The slight difference we can observe with corporations is that they aren't quite as sophisticated as the church or dictatorial regimes and will press for far more cultural repression than will profit them, so much more that it'll quickly exceed the breaking point.
No-one is doing more to hasten the abolition of monopolies than the monopolists themselves.
I'm surprised people are actually waiting for evidence to materialise - of the Labour party's infringement.
As anyone should know by now, evidence isn't required. You need only SUSPECT or ACCUSE a party of infringement (a few times), and then measures can be taken against them.
They can then pay for an appeal - if they can afford to PROVE they didn't infringe.
In fact if you think it's likely that the Labour party's website might infringe copyright at some point in the future, you can ask all UK ISPs for it to be censored - and they have to bear any costs if they refuse and the court upholds the injunction.
It's a bad day when people believe 18th century privileges are rights, justice is being able to pay for the opportunity to prove your innocence, suspicion constitutes grounds to presume guilt, and interrogation of such 'suspects' warrants any trauma not evidently attributable to subsequent death.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
Well, copyright is a right, it's just a right that doesn't belong to the holder - the holder is privileged with the public's right to copy the covered work - consequently being able to exclude others from making unauthorised copies (if they can afford the litigation).
So, copyright from the perspective of the holder is a privilege, and that's the most appropriate term.
Copyright abolition is the only way of restoring the public's natural right to copy cultural works in their legitimate possession, i.e. as was once the case with respect to folk music, folk tales, etc.
Copyleft licenses can simulate this, but only for specific works, and only as long as the copyleft licenses are dutifully adhered to.
"For the encouragement of learning" was a pretext.
Copyright was tailored specifically for the commercial interests of the Stationers' Guild and the Crown's interest in suppressing sedition/insurrection.
I don't doubt that the law can be abused and many injustices are upheld, but the law should be determined by a better principle than the accretion of expedient precedent.
We have to say that liberty is a priori inalienable - if anything, to remind judges that individuals cannot sign it away in contract. It cannot be up to the layman to be wary that they do not unwittingly sign away more than their property, e.g. a pound of flesh, or indentured servitude.
One can effectively 'promise' property because it is alienable (and substitutable), but one cannot promise action (if anything, because one cannot determine or predict the future, let alone alienate oneself from one's liberty).
It may seem a subtle difference:
a) An advance payment conditional on one party's future action.
b) Money in exchange for one party's submission into bondage to perform a future action.
The former is a contract, the latter is an injustice.
I appreciate that a lot of people think of contracts as promises, but this is a corruption. The law cannot compel people to carry out their promises, just as it cannot compel racers to win the races they promise they'll win. A promise is an informal commitment, not a legally recognisable one. The repercussion is loss of reputation, not prosecution.
A contract is an agreement to make an equitable exchange of what can be exchanged, subject to conditions (but not bondage). Either the exchange is made or it isn't - it is voluntary after all. The law only needs to become involved in the event that the parties are unable to achieve equity (not that either party did not keep a promise). It may also need to become involved in the event that shysters have hoodwinked the gullible into believing they can sign or 'promise' themselves into bondage (or their immortal souls away).
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't contract to wash my car next week?
Enlisting in the military is a good example (YJMV), but not to demonstrate a good case for being able to surrender one's liberty, but as an example of the state colluding in it for its own interests. But, then there's extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, drowning/waterboarding, so the military are the last to look to when it comes to demonstrating legal standards for protecting civil rights.
As for NDAs, a non-disclosure agreement cannot enable an individual to surrender their freedom of speech (YJMV). Breach of an NDA may well be grounds for dismissal, and adherence may be rewarded, but these consequences do not impinge on liberty. For an individual to be prosecuted for breaching an NDA would be an injustice, and so the enforceability of NDAs against individuals remains controversial.
Re: Re: You can't contract to wash my car next week?
I think you'll find it's simply that you believe you contract away your privacy and liberty all the time (there's little incentive for those you believe you've contracted away your rights to, to disabuse you of this foolish notion).
Working for an employer is entirely voluntary. You are at liberty to stop working any time you please. Your employer can't force you to work simply by paying you money, or simply by saying "You signed a contract!".
Ones 'browsing history' isn't a good example of private information, since your ISP is necessarily privy to your use of their communications channel (you can utilise a VPN of course). NB Privacy is not the same as discretion.
Try coming up with some 'slam dunk' examples of people signing away their privacy or liberty.
Lots of contracts may be for services 'to be delivered', but a contract cannot bind an individual to a future action (because that would alienate the individual from their liberty - which contracts cannot do).
E.g. "If you pay me $10 now, I will wash your car tomorrow" does not bind me to wash your car. It simply initiates an exchange contingent upon future labour. If the labour doesn't happen the exchange is unable to complete and thus reverts to the situation prior.
Granted a lot of people like the idea they can get someone to sign on the dotted line and become thus entrapped into bondage, but then no doubt a lot of people like the idea of slavery. Many like the idea of a privilege over someone else, but not so much of others having a privilege over them.
Just remember that liberty is inalienable, and cannot be exchanged through contract. Even if you wanted to surrender your liberty, it would be an injustice for any court to uphold it.
No, of course nothing prevents payment in advance, but payment doesn't bind the payee to provide service.
The agreement is that the payment is equitable exchange for the service. Either the service is provided or the payment is returned, but the payee (if an individual) may not be forced to provide the service.
"Contract law is founded on the notion that we are all free and equal individuals left to our own devices to enter into whatever transactions we wish."
Only if you define 'transaction' as an exchange of what the individual is able to be alienated from, i.e. their property, not their natural rights (life, privacy, truth, liberty).
NB Labour is a condition to a transaction, it cannot be forcibly extracted (qv slavery). Similarly, people cannot bind themselves to perform future actions with promises since they cannot alienate themselves from their liberty. We can agree that if I wash your car you'll pay me $10, but I cannot promise to wash your car next week (however much you pay me today), since I cannot alienate myself from my liberty not to wash your car (refunding your payment). As far as individuals are concerned, making and keeping promises is purely a matter of reputation, not bondage. Corporations (having no liberty) can of course promise to do what they like in a contract.
As for purchase of products, if the transaction is clearly portrayed as a simple exchange of money for goods, then it would be deceitful to induce the purchaser's agreement to an additional and unrelated exchange.
Incidentally, I should have said Correlation!=Causation.
But, I get the idea you recognise innovation thrives on the liberty to copy and improve, not on the suspension of that liberty (by the privilege of patent).
Re: Re: Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege
If we recognise privacy as the individual's natural ability or power to exclude others from their dwelling and possessions, then this is a natural right - whether protected by law or not.
Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege
It remains important to bear in mind that the natural right is to privacy.
Theft is a violation of that right (from which the notion of property derives), through the unauthorised removal of someone's material possessions.
Problems arise when people infer a natural right as limited to a specific violation. It is just as much a violation of privacy to burgle an individual's house and make and remove a copy their diary as it is to remove their diary. The fact that a burglar may be productive in their act is irrelevant.
So people do have a natural exclusive right to the intellectual works in their possession, against unauthorised copying as much as removal. This is a natural monopoly that lasts a lifetime.
It is only the unnatural monopoly of copyright, that 18th century privilege, that inveigles itself as a laudable extension.
So, copying is not theft, but that doesn't mean that in some cases unauthorised copying can't violate privacy as much as unauthorised material removal. A thief generally seeks to gain. The spiteful burglar seeking to deprive is a rarity.
In other words, to elevate copying into an intrinsically good act because it is apparently productive, is to lose sight of what makes theft unethical.
On the post: Is Just Talking About Infringing Content Infringing?
DMCA: The Cultural Sniper Rifle
Don't like a site? Issue a take-down.
Don't like TechDirt questioning the cartels? Issue a take down.
No evidence required. No court required. No money required. The trigger is just an e-mail.
The only reason the weapon isn't used more often is that unlike corporations and their attack lawyers, most people have a conscience.
On the post: UK Labour Party Claims 'Innocent Error' Absolves It Of Infringement -- But Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who needs evidence?
The slight difference we can observe with corporations is that they aren't quite as sophisticated as the church or dictatorial regimes and will press for far more cultural repression than will profit them, so much more that it'll quickly exceed the breaking point.
No-one is doing more to hasten the abolition of monopolies than the monopolists themselves.
On the post: UK Labour Party Claims 'Innocent Error' Absolves It Of Infringement -- But Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
Re: Re: Who needs evidence?
On the post: UK Labour Party Claims 'Innocent Error' Absolves It Of Infringement -- But Where Is The 'Innocent Error' Defense In The Digital Economy Act?
Who needs evidence?
As anyone should know by now, evidence isn't required. You need only SUSPECT or ACCUSE a party of infringement (a few times), and then measures can be taken against them.
They can then pay for an appeal - if they can afford to PROVE they didn't infringe.
In fact if you think it's likely that the Labour party's website might infringe copyright at some point in the future, you can ask all UK ISPs for it to be censored - and they have to bear any costs if they refuse and the court upholds the injunction.
It's a bad day when people believe 18th century privileges are rights, justice is being able to pay for the opportunity to prove your innocence, suspicion constitutes grounds to presume guilt, and interrogation of such 'suspects' warrants any trauma not evidently attributable to subsequent death.
Idiocracy is upon us.
On the post: Rather Than Considering Information 'Property,' What About Looking At Productive vs. Destructive Uses?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Present Value
So, copyright from the perspective of the holder is a privilege, and that's the most appropriate term.
Copyright abolition is the only way of restoring the public's natural right to copy cultural works in their legitimate possession, i.e. as was once the case with respect to folk music, folk tales, etc.
Copyleft licenses can simulate this, but only for specific works, and only as long as the copyleft licenses are dutifully adhered to.
On the post: The Economist On Why Copyright Needs To Return To Its Roots
Encouragement of learning?
Copyright was tailored specifically for the commercial interests of the Stationers' Guild and the Crown's interest in suppressing sedition/insurrection.
See http://questioncopyright.org/promise
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have to say that liberty is a priori inalienable - if anything, to remind judges that individuals cannot sign it away in contract. It cannot be up to the layman to be wary that they do not unwittingly sign away more than their property, e.g. a pound of flesh, or indentured servitude.
For further reading regarding the understanding of contracts as equitable exchanges rather than enforceable promises see:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It may seem a subtle difference:
a) An advance payment conditional on one party's future action.
b) Money in exchange for one party's submission into bondage to perform a future action.
The former is a contract, the latter is an injustice.
I appreciate that a lot of people think of contracts as promises, but this is a corruption. The law cannot compel people to carry out their promises, just as it cannot compel racers to win the races they promise they'll win. A promise is an informal commitment, not a legally recognisable one. The repercussion is loss of reputation, not prosecution.
A contract is an agreement to make an equitable exchange of what can be exchanged, subject to conditions (but not bondage). Either the exchange is made or it isn't - it is voluntary after all. The law only needs to become involved in the event that the parties are unable to achieve equity (not that either party did not keep a promise). It may also need to become involved in the event that shysters have hoodwinked the gullible into believing they can sign or 'promise' themselves into bondage (or their immortal souls away).
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't contract to wash my car next week?
As for NDAs, a non-disclosure agreement cannot enable an individual to surrender their freedom of speech (YJMV). Breach of an NDA may well be grounds for dismissal, and adherence may be rewarded, but these consequences do not impinge on liberty. For an individual to be prosecuted for breaching an NDA would be an injustice, and so the enforceability of NDAs against individuals remains controversial.
[YJMV=your jurisdiction may vary]
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Re: Re: You can't contract to wash my car next week?
Working for an employer is entirely voluntary. You are at liberty to stop working any time you please. Your employer can't force you to work simply by paying you money, or simply by saying "You signed a contract!".
Ones 'browsing history' isn't a good example of private information, since your ISP is necessarily privy to your use of their communications channel (you can utilise a VPN of course). NB Privacy is not the same as discretion.
Try coming up with some 'slam dunk' examples of people signing away their privacy or liberty.
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Re: Re: Re:
E.g. "If you pay me $10 now, I will wash your car tomorrow" does not bind me to wash your car. It simply initiates an exchange contingent upon future labour. If the labour doesn't happen the exchange is unable to complete and thus reverts to the situation prior.
Granted a lot of people like the idea they can get someone to sign on the dotted line and become thus entrapped into bondage, but then no doubt a lot of people like the idea of slavery. Many like the idea of a privilege over someone else, but not so much of others having a privilege over them.
Just remember that liberty is inalienable, and cannot be exchanged through contract. Even if you wanted to surrender your liberty, it would be an injustice for any court to uphold it.
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Re: Re:
The agreement is that the payment is equitable exchange for the service. Either the service is provided or the payment is returned, but the payee (if an individual) may not be forced to provide the service.
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Only if you define 'transaction' as an exchange of what the individual is able to be alienated from, i.e. their property, not their natural rights (life, privacy, truth, liberty).
NB Labour is a condition to a transaction, it cannot be forcibly extracted (qv slavery). Similarly, people cannot bind themselves to perform future actions with promises since they cannot alienate themselves from their liberty. We can agree that if I wash your car you'll pay me $10, but I cannot promise to wash your car next week (however much you pay me today), since I cannot alienate myself from my liberty not to wash your car (refunding your payment). As far as individuals are concerned, making and keeping promises is purely a matter of reputation, not bondage. Corporations (having no liberty) can of course promise to do what they like in a contract.
As for purchase of products, if the transaction is clearly portrayed as a simple exchange of money for goods, then it would be deceitful to induce the purchaser's agreement to an additional and unrelated exchange.
On the post: What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wrong?
Re: Re: Correlation != Causality
But, I get the idea you recognise innovation thrives on the liberty to copy and improve, not on the suspension of that liberty (by the privilege of patent).
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege
The people who disagree with me believe you can sell copies of your diary and still prosecute people if they copy what they've purchased.
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Re: Re: Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege
On the post: Copying Is Not Theft
Violation of natural right vs Infringement of privilege
Theft is a violation of that right (from which the notion of property derives), through the unauthorised removal of someone's material possessions.
Problems arise when people infer a natural right as limited to a specific violation. It is just as much a violation of privacy to burgle an individual's house and make and remove a copy their diary as it is to remove their diary. The fact that a burglar may be productive in their act is irrelevant.
So people do have a natural exclusive right to the intellectual works in their possession, against unauthorised copying as much as removal. This is a natural monopoly that lasts a lifetime.
It is only the unnatural monopoly of copyright, that 18th century privilege, that inveigles itself as a laudable extension.
So, copying is not theft, but that doesn't mean that in some cases unauthorised copying can't violate privacy as much as unauthorised material removal. A thief generally seeks to gain. The spiteful burglar seeking to deprive is a rarity.
In other words, to elevate copying into an intrinsically good act because it is apparently productive, is to lose sight of what makes theft unethical.
From: http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/04/digital-economy-act-built-on-sand.html
On the post: What If The Very Theory That Underlies Why We Need Patents Is Wrong?
Correlation != Causality
So, without patents the industrial revolution would never have occurred...
Better keep them on the statute books then eh?
Just to be safe.
Next >>