Copyright holders have no more rights than anyone else, they simply have the privilege of suing anyone who copies their published work without their permission.
If you believe all men are created equal and that such a truth is self-evident, then you do not privilege anyone above anyone else, even publishers above the public.
End the inegalitarian privilege. Abolish copyright.
Just as with the airlines, the point is 'Security Theatre'.
The point is to instill in the audience's mind the idea that copying is an incredibly serious crime - tantamount to terrorism.
Of course, no-one seriously wishing to make a saleable/high-quality copy of a movie is going to use a camcorder, or even take a 30 second clip with a mobile phone.
If, inevitably, a few naive punters end up serving time because of this draconian law, well no doubt there will be plenty of crocodile tears shed by certain industry executives who lobbied for this legislation.
I think the law is actually counter-productive, even to dissuade the audience from buying domestic DVD burners to make backup copies of the DVDs they borrow from friends, rent, or download.
Perhaps this is precisely what they wished to demonstrate, i.e. that even though they committed huge amounts of money to a fundamentally flawed venture, they do listen to critics and will react appropriately.
Patents are a suspension of liberty, so AT&T is actually conflicted.
They cannot both pursue liberty and its suspension, unless they are only talking about their own 'liberty' and its unethical extension...
Life and liberty are natural rights of human beings, not corporations. These should not be pursued by corporations. Indeed, a humanitarian corporation should actively divest themselves of any privileges remotely resembling those reserved for human beings, e.g. pretensions to life and the entitlement to liberty.
I blogged only yesterday (see Streaming/Downloading Sophistry/Duality) about the stupid legal distinction between bits that have been 'streamed' and those that have been 'downloaded'.
It's pretty clear the constitution gave no sanction for the reproduction monopolies granted by patent and copyright - see Mythologising Copyright, but even if its unconstitutionality is recognised, it's another matter entirely to have the invalidity of copyright law recognised. Some will argue that the constitution is a guide to legislation, rather than an absolute stricture.
So, unfortunately, Denise is likely to discover what a snowball feels like in hell should she persist in this challenge, but I wish her luck. :)
Yup, I've been trying to say this model is blatantly obvious - as soon as you realise that the ever more brutally flogged horse that is copyright is now so dead even the magpies have given up trying to feed their chicks from it.
Similarly, there's nothing wrong in giving someone's words less weight because they choose not to risk their reputation or appear to lack the courage of their convictions.
YMMV
As to the AGPL. It's a crock. It's what happens when you pursue source code instead of liberty, even if you have to violate someone's privacy to get it. 'Freedom to violate another's privacy' is not an ethical freedom.
"People who freely give time and effort for the common good should not have their work "stolen" by those seeking to make a profit off of it."
This is a common if just as misguided principle as unadulterated copyright.
The 'Free as in speech, not as in beer' principle is about liberty, thus your aspiration when translated to a libertarian principle would be:
People who have ethically removed the constraints of copyright and patent from their published work, should not have those constraints re-imposed by those seeking to profit from the suspension of the public's liberty.
Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with profiting from anyone else's work. If I buy a chair or copy of GPL s/w from you that you've made, paint it green, or otherwise enhance it, and sell my version for twice the price to someone else, there's nothing unethical about this whatsoever (as long as no misrepresentation is involved) - even if you gave me the chair or copy for free.
I agree Joshua. Copyright may be inconsistent, but Mike's not found much of a conflict here between a first sale issue and the making of unlicensed copies.
But as for licenses, unless the license is provided as an as yet unsigned contract (that the recipient may sign if they wish - at any time), if you do not observe the license you infringe copyright. No doubt the artistic license specifically informs the licensee that it is not a contract, nor can be made into one.
It is important to distinguish between licenses that conditionally moderate copyright, and contracts (which aren't licenses, though they may appear similar).
Even more important is to recognise how unethical copyright is in the first place.
Re: Re: Copyright respects authorship and treats it as property
"Copyright was not considered a property right at the time (that was only much, much later). To the framers it was a monopoly right granted for the purpose of incentivizing more content."
To the Framers there was no copyright. The constitution did not recognise copyright.
The Framers recognised the natural, exclusive rights of authors and inventors, and considered that the state should have the power to secure these rights for limited times, e.g. the lifetime of the author/inventor.
The Framers couldn't possibly recognise a privilege of copyright since such a statute would have to arrive after the constitution - it couldn't occur before it. The constitution can only recognise what precedes it, i.e. natural rights. It cannot paradoxically recognise the legislation that was based upon itself or claimed sanction from it. So, the constitution could not recognise copyright.
Copyright claims constitutional sanction, because copyright clearly helps secure exclusive rights. Unfortunately, copyright does more than this by granting an exclusive reproduction privilege to published works, i.e. a monopoly over reproduction. Published works lie outside of an author's exclusive right, so any extension is an unsanctioned privilege for however long a term it is granted. The Framers specifically expressed their abhorrence for monopolies, so copyright clearly exceeds constitutional remit.
So, Mike, whilst some of the Framers may have lived to see the first copyright law become enacted (3 years after the Constitution in 1790), it is not copyright that the Constitution sanctioned, but the securing of exclusive rights. The US Copyright was heavily influenced by the Statue of Anne (which didn't recognise a reproduction monopoly as a natural right - hence the need to legislate such a privilege - and had no qualms about granting such mercantile privileges, indeed was quite familiar and comfortable with them).
So, 3 years after the Framers agreed that monopolies were to be deprecated, good old George Washington rubber stamps copyright - the most egregious monopoly ever invented.
All they had to do was to re-interpret 'exclusive right' to include control over works even after those works had clearly been released by their author from his natural exclusive control.
You plagiarise if you misattribute another's work as your own, explicitly or implicitly (by context).
By suggesting that you are plagiarising, you are effectively admitting that you didn't author many of the statements within your post. Therefore you are not committing plagiarism.
If the people in charge of voting can't even adhere to their own regulations governing how people may be elected to the board, then the whole thing is a farce.
I suggest we inform them that there are 39 seats left on the next 'B ark' spaceflight, and that they might nab them if they are quick.
Once Professor Patry has completed his epiphany and realised that an exclusive reproduction privilege is fundamentally unnatural, at odds with the fundamental laws of information and in conflict with the public in their cultural exchange, then he can work on how the law can and must be rewritten to protect everyone's natural intellectual property rights.
This requires no constitutional amendment, since a reproduction monopoly over published works is not an author's or inventor's exclusive right, but a privilege supposed to incentivise publication. A anachronistic privilege never constitutionally sanctioned, that is now clearly ineffective and unethically repressive.
It's time these mercantile privileges of copyright and patent, that have been allowed to remain despite the efforts of the Founders to prohibit them, were abolished, and steps taken to ensure they aren't later reintroduced under some other cunning guise.
This is far worse than suspending the public's liberty to reproduce a published work in order to grant this as a commercial privilege of the publisher. It is suspending the liberty of the public to publish original works - simply because the publisher finds them antagonistic to its own.
Evidently, when in doubt rule in favour of the immortal corporation. The rights of Human beings are now secondary to the commercial interests of corporations.
On the post: UK Lawyers Video Game Piracy Shakedown Catching Plenty Of Innocent Bystanders
No more rights, just privileged
If you believe all men are created equal and that such a truth is self-evident, then you do not privilege anyone above anyone else, even publishers above the public.
End the inegalitarian privilege. Abolish copyright.
On the post: So Why Did The MPAA Need New Camcording Laws Again?
Security Theatre
The point is to instill in the audience's mind the idea that copying is an incredibly serious crime - tantamount to terrorism.
Of course, no-one seriously wishing to make a saleable/high-quality copy of a movie is going to use a camcorder, or even take a 30 second clip with a mobile phone.
If, inevitably, a few naive punters end up serving time because of this draconian law, well no doubt there will be plenty of crocodile tears shed by certain industry executives who lobbied for this legislation.
I think the law is actually counter-productive, even to dissuade the audience from buying domestic DVD burners to make backup copies of the DVDs they borrow from friends, rent, or download.
But, hey, they need to justify their salaries...
On the post: Russia Realizes That Free Software Beats Sending Principals To Siberia For Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Copyright is Toxic
When you're typing fast, sometimes the comma gets missed out... and you still miss first post. ;-)
On the post: Russia Realizes That Free Software Beats Sending Principals To Siberia For Piracy
Copyright is Toxic
On the post: Microsoft Gives In To Online Critics: Fires Seinfeld
Perhaps all part of their cunning plan?
So, no doubt Vista will also soon be canned?
On the post: Life, Liberty And The Pursuit Of More Patents?
Patents are a suspension of liberty
They cannot both pursue liberty and its suspension, unless they are only talking about their own 'liberty' and its unethical extension...
Life and liberty are natural rights of human beings, not corporations. These should not be pursued by corporations. Indeed, a humanitarian corporation should actively divest themselves of any privileges remotely resembling those reserved for human beings, e.g. pretensions to life and the entitlement to liberty.
On the post: Has The Recording Industry Given Up On DRM For Streaming Music?
On the post: Woman Who Claimed RIAA Infringement Damages Were Unconstitutional Settles For $756/Song
Constitutionality of the Copyright Act?
So, unfortunately, Denise is likely to discover what a snowball feels like in hell should she persist in this challenge, but I wish her luck. :)
On the post: Musician Talks About Success In Getting Fans To Pay For The Album Before Its Created
Re: Hmmmm...Arts Being Supported by Patrons.
See Music is Expensive, Copies are Free.
On the post: Does Court Ruling Over Artistic License Conflict With Other Copyright Rulings?
Re: Eh
Similarly, there's nothing wrong in giving someone's words less weight because they choose not to risk their reputation or appear to lack the courage of their convictions.
YMMV
As to the AGPL. It's a crock. It's what happens when you pursue source code instead of liberty, even if you have to violate someone's privacy to get it. 'Freedom to violate another's privacy' is not an ethical freedom.
On the post: Does Court Ruling Over Artistic License Conflict With Other Copyright Rulings?
Re: Free Means No Copyright Right?????
This is a common if just as misguided principle as unadulterated copyright.
The 'Free as in speech, not as in beer' principle is about liberty, thus your aspiration when translated to a libertarian principle would be:
People who have ethically removed the constraints of copyright and patent from their published work, should not have those constraints re-imposed by those seeking to profit from the suspension of the public's liberty.
Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with profiting from anyone else's work. If I buy a chair or copy of GPL s/w from you that you've made, paint it green, or otherwise enhance it, and sell my version for twice the price to someone else, there's nothing unethical about this whatsoever (as long as no misrepresentation is involved) - even if you gave me the chair or copy for free.
On the post: Does Court Ruling Over Artistic License Conflict With Other Copyright Rulings?
Re: There is no conflict.
-1: anonymous. :-
On the post: Does Court Ruling Over Artistic License Conflict With Other Copyright Rulings?
Re: What are you talking about?
Granted, the Promo CD thing wasn't necessarily clear cut, but it wasn't a license violation - though it could have been a contract violation (see my comment here: http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2008/06/11/first-sale-prevails-in-umg-v-augusto/ ).
But as for licenses, unless the license is provided as an as yet unsigned contract (that the recipient may sign if they wish - at any time), if you do not observe the license you infringe copyright. No doubt the artistic license specifically informs the licensee that it is not a contract, nor can be made into one.
It is important to distinguish between licenses that conditionally moderate copyright, and contracts (which aren't licenses, though they may appear similar).
Even more important is to recognise how unethical copyright is in the first place.
On the post: How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class
Re: Re: Copyright respects authorship and treats it as property
To the Framers there was no copyright. The constitution did not recognise copyright.
The Framers recognised the natural, exclusive rights of authors and inventors, and considered that the state should have the power to secure these rights for limited times, e.g. the lifetime of the author/inventor.
The Framers couldn't possibly recognise a privilege of copyright since such a statute would have to arrive after the constitution - it couldn't occur before it. The constitution can only recognise what precedes it, i.e. natural rights. It cannot paradoxically recognise the legislation that was based upon itself or claimed sanction from it. So, the constitution could not recognise copyright.
Copyright claims constitutional sanction, because copyright clearly helps secure exclusive rights. Unfortunately, copyright does more than this by granting an exclusive reproduction privilege to published works, i.e. a monopoly over reproduction. Published works lie outside of an author's exclusive right, so any extension is an unsanctioned privilege for however long a term it is granted. The Framers specifically expressed their abhorrence for monopolies, so copyright clearly exceeds constitutional remit.
So, Mike, whilst some of the Framers may have lived to see the first copyright law become enacted (3 years after the Constitution in 1790), it is not copyright that the Constitution sanctioned, but the securing of exclusive rights. The US Copyright was heavily influenced by the Statue of Anne (which didn't recognise a reproduction monopoly as a natural right - hence the need to legislate such a privilege - and had no qualms about granting such mercantile privileges, indeed was quite familiar and comfortable with them).
So, 3 years after the Framers agreed that monopolies were to be deprecated, good old George Washington rubber stamps copyright - the most egregious monopoly ever invented.
All they had to do was to re-interpret 'exclusive right' to include control over works even after those works had clearly been released by their author from his natural exclusive control.
On the post: The Napster Of Newspapers
Re: Free alternative open source comment
By suggesting that you are plagiarising, you are effectively admitting that you didn't author many of the statements within your post. Therefore you are not committing plagiarism.
On the post: The Napster Of Newspapers
Plagiarism is incentivised by copyright
Compare with WikiTravel guides.
On the post: How Come There Aren't More Technologists On The Board Setting Voting Tech Standards?
Re:
The only technological solution to voting will be produced by the people, not corporations nor the state that represents them.
On the post: How Come There Aren't More Technologists On The Board Setting Voting Tech Standards?
Farce
I suggest we inform them that there are 39 seats left on the next 'B ark' spaceflight, and that they might nab them if they are quick.
On the post: Copyright Expert William Patry Shuts Down Blog, As It's 'Too Depressing'
There remains plenty of law that needs writing
This requires no constitutional amendment, since a reproduction monopoly over published works is not an author's or inventor's exclusive right, but a privilege supposed to incentivise publication. A anachronistic privilege never constitutionally sanctioned, that is now clearly ineffective and unethically repressive.
It's time these mercantile privileges of copyright and patent, that have been allowed to remain despite the efforts of the Founders to prohibit them, were abolished, and steps taken to ensure they aren't later reintroduced under some other cunning guise.
On the post: Blizzard Seeks Injunction Against Open Sourcing Bot Software It Can't Defend Against
Freedom of Speech
Evidently, when in doubt rule in favour of the immortal corporation. The rights of Human beings are now secondary to the commercial interests of corporations.
Next >>