Re: Re: Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual
I am indeed pretty ignorant*.
As you astutely observe, Copyright does exist for a reason - that it is particularly lucrative to the publishing industries and the state's requirement that all publishing be constrained. The industry and state still conspire today (ACTA) just as they did in the 18th century (see http://questioncopyright.org/promise) prior to the enactment of the Statute of Anne.
If you took any of my intellectual works (or made copies thereof) from my computer without my authorisation, whether to sell or not, I'd have no hesitation in seeking your prosecution for the violation of my natural exclusive right, and all remedies regarding your theft of my work.
It's important to distinguish between the government's protection of an individual's natural right, and its unethical granting of privileges such as copyright (that derogate from individuals' rights) for the commercial benefit of corporations.
* It's always good to start a comment with an ad hominem - it really sets the standard. Nevertheless, this one is at least an accurate allegation, if a tad pejorative.
Re: Isn't it the shops perogotive to turn away business
Well, there's always the wee matter of UNFAIR discrimination.
Given copyright is inherently an instrument of injustice, to discriminate against people requiring your services on the basis of such an injustice is therefore unfair discrimination.
It may well be best to simply say "We can no longer provide copying services due to the costs of establishing the identity of, and permission by, the current copyright holders/assigns".
Re: Re: Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual
Like all privileges, it is actually also 'bad in theory' as well as in implementation.
We've had copyright for such a long time that its proponents' use of 'right' as a contraction of 'legally granted right' has conflated and corrupted the original 18th century meaning of right as a natural right.
The following excerpt from Wikipedia's page on Thomas Paine's Rights of Man seems to put the difference between 'right' and right most succinctly:
Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect - that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . They . . . consequently are instruments of injustice.
The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
Thus: The Statute of Anne, by annulling the (natural) right to copy (that is inherently in all the inhabitants), in the majority, leaves that right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few (copyright holders). The privilege of copyright is consequently an instrument of injustice.
Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual
It seems people subconsciously recognise that copyright is a privilege intended for publishing corporations, and yet its apologists (especially the Creative Commons crowd) persist in believing it's a natural authorial right - that somehow protects individuals AGAINST exploitation by corporations.
Copyright is an instrument of injustice. The best thing to do with it is to abolish it, and let it serve as a salutary lesson to future generations, as slavery and its abolition has served to ours.
I suspect he is still on the journey from the proprietary to the 'open scores' business model.
In the latter case he still gets commissioned for composing and producing scores, it's just that having been paid, he has no need to keep suspended the public's liberty to reproduce his scores.
There is the ethical issue of whether an individual's liberty should be suspended for commercial interests in the first place.
To leave copyright as a historical fait accompli, and then attempt to justify that it should not be abolished or 'blocked off' just in case evidence may one day materialise that demonstrates it to be more socially beneficial (conducive to 'progress') than its absence, is not a particularly sound position. It would be akin to having an 'agnostic' position on slavery, that in theory, if slaves were well treated to encourage enthusiasm, evidence may yet materialise to demonstrate that slavery was more socially beneficial than employment alone. Could one therefore be against the abolition of slavery on the off chance that it might one day prove the better to advance progress?
Your position is that of a utilitarian, albeit one yet to be convinced at copyright's social utility - patiently waiting.
A natural rights libertarian would not hesitate. You do not suspend the individual's liberty on the off chance a 300 year experiment could one day demonstrate it to be better exploited by industry. Even putting the ethical issues aside, we don't have the alternate universe (in which monopolies in literary works were never granted) to compare what three centuries of free cultural intercourse would have produced. And this gives rise to complacent acceptance of copyright - people don't see what it's prevented, what they've not had, and so recognise no loss. They see only the culture they have had, and so assume this could only have been achieved with copyright. It's very similar to patent. People assume that because patent law arrived with the industrial revolution that it must therefore have been patents that enabled and facilitated the industrial revolution. Au contraire, monopolies are parasites that arise precisely because there is progress to be harnessed, creative energy to be siphoned. They don't give rise to it.
I guess you still perceive quite a bit of stigma attaching to copyright abolitionism then. Strangely more than attaches to those justifying million dollar fines, disconnection, infringement upon accusation, censorship, etc.
As for 'promote the progress', I've already pointed out that that Constitutional aspiration doesn't apply to copyright, but to writers' and inventors' exclusive right to their writings and designs - a natural right that I wholeheartedly agree should be secured.
Anyway, if any legislator was going to grant monopolies in literary works to the Stationer's Guild then they'd hardly justify it on the basis that it would enrich the press in exchange for enabling the state to suppress sedition. One could only expect a pretext such as 'for the Encouragement of Learning'.
ACTA also has a noble pretext of preserving life though suppression of harmful counterfeits.
The fact that monopolies (+market/channel control) are lucrative to the larger market players (and the state lobbied by them) is obvious - and provides ample motivation for 'protective' legislation.
What is not obvious is how so many people can readily believe the legislation to be socially beneficial - or even that it may one day be demonstrated to be so.
I am skeptical that anyone can have written and understood as much about copyright as you have and still entertain the possibility that all the social harm may yet be not only counterbalanced, but greatly outweighed by evidence yet to materialise.
One day (very soon) copyright abolitionism will not be regarded as the heliocentric ideology of a lunatic fringe. I look forward to your epiphany. ;-)
Mike, I think it's time you wrote an article describing those few cases in which copyright's reproduction monopoly is so socially beneficial that it warrants the suspension of the public's liberty to make copies.
I can't think of any such cases, which is why I'm a copyright abolitionist.
However, assuming you remain in support of copyright, I'm intrigued to know what it is that maintains your support for it.
Slavery is not a metaphor for copyright. It is an alternative term, inappropriate only in degree. Slavery is the complete suspension of the individual's liberty. Copyright is a partial suspension, of only their liberty to copy. Patent is another partial suspension, of their liberty to utilise or manufacture a registered design.
Where the cotton farmer used the threat of a whipping, the copyright holding corporation uses the threat of million dollar fines. And how many people today would consider suffering a hundred lashes if they could exchange it for a million dollars?
Copyright is already a suspension of the individual's liberty to sing another's song. A compulsory license fee is the sale of the slave's liberty back to him at a statutory price.
As for indentured servitude, Conyers should check out some of the contracts that members of RIAA get their naive and desperate marks to sign.
When privileges are renamed as rights, the privileged corporations are classed as persons, and the lack of compulsory license is termed slavery, then the ascendancy of Homo Sapiens is coming to an end...
Yes, there is a consequent incentive for the 'disconnected' (ot those worried about it) to piggy-back on other people's accounts. But then, like escaped slaves in the barn, if they don't want to be discovered then they will behave themselves.
No doubt WiMAX will become popular, as will mobile phone 'pay as you go' accounts (that will probably rise in price accordingly).
However, while making copyright apply only to corporations is certainly far more ethical, I doubt it is particularly likely. The motivating force here is not for the liberty of the individual, but for the profit of the corporation.
If the people want their liberty back they're going to have to wake from their slumber in the corporate yoke.
Richard, the media industry isn't interested in preventing the distribution of unauthorised copies (given they're promotional). They're interested in leveraging copyright to maximise revenue.
They don't give a damn whether the account holder is responsible for infringement or not, and by definition, tier 2 accounts are licensed to share as many copies as they like (whether done by a trojan or the account holder).
You may not have picked this point up, but 3-strikes/graduated response is based on accusation only. If the account holder believes they can prove it was a hacker that engaged in the alleged infringement then the account holder has to pay for the pleasure of a lengthy tribunal.
So, the poor domestic punter is basically shafted. If they can't keep themselves and their computer squeaky clean, well, they'll just have to upgrade to a tier 2 account (unless they can afford a tribunal). And you'll find that over the subsequent years around 10% of the population per annum will be accused of infringement at random (no evidence is needed) precisely in order to increase the revenue from tier 2 accounts. This is the strategy to migrate all Internet users to upstanding tax payers.
The media industry know copyright has ended, but that doesn't mean they can't exchange it for a compulsory ISP license aka Internet tax.
There's no prospect more appealing to a corporation than to be able to effectively tax the population for communicating, i.e. receive vast amounts of money for doing nothing. Government won't be shy either. They'll want to piggy-back their own tax on top. The copyright license fee is a stalking horse.
If you can't afford to pay for a tier 2 account then your absence from it is no loss to anyone.
This is the trajectory. It could be adjusted, but to wean a population away from the cultural corruption of copyright is like weaning them from the cancer of tobacco. The prospect of becoming wealthy through selling their copyright to a publisher gives people far too much comfort to even tolerate the idea that it should be abolished. Limiting it to a few decades is like sticking a piece of foam on the end of a cigarette.
This 'temporary account suspension' is just an overture.
What we're really looking forward to are two tier accounts:
Tier 1: Unlicensed/domestic accounts - temporarily suspendable in the event of copyright infringement accusations.
Tier 2: Licensed/business accounts - not suspendable.
Tier 2 is effectively an Internet/ISP tax via the back door. No-one has to pay it (the license fee), but it's there if you need the reassurance that your account won't be throttled or suspended on the paltry strength of someone's accusation. Obviously, domestic users are always free to opt for this account, so can't say they're denied access to the Internet.
When you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable....
When people can make their own copies for nothing, the artist only has their art left to sell, and must sell to their fans who want it - not the publishers who can no longer sell copies of it.
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: your comments (above)
On the post: UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe
Re: Re: Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual
As you astutely observe, Copyright does exist for a reason - that it is particularly lucrative to the publishing industries and the state's requirement that all publishing be constrained. The industry and state still conspire today (ACTA) just as they did in the 18th century (see http://questioncopyright.org/promise) prior to the enactment of the Statute of Anne.
If you took any of my intellectual works (or made copies thereof) from my computer without my authorisation, whether to sell or not, I'd have no hesitation in seeking your prosecution for the violation of my natural exclusive right, and all remedies regarding your theft of my work.
It's important to distinguish between the government's protection of an individual's natural right, and its unethical granting of privileges such as copyright (that derogate from individuals' rights) for the commercial benefit of corporations.
* It's always good to start a comment with an ad hominem - it really sets the standard. Nevertheless, this one is at least an accurate allegation, if a tad pejorative.
On the post: UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe
Re: Isn't it the shops perogotive to turn away business
Given copyright is inherently an instrument of injustice, to discriminate against people requiring your services on the basis of such an injustice is therefore unfair discrimination.
It may well be best to simply say "We can no longer provide copying services due to the costs of establishing the identity of, and permission by, the current copyright holders/assigns".
On the post: UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe
Re: Re: Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual
We've had copyright for such a long time that its proponents' use of 'right' as a contraction of 'legally granted right' has conflated and corrupted the original 18th century meaning of right as a natural right.
The following excerpt from Wikipedia's page on Thomas Paine's Rights of Man seems to put the difference between 'right' and right most succinctly:
Thus: The Statute of Anne, by annulling the (natural) right to copy (that is inherently in all the inhabitants), in the majority, leaves that right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few (copyright holders). The privilege of copyright is consequently an instrument of injustice.
See also: http://www.cathygellis.com/soi/2010/04/blawg-review-258.html
On the post: UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe
Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual
Copyright is an instrument of injustice. The best thing to do with it is to abolish it, and let it serve as a salutary lesson to future generations, as slavery and its abolition has served to ours.
On the post: Classical Music Composers Debating The Value Of Free Too
Re: No money
In the latter case he still gets commissioned for composing and producing scores, it's just that having been paid, he has no need to keep suspended the public's liberty to reproduce his scores.
[/stilted prose]
On the post: A Real Copyright Problem In The UK: The Difficulty Of Archiving Important Websites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
To leave copyright as a historical fait accompli, and then attempt to justify that it should not be abolished or 'blocked off' just in case evidence may one day materialise that demonstrates it to be more socially beneficial (conducive to 'progress') than its absence, is not a particularly sound position. It would be akin to having an 'agnostic' position on slavery, that in theory, if slaves were well treated to encourage enthusiasm, evidence may yet materialise to demonstrate that slavery was more socially beneficial than employment alone. Could one therefore be against the abolition of slavery on the off chance that it might one day prove the better to advance progress?
Your position is that of a utilitarian, albeit one yet to be convinced at copyright's social utility - patiently waiting.
A natural rights libertarian would not hesitate. You do not suspend the individual's liberty on the off chance a 300 year experiment could one day demonstrate it to be better exploited by industry. Even putting the ethical issues aside, we don't have the alternate universe (in which monopolies in literary works were never granted) to compare what three centuries of free cultural intercourse would have produced. And this gives rise to complacent acceptance of copyright - people don't see what it's prevented, what they've not had, and so recognise no loss. They see only the culture they have had, and so assume this could only have been achieved with copyright. It's very similar to patent. People assume that because patent law arrived with the industrial revolution that it must therefore have been patents that enabled and facilitated the industrial revolution. Au contraire, monopolies are parasites that arise precisely because there is progress to be harnessed, creative energy to be siphoned. They don't give rise to it.
On the post: A Real Copyright Problem In The UK: The Difficulty Of Archiving Important Websites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
See a recent comment of mine here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0028137983.shtml#c1574
On the post: A Real Copyright Problem In The UK: The Difficulty Of Archiving Important Websites
Re: Re: Meta comment
As for 'promote the progress', I've already pointed out that that Constitutional aspiration doesn't apply to copyright, but to writers' and inventors' exclusive right to their writings and designs - a natural right that I wholeheartedly agree should be secured.
Anyway, if any legislator was going to grant monopolies in literary works to the Stationer's Guild then they'd hardly justify it on the basis that it would enrich the press in exchange for enabling the state to suppress sedition. One could only expect a pretext such as 'for the Encouragement of Learning'.
ACTA also has a noble pretext of preserving life though suppression of harmful counterfeits.
The fact that monopolies (+market/channel control) are lucrative to the larger market players (and the state lobbied by them) is obvious - and provides ample motivation for 'protective' legislation.
What is not obvious is how so many people can readily believe the legislation to be socially beneficial - or even that it may one day be demonstrated to be so.
I am skeptical that anyone can have written and understood as much about copyright as you have and still entertain the possibility that all the social harm may yet be not only counterbalanced, but greatly outweighed by evidence yet to materialise.
One day (very soon) copyright abolitionism will not be regarded as the heliocentric ideology of a lunatic fringe. I look forward to your epiphany. ;-)
On the post: A Real Copyright Problem In The UK: The Difficulty Of Archiving Important Websites
Meta comment
I can't think of any such cases, which is why I'm a copyright abolitionist.
However, assuming you remain in support of copyright, I'm intrigued to know what it is that maintains your support for it.
On the post: Rep. Conyers Compares Lack Of A Performance Right Tax To Slavery
Re: Slavery is a good metaphor
Where the cotton farmer used the threat of a whipping, the copyright holding corporation uses the threat of million dollar fines. And how many people today would consider suffering a hundred lashes if they could exchange it for a million dollars?
On the post: Rep. Conyers Compares Lack Of A Performance Right Tax To Slavery
Conyers is Confused
As for indentured servitude, Conyers should check out some of the contracts that members of RIAA get their naive and desperate marks to sign.
When privileges are renamed as rights, the privileged corporations are classed as persons, and the lack of compulsory license is termed slavery, then the ascendancy of Homo Sapiens is coming to an end...
On the post: Did The UK Gov't Back Down On Three Strikes... Or Did It Just Change What It Called It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Look further ahead
On the post: Did The UK Gov't Back Down On Three Strikes... Or Did It Just Change What It Called It?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Look further ahead
Yes, there is a consequent incentive for the 'disconnected' (ot those worried about it) to piggy-back on other people's accounts. But then, like escaped slaves in the barn, if they don't want to be discovered then they will behave themselves.
No doubt WiMAX will become popular, as will mobile phone 'pay as you go' accounts (that will probably rise in price accordingly).
On the post: Did The UK Gov't Back Down On Three Strikes... Or Did It Just Change What It Called It?
Re: Re: Look further ahead
However, while making copyright apply only to corporations is certainly far more ethical, I doubt it is particularly likely. The motivating force here is not for the liberty of the individual, but for the profit of the corporation.
If the people want their liberty back they're going to have to wake from their slumber in the corporate yoke.
On the post: Did The UK Gov't Back Down On Three Strikes... Or Did It Just Change What It Called It?
Re: Re: Look further ahead
They don't give a damn whether the account holder is responsible for infringement or not, and by definition, tier 2 accounts are licensed to share as many copies as they like (whether done by a trojan or the account holder).
You may not have picked this point up, but 3-strikes/graduated response is based on accusation only. If the account holder believes they can prove it was a hacker that engaged in the alleged infringement then the account holder has to pay for the pleasure of a lengthy tribunal.
So, the poor domestic punter is basically shafted. If they can't keep themselves and their computer squeaky clean, well, they'll just have to upgrade to a tier 2 account (unless they can afford a tribunal). And you'll find that over the subsequent years around 10% of the population per annum will be accused of infringement at random (no evidence is needed) precisely in order to increase the revenue from tier 2 accounts. This is the strategy to migrate all Internet users to upstanding tax payers.
The media industry know copyright has ended, but that doesn't mean they can't exchange it for a compulsory ISP license aka Internet tax.
There's no prospect more appealing to a corporation than to be able to effectively tax the population for communicating, i.e. receive vast amounts of money for doing nothing. Government won't be shy either. They'll want to piggy-back their own tax on top. The copyright license fee is a stalking horse.
If you can't afford to pay for a tier 2 account then your absence from it is no loss to anyone.
This is the trajectory. It could be adjusted, but to wean a population away from the cultural corruption of copyright is like weaning them from the cancer of tobacco. The prospect of becoming wealthy through selling their copyright to a publisher gives people far too much comfort to even tolerate the idea that it should be abolished. Limiting it to a few decades is like sticking a piece of foam on the end of a cigarette.
On the post: Did The UK Gov't Back Down On Three Strikes... Or Did It Just Change What It Called It?
Look further ahead
What we're really looking forward to are two tier accounts:
Tier 1: Unlicensed/domestic accounts - temporarily suspendable in the event of copyright infringement accusations.
Tier 2: Licensed/business accounts - not suspendable.
Tier 2 is effectively an Internet/ISP tax via the back door. No-one has to pay it (the license fee), but it's there if you need the reassurance that your account won't be throttled or suspended on the paltry strength of someone's accusation. Obviously, domestic users are always free to opt for this account, so can't say they're denied access to the Internet.
That's just around the corner...
On the post: Disney's Takedown Of Roger Ebert's Tribute To Gene Siskel
Re: Re: Re: sigh
On the post: Will People Pay For Content Online?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sturgeon's Law!
When people can make their own copies for nothing, the artist only has their art left to sell, and must sell to their fans who want it - not the publishers who can no longer sell copies of it.
Here's a more recent article to read:
Crowdfunding & Micropatronage Part 2
On the post: Will People Pay For Content Online?
Re: Re: Sturgeon's Law!
See http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php.
Next >>