Re: Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
True musicians should be out there working 250 nights a year making a living like the rest of us. At least, that is what I have learned reading Techdirt.
True musicians are doing just that. They are planing their tours, their shows and promotions. They are chatting it up with their fans to promote their music. THey are selling merchandise and tickets and other scarcities. They are working their butts off to be the success they want to be. I honestly don't know why you think a hard days work is an evil thing.
Those are cases where crud has been forced to the top. THe natural course of things is for the quality stuff to succeed. Marketing creates an unnatural force.
I think we do disagree. We disagree on what is property and what are rights and what is violated when someone infringes copyright. You seem to believe that it is some kind of property right which makes little sense. I say it is a violation of a right. Very different things under the law.
I wasn't ignoring it. I don't see how the rights differ.
Ownership of a teapot: I am the only one who can use it unless I give someone permission.
Ownership of land: I am the only one who can use it unless I give permission.
Ownership of a teapot: if someone takes it from me, that is a crime.
Ownership of land: If someone takes it from me, that is a crime.
Ownership of a teapot: If someone damages it intentionally, that is a crime.
Ownership of land: If someone damages it intentionally, that is a crime.
Do you see where I am going with this? Teapots and land are both property under legal definitions. They both apply to physical objects with exclusive ownership rights.
Intangible objects and rights do not fall under those categories.
How can a teapot not be exclusively owned? If there is only one of them and I have it, I exclusively own it. If a manufacturer makes 1 million identical teapots and 1 million people each own one, they still have exclusive rights to the one they each own.
I don't see how that invalidate my definition of property. Is my copying your song denying you the right to possess the work? No because you still have it. Does it deny you the right to enjoy it, no it doesn't. Does it deny you the right to dispose of it, not it does not.
The work is your property. However because of its intangible nature, it is not the same as personal property. You do not actually own the work under copyright, just the right to control copying and distribution of the work.
We have defined certain property rights to tangible copyrighted materials such as paintings and other works of art. However, those property rights only apply to the actual work itself. Meaning, if you sell your painting, you no longer have property rights to the work, but you still have copyright to the work, meaning the person that bought your painting cannot make copies of it without your permission. If they do make a copy without permission, they have not violated property rights, only copyrights.
The sticky bit is when we try to apply property rights to intangible objects and ideas. A composition is intangible and infinitely copy-able. Because of that nature, we cannot apply traditional property rights to it as it has no physical properties. So the only control you can have on it is the control over how it is copied and distributed. And since that control is not property only a right, it can only be infringed.
Nobody in this thread has really addressed why the exclusive rights relating to a teapot or land should be called "property" and the exclusive rights relating to, e.g., a musical composition should not.
Because rights are not property. The teapot and land, those are properties. The "exclusive rights" to those properties are not the property themselves. This is what you are having such a hard time dealing with. You cannot separate the right to control the property from the property itself.
If I take your teapot, I have stolen your property. If I used your teapot without your permission (while not removing it from your presence) that is infringement.
When I copy your song without your permission, that is not taking your property. That is violating your right to control the copying and distribution of your property. You still have your property. You still have your rights. Its just that those rights had been violated. Those rights had been infringed.
I have a right to free speech under the first amendment. That does not mean I have "Free Speech Property". Rights are not property. You can have rights over property, but the rights themselves are not property.
Claiming that copyright is property is not intellectually honest. As a creator of a copyrighted work, you can claim ownership of the original work and you have property rights to the original work. However, copyright extends only to the ability to copy that work. That ability to copy is not property. It is a right. Rights can only be infringed not stolen.
No it is not property. It is a right. A monopoly right. Information is not and cannot be property. Primarily because it is infinite. You cannot claim ownership over something that can be infinitely created.
Claim all you want that your monopoly rights are being infringed. However, it is completely dishonest to claim that something or som property is being stolen.
Yesterday I was at my mother's house with my kids. They wanted to watch Over the Hedge and my mom put it on for them. I came into the room about 30 minutes in and sat down and was looking at it. I thought the image quality was pretty nice and asked my mom if it was a Bluray disk. She said it wasn't. I just sat there and thought to myself, "Why do we need Bluray again?"
She was watching it one a 42" HD TV with a Bluray player that upscaled DVDs. If that is all it takes to get great video quality for the masses, why do we need a new format rather than just a bunch of upscaling DVD players?
Yep. We have already seen an increase from 5,000 to 25,000 as the White House learned that such a low threshold made it too easy in today's internet society to meet it. Now that we have seen a high number of successful petitions at 25,000 signatures, it is pretty easy to see them upping it to perhaps 50,000 or more.
This is one of those times when a global treaty would come in handy. We should be working toward an unified copyright code that brings copyright into the modern age. No, I am not talking about ACTA or the TPP. I am talking about a fact based treaty in which copyright law, piracy, the public domain etc are all researched, studied and the best model of copyright law is brought forth.
There is no reason why any work should be in the public domain in one nation while still under copyright in another. This is insanity.
The internet has made current copyright law obsolete and it needs updated. Too bad too many politicians in too many countries are listening to the wrong people spout off faulty information rather than listening to reason and fact.
In fact, this very issue has harmed innovation and culture already. There was a recent project to bring public domain sheet music freely to the public. However, several pieces of music were still under copyright in certain "persuasive" nations and the services was killed off because the site owner couldn't afford, both financially and emotionally, to fight. That is a loss to culture. That should never have happened in any civilized society.
Once again you completely ignore all the jobs that services like Megaupload enable. All those artists that were using that service to make money off their own work and making money, buying cars, and housing etc. Do their jobs not matter in your world view? Why do you hate artists making money?
On the post: Beware Of Those Who Claim They're 'Saving The Culture Business' When They're Really Protecting Those Who Strip Artists Of Rights
Re: Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
True musicians are doing just that. They are planing their tours, their shows and promotions. They are chatting it up with their fans to promote their music. THey are selling merchandise and tickets and other scarcities. They are working their butts off to be the success they want to be. I honestly don't know why you think a hard days work is an evil thing.
On the post: BBC Tracks Down And Confronts An Internet Troll
Re: Troll Study
On the post: BBC Tracks Down And Confronts An Internet Troll
Re: Troll Study
On the post: The Rise Of The 'Professional Amateur' And The Fall Of Gated, Exclusionary 'Clubs'
Re: Re: Re: Milkey goodness
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ownership of a teapot: I am the only one who can use it unless I give someone permission.
Ownership of land: I am the only one who can use it unless I give permission.
Ownership of a teapot: if someone takes it from me, that is a crime.
Ownership of land: If someone takes it from me, that is a crime.
Ownership of a teapot: If someone damages it intentionally, that is a crime.
Ownership of land: If someone damages it intentionally, that is a crime.
Do you see where I am going with this? Teapots and land are both property under legal definitions. They both apply to physical objects with exclusive ownership rights.
Intangible objects and rights do not fall under those categories.
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The work is your property. However because of its intangible nature, it is not the same as personal property. You do not actually own the work under copyright, just the right to control copying and distribution of the work.
We have defined certain property rights to tangible copyrighted materials such as paintings and other works of art. However, those property rights only apply to the actual work itself. Meaning, if you sell your painting, you no longer have property rights to the work, but you still have copyright to the work, meaning the person that bought your painting cannot make copies of it without your permission. If they do make a copy without permission, they have not violated property rights, only copyrights.
The sticky bit is when we try to apply property rights to intangible objects and ideas. A composition is intangible and infinitely copy-able. Because of that nature, we cannot apply traditional property rights to it as it has no physical properties. So the only control you can have on it is the control over how it is copied and distributed. And since that control is not property only a right, it can only be infringed.
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because rights are not property. The teapot and land, those are properties. The "exclusive rights" to those properties are not the property themselves. This is what you are having such a hard time dealing with. You cannot separate the right to control the property from the property itself.
If I take your teapot, I have stolen your property. If I used your teapot without your permission (while not removing it from your presence) that is infringement.
When I copy your song without your permission, that is not taking your property. That is violating your right to control the copying and distribution of your property. You still have your property. You still have your rights. Its just that those rights had been violated. Those rights had been infringed.
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re: Meanwhile in Canada......
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6307/125/
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re:
Claiming that copyright is property is not intellectually honest. As a creator of a copyrighted work, you can claim ownership of the original work and you have property rights to the original work. However, copyright extends only to the ability to copy that work. That ability to copy is not property. It is a right. Rights can only be infringed not stolen.
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re:
Claim all you want that your monopoly rights are being infringed. However, it is completely dishonest to claim that something or som property is being stolen.
On the post: Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She was watching it one a 42" HD TV with a Bluray player that upscaled DVDs. If that is all it takes to get great video quality for the masses, why do we need a new format rather than just a bunch of upscaling DVD players?
On the post: Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better
Re: Wah. What a little baby.
On the post: White House Petition Demands TPP Process Be Open & Transparent
Re: Re:
On the post: Would The US Extradite UK Blogger For Linking To Works In The Public Domain In Other Countries?
Global Treaties
There is no reason why any work should be in the public domain in one nation while still under copyright in another. This is insanity.
The internet has made current copyright law obsolete and it needs updated. Too bad too many politicians in too many countries are listening to the wrong people spout off faulty information rather than listening to reason and fact.
In fact, this very issue has harmed innovation and culture already. There was a recent project to bring public domain sheet music freely to the public. However, several pieces of music were still under copyright in certain "persuasive" nations and the services was killed off because the site owner couldn't afford, both financially and emotionally, to fight. That is a loss to culture. That should never have happened in any civilized society.
We need change.
On the post: Ubisoft Cuts Off Legit Players With DRM Server Migration; Pirates Play On
Re: This plays in with the article about saving old software
On the post: If Politicians Pushing SOPA/PIPA Want To Create Jobs, They Should Support The Internet -- And Stop Treating Copyright Companies As Special
Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Submits Entire Filing About How 'Radical, Quasi-Anarchist' EFF Should Be Blocked From Participating In Case
Re:
On the post: Beach Boys Lyricist Goes After Artist Who Dared To Paint Works Inspired By Beach Boy Songs
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>