The Obligation To Promote Copyright Infringement
darwinist
introduced:
- The cost of distribution has gone down.
- The duration of the government-granted monopoly has gone up.
- The production and ownership of materials covered by these laws, has
shifted towards incorporated businesses, dwarfing that of individuals.
- The legal paradigm has shifted from a limited monopoly for the sake
of the public domain, to "intellectual property".
While the internet is a toy to some, its ability to transfer
information faster and further, has become is an economic necessity to
others. To the less affluent around the world, time and money can be
the difference between life and death. Hygiene information, medical
information, weather forecasts, economic and political networking, are
becoming more accessible to the people who need them the most. This is
largely because of the demand for bandwidth in the first world, and the
effects this has had on the supply industry all over the world.
Inexperienced or naive users can fall subject to everything from fraud
to sexual predation, but this problem can be addressed with basic
education in online practices, and laws that required adults to take
responsibility for any internet connection used by children under their
guard.
The only big, complicated problem, that holds back the economic
potential of the internet to those who need it the most, is the
interference by some media corporations that have grown fat on their
ability to distribute information far more efficiently than the rest of
us; an ability which they no longer have.
The idea that the world will lose something important if we don't get
200-million-dollar fictional movies anymore, is fairly absurd on its
face. The idea that the most popular chart music is the most
innovative, genuine or heartfelt, is likewise hard to swallow. We have
nothing to fear from the death of copyright-based corporations, but
this death, while inevitable, is happening too slowly and is costing us
all money, such as in the following ways:
New and interesting ways of sharing information (eg bittorrent,
napster, and every web-based search engine), being held-back,
badmouthed, shut down, sent broke, or otherwise attacked because people
start using them to share information that is copyrighted.
Taxpayer's money and elected-official's time, trying to protect the
obsolete business models of old-style media production companies, by
interfering with everybody else's computer and internet use.
Hardware that costs more than it otherwise would because it has
additions to specifically prevent it from working how the users want,
in order to protect established business models that are no longer
sustainable on their own.
The rich and internet savvy can get around all of these things, but
they're not the ones who are hurt by the slowed pace of technology.
They have a duty to inform others, so that we can all see the sham that
is digital rights management. To anyone who knows anything about it, it
is a sham. That is to say it is unworkable, unsustainable, regularly
broken and fundamentally breakable. It makes services cost more,
products cost more, and most importantly, it makes invention cost more,
because you need to make sure you don't raise the ire of any of these
rich, powerful, well-represented organisations.
If you know what I mean and you agree with me then you don't have just
the right to break copyright, you an obligation to do it, and to
instruct and encourage others to do so.
Don Stockbauer
Hell, go for the general case.
Make everything free.
Sphere
http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html
A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841
by Thomas Babington Macaulay
"...At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his
side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the
bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to
see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their
ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do
with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is
at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical
booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses
of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law.
Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation
will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be
when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe,
or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it
shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the
great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a
hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and
discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the
invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The
wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and
danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will
find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the
reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent,
annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and
defrauding the living...."
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
Don Stockbauer
Nice timely information.
Tusko
kinds of creative expression, and then to the detrement of others. For
instance, I find it very sad that copyright effectively vetoes the
creation of a new, populist folk music even as it protects certain
other forms of creative expression.
Yet I do have some reservations about your approach. We have grown up
with creative forms - the professional two hour movie, the album
(especially the concept album), the novel etc.. that have grown out of
copyright law and the production of which are intimately bound up with
it. Without copyright protection these complex and familiar forms could
no longer be produced for money, and so would be produced much less
frequently, if at all.
That isn't to say the folk song, the tall tale, or a any one of a
hundred other forms of creative expression that don't require copyright
to thrive would necessarily be adversely affected. I think on the
contrary that older forms that have been sidelined would simply come
back to fill the gap in our cultural landscape left by the forms that
thrive on copyright.
Although it is true the criteria by which we judge the worth of
"copyright-friendly" creative forms pre-suppose that copyright is
worthwhile (psychological depth, intricacy of plot and other features
that we might consider make for a good novel are all dependent on the
amount of time that the author can spend writing so they must have some
means of supporting themselves through writing), the fact remains that
in our world the systems in place allow huge numbers of new novels to
be written and widely disseminated.
Wouldn't it be sad if as a result of the recinding of copyright, that
such a familiar and complex form as the novel, which provides great
insight into contemporary life and provides so much pleasure for so
many was reduced to something that only devoted hobbyists might
occasionally produce?
Cheers,
AlanS
>The idea that the world will lose something important if we don't get
>200-million-dollar fictional movies anymore, is fairly absurd on its
>face.
Well, if such movies are not important to you, *don't* pirate. You
won't miss out on anything important, will you?
Justifications of pirates are ridiculous. They denigrate what they
steal. If you think the movie isn't worth the admission price, just
pretent it was never made. Nobody has an obligation to let you set the
price of their own work.
>The idea that the most popular chart music is the most
>innovative, genuine or heartfelt, is likewise hard to swallow.
Then don't steal the most popular chart music.
>We have nothing to fear from the death of copyright-based corporations,
We have nothing to fear from flourishing of copyright-based
corporations. That is, unless you are cheap.
Tusko
necessarily attempting to justify a hard-drive filled with hollywood
crap and pop-pap. I think he or she is saying that if it isn't
heartfelt, interesting, challenging or original, why should it be
afforded protection? Especially when the enforcement of that
protection:
a) Damages new and interesting ways of sharing information.
b) Costs taxpayer's money and elected-official's time... and
interferes with everybody else's computer and internet use.
c) Increases the cost of hardware ... to specifically prevent it from
working how the users want.
especially when...
d) The rich and internet savvy can get around all of these things, but
they're not the ones who are hurt by the slowed pace of technology.
Robert Cohen
digitalized culture era,
then the laws are necessarily re-formulated.
The $1.6 BILLION IN STOCK venture for YOUTUBE by GOOGLE is thought to
be
an enormous risk into the murkiness of copyright legalistic phenomena.
While I post copyrighted material in this n.g., I'm not confident in my
understanding the pertaining laws and their enforcement criteria.
What is a civilization if it's not about understanding & observing of
laws & customs?
You whom are dependant for livlihoods upon protecting creative software
& other proprietary original content cannot be rationally
glib/indifferent about these phenomena.
I perceive most everybody realizes the obvious problems.
Mixed preddiction:
Eventually I would expect the laws & customs to ...uh...be firmer than
now and more enforced.
But, hey, the speeding & the other traffic laws are sporadically
enforced while most of us are over the limits so much of the time.
Soooo, perhaps copyright laws are seemingly somewhat suimilar in
ordinary everyday reality.
AlanS
>I'm not sure if I agree with your argument. I don't think darwinist is
>necessarily attempting to justify a hard-drive filled with hollywood
>crap and pop-pap. I think he or she is saying that if it isn't
>heartfelt, interesting, challenging or original, why should it be
>afforded protection?
Why not? Why should only the self appointed intellectual elite be able
to grant protection? If millions of people want to see, hear or read
it, it, regardless of what someone on a high horse may think about it,
it carries more value than any heartfelt, interesting, challenging or
original material that nobody is willing to see, hear or read.
>Especially when the enforcement of that
>protection:
>
>a) Damages new and interesting ways of sharing information.
>
>b) Costs taxpayer's money and elected-official's time... and
>interferes with everybody else's computer and internet use.
>
>c) Increases the cost of hardware ... to specifically prevent it from
>working how the users want.
>
>especially when...
>
>d) The rich and internet savvy can get around all of these things, but
>they're not the ones who are hurt by the slowed pace of technology.
Copyright has never slowed the pace of technology or hurt sharing of
information or anything else you mention. It's piracy,if anything,
that costs taxpayers money, increases the cost of hardware... etc.
BTW, most people confuse copyrights with patents.
Immortalist
What is behind the phenomenal success of Western civilization and its
remarkable economic growth? The answer involves the concept of private
property and the development of secure property rights.
A nation's prosperity increases in proportion to its legal and social
support for private property. With appropriate legal institutions
property owners will work to improve what they have and maximize its
value, thereby making it more productive and keeping it from harm.
In addition to recent examples, such as the collapse of the USSR,
private property rights have been a pivotal factor in prosperity
throughout history.
Plymouth Colony more than 300 years ago. Originally, all property in
the colony was held in common for all settlers. But, as their governor
William Bradford complained, the colony soon divided into two camps:
disgruntled hard workers, and "free riders" who lived off the efforts
of others. It was only after individual property rights were restored,
and people received income in proportion to their outputs, that
prosperity finally arrived for Plymouth Colony.
Examining the historical record we can demonstrate that societies which
permit ownership of private property, protect property from the
predations of others, establish a judicial system to enforce contracts,
treat all equally according to law, and allow the possibility of reward
are the ones that flourish and bring greatest wealth to all.
This is a powerful rebuttal to anyone who incorrectly believes that
wealth can be increased simply by redistributing it.
The Noblest Triumph :
Property and Prosperity Through the Ages
by Tom Bethell
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312223374/
RyanT
artists. People who strongely argue against it typically have no
experience dealing in the actual medium because they take artist's
creativity for granted.
Blatant infringements of copyright happen all the time, and people get
away with it without much heed, and these infringements are done by
artists as well. Anybody who's actually worried about persecuted is
just being paranoid, unless of course, you start making a ton of money.
Copyright laws only begin to have any significance when there's
significant money involved, which most artists don't have to worry too
much about.
Basically you gotta be asking yourself what urgency is there for people
to be able to blatantly plagarize someone's work beyond personal use.
If you want books there's always the library, and there's really no way
to persecute software piracy. Small-scale infringements usually go
under the radar, so at that level nobody really cares.
But in cases where big business takes advantage of individual artists
(which happens all the time) it gives them some means of legal
recourse.
The thing is, if you had any sort of creativity whatsoever, it's not
even that terribly difficult to augment or distort the original
material in such a way that makes it unrecognizable. I would say that
by discouraging plagarism it is in fact encouraging artists to do
somethind different than already hasn't been done already. Isn't that
what artists are supposed to do anyway?
Sphere
Let people own the fruits of their labor, but don't
let people alienate those fruits without restraint.
The problem with copyright isn't ownership of
one's ideas. It is the ownership of the culture
which produced those ideas, for almost nothing
is new in any given creation. If someone
produced something truly new it would be so
different from everything else in our culture that
no one could understand it.
Copyrights should be short, and contracts
transfering copyright should be shorter still --
without the right of alienation. Twelve years
of copyright, and three of copyright licence
with no work for hire is good. I think the original
1790 copyright law had it just about right.
Sphere
Tusko wrote:
...
> Wouldn't it be sad if as a result of the recinding of copyright, that
> such a familiar and complex form as the novel, which provides great
> insight into contemporary life and provides so much pleasure for so
> many was reduced to something that only devoted hobbyists might
> occasionally produce?
Don't recind copyright. The 1790 copyright law was a
fine balance of opposing needs. About the only thing
missing from it is protection against explotation of
creativity by corporations; whcih can be fixed by
prohibiting work for hire. Make copyright belong to
the individual(s) who produced it without right of
alienation, and with very limited contract durations.
Any company which doesn't move fast enough for
three years to be sufficient copyright time needs to
be screwed anyway. (And abolish all commercial
secrecy protections -- including theft. Make the
bastards actually work for a living instead of resting
on someone else's previous efforts.)
Sphere
AlanS wrote:
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The idea that the world will lose something important if we don't get
> >200-million-dollar fictional movies anymore, is fairly absurd on its
> >face.
>
> Well, if such movies are not important to you, *don't* pirate. You
> won't miss out on anything important, will you?
I don't watch the junk, and I find their effect upon
our culture very disturbing and destructive. However,
this is beside the point. There's almost no added
information in them. By granting long copyright
protections we are allowing them to steal our
culture.
Sphere
AlanS wrote:
...
>
> Copyright has never slowed the pace of technology or hurt sharing of
> information or anything else you mention. It's piracy,if anything,
> that costs taxpayers money, increases the cost of hardware... etc.
Wrong. It's simple Information Theory that the lower the
cost of transmitting information the greater the value, and
copyright is a cost. The only value of copyright is in
promoting the production in the first place. Every second
copyright persists beyond the duration required to get
the information produced is of negative value. Society
wants copyright to be as short as possible, and only
the copyright holder wants it to be longer. Of course,
the copyright holder is the one willing to spend money...
Daniel T.
Tusko, you speak as if no artist has ever created a long creative work
before copyright laws. Yet many such works existed without the benefit
of copyright (or even the ability to write the work down at all!)
--
There are two things that simply cannot be doubted, logic and perception.
Doubt those, and you no longer have anyone to discuss your doubts with,
nor any ability to discuss them.
Daniel T.
> Copyrights are one of the few things that have done good for individual
> artists. People who strongely argue against it typically have no
> experience dealing in the actual medium because they take artist's
> creativity for granted.
As I understand it, a vast majority of artists (including myself) must
sign away their copyright to a corporation in order to be employed, so
let's not pretend that copyright is "good for the individual".
> Blatant infringements of copyright happen all the time, and people get
> away with it without much heed, and these infringements are done by
> artists as well. Anybody who's actually worried about persecuted is
> just being paranoid, unless of course, you start making a ton of money.
> Copyright laws only begin to have any significance when there's
> significant money involved, which most artists don't have to worry too
> much about.
We are being told on a regular basis that significant money is indeed
involved. And many people have been persecuted by major corporations
despite having made no money and despite having taken nothing tangible
(especially recently.)
> Basically you gotta be asking yourself what urgency is there for people
> to be able to blatantly plagarize someone's work beyond personal use.
[snipped rest because it's a red herring.]
We aren't talking about plagiarizing here.
Tusko
then you have to question its validity across the board and not just
with regard to its application in the most popular instances. I agree
that it wouldn't be fair if a minority of people chose what could be
afforded copyright protection and perpetuated it for their own ends. It
wouldn't matter what basis the self-appointed judges judged on -
whether they were neophiles, mysogynists or had just recieved a lot of
education.
Which is why I think that your idea that populism confers worth is
wrong. There is a minority of people who have a vested interest in
perpetuating the idea that populism confers worth, and that these
people are the ones who are making a killing off selling pop music or
blockbuster films. The only reason I can see to rate an object's worth
by its popularity more than the musings of an ivory-towered
intellectual elite is if you believe that rich people are better at
identifying or creating art than poor people.
I think that elevating popularity above other criteria is a bad idea,
especially in an age of a globalised mass media because of advertising
and marketing. These dark arts aren't about giving choices; they
constantly strive to discover new ways of taking choices away. They
thrive on feelings of deep-seated inadequacy and fear and yet they can
both be enlisted to make something more popular.
Furthermore, record companies are only going to promote what they think
is going to be popular anyway, so there is an inherent conservativism
in the system that in this respect stunts innovation in the arts.
AlanS
>AlanS wrote:
>> Copyright has never slowed the pace of technology or hurt sharing of
>> information or anything else you mention. It's piracy,if anything,
>> that costs taxpayers money, increases the cost of hardware... etc.
>...
>Wrong. It's simple Information Theory that the lower the
>cost of transmitting information the greater the value,
Utter nonsense. Information Theory says nothing of the sort - not even
anything remotely close. *If anything*, the more difficult or costly
it's to transmit information, the higher the value, ceteris paribus.
>and copyright is a cost.
Besides the cost of paper and lead to write down a copyright law,
there's no cost - until someone breaks the law. It's that who breaks
the law that's costing society.
>The only value of copyright is in
>promoting the production in the first place.
And that's a huge plus. Why would I create something for public
consumption in the first place if every other schmuck is free to
replace my name with his and pretend it's his work? I want
recognition, and if feasible, money for my work. Is that too much to
ask?
>Every second
>copyright persists beyond the duration required to get
>the information produced is of negative value.
Doesn't compute. Are you saying copyright makes sense only while the
work is being produced, and that once an author finishes a novel, it
doesn't need any protection?
And a work cannot have negative public value. At the very worst,
public can ignore it, pretend it never existed.
>Society
>wants copyright to be as short as possible,
No, it doesn't. Freeloaders and pirates want that. Content creators
(which are part of the society, if you haven't noticed, and the
productive ones) want whatever they want. Some may want copyright to
persist forever, some may not want or need copyright protection at
all. The sane thing to do, is to grant the creators the kind of
copyright they want, within reason, and that's how it works right now.
A tomato farmer can sell his tomato to whomever he wants, when and if
he wants, at a price he wants, on the terms he wants (within the law).
Intellectual property, likewise, belongs to its creator and he can do
whatever (within the law) he wants with it. My intellectual property
is no more yours than the shirt on my back is. *You* cannot expect to
dictate *me* what to do or not to do with it.
>and only
>the copyright holder wants it to be longer. Of course,
>the copyright holder is the one willing to spend money...
The copyright owner is the one who spent time and effort creating the
work.
Tusko
arguements used to justify the extension of copyright to 75 (or
whatever) years could be used to extend them until the end of time. If
you can say that doing it for kids of grandkids is an incentive for a
creative person - think of all the lifeforms that decend from you that
would benefit if they could claim copyright forever.
AlanS
Then create something with "added information" in it and without
copyright so we can all watch it and rise to your cultural level,
enlightened one.
AlanS
>> Copyrights are one of the few things that have done good for individual
>> artists. People who strongely argue against it typically have no
>> experience dealing in the actual medium because they take artist's
>> creativity for granted.
>As I understand it, a vast majority of artists (including myself) must
>sign away their copyright to a corporation in order to be employed, so
>let's not pretend that copyright is "good for the individual".
Nobody has a gun to your head. If you are signing away copyright, you
are getting something (employement, income, security, dental
benefits... etc) in return. It's up to the individual to decide which
is more valuable. You cannot eat it and have your cake too. Copyright
at least guarantees you have a bargaining chip and can get something
in return for your work. Without copyright, believe you me, that
corporation wouldn't employ you but still use your work to make money.
So be thankful.
Tusko
copyright. Before mass mechanical reproduction though, the ways in
which other people could make money from other people's works were much
more limited. A lot of people think this is a problem, and maybe it is.
I'm undecided.
Daniel T.
Somehow, I think your assertion that copyright protects individuals is
wrong. I honestly don't think that big corporations would spend so much
money lobbying for stronger copyright laws if it hurt them.
I used to be vehemently anti-copyright, now I generally agree with
RyanT, copyright has been rendered largely ineffectual by technology. I
simply ignore it.
AlanS
>AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Nobody has a gun to your head. If you are signing away copyright,
>> you are getting something (employement, income, security, dental
>> benefits... etc) in return. It's up to the individual to decide
>> which is more valuable. You cannot eat it and have your cake too.
>> Copyright at least guarantees you have a bargaining chip and can get
>> something in return for your work. Without copyright, believe you
>> me, that corporation wouldn't employ you but still use your work to
>> make money. So be thankful.
>Somehow, I think your assertion that copyright protects individuals is
>wrong.
Copyright protects companies *as well* as individuals. I did not
assert it protected individuals only, hence your next claim is false:
>I honestly don't think that big corporations would spend so much
>money lobbying for stronger copyright laws if it hurt them.
Naturally they wish that the copyright be extended for IP that they
currently hold. As do individuals who stand to profit from their own
work.
>I used to be vehemently anti-copyright, now I generally agree with
>RyanT, copyright has been rendered largely ineffectual by technology. I
>simply ignore it.
Well, tell that to the company that employs you too so they can ignore
it as well and stop paying you.
Daniel T.
>> RyanT, copyright has been rendered largely ineffectual by
>> technology. I simply ignore it.
>
> Well, tell that to the company that employs you too so they can
> ignore it as well and stop paying you.
They can stop paying me at any point they see fit and use my work
however they want. All copyright law does in that regard is restrict me
from using what I created, therein lies the rub.
The sole purpose of copyright law is to restrict the flow of
information. It's censorship, except the reason isn't political, it's
financial.
(BTW, the company that employes me knows I ignore copyright law.)
RyanT
available. Almost every published book can be acquired through library
systems and it has been that way for some time now. Software is a new
medium so it doesn't quite work in the same way, although perhaps in a
few decades time that may change as well.
Now there are many cases of exploitation done by companies against
individual artists, but it's usually because the company is in a
position to take advantage of the desperation some people have for
fame, so they put-forth bad contract deals. It's not uncommon for
artists to sign away their ownership rights in exchange for publicity,
but that's really a matter of personal choice. (If they even have the
foresight to think about to begin with.)
But saying that copyright is somehow responsible for these
exploitations would be kind of like saying that exploitations happen
because the medium of the contract exists. Like contracts, copyrights
provide a neutral ground in which hopefully some sembalance of fairness
can be achieved. Course its application is never perfect, but it beats
the alternative of having nothing. I think a lot of people forget the
importance of having that middle-man around, because in cases of
nothing, the one with more money always wins -- in this case, the large
companies.
Daniel T.
> It's not really censorship if the materials in existence are readily
> available.
The essence of copyright law is to limit some people's ability of
distributing certain forms of information. Do you disagree?
> Now there are many cases of exploitation done by companies against
> individual artists, but it's usually because the company is in a
> position to take advantage of the desperation some people have for
> fame, so they put-forth bad contract deals. It's not uncommon for
> artists to sign away their ownership rights in exchange for publicity,
> but that's really a matter of personal choice. (If they even have the
> foresight to think about to begin with.)
>
> But saying that copyright is somehow responsible for these
> exploitations would be kind of like saying that exploitations happen
> because the medium of the contract exists. Like contracts, copyrights
> provide a neutral ground in which hopefully some sembalance of fairness
> can be achieved. Course its application is never perfect, but it beats
> the alternative of having nothing. I think a lot of people forget the
> importance of having that middle-man around, because in cases of
> nothing, the one with more money always wins -- in this case, the large
> companies.
So any law is better than no law? Do you accept that there can be bad
laws?
RyanT
Daniel T. wrote:
> "RyanT" <yidi...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not really censorship if the materials in existence are readily
> > available.
>
> The essence of copyright law is to limit some people's ability of
> distributing certain forms of information. Do you disagree?
In it's original form, yes. The argument you labelled as being a "red
herring" I believe to be relevent in this case, because if you have any
sort of creativity whatsoever, it is not that difficult to bypass
copyright laws which are based on arbitrary labels of recognizability.
Take a recording of a jazz song for example -- well, if you use
something like Miles Davis or something of course people will recognize
it and call it plagarism. But throw in a few processes, couple
distortions, edits, nobody will recognize its the original -- hell, if
you're going through that trouble you might as well write your own jazz
song, or find one of the many interested musicians who will gladly
write a new song for you, often for free. Nobody has any problems with
people stealing ideas from other people's work then incorporating it
into their own voice, but by discouraging direct replication I would
say that it is encouraging people to be more creative through the
necessitation of changing the original material.
What's most important here is *for what purpose* the distribution is
being used for. Copy a few things for your personal amusement? Burn a
few copies for your friends? Maybe a few people might get annoyed but
as a whole nobody really cares about such petty infringements.
Software companies have still grown despite record high piracy rates.
Now I'm no big fan of the labels but putting the blame on copyright
laws is misplaced -- the blame should be put on the companies who are
doing the exploitation themselves. If you listened to any sort of pop
music in the last few decades there's a good chance that at one point
or another your favorite artist was probably exploited in some way.
There are a lot of crappy government laws, but this is not one of them.
I'm not too happy with people's ability to retain their copyright
after death, but dismantlement is not the answer. Like contracts,
there is a need for a middle-man -- the art world is not as pretty as
the media tends to portray. (And if you think about it it makes sense
for them to portray themselves in this way, as it serves their own
interests.)
Sphere
Tusko wrote:
> I agree that if copyrights are to exist then they should be short. The
> arguements used to justify the extension of copyright to 75 (or
> whatever) years could be used to extend them until the end of time. If
> you can say that doing it for kids of grandkids is an incentive for a
> creative person - think of all the lifeforms that decend from you that
> would benefit if they could claim copyright forever.
If anything, they ought to be shorter than in 1790.
Time to market is much less.
Sphere
Tusko wrote:
> Plenty of long creative works were made before the invention of
> copyright. Before mass mechanical reproduction though, the ways in
> which other people could make money from other people's works were much
> more limited. A lot of people think this is a problem, and maybe it is.
> I'm undecided.
The problem is that any 'new' work is largely
taken from the existing culture with very little
new iformation, and the people who tend to
benefit from whatever little new information
is created are not the creators but the already
wealthy or the aggressive shark. I agree with
promoting creativity. I don't agree with lining
already overstuffed pockets.
(If someone produces a really creative work
with very little old cultural data it is generally
considered too strange and doesn't sell.)
AlanS
>> It's not really censorship if the materials in existence are readily
>> available.
>The essence of copyright law is to limit some people's ability of
>distributing certain forms of information. Do you disagree?
The essence of traffic laws is to limit some people's ability of
driving in certain manner. Do you disagree?
Of course, Einstein, every single law "limits" something. Copyright
laws, as do traffic laws, or any other laws, limit behaviour that
would be detrimental to maintaining and improving our way of life.
Sphere
Or limit some rich people from becoming even
richer to the detrement of society. The same
rich people who paid for the current copyright
laws.
darwinist
> > 200-million-dollar fictional movies anymore, is fairly absurd on its
> > innovative, genuine or heartfelt, is likewise hard to swallow. We have
> > nothing to fear from the death of copyright-based corporations, but
> > this death, while inevitable, is happening too slowly and is costing us
> > all money, such as in the following ways:
> >
> > New and interesting ways of sharing information (eg bittorrent,
> > napster, and every web-based search engine), being held-back,
> > badmouthed, shut down, sent broke, or otherwise attacked because people
> > start using them to share information that is copyrighted.
> >
> > Taxpayer's money and elected-official's time, trying to protect the
> > obsolete business models of old-style media production companies, by
> > interfering with everybody else's computer and internet use.
> >
> > Hardware that costs more than it otherwise would because it has
> > additions to specifically prevent it from working how the users want,
> > in order to protect established business models that are no longer
> > sustainable on their own.
> >
> > they're not the ones who are hurt by the slowed pace of technology.
> > is digital rights management. To anyone who knows anything about it, it
> > is a sham. That is to say it is unworkable, unsustainable, regularly
> > broken and fundamentally breakable. It makes services cost more,
> > products cost more, and most importantly, it makes invention cost more,
> > because you need to make sure you don't raise the ire of any of these
> > rich, powerful, well-represented organisations.
> >
> > If you know what I mean and you agree with me then you don't have just
> > the right to break copyright, you an obligation to do it, and to
> > instruct and encourage others to do so.
>
>
> Make everything free.
To clear up some misconceptions about copyright shown here and
throughout the thread:
Having the right to copy something doesn't entitle you to take other
people's copies.
Or take (artistic) credit for creating the original.
Or force someone to work.
I'm not advocating slavery, fraud or theft. Copying information that
has been published (ie made public) is not the same. You might put
equal value on laws relating to all of these things, but they are not
the same thing.
The equivocation of copying information with taking tangible property
is one of the most successful frauds committed by the copyright
industry, but any close examination reveals that the two things are
very different in nature and consequence.
darwinist
Copying information is not the redistribution of wealth, it's an
increasing of wealth.
"Intellectual property" is a misleading term, as if singing someone
else's song were the same as breaking into their house and taking their
master-copies. It's not the same.
AlanS
Same old vacuous argument. First of all, what's wrong with being rich?
And what's wrong with someone else getting richer if the process also
benefits you? Would you rather everybody be poor?
Without copyright, rich will continue to be rich, but the creators
won't see a dime.
Copyright protects the creator, whether he's rich or poor. The
creator, if he's poor, can sell his right to the rich and get a little
bit richer in turn. Or he can sell to others directly, but that's more
work and more risk, even though the rewards may be greater. In any
case, copyright laws ensure that the choice is left to the creator.
Daniel T.
No need to get pissed, just wanted to make sure we were on the same
page. Based on your answer, you must agree that copyright law is a form
of censorship, except for financial reasons rather than political.
As with any law, it is important to remember that the burden of proof
rests with the person who believes the law should be in-place and
enforced. You must prove that copyright is good, I need prove nothing.
In the case of the traffic laws, without such limits people would get
physically hurt. In the case of burglary laws, people are deprived of
something they had before the event, against their will.
Copyright laws do not protect anyone from pain, nor do they protect one
from loosing his property. So, why the limit to our freedoms?
Daniel T.
> What's most important here is *for what purpose* the distribution is
> being used for. Copy a few things for your personal amusement? Burn a
> few copies for your friends? Maybe a few people might get annoyed but
> as a whole nobody really cares about such petty infringements.
> Software companies have still grown despite record high piracy rates.
Copyright law itself makes little use of purpose. "Fair use" is all it
says and leaves it up to common law to determine what fair use actually
means. It seems to me that the definition of fair use is slowly changing
from ("make a backup copy for yourself", to "burn a few copies for your
friends", and now sliding toward "place on a P2P network".)
Daniel T.
> Copying information is not the redistribution of wealth, it's an
> increasing of wealth.
>
> "Intellectual property" is a misleading term, as if singing someone
> else's song were the same as breaking into their house and taking their
> master-copies. It's not the same.
Here here! If I have something and I give it to a friend, I have
"redistributed" the thing. If I give my friend a *copy* of the thing, I
have not redistributed anything, I have labored in the creation of a
thing which is mine to do with as I wish. I have not taken anything from
anyone.
AlanS
>AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>"RyanT" <yidi...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's not really censorship if the materials in existence are
>>>> readily available.
>>> The essence of copyright law is to limit some people's ability of
>>> distributing certain forms of information. Do you disagree?
>> The essence of traffic laws is to limit some people's ability of
>> driving in certain manner. Do you disagree?
>>
>> Of course, Einstein, every single law "limits" something. Copyright
>> laws, as do traffic laws, or any other laws, limit behaviour that
>> would be detrimental to maintaining and improving our way of life.
>No need to get pissed,
Huh?
>just wanted to make sure we were on the same
>page. Based on your answer, you must agree that copyright law is a form
>of censorship, except for financial reasons rather than political.
No, I musn't. How do you figure? Copyright is no more a form of
censorship than red lights are dictorship.
>As with any law, it is important to remember that the burden of proof
>rests with the person who believes the law should be in-place and
>enforced. You must prove that copyright is good, I need prove nothing.
You want to change the status quo. Burden's on you. Usefulness of
copyright laws were demonstrated some hundereds of years ago, and this
matter has been beaten to death. I don't see any remotely new or
remotely convincing arguments from you.
>In the case of the traffic laws, without such limits people would get
>physically hurt. In the case of burglary laws, people are deprived of
>something they had before the event, against their will.
>
>Copyright laws do not protect anyone from pain, nor do they protect one
>from loosing his property.
Really? What do you think "intellectual property" means?
>So, why the limit to our freedoms?
Your freedom ends where mine begins. Get used to it.
RyanT
Daniel T. wrote:
> "RyanT" <yidi...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What's most important here is *for what purpose* the distribution is
> > being used for. Copy a few things for your personal amusement? Burn a
> > few copies for your friends? Maybe a few people might get annoyed but
> > as a whole nobody really cares about such petty infringements.
> > Software companies have still grown despite record high piracy rates.
>
> Copyright law itself makes little use of purpose. "Fair use" is all it
> says and leaves it up to common law to determine what fair use actually
> means. It seems to me that the definition of fair use is slowly changing
> from ("make a backup copy for yourself", to "burn a few copies for your
> friends", and now sliding toward "place on a P2P network".)
In theory, perhaps, but in practice enforcement of informational
mediums has never really been all that effective, especially in recent
years. Most infringements stay under the radar of any sort of legal
recourse. But it provides a valuable service in cases where works
become successful...companies will sometimes just play a musician's
song and broadcast it on air use it as a sountrack without their
permission. They can get away with this even now because if the song
isn't properly registered then there's nothing the artist can do.
It may seem unimportant to the hobbyist, but it is a useful tool for
professionals who're working in the field, and all you really have to
do is talk to a few of them to find that out. Especially when
something is catchy and becomes popular enough that it has some name
recognition, it becomes important for the artist to retain their
ownership of the material, otherwise the larger companies will just run
over them. I mean, the creator of Tetris didn't get jack shit for his
efforts because the Soviet Union at the time didn't let him patent his
work. They used the same justification as you did..."for the greater
good of the people" and all that.
Contrary to some popular myths, artists *do* like to eat and be
compensated for their work. Making a decent living does give incentive
(and the means) for artists to produce better work for society.
Daniel T.
Show me something, tangible or otherwise, that I have taken when I get a
copy of some song off the net. The fact is, no one has lost anything
they had before my action. There was no theft.
If I give my friend a copy of the thing, I have not transferred
anything, I have labored in the creation of a thing which is mine to do
with as I wish. I have not taken anything from anyone.
--
darwinist
> >200-million-dollar fictional movies anymore, is fairly absurd on its
> >face.
>
> won't miss out on anything important, will you?
>
> steal.
Making a copy of something is neither theft nor piracy, that is
misleading.
You could argue that when it's illegal and done in secret it qualifies
as stealing in the "stealth" sense, but that's not what you are trying
to say.
> If you think the movie isn't worth the admission price, just
> pretent it was never made.
It's not about admission price, that is also misleading. The theater
can charge whatever they like to let me in and sit down, it's their
land. There are other theatres I could go to, and they are allowed to
charge a different price without the permission or even knowledge of
the first theatre. If I'm going to see a movie or play that's not
copyrighted then this is the end of the story. There is competition
between theatres.
This same competition does not exist if it's a new movie, because it is
monopolised with government backing. Having a legally-granted monopoly
on producing and providing anything, can be a big problem (eg the
standard oil trust, the soviet union, pre-capitalism china, etc).
Competition can be useful to the economy and its participants.
Having an economic monopoly can lead to high-prices and ineffeciency.
Granting (or even allowing) a monopoly on any one kind of product can
do far more harm than good. When the monopoly is on copying something,
the innefficiency comes in the form of distribution costs. This hurts
the poor and uneducated, it doesn't hurt me (but it makes me angry).
> Nobody has an obligation to let you set the
> price of their own work.
If by work you mean the labour that goes into producing something, then
people can charge what they like for it, and I'm not arguing otherwise.
If you mean the tangible product of their labour, then it belongs to
whoever bought it fairly. Attribution of authorship, of course, remains
with the creator.
> >The idea that the most popular chart music is the most
> >innovative, genuine or heartfelt, is likewise hard to swallow.
>
> Then don't steal the most popular chart music.
Way ahead of you.
> >We have nothing to fear from the death of copyright-based corporations,
>
> We have nothing to fear from flourishing of copyright-based
> corporations. That is, unless you are cheap.
I gave some examples of the problems, but you can just dismiss them all
and call me cheap if that makes you feel better.
Here's a thought-experiment for you. Imagine sometime in some sci-fi
future, that you had a "replicator gun" that would scan any object and
make a copy of it from waste-materials. You "shoot" my lunch, without
interfering with it, indeed without me even knowing. Have you stolen my
lunch?
darwinist
> Copyrights are one of the few things that have done good for individual
> artists. People who strongely argue against it typically have no
> experience dealing in the actual medium because they take artist's
> creativity for granted.
>
> away with it without much heed, and these infringements are done by
> artists as well. Anybody who's actually worried about persecuted is
> just being paranoid, unless of course, you start making a ton of money.
> Copyright laws only begin to have any significance when there's
> significant money involved, which most artists don't have to worry too
> much about.
>
> Basically you gotta be asking yourself what urgency is there for people
> to be able to blatantly plagarize someone's work beyond personal use.
Copying is not plagiarism. Lying about being the author is plagiarism.
> If you want books there's always the library, and there's really no way
> to persecute software piracy. Small-scale infringements usually go
> under the radar, so at that level nobody really cares.
> But in cases where big business takes advantage of individual artists
> (which happens all the time) it gives them some means of legal
> recourse.
Can you give some examples of the kind of advantage-taking that you are
referring to?
> The thing is, if you had any sort of creativity whatsoever, it's not
> even that terribly difficult to augment or distort the original
> material in such a way that makes it unrecognizable. I would say that
> by discouraging plagarism it is in fact encouraging artists to do
> somethind different than already hasn't been done already. Isn't that
> what artists are supposed to do anyway?
Again, making a copy of something is not the same as lying about being
the author. You are flogging and burning a strawman that has a poor
resemblance to my argument.
> > The idea that the world will lose something important if we don't get
> > 200-million-dollar fictional movies anymore, is fairly absurd on its
AlanS
>permission. They can get away with this even now because if the song
>isn't properly registered then there's nothing the artist can do.
There's no such thing as registration for copyright. Maybe you are
thinking of trademarks? Copyright is implicit in most any country.
>over them. I mean, the creator of Tetris didn't get jack shit for his
>efforts because the Soviet Union at the time didn't let him patent his
>work.
Copyright, trademark, patent.. etc are all different beasts, even if
they all deal with IP. Software patents are relatively new, even in
the west. Here you are thinking of copyright. In any case, depending
on terms of employement and how/where the work is developed, your IP
rights may belong to the company, just like products of your manual
labor at work does.
darwinist
>
I guess this question you pose is largely a matter of taste. I find
most authors don't have a novel's worth of ideas, and that even the
novels I enjoy from authors I admire, tend to go downhill in the second
half, as the content shifts away from new ideas and insights that the
author has to offer, towards a tight, narrow, loose-end-tying
conclusion that bears little resemblance to the actual lessons and
character building experiences of life.
Another point is that many (first) novels are written before the author
has any reason to expect economic success.
I think the internet is "bite-sizing" culture anyway, whether we like
it or not.
RyanT
AlanS wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2006 12:29:52 -0700, "RyanT" <yidi...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> >permission. They can get away with this even now because if the song
> >isn't properly registered then there's nothing the artist can do.
>
> There's no such thing as registration for copyright. Maybe you are
> thinking of trademarks? Copyright is implicit in most any country.
Technically true, but I've attended a few copyright seminars and the
lawyers were insistent on the fact that you need a registration for it
to hold in any water in court.
Just look at copyright.gov and you'll see that there's a link to submit
registrations. 30 dollars for written works, 45 for sound recordings.
> >over them. I mean, the creator of Tetris didn't get jack shit for his
> >efforts because the Soviet Union at the time didn't let him patent his
> >work.
>
> Copyright, trademark, patent.. etc are all different beasts, even if
> they all deal with IP. Software patents are relatively new, even in
> the west. Here you are thinking of copyright. In any case, depending
> on terms of employement and how/where the work is developed, your IP
> rights may belong to the company, just like products of your manual
> labor at work does.
Yeah I was sort of lumping them together because the concept is
similar...in practice you need a heavy amount of specialized knowledge
usually better reserved for skilled lawyers.
AlanS
>AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Copyright laws do not protect anyone from pain, nor do they protect
>>> one from loosing his property.
>> Really? What do you think "intellectual property" means?
>Show me something, tangible or otherwise, that I have taken when I get a
>copy of some song off the net. The fact is, no one has lost anything
>they had before my action. There was no theft.
>
>If I give my friend a copy of the thing, I have not transferred
>anything, I have labored in the creation of a thing which is mine to do
>with as I wish. I have not taken anything from anyone.
While you are at it, since you labored to make a copy, why not also
sell those copies? If you are going to pirate, fine, it's unlikely
you'll get caught. But if you are looking for support and
justification, tough luck. You are arguing that it's OK to zip through
a red light if it doesn't cause an accident. After all, nobody gets
hurt or loses anything. Fact is, there is a potential, and it's the
law. Society works on certain assumptions and expectations. Of course
one can argue that most/some of the time, a pirate would not buy the
product anyway so it doesn't hurt the actual person who spent time and
money creating the art or product, just like one can argue that if
he's careful, he'll speed through red lights and not cause any harm to
anyone most of the time.
Daniel T.
> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Copyright laws do not protect anyone from pain, nor do they
>>>> protect one from loosing his property.
>>>
>>> Really? What do you think "intellectual property" means?
>>
>> Show me something, tangible or otherwise, that I have taken when I
>> get a copy of some song off the net. The fact is, no one has lost
>> anything they had before my action. There was no theft.
>>
>> If I give my friend a copy of the thing, I have not transferred
>> anything, I have labored in the creation of a thing which is mine
>> to do with as I wish. I have not taken anything from anyone.
>
> While you are at it, since you labored to make a copy, why not also
> sell those copies?
Why not?
> If you are going to pirate, fine, it's unlikely you'll get caught.
> But if you are looking for support and justification, tough luck.
> You are arguing that it's OK to zip through a red light if it
> doesn't cause an accident. After all, nobody gets hurt or loses
> anything.
Exactly! It isn't OK to steal someone's car though, someone gets hurt
*all* of the time then.
> Fact is, there is a potential, and it's the law.
But is it a just law? I am happy to obey all just laws, I just don't
accept copyright law as just. Care to show me the error of my ways?
AlanS
>AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> If I give my friend a copy of the thing, I have not transferred
>>> anything, I have labored in the creation of a thing which is mine
>>> to do with as I wish. I have not taken anything from anyone.
>> While you are at it, since you labored to make a copy, why not also
>> sell those copies?
>Why not?
Why not indeed? It's an unsustainable arrangement.
>> If you are going to pirate, fine, it's unlikely you'll get caught.
>> But if you are looking for support and justification, tough luck.
>> You are arguing that it's OK to zip through a red light if it
>> doesn't cause an accident. After all, nobody gets hurt or loses
>> anything.
>Exactly!
>
>It isn't OK to steal someone's car though, someone gets hurt
>*all* of the time then.
So it's OK to disregard traffic laws if people get hurt only *some* of
the time.
What about stealing rich people's cars? Obese people's cars?
>> Fact is, there is a potential, and it's the law.
>But is it a just law? I am happy to obey all just laws, I just don't
>accept copyright law as just. Care to show me the error of my ways?
What's unjust about paying someone for his efforts? If you don't like
it, don't buy. If you do like it enough, buy it. It's his work after
all, and you are not entitled to other people's works. If they let you
enjoy it for free, it's a priviledge, and thank them. But in the end,
it's their decision. So, tell me, why shouldn't the creator of the
work have any say in this matter?
Daniel T.
> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are going to pirate, fine, it's unlikely you'll get caught.
>>> But if you are looking for support and justification, tough luck.
>>> You are arguing that it's OK to zip through a red light if it
>>> doesn't cause an accident. After all, nobody gets hurt or loses
>>> anything.
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> It isn't OK to steal someone's car though, someone gets hurt *all*
>> of the time then.
>
> So it's OK to disregard traffic laws if people get hurt only *some*
> of the time.
It's OK to disregard a law if no one gets hurt, yes. Obviously, if
someone gets hurt, then the person who disregarded the law should be
punished. Honestly, do you never go over the speed limit? Have you never
made a "rolling stop" at a stop sign? Have you *never* run a red light?
> What about stealing rich people's cars? Obese people's cars?
Someone gets hurt. (Of course, set the scene, even stealing a car is
justifiable sometimes, but we can disregard the unusual case.)
>>> Fact is, there is a potential, and it's the law.
>>
>> But is it a just law? I am happy to obey all just laws, I just
>> don't accept copyright law as just. Care to show me the error of my
>> ways?
>
> What's unjust about paying someone for his efforts?
I have never said it was unjust to pay someone for his efforts. That's a
red herring. I asked if it is just for someone else to claim to own
something in my head (regardless of how it got there,) or something I
created with my own labor.
darwinist
What's so hard about distinguishing one person's effort from another
person's copy of a material-product of that person's effort? They are
very different things. One is labour, the other is goods, one belongs
to person A, the other belongs to person B.
If you pretend that arguments about one apply to the other, then don't
expect to be taken seriously by people who see the distinction.
> If you don't like
> it, don't buy. If you do like it enough, buy it. It's his work after
> all, and you are not entitled to other people's works. If they let you
> enjoy it for free, it's a priviledge, and thank them. But in the end,
> it's their decision. So, tell me, why shouldn't the creator of the
> work have any say in this matter?
Why don't you have a say in whether I copy your post into my reply?
Indeed most newsgroup programs or websites will include a copy by
default.
Don't get all sanctimonious like you are sticking up for property
rights, you're doing the exact opposite, arguing to restrict how actual
property is used, by giving one person dominion over all copies of
something, no matter who they actually belong to. This kind of monopoly
inhibits communication and invention.
AlanS
>AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> So it's OK to disregard traffic laws if people get hurt only *some*
>> of the time.
>It's OK to disregard a law if no one gets hurt, yes. Obviously, if
>someone gets hurt, then the person who disregarded the law should be
>punished. Honestly, do you never go over the speed limit? Have you never
>made a "rolling stop" at a stop sign? Have you *never* run a red light?
That I did at one time or another doesn't mean I advocate getting rid
of those laws entirely. I wouldn't want to be on the roads like that.
And I wouldn't want to create if there were no copyright laws.
>> What's unjust about paying someone for his efforts?
>I have never said it was unjust to pay someone for his efforts.
What conclusion do I draw from
<quote>
But is it a just law? I am happy to obey all just laws, I just don't
accept copyright law as just.
</quote>
>That's a
>red herring. I asked if it is just for someone else to claim to own
>something in my head (regardless of how it got there,) or something I
>created with my own labor.
That's an argument *for* copyright. You don't know what you are
talking about. Copyright is what protects you agains someone else
claiming to own something you created with your own labor.
You just want others to respect your labor, while you are not willing
to respect theirs.
AlanS
>AlanS wrote:
>> What's unjust about paying someone for his efforts?
>What's so hard about distinguishing one person's effort from another
>person's copy of a material-product of that person's effort? They are
>very different things.
If they are different things, separate the copying process from the
original effort. You can make unlimited number of copies of the
copying process, and even sell them. Not just the original material.
>One is labour, the other is goods, one belongs
>to person A, the other belongs to person B.
B can sell the labor of B. Not the labor of A.
>If you pretend that arguments about one apply to the other, then don't
>expect to be taken seriously by people who see the distinction.
You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
Daniel T.
> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> What's unjust about paying someone for his efforts?
>
> > I have never said it was unjust to pay someone for his efforts.
>
> What conclusion do I draw from
>
> <quote>
> But is it a just law? I am happy to obey all just laws, I just don't
> accept copyright law as just.
> </quote>
What conclusion you should draw from it is that I asked you a question.
Is copyright law a just law? If so, why? It's a question you can't seem
to answer.
> > That's a
> > red herring. I asked if it is just for someone else to claim to own
> > something in my head (regardless of how it got there,) or something I
> > created with my own labor.
>
> That's an argument *for* copyright. You don't know what you are
> talking about. Copyright is what protects you agains someone else
> claiming to own something you created with your own labor.
Until you understand the difference between copyright and plagiarism,
you won't get it.
> You just want others to respect your labor, while you are not willing
> to respect theirs.
Not at all, I want everyone to respect everyone's labor. I performed
labor to memorize the words of a song, those words are now in *my* head
because of *my* labor, who is anybody to claim that they own those words?
AlanS
>AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Daniel T." <dani...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > AlanS <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> What's unjust about paying someone for his efforts?
>> > I have never said it was unjust to pay someone for his efforts.
>> What conclusion do I draw from
>>
>> <quote>
>> But is it a just law? I am happy to obey all just laws, I just don't
>> accept copyright law as just.
>> </quote>
>What conclusion you should draw from it is that I asked you a question.
>Is copyright law a just law? If so, why? It's a question you can't seem
>to answer.
Copyright ensures the creator gets the recognition as well as
compensation.
I've said this maybe dozens of time with different words. If you are
mentally challenged, please let me know so I can type slower.
Just depends on context. In today's modern society with concept of
personal property, it's just, for art is just as much a property as
anything else. In the cavemans society, or in a futuristic utopic
communal society without concept of personal property, it would be
unjust.
>> > That's a
>> > red herring. I asked if it is just for someone else to claim to own
>> > something in my head (regardless of how it got there,) or something I
>> > created with my own labor.
>> That's an argument *for* copyright. You don't know what you are
>> talking about. Copyright is what protects you agains someone else
>> claiming to own something you created with your own labor.
>Until you understand the difference between copyright and plagiarism,
>you won't get it.
They are nearly opposites. What difference are you talking about?
Normally, that phrase goes: "... until you understand the difference
between <something> and <something similar> ...". I'm having a hard
time making sense of you.
>> You just want others to respect your labor, while you are not willing
>> to respect theirs.
>Not at all, I want everyone to respect everyone's labor. I performed
>labor to memorize the words of a song, those words are now in *my* head
>because of *my* labor, who is anybody to claim that they own those words?
Don't be dense. You did the memorizing. Credit for that feat goes to
you. Someone else strung those words together. Credit for that goes to
that someone else. You cannot claim you strung those words together
just because you memorized the sequence and stand to monetarily
benefit from such pretense or harm the creator or parties he
transfered his rights to. That's the essence of copyright.
AlanS
>Don't get all sanctimonious
The moment you stop trying to hide your cheapness behind
pseudo-ideaology.
>like you are sticking up for property rights,
>you're doing the exact opposite, arguing to restrict how actual
>property is used, by giving one person dominion over all copies of
>something, no matter who they actually belong to.
Which one person are you talking about? Who am I givin dominion to?
>This kind of monopoly
>inhibits communication and invention.
What monopoly? Copyright belongs to the creator of the work. Are you
saying that there is only one person in this world who creates
anything?
Daniel T.
[snip]
I can't believe I am going down the road again... It's just not my fight.
Copyright law has been rendered useless because the populous no longer
accepts it as valid (and frankly, I'm not sure if they ever did.) As
soon as the big corporations come to understand this, the better off
they will be.
When I copy a CD, I take nothing from no one; I don't hurt anybody. No
amount of sarcasm from you will change that fact.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >AlanS wrote:
>
> >> What's unjust about paying someone for his efforts?
>
> >What's so hard about distinguishing one person's effort from another
> >person's copy of a material-product of that person's effort? They are
> >very different things.
>
> If they are different things, separate the copying process from the
> original effort. You can make unlimited number of copies of the
> copying process, and even sell them. Not just the original material.
What do you mean? You can't sell the technique (for example) of loading
the contents of a web-page into a browser, or of printing something on
to paper or burning it on to a cd. These techniques cover most forms of
information that humans would want to copy.
> >One is labour, the other is goods, one belongs
> >to person A, the other belongs to person B.
>
> B can sell the labor of B. Not the labor of A.
I agree with that, but B's own copy of a material product, is different
from the labour of A. They are two distinct entities, do you see the
difference?
> >If you pretend that arguments about one apply to the other, then don't
> >expect to be taken seriously by people who see the distinction.
>
> You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
Well do you see the distinction or not? What does this proverb have to
do with anything?
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Don't get all sanctimonious
>
> The moment you stop trying to hide your cheapness behind
> pseudo-ideaology.
If I was trying to hide I wouldn't have made the argument. I made a
genuine argument which I believe in, and you won't understand it if you
just dismiss it as a fake.
> >like you are sticking up for property rights,
> >you're doing the exact opposite, arguing to restrict how actual
> >property is used, by giving one person dominion over all copies of
> >something, no matter who they actually belong to.
>
> Which one person are you talking about? Who am I givin dominion to?
The creator of the original copy.
> >This kind of monopoly
> >inhibits communication and invention.
>
> What monopoly? Copyright belongs to the creator of the work. Are you
> saying that there is only one person in this world who creates
> anything?
If you copyright a book, no one else can produce that book without your
permission, it's a monopoly on production of a form or kind of
information. For every kind that is copyrighted, it is monopolised.
This inhibits any communication or invention based on that new text, by
raising the price of it through a government-granted monopoly, instead
of allowing there to be competition in production and distribution,
once the valuable form of information is publicly known.
Again you seem to be confusing the creation process and labour, with
the abstract product and copies of that product. They are two different
things, they act differently, are treated differently (no matter what
the legal regime), and need to be considered separately. Please think
about this.
AlanS
>> >Don't get all sanctimonious
>> The moment you stop trying to hide your cheapness behind
>> pseudo-ideaology.
>If I was trying to hide I wouldn't have made the argument.
I didn't say you were trying to hide. I said you were trying to hide
your cheapness. Different.
>I made a
>genuine argument which I believe in, and you won't understand it if you
>just dismiss it as a fake.
I do not believe anybody would be misguided enough to make that claim,
without an unterior motive.
>> >like you are sticking up for property rights,
>> >you're doing the exact opposite, arguing to restrict how actual
>> >property is used, by giving one person dominion over all copies of
>> >something, no matter who they actually belong to.
>> Which one person are you talking about? Who am I givin dominion to?
>The creator of the original copy.
There's no such single person. *Anybody* can create if they want to.
Hence there's no monopoly.
>> >This kind of monopoly
>> >inhibits communication and invention.
>> What monopoly? Copyright belongs to the creator of the work. Are you
>> saying that there is only one person in this world who creates
>> anything?
>If you copyright a book, no one else can produce that book without your
>permission, it's a monopoly on production of a form or kind of
>information.
Tell me, if I write or draw something on a piece of paper and *not*
share with anybody else, does that mean it's a monopoly of
information? Should I be, in your strange little world, prosecuted for
monopolistic practices?
>For every kind that is copyrighted, it is monopolised.
>This inhibits any communication or invention based on that new text, by
>raising the price of it through a government-granted monopoly, instead
>of allowing there to be competition in production and distribution,
>once the valuable form of information is publicly known.
Ah, "...once the valuable form of information is publicly known". So
according to you, it's more selfish/monopolistic to share something in
return for compensation than not share at all.
When is the humanity poorer - if I create something and not share it
at all or if I create something and only share it with those who are
willing to compensate me for my labor?
When is the humanity poorer - if I don't create anything or if I
create something and only share it with those who are willing to
compensate me for my labor?
Fact is, the world is, *if* you cannot force me to create something
and share with the world for free, which you cannot, nobody is poorer
or hurt for me charging for enjoyment of my creations. If they want
it, and pay for it, fine - mutual benefit. If the price is too steep,
fine, life went on just fine before I created that work - pretend I
never created it.
>Again you seem to be confusing the creation process and labour, with
>the abstract product and copies of that product. They are two different
>things, they act differently, are treated differently (no matter what
>the legal regime), and need to be considered separately. Please think
>about this.
You are the one unable to make that distinction. There is labor in
creation, there's labor in copying. Creator deserves compensation for
the labor of creation, copier deserves compensation for the labor in
copying. Copier is NOT entitled to compensation, nor recognition for
creation. So, when a book is printed, the author gets his share for
creation, the publisher gets his share for copying. Without copyright,
there's no remotely viable mechanism whereby the author can get his
fair compensation for labor involved in creation, and the copier
(publisher) will naturally keep all the profits to himself. Is that
fair?
AlanS
Well, if you refuse to counter-argue any single one of the points I
make but keep spouting the same old nonsense about not harming anyone
by pirating stuff, why are you wasting bandwidth? Less posting means
more downloading. Happy pirating to you.
AlanS
>AlanS wrote:
>> If they are different things, separate the copying process from the
>> original effort. You can make unlimited number of copies of the
>> copying process, and even sell them. Not just the original material.
>What do you mean? You can't sell the technique (for example) of loading
>the contents of a web-page into a browser, or of printing something on
>to paper or burning it on to a cd.
A ha! So you admit there's value that comes from the original. That's
where copyright comes in. Think about it. Copyright is the only
mechanism where those two values (from act of creation and act of
copying) can be separated and both parties compensated.
>> B can sell the labor of B. Not the labor of A.
>I agree with that, but B's own copy of a material product, is different
>from the labour of A. They are two distinct entities, do you see the
>difference?
Yes, but you don't when it comes to reaching for your wallet. See my
other post.
>> >If you pretend that arguments about one apply to the other, then don't
>> >expect to be taken seriously by people who see the distinction.
>> You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
>Well do you see the distinction or not? What does this proverb have to
>do with anything?
See my other post. You recognize the labor in copying but not the
labor in creation. Or, you make a distinction between copying and
creation when it suits you but blur the distinction when it doesn't.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >AlanS wrote:
> >> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Don't get all sanctimonious
>
> >> The moment you stop trying to hide your cheapness behind
> >> pseudo-ideaology.
>
> >If I was trying to hide I wouldn't have made the argument.
>
> I didn't say you were trying to hide. I said you were trying to hide
> your cheapness. Different.
>
> >I made a
> >genuine argument which I believe in, and you won't understand it if you
> >just dismiss it as a fake.
>
> I do not believe anybody would be misguided enough to make that claim,
> without an unterior motive.
Wow.
> >> >like you are sticking up for property rights,
> >> >you're doing the exact opposite, arguing to restrict how actual
> >> >property is used, by giving one person dominion over all copies of
> >> >something, no matter who they actually belong to.
>
> >> Which one person are you talking about? Who am I givin dominion to?
>
> >The creator of the original copy.
>
> There's no such single person. *Anybody* can create if they want to.
> Hence there's no monopoly.
For any specific text, there might be only one creator. Copyright
grants them a monopoly on the production of copies of that book, that
is what I mean by granting a monopoly to the creator of the original
copy.
> >> >This kind of monopoly
> >> >inhibits communication and invention.
>
> >> What monopoly? Copyright belongs to the creator of the work. Are you
> >> saying that there is only one person in this world who creates
> >> anything?
>
> >If you copyright a book, no one else can produce that book without your
> >permission, it's a monopoly on production of a form or kind of
> >information.
>
> Tell me, if I write or draw something on a piece of paper and *not*
> share with anybody else, does that mean it's a monopoly of
> information? Should I be, in your strange little world, prosecuted for
> monopolistic practices?
I'm talking about a monopoly of goods that are already publicly known,
that can already be produced. I'm talking about competition and
monopoly in the regular market-economy sense. I'm not trying to steal
anyone's privacy.
> >For every kind that is copyrighted, it is monopolised.
> >This inhibits any communication or invention based on that new text, by
> >raising the price of it through a government-granted monopoly, instead
> >of allowing there to be competition in production and distribution,
> >once the valuable form of information is publicly known.
>
> Ah, "...once the valuable form of information is publicly known". So
> according to you, it's more selfish/monopolistic to share something in
> return for compensation than not share at all.
No, you can share something in return for compensation, (the word being
"sell"), and it's not about being selfish, it's about the buyer having
full rights (that is of use, not of attribution or recognition for
authorship) to what they buy.
> When is the humanity poorer - if I create something and not share it
> at all or if I create something and only share it with those who are
> willing to compensate me for my labor?
It depends what and how, of course, this question is too vague to apply
to copyright specifically.
> When is the humanity poorer - if I don't create anything or if I
> create something and only share it with those who are willing to
> compensate me for my labor?
This is another false dichotomoy, as if authors didn't exist before
copyrights.
> Fact is, the world is, *if* you cannot force me to create something
> and share with the world for free, which you cannot, nobody is poorer
> or hurt for me charging for enjoyment of my creations. If they want
> it, and pay for it, fine - mutual benefit. If the price is too steep,
> fine, life went on just fine before I created that work - pretend I
> never created it.
Except that you can't pretend a published work doesn't exist. It is not
just in the hands of the creator and some closed group of buyers, it is
in the public debate, it is on the web, it is in the conversations of
colleagues, it is published. This is the essential flaw in trying to
give one person ownership over a new form of information even after
copies have been sold to the public.
> >Again you seem to be confusing the creation process and labour, with
> >the abstract product and copies of that product. They are two different
> >things, they act differently, are treated differently (no matter what
> >the legal regime), and need to be considered separately. Please think
> >about this.
>
> You are the one unable to make that distinction. There is labor in
> creation, there's labor in copying. Creator deserves compensation for
> the labor of creation, copier deserves compensation for the labor in
> copying. Copier is NOT entitled to compensation, nor recognition for
> creation.
Of course not, I'm not advocating plagiarism.
> So, when a book is printed, the author gets his share for
> creation, the publisher gets his share for copying.
The author only created it once, they didn't create it again each time
a copy was sold. They are getting tributes for past contributions, not
compensation for work.
> Without copyright,
> there's no remotely viable mechanism whereby the author can get his
> fair compensation for labor involved in creation, and the copier
> (publisher) will naturally keep all the profits to himself. Is that
> fair?
I've authored useful information and been paid for it without copyright
being involved in any way. It's called a job. What's unfair about just
being paid for the time they spent working, as per some agreement
between worker and employer, like everyone else?
Once the work has been done and the ideas and examples are out there,
it's restrictive to the economy to put up barriers to other people
copying those ideas and examples, and it's unrealistic as well, for the
most part.
AlanS
>> Tell me, if I write or draw something on a piece of paper and *not*
>> share with anybody else, does that mean it's a monopoly of
>> information? Should I be, in your strange little world, prosecuted for
>> monopolistic practices?
>I'm talking about a monopoly of goods that are already publicly known,
You are then punishing artists retroactively, taking away their source
of income they had in mind when they created the work.
>that can already be produced. I'm talking about competition and
>monopoly in the regular market-economy sense. I'm not trying to steal
>anyone's privacy.
If I'm an artist without copyright protection, I won't then, publicize
my work and only show it to serious buyers with deep pockets after
screening them for cameras or other recording equipment. For if I
don't get any monies from distribution, my only source of income will
be a single sell. Who will suffer, you figure?
>> >For every kind that is copyrighted, it is monopolised.
>> >This inhibits any communication or invention based on that new text, by
>> >raising the price of it through a government-granted monopoly, instead
>> >of allowing there to be competition in production and distribution,
>> >once the valuable form of information is publicly known.
>> Ah, "...once the valuable form of information is publicly known". So
>> according to you, it's more selfish/monopolistic to share something in
>> return for compensation than not share at all.
>No, you can share something in return for compensation, (the word being
>"sell"), and it's not about being selfish, it's about the buyer having
>full rights (that is of use, not of attribution or recognition for
>authorship) to what they buy.
Artists can also sell full rights. The price, however, is steeper and
only a few can afford. And once bought in such manner, the buyer will
be unlikely to share it with others for free. Only the elite will be
able to afford quality art, as it was long time ago.
>> When is the humanity poorer - if I create something and not share it
>> at all or if I create something and only share it with those who are
>> willing to compensate me for my labor?
>It depends what and how, of course, this question is too vague to apply
>to copyright specifically.
No, it's not. You just don't like the implications.
>> When is the humanity poorer - if I don't create anything or if I
>> create something and only share it with those who are willing to
>> compensate me for my labor?
>This is another false dichotomoy, as if authors didn't exist before
>copyrights.
So? People existed before non-lead based paint. Does that mean we
should go back?
>> Fact is, the world is, *if* you cannot force me to create something
>> and share with the world for free, which you cannot, nobody is poorer
>> or hurt for me charging for enjoyment of my creations. If they want
>> it, and pay for it, fine - mutual benefit. If the price is too steep,
>> fine, life went on just fine before I created that work - pretend I
>> never created it.
>Except that you can't pretend a published work doesn't exist. It is not
>just in the hands of the creator and some closed group of buyers, it is
>in the public debate, it is on the web, it is in the conversations of
>colleagues, it is published. This is the essential flaw in trying to
>give one person ownership over a new form of information even after
>copies have been sold to the public.
Of course it's not secret. But to make *copies* and to *distribute*
you need the author's permission. Just because he gave that permission
to *you* doesn't mean *I* am entitled. It's not rocket science.
>> >Again you seem to be confusing the creation process and labour, with
>> >the abstract product and copies of that product. They are two different
>> >things, they act differently, are treated differently (no matter what
>> >the legal regime), and need to be considered separately. Please think
>> >about this.
>> You are the one unable to make that distinction. There is labor in
>> creation, there's labor in copying. Creator deserves compensation for
>> the labor of creation, copier deserves compensation for the labor in
>> copying. Copier is NOT entitled to compensation, nor recognition for
>> creation.
>Of course not,
How can the crator ensure he gets compensation then?
>I'm not advocating plagiarism.
Plagiarism is part of it.
>> So, when a book is printed, the author gets his share for
>> creation, the publisher gets his share for copying.
>The author only created it once, they didn't create it again each time
>a copy was sold. They are getting tributes for past contributions, not
>compensation for work.
Ah, fine. Then let him charge the first buyer $10,000 and then give it
away instead of charging each of the 10,000 buyers $1. Now, *that's*
fair.
>> Without copyright,
>> there's no remotely viable mechanism whereby the author can get his
>> fair compensation for labor involved in creation, and the copier
>> (publisher) will naturally keep all the profits to himself. Is that
>> fair?
>I've authored useful information and been paid for it without copyright
>being involved in any way. It's called a job. What's unfair about just
>being paid for the time they spent working, as per some agreement
>between worker and employer, like everyone else?
Reality check: Did your employer make your work public? Is it
available freely to everybody, including their competitors? Are you
able to give away his trade secrets, customer list, bids, ... etc
without consequences? All that proprietary information, by your
definition, is indicative of a monopoly, and a much worse one than an
artist who licenses his work for a price. You have been working for a
monopoly without knowing it, you poor sod!
>Once the work has been done and the ideas and examples are out there,
>it's restrictive to the economy to put up barriers to other people
>copying those ideas and examples, and it's unrealistic as well, for the
>most part.
Nonsense. You know little about economy, and that's a dangerous thing.
Bret Cahill
a lot of kinds of intellectual property anymore.
It's not fair because a writer or artist often had to make extreme
sacrifices to obtain his unique and valuable POV.
To those people I say, "welcome to Club Pro Bono."
When people buy your book or album it will be like tossing change in
the shoe of a street musician. They will do it more out of charity
than as a way to get your material.
Eventually they'll get desk top manufacturing and even utility patents
will become useless.
Until then you need to invent stuff that is just a little too difficult
for the average tinkerer to build.
Bret Cahill
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
-- Karl Marx
darwinist
[...]
> >> Tell me, if I write or draw something on a piece of paper and *not*
> >> share with anybody else, does that mean it's a monopoly of
> >> information? Should I be, in your strange little world, prosecuted for
> >> monopolistic practices?
>
> >I'm talking about a monopoly of goods that are already publicly known,
>
> You are then punishing artists retroactively, taking away their source
> of income they had in mind when they created the work.
Only if "not rewarding" is equivalent to "punishing" in your mind. I
never promised them anything, and I didn't take someone else's copy.
> >that can already be produced. I'm talking about competition and
> >monopoly in the regular market-economy sense. I'm not trying to steal
> >anyone's privacy.
>
> If I'm an artist without copyright protection, I won't then, publicize
> my work and only show it to serious buyers with deep pockets after
> screening them for cameras or other recording equipment. For if I
> don't get any monies from distribution, my only source of income will
> be a single sell. Who will suffer, you figure?
A lot of artists get paid for actual work. Performances, comissioned
pieces, etc. I figure that copyright-based corporations will suffer,
and writers will find jobs where they get paid to write, instead of
paid for someone else copying their past writing.
> >> >For every kind that is copyrighted, it is monopolised.
> >> >This inhibits any communication or invention based on that new text, by
> >> >raising the price of it through a government-granted monopoly, instead
> >> >of allowing there to be competition in production and distribution,
> >> >once the valuable form of information is publicly known.
>
> >> Ah, "...once the valuable form of information is publicly known". So
> >> according to you, it's more selfish/monopolistic to share something in
> >> return for compensation than not share at all.
>
> >No, you can share something in return for compensation, (the word being
> >"sell"), and it's not about being selfish, it's about the buyer having
> >full rights (that is of use, not of attribution or recognition for
> >authorship) to what they buy.
>
> Artists can also sell full rights. The price, however, is steeper and
> only a few can afford. And once bought in such manner, the buyer will
> be unlikely to share it with others for free. Only the elite will be
> able to afford quality art, as it was long time ago.
Take the example of a painting. The original can be worth a great deal
of money no matter how many copies are made. The same is true of
songwriters performing their own music, people will pay more than they
would to see an impersonator or tribute band.
> >> When is the humanity poorer - if I create something and not share it
> >> at all or if I create something and only share it with those who are
> >> willing to compensate me for my labor?
>
> >It depends what and how, of course, this question is too vague to apply
> >to copyright specifically.
>
> No, it's not. You just don't like the implications.
Ha. Fine if you don't see your logical error and must assume I'm just
ignoring facts I don't like, then let me point it out for you:
Copyright is not the only kind of compensation for creative activity,
so your dichotomy is a false one with regards to the justification for
copyright.
> >> When is the humanity poorer - if I don't create anything or if I
> >> create something and only share it with those who are willing to
> >> compensate me for my labor?
>
> >This is another false dichotomoy, as if authors didn't exist before
> >copyrights.
>
> So?
So it's not "one or the other". There are other reasons for which art
gets made, so your question is presenting a choice which doesn't have
to be made.
> People existed before non-lead based paint. Does that mean we
> should go back?
You are equating copying to poisoning? Wow.
> >> Fact is, the world is, *if* you cannot force me to create something
> >> and share with the world for free, which you cannot, nobody is poorer
> >> or hurt for me charging for enjoyment of my creations. If they want
> >> it, and pay for it, fine - mutual benefit. If the price is too steep,
> >> fine, life went on just fine before I created that work - pretend I
> >> never created it.
>
> >Except that you can't pretend a published work doesn't exist. It is not
> >just in the hands of the creator and some closed group of buyers, it is
> >in the public debate, it is on the web, it is in the conversations of
> >colleagues, it is published. This is the essential flaw in trying to
> >give one person ownership over a new form of information even after
> >copies have been sold to the public.
>
> Of course it's not secret. But to make *copies* and to *distribute*
> you need the author's permission. Just because he gave that permission
> to *you* doesn't mean *I* am entitled. It's not rocket science.
Your alternative was to "pretend it doesn't exist", which as I said is
not possible for published works, and not a realistic thing to demand
of people, especially in the internet age.
> >> >Again you seem to be confusing the creation process and labour, with
> >> >the abstract product and copies of that product. They are two different
> >> >things, they act differently, are treated differently (no matter what
> >> >the legal regime), and need to be considered separately. Please think
> >> >about this.
>
> >> You are the one unable to make that distinction. There is labor in
> >> creation, there's labor in copying. Creator deserves compensation for
> >> the labor of creation, copier deserves compensation for the labor in
> >> copying. Copier is NOT entitled to compensation, nor recognition for
> >> creation.
>
> >Of course not,
>
> How can the crator ensure he gets compensation then?
By getting a job, putting on performances, all of the ways in which
non-copyright earnings are made by everyone else. You don't owe anybody
money for something you never asked them to do.
> >I'm not advocating plagiarism.
>
> Plagiarism is part of it.
Which part? Have I plagiarised your post by including it in my
response? The difference between copying and plagiarism is that I'm not
pretending to have created your words. That would be fraud, lying,
whatever you want to call it.
> >> So, when a book is printed, the author gets his share for
> >> creation, the publisher gets his share for copying.
>
> >The author only created it once, they didn't create it again each time
> >a copy was sold. They are getting tributes for past contributions, not
> >compensation for work.
>
> Ah, fine. Then let him charge the first buyer $10,000 and then give it
> away instead of charging each of the 10,000 buyers $1. Now, *that's*
> fair.
Original manuscripts are often worth a great deal more, copyrighted or
not.
> >> Without copyright,
> >> there's no remotely viable mechanism whereby the author can get his
> >> fair compensation for labor involved in creation, and the copier
> >> (publisher) will naturally keep all the profits to himself. Is that
> >> fair?
>
> >I've authored useful information and been paid for it without copyright
> >being involved in any way. It's called a job. What's unfair about just
> >being paid for the time they spent working, as per some agreement
> >between worker and employer, like everyone else?
>
> Reality check: Did your employer make your work public? Is it
> available freely to everybody, including their competitors? Are you
> able to give away his trade secrets, customer list, bids, ... etc
> without consequences?
Of course not, those are not published, I have never suggested an
obligation to publish anything. Privacy and copyright are two different
things.
> All that proprietary information, by your
> definition, is indicative of a monopoly, and a much worse one than an
> artist who licenses his work for a price. You have been working for a
> monopoly without knowing it, you poor sod!
Yes I have a monopoly on my body too, your argument is a real stretch.
Don't you see the difference between a product that others know how to
produce because it is already known to the public, and a production
method that is kept secret? I am not forcing anyone to work, or forcing
them to give up their secrets, when I copy an already published work.
> >Once the work has been done and the ideas and examples are out there,
> >it's restrictive to the economy to put up barriers to other people
> >copying those ideas and examples, and it's unrealistic as well, for the
> >most part.
>
> Nonsense. You know little about economy, and that's a dangerous thing.
I gave examples in the original post. Calling them nonsense just
reinforces my idea that you aren't even trying to undersatnd the
argument I'm making; coupled with the fact that your sarcasm and
insults are increasing.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >AlanS wrote:
>
> >> If they are different things, separate the copying process from the
> >> original effort. You can make unlimited number of copies of the
> >> copying process, and even sell them. Not just the original material.
>
> >What do you mean? You can't sell the technique (for example) of loading
> >the contents of a web-page into a browser, or of printing something on
> >to paper or burning it on to a cd.
>
> A ha! So you admit there's value that comes from the original. That's
> where copyright comes in. Think about it. Copyright is the only
> mechanism where those two values (from act of creation and act of
> copying) can be separated and both parties compensated.
There are other mechanisms: Employment, performance, and comission, to
name three.
You are still labouring under the idea that this is my first
gut-reaction, and that it is based on wanting something for free
regardless of the consequences. You are sadly mistaken on both of these
points.
> >> B can sell the labor of B. Not the labor of A.
>
> >I agree with that, but B's own copy of a material product, is different
> >from the labour of A. They are two distinct entities, do you see the
> >difference?
>
> Yes, but you don't when it comes to reaching for your wallet. See my
> other post.
Ok I will address it there.
AlanS
>AlanS wrote:
>> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >AlanS wrote:
>> >> If they are different things, separate the copying process from the
>> >> original effort. You can make unlimited number of copies of the
>> >> copying process, and even sell them. Not just the original material.
>> >What do you mean? You can't sell the technique (for example) of loading
>> >the contents of a web-page into a browser, or of printing something on
>> >to paper or burning it on to a cd.
>> A ha! So you admit there's value that comes from the original. That's
>> where copyright comes in. Think about it. Copyright is the only
>> mechanism where those two values (from act of creation and act of
>> copying) can be separated and both parties compensated.
>There are other mechanisms: Employment,
Employment causes, by your definition, monopoly of information for the
employers will keep the information to themselves.
>performance,
Like a book reading? Does that mean we won't listen to music or read
books at home in your vision, or are you saying even with freely
distributed books and music and videos, enough of people will find the
time and money to attend readings, concerts, theathers to make it
worthwhile? When was the last time you paid money to an author for a
performance reading of his book? Would you ever?
>and comission,
Comission is also monopoly, by your reasoning, since the
information/art is kept by one person. One who comissions art will
likely keep it to himself, except showing it off to other rich people.
>to name three.
Try harder. Your "solution" is much worse than the "problem".
Bret Cahill
1. The people who got richest off of IP, the computer billionaires,
are making it more difficult for more conventional creators to make
money.
2. This might be mitigated somewhat by more aggressive / radical
creative work in which case plaigarism would be _driving_ creativity.
Bret Cahill
AlanS
>AlanS wrote:
>> >I'm talking about a monopoly of goods that are already publicly known,
>> You are then punishing artists retroactively, taking away their source
>> of income they had in mind when they created the work.
>Only if "not rewarding" is equivalent to "punishing" in your mind.
You are taking away their existing rights. That's punishing.
>> If I'm an artist without copyright protection, I won't then, publicize
>> my work and only show it to serious buyers with deep pockets after
>> screening them for cameras or other recording equipment. For if I
>> don't get any monies from distribution, my only source of income will
>> be a single sell. Who will suffer, you figure?
>A lot of artists get paid for actual work. Performances, comissioned
>pieces, etc.
I responded to your other post. Performances are not feasible save
for, well, performance arts. Comissioning causes hoarding of
information / art and is a monopoly by your logic.
>I figure that copyright-based corporations will suffer,
>and writers will find jobs where they get paid to write, instead of
>paid for someone else copying their past writing.
Several problems. It's meaningless to mention past writing. Anything
they write will be "past writing" the moment they finish it, and if
they don't get paid for it, how do they make income? Do you pay them
while they are writing? Employ them 9 to 5, and pay by the hour
*while* they are writing? Who employs them, why, and how is the price
set, if not by the copies of their work sold? Or are you saying they
should be able to sell their book only once after finished?
>> >> When is the humanity poorer - if I create something and not share it
>> >> at all or if I create something and only share it with those who are
>> >> willing to compensate me for my labor?
>> >It depends what and how, of course, this question is too vague to apply
>> >to copyright specifically.
>> No, it's not. You just don't like the implications.
>Ha. Fine if you don't see your logical error and must assume I'm just
>ignoring facts I don't like, then let me point it out for you:
>Copyright is not the only kind of compensation for creative activity,
>so your dichotomy is a false one with regards to the justification for
>copyright.
It's not a dichotomy, false or otherwise.
You do not realize it's a priviledge, not a right, for other people to
share information/art with you even at a cost.
In other words, copyright takes away nothing from you as a consumer.
You have the option of paying for copies, if they are worth the price,
or ignoring their existance, if you think the cost isn't worth it.
You demand the artists share art for free - but it's not your right to
make such demands. An artist can do whatever he pleases with his art,
including selling copies of it and including terms of use in the
contract.
Let's say copyright laws were retracted and you have your happy world.
You comission me to create a painting. I agree, but include a clause
in the contract that says you can hang it on your wall, show it to
your friends, ...etc but cannot distribute or sell copies of it. We
agree and I paint, I deliver, and you pay. Now, would you say that our
contract would need to be honored? That is, if you make copies of it
and distribute it, can I take you to court?
If you say yes, you are agreeing to copyright. The only difference is
the explicit opt-in versus the explicit opt-out. Which is no
difference, really. If an author today wishes his work to be not
covered by copyright, he can easily do so. Really, all the copyright
law does is make explicit clauses unnecessary for the huge majority.
It's a practical thing.
If you say no to the above question, we have bigger issues regarding
contractual agreements and redefining how we (arbitrarily) determine
what contracts between willing and able parties are valid and what are
not. That's an even bigger can of worms and has much wider
implications. For instance, zoning laws might have to be null and void
as well, because I can argue, even if it's in the contract when I
bought the house, implicit or explicit, city cannot dictate what I do
with my property once I own it.
>> >> When is the humanity poorer - if I don't create anything or if I
>> >> create something and only share it with those who are willing to
>> >> compensate me for my labor?
>> >This is another false dichotomoy, as if authors didn't exist before
>> >copyrights.
>> People existed before non-lead based paint. Does that mean we
>> should go back?
>You are equating copying to poisoning? Wow.
The point, as usual, eludes you. Do I have to explain everything? OK:
That things were done one way at one time in the past doesn't mean
current situation is not an improvement. Clear now?
>> Of course it's not secret. But to make *copies* and to *distribute*
>> you need the author's permission. Just because he gave that permission
>> to *you* doesn't mean *I* am entitled. It's not rocket science.
>Your alternative was to "pretend it doesn't exist", which as I said is
>not possible for published works, and not a realistic thing to demand
>of people, especially in the internet age.
It's also not realistic to take away rights already given.
And yes, you can pretend that they don't exist for existing works. In
fact, pretending that non-existing works don't exist doesn't make ANY
sense now, does it?
>> How can the crator ensure he gets compensation then?
>By getting a job, putting on performances, all of the ways in which
>non-copyright earnings are made by everyone else. You don't owe anybody
>money for something you never asked them to do.
Nobody is forcing you to buy a book or a CD, are they?
If one wishes, he can get a 9-5 job. But while that option is there,
why take away his freedom to charge for work he created without being
comissioned? If his work isn't worth anything, nobody will buy it and
nobody loses anything. But if it's good, many of us benefit.
>> Reality check: Did your employer make your work public? Is it
>> available freely to everybody, including their competitors? Are you
>> able to give away his trade secrets, customer list, bids, ... etc
>> without consequences?
>Of course not, those are not published, I have never suggested an
>obligation to publish anything. Privacy and copyright are two different
>things.
You seem to believe published but copyrighted work is negative value
for society while work that's done but unpublished, kept
private/proprietary, is neutral. That's patently absurd. Published
work, whether copyrighted or not, can only (*) be an improvement over
work that's done but kept secret, and society can only benefit from
published work, whether it's copyrighted or not.
Copyright is at worst, neutral. At best, it promotes creation.
(*) Exceptional cases being information that may lead to destruction,
but that's not what we are talking about.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >AlanS wrote:
> >> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >AlanS wrote:
>
> >> >> If they are different things, separate the copying process from the
> >> >> original effort. You can make unlimited number of copies of the
> >> >> copying process, and even sell them. Not just the original material.
>
> >> >What do you mean? You can't sell the technique (for example) of loading
> >> >the contents of a web-page into a browser, or of printing something on
> >> >to paper or burning it on to a cd.
>
> >> A ha! So you admit there's value that comes from the original. That's
> >> where copyright comes in. Think about it. Copyright is the only
> >> mechanism where those two values (from act of creation and act of
> >> copying) can be separated and both parties compensated.
>
> >There are other mechanisms: Employment,
>
> Employment causes, by your definition, monopoly of information for the
> employers will keep the information to themselves.
Keeping something to yourself is not a monopoly on production of
publicly-known goods. That's like saying keeping your own food is
equivalent to a monopoly on agriculture. People can keep things to
themselves if they want, but when a product is generally known, it's
important to an economy that anyone can produce it, to encourage
competition in production and distribution.
> >performance,
>
> Like a book reading? Does that mean we won't listen to music or read
> books at home in your vision, or are you saying even with freely
> distributed books and music and videos, enough of people will find the
> time and money to attend readings, concerts, theathers to make it
> worthwhile?
People don't suddenly stop going to concerts just because they've got
the album. A recording doesn't even compare to a live performance, and
this is why people sometimes choose a stage play over movies as well,
even if the same script has been made into both.
> When was the last time you paid money to an author for a
> performance reading of his book? Would you ever?
Some authors are paid for interviews and lectures. Others can get a
job.
> >and comission,
>
> Comission is also monopoly, by your reasoning, since the
> information/art is kept by one person. One who comissions art will
> likely keep it to himself, except showing it off to other rich people.
Privacy is not copyright, I've never argued against privacy so please
stop putting words in my mouth.
> >to name three.
>
> Try harder. Your "solution" is much worse than the "problem".
These things already happen, it's not like they're replacements I'm
proposing. Copyright is gradually being destroyed by the internet
anyway, I'm just laying down the reasons and encouraging it along.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >AlanS wrote:
>
> >> >I'm talking about a monopoly of goods that are already publicly known,
>
> >> You are then punishing artists retroactively, taking away their source
> >> of income they had in mind when they created the work.
>
> >Only if "not rewarding" is equivalent to "punishing" in your mind.
>
> You are taking away their existing rights. That's punishing.
Please look up the history of copyright, they're privileges, not
rights. You seem to have been blinded by the propaganda that has been
produced about it since its inception, but when it was first being
considered, no one was kidding themselves that copyright was anything
other than a government granted monopoly. They just thought it was
worth it. They were wrong. It's everybody's right not to share, but no
one has the right to stop people using information that's already in
their hands, on their computer, in their mind, etc.
> >> If I'm an artist without copyright protection, I won't then, publicize
> >> my work and only show it to serious buyers with deep pockets after
> >> screening them for cameras or other recording equipment. For if I
> >> don't get any monies from distribution, my only source of income will
> >> be a single sell. Who will suffer, you figure?
>
> >A lot of artists get paid for actual work. Performances, comissioned
> >pieces, etc.
>
> I responded to your other post. Performances are not feasible save
> for, well, performance arts. Comissioning causes hoarding of
> information / art and is a monopoly by your logic.
Copyright grants a monopoly that is far different to privacy. Please
look up the difference.
> >I figure that copyright-based corporations will suffer,
> >and writers will find jobs where they get paid to write, instead of
> >paid for someone else copying their past writing.
>
> Several problems. It's meaningless to mention past writing. Anything
> they write will be "past writing" the moment they finish it, and if
> they don't get paid for it, how do they make income? Do you pay them
> while they are writing? Employ them 9 to 5, and pay by the hour
> *while* they are writing? Who employs them, why, and how is the price
> set, if not by the copies of their work sold? Or are you saying they
> should be able to sell their book only once after finished?
People already write as employees, and publishers increasingly make
money from advertising, rather than sales. Your problems aren't new and
aren't problems.
> >> >> When is the humanity poorer - if I create something and not share it
> >> >> at all or if I create something and only share it with those who are
> >> >> willing to compensate me for my labor?
>
> >> >It depends what and how, of course, this question is too vague to apply
> >> >to copyright specifically.
>
> >> No, it's not. You just don't like the implications.
>
> >Ha. Fine if you don't see your logical error and must assume I'm just
> >ignoring facts I don't like, then let me point it out for you:
> >Copyright is not the only kind of compensation for creative activity,
> >so your dichotomy is a false one with regards to the justification for
> >copyright.
>
> It's not a dichotomy, false or otherwise.
>
> You do not realize it's a priviledge, not a right, for other people to
> share information/art with you even at a cost.
I'm not asking anyone to share their information. I'm talking about
already published information. This is a simple distinction, why don't
you acknowledge it?
> In other words, copyright takes away nothing from you as a consumer.
> You have the option of paying for copies, if they are worth the price,
> or ignoring their existance, if you think the cost isn't worth it.
You can't ignore the existence of published works. It's not possible,
they're part of the cultural landscape. Your choice doesn't have to be
made.
> You demand the artists share art for free - but it's not your right to
> make such demands.
I don't demand they share it at all, but once it's shared, it can be
copied unless the receiver has agreed otherwise.
> An artist can do whatever he pleases with his art,
> including selling copies of it and including terms of use in the
> contract.
If I sign the contract, then yes.
> Let's say copyright laws were retracted and you have your happy world.
> You comission me to create a painting. I agree, but include a clause
> in the contract that says you can hang it on your wall, show it to
> your friends, ...etc but cannot distribute or sell copies of it. We
> agree and I paint, I deliver, and you pay. Now, would you say that our
> contract would need to be honored? That is, if you make copies of it
> and distribute it, can I take you to court?
Of course, but I wouldn't sign such a contract. If someone else does,
you would expect them to be honest. Again copyright is not about taking
credit or defrauding people. Look up the history of copyright if you
don't believe me, which you clearly don't.
> If you say yes, you are agreeing to copyright. The only difference is
> the explicit opt-in versus the explicit opt-out. Which is no
> difference, really.
It's a huge difference, opt-in means affected parties have agreed to
it.
> If an author today wishes his work to be not
> covered by copyright, he can easily do so. Really, all the copyright
> law does is make explicit clauses unnecessary for the huge majority.
> It's a practical thing.
The clauses themselves are not practical, which is why very few people
would sign them if they were opt-in.
> If you say no to the above question, we have bigger issues regarding
> contractual agreements and redefining how we (arbitrarily) determine
> what contracts between willing and able parties are valid and what are
> not. That's an even bigger can of worms and has much wider
> implications. For instance, zoning laws might have to be null and void
> as well, because I can argue, even if it's in the contract when I
> bought the house, implicit or explicit, city cannot dictate what I do
> with my property once I own it.
Not all contracts are equal, many kinds are illegal (any contract that
breaks an existing law, for example), the argument depends on the
specific case, and I don't think zoning laws are unreasonable in
general, but of course it conceivable that someone could create a
stupid zoning law, or an unfair one, or a corrupt one.
> >> >> When is the humanity poorer - if I don't create anything or if I
> >> >> create something and only share it with those who are willing to
> >> >> compensate me for my labor?
>
> >> >This is another false dichotomoy, as if authors didn't exist before
> >> >copyrights.
>
> >> People existed before non-lead based paint. Does that mean we
> >> should go back?
>
> >You are equating copying to poisoning? Wow.
>
> The point, as usual, eludes you. Do I have to explain everything? OK:
> That things were done one way at one time in the past doesn't mean
> current situation is not an improvement. Clear now?
We weren't talking about improvements, we were talking about
not-creating vs creating for compensation:
"When is the humanity poorer - if I don' create anything or if I create
something and only share it with those who are willing to compensate me
for my labor?".
But copyright is not the only kind of compensation, proven by the fact
that artists existed and got paid before copyright. In other words,
it's false choice between not-creating and copyright.
> >> Of course it's not secret. But to make *copies* and to *distribute*
> >> you need the author's permission. Just because he gave that permission
> >> to *you* doesn't mean *I* am entitled. It's not rocket science.
>
> >Your alternative was to "pretend it doesn't exist", which as I said is
> >not possible for published works, and not a realistic thing to demand
> >of people, especially in the internet age.
>
> It's also not realistic to take away rights already given.
All new laws do this to some extent, and in the case of copyright the
internet is making the old laws less and less practical by the day,
anyway.
> And yes, you can pretend that they don't exist for existing works. In
> fact, pretending that non-existing works don't exist doesn't make ANY
> sense now, does it?
You can pretend it doesn't exist if people keep it to themselves, when
it becomes part of the culture, then no, you can't. It can inform
debates, it can influence opinion-leaders, it can have countless
effects and ignoring it is not an option.
> >> How can the crator ensure he gets compensation then?
>
> >By getting a job, putting on performances, all of the ways in which
> >non-copyright earnings are made by everyone else. You don't owe anybody
> >money for something you never asked them to do.
>
> Nobody is forcing you to buy a book or a CD, are they?
Exactly, I don't owe them and I don't pay them. If someone else has a
copy I might make a copy myself.
> If one wishes, he can get a 9-5 job. But while that option is there,
> why take away his freedom to charge for work he created without being
> comissioned? If his work isn't worth anything, nobody will buy it and
> nobody loses anything. But if it's good, many of us benefit.
I explained in the original post why the artificial privilege (it's not
even close to a right) should be taken away. It inhibits communication
and invention, far more than it encourages it. I also explained what
has changed since copyright laws were first introduced.
> >> Reality check: Did your employer make your work public? Is it
> >> available freely to everybody, including their competitors? Are you
> >> able to give away his trade secrets, customer list, bids, ... etc
> >> without consequences?
>
> >Of course not, those are not published, I have never suggested an
> >obligation to publish anything. Privacy and copyright are two different
> >things.
>
> You seem to believe published but copyrighted work is negative value
> for society while work that's done but unpublished, kept
> private/proprietary, is neutral. That's patently absurd. Published
> work, whether copyrighted or not, can only (*) be an improvement over
> work that's done but kept secret, and society can only benefit from
> published work, whether it's copyrighted or not.
It inhibits the use of new technologies that allow sharing and
searching of information, because they have to be made more
complicated, less functional and more expensive to try to distinguish
between copyrighted and non-copyrighted. All such complications have
proven to add a cost, and all have been cracked very quickly, anyway.
It's time to end the charade of copyright in the internet age.
Sphere
darwinist wrote:
...
You seem to reject even the original
intent of copyright.
I completely agree that copyright has
become a culture eating monster, and
would agree that no copyright would
be better than current copyright law.
However, I think there is value to society
in promoting individual creativity, and
some extremely limited monopoly which
accrues only to individuals seems
reasonable to me. It is important
that the copyright protections are limited
in time so that the individual has incentive
to continue to produce, and it is important
that the copyright be limited to individuals
so as to promote creativity rather than
explotation of old information.
It always amazes me how accurately Thomas
Babington Macaulay stated the matter in
1841: http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
darwinist
> darwinist wrote:
> ...
> You seem to reject even the original
> intent of copyright.
The intent for the state to give artificial rewards to artists, is a
great idea, in my opinion. I think a wide variety of prizes, some
judged on popularity, some on expert opinion, would probably be cheaper
to the society and produce better works.
> I completely agree that copyright has
> become a culture eating monster, and
> would agree that no copyright would
> be better than current copyright law.
I see it as technological improvements gradually exposing how bad
copyright was to begin with, I'm betting the same problems existed from
the start.
> However, I think there is value to society
> in promoting individual creativity, and
> some extremely limited monopoly which
> accrues only to individuals seems
> reasonable to me. It is important
> that the copyright protections are limited
> in time so that the individual has incentive
> to continue to produce, and it is important
> that the copyright be limited to individuals
> so as to promote creativity rather than
> explotation of old information.
>
> It always amazes me how accurately Thomas
> Babington Macaulay stated the matter in
> 1841: http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html
Thanks for the link, I will check it out.
AlanS
>AlanS wrote:
>> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >AlanS wrote:
>> >> >I'm talking about a monopoly of goods that are already publicly known,
>> >> You are then punishing artists retroactively, taking away their source
>> >> of income they had in mind when they created the work.
>> >Only if "not rewarding" is equivalent to "punishing" in your mind.
>> You are taking away their existing rights. That's punishing.
>Please look up the history of copyright, they're privileges, not
>rights.
It's not called "copypriviledges", it's called "copyright". It's a
right given to the creator, period.
>> You do not realize it's a priviledge, not a right, for other people to
>> share information/art with you even at a cost.
>I'm not asking anyone to share their information. I'm talking about
>already published information.
Already published art was published under a contract, and rights were
granted. What's the point of contracts or rights if you take them away
at will?
>This is a simple distinction, why don't you acknowledge it?
It's nonsense. It's a dictator who callously takes away granted
rights.
>> In other words, copyright takes away nothing from you as a consumer.
>> You have the option of paying for copies, if they are worth the price,
>> or ignoring their existance, if you think the cost isn't worth it.
>You can't ignore the existence of published works. It's not possible,
>they're part of the cultural landscape. Your choice doesn't have to be
>made.
Nonsense. You aren't entitled and nobody owes you. You can of course
ignore published works. The reason you don't *want* to, is you know
they are good and want to enjoy them. Well, if so, don't be a
cheapskate and reach for your wallet. That's what money is for. You
aren't going to take it to the grave.
>> You demand the artists share art for free - but it's not your right to
>> make such demands.
>I don't demand they share it at all, but once it's shared, it can be
>copied unless the receiver has agreed otherwise.
That's exactly it. By buying copyrighted works, you ARE agreeing to
the contract. If you don't agree with the principle, only buy
non-copyrighted work. Problem solved.
>> An artist can do whatever he pleases with his art,
>> including selling copies of it and including terms of use in the
>> contract.
>If I sign the contract, then yes.
Read the fine print next time. Act of opening the package is
equivalent to signing the contract. If you don't want to sign the
contract, don't buy copyrighted works. Easy as pie.
>> Let's say copyright laws were retracted and you have your happy world.
>> You comission me to create a painting. I agree, but include a clause
>> in the contract that says you can hang it on your wall, show it to
>> your friends, ...etc but cannot distribute or sell copies of it. We
>> agree and I paint, I deliver, and you pay. Now, would you say that our
>> contract would need to be honored? That is, if you make copies of it
>> and distribute it, can I take you to court?
>Of course, but I wouldn't sign such a contract.
See above.
What you want is to declare the contract null and void unilaterally.
You cannot do that. Works were published under the contract, the
authors relied on their rights being protected and securing an income.
If the author doesn't want to hold the copyright anymore, that's his
decision to make. Not yours.
>> If you say yes, you are agreeing to copyright. The only difference is
>> the explicit opt-in versus the explicit opt-out. Which is no
>> difference, really.
>It's a huge difference, opt-in means affected parties have agreed to
>it.
As do opt-out. So long as everyone knows what they are getting into,
makes no difference. It's a matter of practicality.
>> If an author today wishes his work to be not
>> covered by copyright, he can easily do so. Really, all the copyright
>> law does is make explicit clauses unnecessary for the huge majority.
>> It's a practical thing.
>The clauses themselves are not practical, which is why very few people
>would sign them if they were opt-in.
Yet, by the act of buying copyrighted work, we all agree to the terms,
Again, if we didn't agree, we woulnd't buy. But you cannot have it
both ways.
>> If you say no to the above question, we have bigger issues regarding
>> contractual agreements and redefining how we (arbitrarily) determine
>> what contracts between willing and able parties are valid and what are
>> not. That's an even bigger can of worms and has much wider
>> implications. For instance, zoning laws might have to be null and void
>> as well, because I can argue, even if it's in the contract when I
>> bought the house, implicit or explicit, city cannot dictate what I do
>> with my property once I own it.
>Not all contracts are equal, many kinds are illegal (any contract that
>breaks an existing law, for example),
Copyright is legal.
>> Nobody is forcing you to buy a book or a CD, are they?
>Exactly, I don't owe them and I don't pay them. If someone else has a
>copy I might make a copy myself.
Then you are an accomplice in that someone else (who lets assume
acquired the copy legally) breaking the law.
>> You seem to believe published but copyrighted work is negative value
>> for society while work that's done but unpublished, kept
>> private/proprietary, is neutral. That's patently absurd. Published
>> work, whether copyrighted or not, can only (*) be an improvement over
>> work that's done but kept secret, and society can only benefit from
>> published work, whether it's copyrighted or not.
>It inhibits the use of new technologies that allow sharing and
>searching of information, because they have to be made more
>complicated, less functional and more expensive to try to distinguish
>between copyrighted and non-copyrighted. All such complications have
>proven to add a cost, and all have been cracked very quickly, anyway.
>It's time to end the charade of copyright in the internet age.
Since murders happen no matter what, and since maintaining police,
courts and prisons cost taxpayers money and cause complications, let's
legalize murder.
OK, bottomline is, if you are truly against the principle of
copyright, you could create original work and release it to public,
and speak with your actions and contribute to the "cause". Many people
do that. Internet has facilitated that tremendously. I have respect
for those people, and use open source software, non-copyrighted
material... etc preferentially, even though I believe their business
model is ultimately either unsustainable or eventually becomes what
they despise when realities of life set in. Regardless, however, this
group does respect other authors' right to hold a copyright. They
merely provide an alternative, legally, and healthy competition. Good
so far.
Then there's also this other group, the non-creators, who hide behind
mock idealogy. Well, not true, they do have an ideology but the
ideaology is that of cheapness and leaching. They don't create any
public work themselves, but argue that they are entitled to everybody
else's work. They disregard law whenever law inconveniences them.
I am afraid by demanding that copyright of already published works be
voided, you are arguing for, if not within, the second group.
darwinist
[...]
> >> >Only if "not rewarding" is equivalent to "punishing" in your mind.
>
> >> You are taking away their existing rights. That's punishing.
>
> >Please look up the history of copyright, they're privileges, not
> >rights.
>
> It's not called "copypriviledges", it's called "copyright". It's a
> right given to the creator, period.
Ok but you were suggesting that not continuing to give it is a
punishment, but it's a punishment no more than a marginal tax increase
is punishment for working. Taking away the right to life, free speech,
etc, for committing a crime, say, is a punishment, but I'm not out for
revenge, I just think it's a bad law, and an unfair privilege, when all
the effects are considered.
> >> You do not realize it's a priviledge, not a right, for other people to
> >> share information/art with you even at a cost.
>
> >I'm not asking anyone to share their information. I'm talking about
> >already published information.
>
> Already published art was published under a contract, and rights were
> granted. What's the point of contracts or rights if you take them away
> at will?
>
> >This is a simple distinction, why don't you acknowledge it?
>
> It's nonsense. It's a dictator who callously takes away granted
> rights.
It infringes on other rights, to use what is publicly known.
> >> In other words, copyright takes away nothing from you as a consumer.
> >> You have the option of paying for copies, if they are worth the price,
> >> or ignoring their existance, if you think the cost isn't worth it.
>
> >You can't ignore the existence of published works. It's not possible,
> >they're part of the cultural landscape. Your choice doesn't have to be
> >made.
>
> Nonsense. You aren't entitled and nobody owes you. You can of course
> ignore published works. The reason you don't *want* to, is you know
> they are good and want to enjoy them. Well, if so, don't be a
> cheapskate and reach for your wallet. That's what money is for. You
> aren't going to take it to the grave.
The whole society is influenced by these works which are copied and
debated all around, and so you can't avoid exposure to copyrighted
works, and you therefore can't avoid making copies (partial or
complete) in your mind. What you are allowed to do with those copies is
the question.
> >> You demand the artists share art for free - but it's not your right to
> >> make such demands.
>
> >I don't demand they share it at all, but once it's shared, it can be
> >copied unless the receiver has agreed otherwise.
>
> That's exactly it. By buying copyrighted works, you ARE agreeing to
> the contract. If you don't agree with the principle, only buy
> non-copyrighted work. Problem solved.
What if it's a present or someone else copied it onto their web page.
Am I agreeing to the contract then?
> >> An artist can do whatever he pleases with his art,
> >> including selling copies of it and including terms of use in the
> >> contract.
>
> >If I sign the contract, then yes.
>
> Read the fine print next time. Act of opening the package is
> equivalent to signing the contract. If you don't want to sign the
> contract, don't buy copyrighted works. Easy as pie.
What if you never get the original packaging?
> >> Let's say copyright laws were retracted and you have your happy world.
> >> You comission me to create a painting. I agree, but include a clause
> >> in the contract that says you can hang it on your wall, show it to
> >> your friends, ...etc but cannot distribute or sell copies of it. We
> >> agree and I paint, I deliver, and you pay. Now, would you say that our
> >> contract would need to be honored? That is, if you make copies of it
> >> and distribute it, can I take you to court?
>
> >Of course, but I wouldn't sign such a contract.
>
> See above.
>
> What you want is to declare the contract null and void unilaterally.
> You cannot do that. Works were published under the contract, the
> authors relied on their rights being protected and securing an income.
> If the author doesn't want to hold the copyright anymore, that's his
> decision to make. Not yours.
The contract is between the people who sign it.
> >> If you say yes, you are agreeing to copyright. The only difference is
> >> the explicit opt-in versus the explicit opt-out. Which is no
> >> difference, really.
>
> >It's a huge difference, opt-in means affected parties have agreed to
> >it.
>
> As do opt-out. So long as everyone knows what they are getting into,
> makes no difference. It's a matter of practicality.
That's a big "so long as", what measures are there to ensure agreement
and knowledge of this contract? Opt-in and opt-out behave differently
because of the clear and explicit act of reading and signing a
document.
> >> If an author today wishes his work to be not
> >> covered by copyright, he can easily do so. Really, all the copyright
> >> law does is make explicit clauses unnecessary for the huge majority.
> >> It's a practical thing.
>
> >The clauses themselves are not practical, which is why very few people
> >would sign them if they were opt-in.
>
> Yet, by the act of buying copyrighted work, we all agree to the terms,
> Again, if we didn't agree, we woulnd't buy. But you cannot have it
> both ways.
Lots of people obtain copyrighted works without agreeing to terms.
Assumed agreement is a weak argument for copyright, in my opinion.
> >> If you say no to the above question, we have bigger issues regarding
> >> contractual agreements and redefining how we (arbitrarily) determine
> >> what contracts between willing and able parties are valid and what are
> >> not. That's an even bigger can of worms and has much wider
> >> implications. For instance, zoning laws might have to be null and void
> >> as well, because I can argue, even if it's in the contract when I
> >> bought the house, implicit or explicit, city cannot dictate what I do
> >> with my property once I own it.
>
> >Not all contracts are equal, many kinds are illegal (any contract that
> >breaks an existing law, for example),
>
> Copyright is legal.
Yes, illegality is one of many ways that one contract can be weaker
than another. Ambiguity, unreasonability are others, but again most
people don't sign copyright contracts.
> >> Nobody is forcing you to buy a book or a CD, are they?
>
> >Exactly, I don't owe them and I don't pay them. If someone else has a
> >copy I might make a copy myself.
>
> Then you are an accomplice in that someone else (who lets assume
> acquired the copy legally) breaking the law.
Copyright is a law, I know, but in the above example the third-party
never agreed to the contract, they may never even have seen a mark of
copyright.
> >> You seem to believe published but copyrighted work is negative value
> >> for society while work that's done but unpublished, kept
> >> private/proprietary, is neutral. That's patently absurd. Published
> >> work, whether copyrighted or not, can only (*) be an improvement over
> >> work that's done but kept secret, and society can only benefit from
> >> published work, whether it's copyrighted or not.
>
> >It inhibits the use of new technologies that allow sharing and
> >searching of information, because they have to be made more
> >complicated, less functional and more expensive to try to distinguish
> >between copyrighted and non-copyrighted. All such complications have
> >proven to add a cost, and all have been cracked very quickly, anyway.
> >It's time to end the charade of copyright in the internet age.
>
> Since murders happen no matter what, and since maintaining police,
> courts and prisons cost taxpayers money and cause complications, let's
> legalize murder.
What is held back by murder laws? Whatever it is I think it's worth it.
As I made a case for in the original post, it's not worth holding back
information technology for copyright, certainly not as copyright is
presently used.
> OK, bottomline is, if you are truly against the principle of
> copyright, you could create original work and release it to public,
> and speak with your actions and contribute to the "cause". Many people
> do that. Internet has facilitated that tremendously. I have respect
> for those people, and use open source software, non-copyrighted
> material... etc preferentially, even though I believe their business
> model is ultimately either unsustainable or eventually becomes what
> they despise when realities of life set in. Regardless, however, this
> group does respect other authors' right to hold a copyright. They
> merely provide an alternative, legally, and healthy competition. Good
> so far.
>
> Then there's also this other group, the non-creators, who hide behind
> mock idealogy. Well, not true, they do have an ideology but the
> ideaology is that of cheapness and leaching. They don't create any
> public work themselves, but argue that they are entitled to everybody
> else's work. They disregard law whenever law inconveniences them.
>
> I am afraid by demanding that copyright of already published works be
> voided, you are arguing for, if not within, the second group.
There's a third group. People who never copyright things they make and
release, and don't respect the copyrights of others. I am also arguing
for the leeches, because they are the ones who will force the laws to
be changed eventually.
AlanS
wrote:
>AlanS wrote:
>[...]
>> >> >Only if "not rewarding" is equivalent to "punishing" in your mind.
>>
>> >> You are taking away their existing rights. That's punishing.
>>
>> >Please look up the history of copyright, they're privileges, not
>> >rights.
>>
>> It's not called "copypriviledges", it's called "copyright". It's a
>> right given to the creator, period.
>Ok but you were suggesting that not continuing to give it is a
>punishment,
Yes, taking away rights is. When you send your kid to his room, that's
punishment. You are taking away his rights previously granted. Same,
on a more serious scale, is imprisonment, suspension of drivers
license.. etc.
>but it's a punishment no more than a marginal tax increase
>is punishment for working.
Tax increase doesn't take away rights. There's no such right as a low
tax right. *IF* low tax is made a law and a right, *THEN* increasing
taxes could be considered punishment by taking away that right.
>> It's nonsense. It's a dictator who callously takes away granted
>> rights.
>It infringes on other rights, to use what is publicly known.
No such right. Show me where in any country's constitution writes that
people are granted to access and use any information without
permission to do so.
>> >> In other words, copyright takes away nothing from you as a consumer.
>> >> You have the option of paying for copies, if they are worth the price,
>> >> or ignoring their existance, if you think the cost isn't worth it.
>>
>> >You can't ignore the existence of published works. It's not possible,
>> >they're part of the cultural landscape. Your choice doesn't have to be
>> >made.
>>
>> Nonsense. You aren't entitled and nobody owes you. You can of course
>> ignore published works. The reason you don't *want* to, is you know
>> they are good and want to enjoy them. Well, if so, don't be a
>> cheapskate and reach for your wallet. That's what money is for. You
>> aren't going to take it to the grave.
>The whole society is influenced by these works which are copied and
>debated all around, and so you can't avoid exposure to copyrighted
>works,
Maybe. But such exposure, if I understand you correctly, doesn't
violate copyright.
>and you therefore can't avoid making copies (partial or
>complete) in your mind.
That doesn't violate copyright either. You are licensed for personal
use, and the "person" that's you includes your brain last time I
checked. Law is clear, no ambiguity.
>What you are allowed to do with those copies is
>the question.
Yes, and it's clear. You cannot redistribute them, sell them.. etc
without permission.
>> >I don't demand they share it at all, but once it's shared, it can be
>> >copied unless the receiver has agreed otherwise.
>> That's exactly it. By buying copyrighted works, you ARE agreeing to
>> the contract. If you don't agree with the principle, only buy
>> non-copyrighted work. Problem solved.
>What if it's a present or someone else copied it onto their web page.
Then they are breaking the law.
>Am I agreeing to the contract then?
It's the person who posted it who broke the contract.
>> Read the fine print next time. Act of opening the package is
>> equivalent to signing the contract. If you don't want to sign the
>> contract, don't buy copyrighted works. Easy as pie.
>What if you never get the original packaging?
You scan through the first couple of pages, or check the CD sleeve..
etc. Unless someone ripped it off (which is, I believe, against the
law too), the copyright notice will be there.
Really, you are reaching.
Even if there's no indication, playing ignorant doesn't work. That's
where implicit copyright comes in. Unless stated otherwise, the safe
course of action is to assume material you buy is copyrighted. Contact
the author if clarification is needed.
>> >It's a huge difference, opt-in means affected parties have agreed to
>> >it.
>> As do opt-out. So long as everyone knows what they are getting into,
>> makes no difference. It's a matter of practicality.
>That's a big "so long as", what measures are there to ensure agreement
>and knowledge of this contract? Opt-in and opt-out behave differently
>because of the clear and explicit act of reading and signing a
>document.
However, ignorance is not an excuse. Copyright is explicitly stated on
almost any copyrighted material that you see. And even if it's not,
everybody above a certain age and mentally sound can be safely assumed
to know that original work is covered under copyright.
>> Yet, by the act of buying copyrighted work, we all agree to the terms,
>> Again, if we didn't agree, we woulnd't buy. But you cannot have it
>> both ways.
>Lots of people obtain copyrighted works without agreeing to terms.
By illegal means, yes. Because lots of (other) people break the
agreement.
>Assumed agreement is a weak argument for copyright, in my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you won't change reality that
way.
I never signed an agreement to not murder anyone. Do you think that
will hold in court if I do?
I never explicitly signed an agreement about not speeding throuhg red
lights either.
Many contracts are assumed. Copyright is actually much more explicit.
>> Then you are an accomplice in that someone else (who lets assume
>> acquired the copy legally) breaking the law.
>Copyright is a law, I know, but in the above example the third-party
>never agreed to the contract, they may never even have seen a mark of
>copyright.
Then they can plead their case. If you make me a copy of copyrighted
material and tell me it's not, I do have a case if I get questioned.
Third party is irrelevant when the question is whether you broke the
contract or not.
>> I am afraid by demanding that copyright of already published works be
>> voided, you are arguing for, if not within, the second group.
>There's a third group. People who never copyright things they make and
>release, and don't respect the copyrights of others. I am also arguing
>for the leeches, because they are the ones who will force the laws to
>be changed eventually.
But see, the law doesn't need to be changed. People can voluntarily
abandon copyright, there's nothing preventing authors from releasing
work without copyright. If enough people do that, copyright becomes
irrelevant. But you know they won't, and you want to enjoy their work,
so you want to force them.
AlanS
>The intent for the state to give artificial rewards to artists, is a
>great idea, in my opinion. I think a wide variety of prizes, some
>judged on popularity, some on expert opinion, would probably be cheaper
>to the society and produce better works.
Yes, Nazi Germany, USSR ..etc tried that, and it worked out good.
Very strange, coming someone complaining about copyright causing
monopoly (!?).
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The intent for the state to give artificial rewards to artists, is a
> >great idea, in my opinion. I think a wide variety of prizes, some
> >judged on popularity, some on expert opinion, would probably be cheaper
> >to the society and produce better works.
>
> Yes, Nazi Germany, USSR ..etc tried that, and it worked out good.
Every government funds awards and prizes to some extent. Nazi Germany
and the USSR built roads and collected taxes too, what's your point?
> Very strange, coming someone complaining about copyright causing
> monopoly (!?).
Huh?
darwinist
> On 19 Oct 2006 22:19:08 -0700, "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >AlanS wrote:
> >[...]
> >> >> >Only if "not rewarding" is equivalent to "punishing" in your mind.
> >>
> >> >> You are taking away their existing rights. That's punishing.
> >>
> >> >Please look up the history of copyright, they're privileges, not
> >> >rights.
> >>
> >> It's not called "copypriviledges", it's called "copyright". It's a
> >> right given to the creator, period.
>
> >Ok but you were suggesting that not continuing to give it is a
> >punishment,
>
> Yes, taking away rights is. When you send your kid to his room, that's
> punishment. You are taking away his rights previously granted. Same,
> on a more serious scale, is imprisonment, suspension of drivers
> license.. etc.
In itself reducing or restricting a right that was granted by a
previous law, is not a punishment. A law to say, restrict water usage
in a drought, is not a punishment to people who want to wash themselves
or have a nice garden, even though previously we could use more water,
or water more often than we can now.
> >but it's a punishment no more than a marginal tax increase
> >is punishment for working.
>
> Tax increase doesn't take away rights. There's no such right as a low
> tax right. *IF* low tax is made a law and a right, *THEN* increasing
> taxes could be considered punishment by taking away that right.
Whatever you don't have to pay in tax is what you have a right to keep,
if you're talking about legally granted rights, so any increase would
be punishment by that definition, but that's not what punishment means.
> >> It's nonsense. It's a dictator who callously takes away granted
> >> rights.
>
> >It infringes on other rights, to use what is publicly known.
>
> No such right. Show me where in any country's constitution writes that
> people are granted to access and use any information without
> permission to do so.
I didn't say "any information", I said what is publicly known. It's a
more basic right than copyright which you'll notice is used everywhere
without laws needed to protect it. You only need laws to restrict it.
> >> >> In other words, copyright takes away nothing from you as a consumer.
> >> >> You have the option of paying for copies, if they are worth the price,
> >> >> or ignoring their existance, if you think the cost isn't worth it.
> >>
> >> >You can't ignore the existence of published works. It's not possible,
> >> >they're part of the cultural landscape. Your choice doesn't have to be
> >> >made.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. You aren't entitled and nobody owes you. You can of course
> >> ignore published works. The reason you don't *want* to, is you know
> >> they are good and want to enjoy them. Well, if so, don't be a
> >> cheapskate and reach for your wallet. That's what money is for. You
> >> aren't going to take it to the grave.
>
> >The whole society is influenced by these works which are copied and
> >debated all around, and so you can't avoid exposure to copyrighted
> >works,
>
> Maybe. But such exposure, if I understand you correctly, doesn't
> violate copyright.
It may not but the point is you can't ignore copyright works, they
become part of the society.
> >and you therefore can't avoid making copies (partial or
> >complete) in your mind.
>
> That doesn't violate copyright either. You are licensed for personal
> use, and the "person" that's you includes your brain last time I
> checked. Law is clear, no ambiguity.
Actually there's a lot of ambiguity in fair use. Where you can sing a
song, how much of a work you can include in your commentary on it,
whether pointing to a place on the web with copies of illegal copies of
copyrighted works is itself an infringement, etc.
> >What you are allowed to do with those copies is
> >the question.
>
> Yes, and it's clear. You cannot redistribute them, sell them.. etc
> without permission.
Sales are pretty clear, but redistribution is not at all clear on the
internet. Bit-torrents and search engines are too good examples of
this.
> >> >I don't demand they share it at all, but once it's shared, it can be
> >> >copied unless the receiver has agreed otherwise.
>
> >> That's exactly it. By buying copyrighted works, you ARE agreeing to
> >> the contract. If you don't agree with the principle, only buy
> >> non-copyrighted work. Problem solved.
>
> >What if it's a present or someone else copied it onto their web page.
>
> Then they are breaking the law.
They are but their readers never saw or signed a contract, it's
possible they don't even know who the author is.
> >Am I agreeing to the contract then?
>
> It's the person who posted it who broke the contract.
And everyone after that on the chain of copying?
> >> Read the fine print next time. Act of opening the package is
> >> equivalent to signing the contract. If you don't want to sign the
> >> contract, don't buy copyrighted works. Easy as pie.
>
> >What if you never get the original packaging?
>
> You scan through the first couple of pages, or check the CD sleeve..
> etc. Unless someone ripped it off (which is, I believe, against the
> law too), the copyright notice will be there.
Most information is distributed electronically, there is no packaging.
> Really, you are reaching.
>
> Even if there's no indication, playing ignorant doesn't work. That's
> where implicit copyright comes in. Unless stated otherwise, the safe
> course of action is to assume material you buy is copyrighted. Contact
> the author if clarification is needed.
This illustrates some of the added costs and slowed economic progress
I'm talking about. The author may not be contactable, or may not be
known
> >> >It's a huge difference, opt-in means affected parties have agreed to
> >> >it.
>
> >> As do opt-out. So long as everyone knows what they are getting into,
> >> makes no difference. It's a matter of practicality.
>
> >That's a big "so long as", what measures are there to ensure agreement
> >and knowledge of this contract? Opt-in and opt-out behave differently
> >because of the clear and explicit act of reading and signing a
> >document.
>
> However, ignorance is not an excuse. Copyright is explicitly stated on
> almost any copyrighted material that you see. And even if it's not,
> everybody above a certain age and mentally sound can be safely assumed
> to know that original work is covered under copyright.
Often it's not, though. Should they restrict what they learn and give
to other people just in case it's copyrighted? This is another example
of the economic hindrance I'm talking about.
> >> Yet, by the act of buying copyrighted work, we all agree to the terms,
> >> Again, if we didn't agree, we woulnd't buy. But you cannot have it
> >> both ways.
>
> >Lots of people obtain copyrighted works without agreeing to terms.
>
> By illegal means, yes. Because lots of (other) people break the
> agreement.
After the initial act there is often no mark, date or contract.
> >Assumed agreement is a weak argument for copyright, in my opinion.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, but you won't change reality that
> way.
>
> I never signed an agreement to not murder anyone. Do you think that
> will hold in court if I do?
>
> I never explicitly signed an agreement about not speeding throuhg red
> lights either.
Those aren't contracts, except in the sense that legal systems are a
"social contract". You were talking about the author having the right
to sell works with conditions, and that this contract is the equivalent
of what we have today. It's not the same with red lights and murder,
they are not based on contract-rights, but things like the right to
life.
> Many contracts are assumed. Copyright is actually much more explicit.
>
> >> Then you are an accomplice in that someone else (who lets assume
> >> acquired the copy legally) breaking the law.
>
> >Copyright is a law, I know, but in the above example the third-party
> >never agreed to the contract, they may never even have seen a mark of
> >copyright.
>
> Then they can plead their case. If you make me a copy of copyrighted
> material and tell me it's not, I do have a case if I get questioned.
> Third party is irrelevant when the question is whether you broke the
> contract or not.
And a contract not being included or even indicated to the receiver at
the end of the chain makes a pretty weak contract. Assuming everything
in any form is copyrighted unless stated otherwise is not realistic to
expect of people.
> >> I am afraid by demanding that copyright of already published works be
> >> voided, you are arguing for, if not within, the second group.
>
> >There's a third group. People who never copyright things they make and
> >release, and don't respect the copyrights of others. I am also arguing
> >for the leeches, because they are the ones who will force the laws to
> >be changed eventually.
>
> But see, the law doesn't need to be changed.
It does now that copyright is so visibly holding back new information
technologies when it's enforced, and now that enforcement is so much
more expensive, and so much less effective. You can just wait and see
though, if you like.
> People can voluntarily
> abandon copyright, there's nothing preventing authors from releasing
> work without copyright. If enough people do that, copyright becomes
> irrelevant.
It also becomes irrelevant as it becomes unenforceable, as it gradually
is.
> But you know they won't, and you want to enjoy their work,
> so you want to force them.
I am not forcing anyone to do anything. You are mistaking copying, many
steps removed, for force to a person. Or you are trying to make that
connection to make me look bad, one way or the other.
AlanS
>> >The intent for the state to give artificial rewards to artists, is a
>> >great idea, in my opinion. I think a wide variety of prizes, some
>> >judged on popularity, some on expert opinion, would probably be cheaper
>> >to the society and produce better works.
>> Yes, Nazi Germany, USSR ..etc tried that, and it worked out good.
>Every government funds awards and prizes to some extent.
Then why doesn't that satisfy you?
>Nazi Germany and the USSR built roads and collected taxes too,
Every government does that. Certaing governments, however, are/were
unique in controlling, dictating, censoring and sponsoring art.
>what's your point?
Make a wild guess.
>> Very strange, coming someone complaining about copyright causing
>> monopoly (!?).
>Huh?
I'm sure you know, but ley's play the game. You said:
<q>
Don't get all sanctimonious like you are sticking up for property
rights, you're doing the exact opposite, arguing to restrict how
actual
property is used, by giving one person dominion over all copies of
something, no matter who they actually belong to. This kind of
monopoly
inhibits communication and invention.
</q>
Now what you are suggesting amounts to giving the government monopoly
over art.
AlanS
>> No such right. Show me where in any country's constitution writes that
>> people are granted to access and use any information without
>> permission to do so.
>I didn't say "any information", I said what is publicly known.
Define publicly known.
Actually you have shot yourself in the foot. If something under
copyright is publicly known, you cannot argue copyright is preventing
dissemination of such information. And if something isn't publicly
known, by your admission, you don't ask for that information to be
publicly known. So what's it that you want?
AlanS
wrote:
>> Maybe. But such exposure, if I understand you correctly, doesn't
>> violate copyright.
>It may not but the point is you can't ignore copyright works, they
>become part of the society.
You mean culture. But so? Ferrari is part of the culture - it's a
"publicly known" name. Does that mean their cars should be free?
Something can be part of the culture, and still cost, be it a book or
cheese or sports cars.
AlanS
>> That doesn't violate copyright either. You are licensed for personal
>> use, and the "person" that's you includes your brain last time I
>> checked. Law is clear, no ambiguity.
>Actually there's a lot of ambiguity in fair use. Where you can sing a
>song, how much of a work you can include in your commentary on it,
>whether pointing to a place on the web with copies of illegal copies of
>copyrighted works is itself an infringement, etc.
Maybe you should lobby towards abolishing the fair use clause then.
AlanS
>> You scan through the first couple of pages, or check the CD sleeve..
>> etc. Unless someone ripped it off (which is, I believe, against the
>> law too), the copyright notice will be there.
>Most information is distributed electronically, there is no packaging.
There's your hint. If licence information is missing, it's most likely
pirated/stolen. Legit free stuff also comes with licenses. For
software, for instance, check http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ .
It's not like it's difficult to stay within the law if one wishes so.
And if you don't, you'll always find an excuse no matter what.
AlanS
wrote:
>> However, ignorance is not an excuse. Copyright is explicitly stated on
>> almost any copyrighted material that you see. And even if it's not,
>> everybody above a certain age and mentally sound can be safely assumed
>> to know that original work is covered under copyright.
>Often it's not, though. Should they restrict what they learn and give
>to other people just in case it's copyrighted? This is another example
>of the economic hindrance I'm talking about.
It's not difficult to *not* give away copyrighted material to other
people. It actually takes more effort and planning to give copyrighted
material than not to. Have I been giving you copyrighted material?
Have you been economically hindered as a result?
AlanS
>> But you know they won't, and you want to enjoy their work,
>> so you want to force them.
>I am not forcing anyone to do anything. You are mistaking copying, many
>steps removed, for force to a person.
Copying a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright
holder is violating the right granted to that person, yes or no?
>Or you are trying to make that
>connection to make me look bad, one way or the other.
Don't be modest, you don't need my help there.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >AlanS wrote:
> >> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The intent for the state to give artificial rewards to artists, is a
> >> >great idea, in my opinion. I think a wide variety of prizes, some
> >> >judged on popularity, some on expert opinion, would probably be cheaper
> >> >to the society and produce better works.
>
> >> Yes, Nazi Germany, USSR ..etc tried that, and it worked out good.
>
> >Every government funds awards and prizes to some extent.
>
> Then why doesn't that satisfy you?
I would like to see an increase, as I think it's a more effective means
of promoting creativity than granting a (theoretically limited)
monopoly on copying the work.
> >Nazi Germany and the USSR built roads and collected taxes too,
>
> Every government does that. Certaing governments, however, are/were
> unique in controlling, dictating, censoring and sponsoring art.
>
> >what's your point?
>
> Make a wild guess.
>
> >> Very strange, coming someone complaining about copyright causing
> >> monopoly (!?).
>
> >Huh?
>
> I'm sure you know, but ley's play the game. You said:
>
> <q>
> Don't get all sanctimonious like you are sticking up for property
> rights, you're doing the exact opposite, arguing to restrict how
> actual
> property is used, by giving one person dominion over all copies of
> something, no matter who they actually belong to. This kind of
> monopoly
> inhibits communication and invention.
> </q>
>
> Now what you are suggesting amounts to giving the government monopoly
> over art.
How does awarding prizes give them a monopoly? It doesn't prevent
others from creating whatever they want, performing whatever they want,
charging for time spent working like anyone else, etc.
If you really think there is a connection between governments giving
prizes, and a monopoly on art, then drop the innuendo and make your
argument.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> No such right. Show me where in any country's constitution writes that
> >> people are granted to access and use any information without
> >> permission to do so.
>
> >I didn't say "any information", I said what is publicly known.
>
> Define publicly known.
Not secret or confidential. E.g. a credit card number might be shared,
but it's still confidential between the parties involved, even if
there's more than one of them. Likewise trade secrets in an
organisation. A book that is published, on the other hand, can be
shared with friends, there is no confidentiality, as with a song played
on the radio.
> Actually you have shot yourself in the foot. If something under
> copyright is publicly known, you cannot argue copyright is preventing
> dissemination of such information.
As per the above definition, publicly known doesn't mean known by every
member of the public, and the logistics of accessing and using
information, can vary even if it's published information.
> And if something isn't publicly
> known, by your admission, you don't ask for that information to be
> publicly known. So what's it that you want?
If you're going to ask me for a definition of 'publicly known', you
might wait for the answer before you tell me I'm shooting myself in the
foot.
darwinist
There are two things here: the trademark and the physical car. The
trademark of is an identifier, that is it would be lying to design and
sell a new "Ferrari" if you're not the company and don't have their
approval. Just like if you signed my name on a contract instead of your
own, it's fraudulent.
The second is the material car, and until we have replicators like they
have in star trek, there's a pretty clear difference between physical
property, and copyable information. I've never suggested, for example,
that an authors manuscript should be free, or that books in a bookstore
should be free. This is about the monopoly on copying granted by
copyright laws.
darwinist
That would just make it worse. Most use of published information is
"fair use" in my opinion, and if anything there should be an "unfair
use" law instead, because those are the exceptions to the rule. The
clause's existence represents what everyone knows is wrong with
copyright in theory, if taken to its extreme, but which some people
think can be moderated to tolerable level. I think they are mistaken
and the internet only makes this clearer.
darwinist
It can be extremely difficult if you make
information-sharing-technology designed for legitimate purposes. Media
players, file-sharing systems, usenet, etc.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> But you know they won't, and you want to enjoy their work,
> >> so you want to force them.
>
> >I am not forcing anyone to do anything. You are mistaking copying, many
> >steps removed, for force to a person.
>
> Copying a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright
> holder is violating the right granted to that person, yes or no?
Of course, why do you keep changing the subject? You said it was force,
but in places where the government has the "right" to suppress any
criticism it doesn't like, the citizen is not forcing anyone to do
anything by holding a protest sign, even if it's violating the
government's (or one of their cronies) rights.
> >Or you are trying to make that
> >connection to make me look bad, one way or the other.
>
> Don't be modest, you don't need my help there.
Then it should be enough for you to stick to the issues at hand.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You scan through the first couple of pages, or check the CD sleeve..
> >> etc. Unless someone ripped it off (which is, I believe, against the
> >> law too), the copyright notice will be there.
>
> >Most information is distributed electronically, there is no packaging.
>
> There's your hint. If licence information is missing, it's most likely
> pirated/stolen.
There is out of copyright work, there is work that was never claimed by
people who see how restricting it is to copyright something. I would
encourage people to learn and share what knowledge is useful without
assuming by default that it's illegal unless notified otherwise. The
alternative is a horrible, crippling way to think and the logical
extreme of so called "intellectual property".
> Legit free stuff also comes with licenses. For
> software, for instance, check http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ .
That's a usage license and separate from copyright.
> It's not like it's difficult to stay within the law if one wishes so.
> And if you don't, you'll always find an excuse no matter what.
Actually in some cases it is very difficult, especially for
information-technology whose purpose it is to make sharing (legitimate)
information easier. From ISPs to open-source operating systems to
search-engines to file-sharing methods with not piratical intent, this
is often a problem, one they never sought, and one that's impossible
one to avoid completely.
AlanS
>AlanS wrote:
>> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >AlanS wrote:
>> >> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The intent for the state to give artificial rewards to artists, is a
>> >> >great idea, in my opinion. I think a wide variety of prizes, some
>> >> >judged on popularity, some on expert opinion, would probably be cheaper
>> >> >to the society and produce better works.
>> >> Yes, Nazi Germany, USSR ..etc tried that, and it worked out good.
>> >Every government funds awards and prizes to some extent.
>> Then why doesn't that satisfy you?
>I would like to see an increase, as I think it's a more effective means
>of promoting creativity than granting a (theoretically limited)
>monopoly on copying the work.
IOW, you want to mover towards a world where the governments use art
to promote their agendas. No thank you, done before. Not so good.
Common sense and past experience seems to indicate that people are
better off in a free market. Let the buyers and sellers sort it out.
Governments, IMO, have no business spending taxpayer money on "chosen"
pieces of arts than on a "chosen" religion.
>> Now what you are suggesting amounts to giving the government monopoly
>> over art.
>How does awarding prizes give them a monopoly?
Taken by itself, it doesn't necessarily. But if you simultaneously
take away an important means that artists make money, that is via
licensing their work, you are essentially giving a limited elite
and/or government much more power to dictate the direction of art.
>It doesn't prevent
>others from creating whatever they want, performing whatever they want,
>charging for time spent working like anyone else, etc.
Copyright doesn't prevent others from *creating* whatever they want
either. In fact, copyright does promote creativity/originality. It
merely prevents leeching. Leeching, in my humbe opinion, is not a very
desirable thing.
>If you really think there is a connection between governments giving
>prizes, and a monopoly on art, then drop the innuendo and make your
>argument.
History is clear. Whenever governments had power over artists, they
used it to further their views. Copyright liberates artists and
enables the mechanism of supply and demand to work.
darwinist
> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >AlanS wrote:
> >> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >AlanS wrote:
> >> >> "darwinist" <darw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >The intent for the state to give artificial rewards to artists, is a
> >> >> >great idea, in my opinion. I think a wide variety of prizes, some
> >> >> >judged on popularity, some on expert opinion, would probably be cheaper
> >> >> >to the society and produce better works.
>
> >> >> Yes, Nazi Germany, USSR ..etc tried that, and it worked out good.
>
> >> >Every government funds awards and prizes to some extent.
>
> >> Then why doesn't that satisfy you?
>
> >I would like to see an increase, as I think it's a more effective means
> >of promoting creativity than granting a (theoretically limited)
> >monopoly on copying the work.
>
> IOW, you want to mover towards a world where the governments use art
> to promote their agendas.
No more than copyright does now. Any law is a tool of government to
"promote their agenda", and many changes to copyright law have been
made to favour some groups over others. I go into this in some detail
in the original post.
> No thank you, done before. Not so good.
> Common sense and past experience seems to indicate that people are
> better off in a free market.
Copyright is the opposite of a free market, the latter of which denies
people the right to a monopoly on producing any good that others could
compete to produce. Copyright grants a monopoly on making copies of
something, and free markets require the opposite.
> Let the buyers and sellers sort it out.
They could if competing to sell wasn't illegal.
> Governments, IMO, have no business spending taxpayer money on "chosen"
> pieces of arts than on a "chosen" religion.
Well they already do, but unlike religion it is not exclusive, nor
hierarchical and the same dangers don't apply as apply to a
state-religion.
> >> Now what you are suggesting amounts to giving the government monopoly
> >> over art.
>
> >How does awarding prizes give them a monopoly?
>
> Taken by itself, it doesn't necessarily. But if you simultaneously
> take away an important means that artists make money, that is via
> licensing their work, you are essentially giving a limited elite
> and/or government much more power to dictate the direction of art.
Dictating would be banning or otherwise preventing people from getting
or publishing the art that they want. Awarding prizes doesn't dictate
anything, and in the same way the printing press liberated people from
the church, the internet gives everyone the means to access whatever
information they see fit, unless the government goes a long way to try
to ban it, which is not what we're talking about.
> >It doesn't prevent
> >others from creating whatever they want, performing whatever they want,
> >charging for time spent working like anyone else, etc.
>
> Copyright doesn't prevent others from *creating* whatever they want
> either. In fact, copyright does promote creativity/originality. It
> merely prevents leeching. Leeching, in my humbe opinion, is not a very
> desirable thing.
Copyright hinders education, which hinders creativity. It adds a
monopoly-based tax on distributing published or publicly known
information, because, like any protection racket, it ties down the
market for a limited time after creation, and that limited time has
been growing steadily since copyright's inception. Some people think a
protection racket is ok if it's run by the person who first invented
the product, but it's still a racket and it still keeps the prices
artificially high.
> >If you really think there is a connection between governments giving
> >prizes, and a monopoly on art, then drop the innuendo and make your
> >argument.
>
> History is clear. Whenever governments had power over artists, they
> used it to further their views.
Awarding prizes doesn't grant people any kind of power to dictate or
prevent what people do. The artists can have jobs, if they want. They
can perform, if they want. Awarding prizes does nothing to prevent
them.
> Copyright liberates artists and
> enables the mechanism of supply and demand to work.
Supply and demand requires that people can compete to supply the same
service, such as copying a piece of published information. Such
competition doesn't exist in the copyright world.