why is intellectual property sacred?
Steven Post
nature of intellectual property, and I thought it might be interesting
to get some responses to some ideas. Note that I am only speculating
here, playing devil's advocate, so before anyone accuses me of being a
communist child-molester, I suggest you give some actual thought to what
I'm asking.
So the argument goes that copying intellectual property is theft, that
if someone does not get the money due him or her for the distribution of
a particular item or loses control over the copying privileges to
his/her work, that that constitutes theft.
The counter-argument is that you can't steal something someone doesn't
have, that theft applies to tangible items, etc.
In the course of arguing the latter, a number of people asked me what
else I wanted for free (even though my point had nothing to do with
getting things for free). I got to thinking about this, and my answer is:
ice
I would like to get ice for free. There used to be a whole industry
devoted to cutting and shipping ice. The invention of the freezer
changed that, and destroyed the ice industry. So I ask you, how is the
freezer different from say, KaZaA?
Let me anticipate a counter-argument: the ice you make in the freezer is
different from the ice that comes out of a pond. But then, isn't the
copy of the song one makes at home different from the original?
Let me anticipate another counter-argument: a song is basically an idea,
while the ice is a product of physical labor. But then, aren't you
stealing someone's physical labor by using an icebox?
My point is this: new technology puts people out of business. In all
liklihood, digital copying methods will put people out of business. But
is this wrong, or bad for the culture? Let me consider each of those:
1) Is it wrong, as in morally? Well, is using an icebox wrong? Can it be
justified because someone had to build the icebox, and that you are
helping that person? Well, didn't someone write the CD-burning software?
2) Is it bad for the culture? It doesn't stop people from charging for
live performance, does it? Ask Bach if it is bad for culture -- prior to
the establishment of the very long-term copyright laws we now have,
musicians and artists freely borrowed from one another, often without
crediting the original source. Borrowing (or stealing, as some would
have it) is, in fact, one of the supports on which our entire culture
was built. The music of Bach and Beethoven are full of themes lifted
from elsewhere. The artistic growth of Picasso and Braque was predicated
on a daily borrowing of ideas. Is it possible that we have become inured
to the idea that one must be stingy with one's ideas?
Here's a third question mark: if the recording industry goes under,
won't recordings disappear? Well, here's one place where I think I can
say, ha. There are two sides to emerging technology -- yes, they
compromise intellectual property, but they also reduce the cost of
creating and distributing to almost zero. I have a home studio that cost
less than a thousand dollars to create (not including equipment
originally purchased for other purposes), and I record a couple songs a
week. Granted, there may not be an audience for my music, but can we
honestly say that the only talented recording musicians in the world are
those who do it professionally and those who do it in collaboration with
the RIAA? Charles Ives is one of the most famous American composers, but
he spent his life selling insurance.
In short, why do we, as a culture, believe that music *has* to be
produced by professionals?
Beyond that, digital copying may well be a boon to those who make their
money by playing live (which is most musicians attached to the RIAA). So
I don't think music is doomed. The folks who have vested interests in
the current methods of creation and distribution, however, like
ice-cutters, might be in trouble.
I know asking for thoughts on Usenet is like asking for a cafe latte in
Falujah, but... any thoughts?
--
S t e v e n P o s t
s . p o s t @ n u m b e r - 1 0 . g o v . u k
Happy Camper
> I would like to get ice for free. There used to be a whole industry
> devoted to cutting and shipping ice. The invention of the freezer
> changed that, and destroyed the ice industry. So I ask you, how is the
> freezer different from say, KaZaA?
I think you are talking about a substance and a method, two different
things.
> Let me anticipate a counter-argument: the ice you make in the freezer is
> different from the ice that comes out of a pond.
Yup, the pond water could kill you.
> But then, isn't the copy of the song one makes at home different from
> the original?
Nope, it is a duplicate.
> Let me anticipate another counter-argument: a song is basically an idea,
> while the ice is a product of physical labor. But then, aren't you
> stealing someone's physical labor by using an icebox?
Did you steal the water?
I think your analogy fits copying methods instead of what you are using it
for.
> My point is this: new technology puts people out of business. In all
> liklihood, digital copying methods will put people out of business. But
> is this wrong, or bad for the culture?
To me, the general idea behind copyright law is pretty simple. I agree with
the common sense use of copyright law, and I understand its benifits.
> Beyond that, digital copying may well be a boon to those who make their
> money by playing live
Good point IMO. We sure do need some life in our American media. I'm bored
stiff by it. The only half decent stuff IMO is tightly canned.
Randy Cox
expression without moving so far ahead as to lose the audience. There must
be connection, yet the theory of intellectual property deems this necessary
connection to be a violation. Intellectual property theory is an illusion
and can not operate in a pure state....only an unpure one.
What does that mean? It means that whosoever is given the benefit of
protection because they have connected and expanded in the way that I have
previously explained will be protected but not held accountable for their
own violation to those who came before them. I will explain the fraud of it
via an actual true event reported in a letter to Southwest Art by a
photographer complaining of having his copyright violated.
A photographer takes a beautiful picture of a wagon and an old barn. His
trained photographer's eye knows this is a successful composition because
he has studied hundreds of such wagons and barns done by other artists in
several media. So he publishes the image and discovers a local artist has
reversed the image and painted it as an oil painting, offering it for a
fairly low price at a local art show. He sues the artist and wins...but
collects nothing as the artist files bankruptcy. He writes the letter
whining about how he had been robbed.
Now, the shallow minded photographer was not flattered by the lesser artist
copying him. Copying has been the method of young artists to learn since
the first cave drawing appeared upon cave walls. Some dishonest art
teachers try to pretend that it is not necessary....ignoring the very act of
first drawing in childhood at parents direction. I'll ignore these
dishonest art teachers as the typical, "those who can do, and those who can
not...teach!" Teaching is a noble endeavor, but any teacher that tries to
skip the copying process is not worth the time to debunk! They are useless
and totally irrelevant to art!
Anyway....the photographer gives no credit for his wagon and barn to those
artists for hundreds of years that found wagons and barns wonderful subject
matter. He also fails to give credit to the farmer that built the barn, and
he fails to give credit to the wagonwright that built the wagon. The
photographer is trying to capitalize upon a property right that does not
really exist outside artificial protection of law. He is a fraud...but he
doesn't know he is a fraud! He only wants exclusive rights to his expansion
to the work of others. Note! He makes no room for the expansion of his
own work to those visions that his work may inspire in others. This
photographer would freeze the movement of art as it concerns barns and
wagons forever to all that may have seen and been moved by his own
photograph!
"Steven Post" <s.post@-SPAM-AWAY-number-10.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:s.post-114C87....@netnews.attbi.com...
Randy Cox
must be given to reward research...but maybe not so much as we give. In the
early days of these artificial rights, it was understood that private use of
ideas were okay, only commercial duplication was protected! Nowadays, some
reactionary greed mongers like Fox news have tried to take a few words like,
"fair and balanced" and seize absolute and exclusive right to them forever.
That absurdity needs no explanation....it is absurd upon the face of it.
There are insufficient words for three different words in a group to be
assigned to all people. There are too many people and not enough word
groups to go around.
So let the law be private use of any idea one may ever see shall be okay!
If one wants to sell exact copies of someone else's patented or copyrighted
works....let those be protected by civil remedy....not criminal.
For those confused who think such protection is a conservative political
position.....HOGWASH! Conservative political and economic theory is based
upon Free Market principals. There is nothing free market about copyright
or patent protection. In pure free markets, the marketing of ideas or
creations are subject to the test of the market. If one can get a creative
product to market in an efficient manner and find a demand for that product
then that one should make a profit as his reward. There would be no
artificial protection in a pure free market...so the expansion of
intellectual property rights is just a greedy reach for more profit and an
attempt to reduce competition.
Randy R. Cox
"Steven Post" <s.post@-SPAM-AWAY-number-10.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:s.post-114C87....@netnews.attbi.com...
Captain Compassion
I have software copyrights that I have spent years developing. I feed
my family and pay the mortgage from the sales and support of this
software. Because someone else may be able to copy and distribute this
software I have no right in it's control or distribution?
Property is property Steve. The work that springs from an individuals
intellect is every bit as real and valuable as work that springs from
the tools and hands of a carpenter. Theft is theft. You attempt to
rationalize the creed of the looters.
Now back to KaZaa.
>--
>S t e v e n P o s t
>s . p o s t @ n u m b e r - 1 0 . g o v . u k
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You must realize that at it's inception and in continual practice
marriage is simply a license to fuck. Without this and the resulting
children the institution of marriage would not be necessary nor would
it exist." -- Captain Compassion
"In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there
are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who
live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to
diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the
former. That is why we demand education and knowledge." -- Victor Hugo
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Randy Cox
these things. I am an artist, and I have seen some of the most famous
artists of this day with images borrowed from others, covered with a grid,
and being directly copied as a part of a new "original" painting. Some of
these copying artists were far more famous than the makers of the images
being copied.
I have seen a special art exhibit showing famous artwork along side similar
(sometimes almost exact copies in different media) images found by unknown
native artists. Alongside these exhibits were photos and newspaper
clippings detailing the famous artist touring the native areas where the
"inspirations" were found. In some cases, the famous artist has his picture
taken with the art that he later copies for himself. There is no question
but that this is the normal way in which art is made....not the aberration.
Only the foolish critics believe the nonsense of truly original art. These
are the same fools that might talk of the magnificent skill in which the
sculptor uses his tools to carve the bronze.....bronze is not carved it is
cast!!!!!
Any way real artist copy! That is what they do!
Ben Franklin was a great artist. He was also a printer. In his day, the
printing press was as big as the CD and internet is today. Ben Franklin
wrote many fine pieces of literature including the very first American
self-improvement book....his autobiography. Ben Franklin also is
responsible for the establishment of lending libraries! A lending library
allows many to read a single book in the exact same manner as Kaza allows
many to hear a single recording, or self-help tape, or informative lecture.
Ben Franklin's library may have cost the authors of the books a few
royalties...but not really. Because of the lending library literacy became
almost universal in America in a couple of hundred years. In the end
more....not less books would be sold!
The same is true of the downloading of music today. Ben Franklin was an
author, but he was also a big man and understood that some things were more
important than a royalty or two. He was willing to sacrifice his few lost
royalties for the hope of a greater America. It is up to the artists of
today to find the same vision.
The recording companies are nothing! They are only companies! It is the
artist that must speak on this! Companies are a dime a dozen...the art
comes from the artist. Let them speak up! Let Americans that wish to
destroy the sharing of music understand that they would destroy the
libraries of an earlier day. Let their minds open that they can see the
truth for what it is!
I have spoken...if there be truth in these words let them ring from ear to
ear and mouth to mouth. Let the voice of Ben Franklin speak to any who have
ever improved their mind through a book from any lending library. Let those
who have profited from the library now stand up for those who might expand
their minds through the sharing of music and other media of this day.
People will still buy music as they have bought books despite the common use
of lending libraries!
Randy R. Cox
"Steven Post" <s.post@-SPAM-AWAY-number-10.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:s.post-114C87....@netnews.attbi.com...
Randy Cox
be brutal for a sentence or two, but my brutality is only to make a point.
I do not mean to belittle your creativity, nor your entitlement to
compensation for it. Just answer the brutal questions honestly, then review
your own position. Your position on this as a creative person is very
important. In the coming months we will choose our path for the future and
we must do so wisely.
Because you understand that property is property, then I suppose you've
never borrowed a book from a library. I suppose you've never stolen the
information in that book and made it your own. I suppose you've written all
your own code in the software you've copyrighted.
So you've never copied lines of code from a copyrighted source and included
it in your own. I suppose all the largest software companies, the game
companies, and all creative economic ventures never keep shelves full of
proprietary information to copy from.
Jack White, Texas State Artist in 1975 or 76 says, "An artist's originality
is directly proportional to his ability to hide his source!" This is one of
the most honest statements I've ever heard an artist make. If you write
software, you are an artist. You connect to the old programs, and you add
your own stuff to make something new. Some programmers may claim to write
all their own stuff....I have witnessed far too much art being made to
believe it. I've written simple programs in basic back in the beginning of
programming. I copied long lines of code to accomplish what I needed. I
really only put together different pieces of code to achieve what I wanted.
I suspect, that more or less, all programmers do this. I know that the game
companies dissect the work of others and then use what they find to "create"
their own. This is really just "hiding the source!"
Yes! It should be protected...but within reason! You should not be given
such rights to certain code (much of which was as obvious as it was
creative) that later artist be thwarted in advancing the movement of the art
(software). It is a fine line that separates the two. Defining the lines
requires honesty to prevent the line being drawn too heavily....which I
believe some are doing! Most people are not as honest as Jack White! They
will violate the property rights of others....but demand that no one violate
their own.
The artist, the programmer, the performer all know how this is done! They
should strive to be honest and demand their voice be heard! Law makers
don't make art...they only make law and mostly bad law. As a creative
individual yourself, it is important that you think this through and find a
way to protect your own work, yet allow those that come behind you the same
freedom you had to use that which was created before you. You did not
program in a vacuum! Your voice is very important...and only you know how
much you borrowed and how much you created. Artists must stop pretending
that they originate everything!
Randy R. Cox
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3f663344...@news.verizon.net...
cRaZeE_sAcK_hEaD
"Steven Post" <s.post@-SPAM-AWAY-number-10.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:s.post-114C87....@netnews.attbi.com...
> nature of intellectual property, and I thought it might be interesting
> to get some responses to some ideas. Note that I am only speculating
> here, playing devil's advocate, so before anyone accuses me of being a
> communist child-molester, I suggest you give some actual thought to what
> I'm asking.
>
> So the argument goes that copying intellectual property is theft, that
> if someone does not get the money due him or her for the distribution of
> a particular item or loses control over the copying privileges to
> his/her work, that that constitutes theft.
>
> The counter-argument is that you can't steal something someone doesn't
> have, that theft applies to tangible items, etc.
If you make a living out of a "schtick" like David Letterman and his Top Ten
List, Stupid pet tricks and such-- that's an intellectual property he fought
for and won. You won't ever see Conan doing those.
Or the talking Taco Bell dog--a court ruled another guy came up with that
idea and he should have been paid for that and was compensated hansomely.
You always see court battles involving who wrote what song and suits over
sampling parts of songs.
>
> In the course of arguing the latter, a number of people asked me what
> else I wanted for free (even though my point had nothing to do with
> getting things for free). I got to thinking about this, and my answer is:
>
> ice
>
> I would like to get ice for free. There used to be a whole industry
> devoted to cutting and shipping ice. The invention of the freezer
> changed that, and destroyed the ice industry. So I ask you, how is the
> freezer different from say, KaZaA?
Because you would never have seen an ice salesman offering ice for free to
millions of people at once like you see with any file sharing proggie out
there. How would you like to see something you took 3 years making all of
the sudden taken from you and given away freely to millions of ppl?
>
> Let me anticipate a counter-argument: the ice you make in the freezer is
> different from the ice that comes out of a pond. But then, isn't the
> copy of the song one makes at home different from the original?
Nope--it's the same song done by the same people who wants someone to pay
for it. If they wanted it to be free then they would say so. They made it so
they should get cash for it. Unless you expect all musical artists to live
in a gutter like a homeless bum. And what kind of songs would be written if
there was no financial benefit from all that work?
Might as well have all songs sounding like Mary Had a Little Lamb.
>
> Let me anticipate another counter-argument: a song is basically an idea,
> while the ice is a product of physical labor. But then, aren't you
> stealing someone's physical labor by using an icebox?
A song made for commercial reasons is not an idea. There's a whole slew of
people who's livelyhood is jeopordized if that song flops. It was made for
someone to get money for. Like I said B4--if they want it to be free then
they can and do on occasion make it such.
>
> My point is this: new technology puts people out of business. In all
> liklihood, digital copying methods will put people out of business. But
> is this wrong, or bad for the culture? Let me consider each of those:
If you want to pay 100 bucks for a song and put up with crappy sound and
crappy songs then by all means keep on swapping songs on the net.
IMO the quality of music now is bad compared to a few years ago. You will
never see 20 years from now a rap reunion tour or any of these sample
artists doing cover songs thinly veiled as a new songs being fondly
remembered for thier "work".
Movies are going in the same direction if they don't clamp down on that
also. I mean please--Jeepers Creepers2?? How many Frday the Thirteenth
movies will they make for crying out loud.
Again, what incentive will any artist have to do anything if they know thier
work will get stolen?
>
> 1) Is it wrong, as in morally? Well, is using an icebox wrong? Can it be
> justified because someone had to build the icebox, and that you are
> helping that person? Well, didn't someone write the CD-burning software?
You can legally copy anything if you paid for an original. CD burners
weren't made for wholesale stealing.
>
> 2) Is it bad for the culture? It doesn't stop people from charging for
> live performance, does it? Ask Bach if it is bad for culture -- prior to
> the establishment of the very long-term copyright laws we now have,
> musicians and artists freely borrowed from one another, often without
> crediting the original source. Borrowing (or stealing, as some would
> have it) is, in fact, one of the supports on which our entire culture
> was built. The music of Bach and Beethoven are full of themes lifted
> from elsewhere. The artistic growth of Picasso and Braque was predicated
> on a daily borrowing of ideas. Is it possible that we have become inured
> to the idea that one must be stingy with one's ideas?
Well it used to be you could see a concert for 15 -20 bucks. Now it's like
100-200 bucks for good seats.
They charge that kind of money now due to all that theft. Who wants to see
some poor unfamous bum singing in concert? They want a rich and famous
person to be all fanatical about.
Movies are going to end up costing 50 bucks to see at the theater the way
things are going with that as well.
>
> Here's a third question mark: if the recording industry goes under,
> won't recordings disappear? Well, here's one place where I think I can
> say, ha. There are two sides to emerging technology -- yes, they
> compromise intellectual property, but they also reduce the cost of
> creating and distributing to almost zero. I have a home studio that cost
> less than a thousand dollars to create (not including equipment
> originally purchased for other purposes), and I record a couple songs a
> week. Granted, there may not be an audience for my music, but can we
> honestly say that the only talented recording musicians in the world are
> those who do it professionally and those who do it in collaboration with
> the RIAA? Charles Ives is one of the most famous American composers, but
> he spent his life selling insurance.
You would no longer be an amature if a song you made got tons of money for
record companies, television and radio stations.
If you like charity for rich entertainment industries then by all means give
all your hard work to them for free and let them get rich off of it.
>
> In short, why do we, as a culture, believe that music *has* to be
> produced by professionals?
Because otherwise it would suck. You can't even imagine how dedicated you
have to be to be a musician. You spend years practicing while all your
friends are out drinking brewskis.
What incentive will future artists have spending years honing thier skills
to a level thats near impossible to reach if it will be all for free to
anyone with a biege box on thier desk at home?
Lars Eighner
<bk5f9k$k...@library2.airnews.net>,
the lovely and talented Randy Cox
broadcast on alt.politics:
> I respect your contribution to the art of software. To make a point, I'll
> be brutal for a sentence or two, but my brutality is only to make a point.
> I do not mean to belittle your creativity, nor your entitlement to
> compensation for it. Just answer the brutal questions honestly, then review
> your own position. Your position on this as a creative person is very
> important. In the coming months we will choose our path for the future and
> we must do so wisely.
> Because you understand that property is property, then I suppose you've
> never borrowed a book from a library. I suppose you've never stolen the
> information in that book and made it your own.
There is no copyright in information or ideas. Copyright applies only
to the particular expression of information or ideas.
> I suppose you've written all
> your own code in the software you've copyrighted.
Yes.
> So you've never copied lines of code from a copyrighted source and included
> it in your own. I suppose all the largest software companies, the game
> companies, and all creative economic ventures never keep shelves full of
> proprietary information to copy from.
Well, then, shame on them.
> Jack White, Texas State Artist in 1975 or 76 says, "An artist's originality
> is directly proportional to his ability to hide his source!" This is one of
> the most honest statements I've ever heard an artist make. If you write
> software, you are an artist. You connect to the old programs, and you add
> your own stuff to make something new. Some programmers may claim to write
> all their own stuff....I have witnessed far too much art being made to
> believe it. I've written simple programs in basic back in the beginning of
> programming. I copied long lines of code to accomplish what I needed.
Well, then, you not only cheated the author's of the code, but also
you deprived yourself of learning how to program.
> I
> really only put together different pieces of code to achieve what I wanted.
> I suspect, that more or less, all programmers do this. I know that the game
> companies dissect the work of others and then use what they find to "create"
> their own. This is really just "hiding the source!"
> Yes! It should be protected...but within reason! You should not be given
> such rights to certain code (much of which was as obvious as it was
> creative) that later artist be thwarted in advancing the movement of the art
> (software). It is a fine line that separates the two. Defining the lines
> requires honesty to prevent the line being drawn too heavily....which I
> believe some are doing! Most people are not as honest as Jack White! They
> will violate the property rights of others....but demand that no one violate
> their own.
> The artist, the programmer, the performer all know how this is done! They
> should strive to be honest and demand their voice be heard! Law makers
> don't make art...they only make law and mostly bad law. As a creative
> individual yourself, it is important that you think this through and find a
> way to protect your own work, yet allow those that come behind you the same
> freedom you had to use that which was created before you. You did not
> program in a vacuum! Your voice is very important...and only you know how
> much you borrowed and how much you created. Artists must stop pretending
> that they originate everything!
Yes, there very seldom is an original idea behind any work. But the
idea is not what copyright is about.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!"
- President Elmer Bush
Randy Cox
A library buys a book and lends it to whomever wishes to read it ....for
free. America was educated via libraries. Now as we move forward, greedy
forces wish to quash the enrichment of minds through sharing of music and
other media. People still buy music as they still buy books. Some people
download something recommended by a friend, like what they hear, then go buy
a CD. Some do not! It is not the end of the world, but it is the moving
forward. Nothing stays the same; everything is dynamic! Music will
survive!
We buy music! We have boxes and boxes of CD's. I have old records! My
wife belongs to almost every music club she can find. Sometimes a friend
will make a copy of some artist. My wife will play it a few times and
discard it. Sometimes she likes it.....if she does....she buys it!
My son led the charts in Industrial something or another for weeks and weeks
on MP3. He even made some money to pay for his websites.....but all his
music was offered free to all!
Get real! Music is as old as man. Records are less than a hundred years
old! Let progress happen!
Let the market be free! Let the music companies compete with the free
downloads. Downloaded music is better than the old tape recordings...but it
is not as good as the store bought kind. Why do the liberal neo-cons want
to regulate everything?
Randy R. Cox
"cRaZeE_sAcK_hEaD" <gonef...@thelake.com> wrote in message
news:vmcgboa...@corp.supernews.com...
Randy Cox
"Lars Eighner" <eig...@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbmciac....@pearl.io.com...
> Yes, there very seldom is an original idea behind any work. But the
> idea is not what copyright is about.
I agree! I'm not against copyright protection. I just believe that a
certain personal use should be allowed. Eli Whitney invented the cotton
gin, but he couldn't sell very many, because the farmers saw them and made
their own. Eli Whitney didn't make a lot of money, but he was important to
the growth of America. I'm looking for a sensible balance that would allow
men like Eli Whitney to be rewarded, but also allow the full growth of a
nation.
I believe in protecting the work of others.....just against an eternal
license forever to any that might work in a similiar fashion. Suppose
someone invented the wheel and got a patent. Would it really be a good
thing for everyone to pay the family of that patent holder whatever fee he
decided to charge for every wheel that was used forever? Of course, it
would not be a good thing, and we put time limits on these intellectual
rights, but the trend is give more and more time. I'm saying those things
are open to discussion for the good of all.
I used the comparison of Kaza and lending libraries. They really are very
similiar...but not exactly the same. With libraries, each library has to
purchase at least one book...sometimes several of the same title. Many,
many read the book, but the author still gets paid a nice royality. Always
there will be those that want to own the book! I have a huge library of
leather bound books, some of them signed by the author. I had already read
the book, in fact, I seldom read the leatherbound copies with the
signatures.....too valuable. I had rather just read a paperback or an old
dog-eared copy. Same is true of my CD's. I keep the good ones at home, I
make copies to keep in my truck in 120 degree Texas sun. But I digress!
With libraries the author will make money and gain fame enough. With Kaza,
it is possible for a single CD to be copied and downloaded to millions and
millions without any income to the artist at all.....not really the same as
the lending library! Surely, you would agree that all were well served by
Ben Franklin's lending library? Now how do we advance the cause of musical
and informational freedom to achieve a similiar balanced result in the way
that lending libraries did for both the world and the authors? I don't want
to leave the artist out of the equation. I don't care so much about the
record producers! In capitalism, complete industries come and go as others
push them out of the market. It is natural for adjustments to happen in the
market place. The artists must have some protection, but the businesses
around them must compete with all other market forces. They need no
special protections other than the usual fundamentals of capital risk and
reward in a competitive marketplace.
I only want to keep us on a similiar track. Too much protection might not
be as good as those that propose it might think! If everyone would just
keep the balance and success of the lending library in mind as we move
toward consensus, it would be helpfull.
Randy R. Cox
Lars Eighner
<bk5m96$1...@library2.airnews.net>,
broadcast on alt.politics:
> "Lars Eighner" <eig...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbmciac....@pearl.io.com...
>> Yes, there very seldom is an original idea behind any work. But the
>> idea is not what copyright is about.
> I agree! I'm not against copyright protection. I just believe that a
> certain personal use should be allowed. Eli Whitney invented the cotton
> gin, but he couldn't sell very many, because the farmers saw them and made
> their own. Eli Whitney didn't make a lot of money, but he was important to
> the growth of America. I'm looking for a sensible balance that would allow
> men like Eli Whitney to be rewarded, but also allow the full growth of a
> nation.
> I believe in protecting the work of others.....just against an eternal
> license forever to any that might work in a similiar fashion.
Neither copyright nor patent are perpetual. Copyright has been extended
recently to ensure that no artist or artists spouse lives in poverty while
seeing someone else profit from the work. Patents have never been very
long.
> Suppose someone invented the wheel and got a patent. Would it
> really be a good thing for everyone to pay the family of that
> patent holder whatever fee he decided to charge for every wheel
> that was used forever? Of course, it would not be a good thing,
> and we put time limits on these intellectual rights, but the trend
> is give more and more time. I'm saying those things are open to
> discussion for the good of all.
Patent has not been extended. It has been going the other, IIRC.
Copyright has been extended, but since it does not cover the idea
of the work, but only its particular expression, there is no way
the copyright can be used to prevent progress. Moreover, there is
no copyright in facts.
> I used the comparison of Kaza and lending libraries. They really are very
> similiar...but not exactly the same. With libraries, each library has to
> purchase at least one book...sometimes several of the same title. Many,
> many read the book, but the author still gets paid a nice royality. Always
> there will be those that want to own the book! I have a huge library of
> leather bound books, some of them signed by the author. I had already read
> the book, in fact, I seldom read the leatherbound copies with the
> signatures.....too valuable. I had rather just read a paperback or an old
> dog-eared copy. Same is true of my CD's. I keep the good ones at home, I
> make copies to keep in my truck in 120 degree Texas sun. But I digress!
Libraries don't make copies, and in some places, such as Canada, libraries
pay royalties.
> With libraries the author will make money and gain fame enough. With Kaza,
> it is possible for a single CD to be copied and downloaded to millions and
> millions without any income to the artist at all.....not really the same as
> the lending library! Surely, you would agree that all were well served by
> Ben Franklin's lending library? Now how do we advance the cause of musical
> and informational freedom to achieve a similiar balanced result in the way
> that lending libraries did for both the world and the authors? I don't want
> to leave the artist out of the equation. I don't care so much about the
> record producers! In capitalism, complete industries come and go as others
> push them out of the market. It is natural for adjustments to happen in the
> market place. The artists must have some protection, but the businesses
> around them must compete with all other market forces. They need no
> special protections other than the usual fundamentals of capital risk and
> reward in a competitive marketplace.
> I only want to keep us on a similiar track. Too much protection might not
> be as good as those that propose it might think! If everyone would just
> keep the balance and success of the lending library in mind as we move
> toward consensus, it would be helpfull.
Copyrights and patents are not the same thing. No one *has* to have
a song the way someone might need an artificial skin to cover a burn.
Since copyright does not cover facts or ideas, copyright doesn't
retard progress and the often misunderstood doctrine of fair use
ensures that. Patents cannot be use to suppress inventions, and
courts have often ordered patent owners to license their patents.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
Jerry Falwell has more armed operatives in Texas than bin Laden
ELC
Ice is not intellectual property. And I never called you a child
molester, only a communist haha. :-)
Anyway, intellectual property is important (oft abused) because it
is a pillar of our entire society. The notion of capitalism doesn't
work without competition and competition doesn't mean anything if
productions can't be protected. Otherwise there is no competition
that builds society. On the other end this is why we don't like
monopolies. What we need is balance.
After WWII Japan sent some guys over to check out our society and
they concluded that what made us great was our concept of intellectual
property. They "saw the light" so to speak. It's an amazing concept
that most Americans take for granted.
Inspiration should be rewarded, not stolen. If we just let everyone
have a grab at the ideas of others we, as Americans, would collapse as
a society.
Sure, people will do music anyway. But it's an industry like
anything else. And now that industry is exploring new ways to adapt.
They know they have to and it will be better for everyone. That
doesn't mean that intellectual property has no value.
Let me give you an example. Some guy makes a brilliant movie, let's
say...Blade Runner. Should someone else just be allowed to steal the
script and the storyboards and call it their own? Of course not. Not
only is it a ridiculous idea but intellectual property also influences
our culture, often based on individual effort. Without respecting how
all this influences our society and future generations and their ideas
we become drab and gray with defeated inspiration.
It is much more than money, it is the concept itself that is great.
It is the principle.
I love how some say the recording industry is corrupt so they will
punish them by taking money away from the artists. That's brilliant.
The recording industry pays them. We have social and political
platforms in this country. Use them. Don't steal to make a point.
You asked why only professionals can make music. It's really not
like that at all. Anyone can make music, especially with technology
costing less and less. Most of the techno stuff you hear is made in a
bedroom as a matter of fact. There are plenty of applications for
computers that do loop-based sequencing. Most of it sucks. Which is
exactly why we should respect intellectual property because the people
that actually make creative, decent material aren't just using prefab
stuff. Why should they be lumped in the with hack wannabes?
But if everyone is suddenly an equal because we don't care about
intellectual property then everything will suck. No competition, no
true inspiration. We should protect this property, not insult it by
sugegsting it has no meaning.
You know what the problem is? The net is still a novel thing to
humans. The idea that we have access to so much information, and for
so cheap. It comes with responsibility, though, and what I find
humorous is that the very people who fear government monitoring of the
net and control over it are creating that by doing stuff like ripping
off music, movies, and software.
For more information go here:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
You have to understand it's not just about changing the recording
industry, it undermines everything in our society. I think revolution
is good but revolution backwards is not.
cLIeNUX user
>In the course of another thread, I've been doing some thinking about the
>nature of intellectual property, and I thought it might be interesting
>to get some responses to some ideas. Note that I am only speculating
>here, playing devil's advocate, so before anyone accuses me of being a
>communist child-molester, I suggest you give some actual thought to what
>I'm asking.
>
>So the argument goes that copying intellectual property is theft, that
>if someone does not get the money due him or her for the distribution of
>a particular item or loses control over the copying privileges to
>his/her work, that that constitutes theft.
>
The basic document of intellectual property rights is the Berne treaty,
ratified by almost the entire world. Why? Because giving credit where due
is fundamental and crucial to civilization. In a healthy America this
would not bear discussion.
Rick Hohensee
Roger
"Steven Post" <s.post@-SPAM-AWAY-number-10.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:s.post-114C87....@netnews.attbi.com...
Reverend Lovejoy
> In our last episode,
> <bk5m96$1...@library2.airnews.net>,
> the lovely and talented Randy Cox
> broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>
> > "Lars Eighner" <eig...@io.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnbmciac....@pearl.io.com...
>
> >> Yes, there very seldom is an original idea behind any work. But the
> >> idea is not what copyright is about.
>
> > I agree! I'm not against copyright protection. I just believe that a
> > certain personal use should be allowed. Eli Whitney invented the cotton
> > gin, but he couldn't sell very many, because the farmers saw them and
made
> > their own. Eli Whitney didn't make a lot of money, but he was important
to
> > the growth of America. I'm looking for a sensible balance that would
allow
> > men like Eli Whitney to be rewarded, but also allow the full growth of a
> > nation.
>
> > I believe in protecting the work of others.....just against an eternal
> > license forever to any that might work in a similiar fashion.
>
> Neither copyright nor patent are perpetual. Copyright has been extended
> recently to ensure that no artist or artists spouse lives in poverty while
> seeing someone else profit from the work. Patents have never been very
> long.
A lifetime + 70 years? (Or current date minus the release date of Steamboat
Willie, take your pick)
So if Britney Spears lives to be 72, that means that "Hit me baby one more
time" won't be in the public domain until 2125? In other words, I'll never
see it in the public domain in my lifetime. My kids will never see it in
their lifetime. In all likelihood, my grandkids won't get to see it in their
lifetime (If they do, they'll be well into senior citizen status).
For all intents and purposes, that's perpetual. And personally, I think that
goes against the original spirit of the constitution, which gives copyright
in order to "promote sciences and the arts" (not exact words.) Especially
since the work is likely to go out of print long before then, why shouldn't
someone with the willingness to do so have the right to publish a work that
the original artist doesn't want to publish any more?
I think the original length of a maximum of 28 years was more than adequates
(which would put everything before 1975 in the public domain). 28 years is
more than enough time to collect on a work and you shouldn't be living in
poverty if lose the monopoly on it in your lifetime, unless you were never
making money on it in the first place.
--
"I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and
then died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra teres
trial. I loved that little guy."
- Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
Roger
news:BmE9b.3$U6...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
Copyright protection has been extended every time Mickey Mouse's protection
is about to expire. This is not a joke! Disney gives a lot of money to
Congress, and they are repayed.
Brooks Gregory
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FtG9b.1$6v7.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Oh bullshit fellow. The reason Disney gets the extension is because they
watch their expiration dates very closely and are there with the paperwork
when renewal time rolls around. You could get there first and with the
proper paperwork take over the copyright yourself. It's the same way with
patents. Many of them have been lost because the original holder failed to
keep track of his invention. One very significant one was the ring gasket
that Cameron Iron Works of Houston took over when it's inventor failed to
renew. That little ommission cost the inventor an additional fortune and
allowed Cameron to become the massive entity it now is. Heck, it's bought up
so many other companies now that no one even knows what the company calls
itself anymore.
But, everyone has to have their demons and I guess the legislature is yours.
--
An opinion is only as valid as the name behind it,
while an anonymous vote can change the world!
Brooks Gregory
Randy Dalton
copyright conundrum, have a look in rec.music.makers.songwriters at a
discussion thread there with the subject title RIAA.
These are guys whose careers are directly impacted by the copyright
revolution that is upon us. You'll find some extremely thoughtful,
practical and philosophical takes on the whole thing.
Roger
news:3f6764c7....@nntp.ym.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
> If you want to examine some thought provoking stuff on the whole RIAA
> copyright conundrum, have a look in rec.music.makers.songwriters at a
> discussion thread there with the subject title RIAA.
>
> These are guys whose careers are directly impacted by the copyright
> revolution that is upon us. You'll find some extremely thoughtful,
> practical and philosophical takes on the whole thing.
I am a writer whose income depends in part on making money from what I
create. Copyright violators steal from me as surely as a burgler breaking
into my house.
Roger
news:RNG9b.56$Jx3...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Wrong. This was not a copyright extension with paperwork. This was a law.
This law was due to lobbying by Disney and other huge media companies. See
proof below.
> It's the same way with
> patents. Many of them have been lost because the original holder failed to
> keep track of his invention. One very significant one was the ring gasket
> that Cameron Iron Works of Houston took over when it's inventor failed to
> renew. That little ommission cost the inventor an additional fortune and
> allowed Cameron to become the massive entity it now is. Heck, it's bought
up
> so many other companies now that no one even knows what the company calls
> itself anymore.
From http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html
Mickey Mouse Goes to Washington
Back in 1998, representatives of the Walt Disney Company came to Washington
looking for help. Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse, who made his screen
debut in the 1928 cartoon short "Steamboat Willie," was due to expire in
2003, and Disney's rights to Pluto, Goofy and Donald Duck were to expire a
few years later.
Rather than allow Mickey and friends to enter the public domain, Disney and
its friends - a group of Hollywood studios, music labels, and PACs
representing content owners - told Congress that they wanted an extension
bill passed.
Prompted perhaps by the Disney group's lavish donations of campaign cash -
more than $6.3 million in 1997-98, according to the nonprofit Center for
Responsive Politics - Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Sonny
Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
From http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:s.00505:
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)
SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1997
SHORT TITLE(S) AS PASSED SENATE:
Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
SHORT TITLE(S) AS ENACTED:
Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A bill to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, with respect
to the duration of copyright, and for other purposes.
From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75612,00.html
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that retroactively
extended copyrights protecting the profits of songs, books and cartoon
characters. It was a huge victory for Disney and other companies.
The 7-2 ruling, while not unexpected, was a blow to Internet publishers and
others who wanted to make old books available online and use the likenesses
of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and other old creations without paying high
royalties.
Hundreds of thousands of books, movies and songs were close to being
released into the public domain when Congress extended the copyright by 20
years in 1998.
Justices said the copyright extension, named for the late Rep. Sonny Bono,
R-Calif., was not unconstitutional.
The Constitution "gives Congress wide leeway to prescribe `limited times'
for copyright protection and allows Congress to secure the same level and
duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future,"
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said from the bench.
A contrary ruling would have cost entertainment giants like The Walt Disney
Co. and AOL Time Warner Inc. hundreds of millions of dollars. AOL Time
Warner had said that would threaten copyrights for such movies as
Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind.
Also at risk of expiration was protection for the version of Mickey Mouse
portrayed in Disney's earliest films, such as 1928's Steamboat Willie.
Congress passed the copyright law after heavy lobbying from companies with
lucrative copyrights.
>
> But, everyone has to have their demons and I guess the legislature is
yours.
The only demons I have are real demons. The world is full of them. There is
no need to invent.
DJ
> really exist outside artificial protection of law. He is a fraud...but he
It is interesting you mentioned the "artificial protection of law". I
was just reading something that talked about prior to appx. 1800 and
for thousands of years, there really wasn't anything known as economic
growth. Property rights was listed as one of the key developments.
Didn't congress lengthen the copyright protection? Disney's Mickey
Mouse and friends were going into the public domain. Mickey Mouse
first appeared in
a 1928 cartoon short "Steamboat Willie," and was due to expire in
2003, 75 years. But in 1998 Disney and friends (a group of Hollywood
studios, music labels, and PACs representing content owners) went to
Congress and said they wanted an extension bill passed. So for a
small campaign cash contribution we got the, "Sonny Bono Copyright
Term Extension Act" (CTEA).
"The CTEA extended the term of protection by 20 years for works
copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals
since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50".
Works made by or for corporations (referred to as "works made for
hire") got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for
95 years, regardless of how they were produced."
> doesn't know he is a fraud! He only wants exclusive rights to his expansion
> to the work of others.
This is sort of happening in the world of genetic engineering, where
corporations are patenting DNA fragments. I remember seeing a 60
minutes or other news show that described how one company had done
tests on individuals and then proceeded to patent the results. When
another company came along that was doing research on cancer, they
could not proceed to use the DNA information unless they received a
license from the first company. They could not afford to get the
license on the DNA fragment and thus their cancer research was
terminated. Can a company patent an individuals DNA or does it belong
to that individual? There's a company out there that is offering
stars the option to copyright their DNA to protect against future
cloning.
Regarding the record industry, I think the RIAA is trying to block
progress and they are fearful for their own bloated, useless jobs.
Rather than take advantage of the technology and create something
customer's want, they produce the same old boring CD with one good
song on it for the same old price. Are companies like Sony and such
needed in today's world? I don't think so. If you are a good artist,
the means to create, market, and distribute your music is available to
you at a reasonable cost.
DJ
--
DJ
Anyone and everyone - Why? - Because we can. We can be passionate,
grow, learn, experiment, explore, create, and share. Does everything
have to be about money?
DJ
--
Roger
news:46b4d4d2.03091...@posting.google.com...
No, but you need money to eat.
>
> DJ
Reverend Lovejoy
> MTV as the main factor. The rise of music videos and ticket
> prices has gone hand-in-hand.
More and more lately, I'm struck by the supreme irony that MTV debuted with
"Video Killed the Radio Star"
Reverend Lovejoy
> "Randy Dalton" <rda...@random.com> wrote in message
> news:3f6764c7....@nntp.ym.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > If you want to examine some thought provoking stuff on the whole RIAA
> > copyright conundrum, have a look in rec.music.makers.songwriters at a
> > discussion thread there with the subject title RIAA.
> >
> > These are guys whose careers are directly impacted by the copyright
> > revolution that is upon us. You'll find some extremely thoughtful,
> > practical and philosophical takes on the whole thing.
>
> I am a writer whose income depends in part on making money from what I
> create. Copyright violators steal from me as surely as a burgler breaking
> into my house.
If I break into your house and steal your TV, you're out the price of that
TV.
If I download something instead of buying it, I've hurt you.
If I download something you've written, which I never would have paid for
anyway, it doesn't economically impact you one bit.
If I download something you've written, decide I like it enough to buy it
(which I wouldn't have done without the opportunity to sample it), and then
do so, it's positively impacted you economically.
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness, there's no parallel between a
burglar and a copyright violator. Each TV stolen represents a quantifiable
economic loss to you. Each download does not represent a loss of a sale.
Roger
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dFL9b.38$p41.7...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Randy Dalton" <rda...@random.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f6764c7....@nntp.ym.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > If you want to examine some thought provoking stuff on the whole RIAA
> > > copyright conundrum, have a look in rec.music.makers.songwriters at a
> > > discussion thread there with the subject title RIAA.
> > >
> > > These are guys whose careers are directly impacted by the copyright
> > > revolution that is upon us. You'll find some extremely thoughtful,
> > > practical and philosophical takes on the whole thing.
> >
> > I am a writer whose income depends in part on making money from what I
> > create. Copyright violators steal from me as surely as a burgler
breaking
> > into my house.
>
>
> If I break into your house and steal your TV, you're out the price of that
> TV.
>
> If I download something instead of buying it, I've hurt you.
> If I download something you've written, which I never would have paid for
> anyway, it doesn't economically impact you one bit.
So what. It's my property, and I get to decide how it's used, not you.
You probably see no problem with someone building a house on my vacant land,
just as long as I don't plan on using it.
> If I download something you've written, decide I like it enough to buy it
> (which I wouldn't have done without the opportunity to sample it), and
then
> do so, it's positively impacted you economically.
Why would you buy it if already have it?
Again, this is up to me to decide. If I want to use this as a marketing
tool, I can. I can. Not you, unless I let you.
>
> Regardless of the rightness or wrongness, there's no parallel between a
> burglar and a copyright violator. Each TV stolen represents a quantifiable
> economic loss to you. Each download does not represent a loss of a sale.
It's a loss of my property. My property.
Reverend Lovejoy
> > > create. Copyright violators steal from me as surely as a burgler
> breaking
> > > into my house.
> >
> >
> > If I break into your house and steal your TV, you're out the price of
that
> > TV.
> >
> > If I download something instead of buying it, I've hurt you.
> > If I download something you've written, which I never would have paid
for
> > anyway, it doesn't economically impact you one bit.
>
> So what. It's my property, and I get to decide how it's used, not you.
The point was simply a burglar is not the same thing as a downloader.
> You probably see no problem with someone building a house on my vacant
land,
> just as long as I don't plan on using it.
I don't see the analogy. Land is physical property. Information and ideas
are not.
> > If I download something you've written, decide I like it enough to buy
it
> > (which I wouldn't have done without the opportunity to sample it), and
> then
> > do so, it's positively impacted you economically.
>
> Why would you buy it if already have it?
Because there may be an inherent better value (such as better quality, or
better format) in the version you're selling vs. the version that's
downloadable?
(as is the case with DVDs vs. movie rips, or to a much lesser extent, and
audio CD vs mp3)
Or how about because I want to support the person who created it and would
like to encourage them to create more works I'll enjoy? (which is largely
why independent artists have actually experienced a boost due to
filesharing, and freely offer their stuff to be shared and listened to. And
how most artists through history have made their livings.
> Again, this is up to me to decide. If I want to use this as a marketing
> tool, I can. I can. Not you, unless I let you.
A copyright gives you the exclusive right to profit off of your work for a
limited time. A copyright does not grant you the right to decide how I may
use an intellectual property. At least that's how I personally regard it,
although the actually law is extraordinarily poorly defined as to what a
consumer actually has the right to do with a copyrighted work.
> >
> > Regardless of the rightness or wrongness, there's no parallel between a
> > burglar and a copyright violator. Each TV stolen represents a
quantifiable
> > economic loss to you. Each download does not represent a loss of a sale.
>
> It's a loss of my property. My property.
If I download it, you haven't lost anything. You still have your work and
you can still profit from it. Sorry, but I just don't see how information is
anyone's property. It's something that you created, yes, and you have the
right to be compensated for the work you put into it, but information has no
intrinsic value whatsoever.