No, I think we agree on what an analogy is. You are just trying to justify an analogy that makes no sense. Copying is not theft. Do I have to actually sing it to you?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation
I agree with Crosbie.
The reason people don't go around killing each other is not because laws exist to stop that sort of thing. It's because there's an unwritten agreement between them that says "you don't kill me, I don't kill you". I believe this agreement is literally written in our DNA. Most of us couldn't take a human life even if we wanted to.
A similar agreement exists for theft -- real theft, of real property: "you don't steal my car, I don't steal yours".
Laws exist to discourage those who somehow decide to break this agreement. Is it not an abuse of the law to discourage acts that are totally normal and natural?
Since intellectual monopoly is a fairly new idea, such an agreement doesn't exist. It's not naturally immoral to make copies without permission -- in fact, it's an evolutionary advantage to be able to copy a good idea when you see one.
But it's not a "right" other than in name. It's a *privilege* instated to achieve a goal, which congress is at liberty to take away if that goal is not being met.
As debated above, this is a "war of words". You can call it a "right" all you like, call it a "property right", call it an "ownership right" but IT WON'T MAKE IT THAT WAY no matter how many times you say it. Copyright is not property, it is not absolute, and infringing copyright is not theft or analogous to it.
Mr Copyhype is flogging a dead horse, I think. He could go on to make a similar argument that raping prostitutes is also theft, but that won't make it the case. Rape is rape, theft is theft, infringement is infringement.
I'm surprised people are missing this: Will the free recordings of the symphonies discourage new recordings any more than existing commercial recordings that are already considered "ultimate"?
There have been amazing recordings of Beethoven's symphonies (von Karajan, anyone?), so someone could argue nobody else will bother to re-record them, because they couldn't possibly do a better job.
Yet, hundreds of orchestras play and record the works of Beethoven every year.
Given Mr Escalante's thinking, we should have stopped von Karajan from making his recordings, because it could have discouraged others from making new recordings. Of course, that's totally stupid.
Free recordings of the symphonies can only push up the quality of future commercial recordings, because if those orchestras wish to compete with the free versions, they have to do better. This is a good thing, because it's the best possible way to "promote the progress of the useful arts" and Escalante is a fucking idiot.
Of course it is. That the people we have entrusted to run the world have lost long-term vision is just another thing that is broken and needs to be fixed.
"suggest that the content in question really isn't that good"
I think that's the crux of the matter. The label/studio/publisher system is entirely based on getting a bunch of artists who are "good enough" and promoting the hell out of them by any means possible, including artificial "word of mouth" hyping.
The problem with that, apart from the obvious fact that a lot of people are fooled and end up consuming content that isn't very good, is that the natural word of mouth is buried under the labels' fake marketing. This leads good music to be overlooked, because it doesn't manage to spread very far.
P2P/internet content discovery is starting to override this system, letting people make up their own minds, which is brilliant. The publishers aren't very happy with that, of course, because the guarantees of return on their marketing investments are being eroded.
This highlights the purpose of intellectual property in general.
For instance, big companies take out broad patents, which they can use to stop new entrants from implementing good ideas until they are ready to implement them first.
On a more global scale, IP-rich countries like the US will use patents to control up-and-comers like India and China. If you think about it, isn't that what ACTA is about?
It would make an interesting defence, to argue that statutory damages (that's what they are claiming, right?) should be capped to something really tiny because of the value of the copyrights. Such common sense isn't very common in the legal system, though.
The people who frequent Kickstarter are probably people who know a thing or two about the internet, and are likely avid filesharers. It's the right audience.
BUT, if initiatives like Kickstarter catch on, and the old industry is put in check, people from all sorts of different backgrounds will take part.
The same argument could be made for Oracle using its Java patents to sue Google for Android. Now, a good conspiracy theorist would see the timing of the two as too good to be a coincidence -- maybe they are working together to get rid of software patents!
I personally think that's BS and there's just a lot of unnecessary lawyering going on in the world.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's another analogy to confuse you.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Natural rights gives a straightforward explanation
The reason people don't go around killing each other is not because laws exist to stop that sort of thing. It's because there's an unwritten agreement between them that says "you don't kill me, I don't kill you". I believe this agreement is literally written in our DNA. Most of us couldn't take a human life even if we wanted to.
A similar agreement exists for theft -- real theft, of real property: "you don't steal my car, I don't steal yours".
Laws exist to discourage those who somehow decide to break this agreement. Is it not an abuse of the law to discourage acts that are totally normal and natural?
Since intellectual monopoly is a fairly new idea, such an agreement doesn't exist. It's not naturally immoral to make copies without permission -- in fact, it's an evolutionary advantage to be able to copy a good idea when you see one.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said it was."
Liar. It's right there^^
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As debated above, this is a "war of words". You can call it a "right" all you like, call it a "property right", call it an "ownership right" but IT WON'T MAKE IT THAT WAY no matter how many times you say it. Copyright is not property, it is not absolute, and infringing copyright is not theft or analogous to it.
On the post: Why It's Important Not To Call Copyright Infringement Theft
On the post: Vandals' Bass Player Not A Fan Of The Public Domain, Thinks PD Recordings Will 'Destroy' Classical Music
There have been amazing recordings of Beethoven's symphonies (von Karajan, anyone?), so someone could argue nobody else will bother to re-record them, because they couldn't possibly do a better job.
Yet, hundreds of orchestras play and record the works of Beethoven every year.
Given Mr Escalante's thinking, we should have stopped von Karajan from making his recordings, because it could have discouraged others from making new recordings. Of course, that's totally stupid.
Free recordings of the symphonies can only push up the quality of future commercial recordings, because if those orchestras wish to compete with the free versions, they have to do better. This is a good thing, because it's the best possible way to "promote the progress of the useful arts" and Escalante is a fucking idiot.
On the post: How Social Mores Can Deal With 'Unfair' Copying, Even In Absence Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?
More likely, however, it's being used under license, in which case they don't need to give credit explicitly.
On the post: Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands
/machine learning joke
On the post: Mark Waid Explains: Culture Is More Important Than Copyright & It's Time To Look For Opportunities In Sharing
Re:
On the post: If You Have To Tweet About Me Before I Give You Content, Will You Still Respect Me In The Morning?
I think that's the crux of the matter. The label/studio/publisher system is entirely based on getting a bunch of artists who are "good enough" and promoting the hell out of them by any means possible, including artificial "word of mouth" hyping.
The problem with that, apart from the obvious fact that a lot of people are fooled and end up consuming content that isn't very good, is that the natural word of mouth is buried under the labels' fake marketing. This leads good music to be overlooked, because it doesn't manage to spread very far.
P2P/internet content discovery is starting to override this system, letting people make up their own minds, which is brilliant. The publishers aren't very happy with that, of course, because the guarantees of return on their marketing investments are being eroded.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: This works great but...
This highlights the purpose of intellectual property in general.
For instance, big companies take out broad patents, which they can use to stop new entrants from implementing good ideas until they are ready to implement them first.
On a more global scale, IP-rich countries like the US will use patents to control up-and-comers like India and China. If you think about it, isn't that what ACTA is about?
On the post: Court Refuses To Dismiss Righthaven Lawsuit Just Because Righthaven Bought The Copyright After Infringement Happened
Re: Re: Re: Discovery
On the post: Court Refuses To Dismiss Righthaven Lawsuit Just Because Righthaven Bought The Copyright After Infringement Happened
They aren't actually suing for tens of thousands of dollars for content that took only hundreds of dollars to produce, are they?
On the post: Does Steven Levitan Also Want A Cut Every Time You Buy A TV?
I bet this guy will keep repeating the same shite until the day he dies.
On the post: Funding To Edit 200 Hours Of Pirate Bay Documentary Footage Raised In Just Three Days
Re: Of course
BUT, if initiatives like Kickstarter catch on, and the old industry is put in check, people from all sorts of different backgrounds will take part.
Almost sounds too good to be true.
On the post: A Rose Is A Rose Is A Rose... Until Police See It On CCTV, Say It's A Knife & Throw You In Jail For 3 Months
Shakespeare remix of the day.
On the post: Is Paul Allen's Patent Madness Really An Attempt To Show The Madness Of Patents?
I personally think that's BS and there's just a lot of unnecessary lawyering going on in the world.
On the post: Paul Allen Becomes A Patent Troll, Sues Google, Apple, Facebook, eBay And Others...
On the post: Why Does The NY Times Rely So Often On Single Anecdote Trend Pieces Not Supported By The Data?
Bogusity
Next >>