Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
We Are All Socialists Now
Unexpected news from an unexpected place. Et c'est très bien!:
French lawmakers...rejected a bill...that would have cut off the Internet connections of people who repeatedly download music or films illegally.
The bill would have also created the world's first government agency to track and punish those who steal music and film on the Internet.
The music and film industry had supported the bill, aimed at boosting revenue for their struggling sector and cracking down on illegal downloading. Critics said it would be too tough to apply and encroach on freedoms.
...the bill was rejected by a vote of 21-15.
The bill was passed by the parliament last week, so everyone and their poodle expected the legislation to pass the National Assembly. As TorrentFreak notes, though, it wasn't popular with the public from the beginning:
From a survey of 1004 individuals representative of the French Internet user, 60% of respondents said they were not in favor of the law (42% were strongly against), with a third saying they support it "somewhat". Only those respondents over 65 years old showed greater support, with 53% in favor and 41% against. Despite this, 64% of the respondents in this category felt that the graduated response wont be affective at all.
Interestingly, there was no difference between the different age groups in the expected effectiveness of the new anti-piracy legislation....Just 24% of respondents said that they felt the 'graduated response' would be "very" or "somewhat" effective, with a huge 69% believing it will fail.
The legislation would have forced Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to send warnings to alleged copyright infringers under a three-strikes-and-your-unplugged rule. It also law would have made it possible to order ISPs to block sites like The Pirate Bay.
Opponents of the law shouldn't pop open the champagne just yet, though. The government plans to "resubmit the measure to both houses of parliament after legislators return from their Easter break on April 27."
Who do the people of France have to thank for the heroic stand? The Socialist party, who've opposed the measure from the beginning. They also have the best quotes:
There was a wind of revolt in the country, which engulfed the Assembly and made us move from opposition to the majority...The government is in trouble now.
So, good job socialists, viva La
Resistance keep up the good work. For more on piracy
and copyright, go here.
|4.9.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Couldn't the miscreants just steal music through
Minitel?
Yes, but by law it was +50% French content. No one wants French
music, even for free.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 1:19PM|#
I know that copyright is cognitively and politically problematic, but if we're going to recognize it as intellectual property, we should not be encouraging its theft.
High Every Body|4.9.09 @ 1:26PM|#
I know that copyright is cognitively and politically
problematic, but if we're going to recognize it as intellectual
property, we should not be encouraging its theft.
I like that phrasing. Count me in with TAO.
Warty|4.9.09 @ 1:30PM|#
The opponent closets a weekday beneath the unsuitable sun. A remainder intervenes. France sells Socialists into the torn clause. Socialists stumble next to France.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 1:31PM|#
I know that copyright is cognitively and politically problematic, but if we're going to recognize it as intellectual property, we should not be encouraging its theft.
Emphasis mine. I do not recognize it as intellectual property, so
who is this "we" you are talking about?
Content creators getting their government thugs to tell me at
gunpoint which sequences of bits I cannot share with others is a
violation of my rights.
Fist of Etiquette|4.9.09 @ 1:32PM|#
The legislation would have forced Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) to send warnings to alleged copyright infringers under a
three-strikes-and-your-unplugged rule.
When are we going to have a three-strikes-and-you're-unplugged rule
for people who use the incorrect form of 'your' or 'there'? (That's
right, I'm that guy.)
Look, all I'm saying is, if these big stars didn't want people
downloading their garbage or saying they're gay, they shouldn't
have tried to express themselves creatively.
|4.9.09 @ 1:40PM|#
it's not praise for theft, it's fighting a stupid law that is
akin to saying "if you've stolen then you are banned from entering
any stores" good luck buying food
it's pretty difficult to get anything done with out the internet
these days, and many comanpies like banks will charge extra for
services that involve mail or tellers.
|4.9.09 @ 1:40PM|#
Theft! Stealing!
Reality is digital information cannot be controlled the same way
physical material can be. There is no way around that. All these
attempts to regulate and punish are a waste of time and won't work
anyway and will only punish those who are innocent or stupid. DRM
was a panacea, no? But we have to do something, anything.
KG|4.9.09 @ 1:42PM|#
squarooticus - sorry, but Congress, your elected
representatives, whom you delegated authority to promulgate laws
regarding copyrights and patents (see Art I, Sec 8 of the US
Constitution) passed laws regarding copyrights and patents. This
means "we" recognize them as such. If you don't like the law, I
would suggest trying to get Congress to change the law, or trying
to pass a constitutional amendment.
And for the record, you taking a recorded sound, made by another,
and distributing it without royalties or permission from the artist
is a violation of the artist's rights. Your rights end where
there's begin.
|4.9.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Praise for theft and socialism in one post.
Congrats, Reason. A new low.
You like government granted monopolies! Such a libertarian!
I know copyright is more complex than that, but come on now, let's
take it easy.
|4.9.09 @ 1:44PM|#
This means "we" recognize them as such. If you don't like the law, I would suggest trying to get Congress to change the law, or trying to pass a constitutional amendment.
Looks like someone never smoked pot.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 1:45PM|#
whom you delegated authority
What did I do now? My memory must be faulty, because I don't recall
agreeing to this.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Content creators getting their government thugs to tell me
at gunpoint which sequences of bits I cannot share with others is a
violation of my rights.
All that is required is a basic contract between private parties: I
will give you a license to use the bits I create in a wide variety
of interesting ways so long as you don't redistibute those bits to
other parties. If you do redistribute those bits, you have broken
our contract and I will contact the guys with guns. However, the
party that recieved the redistributed bits was not part of our
contract and so is not bound by it.
Even though I am a strong supporter of IP laws, I do not view the
distribution of bits in violation of the original contract to be
"theft".
The problem with the current state of affairs is that it is
impossible for all practical means to discover which party that
received the bits under license subsequently broke the contract. So
the creator of the bits seeks redress from the state to punish
anyone that received the bits outside the contract -- much in the
same way we punish people that possess child pornography even those
people took no part in the sexual abuse of the child.
The problem with current IP law is that we chase down bystanders to
broken contracts between private parties. The creator of those bits
should either pursue technology to protect the bits at first
distribution or they should pull the bits from the market.
|4.9.09 @ 1:50PM|#
Content creators getting their government thugs to tell me
at gunpoint which sequences of bits I cannot share with others is a
violation of my rights.
Death threats and kiddie porn are just "sequences of bits" too, yet
libertarians (excepting Mary Ruwart, perhaps) think the govt has
the power to punish sharing them.
|4.9.09 @ 1:51PM|#
Right on, kinnath. And a comment:
The creator of those bits should either pursue technology to protect the bits at first distribution
Unfortunately there is no such technology if your intent is to
distribute the bits as widely as possible to maximize profit.
If you want to encrypt bits that will only get to key individuals
who rely on secrecy then sure, you're ok. But it you want millions
of people to get the plaintext you are toast. There is no way you
will be able to tell who broke the original contract.
Ward S. Denker|4.9.09 @ 1:52PM|#
"When are we going to have a three-strikes-and-you're-unplugged
rule for people who use the incorrect form of 'your' or 'there'?
(That's right, I'm that guy.)"
Reason is a publication and should be held to a higher standard of
editorial excellence than uncle Joe's blog. I'm that guy
too.
|4.9.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Yay stealing?
I know that copyright is cognitively and politically
problematic, but if we're going to recognize it as intellectual
property, we should not be encouraging its theft.
The praise isn't about the infringement is it?
The praise is about the rejection of the co-opting of the state to
enforce IP.
This isn't theft which would be criminal, rather it is copyright
infringement which is civil. Ahd as such, it is not the job of the
government to police infringement but the job of the copyright
holder.
Should the government be tasked with searching youtube to see if
anyone posted infringing material and sending out take-down
notices? Or is that the responsibility of the copyright holder?
What is the difference between that and downloading via P2P ?
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Unfortunately there is no such technology if your intent is
to distribute the bits as widely as possible to maximize
profit.
Not yet, looks like a business opportunity.
|4.9.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Please cut the "bits" canard. One could just as easily argue that it doesn't make sense for the government to regulate moving bunches of quarks and leptons around, and there goes any notion of private property.
SpongePaul|4.9.09 @ 1:55PM|#
ok lets look at a record or mp3 the same as a car. I buy the car from Nissan/Columbia, pay them the money, and it is mine. I can then lend out the car/mp3 to anyone i want to. I can sell it use it to make money as a taxi, which would actually be charging people to use the mp3/car wahtever i want to do with it. and Nissan has no right or say after the intial purchase, for it was bought from them, and paid for. This would be the same as toyota going to a used car salesman and demanding royalties on the secondhand corolla he just sold. and cars like mp3's can have many different ownres in thier life.
KG|4.9.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Soda, I will admit that I break more than a few laws, and I also
recognize that when I did that, I was consciously breaking the law
and subject to prosecution. But I also support changing some of
those laws.
squarooticus - one of the reasons libertarianism never gets
anywhere is because of the high level of pendactic assholes. the
Constitution is in place, it clearly states what authority Congress
has (authority that Congress regularly exceeds), and part of that
is IP laws. the fact that you don't like that doesn't change a
damned thing.
|4.9.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Death threats and kiddie porn are just "sequences of bits"
too, yet libertarians (excepting Mary Ruwart, perhaps) think the
govt has the power to punish sharing them.
To be fair....death threats are a form of assault, no? So there is
a legitimate reason for the gov't to do that.
Kiddie porn is a different matter. I would imagine the libertarian
position varies wildly on what punishments (if any) there should be
for merely sharing (rather than producing).
I'm pretty sure libertarians have come down against punishing kids
who engage in "sexting" or punishing kids for passing on "sext"
messages they receive from others, no?
|4.9.09 @ 1:57PM|#
My laptop and a steaming pile of dog crap have essentially the same number of quarks and leptons in similar relative abundance. Yet you'll understand if I don't approve of taking my laptop and giving me the feces in return.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Great example sponge, except it's not relevant.
When we get replication technology that can stamp out an infinite
number of copies of my used 350Z, then we can have a
discussion.
|4.9.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Unfortunately there is no such technology if your intent is to distribute the bits as widely as possible to maximize profit.
Not yet, looks like a business opportunity.
I'm not sure it's even possible. No matter how complex or
sophisticated your encryption is at some point the end user will
need to have access to the plaintext (don't know about you, but I'd
rather listen to music than white noise). If you are sending this
to thousands of people you are toast. All it takes is one person to
distribute the plain text and now your IP is in the wild.
|4.9.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Why the note of pleasant surprise that the Socialists were the
engine behind this? The tech-utopian notion that everybody should
have unfettered access to others' content is collectivist at its
core.
What, you think the Electronic Frontier Foundation is some sort of
hotbed for individualism and liberty? A little hint: They're not
Reason's ideological peers.
Collectivists want copyright destroyed. They want
content to be freely "shared" by the "community." There's nothing
at all surprising about the Socialist party taking the stand they
did here.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Please cut the "bits" canard. One could just as easily argue that it doesn't make sense for the government to regulate moving bunches of quarks and leptons around, and there goes any notion of private property.
Please cut the analogy-to-property canard. I know you are not that
dumb, crimethink.
Take my quarks and leptons, and you have removed my ability to make
use of them.
Copy my bits, and now both of us have them.
Incidentally, if you had the ability to copy a piece of matter I
own (say, a house, or a car, or whatever) at your own expense and
without any effect on my ownership of the original, I'd be just
ducky with that, too. That is the proper analogy to
copying information, not theft of property.
|4.9.09 @ 2:01PM|#
To be fair....death threats are a form of assault,
no?
Indeed. Some sequences of bits are not really just sequences of
bits, which is some people here seem to be missing.
|4.9.09 @ 2:02PM|#
Soda, I will admit that I break more than a few laws, and I also recognize that when I did that, I was consciously breaking the law and subject to prosecution. But I also support changing some of those laws.
Agreed. I was just pointing out that just because "it's the law"
doesn't mean it's right. Surely, this is something that should go
without saying in a libertarian blog.
All "it's the law" means is that if we get caught we will be
prosecuted. Nothing more.
|4.9.09 @ 2:02PM|#
the Constitution is in place, it clearly states what
authority Congress has (authority that Congress regularly exceeds),
and part of that is IP laws.
From Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The Constitution also clearly states that the rational for IP is to
PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF ARTS and SCIENCE, not to stifle
innovation/competition or to protect the revenue streams of
copyright holders (like extending copyright terms to keep disney's
cartoons from entering public domain)
Once could argue then that anything that does more than promote the
arts and sciences is an overreach by Congress, no?
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Basic questions:
If I steal your car, I have clearly committed a crime.
If you buy the car that I have stolen, have you committed a crime?
Well if you knew I stole it, you would be helping to continue my
original crime. But if you didn't know, did you really have the
necessary mental state to commit a crime?
We criminalize possession of stolen property because it reduces the
market for stolen property which supposedly would reduce
theft.
The major media companies want to apply the same paradigm to the
possession of creative works that were copied and distributed in
violation of its original CIVIL contract.
If find that to be total bullshit, myself.
|4.9.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Just wanted to clarify my post above. What I'm trying to say is that in arguing that something is immoral there should be arguments other than "it's the law." Not that the concept of laws is itself inherently wrong or anything of the sort.
|4.9.09 @ 2:05PM|#
squarooticus, you're not losing any quarks or leptons. There are equal amounts of quarks and leptons, with the same relative abundance, whether they're in the form of a laptop or a pile of dog crap.
|4.9.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Take my quarks and leptons, and you have removed my ability to make use of them.
Copy my bits, and now both of us have them.
Bingo.
Stealing matter = zero-sum
Copying information = not zero-sum
|4.9.09 @ 2:09PM|#
There are equal amounts of quarks and leptons, with the same relative abundance, whether they're in the form of a laptop or a pile of dog crap.
I see, you're equating the pattern of quarks that make up your
laptop with the pattern of bits that make up a song. You're
treating both cases as information being stolen, one "written" in
quarks and one written in bits.
|4.9.09 @ 2:10PM|#
How about walking into a movie theater without paying? Getting a haircut and then leaving without paying? Sneaking into the line into a car wash after the gate so you don't have to pay? None of these involve the taking of matter from someone else, yet I don't see it as being a stretch to treat them as theft.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:12PM|#
crimethink, now you're just being silly. If different
configurations of matter were equivalent, why would anyone steal
anything? Just run down to the side of the road, pick up 2 tons of
dirt, and voila! A car!
I know exactly where you're going with this, and I'm still going to
beat you down for it. But why should I spoil your fun? Keep going.
:-)
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 2:15PM|#
I'm not sure it's even possible. No matter how complex or
sophisticated your encryption is at some point the end user will
need to have access to the plaintext (don't know about you, but I'd
rather listen to music than white noise). If you are sending this
to thousands of people you are toast. All it takes is one person to
distribute the plain text and now your IP is in the
wild.
The iPod was an interesting attempt to build a closed system that
allowed for mass distribution of creative works. It had some good
points and many bad ones as well. I never bought one and never
would because the DRM was way to heavy handed.
I think the future will produce some form of published standards
for "packaging" creative works with watermarks and some type DRM as
well as "players" that respect the DRM. The "contracts" that come
with the packages and the players will provide the necessary legal
framework for dealing with people that break the contracts.
If the DRM solution is greater than open MP3 files and less than
the iTunes solution, it may be able to achieve broad market
penetration. Hell, Apple sold over a billion downloads with their
hideous DRM solution.
That being said there will always be people that try to bust the
DRM, just because MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE MAN.
|4.9.09 @ 2:16PM|#
How about walking into a movie theater without paying?
Contract broken. Trespassing.
Getting a haircut and then leaving without paying?
Contract broken.
Sneaking into the line into a car wash after the gate so you don't have to pay?
Trespassing.
kinnath nailed it, really. All of the scenarios you pose include a
contract broken at the point of origin of the service.
If someone sends me an mp3 of an artist for free I'M not breaking
any contracts.
|4.9.09 @ 2:16PM|#
The major media companies want to apply the same paradigm to
the possession of creative works that were copied and distributed
in violation of its original CIVIL contract.
Art 1 Sec 8 gives Congress the power to make it a CRIMINAL matter.
And you don't seriously think that all the people downloading songs
illegally aren't aware that the stuff that they're downloading
isn't supposed to be free.
If some guy in a back alley is offering you a brand new Lexus with
10 miles on the odometer for $100, you may not have absolutely
irrefutable evidence that it's been stolen, but you have plenty of
reason to be suspicious.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:20PM|#
None of these involve the taking of matter from someone else
Sure, but neither does outlawing theft of service violate anyone
else's rights: you don't need ubiquitous surveillance to enforce
it, only enforcement at the point-of-sale by the service provider
himself.
The precise reason why sequences of bits are not property is that
they can be transferred from person to person without the knowledge
of and without any cost to the creator. Property (and labor, since
you brought it up) are scarce simply by the laws of physics: bits
are not.
|4.9.09 @ 2:20PM|#
That being said there will always be people that try to bust the DRM, just because MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE MAN.
But that's the root of the problem. Since all it takes is one
contract breaker, the IP will inevitably be released without
watermarks or encryption at some point. No matter what the original
owner does at the point of origin. The probability of selling to
the IP that one person that will break the contract increases as
the IP becomes more and more popular.
|4.9.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Ack! That should have read:
The probability of selling the IP to that one person that will
break the contract increases as the IP becomes more and more
popular.
|4.9.09 @ 2:23PM|#
The only way you can trespass at a place of public accommodation
is if you've been told to leave by the owner or their agent. That
doesn't happen in the movie theater or car wash scenario.
I could see the barber example being a breach of (implied) contract
which comes into force when you sit in the chair and allow him or
her to start cutting. When does your contract with the movie
theater not to watch a movie without paying go into force, I
wonder? It seems to me you'd have to pretty much say that things
you don't like are breaches of contract to make the logic
work.
And note that either of these examples would be dealt with in
criminal, not civil courts, as the laws on the books term it to be
"theft of service" or some such.
ChicagoTom|4.9.09 @ 2:23PM|#
How about walking into a movie theater without paying?
Getting a haircut and then leaving without paying? Sneaking into
the line into a car wash after the gate so you don't have to pay?
None of these involve the taking of matter from someone else, yet I
don't see it as being a stretch to treat them as theft.
See the contract breaking comments above, but also -- these things
would qualify as Theft of Service s-- a special category created
because the law understood that it is not regular theft.
Also, the comparison isn't apt because the downloaders aren't
taking the service from the seller...but obtaining a copy from
someone else who has already bought a copy.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Art 1 Sec 8 gives Congress the power to make it a CRIMINAL matter.
Please stop appealing to the Constitution: the Constitution also
says that slaves are 3/5 of a man; does that make it right?
I am interested in individual rights, the protection of which is
the one and only purpose of government. The government and its
rules are the (flawed) means to preserving liberty, not
the ends themselves.
|4.9.09 @ 2:24PM|#
It's funny how fake property, er, intellectual property causes all kinds of ideological contradictions. Socialists want the state to control the means of distribution, except for media content. Republicans want the state to stay out of the means of distribution, except for media content. Libertarians want the state to stay out of the means of distribution. End of sentence. Oh I know, you can make a lot of money by granting an artificial monopoly on fake property, etc. .....
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 2:26PM|#
But that's the root of the problem.
Yes it is.
The operational issue is whether the rule breakers make up 50% of
the market, or 5%, or 0.5%, or 0.000005%.
Warty|4.9.09 @ 2:26PM|#
the Constitution also says that slaves are 3/5 of a
man;
Not since 1865 it doesn't.
|4.9.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Property (and labor, since you brought it up) are scarce
simply by the laws of physics
Er, labor isn't matter and isn't affected by the laws of physics as
far as I know.
It doesn't cost the barber anything to cut your hair.
It doesn't cost the movie theater anything to let you sit in the
theater.
The soap and water used in the car wash do cost something, but it's
miniscule.
|4.9.09 @ 2:30PM|#
The only way you can trespass at a place of public accommodation is if you've been told to leave by the owner or their agent. That doesn't happen in the movie theater or car wash scenario.
My mistake then. IANAL. Are you?
Now, I understand what you are saying if it were a restaurant or
any place that does not require payment prior to entry. But really?
If you enter a place that requires payment to even get in the door
and you enter without payment aren't you trespassing?
T|4.9.09 @ 2:31PM|#
The iPod was an interesting attempt to build a closed system
that allowed for mass distribution of creative works. It had some
good points and many bad ones as well. I never bought one and never
would because the DRM was way to heavy handed.
Nothing about the iPod (at this late date) requires the use of the
iTunes DRM solution. I avoided them for years because I hate iTunes
(the actual software interface). Once I figured out I could skip
that, it was on. MediaMonkey FTW!
matt2|4.9.09 @ 2:31PM|#
What about time & opportunity cost? Are you being willfully obtuse, or are you just fucking stupid?
|4.9.09 @ 2:31PM|#
See the contract breaking comments above, but also -- these
things would qualify as Theft of Service s-- a special category
created because the law understood that it is not regular
theft.
Breach of contract is dealt with in civil courts. This stuff is
dealt with in criminal courts. And the reason they're called "theft
of service" is because these things are essentially the same thing
as theft of physical property and deserve to be treated as such.
Sort of like "intellectual property" deserves to be treated as a
sort of property.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 2:32PM|#
It doesn't cost the barber anything to cut your
hair.
You are truly an idiot.
T|4.9.09 @ 2:32PM|#
It doesn't cost the barber anything to cut your
hair.
Opportunity costs, crimethink. If you skate on the haircut, he
loses the money he could have gotten from dealing with a paying
customer.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:33PM|#
matt2: agreed.
crimethink: I've proved my point to most people reading this. That
you are being obstinate is your prerogative, but you will continue
without consuming any more of my precious labor. ;-)
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 2:34PM|#
No doubt that you could rip CDs and play them on an iPod. But that's not why people bought them. People bought iPods to download music through iTunes. And music from iTunes would only play on the iPod or other apple approved device.
|4.9.09 @ 2:35PM|#
Er, labor isn't matter and isn't affected by the laws of physics as far as I know.
You have a perpetual motion machine that you are hiding from us?
:)
labor = energy = matter
Also, see opportunity cost comments above.
|4.9.09 @ 2:37PM|#
My mistake then. IANAL. Are you?
Uh, no, but this isn't exactly a complicated area of the law.
Otherwise people would be opening themselves up to trespassing
charges every time they walk into a grocery store.
If you enter a place that requires payment to even get in the
door and you enter without payment aren't you
trespassing?
Apparently it doesn't require payment to get in the door if you got
in the door without paying! If you went through a door that says
"employees only" or "unauthorized personnel keep out" I suppose
that could be considered trespassing, but if you somehow walk in
through the normal public entrance and manage to get through
without paying, no way it is.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 2:38PM|#
Then there are the opportunity costs in writing the songs, folks. If you're not going to let someone profit from their mental labor, then why would they engage in it?
|4.9.09 @ 2:39PM|#
"If you're not going to let someone profit from their mental
labor, then why would they engage in it?"
Money from touring, fame and ego.
|4.9.09 @ 2:40PM|#
So would you guys agree that causing someone to lose the
opportunity to sell something is equivalent to theft?
If so, Admiral Ackbar has some advice for you.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 2:40PM|#
I wonder how Jeff Winkler and reason would respond if I just wholesale ripped off every post here and every article in the magazine, posted them and profited from the subsequent traffic. And hey...my Reason II website promises no begging for funds or reason.tv. No more Donate Nows!
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:41PM|#
If you're not going to let someone profit from their mental labor, then why would they engage in it?
They can count on money for the first sale. But they'd better get a
lot, because they lose effective control over the bit sequence
after the first sale.
Unless they have government thugs with ubiquitous surveillance
and/or centralized control over all hardware, software, and
networks. That's what we want in libertopia, right?
|4.9.09 @ 2:42PM|#
I've proved my point to most people reading this.
Wow, you've convinced a bunch of people who hate copyright that
copyright is wrong. Those are some massive powers of persuasion
there.
|4.9.09 @ 2:42PM|#
would be opening themselves up to trespassing charges every time they walk into a grocery store.
Wait a minute. But you don't have to pay to enter. You can enter
and then leave without buying anything.
For movie theaters and car washing the "entering" is everything.
You have to pay to enter.
If you went through a door that says "employees only" or "unauthorized personnel keep out" I suppose that could be considered trespassing, but if you somehow walk in through the normal public entrance and manage to get through without paying, no way it is.
Huh?? How is it a public entrance if you have to pay to enter? So,
if all movie theaters had a sign that said "Ticket required to
enter" then it WOULD be trespassing?
|4.9.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"I wonder how Jeff Winkler and Reason would respond if I
just wholesale ripped off every post here and every article in the
magazine, posted them and profited from the subsequent
traffic."
Which commenter is "Reason"?
T|4.9.09 @ 2:43PM|#
If you're not going to let someone profit from their mental
labor, then why would they engage in it?
And yet here we all are, and not a paycheck in sight. Hmm. Funny,
that.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 2:43PM|#
squarooticus - please looked up reasoned debate and try to
engage in it.
They can count on money for the first sale.
Only if nobody releases the recording online before the release of
the album, right?
|4.9.09 @ 2:44PM|#
On a non-utilitarian level, why do you believe you are entitled to the things that you think of?
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Wow, you've convinced a bunch of people who hate copyright that copyright is wrong.
I'm only conceding that I have failed to convince those who love IP
that IP isn't actually property. From my experience, there are
plenty of people who simply haven't given the issue a lot of
thought.
|4.9.09 @ 2:45PM|#
So would you guys agree that causing someone to lose the opportunity to sell something is equivalent to theft?
Does this include competition?
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 2:45PM|#
And yet here we all are, and not a paycheck in sight. Hmm.
Funny, that.
Oh, hilarious...people talk without being paid. Somehow that's
different from laboring over say, a fun and interesting libertarian
magazine as employment.
Can anybody tell me why Winkler has this post and the phrase at the
very bottom of this webpage still exists?
Einstein|4.9.09 @ 2:45PM|#
labor = energy = matter
Mein Gott, forgive me, it's times like this I wish I'd been a
cobbler instead of a physicist.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:46PM|#
Only if nobody releases the recording online before the release of the album, right?
Better keep that music/movie/book locked down until then. Invest in
and practice good security.
Or figure out a different way to make money. I am 100% sure that
music will not disappear from the landscape when the government
finally gives up on trying to enforce copyrights on it.
|4.9.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Lamar,
On a non-utilitarian level, why do you believe you are entitled to
the things that other people think of?
|4.9.09 @ 2:47PM|#
"Can anybody tell me why Winkler has this post and the
phrase at the very bottom of this webpage still exists?"
Because the law allows for it.
I Am Joe\'s Anus|4.9.09 @ 2:48PM|#
"Yet you'll understand if I don't approve of taking my laptop
and giving me the feces in return."
Man, I sure had a wicked case of the feces last week. Blood and
everything.
matt2|4.9.09 @ 2:48PM|#
@crimethink:
Your movie ticket is a license to use the privately owned
facilities. Without said license, you don't have the permission of
the property owners to be there (trespassing). It's no more
complicated than that.
You're contorting yourself into bizarre arguments in an effort to
deny that digital data is a unique form of "property." It very
obviously is unique, and the issue is whether we should continue
treating data as property, or agree on an appropriately unique
approach.
Your flailing attempts to muddy the waters do not appear to have
confused anyone but yourself.
|4.9.09 @ 2:49PM|#
labor = energy = matter
Mein Gott, forgive me, it's times like this I wish I'd been a cobbler instead of a physicist.
Sorry, Einstein!
|4.9.09 @ 2:51PM|#
The views expressed by editors and writers on the Reason website (especially dime a dozen interns!) are their own, and not necessarily those of the Reason Foundation, Reason.tv, Poppy the Wonder Dog, Reason magazine, or any of their corporate sponsors, Also, fuck you.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 2:51PM|#
What's the problem, then, with licensing music when it's sold and forbidding you from sharing it? Implicit in the license at the theater is that you're not recording the movie; explicit in the license with the CD is that you don't share it. Additionally, you're not entitled to stolen property, so don't get all doe-eyed and innocent when you illegally download music that it ain't your fault, because you know that the individual on the other end doesn't have permission to break the license either.
|4.9.09 @ 2:51PM|#
"On a non-utilitarian level, why do you believe you are
entitled to the things that other people think of?"
Why don't you answer first? I have my response ready to go, but
quite frankly, I believe you'll dodge the question again and choose
to criticize my response rather than be honest with yourself.
|4.9.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Crap, we thought we deleted that last part out. I should add that the opinions expressed by the Reason Legal Department are not necessarily those of anyone in that list.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 2:53PM|#
What's the problem, then, with licensing music when it's sold and forbidding you from sharing it?
Nothing.
Additionally, you're not entitled to stolen property
But if we're covering music under contract law, then there's no
property to steal: I have no contract with the original seller, so
I have done nothing wrong.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 2:53PM|#
If you all will excuse me, I'll be down at Kinko's, making copies of "Season" magazine, a fun, libertarian magazine featuring Matt Belch and Nick Hillispie.
T|4.9.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Oh, hilarious...people talk without being paid. Somehow
that's different from laboring over say, a fun and interesting
libertarian magazine as employment.
No, it's a demonstrated counterfactual to the idea that people will
only engage in mental effort in order to receive a paycheck. Hell,
the vast majority of the Web gives the lie to that statement. It's
great if you can get somebody to pay you for writing in a magazine
or on the web. It doesn't mean that's the only reason people will
do it, which is what was argued above.
|4.9.09 @ 2:56PM|#
"If you all will excuse me, I'll be down at Kinko's, making
copies of 'Season' magazine, a fun, libertarian magazine featuring
Matt Belch and Nick Hillispie."
If only you would have written "Seisin"....that would have made
this old lawyer lose it.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 2:56PM|#
But if we're covering music under contract law, then there's
no property to steal: I have no contract with the original seller,
so I have done nothing wrong.
Um, if you think of it as a nondisclosure agreement, and you're
aware of the NDA's existence, you know you're not supposed to have
that information. Unless you think you're just an innocent babe
when you pay for those missile plans that are stamped "TOP SECRET"
on them. I mean, hey, you didn't do anything wrong, right?
|4.9.09 @ 2:57PM|#
The problem has and will continue to be technological
obsolencence of the current arts. Paintings are readily duplicated
in high quality digital pictures now available in everyone's
photobucket account. People that save a copy of that picture on
their own harddrive are essentially violating the same copyright
law as those who copy music. The artist is not compensated for that
person's visual enjoyment. Same with any easily duplicatable visual
or audible art (poems, books, music, movies). The solution so far
seems to be to protect the rights of the artists by restraining the
use of the technology or punishing a small percentage of those who
utilize the technology to violate the rights of the artists.
What we need to do is rethink how technology can help the artists
transition into this new age and alter the profit structure so the
artist can still maximize profit and there is less incentive to
violate the law. Lawlessness doesn't occur because the majority of
people decide to start violating a law, it occurs because a law is
introduced that runs counter to the majority's self interest. Laws
can't change the tides, they can merely funnel them where they
cause the least damage to the land. If lawmakers considered that as
the basis for all lawmaking, we'd be much better off.
I don't know how to balance the rights of the artists with the
tendencies of the population, but making criminals out of a not
insignificant percentage of the population is only going to
encourage violation, not discourage.
|4.9.09 @ 2:58PM|#
T, the fact that soup kitchens and testicular cancer support
groups give out free food to all comers doesn't mean that food is
inherently worthless.
The fact that people jump through hoops to download copyrighted
music instead of listening to all the public domain crap that's out
there puts the lie to the idea that the music we want will be
produced without possibility of profit.
T|4.9.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Hmm. I'm just thinking aloud here. I've had musicians give me CDs of their work to elicit my interest in their body of work. What kind of IP license does this theoretically imply I have in the data handed me? I've exchanged no money and I've agreed to no terms, unless we live in bizarro world where simply accepting something offered to me freely implies some sort of contractual obligation. So why can't I post the CD to the web? It has no commercial value, right?
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:02PM|#
The fact that people jump through hoops to download copyrighted
music instead of listening to all the public domain crap that's out
there puts the lie to the idea that the music we want will be
produced without possibility of profit.
+10 to crimethink.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Um, if you think of it as a nondisclosure agreement, and you're aware of the NDA's existence, you know you're not supposed to have that information.
Unless my signature is on that NDA, it does not apply to me. That's
what the "A" in NDA is for: "agreement".
Unless you think you're just an innocent babe when you pay for those missile plans that are stamped "TOP SECRET" on them.
Now you're talking about government rules again, not contract law.
Can you stick to one for a second? My head is spinning.
|4.9.09 @ 3:04PM|#
I favor protecting intellectual property rights, within reason.
Not to beat this analogy to death, but we currently have set IP
rights, especially copyright, to an '11', where they probably
really should be at a 7. Fair use should really matter, and
"limited times" should damned well mean "limited times."
Incidentally, a lot of the generally recognized fair use exceptions
were intended to avoid direct conflicts between free speech and
copyright. Since the First Amendment was added after the Copyright
Clause and because it is a prohibition rather than a permissive
provision ("Congress shall not" versus "Congress shall have the
power to"), it's hard to argue that copyright interests can ever
directly challenge free speech rights. By its very nature,
copyright does limit speech somewhat, but that's allowed because an
absolute speech view would totally eliminate copyright, which was
clearly never intended.
|4.9.09 @ 3:04PM|#
I should add that the current state of copyright law leaves much to be desired. The term lengths are ridiculously long. With the exception of a couple of enduring pop culture icons, essentially all possibility of profiting from a work is gone by twenty years after its creation. While it does irk me a bit to say this, perhaps we need to create two categories of copyrighted material, one for stuff that is still profitable twenty years after the fact (the Mickey Mouses and Batmans of the world) and another for stuff that disappears from the culture at an earlier time...and only keep the longer term for the first category.
|4.9.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Another thought that just came to me. What is the moral price of music? I know that sounds crazy, but if I were a illegal downloader that sorta felt guilty stealing artists work, what price would induce me to quit my ways and pay the artist? Now you'll argue that given no penalty for violating the law, the price essentially goes to zero. Yet, knowing that there is a risk of getting caught and the smaller the pool of violators, the higher the risk, where statistically should prices online be set to maximize the amount of revenue to the artist minus the cost of pursuing the violators? There has to be a breakeven point. Where is it and has anybody looked at this as a solution?
|4.9.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Now you're talking about government rules again, not
contract law. Can you stick to one for a second? My head is
spinning.
You still haven't explained why the "breach of contract" in the
haircut and movie and car wash examples are prosecuted in criminal
courts instead of being dealt with by lawsuits.
T|4.9.09 @ 3:07PM|#
The fact that people jump through hoops to download
copyrighted music instead of listening to all the public domain
crap that's out there puts the lie to the idea that the music we
want will be produced without possibility of profit.
I think the music we listen to in the future will be produced with
much less possibility of profit. How and how much the artists are
going to get paid is what interests me. The IP laws we're arguing
about are designed primarily to enrich the middleman. Since the
internet is fantabulous at disintermediation, we're watching the
death throes of the distribution channel.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:07PM|#
The fact that people jump through hoops to download copyrighted music instead of listening to all the public domain crap that's out there puts the lie to the idea that the music we want will be produced without possibility of profit.
Even if that turns out to be true, I'm not willing to trade my
freedoms for the continued existence of pop music. Fuck them: they
can get in line to stand athwart the path of technological progress
yelling "STOP!" along with buggy whip makers, ice delivery men, and
tune-up shops.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:10PM|#
You still haven't explained why the "breach of contract" in the haircut and movie and car wash examples are prosecuted in criminal courts instead of being dealt with by lawsuits.
They are generally because the government is an ass and wants to
criminalize everything. They should be dealt with in civil
court or arbitration, as with pretty much every dispute.
|4.9.09 @ 3:11PM|#
LiT, that's not unique to music. If I steal my neighbor's
lawnmower which was not for sale, it's not clear what price would
be the right amount to pay after the fact.
With tangible property, at the very least one should return the
stolen property (which in the case of digital music would be
analogous to deleting the file and destroying all copies) or else
approach the rightful owner about what he or she thinks the cost
should be.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Don't worry, guys, medicine won't suffer from "Day One Ripoff Generics" one bit.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 3:12PM|#
especially copyright, to an '11',
The first mistake with the new and improved copyright law was
automatic copyright protection of all creative works. Originally,
the creator had to assert his or her rights on a new creative
work.
The second mistake, and far more dangerous than the first, is
statutory damages for infringement. One of the tests of fair use is
whether or not the creator suffer a financial loss from the alleged
infringement.
It's shocking that mere possession of an unauthorized copy of a
creative work without any evidence that the possesor harmed the
copyright holder means nearly automatic damages assesed against the
possessor (and a hearty fuck-you to the music industry).
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:12PM|#
I'm not willing to trade my freedoms for the continued
existence of pop music.
Your freedom to do what? Break the licenses you agreed to?
Facilitate and support the breaking of those licenses?
I mean, do you feel this way about child porn?
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:13PM|#
Don't worry, guys, medicine won't suffer from "Day One Ripoff Generics" one bit.
Repeat after me:
"The ends do not justify the means."
|4.9.09 @ 3:14PM|#
And the reason they're called "theft of service" is because
these things are essentially the same thing as theft of physical
property and deserve to be treated as such. Sort of like
"intellectual property" deserves to be treated as a sort of
property.
Theft of services would be appropriate if we were downloading the
files from the copyright holder directly.
If I buy a CD, and then rip it and make it available for others to
download, those who download it can not be accused of theft of
services. They aren't receiving a service from a provider and then
not paying for it.
So would you guys agree that causing someone to lose the
opportunity to sell something is equivalent to theft?
No. I wouldn't agree in the least.
1. No one has lost the "opportunity to sell" anything. In fact, the
copyright holders do in fact continue to sell the items.
2. There is no guarantee that, absent the availablity of the item
for free, that the downloader would in fact buy the item in
question.
I don't see how causing someone to lost a potential sale can be
considered theft at all. Until a transaction occurs, no one owns or
is entitled to said transaction.
Would me badmouthing a company to my friend and him deciding not to
buy from that company be considered theft as well, in your opinion?
How about if I tell my friend that I can give him the same haircut
that the salon would give for free? Am I stealing from the Salon? I
dont think so
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:14PM|#
Repeat after me: "First principles and reductive 'philosophy' is intellectual laziness"
SpongePaul|4.9.09 @ 3:14PM|#
The Riaa wants to keep pushing this, because the records are what keeps them in buisness. The touring and the merchandise are what keep bands in buisness. with free music everywhere, bands would not suffer, most would make more. but the record compaines would be obselete and go out of buisness. this is thier last gasp at making it.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:15PM|#
As a matter of fact, if anybody wants any, I've got this great
laundry detergent called "Tide". It comes in a red bottle.
What's that? It looks like I just dumped a generic detergent in a
Tide bottle? Hey, man, Tide can't copyright red bottles!
|4.9.09 @ 3:15PM|#
squarooticus, I don't think you want to live in the society you
propose. Really.
This might dawn on you when you have to show ID at the barber shop
and then sign a waiver allowing them to cuff you to the chair until
you pay.
When a barber has to track down service stealers and file suit out
of his own time and money, that's what will happen.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Your freedom to do what? Break the licenses you agreed to? Facilitate and support the breaking of those licenses?
Please cite an example of my advocating a person unilaterally
breaking a contract to which he agreed.
I mean, do you feel this way about child porn?
What way? Does child porn have some relevance to licensing and/or
contract law and/or intellectual property?
More generally, is there a Godwin-like law for invoking child porn
in a conversation about freedom?
|4.9.09 @ 3:16PM|#
crimethink,
The lawnmower is a bad example if it deprives your neighbor of the
ability to mow his lawn. The counter to the argument is what if you
somehow duplicated his lawnmower and failed to pay the company that
designed it. Obviously they are entitled to some compensation
considering it was their idea for the lawnmower that allowed you to
now cut your lawn, but nobody would prosecute for that, because
building your own lawnmower is rediculous compared to buying a new
one they assembled.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:16PM|#
If I buy a CD, and then rip it and make it available for
others to download, those who download it can not be accused of
theft of services. They aren't receiving a service from a provider
and then not paying for it.
Yes, they are. They are receiving the benefit of that music without
paying for it, knowingly violating the licensing agreement.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:18PM|#
What way? Does child porn have some relevance to licensing
and/or contract law and/or intellectual property?
YES! Do you believe that the possessors of child porn should be
prosecuted? If so, why? If not, why not?
|4.9.09 @ 3:18PM|#
As a matter of fact, if anybody wants any, I've got this
great laundry detergent called "Tide". It comes in a red
bottle.
What's that? It looks like I just dumped a generic detergent in a
Tide bottle? Hey, man, Tide can't copyright red bottles!
That wouldn't be a copyright issue.
The fact that you call it "Tide" makes it a trademark issue...and
you are trying to profit from an existing brand by confusing the
consumer and making them think you are selling an existing product.
You are also perpetrating a fraud on the consumer by tricking them
into thinking they are buying A when they are really buying
B.
The red bottles in fact have very little bearing on the facts you
present.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Hey, man, Tide can't copyright red bottles!
Trademark dipshit.
Three branches of IP: patents, trademarks, copyright.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Trademarks are just made-up property, ChicagoTom. So are happenstance arrangements of chemical forumlae. As long as I honestly list the properties of my "Tide" on the back, I'm not perpetuating a fraud at all.
|4.9.09 @ 3:21PM|#
They are receiving the benefit of that music without paying
for it, knowingly violating the licensing agreement.
What licensing agreement? You can't unilaterally apply licensing
agreements to other parties. The person who violated the licensing
agreement is the person providing the download, not the person
downloading from them. The downloader never entered into any
agreement with anyone.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Trademark dipshit.
Three branches of IP: patents, trademarks, copyright.
Wanna get fuckin' nasty about it? Forgive me, but I thought the
discussion was about IP.
Did I miss something or can you not read?
|4.9.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Yes, they are. They are receiving the benefit of that music
without paying for it, knowingly violating the licensing
agreement.
Unless birth counts as a licensing agreement, those who download
free music are not violating it. Those who share the music would be
as they implictly agreed not to duplicate the music when they
bought it. Atleast that's how I think someone with better knowledge
of the law would argue it.
|4.9.09 @ 3:21PM|#
In a rational copyright regime, downloading copyrighted music
without a license to do so should be actionable
infringement, barring a fair use defense.
However, should it be a crime? Should there be statutory damages?
Should the FBI be enforcing it? No, no, and no.
|4.9.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Theft of services would be appropriate if we were
downloading the files from the copyright holder
directly.
Purchase or possession of goods that a reasonable person would know
to be stolen is itself illegal. This doesn't strike me as a law
that libertarians would disagree with.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Unless birth counts as a licensing agreement, those who
download free music are not violating it.
Go buy that 50 dollar stereo out of the back of that van and see if
you get to keep it.
High Every Body|4.9.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Don't worry, guys, medicine won't suffer from "Day One
Ripoff Generics" one bit.
Yea, nobody should be able to copyright common elements just
arranged into a molicule. Patent that process? Ha! It is a natural
process too.
(BTW, I am agreeing with you TAO)
|4.9.09 @ 3:24PM|#
"Trademarks are just made-up property,
ChicagoTom."
Yet trademarks serve the utilitarian purpose of identifying the
source of a product. When you intentionally use that trademark, you
are saying that you are the source of every Tide product, which is
untrue and fraud. But as you know, Trademarks have also gone
through an enormous expansion, and their value is now only
partially based on their source identifying function. Now they are
property themselves....just like the founding fathers imagined.
|4.9.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Trademarks are just made-up property, ChicagoTom. So are
happenstance arrangements of chemical forumlae. As long as I
honestly list the properties of my "Tide" on the back, I'm not
perpetuating a fraud at all.
Dude you are grasping at straws...and I fail to see the relevance
of you example RE: copyright
The point of Trademark is to protect the consumer from fraud. Not
the trademark holder from competition. It has nothing to do with
"property".
In your example you are perpetrating a fraud. You are specifically
choosing a name that the public at large is familiar with and
tricking people into believing that what you are selling is what
people are familiar with.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Hey, man, Tide can't copyright red
bottles!
so you said copyright.
Oh, and there are other aspects of law involved like the
straightfoward attempt to commit fraud.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:26PM|#
There's no fraud, folks. I should be just as free to call my
product Tide...should Tide be allowed to trademark that word?
Should it be allowed to trademark that bottle? I mean, even it's
detergent is an arrangement of chemicals, just like music is just
an arrangement of notes.
I should be able to copy the formula, the bottle and call it Tide.
No fraud there.
|4.9.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Purchase or possession of goods that a reasonable person
would know to be stolen is itself illegal. This doesn't strike me
as a law that libertarians would disagree with.
WHy do you keep moving the goal posts? We were talking about theft
of services. You stated that downloading is theft of services. It
clearly is NOT. Now you change your argument to "possesion of
stolen goods".
In any case, in the example presented above the person making
available legitimately purchased the product and made it available
for distribution. THe downloader is not in possession of anything
stolen.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:27PM|#
When you intentionally use that trademark, you are saying
that you are the source of every Tide product
No, I'm not. I mean, hey man, Tide can't just keep words and colors
to themselves, right?
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:27PM|#
This might dawn on you when you have to show ID at the barber shop and then sign a waiver allowing them to cuff you to the chair until you pay.
I think you're living in fantasy land if you think this would ever
happen even in the complete absence of government. "Yes, please
take my money, and please treat me like shit at the same
time!"
The only providers that can get away with treating their customers
like this are monopolies providing essential services, and even
then not for long in a free market. (Which, of course, explains why
government can get away with it: you must buy their service and you
can't choose to buy it from someone else.)
|4.9.09 @ 3:28PM|#
In a rational copyright regime, downloading copyrighted
music without a license to do so should be actionable infringement,
barring a fair use defense.
If I could trust government to be reasonable on what requires a
license to do, I'd agree, but its a slippery slope by issuing a
decree that one must be "licensed" to do such and such, basically
forcing everyone to a contractual agreement with a third party.
High Every Body|4.9.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Side question. Are book titles copyrightable now? I recall that they were not in the recent past and no idea if that has changed.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:28PM|#
THe downloader is not in possession of anything
stolen.
The downloader is in possession of a good that he knows he should
not have.
Or would you like to buy my copy of "Season" magazine?
|4.9.09 @ 3:29PM|#
The point of Trademark is to protect the consumer from
fraud. Not the trademark holder from competition. It has nothing to
do with "property".
How benevolent of trademark holders to bring suit when someone else
uses the same name (in other industries, even)! And why do they get
to collect damages instead of the defrauded consumers?
So let me get this straight: trademark infringement is dealt with
in civil court because it's fraud, and theft of service is dealt
with in criminal court because it's breach of contract. Got it.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:29PM|#
YES! Do you believe that the possessors of child porn should be prosecuted? If so, why? If not, why not?
Since you didn't support your answer, I'll repeat my question: what
relevance does child porn have to licensing and/or contract law
and/or intellectual property?
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:30PM|#
Answer the question and you'll find out. I'm not going to connect the dots for you.
|4.9.09 @ 3:31PM|#
"I mean, even it's detergent is an arrangement of chemicals,
just like music is just an arrangement of notes."
And you can copy that formula, and even put on your box "compare to
Tide!". But you can't actually call your product Tide. You've
already copied the formula (like copying the notes), but you can't
claim to be a person you are not.
|4.9.09 @ 3:32PM|#
Copyright was reasonable for a long time. It started going
haywire in 1976 and has gotten worse since then. Adopting Berne,
which was based on a different view of copyright, may have been the
biggest single error.
Trademark is a completely legitimate concept in a free market
economy. Just imagine trying to go buy something without being able
to tell whether it was the product you bought last week or whether
it was made by who you thought made it. Why some other company
should have a right to trade off of my hard-earned goodwill is
beyond me.
Not that trademark is properly calibrated, either.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:32PM|#
Trademarks are just made-up property
Agreed, and unnecessary: without them, people would simply pay for
others to authenticate the merchandise they were buying.
Essentially, instead of the government providing a poor trademark
protection service, you would pay your grocer to make sure the
merchandise he's selling is authentic, with the obvious economic
penalties if he doesn't perform due diligence.
|4.9.09 @ 3:32PM|#
So let me get this straight: trademark infringement is dealt
with in civil court because it's fraud, and theft of service is
dealt with in criminal court because it's breach of
contract the government chose to criminalize it.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 3:32PM|#
The way it is supposed to work:
You have an unauthorized copy of a new-release music CD on your
hard drive.
You are somehow incredibly stupid so that the copyright hold finds
out.
The copyright holder proves in a court of law that you do in fact
possess the copy.
The jury/judge agrees and finds that you owe the copyright holder
the $14.95 that the CD goes for in Target.
You cut him a check.
The way it is now.
The judge orders you to pay thousands of dollars of statutory
damages, because you could like maybe conceivably make the copy
availabe on broadband for others to copy sometime in the
future.
"Copyright" is not the problem.
US copyright law is the problem.
If you want get pissed off, at least be pissed off about the right
thing.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:32PM|#
But you can't actually call your product Tide.
Why? Is the word Tide now exclusive property of Tide?
And what fresh nonsense is this? If I copy the formula exactly,
what difference does it make? How is the consumer protected
then?
|4.9.09 @ 3:32PM|#
"Answer the question and you'll find out. I'm not going to
connect the dots for you."
I'll answer if you answer my question @ 2:44.
|4.9.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Side question. Are book titles copyrightable now? I recall
that they were not in the recent past and no idea if that has
changed.
I don't see how it would matter. Fair use would seem to demand that
it be legal to print the name of the book when you refer to it.
SpongePaul|4.9.09 @ 3:33PM|#
The counter to the argument is what if you somehow duplicated
his lawnmower and failed to pay the company that designed it.
Obviously they are entitled to some compensation considering it was
their idea for the lawnmower that allowed you to now cut your
lawn,
_____________________________
Well you could actually copy and make the same lawnmower. You could
make a billion copies, as long as you did not sell them, or make
money from them, then you are legally OK! If you want to take this
route, then all the original user is doing is copying said item,
and giving it away. which is lawful.If i see a birdhouse, and copy
it, i am fine. if i make 100 of them and give them away, then i am
fine. if i sell 1 of them. then the company can sue me.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Purchase or possession of goods that a reasonable person would know to be stolen is itself illegal.
They're not goods: goods are physical property. These are bits
we're talking about, and therefore not stealable. Try to keep
up.
|4.9.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Go buy that 50 dollar stereo out of the back of that van and
see if you get to keep it.
Strictly speaking, police don't prosecute people who buy stolen
goods because the evidence isn't there to prove that they knew the
goods were stolen in most cases. Yes, they'll take that car,
stereo, etc away and return it to the original owner (or insurance
co.), but they don't go after those who conducted what may have
seemed to be a legitimate transaction. It takes a rather large
value before its worth their time to try and prove a case of
"knowing" theft.
|4.9.09 @ 3:34PM|#
"Why? Is the word Tide now exclusive property of
Tide?"
No, you simply can't misrepresent the origin of your product. Trust
me, unfair competition has been around a lot longer than trademark.
You can't win on that comparison.
|4.9.09 @ 3:34PM|#
YES! Do you believe that the possessors of child porn should
be prosecuted? If so, why? If not, why not?
No I don't. Producers of child porn if they are producing it in
countries where it is illegal should be prosecuted, but no I don't
think anyone who merely has child porn should be prosecuted.
Traci Lords is a good example. Many people have copies of her
movies when she was underage....Possesion of which will get you
thrown in jail...is that proper?
|4.9.09 @ 3:35PM|#
"Are book titles copyrightable now?"
Book titles (and movie titles) are generally not copyrightable.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:36PM|#
Answer the question and you'll find out. I'm not going to connect the dots for you.
I'm not going to be your stalking horse. You need to convince me
it's relevant before I'm going to go off-topic.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:37PM|#
No I don't. Producers of child porn if they are producing it
in countries where it is illegal should be prosecuted, but no I
don't think anyone who merely has child porn should be
prosecuted.
Dude, are you for reals? Demand drives production. Consumption of
the product facilitates abuse of children.
I'm sorry, but we have officially gone down the road of the
absurd.
|4.9.09 @ 3:37PM|#
Well you could actually copy and make the same lawnmower.
You could make a billion copies, as long as you did not sell them,
or make money from them, then you are legally OK! If you want to
take this route, then all the original user is doing is copying
said item, and giving it away. which is lawful.If i see a
birdhouse, and copy it, i am fine. if i make 100 of them and give
them away, then i am fine. if i sell 1 of them. then the company
can sue me.
Not according to the RIAA. The only difference is the cost to
recreate a lawnmower is billions of times more costly than to copy
music and give it away.
High Every Body|4.9.09 @ 3:37PM|#
I don't see how it would matter. Fair use would seem to
demand that it be legal to print the name of the book when you
refer to it.
I was asking about calling your book the same thing someone else
called theirs.
Could someone Leftoid come along and write a book called "Radicals
for Capitalism" or "Liberal Fascism" with a completely different
take.
Guessing that barcode would be different on the newer books, but
otherwise use the same title?
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:38PM|#
No, you simply can't misrepresent the origin of your
product. Trust me, unfair competition has been around a lot longer
than trademark. You can't win on that comparison.
Goalpost moving. First, you said it was for consumer protection,
but trademark violation suits and subsequent damages go to the
holder of the trademark. I also brought up the fact that if I copy
the formula and copy the bottle, how is the consumer NOT protected?
It's the same product!
Citizen Nothing|4.9.09 @ 3:39PM|#
"More generally, is there a Godwin-like law for invoking child
porn in a conversation about freedom?"
You've just uncovered Ruwart's Law.
..|4.9.09 @ 3:39PM|#
The precise reason why sequences of bits are not property is
that they can be transferred from person to person without the
knowledge of and without any cost to the creator
So can illegally copied novels. I suppose that isn't theft
either?
Pirates and thieves will go to great lengths in justifying their
crimes.
|4.9.09 @ 3:39PM|#
I'm sorry, but we have officially gone down the road of the
absurd.
Logical reductivism usually does. That's why pure (name your
political leaning) always looks insane.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Could someone Leftoid come along and write a book called "Radicals
for Capitalism" or "Liberal Fascism" with a completely different
take.
HEB, you're not going far enough! I should be able to run down to
Kinko's and sell reason magazine for my own price!
Books too!
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:41PM|#
The years you spent on that novel? you can only profit from one copy! So sorry for you...that'll teach you to spend time writing books.
|4.9.09 @ 3:41PM|#
Could someone Leftoid come along and write a book called
"Radicals for Capitalism" or "Liberal Fascism" with a completely
different take.
Strictly speaking, yes. I've seen examples where someone is
referring to a book or piece of literature and they have to clarify
which one they are speaking of.
|4.9.09 @ 3:41PM|#
"Tide. Cheer. Bold. Biz. Fab. All. Gain. Wisk."
The worse thing they did to fair use for librarians is to eliminate
a good faith defense and expand the definitions of contributory
negligence. If I copy something that looks to be out of copyright,
and you tell me that you are only going to use it for research
purposes, but instead use it for commercial gain and get sued under
copyright, I can be sued too and your fraud does nothing to
mitigate my liability. It's bullshit.
|4.9.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Dude, are you for reals? Demand drives production.
Consumption of the product facilitates abuse of
children.
So you think everyone who has old Traci Lords porn should be in
jail ?
Or that someone who has something sent to them via email should be
in jail?
And minors who film themselves having sex should also be in
jail?
Sorry, but I think your path is the path to absurdity.
|4.9.09 @ 3:43PM|#
The years you spent on that novel? you can only profit from
one copy! So sorry for you...that'll teach you to spend time
writing books.
Surely no one will want to know what you think in the future at
all. I can seeing the highlights now "Most read author dies
penniless and homeless after no one wants to speak to him about his
free book read by millions"
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Did I say that there is no room for mitigation, common sense or
a statute of limitations, ChiTom?
Under your logic, I can just "happen" to drop 500 dollars in
someone else's bank account and get a kiddie porn tape the next
day.
I mean, hey, you can't prove why I gave that guy the money...and
I'm allowed to possess kiddie porn, right?
Sheesh.
Gottfried Leibniz|4.9.09 @ 3:45PM|#
I don't know, I've seen an awful lot of books titled
"Calculus"...
Yeah, that Newton fucker sure did a number on me. I just wish Johan
Bernoulli's poison had worked like it was supposed to. Nobody even
uses that curly haired virgin limey's stupid primes anymore, they
use my "d/d" notation!
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:45PM|#
So can illegally copied novels. I suppose that isn't theft either?
Precisely.
Pirates and thieves will go to great lengths in justifying their crimes.
In my worldview, crimes exist independent of government: they are
violations of human rights, nothing more, nothing less. If a right
doesn't exist without government creating it, it isn't a right.
Period.
|4.9.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Sorry, but I think your path is the path to absurdity.
both paths do, which is why moral sentiments drive the law.
|4.9.09 @ 3:47PM|#
If a right doesn't exist without government creating it, it
isn't a right. Period.
Gonna call bullshit on this. Moral standards drive rights. We don't
always agree on the moral standard, but when a supermajority does,
it becomes a right.
|4.9.09 @ 3:48PM|#
SpongePaul: "The Riaa wants to keep pushing this, because
the records are what keeps them in buisness. The touring and the
merchandise are what keep bands in buisness."
Oh, for God's sake, be quiet. This discussion isn't about
arbitrary, temporal things like "bands" and "business." It's a
discussion about principles and concepts. Your "touring" and
"merchandise" crap have nothing to do with anything that matters
here.
|4.9.09 @ 3:48PM|#
TAO -- in fairness, your question didn't leave room for
mitigation:
Do you believe that the possessors of child porn should be
prosecuted?
Once you start adding mitigating factors, then it really becomes
difficult to enforce, no?
That's why I would say that the enforcement should fall on the
producers not the people in possesion. You go after mere possesion
and lots of innocent people can get caught up.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:49PM|#
If a right doesn't exist without government creating it, it
isn't a right.
So......abortion....is that a natural right or a government-created
one?
As if this thread wasn't ridiculous enough.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 3:50PM|#
TAO since you're the local expert on the criminality of child
pornography, give me your ready on the following:
1) Photo of a minor having sex
2) Drawing of a minor having sex
3) Photo of an adult, digitally altered to look like a minor,
having sex
And since we're talking about driving demand:
4) Photos of children in underwear posed in provocative
settings
5) Photos of children in underwear in a children's clothing
catalog
6) Photos of children in bathing wear romping around on the
beach
So how far down the slippery slope do you want to wander?
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:50PM|#
You go after mere possesion and lots of innocent people can
get caught up.
Lots? I mean, is it really all that difficult to avoid child porn?
Really?
And did I say anything about eliminating mens rea?
..|4.9.09 @ 3:51PM|#
Show of hands: any professional writers or composers on the
anti-property bandwagon?
Didn't think so. It's so easy to steal, less so to write a novel or
a symphony.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:51PM|#
We don't always agree on the moral standard, but when a supermajority does, it becomes a right.
I believe in the concept of natural rights: rights are something to
be discovered by a scientific process akin to the discovery of
other natural laws.
What you propose is just a slightly weaker form of tyranny of the
majority, which I wholly reject: e.g., if I am the only person in a
room of 100 supporting an individual right to listen to Megadeth
with headphones on, it is still my right to do so regardless of the
99-1 vote.
(And, for the record, I have paid for every Megadeth album. These
days, I consider it charity. :-) )
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 3:53PM|#
So how far down the slippery slope do you want to
wander?
Not all gray areas are slippery slopes, kinnath.
I'm really, really starting to see that so-called "first
principles" are really just self-granted latitude to be
intellectually lazy.
Free speech absolutism...hey, it's OK to reveal troop
movements!
I mean, guys, come on.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 3:55PM|#
So......abortion....is that a natural right or a government-created one?
This is one of those very clear grey areas, because it involves a
dispute between the mother and the unborn child that can't be
resolved because the child can't express its will, probably *has*
no will other than an innate survival instinct, has no
representation, and cannot bargain/compromise with the
plantiff.
I pass on all abortion arguments simply because I think there is no
good, clean resolution. OTOH, I think the intellectual property
issue is black and white, and a good litmus test for separating
actual libertarians from wannabe-libertarian statists.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 3:55PM|#
Show of hands: any professional writers or composers on the
anti-property bandwagon?
Engineer and avid supporter of intellectual property rights -- and
an even greater supporter of the fair use doctrine.
Current copyright law is fucked and is muddying the waters thereby
preventing rational discussion on the philosophical underpinnings
of intellectual property rights.
|4.9.09 @ 3:55PM|#
Lots? I mean, is it really all that difficult to avoid child
porn? Really?
Even one innocent person is too many.
But yes, sometimes it can be.
Lot's of stuff is mislabeled on the net. I know I have been
surprised to find something labeled as something innocent to turn
out to be video is borderline illegal stuff.
|4.9.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"Goalpost moving."
Is that what its called when you dodge the question?
"First, you said [Trademark] was for consumer protection, but
trademark violation suits and subsequent damages go to the holder
of the trademark."
So this is what passes for a quality response in your house? You
didn't even make an assertion, you just left the whole thing
implied. The problem with that, of course, is that you don't have
to go on record with what you believe, which leaves you free to
make up crap as you go along. You couldn't be bothered to answer my
question as to why you believe you are entitled to your mind-juice,
so why should you honestly answer anything else?
Seriously, is it your position that unless the damages go directly
to an unidentified mass of unknown people, the measure isn't a
"consumer protection" matter? (I don't recall saying it was a
consumer protection device. I said it was a source identifier.
Still, businesses are harmed when you palm off your goods as
somebody else's. Why WOULDN'T they get damages? After all, chances
are they policed the matter).
"I also brought up the fact that if I copy the formula and copy
the bottle, how is the consumer NOT protected? It's the same
product!"
OK, so if the MP3 that I download has a 1/2 second blip in the
middle, it isn't a copy, and therefore is legal?
|4.9.09 @ 3:57PM|#
Lots? I mean, is it really all that difficult to avoid child
porn? Really?
ALso, like I said earlier (a point which you sidestep repeatedly)
there are a LOT of Traci Lords material out there. Should everyone
be in jail who currently possesses it?
If not, why not? Especially since they now know that she was
underage.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Not all gray areas are slippery slopes, kinnath.
It's not all that grey.
Photgraphing the sexual abuse of a person to young to conset is
clearly a crime worthy of harsh punishment
Contracting someone to create the photographs is also part of
conspiracy to commit a crime.
A third party possessing the photographs years after the fact
should not be considered a crime.
See, nice and clear bright lines that anyone with normal
intelligence can follow.
|4.9.09 @ 3:59PM|#
I don't know, I've seen an awful lot of books titled "Calculus"...
crimethink,
Not to get into a dry discourse about trademark law, but not
everything can be trademarked. "Calculus" in reference to a book on
calculus is a descriptive or generic term, and is extraordinarily
difficult to get trademark protection on. Calculus, the perfume, on
the other hand, would be potentially protectable. There's also
issues about secondary meaning and all the other elements of
trademark litigation.
|4.9.09 @ 4:00PM|#
kinnath,
Not difficult: the stuff whose production involves children being
abused is the stuff it should be illegal to possess. So 2,3,5,6
should clearly be legal. 1 is obviously involving child abuse, 4 is
a gray area where details would be important (what kind of
"provocative environment" are you talking about).
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Oh, and child pornagraphy has become a very steep and very slippery slope.
High Every Body|4.9.09 @ 4:02PM|#
SF,
Anybody know where MNG is going to have seder dinner
tomorrow?
My guess first guess is Gaza.
Perhaps or someplace he likes better, like Mercury or Uranis.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 4:02PM|#
1 is obviously involving child abuse
I said minor, not child -- thinking sexting.
|4.9.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Two books titled, "The New Zealanders" not only had the same title, they were published on the same day. Also try "Book of the Dead". There are tons. "Fortunate Son" is another.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:03PM|#
ALso, like I said earlier (a point which you sidestep
repeatedly) there are a LOT of Traci Lords material out there.
Should everyone be in jail who currently possesses it?
Who knows? Like I said, I'm willing to talk policy and mitigation,
but we have to come to some common ground first. The existence of a
raft of problems does not mean that the policy isn't worth
pursuing.
Still, businesses are harmed when you palm off your goods as
somebody else's.
They're my goods, they just come in a red bottle labeled "Tide".
Why is Tide entitled to "The word + the bottle + the formula"...I
mean, my reproduction of it doesn't harm Tide any, just like the
reproduction of music.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:04PM|#
Photgraphing the sexual abuse of a person to young to conset
is clearly a crime worthy of harsh punishment
Woah, why? If I'm a third party photographer (i.e. not the abuser),
what have I done wrong?
High Every Body|4.9.09 @ 4:04PM|#
I hope you Apple computer users are proud of the mess you are supporting! Look and feel this!
|4.9.09 @ 4:06PM|#
"There's no quote here because The Angry Optimist
conveniently disregards the hard questions."
I would agree with that.
"They're my goods, they just come in a red bottle labeled
"Tide".
Which you are doing to defraud people into thinking your product
comes from the real Tide factory.
|4.9.09 @ 4:06PM|#
Not difficult: the stuff whose production involves children
being abused is the stuff it should be illegal to possess. So
2,3,5,6 should clearly be legal. 1 is obviously involving child
abuse, 4 is a gray area where details would be important (what kind
of "provocative environment" are you talking about).
The problem I have with possesion laws are that age of consent
varies country to country where much of this is produced. Something
legal in some places are illegal in others. And with the internet,
geography is no longer a barrier to the market place.
If something is legal in Japan and I get a download a copy of it on
the internet, should I go to jail?
|4.9.09 @ 4:07PM|#
kinnath,
Well under no circumstances do I think minors should be prosecuted
for possession or production of child pornography. As for adults,
it's going to make prosecution of true possessors of kiddie porn
too difficult if we allow an "I thought she took that picture
herself" defense.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:08PM|#
Lamar, if you can't figure out that my series of responses are an answer to your question, I can't help you. Simply following a discussion and figuring things out is a skill you have to learn on your own.
|4.9.09 @ 4:08PM|#
You can copy the Tide formula. You can tell people that your product is a Tide copy. You can probably even use an orange box. What you can't do is defraud people into thinking they are buying the Tide from the Tide factory when, in fact, they are buying "Tide" from the back of a van. Yeah, its exactly like copyright dude.
|4.9.09 @ 4:09PM|#
CT,
It's going to make prosecution of real offenders difficult if we
allow such exceptions. You then have to prove that the possessed
kiddie porn was produced in a jurisdiction where it was
illegal.
|4.9.09 @ 4:09PM|#
So an MP3 with a blip in the middle....is that a copy?
Why do you think you are entitled to the fruit of your mind?
Oh, there's so many others you dodged I can't keep count.
|4.9.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Lamar,
No. That's not how trademark works. All you have to do is attach
the name to your product and you're infringing.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:11PM|#
What you can't do is defraud people into thinking they are
buying the Tide from the Tide factory when, in fact, they are
buying "Tide" from the back of a van.
Uh, why? If it's the same formula, it IS Tide, for all intents and
purposes, so your consumer protection argument evaporates.
You can copy the Tide formula. You can tell people that your
product is a Tide copy. You can probably even use an orange
box.
Sounds like someone else is on the slippery slope. I can use the
formula, use the color of the box, but not the word "Tide"?
WTF?
|4.9.09 @ 4:11PM|#
I didn't dodge at all, Lamar. I said I my mind doesn't have any
fruit worth selling.
You're still dodging the question of why you think you should have
the right to the fruit of others' minds.
|4.9.09 @ 4:12PM|#
TAO: Why can't you answer a query directly (using the standard quotation in italics with response following)? Why do you have to answer questions with questions, and ask questions without directly stating what the question is? The only way you can make your case is by leading somebody down a 'gotcha' path? Well done.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:12PM|#
So an MP3 with a blip in the middle....is that a
copy?
Yes.
Why do you think you are entitled to the fruit of your
mind?
The same reason you're entitled to the fruits of your labor.
Oh, there's so many others you dodged I can't keep
count.
Petty argumentative devices are the last refuge of the thoroughly
drubbed.
|4.9.09 @ 4:13PM|#
It's going to make prosecution of real offenders difficult
if we allow such exceptions. You then have to prove that the
possessed kiddie porn was produced in a jurisdiction where it was
illegal.
Regardless of the effect on prosecution, if you think that someone
who obtains child porn from a place where it is legal should not be
prosecuted than you shouldn't have a problem with making the
government have to prove more to get a conviction. (That you did
not get it from a legit source).
If they are legitimate exceptions, then the fact that it makes
prosecutions harder is a feature not a bug, in my book.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Why do you have to answer questions with questions, and ask
questions without directly stating what the question is? The only
way you can make your case is by leading somebody down a 'gotcha'
path? Well done.
Dude, look who's talking! If your point is so bang-up awesome, you
should be able to apply it to real world situations. Dialectics and
Socratic methods are far more valuable than one or the other
getting to determine the debate.
|4.9.09 @ 4:16PM|#
"You're still dodging the question of why you think you
should have the right to the fruit of others' minds."
Well, to be fair, you didn't really answer the question of why you
believe others are entitled to the stuff that comes out of their
minds.
And, quite frankly, humans have been using the fruits of other
people's minds since the dawn of time. Is that too recent? Our
culture is founded upon the relatively (qualifier) free exchange of
ideas. Since IP is a relatively new concept, I believe the burden
of persuasion is on those advocating for the expansion of
restrictive laws. On an abstract level, IP laws restrict freedom
and should be justified. I would agree that there is some
justification on a utilitarian level. But most of the pro-IP
arguments are not based on utilitarian ideals.
|4.9.09 @ 4:16PM|#
TAO,
Don't forget, Proctor & Gamble spent a huge amount of money
building up that brand. It's not fair for you to be able to trade
off of that and to dilute the brand that way.
|4.9.09 @ 4:17PM|#
"So an MP3 with a blip in the middle....is that a
copy?"
So you would say that your version of Tide with a "blip" in the
middle (say, cyanide) would still be a copy of Tide?
|4.9.09 @ 4:18PM|#
If they are legitimate exceptions, then the fact that it
makes prosecutions harder is a feature not a bug, in my
book.
So when your kid gets raped and taped and the people who financed
those responsible get off because there's no evidence that your kid
wasn't taken to Japan and abused there, you'll be OK with that.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Don't artists and record labels spend vast amounts of money on writing, production, editing and distribution?
kinnath |4.9.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Well under no circumstances do I think minors should be
prosecuted for possession or production of child pornography. As
for adults, it's going to make prosecution of true possessors of
kiddie porn too difficult if we allow an "I thought she took that
picture herself" defense.
Since we've strayed so far from the topic of copyright.
The magic point is the age of consent, which is nearly impossible
to identify with certainty.
If a person can consent, then the presence of an audience and
recording devices is not relevant.
If a person cannot conset, then the sex is a crime. Acts associated
with that crime, such as recording the crime, can also be
crimes.
We are an extremely schizophrenic society when it comes to minors
and sex.
|4.9.09 @ 4:19PM|#
"The same reason you're entitled to the fruits of your
labor."
Why? Because you used the word "fruits" twice? Please. Connect the
dots for me.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Come on, Lamar. It's labor and product of the mind. Why are you entitled to the fruits of your physical labor?
|4.9.09 @ 4:21PM|#
"Don't artists and record labels spend vast amounts of money
on writing, production, editing and distribution?"
What Pro Libertate is talking about is a relatively recent
development in Trademark law that views the logos themselves as
valuable property as opposed to a source identifier. So, yes,
trademark law is now under the spell of industry lobbyists just
like the copyright industries. And yes, they all spend a lot of
money and make a compelling argument that they should be able to
recover their expenses.
|4.9.09 @ 4:23PM|#
If a person can consent, then the presence of an audience
and recording devices is not relevant.
Not true. Unless the filmed acts are done in public, there is an
expectation of privacy that must be explicitly waived. Otherwise it
would be totally legal to set up cameras in bathrooms and dressing
rooms.
If a person cannot conset, then the sex is a crime. Acts
associated with that crime, such as recording the crime, can also
be crimes.
And financing the crime...
|4.9.09 @ 4:25PM|#
I'm not the one saying we should make it as difficult as possible to prosecute child porn financers, kinnath.
|4.9.09 @ 4:26PM|#
"It's labor and product of the mind. Why are you entitled to
the fruits of your physical labor?"
I'm not sure I am. Try washing your neighbor's car then demanding
money. You might not be as entitled to the cash as you think.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 4:28PM|#
Not true. Unless the filmed acts are done in public, there
is an expectation of privacy that must be explicitly waived.
Otherwise it would be totally legal to set up cameras in bathrooms
and dressing rooms.
You're not capable of staying on point are you.
|4.9.09 @ 4:28PM|#
I'm not the one saying we should make it as difficult as
possible to prosecute child porn financers, kinnath.
you are being disingenuous....
it isn't about financiers...its about mere possesion.
But not only that...if something was legal and legitimately
produced in another country regardless of it's legality here, why
shouldn't I be able to buy it?
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Acts associated with that crime, such as recording the
crime, can also be crimes.
So if I record a drive-by shooting...?
you're betraying your own reductionist position. Logically
speaking, I would punish the photog and you would not...I mean,
mere photography is harmless, right?
|4.9.09 @ 4:30PM|#
I'm not sure I am. Try washing your neighbor's car then
demanding money. You might not be as entitled to the cash as you
think.
This isn't a good analogy for downloading music. The music doesn't
just appear on your hard drive, you have to seek it out.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 4:31PM|#
Acts associated with that crime, such as recording the
crime, can also be crimes.
Other person with focus issues.
I wouldn't call filming a drive-by to be an act associated with the
drive-by. A guy in the back seat taking video with mobile phone
would be an act associated with a drive-by.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:33PM|#
kinnath - perhaps you can stop the completely unwarranted derision (because you're only winning this argument in your own head, chumly) and actually tell me why it's logically consistent of you to punish the photog of child porn?
|4.9.09 @ 4:34PM|#
You're not capable of staying on point are you.
I wasn't aware I was supposed to be. When I see untruth I correct
it.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:34PM|#
A guy in the back seat taking video with mobile phone would
be an act associated with a drive-by.
A guy downloading music is participating in an act associated with
stealing music.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 4:37PM|#
A guy downloading music is participating in an act
associated with stealing music.
Let's see:
A guy buying a music download through iTunes is not stealing
music.
A guy visiting Pirate Bay to download an MP3 file probably knows he
is committing a copyright violation which I have previously stated
is not "theft" it is a copyright violation which may or may make
the person liable for civil damages.
|4.9.09 @ 4:37PM|#
"This isn't a good analogy for downloading music. The music
doesn't just appear on your hard drive, you have to seek it
out."
The Angry Optimist doesn't directly answer my questions either. I
have to seek them out. Notice how there was no answer to why mind
expressions are entitled to protection? All I got was "Socratic"
avoidance, philosophical questions and non-answers.
By contrast, I'll address your post directly. You're right. It was
a bad analogy for downloading music.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:38PM|#
I have previously stated is not "theft" it is a copyright
violation which may or may make the person liable for civil
damages.
This is what is known as "begging the question".
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Poor Lamar! I won't pay attention to him!
I haven't avoided anything; I drew an analogy between body laboring
and mind laboring.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 4:40PM|#
kinnath - perhaps you can stop the completely unwarranted
derision
Actually, I think you're not capable of adding 2 + 2 to get 4 or
your dishonest -- so the derision is quite warranted.
You repeatedly take off along tangents that have no bearing to the
point under discussion.
Crimethink on the other hand loves to lob inflammatory statements
into an otherwise civil conversation.
I am tired of both of you.
|4.9.09 @ 4:41PM|#
"Poor Lamar! I won't pay attention to him! I haven't avoided
anything; I drew an analogy between body laboring and mind
laboring."
You know who draws analogies? Tom Friedman.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:41PM|#
Then fuck off, dude. No one wants to hear you whine about how hard this is for you.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 4:42PM|#
This is what is known as "begging the question".
I change my position, you really are too stupid to understand the
difference between theft and copyright violations.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:42PM|#
You know who draws analogies? Tom Friedman.
uh...and? you know who makes non-sequiturs? you, dude.
MNG|4.9.09 @ 4:43PM|#
This is the kind of foolishness when people elevate property
rights into some kind of inherent "right" that can trump effects on
human welfare.
To the extent that the copyright laws allow the precise minimum
amount of protection to provide incentives for creators to foster
the maximum amount of innovation, they are justified. Otherwise
it's crazy nonsense.
|4.9.09 @ 4:45PM|#
"uh...and? you know who makes non-sequiturs? you,
dude."
Tom Friedman avoids any real analysis by overuse of analogies and
metaphor. His books end up being a mish-mash of unusable
observations, almost to an insulting level. FWIW.
MNG|4.9.09 @ 4:45PM|#
Oh look, lisencing law has made all our lives a less enjoyable,
but at least the "property rights" of record companies have been
protected! Thank God!
The dirty little sercret these Propertarians don't want out is they
want to use government coercion to enforce their "property rights."
Worse, they want to coerce everyone to support this coercion!
Because it's a right, or something.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:46PM|#
MNG, before you come one shotgun blasting asinine statements, read the goddamn thread.
|4.9.09 @ 4:47PM|#
Granted that protection of monopoly rights is granted to
"promote the progress of the sciences and the useful arts", I don't
think moving away from property rights is appropriate.
Incidentally, the European view is far more of a natural rights
view. Authors, even after selling their bundle of rights in a work,
retain what's called droit morale or moral rights to
protect their works in certain ways.
MNG|4.9.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Speaking of property TAO, re: property interest in employment
that is expected to continue, I think you left the other day at the
Churchill thread before you got my free law school lesson of the
day:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0593_ZS.html
What is that law school teaching (or rather not teaching) you?
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 4:50PM|#
I am tired of both of you.
I'm surprised it took you so long. I think you've made your point;
at least, I understand the argument you're making, even though we
disagree on the extent to which government should be in the
business of creating artificial monopolies.
Whenever I get into one of these situations, I always wonder, "Am I
behaving the same way as these guys, and I just can't tell?"
Am I?
IMO, my viewpoint on this matter is very simple, and when I review
my posts I find myself simply reiterating it over and over and over
again, which generally involves poking holes in the attempts of
others to provide counterexamples or counterarguments. I suspect
some people just find it infuriating, but is their
reaction---recalcitrance and condescension---just the dual of the
pleasure I derive from poking those holes in the first place?
Anyway: navel-gazing. Carry on.
MNG|4.9.09 @ 4:51PM|#
If stricter downloading measures would make our lives less
enjoyable overall, then they are wrong and to be opposed.
Of course one would be a fool to not take into account that
incentives should be provided for creators. But their "right" to it
shouldn't be the measure of their protections.
But, of course, I think that way about most property...
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:53PM|#
AFAICT, that case just says the guy should have had a chance to
litigate on the issues, and that *maybe* he has a Fourteenth
Amendment case.
Also, I didn't say anything in there about your laughable assertion
that firing someone constitutes an illegal "taking" a la the Fifth
Amendment.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 4:54PM|#
your thoughtless Act Utilitarianism is so boring, MNG. try some creativity.
MNG|4.9.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Of course, forcing the IP providers to take this action seemed a
bit much too.
I mean, how is the libertarian to work that out: can the government
tell car salesmen not to sell cars to speeders?
MNG|4.9.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Ah, but I didn't say anything about takings, did I? I said Due
Process bro. Go back and look it up.
You concoted a bullshit argument in your head. When it comes to the
valuable lawyer's skill of trying to see things as your opponent
sees things so you can construct your counter argument you fail on
the first part, and thus the second.
Ward S. Denker|4.9.09 @ 4:58PM|#
"one of the reasons libertarianism never gets anywhere is
because of the high level of pendactic[sic] assholes" -
KG
It's of particular amusement to the pedants among us that you
managed to misspell pedantic.
When it comes to a discussion of the Constitution or the rule of
law then we must be pedantic. Poorly-worded laws or laws
based on ill-conceived concepts are frequently abused. There's a
reason legal jargon can be so difficult to follow (and still not
cover only the original intent of the law), you know?
MNG|4.9.09 @ 5:00PM|#
The New Property movement is perhaps the biggest development in
administrative law in the past few decades. How the fuck did your
profs miss that one?
The case said that a claim could lie for someone with an expected
continuance of employment. And it creates a property interest which
cannot be taken without due process.
You lose.
Yeah, act utilitarianism, which dominates philosophy depts across
the nation, is a second rate school of thought. Not like
objectivism of course!
MNG|4.9.09 @ 5:01PM|#
The funny thing was you arrogantly talking about a laugh test,
when you apparently did not know the area of law, a major
revolution several decades old.
Takings, hahahahaha!
The last laugh was on you my friend...
:-(|4.9.09 @ 5:07PM|#
We can all thank MNG for killing a thread that had played out, but didn't know it.
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 5:08PM|#
I think we should have given up a few hours ago: continuing to jack off after you start to bleed is nothing but painful.
Warty|4.9.09 @ 5:09PM|#
Jesus, what a fucking snooze-fest this thread turned out to be. Fuck you, philosophy geeks.
|4.9.09 @ 5:10PM|#
I think we should have given up a few hours ago: continuing
to jack off after you start to bleed is nothing but
painful.
Unless you are a masochist...at which point it finally becomes
pleasurable :)
squarooticus|4.9.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Unless you are a masochist...at which point it finally becomes pleasurable :)
Let me channel Warren:
Doom
DOOM
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Sean W. Malone|4.9.09 @ 5:16PM|#
So...
I actually wrote a rather lengthy post about this
just a few days ago. Sorry for jumping in a little late, but here's
a point I would like to make about all this.
"I recently downloaded and watched a pirated copy of a film, I won't say which one because I would rather not get sued. I'm a big ol' hypocrite - sure... Ok, but did I actually harm the makers of said film? Well... I would say... No.
Why? For two specific reasons...
First: Because I was *never* one of their customers and never would be. I had no intention of seeing the film in theatres, no intention of renting it or buying it on DVD and no intention even of watching it on TV if and when it came on. Why did I watch it? Because it was available for free and I wanted something mindless on in the background while I was working on some other projects. If it hadn't have been available... It wouldn't have mattered to me in the slightest.
Second: Because I did not, by downloading a copy, reduce the physically available supply of the film, thus preventing someone from buying or renting that movie if they had wanted to. The age of the internet and infinitely copyable content results in infinite abundance and unfortunately for some - infinitely reduced value in certain cases. I didn't want to see the movie in the theatre, and I didn't even care if I got a good copy... I really couldn't have cared less about the thing at all except that at the click of a button it was available, it did not *take away* from anyone else and I could fulfill my momentary desire to have some brainless entertainment playing as background noise.
In addition to that, I might also note that I did not do the pirating - that is kind of a technicality, sure, but I signed nor agreed to (by purchasing the film) implicitly any provisions on the particular film's viewing.
Now... The salient point here is that the MPAA would claim that someone like me would have gone to see the movie in the theatre or paid to rent the film if I hadn't been able to download it - this is patently untrue. And I suspect I'm not alone in this behavior... To declare damages, of course, the MPAA/RIAA would declare me as having been someone who would buy the product, but who decided to take it instead. If you multiply this by every single person who downloads movies & music, etc., you'd come up with the kinds of figures those organizations cite when trying to get laws passed. But the truth, I believe, is that they are claiming potential customers that they never had and never will have. Thus it's a largely fictitious loss in revenue!"
Mostly, I've read through so much of Crimethink's points that my
head is hurting.
When you sneak into a movie theatre, you're trespassing. The
theatre isn't a "public" space, it's a private business which
requires that you buy a ticket to sit in their seats. A barber's
labor does cost something, furthermore, so did his scissors, his
chair and the shop itself, so not paying him for his service is
also a violation of contract. For someone named "crimethink", the
kid really hasn't spent much time thinking about what constitutes
crime.
Now - with that said, when we get into a position where people are
copying & distributing MP3s, the difference is obviously that
once a copy is made, the original remains. In the example I quoted
above - I neither stole any physical property (and thus prevented
it from being sold to someone who wished to buy it) nor did I agree
to any license agreements by purchasing the original DVD and
copying it against the FBI warning, etc. Sure, I watched it - but
from the user-end perspective, I might as well have been watching
TV or Hulu... If someone on Hulu had posted a video illegally and I
watched it - would I also be held liable? No. Of course not.
I'm not advocating theft here, or contract violations - but we have
to recognize that the violators are the initial pirates, not the
viewers. Sorry for the way long post.
|4.9.09 @ 5:40PM|#
User infringement should be actionable, but not at the level of
an infringing distributor. The real issue to me is the level of
liability. If grandma watches Casablanca on-line through
an unlicensed web site, she should only be liable for a small
amount--maybe the retail price or something related to that
price.
The web site, on the other hand, should be liable for more, because
it's distributing the entire work and directly impinging on the
distribution rights of (and the economic benefit to) the copyright
holder.
Movies, of course, are a bigger deal than songs, which are a bigger
deal than digital images, and so on.
One thing I think would help, besides getting liability and
duration in line with reason, is to make fair use more clear. If
something falls within a fair use safe harbor (and there isn't
really much of a safe harbor today), then not only is it not
infringement, but the fair use is immune to litigation, period. Big
copyright owners tend to really overreach their rights, even in
today's environment, by suing everyone and forcing small users into
submission through the threat of expensive litigation. One way to
ensure that is to impose damages (including fees, etc.) for suits
against people who fall within the safe harbor. Of course, defining
and creating such a safe harbor is no easy task. Fair use today is
whatever the judge you're appearing before thinks it is.
I always get irked when someone who uses a work for parody gets
sued. They should be immune to suits; otherwise, parody is dead
except for rich people and organizations that can afford expensive
defenses. Or for people who get permission to create the parody,
which is simply ridiculous.
The Angry Optimist|4.9.09 @ 6:07PM|#
Well thank goodness you don't have the power to take from
someone a property interest (which one has when they have a
contracted for job as Churchill had) with such a view. But for me,
I think due process is warranted before deprivation of
property.
I agree we don't need such standards to decide, as a matter of
public opinion and concern that Churchill is a silly fool. But in
order for a body to take a property interest of his, or anyone, I
demand a little more... - MNG
So, yes, MNG, you said something about takings AKA deprivation of
property.
So quit lying and fuck off.
The Angry Optimist |4.9.09 @ 6:08PM|#
Yeah, act utilitarianism, which dominates philosophy depts
across the nation, is a second rate school of thought.
Your utilitarianism is boring, old, and you apply like a robot
without defining important terms.
|4.9.09 @ 7:00PM|#
here's a point I would like to make about all this.
... Because I was *never* one of their customers and never would
be.
... Because I did not, by downloading a copy, reduce the physically
available supply of the film
How incisive! What novel points! Thanks for contributing arguments
that have never, ever been made during the decade-long downloading
debate!
MNG|4.9.09 @ 7:15PM|#
Oh Jesus TAO, you're pretty sad today. There is no reference to
an action under the takings clause, which you thought I was
claiming, since you don't know the relevant case law obviously. You
thought that, and now try pitifully to back that up, because I said
used the word "take" in reference to Churchill's property interest
in his job. Not knowing the area of law I was talking about, which
concerns deprivation of property interests in things like
entitlements and employment without Due Process being a violation
of the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th you assumed, because
it was the best you could imagine in your ignorance of the area,
that I must be referring to a Takings clause case. That I was
talking about the line of precedents from Perry would be evident to
any fool who knew the relevant law ("property interest", "due
process is warranted before deprivation of property"). I mean, if
it were a Takings case then they could fire him as long as the gave
him just compensation and so any wrongful termmination of a
government employee would be solved by that. That's
hilarious.
Just fess up, you didn't know what you were talking about. And
speaking of that:
"Your utilitarianism is boring, old, and you apply like a robot
without defining important terms."
You don't know much about utilitarianism, how to refute it (you
hilariously think that Rule Utilitarianism refutes Act
Utilitarianism!), or meta-ethics in general. And for you to accuse
someone of not defining important terms, Holy Snikey!
Of course your initial snark was about my reference to his
employment as property. And now you know how the Supreme Court
finds that to be property my friend, so you can thank me later for
teaching you what your law school failed to...
|4.9.09 @ 9:15PM|#
"Then there are the opportunity costs in writing the songs,
folks. If you're not going to let someone profit from their mental
labor, then why would they engage in it?"
The problem with this argument is that it assumes "profit" as
necessarily a monetary one. Or to put it simply, it assumes music
did not exist before people started selling recordings of it.
People will continue to play music for its own enjoyment even if
they can't make any money doing it.
|4.9.09 @ 9:24PM|#
Also our laws are such that Copyright protection is extended
much farther for the established and powerful entities then it is
for the small. For example:
ESPN's Baseball Statistics Site
They clearly didn't ask me, nor are the paying me for use of my
statistic. Is this a violation? How should I know? Could I prove
monetary damages? Probably not. Do I have the means to threaten
them anyway? No.
And yet at the end of the day, my giving my knowledge away for free
led to a much wider dissemination of it than would have been
possible had I tried to hoard it. It just doesn't seem to me that
dividing two numbers or an arrangement of quarter and half notes
resembles actual property near enough to be treated the same way as
a plot of real estate.
How far inside another human being's mind do your property rights
extend?
Kevin Carson|4.9.09 @ 10:55PM|#
Kinnath: The problem with contractually-based copyright lies in third party enforcement. What's more, even enforcement against a contracting party would be way, WAY more costly using ordinary common law mechanisms. No legally mandated DRM, no criminalization of speech about how to circumvent DRM, no intrusive surveillance... In other words, contractual establishment of copyright would be theoretically feasible, but utterly unenforceable in practice. Hell, it's unenforceable now for anyone who knows how to use encryption and proxy servers.
MJ|4.9.09 @ 11:19PM|#
"The precise reason why sequences of bits are not property is
that they can be transferred from person to person without the
knowledge of and without any cost to the creator."
I am an engineer, my life's work consists of writing and drawing
construction documents that are developed and stored on computer.
It's rather disturbing to think how many that a project that my
company puts out, which I have put in weeks or months of man-hours
into, ultimately have no real value because mental work has no
worth property. We people who work with our brains, what are we
putting out all this effort for now, anyway?
Sorry, but the idea that intellectual property should not be
epically fails on so many levels.
MJ|4.9.09 @ 11:31PM|#
"I'm not advocating theft here,..."
Yes, you are. If you come by the content from a source that you
know or at least assume was obtained without the consent of the
originator or his distributor, then you an accomplice to the
orginal theft. Perhaps you have legal plausible deniability, but
you have still participated in an act of stealing.
MJ|4.9.09 @ 11:36PM|#
Ultimately, if all created information is not property and is treated accordingly, the only people who will bother creating content are altruistic amatuers.
kinnath|4.9.09 @ 11:48PM|#
Ultimately, if all created information is not property and
is treated accordingly, the only people who will bother creating
content are altruistic amatuers.
Trade secrets my friends, and a return to the guild system where
leaking information is punishable by death . . I miss the middle
ages ;-)
|4.10.09 @ 3:52AM|#
"Ultimately, if all created information is not property and is
treated accordingly, the only people who will bother creating
content are altruistic amatuers."
And how far would you like to extend this? Do the descendants of
Pythagoras get a cut every time someone calculates the length of
the hypotenuse? How exactly can you claim dominion over someone
else's knowledge once they are in possession of it, just because
you possessed it first? You want to un-ring a bell.
To me the concept of "intellectual property" is an enormous
infringement on personal liberty, the 1st amendment in particular.
If you want to make money off an idea, keep your mouth shut about
it until you cash in. If you have no way of cashing in without
telling everybody who will listen, then you take your
chances...
MJ|4.10.09 @ 7:33AM|#
That does not answer the question of what creator of quality will bother to put much time, effort and resources into an intellectual product that people like you insist they have an absolute right to steal?
ed|4.10.09 @ 7:57AM|#
To me the concept of "intellectual property" is an enormous
infringement on personal liberty
HA HA HA, what a set of balls. Somebody who has never created
anything of worth thinks he has a right to the property of those
who have. Without those creators you'd still be listening to
crickets and tribal music for entertainment.
dhex|4.10.09 @ 9:22AM|#
"Ultimately, if all created information is not property and is
treated accordingly, the only people who will bother creating
content are altruistic amatuers."
i don't think so. the drive to be seen, to be acclaimed, to be
heard...it's really fucking strong. absurdly, even.
dhex|4.10.09 @ 9:28AM|#
"The dirty little sercret these Propertarians don't want out is
they want to use government coercion to enforce their "property
rights." Worse, they want to coerce everyone to support this
coercion! Because it's a right, or something."
you know, i am down with pointing out the absurd excesses of
certain copyright holders in turning a decent idea into mickey
mouse behind a wall of steel and lawyers (also made out of steel)
and the state (largely steel-based, or steal-based, depending on
your biases), but this is pretty dumb, too.
if i start stealing your shoes off your feet (my favorite example)
you're probably going to object, because it would be very
uncomfortable and lord knows you need your shoes to get where
you're going. if you resist are you coercing my coercion away?
durr, no.
|4.10.09 @ 9:47AM|#
"Somebody who has never created anything of worth thinks he
has a right to the property of those who have."
So the validity of intellectual property depends on whether it
creates 'worth' or not?
|4.10.09 @ 10:15AM|#
Personally, I like the idea of rich authors. Without somewhat
strong IP, the only people who would get rich would be first-time
publishers of a work. How capitalists can want to gut IP because
they want to download free music and movies is beyond me. It's only
right that someone be able to own exclusively their creative works
for some limited amount of time.
Like I mentioned above, the European view tends towards recognizing
certain inherent (i.e., natural) rights in the artist to his works,
so this isn't solely a property discussion. Also, just because IP
rights are constitutionally or statutorily created doesn't make
them less valid than, say, real property rights, which were created
as we view them today in the common law.
|4.10.09 @ 11:18AM|#
Crimethink on the other hand loves to lob inflammatory
statements into an otherwise civil conversation.
Coming from the guy who's calling anyone who disagrees with him
"stupid or dishonest", you'll forgive me if I'm not concerned with
your opinion on my alleged incendiarity.
In any case, I'd think claiming that the right to wank to
foreign-made kiddie porn is important enough that we should make it
next to impossible to lock up those who finance child pornography
here in the US, is pretty gosh darn incendiary as well.
|4.10.09 @ 7:28PM|#
"HA HA HA, what a set of balls. Somebody who has never created
anything of worth thinks he has a right to the property of those
who have."
You could make an argument that several different businesses have
profited by many millions of dollars through my efforts.
The point remains, once I learn a particular piece of information,
what exactly is "libertarian" about letting the person who learned
it first restrict my use of it?
I think applying that to recordings of other people's music might
be a stretch, but I think forcing bars and clubs to pay dues to a
song writers union just so other bands can play covers is pretty
much right on point. So is making it _illegal_ to plagiarize rather
than simply something that makes you a pariah.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245