agree. In fact, things have been entering the public domain since before government existed.
On the post: The Fool's Gold At The End Of The iPad Rainbow
Re: And the ipod won't sell either
On the post: The Fool's Gold At The End Of The iPad Rainbow
Re: Indeed
The article and blogpost is not about how they are exactly the same, but how there are certain elements of similarity--elements you completely ignored or misunderstood in your response.
On the post: Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
On the post: Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @65
Therefore, fail.
On the post: Developers Trying To Treat Houses Like Copyright; Want A Cut Of Every Future Resale
Re: Much is copyrighted in a car
Yes, the *designs* for the car *may* be copyrighted and many of the components are covered under *patents*, but the whole car is not covered under copyright. If someone copied the entire car and sold it under a different name, the lawsuits would focus on willful patent infringement, not copyright or trademark.
And the name of the product is not copyrighted, it is covered under *trademark*, yet another different concept.
All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, however. No one is saying that the costs of physical items don't include the costs of elements of that item that are covered by copyright, patents, or trademarks. What they ARE saying is that those rights don't extend beyond the FIRST SALE.
On the post: Columnist Claims Anonymity Is Bad For Our Country
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ACTA Raising Serious Constitutional Questions
Re: ACTA
On the post: Spanish Gov't Moves Forward On New Law To Make File Sharing And Links Sites Illegal
Re:
On the post: Lessig Gives A Well-Timed Speech To The Italian Parliament On Internet Freedom
Re: Re:
It's not the sharing or usage that is the harm, it is the inability to control whether or not others do those things. And I'm one of those that agree, that that control should be severely limited because the deliberate creation of artificial scarcity introduces inefficiency into the market, and as you've shown often, doesn't produce the benefits perceived to be created by the scarcity.
I agree that if someone doesn't want to share their content, they are perfectly valid in their desire (keep it at home, never show it to anyone, don't make it available for viewing). However, if they want that content to enter the *market*, then they are remiss in believing they should continue to have total control. They can't have it both ways. If you wish to be a market participant, then you must be subject to its raw rules without gaming the system through artificial scarcity. In other words, compete or exit.
On the post: FT Boss: Positive Thinking And Balls Are The Secrets To A Successful Paywall
Re: FT Boss: Positive Thinking and Balls
News is a commodity.
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re:
On the post: A Look At Twelve Years Of Dangerous Unintended Consequences From The DMCA
Re:
Except that those unintended consequences have already been seen. Products have been produced by individuals since civilization began that have no DRM or legal protections, yet profit can be made. Software has been made and sold for a profit without DRM before the DMCA.
So, exactly what were the dire unintended consequences? Innovation? Progress? Oh wait, those people didn't make enough money, so guess we need government protection...
On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense
Re: Google Italy Verdict
And that was true before the Internet and true before television, and and true before reporters, and true for all time except when there was no actual speech.
On the post: Netflix, Warner Bros., Sued In Class Action Lawsuit Over Delayed Movie Window
Re: ...
On the post: Patent Reform Bill Released: More Of The Same
Re: Re: patent Deform Bill
On the post: Apple May Anger The Antitrust Gods: Pressuring Labels To Stop Participating In Amazon Daily MP3 Deals
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Apple May Anger The Antitrust Gods: Pressuring Labels To Stop Participating In Amazon Daily MP3 Deals
Re:
Next >>