That's why it's important to have a system that recognises fundamental human rights, e.g. the US Constitution.
Unfortunately, people have assumed that copyright is constitutional, or rather they are quite happy to do so, and uncomfortable at the idea that it might not be - see my Heliocentricity comment.
People have already suggested that contracts could recreate copyright if it was abolished. Fortunately, one cannot alienate oneself from one's rights through contract (hence 'inalienable'). It takes a legislated privilege such as copyright to suspend the public's natural right to liberty.
I should add that the moral right to integrity also falls out of the right to truth, i.e. that an artist's modified work not be misrepresented as the original, or the work of the original artist. That covers distortion to some degree.
Ah, you are venturing into the remit of moral rights, which are natural (though sometimes their legislation overreaches).
There is a natural right to truth (against the impairment of its apprehension). Thus in the case where an artist via the use of their work may be (mis)represented as endorsing a product in an advertisement, this does require either that the artist truly does endorse it, or that it is very clear that they don't (not just a disclaimer in weeny smallprint).
So, even without the transferable monopoly that the privilege of copyright grants to publishers (attached to original works), artists don't lose their human rights.
Copyright doesn't protect against plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a rights violation to be protected by law, it is not a privileged exclusion.
Unauthorised reproduction of a published work is a copyright infringement.
There's a big difference between sharing or building upon another's work (cultural liberty suspended by copyright), and misrepresenting another's authorship or opinions (plagiarism, misrepresentation).
If the Earth revolving around the Sun results in a simpler orrery, and a better explanation of the solar system, why favour a geocentric rather than a heliocentric explanation?
People don't like the rug being pulled from their feet.
The chance to have a monopoly is highly appealing, given it is plainly lucrative. What people happily brush under the carpet is the loss of everyone else's cultural liberty, and the consequential greater expense to the rest of society (given cultural suppression and legal costs of enforcement).
If you try and persuade people that whilst they do have a natural right to exclude others from their private domain (and the works in it), but that this doesn't extend to controlling what others do with the works one gives them (publication), this simpler explanation of the nature of intellectual property conflicts with their 'geocentric', self-centered view of how everyone should revolve about them.
Let's not forget that those who tried to advance the theory of heliocentricity were regarded as heretics and lucky to avoid being burnt at the stake (I was recently accused of being evil by a lawyer, myself).
Well, there are session musicians and contracted musicians, and god knows how contracts have quickly mutated over the years from almost fair deals to indentured servitude with guaranteed bankruptcy resulting from any exit clauses.
Perhaps, I should have said that the label 'supposedly' commissioned the musician?
Thank you for your clarification. It is most informative and helpful.
Promotion/Discovery always existed as an issue too.
Promotion: The vendor needing to communicate their existence and wares to potential customers.
Discovery: The customer needing to discover potential vendors that might meet their needs.
I don't really disagree with your points.
When you are convinced you have found a master craftsman you may commission them to produce work for money. Who is suggesting blind faith?
When a musician has a large and convinced audience, they may begin to receive commissions.
Previously the label (convinced by A&R) commissioned the musician in expectation of selling copies.
Today the market for copies has ended. Instead of the label, we will have the audience commissioning the musician. Who needs a monopoly on the sale of copies?
I agree David. I'm also still not convinced Mike's arrived at the 'true path to enlightenment', but is only coincidentally arriving at some of its tenets.
Copies may well have insignificant cost, but this doesn't mean the production of the art so copied has insignificant cost. Indeed, whilst a business in selling copies may now be doomed (copyright notwithstanding) a business in selling intellectual work (in the production of art) seems to remain undaunted, even if as yet we have little facility to support it.
It seems to me the future of the IP business can be best understood if one imagines a future without copyright, i.e. the restoration of all citizens' liberty. It's not primarily about copies being free of charge, but artists and their published art being free of encumbrance. The Internet simply makes reproduction and distribution cheaper (diverting the savings to the emancipated audiences' and artists' pockets instead of the publishers').
But hey, we're all beating paths through the jungle and we're not out of the woods yet. At least Mike seems to be heading in a similar direction, even if we only occasionally spot each other across a clearing. ;-)
Mike Masnick introduces us to a great new work, the like of which I have not seen since the Grey Album.
Let us wonder why this musician ‘Kutiman’ may not have either prepared his derivative art or even obtained our reward without seeking the permission of all those whose work he sampled.
Even if each of his sampled videos was CC-NC licensed, this mixing artist may not receive a single one of our pennies without theoretically becoming liable to copyright litigation – unless they painstakingly obtain permission from each and every copyright holder.
Why should such permission be required?
Why must this artist’s liberty be so suspended? Why may we not even reward them for their excellent intellectual work? Kultiman has provided attribution and links to each of the constituent works, so it is not as if we’re discouraged in also discovering and rewarding the underlying artists.
If such art can only be created and rewarded outside the law, then we must look to outlaws for such art, and reward them as outlaws.
Copyright is an unethical constraint on society’s cultural liberty and those societies who choose to remain bound by it choose cultural stagnation and obscurity.
Yes Mike, I think that's been recognised for some time by those who've been looking at the forest rather than the trees, but it's not a message that's particular easy to digest or package into a soundbite that's plainly relevant to the layman (who doesn't typically see any concern over distribution channels or who controls them).
Here's a couple of excerpts from my posts to Pho in 2004:
Sent: Friday, 6 February 2004 6:34pm
To: pho@onehouse.com
Subject: pho: RE: Trade group proposes new P2P music model
P2P systems may appear to be just a big, quasi-broadcasted melting pot of
play-on-demand content, but that's just their crude beginnings. You cannot
really treat them like yet-another-channel. Don't lose sight of the
individual. It would be best to think of p2p as person-to-person rather than
'puter-to-'puter. Each node performs quality assurance. Each node has an
identity. Each node has a reputation. They aren't simply dumb relays. There
will be significant advantages to nodes that maintain a long term identity
and reputation - that can't be driven underground by RIAA litigation.
Read the Cluetrain Manifesto. The new markets are made by people talking to
each other. The days of controlling the channel between 'content mass
production' and 'content mass consumption' are running out...
Artist and audience will soon merge, talking to each other directly.
There is no channel.
Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:01am
To: pho@onehouse.com
Subject: pho: RE: pho : Filesharing Is Not the Enemy
Yep, the RIAAvsP2P war is all about controlling the channels, not about losing sales.
They must discredit file sharing - litigate the participants and developers.
The funny thing is though, you'll probably never see the labels creating any licensed file sharing systems. Primarily because there's no point. File sharing is all about enabling people to provide each other which what they don't already have. The labels already have everything, so there's no benefit to utilising p2p to create a system greater than the sum of its parts. If you want a particular track you go direct to the central source (iTunes et al) - there's no point using p2p. And the last thing the labels want is for new artists to have direct access to market, so they require all new artists to go to them.
However, just like Microsoft, what the labels are failing to see on their radar is 'open source', i.e. free music. The labels dismiss this as a non-threat because they don't see how free music can make any money ipso facto it's not a threat or a loss to them. Why would all bar a few crazy artists give their work away?
So the labels don't need p2p and will litigate it until it's devoid of their music.
Fine.
File sharing will evolve such that files are guaranteed not to infringe copyright if they are shared.
File sharing will become one big online gallery of free art where musicians and other digital artists can promote themselves. How do they make money? They sell their art directly to the audiences thus created.
Far from forcing the populace to source their art from the central, authorised sources, RIAA will simply drive people away from hobbled, proprietary, inflexible art and into the arms of completely unencumbered public domain art.
I think the notion is that kids need to be introduced to fun things that they don't yet know are fun, like Chaucer, thermodynamics, and 18th century copyright law.
Why introduce kids to things they already know are fun?
I ain't agreeing, just suggesting this may be the perspective in play - or should I say 'at work'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Mike, I've just written a blog article for you (An Author's Exclusive Right) in which I explain the term and concept 'exclusive right' as used by the US constitution of 1787 - not 'exclusive rights' in the contemporary sense, in which people tend to include 'legal rights', i.e. unconstitutional privileges such as copyright.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
As to your challenge to find the enumeration of the 'right to copy' (which I've never said appears in the constitution), I refer you to one of many articles explaining why the rights deriving from liberty do not need enumeration in order that they be excluded from congress' power to abrogate:
Thus the natural right for people to make and sell copies of their own property is part of their natural right to liberty. This right to copy was abrogated to privilege printers. The constitution did not need to reserve this as one of an uncountable set of actions within the right to liberty in order to prevent copyright later being legislated. Copyright is unconstitutional and unethical.
What's changed recently is that we are also realising how anachronistic and ineffective it is, as well as noticing how it violates our right to liberty.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Congress is given the power to secure exclusive rights, not to grant monopolies.
I quoted Paine to help underline the fact that the constitution grants no rights or privileges - it recognises the rights that the people already have and that should be secured/protected. It cannot possibly recognise privileges that are unconstitutionally legislated at a later date (as 'rights'), nor does the constitution sanction this.
Power isn't given to congress by the constitution, but by the people as delimited by the constitution (that the people agree to), and this is why the people must remain enfranchised in that respect. The constitution is clearly not a natural construct, but the power the people have and convey through it is natural, and one may say that they have a natural right to direct, maintain, or withdraw their power that they convey to the government (as defined by the constitution).
Ownership of an object is naturally obtained by creation or purchase. The ownership of an author's writings is also obtained by creation or purchase.
Thus an author owns the writings they create, and has an exclusive right to them, until they sell or give them away, if ever.
It is not surprising that a privilege such as copyright can be treated as a commodity given it can be legally transferred. However, having a state granted monopoly does not constitute ownership of one's writings - even though such a monopoly may help secure one's exclusive right to them.
It would be far better if an author's exclusive right to their writings was treated as severely as any person's exclusive right to their material property, and policed and prosecuted by the state. Unfortunately, they must make do with a transferable monopoly and seek the aid of wealthy printers to enforce it - even if they are now beginning to recognise the ethics of neutralising the monopoly component via a copyleft license.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
I have not said that people have a right to copy what others own. I have tried to explain that copyright was created from the right to copy (derogating this from the right to liberty).
The right to liberty does not trump other rights, e.g. the right to privacy, or the right to life.
I have already agreed with the constitution's recognition of authors' exclusive rights to their writings.
The constitution gives congress no power to grant monopolies or other privileges.
See Paine: “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. ”
Thus, the constitution does not grant any rights, but recognises citizens' natural rights and the power they grant congress to secure them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Let's restrict ourselves to the argument rather than casting aspersions as to what each other understands (or has failed to).
Bear in mind that the context of my argument is the constitution. The constitution can recognise no privileges or 'legal rights', because there is no law that precedes the constitution except natural law.
As for the 'right to vote' it might be better to term this a constitutional right if it must be termed a right at all. This is because it is the people that empower the government, and who should thus remain enfranchised in that act - inalienably (criminal or not).
The right to copy is part of the right to liberty, and derogated from it to create the privilege of copyright. Rights need not be specifically enumerated by the constitution.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Rights are inalienable, and that means they are not transferable.
You'll find that copyright is a privilege and transferable (because it is a privilege not a right), even if the privilege does help secure the author's exclusive right to their writings.
Copyright is called 'copyright' because it suspends the people's right to copy and grants it as a transferable privilege, attached to an original work - purportedly an incentive to printers to fund the production and publication of new works for the public's benefit.
On the post: Copyright And Classical Music: The Exact Opposite Of The Intended Purpose
Re:
Unfortunately, people have assumed that copyright is constitutional, or rather they are quite happy to do so, and uncomfortable at the idea that it might not be - see my Heliocentricity comment.
People have already suggested that contracts could recreate copyright if it was abolished. Fortunately, one cannot alienate oneself from one's rights through contract (hence 'inalienable'). It takes a legislated privilege such as copyright to suspend the public's natural right to liberty.
On the post: Copyright And Classical Music: The Exact Opposite Of The Intended Purpose
Re: Re: Well . . . what about . . .
On the post: Copyright And Classical Music: The Exact Opposite Of The Intended Purpose
Re: Well . . . what about . . .
There is a natural right to truth (against the impairment of its apprehension). Thus in the case where an artist via the use of their work may be (mis)represented as endorsing a product in an advertisement, this does require either that the artist truly does endorse it, or that it is very clear that they don't (not just a disclaimer in weeny smallprint).
So, even without the transferable monopoly that the privilege of copyright grants to publishers (attached to original works), artists don't lose their human rights.
Copyright doesn't protect against plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a rights violation to be protected by law, it is not a privileged exclusion.
Unauthorised reproduction of a published work is a copyright infringement.
There's a big difference between sharing or building upon another's work (cultural liberty suspended by copyright), and misrepresenting another's authorship or opinions (plagiarism, misrepresentation).
On the post: Copyright And Classical Music: The Exact Opposite Of The Intended Purpose
Heliocentricity
People don't like the rug being pulled from their feet.
The chance to have a monopoly is highly appealing, given it is plainly lucrative. What people happily brush under the carpet is the loss of everyone else's cultural liberty, and the consequential greater expense to the rest of society (given cultural suppression and legal costs of enforcement).
If you try and persuade people that whilst they do have a natural right to exclude others from their private domain (and the works in it), but that this doesn't extend to controlling what others do with the works one gives them (publication), this simpler explanation of the nature of intellectual property conflicts with their 'geocentric', self-centered view of how everyone should revolve about them.
Let's not forget that those who tried to advance the theory of heliocentricity were regarded as heretics and lucky to avoid being burnt at the stake (I was recently accused of being evil by a lawyer, myself).
On the post: Recording Industry, Once Again, Stomps Out Optimism
You're almost there...
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand The Value Of Free Information Are Doomed To Fail
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What about capital formation?
Perhaps, I should have said that the label 'supposedly' commissioned the musician?
Thank you for your clarification. It is most informative and helpful.
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand The Value Of Free Information Are Doomed To Fail
Re: Re: Re: What about capital formation?
Promotion: The vendor needing to communicate their existence and wares to potential customers.
Discovery: The customer needing to discover potential vendors that might meet their needs.
I don't really disagree with your points.
When you are convinced you have found a master craftsman you may commission them to produce work for money. Who is suggesting blind faith?
When a musician has a large and convinced audience, they may begin to receive commissions.
Previously the label (convinced by A&R) commissioned the musician in expectation of selling copies.
Today the market for copies has ended. Instead of the label, we will have the audience commissioning the musician. Who needs a monopoly on the sale of copies?
On the post: Those Who Don't Understand The Value Of Free Information Are Doomed To Fail
Re: What about capital formation?
Copies may well have insignificant cost, but this doesn't mean the production of the art so copied has insignificant cost. Indeed, whilst a business in selling copies may now be doomed (copyright notwithstanding) a business in selling intellectual work (in the production of art) seems to remain undaunted, even if as yet we have little facility to support it.
It seems to me the future of the IP business can be best understood if one imagines a future without copyright, i.e. the restoration of all citizens' liberty. It's not primarily about copies being free of charge, but artists and their published art being free of encumbrance. The Internet simply makes reproduction and distribution cheaper (diverting the savings to the emancipated audiences' and artists' pockets instead of the publishers').
But hey, we're all beating paths through the jungle and we're not out of the woods yet. At least Mike seems to be heading in a similar direction, even if we only occasionally spot each other across a clearing. ;-)
On the post: Who Says Remixing Isn't Creative Or New?
Art Outlaws Without Lawful Reward
Let us wonder why this musician ‘Kutiman’ may not have either prepared his derivative art or even obtained our reward without seeking the permission of all those whose work he sampled.
Even if each of his sampled videos was CC-NC licensed, this mixing artist may not receive a single one of our pennies without theoretically becoming liable to copyright litigation – unless they painstakingly obtain permission from each and every copyright holder.
Why should such permission be required?
Why must this artist’s liberty be so suspended? Why may we not even reward them for their excellent intellectual work? Kultiman has provided attribution and links to each of the constituent works, so it is not as if we’re discouraged in also discovering and rewarding the underlying artists.
If such art can only be created and rewarded outside the law, then we must look to outlaws for such art, and reward them as outlaws.
Copyright is an unethical constraint on society’s cultural liberty and those societies who choose to remain bound by it choose cultural stagnation and obscurity.
On the post: What The RIAA Efforts Have Really Been About: Controlling Channels
In agreement
Here's a couple of excerpts from my posts to Pho in 2004:
On the post: Nebraska Officials Upset That Librarian Used Funds To Make The Library Cool For Kids
Things they don't know they'll enjoy
Why introduce kids to things they already know are fun?
I ain't agreeing, just suggesting this may be the perspective in play - or should I say 'at work'.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
What Is the Constitution?.
Thus the natural right for people to make and sell copies of their own property is part of their natural right to liberty. This right to copy was abrogated to privilege printers. The constitution did not need to reserve this as one of an uncountable set of actions within the right to liberty in order to prevent copyright later being legislated. Copyright is unconstitutional and unethical.
What's changed recently is that we are also realising how anachronistic and ineffective it is, as well as noticing how it violates our right to liberty.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
After all, there's no point me writing anything if it cannot be understood, especially by such as yourself.
Perhaps you could give me a little more of a clue as to what few things I could start off with in terms of explaining myself better?
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
I quoted Paine to help underline the fact that the constitution grants no rights or privileges - it recognises the rights that the people already have and that should be secured/protected. It cannot possibly recognise privileges that are unconstitutionally legislated at a later date (as 'rights'), nor does the constitution sanction this.
Power isn't given to congress by the constitution, but by the people as delimited by the constitution (that the people agree to), and this is why the people must remain enfranchised in that respect. The constitution is clearly not a natural construct, but the power the people have and convey through it is natural, and one may say that they have a natural right to direct, maintain, or withdraw their power that they convey to the government (as defined by the constitution).
Ownership of an object is naturally obtained by creation or purchase. The ownership of an author's writings is also obtained by creation or purchase.
Thus an author owns the writings they create, and has an exclusive right to them, until they sell or give them away, if ever.
It is not surprising that a privilege such as copyright can be treated as a commodity given it can be legally transferred. However, having a state granted monopoly does not constitute ownership of one's writings - even though such a monopoly may help secure one's exclusive right to them.
It would be far better if an author's exclusive right to their writings was treated as severely as any person's exclusive right to their material property, and policed and prosecuted by the state. Unfortunately, they must make do with a transferable monopoly and seek the aid of wealthy printers to enforce it - even if they are now beginning to recognise the ethics of neutralising the monopoly component via a copyleft license.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
The right to liberty does not trump other rights, e.g. the right to privacy, or the right to life.
I have already agreed with the constitution's recognition of authors' exclusive rights to their writings.
The constitution gives congress no power to grant monopolies or other privileges.
See Paine: “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. ”
Thus, the constitution does not grant any rights, but recognises citizens' natural rights and the power they grant congress to secure them.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
See Kinsella Interview on Lew Rockwell Show podcast: Intellectual.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
Bear in mind that the context of my argument is the constitution. The constitution can recognise no privileges or 'legal rights', because there is no law that precedes the constitution except natural law.
As for the 'right to vote' it might be better to term this a constitutional right if it must be termed a right at all. This is because it is the people that empower the government, and who should thus remain enfranchised in that act - inalienably (criminal or not).
The right to copy is part of the right to liberty, and derogated from it to create the privilege of copyright. Rights need not be specifically enumerated by the constitution.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re:
What we don't need are transferable reproduction monopolies - though they were once lucrative to printers.
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not constitutional in the first place
You'll find that copyright is a privilege and transferable (because it is a privilege not a right), even if the privilege does help secure the author's exclusive right to their writings.
Copyright is called 'copyright' because it suspends the people's right to copy and grants it as a transferable privilege, attached to an original work - purportedly an incentive to printers to fund the production and publication of new works for the public's benefit.
Next >>