Two Decades of Attempts to Enforce Copyright
Over at Ars Technica, Reason contributor Tim Lee has an excellent brief summary of the last twenty years worth of attempts to use legislation and the court system system to protect copyright. Lowlights include the increasing copyright infringement fines in 1997; the passage of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, which gave copyright owners effective control over the design of playback devices; the music industry forcing an early cloud music service out of business and pursuing legal action against a DVD jukebox manufacturer for violating the DMCA; and the 2008 passage of the PRO-IP act, which gave way to a series of domestic Internet domain seizures beginning in 2010. In other words, legislators have bought into the industry's digital piracy panic and given copyright owners all sorts of legal powers and enforcement help over the years. But as we saw with the recent debate over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the film and music industries are continuing to demand more legal power and government protection, arguing that they can't compete without it—despite evidence suggesting that these industries are in many ways doing fine.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I still don't see how downloading 26 songs equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to the music industry.
1) It doesn't, by itself.
2) You don't understand ethics.
a) You don't understand property rights.
So, what am I missing?
Nothing.
Plus doesnt understand natural law.
The right to life and property is the most fundamental of natural laws.
Agreed. But intellectual "property" is not property.
The fundamental law is I own myself. And all products of my brain. ALL. Even those someone else thought of first.
property rights? please read some Kinsella
He also doesn't understand civil suits, or the legal system in general
I still don't understand how a few million people each stealing a few dollars out of your bank account would make you broke. I mean, it's just a couple dollars. Not a big deal, right?
I wouldn't find 1 person and make them pay back every dollar that was stolen from me, either.
What if you wanted to make an example that you are not to be fucked with?
I'd just shoot the bastard
Don't give the MPAA any ideas.
Copyright infringement is infringement, it is not theft. It is not piracy. It is not like theft or piracy. It is not analogous to theft or piracy. Anyone who uses those terms or makes that type of analogy is a moran of the highest order.
+1
Anyone who uses those terms or makes that type of analogy is a moran of the highest order.
Joez Law?
No, not at all.
I spelled it exactly right.
Maybe you should "get a brain".
[that was a hint]
I think it was intentional.
u tell em comrade!
Whatever you think about IP, this is a crucial point. IP is not property the same way as real property is and infringement on IP is not the same as stealing. It just isn't. Copyrights may be a great idea, but that doesn't mean that copyright infringement is stealing. Because it isn't.
That's how YOU choose to define property, but not how the law does. IP is property, and taking it for personal use without permission of the owners is still theft.
Taking your car out for a joyride without your permission and returning it before you know it's gone doesn't mean I didn't steal your car.
I still don't see how downloading 26 songs equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to the music industry.
Isn't it obvious? Without pirating, the price of a CD would still be at its 1983 price of about $21.50, times the 26 CDs full of crap they would have spread those few good songs on, times the 9 other albums you would have had to purchase first by each of those 26 bands to ever get to the good songs... And never mind, I still can't get there.
All of which is made irrelevant by the fact that you can buy just the songs you want in mp3 format from many place online now.
Shhhh! Don't wake the baby! Thinking is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!
I'm bringing back my ray gun argument.
Suppose I have a ray gun that can make and exact duplicate of anything I shoot with it. So, if I shoot a flat screen TV with it, an exact duplicate of that TV is created. I take home the duplicate and use it. Have I stolen anything from anyone?
It's the same principle here. These are electronic codes that are duplicated and distributed. Now, if someone sold these duplicated distributions without permission from the copyright holder, I could see why there is a problem. However, if someone kept them for their own personal use or free distribution, it is not theft.
There's a plumber in town who is the only game in town. I hired him once to fix some clogged drains, and I watched closely to see exactly how he unclogged them and fixed whatever else was wrong with the pipes. Later, when the same thing happens, I do the repairs myself. Then, a neighbor informs me that he has similar problems, and I use the knowledge I gained by observing the plumber to repair my neighbor's pipes and charge him nothing. Or suppose, I charge him a nominal fee. Have I somehow stolen from the plumber? Well, I'm sure the state would get mad that I was plumbing without a license.
Here's how I see it, this is just my opinion:
I take home the duplicate and use it. Have I stolen anything from anyone?
Now that you have a duplicate of my TV design without having paid for it you have "stolen" the price of one TV from me. I use the quotes because while you haven't actually taken something physical from me, you have removed my ability to make a sale.
Now, if someone sold these duplicated distributions without permission from the copyright holder, I could see why there is a problem. However, if someone kept them for their own personal use or free distribution, it is not theft.
Why is it alright to take something and redistribute it for free but not alright to charge for it? As in the example above, every person you distribute the product to, including yourself, takes away my ability to make a sale.
Now as I see it, I should have the right to take you to a civil court to recoup the lost sales and that's it. I'm not arguing for the right of some third party to make an example of you by bankrupting you.
I completely disagree. If I gathered up the materials myself and made and exact duplicate of your product for my own personal use, that is not stealing. Many skilled crafstmen could do that with furniture, fixtures, and any number of things. Just because someone makes an exact copy of your work for their own enjoyment does not mean that you are owed anything for it.
and, whose to say I would have actually BOUGHT your TV? You did not lose any sale if I had no desire to buy your actual TV.
and, whose to say I would have actually BOUGHT your TV? You did not lose any sale if I had no desire to buy your actual TV.
If you wouldn't have bought one then why do you have one? You obviously saw something in the design that made you want one, the fact that you actually made the copy proves it. If you could make the TV yourself, why didn't you? Did you only want it because you have the ability to make a cost free copy of it?
Who's to say the copy was cost free? I obviously had some cost in making the ray gun. Also, matter can neither be created no destroyed. Therefore, I had to have some materials somewhere that I used to transform some matter into something else (think of the replicators in Star Trek).
Oh, and by the way, who's to say I would not have bought a competitor's TV? Perhaps they are relatively the same, but I have a lot of the same brand name stuff in my house. Your TV is more expensive than the competitors. Normally, I would have bought theirs to save money, but I have this nifty little device that just allows me to make an exact duplicate of yours for my own personal use. Or, maybe I did buy your TV but I wanted another for my lakeside cabin, so I used my nifty little ray gun to make an exact duplicate to take to my lakeside cabin. I could just transport my TV back and forth all the time, but that poses risks and hassels. I would be easier for me just to make the copy.
Do my motives actually matter? It still has the same effect. I made an exact duplicate of your TV for my own personal use.
I see a serious problem with your argument. Your assumption that by duplicating the television, I am stealing a sale from you doesn't hold because it's based on the assumption that if I couldn't have duplicated the TV myself, I would have bought one from you. That's not necessarily true. You don't have a sale until there is a transaction- you can't claim ownership or entitlement to potential future sales that may or may not happen. This idea is also anti-competitive. What if I were to decide to open up a tv sales business in the same town as you, and some tv customers opt to buy from me instead of you? Am I then liable for "stealing" your ability to make those sales, too? What if I sell my TV on ebay? Applying the logic in your argument, I would be liable to you for "stealing" potential sales because it's assumed that, if the buyer hadn't purchased my TV off ebay, he would have bought it from you. Can you see the fatal flaw there?
With the case of music and movies and whatnot, once I buy it, I should own it outright. I should own my copy- I don't own the original, I own a copy of the original. If I sell it to someone else, he doesn't own the original either, he owns a copy of a copy. What I choose to do with the copy I bought is my business, and has no effect on the originator of the music or movie in question.
I am trying to understand your position, see my question to robc below regarding this very thing.
I get that you don't consider bits floating around the Internet to be property. I'm curious though where you draw the line.
Isn't it a little hypocritical for Sony to sell an artist's album, then turn around and sell computers that let you rip the songs off your cd and store them on your hard drive and then turn around again and burn them to a new cd?
while you haven't actually taken something physical from me, you have removed my ability to make a sale.
Now as I see it, I should have the right to take you to a civil court to recoup the lost sales and that's it.
I used to have a printing company. I sold it because our sales were getting squeezed by people printing their own work on their PCs. While they haven't actually taken something physical from me, PCs have removed my ability to make a sale. Should I be able to sue Micro$oft? HP? Adobe? Millions of users?
Were your printing services free? Why not? If you sold it, the business still had value to someone that could make it work.
Did Microsoft, HP, Adobe, millions of users start doing exactly what you were doing exactly the same way you were doing it? If so, why did they bother doing it themselves when they could have just kept going to you for the same cost?
The problem in this case is, the end product is not an exact duplicate of what you were providing. You're trying to work the sale angle and just ended beating up a straw man.
If you sold it, the business still had value to someone that could make it work.
Someone who thought he could make it work. He's holding on, losing money and waiting for the economy to turn. (He approached me with an offer, by the way. I didn't go trying to sell it to him.)
Did Microsoft, HP, Adobe, millions of users start doing exactly what you were doing exactly the same way you were doing it?
Did Sony make their TVs with a Duplicator Ray? No.
The problem in this case is, the end product is not an exact duplicate of what you were providing.
Actually, we were capable of every exact process home users have available, and much more. The spectrum our end products in fact included exactly what they were capable of.
You're trying to work the sale angle and just ended beating up a straw man.
No, I answered your exact arguments. If your arguments are straw men, that's not my fault.
In the U.S., the whole point of IP law is based on creating an incentive system to "promote the progress of the science and the arts."
And the reason that phrase had to be included was that IP isnt part of natural law.
If it was, the property rights wouldnt be limited in duration.
Perhaps. I don't think it's that easy to parse what is and isn't "natural law." Also, I believe that European copyright law tends to operate more on a natural rights theory, that artists have inherent rights in their creations. Which is why droit moral is so much stronger there than here.
In any case, providing an incentive is the justification for patent and copyright protection in the U.S. Note, too, that the wording of the Copyright Clause is permissive:
So, Congress could legally and constitutionally repeal all statutes relating to copyright and patents. Trademarks are a little trickier, as state ("common law") protection of trademarks would remain if the feds got out of that business.
Another thing to keep in mind is that while copyright protection is something Congress can provide but doesn't have to, it's prohibited from making laws impinging on the freedom of speech. Which is why we're supposed to have fair use.
The limit in duration is because the government is granting a monopoly. I don't think there was any question that there was a right to make intellectual property claims; the Founders just wanted to make sure that a federal monopoly had limits. It's a classic legal doctrine not to like grants than run perpetually.
Deeds are granted by the state, but they run perpetually.
The idea is that I can't make a grant perpetual. The next owner can sell or give away the property. It's basically done to keep property alienable.
I don't find the "forever" part a compelling definition of what's a natural right.
I tend to agree with Matrix.
But if you have that ray gun, I don't think you really need to care what anyone else thinks about what you do with it.
If we ever do get replicators, we'll likely be paying licensors for the code for whatever it is we're replicating. After all, someone has to figure out the molecular basis, etc. of the object to program the replicator.
My ray gun can make duplicates of organic matter, but that matter would not be alive. So I could not make a living, breathing duplicate of a duck. But I could duplicate a roasted duck.
If only my ray gun did allow for living, breathing duplicates. My house would be full of duplicates of many hot starlets.
ive never understood the libertarian objection to intellectual property laws.
It's not that there are laws, it's that they go so far overboard as to become insane. At least, that's how I see it.
ive never understood the libertarian objection to intellectual property laws.
Physical property is based on scarcity. Two people can't eat the same apple and each eat a whole apple. No such thing exists with ideas. A second person learning an idea doesn't deprive the first. Two people can think about how to charcoal a steak without one of them suddenly not being able to complete the thought. A file plays without shutting down the copy of it on another PC.
The concept of intellectual property is supposed to be about giving a relatively narrow, limited-time monopoly on a new idea for the originator to profit from it, thus encouraging innovation. After that time it's supposed to revert to the public domain. But that isn't how it's being used anymore. Monopoly times are extended longer, quasi-governmental powers are growing and abuses are rampant.
When I was a child it was a common thing for the artist with a string of hit songs or movies to get very little compared to the record and movie companies. The ability of the entertainment companies to keep the lion's share was an artifact of the available technology of an earlier era. As radio and TV sound improved, those companies worried about losing money that way.
Now the available technologies can cut out the traditional entertainment companies completely. Why shouldn't we let a new entertainment paradigm grow out of it? I don't see anybody mourning for the profits of manufacturers of 78 gramophones.
"The concept of intellectual property is supposed to be about giving a relatively narrow, limited-time monopoly on a new idea for the originator to profit from it, thus encouraging innovation. After that time it's supposed to revert to the public domain."
_
so ur objection is the length of protected time?...and not the concept of intellectual property itself?
While I don't think that IP infringement is stealing, I don't think that IP protection is completely inappropriate either. But I do have a big problem with the length of copyright now. It should certainly not last longer than the life of the author (I'd limit it to a maximum number of years myself). An artist should have rights to his creation, but his descendants or the corporation he founded shouldn't be able to keep those rights forever.
Unlike natural rights, intellectual property "rights" are based strictly on the premise that it works to encourage innovation. There is good reason to doubt that, especially as the time lengthens and coverage widens to works that are similar but not the same. It can impede other innovation. "Sampling" caused big fights a few decades ago. "The Wind Done Gone" caused another. There are examples in patents as well.
We've got all these SWAT teams sitting around scratching their nuts all day; we should start sending them out to shut down the organized crime menace of garage bands stealing music from its rightful owners. Hell, I bet the bands playing Rush covers live in bars haven't paid a penny in royalties.
And while they (the SWATters) are in there, they can "investigate" the crimes of underage drinking and drug possession.
The bands dont owe Rush anything. The bar, on the other hand, does. It is their responsibility to pay ASCAP and the other two.
And it is enforced, if a bar semi-regularly has a cover band, they are paying the fee.
I know of a bar that only hires bands that do originals, for this reason.
And ASCAP is a total cluster fuck that sucks in millions and rarely pays the actual artists. No one really knows how ASCAP distributes money. They have been ripping off artists for years. They are just a criminal gang that goes around shaking down bars and anyone else they can find.
I hadnt heard that. I know the record companies are horrible about paying the artists, but I thought the licensing agencies were pretty good. How they split it up, is in question, but not that they pay out. At least, that was my understanding.
You have any links suggesting otherwise, would be interested.
It is a totally convoluted system for payment. Here is a good explanation.
http://www.mosesavalon.com/mos.....bmi-sesac/
I knew it was convoluted. That is interesting, but the point is not to avoid them, but to wait until you have something big enough to be tracked and get you in the payout pool before joining.
I have some friends that are in a marginally popular band. Back when they were going "major label" in 1994, ASCAP and BMI representatives started to show up. In my recollection, they were kind of shady guys. To the point where conversations got to, "that's a nice band you got there, it'd be a shame if something happened to it."
at which point one renames the band "9mm".
Not a traditional SWAT force (from what I see in the video), but Utah has a strikeforce that targets copyright terrorists. The MPAA even gave them an award.
Illegal downloading killed Whitney Houston.
Literally.
Who knew? One-note Whitney was pushed underwater under the accumulated weight of the bit buckets!
Should anybody who recites the Lord's Prayer send ten cents to the Pope?
Yes
The Pope didn't write it.
VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR!
This is how stupid this has become. A women I work with daughter is in her high school production of Annie. Of course, this being the age of the cell phone video, all of the parents showed up to the first performance with the video cameras ready. The school made everyone turn in their cameras in order to enter the auditorium. Why? Because a couple of years ago, when films of the school's productions started showing up on Youtube courtesy of proud parents, the school received a nasty cease and desist letter from who the owners of the rights to the work they were performing. Thus, no more recording like it was a Led Zeppelin concert or something.
That is where we are with this shit. Parents can't video their kids' school plays. It is not that there is anything wrong with IP. It is that IP has now become a tool for authoritarian control.
Parents can't video their kids' school plays.
If they stopped feeling like they needed to share their precious flower's performance with the world it might not have come to that.
No, that doesn't excuse the assholishness of the MPAA and related groups. But fucking-A I'm sick of people thinking their kids are the darlings of the world.
Who gives a shit if they want to video their kids. Maybe the kid is really good. And maybe grandma is too technically inept to download the file and it is easier just to put it on youtube.
I don't think filming your kid's school play and torturing the relatives with it constitutes thinking your kid is the darling of the world.
Obviously the MPAA gives a shit and is in a position to do something about it. Now because some proud mommy couldn't keep her pride in her child to herself every other parent is robbed of the ability to collect memories.
No people are robbed of memories because the MPAA is a bunch of assholes. You blaming the wrong people.
For crying out loud John, read the second part of my original response. Yes, the MPAA is a bunch of assholes. However, without the parents broadcasting their pride to the world they never would have gotten involved. Yes, it was a dick move for the MPAA to even get involved but thanks to our current legal system it is their right to do so.
It's not like anybody's actually watching the Farnham Middle School production of Equus, anyway.
apparently MPAA was
I'll be in my bunk.
I would challenge that under the First Amendment.
It is not that there is anything wrong with IP. It is that IP has now become a tool for authoritarian control.
I agree with your latter statement, but your former is wrong.
I don't have a problem with IP. If I write something I should be able to sell it. But, there should be some limit.
If I write something I should be able to sell it.
No one is arguing otherwise.
The question of IP is whether *I* should be able to sell it. Or give it away.
If I wrote it, it is mine. You shouldn't be able to sell it.
If I write it, it is mine. Even if you wrote it first.
This isn't about whether you "wrote" it, its about whether you copied it. There's a difference.
No there isnt, my labor and creativity went into it either way.
Well, I actually do have a problem with someone selling someone else's work without permission.
What I mean by that is...
If a person buys a book from the book store, then they make Xerox copies of that book and sells the copies, I do have a problem.
Now, of course, if said person buys a book and later sells that copy, then I have no problem.
Digital distribution, however, is doing away with resale. Also, video game makers are making that more and more difficult.
Selling something with someone's brand or name on it an issue of trademark which is about preventing fraud. I cannot make a Mickey Mouse movie and call it "Disney's Mickey Mouse" as I would be misrepresenting where it came from. However I should be able to make a Mickey Mouse movie and call it "Pain's Mickey Mouse" even if it was made with assembled bits from previous Disney Mickey Mouse movies.
depends on if it falls under fair use.
I know that it wouldn't fall under fair use now. What I was pointing out was that that shouldn't be an issue at all. If I put it together I should be able to distribute anyway I wish provided I'm not claiming it is authorized by Disney.
What if you legally changed your name to Disney? Then it would be OK?
I find this particular anti-IP argument baffling. If the assembly of lines and circles known as "Mickey Mouse" is not protectible, I fail to see how the assembly of letters that comprise the word "Disney" somehow is.
Pro-trademark isnt an anti-IP argument. It is a pro-small-subset-of-IP argument.
Its because fraud protection is considered a legitimate use of government under many libertarian theories.
So then I'll just "trademark" my song instead. I am sorry, but I don't grok the difference here. You're saying the assembly of the ingredients of a movie are not protectible, but the label on the front of it is?
You cant trademark a song, as far as I know.
You're saying the assembly of the ingredients of a movie are not protectible, but the label on the front of it is?
Yes. No one is harmed by me giving you a copy of a Disney movie (assuming no contract violation, re: your point below). If I pass off some schlock I film in my backyard as a Disney movie, however, YOU are harmed, because you were defrauded by my lie.
If it was only an assortment from various Disney movies and you sold it for profit, then sure. I would see this as a violation. It doesn't really fall under fair use because you did not add much if anything to it.
Trademark is basically a way to prevent identity theft. It's there so the consumer knows who they are buying or receiving the product from. It also may include certain words or phrases specifically associated with a brand or individual. The idea being someone cannot use those words or phrases in a way that might confuse consumers into thinking that the product is being sold by that trademarked entity. Like most IP (and almost every other law in existence) it has expanded beyond it's original intent and is often used as cudgel to beat down perceived competitors.
@Matrix: I think we are talking over each other's head. I agree as the law stands fair use would consider that a violation. What I'm trying to point out is that I believe that as it stands "fair use" is wrong. Provided I'm not physically taking anything from Disney, claiming the product is made or authorized by Disney, and I have not signed a contract with them agreeing not to, I should be able to distribute the movie as I see fit.
If the latter statement is true it proves the falsehood of the former.
What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind's contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.
An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object's value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.
It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it?but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature?an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.
The government does not "grant" a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it?i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner's exclusive right of use and disposal.
Ayn Rand, "Patents and Copyrights,"
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130
Rand was wrong.
that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object's value
My labor is my labor, it is the source of value.
Your mind is the source of value. Your muscles are not.
what?
My muscles only do what my mind tells it to do.
That's right. Your fingers don't write the symphony; your brain does. The symphony's value does not come from your fingers; it comes from your brain. The product of your brain--the symphony--is a value that you alone created; you alone have the right to its use and disposal. No other man has a right to own what you created or to listen to your music, and you have no obligation to provide it to him.
No other man has a right to own what you created
Exactly my point. Which is why patents are a violation of this. If I create it, why should your prior creation take that from me?
If I play a piece of music, my brain created it, even if Im reading off sheet music your wrote.
Or, put another way, you can call dibs on my brain.
I think I like that better than the version I used below.
you CANT call dibs on my brain.
Clearly, you shouldnt want to.
"Sweat of the brow" arguments supposedly have been rejected by the courts, too.
We are going to start assuming the guys in robes are getting things right now?
Whether you agree or not, it's established law. Besides, the point of that was to avoid protection of mere facts/ideas, as there's only supposed to be protected of the expression of ideas.
it's established law
So it Kelo. Doesnt stop me from arguing against ED abuse.
I think the rulings make some sense. If I could claim copyright because I put effort in collecting and listing names, then we get close to facts and ideas being protected by copyright. That's not what was intended.
Rand is wrong here. The value is the idea. If I copied one of her works and tried to sell it as my own original work, I would be stealing from Rand. If I copy it and sell it as a reproduction of Ayn Rand's original work, I'm not stealing. If I put the work into making a copy- or put the financing into procuring a copy- of her original work, I should be able to dispose of the copy in any way I choose, so long as I properly attribute it to Ayn Rand.
You did not create it, therefore you have no right to "dispose" of what does not belong to you. Plagiarism is a form of theft but not the only form.
Once she sells it, it isnt hers any more. I can dispose of my property how I see fit, including making mimeographs of it and giving them to everyone.
It's not plagiarism. I attributed the idea to Rand. I didn't claim it was my own original idea.
I made the copy, so the copy is mine. I have a right to dispose of the copy.
How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us.
If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?
How can you buy or sell an idea? This Sounds suspiciously like White idjit's thinking on land. We can set up propertry rights on ideas and a legal system to enforce it. And it works to create wealth. Without fresh ideas and a way to monetize it we would lose an amazing amount of new wealth and capital.
I just thought of a nice short way to explain my position on IP:
Dibs is not a natural law.
I have a scenario and question for you borne of actual curiosity of your position. There is no snark intended here so please don't take it that way.
I know that you are working on getting a line of beers going (that is you right?). Say you opened up a brewery to start making and selling your beer. Just down the road I open a brewery also, take the exact recipe you're using, and make my own beer. You call your beer "Robc beer" and I call mine "Robd beer". The only thing different between the two will be the label on the bottle and the fact that I sell mine for $.25 cheaper than you sell yours. A liquor store chain decides to buy bulk and picks my brewery over yours because mine is cheaper. Do you have an issue with that happening?
Nope.
Even under current law, recipes arent protectable. You can copywrite a recipe book, but you cant prevent it from being used. No patents on recipes.
If they can reverse engineer my beer, more power to them.
Now, I do know of a local example of a brewer getting sued due to an employment agreement, because he made a beer for his new brewery that tasted too much like the one he made for the orginal brewery. But that was a contract dispute. IP didnt come into play.
copyright. I have no idea why I screwed that up.
Hey, wait, what is the matter with a shrinkwrap contract that says that by using this movie/CD/book whatever that you covenant with the seller that you won't copy it?
Well, not sure it qualifies as a contract, but, in theory, nothing.
If I agree to not sell/copy it, then I have agreed to not sell/copy it. And if I do, feel free to sue me to your heart's content.
Personally, if I was the judge, you better show up in court with the defendants signature of a recording of the oral contract. Or a click box on a web site. Something showing ACTIVE agreement to the contract.
Passive contracts arent.
Sure they are. The recipe for Coca Cola is protected under Georgia's trade secret law, another subset of IP law at the state level. Reverse engineering can be a defense to an allegation that trade secrets were unlawfully misappropriated or disclosed.
If the recipe makes it to the required level of novelty and non-obviousness, then patent protection may be available. Not likely, in a brewing situation, but possible.
And, like always, I need to read through the entire thread before commenting.
I see what you're doing, but I don't think this really applies here. I think a more relevant question would be, if you bought several cases of Robc beer and decided to sell those cases to others for $.25 cheaper than Robc sold them, would that be wrong. If that were the question, I would say no, because you bought the beer, you now own the beer, and you can do what you want with the beer. If you choose to sell it cheaper than robc sells it, that's your business. Robc got the original sale at full price, so he's gotten what he's entitled to. He can't assume that your customers would have bought the beer from him for full price, because that's not necessarily true.
As for your original question, if you legally acquired a copy of Robc's recipe or came up with it on your own, you have every right to do with it as you please (provided you didn't agree not to reproduce it, as pointed out by Blue Moon below).
I think a more relevant question would be, if you bought several cases of Robc beer and decided to sell those cases to others for $.25 cheaper than Robc sold them, would that be wrong.
No, I intentionally avoided that because I already knew the answer would be what you said. Since I bought it I have every right to do what I want with it.
if you legally acquired a copy of Robc's recipe or came up with it on your own, you have every right to do with it as you please
It doesn't matter whether I acquired it legally or not. If I went to his house in the middle of the night and wrote down his recipe word-for-word that's just a copy of his original idea.
But you get to go to jail for Burglury. Assuming you make it out alive.
Just because you wrote it first doesn't mean I can't write it too. I'm not taking your copy, I'm just writing the same words down on my notepad.
Doesnt mean I wont fill you with lead for being in my house in the middle of the night.
Doesnt mean I wont fill you with lead for being in my house in the middle of the night.
I successfully broke in and made my copy when nobody was at your house. You have no record of me ever being in your house. I now have an exact duplicate of your entire brewing method from start to finish and I'm going to use it to make a product that competes with yours.
Congratulations, that is successful corporate espionage. See the link I posted below that you apparently didnt read.
Also note, If I dont make an effort to protect my trade secret, like say leaving the recipe lying around in public, then I have no recourse.
But, if I can prove you broke into my house, I have plenty of recourse. Let jailing your ass.
So when you say:
robc|2.15.12 @ 11:07AM|#
If I write it, it is mine. Even if you wrote it first.
What exactly did you mean? Obviously not just what you said because you think people's ideas should be protected in some ways. If I write your process, it is mine. Even if you wrote it first. Please tell me you're not saying it's OK to use the law to protect your ideas but not for someone else to do the same. If it's OK for you to protect your beer making process, why is it not OK for a band to protect their music or an author to protect their work?
Can you fucking read?
I answered your question with a "Nope" at 11:47 AM. I have no problem with you using the same recipe.
I have a problem with you breaking into my house. Reverse engineer my recipe all you want. Or hire an ex-employee of mine who hasnt signed a non-disclosure (Note: at the current time, I dont plan on making any employees sign non-disclosure agreements, so this might be the easiest method). Or follow me around and wait for me to drop it on the ground. Or, you know, look them up on my website. All the details might not be there, but Im sure it will have some details...maybe even homebrew versions (this isnt uncommon in the brewing business).
Im not an anarchist, I have no problem with you using any method to get my trade secrets that dont involve force or fraud. But I will sue you if you use those methods.
this might help.
Actually, that's completely legal now. Recipes are not covered under copyright, that's why they are treated as trade secrets.
Sorry I thought of that first. My lawyer will be in touch with you shortly.
and where will ur lawyer touch him?
bada bomm
I'll be in the area all day
I am not a particularly energized follower of the Intellectual Property debate.
I am now in the home stretch of Project 1911, a GI-style M1911 semi-auto; I ordered a frame and a box of internal parts, and built it up, hand-fitting nearly everything. I just did the second test fire / function test two days ago. I'm feeling rather pleased with myself. I now have a pretty intimate and comprehensive understanding of the internal function of this pistol.
"So what?" you say. I am not a close student of John Browning, or the history of firearms, but if you sat somebody down in front of a clean sheet of paper, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't come up with that mechanism out of the clear blue sky.
The point being that Browning had spent a lifetime as a gunsmith and inventor, refining designs over time. Some of those ideas were not originally his.
Do we really want to create and enforce a system in which a guy like John Browning would be prevented from building upon and enhancing the ideas of those who came before him?
*As for the MPAA, they're just a bunch of greedheads.
I'm generally pro-IP, but I'm not in favor of what I view as overly strong protection of IP rights. The term is far too long for copyrights, patents for software and business processes are a mess (esp. with the PTO not exactly being careful with handing out such patents), the various laws for digital media have been a land grab by IP holders, fair use (which is a necessary safety valve for free speech purposes) has been increasingly marginalized, etc.
As anti-IP as I am, I could be convinced to compromise and make it so that IP has a 20 year window in which there is protection. Essentially a kind of content patent. Make your money if you can then get the fuck out of the way. At the very least this would clean up a lot of the "who has the rights to what" bullshit that often drags on for years.
Well, this is why patents have a limited term, claims must only be to the novel/nonobvious aspects of the invention, and damages should be (though courts cock this up all the time, and the nuisance costs of suits is high because patent litigators are expensive).
Partial aside: I always hear that certain design features of the Browning Hi-Power result from JMB having to design around the patents on the 1911 that he had sold to Colt and were still in effect when he started the BHP design. The magazine disconnect, however, can be blamed on government contracting.
"Libertarians" are such petty little pragmatists. They'll split hairs a thousand ways to justify thievery. Not having created a value (property) they nevertheless believe they have a right to own it, while at the same time claiming that the property (an exact copy of the original) has no value. "Libertarians" do not fret over such philosophical inconsistencies. They want it; that's reason enough to take it. Thus, unbound by principles, these pragmatists happily have their cake and eat it too.
Have fun arguing with the voices in your head. Whenever you're done feel free to join the discussion with everyone else.
I'm not arguing with anyone, and you're free to offer a meaningful rebuttal, if you can. I'm certain that you cannot; thus your infantile attempt at an insult.
Oops, you begged the question there. What if the contention is that there is no "thing" to own? Then your little screed completely falls apart.
What if the contention is that there is no "thing" to own?
If there is no "thing" to own, then there is no "thing" to copy, correct? Yet "libertarians" justify copying of digital code. It's a value to them, otherwise they wouldn't bother copying it. Something cannot have a value and at the same time be nonexistent. You can't copy nothing. Hope this helps. Buh-bye.
If I take an AAC file that is at 126kbps and convert it to 98kbps, then I did not copy the code. It's essentially the same song, but the 0s and 1s are arranged differently.
Hell, if I rip an MP3 straight from the CD, it makes completely different arrangement of 0s and 1s than on the CD because the CD is not compressed. The MP3 is a compression.
Same with movies. I buy a lot of blu-ray movies. I often rip those movies using programs on my computer so I can watch them on my iPad. I don't want to spend another $15 to download the 'digital copy' of the movie, or perhaps they use Vudu or some other service for their free digital copy. But, according to some, I have violated copyright laws for copying a movie for my own personal use. I'm not later turning around and selling that bluray disc and keeping the digital duplicate myself.
Back in the day, they did not care if you made copies of your own stuff for your own personal use. Today, they do. And that pisses me off.
If there is no "thing" to own, then there is no "thing" to copy, correct?
Totally incorrect, unless you worn born with the knowledge on how to make a fire, tie your shoe laces or make a Pina Colada.
Your proof for the value of something is that people copy it, and because people copy it, it must have value?
Circular asshole is circular.
What??
If you had read the comments, you might notice that libertarians are hardly of one mind on the subject.
robc's two rules of libertarianism (and humor detector):
1. Everyone agrees with libertarians about something.
2. No two libertarians agree about anything.
Two libertarians... three opinions
"Libertarians" are such petty little pragmatists.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I know this thread is pretty much dead but god damn you are fucking retarded. Have you not read any of this or previous IP threads? All those people you see discussing hypotheticalls back and forth are libertarians and not all of them think IP is bullshit.
Go back to the bottom of the sea you slimy cocksucker.
When did reason jump on the juvenile anti IP movement? :decline:
I'm not arguing with anyone
Just stopped by to fling some poo, I guess.
Arguing with strangers on the internet is what bored people do to kill time, right Brooksie? I mean, what other purpose does this chat room serve? Issues are recycled regularly, the same people argue the same points over and over again, and not a single mind is changed, ever.
My "preference" falls on the side of modification or enhancement of an idea or creation, rather than duplication.
Selling a mustachioed Mona Lisa is different from selling a duplicate of the Mona Lisa (especially if you are attempting to pass it off as THE Mona Lisa).
Most of the people who are sued aren't even selling stuff. They are freely distributing.
I have a copy of this hanging in my house.
The artist didnt try to pass it off as the original, and it isnt an exact copy, he wasnt trying to do a forgery, but its pretty damn close. Vincent's is better, but the one I own is pretty good, and, for the price difference, Im not complaining.
And, yeah, its public domain anyway, for those that somehow think that IP is property but expires.
Or, to bring it more up-to-date if you like, selling a Shepard Fairey -style OBAMA which says, "ROPE" at the bottom...
Clearly home taping did not kill music, nor will piratebay either.
My take on the whole issue is that once you purchase something, ownership belongs to you, not to the person you bought it from. So if you bought a Porsche and had the technology to replicate copies, you should be able to replicate as many as you want.
That's an interesting angle. Why are money counterfeiters arrested?
Because government wants to keep its monopoly on money, if a central bank prints billions in money it is legal, anyone else is a labeled a criminal.
Since I believe in the idea of free market money, if people wanted to create their own money, they should, even if they wanted to make it worthless, that should be their right. In a free market things like a gold, silver, copper etc. standard would be the preferred money, paper not so much.
But you making copies of someone elses' notes and passing it around as if the copies were genuine is fraud.
Which is exactly what fractional banking ends up doing.
The government is allowed to devalue their currency all they way. In fact, the Fed said they want to devalue our money by 33% over the next 20 years.
because it is fraud.
What is written on the bill?
"Federal Reserve Note" So, if you are not authorized to make copies, then it is fraud, becuase your copy would not be a "Federal Reserve Note". It would be a duplicate.
Secondly, it says "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Your counterfeit is not "legal tender". You are passing it off as such, and therefore, committing fraud.
Now, suppose you do make a currency that you and other consenting participants freely engage in, then I don't see the problem (bitcoin, for instance). They are free to accept or not accept that currency, and I have no problem with it.
Now, suppose you do make a currency that you and other consenting participants freely engage in, then I don't see the problem (bitcoin, for instance). They are free to accept or not accept that currency, and I have no problem with it.
Wasn't the problem with bitcoin that people figured out how to copy it and thus made it completely worthless? Or am I thinking of something else?
Have not heard anything recently. If that happened, I think the operators of bitcoin would be well justified in suing those who made those copies to devalue the currency.
But considering members of the government had their knickers in a twist over bitcoin, I would not put it past them being behind the copies.
Wait, now I don't get it. Why would bitcoin be justified in suing someone for making a copy? It's not government backed legal tender and making copies doesn't take away from anyone. It's just a collection of data floating around the Internet.
Because Matrix doesnt agree with me on IP.
See my laws of libertarianism.
Because it is fraud, just like other things. If I passed something around as a genuine article, when it was a copy, that is fraud.
If I made a duplicate of a famous painting and sold it with the understanding from the buyer that it was authentic, it would be fraud.
These alleged fake bitcoins are the same thing. They are being passed off as authentic, but they are not (assuming they were illegitimately copied).
I don't have a problem with people making copies of commodities, so long as they don't pass them off as genuine of the original. So counterfeit Rolex watches or whatever. If you pass them off as authentic, it is wrong. If you don't, then I don't have a problem.
If I sold you a diamond that was chemically identical to diamonds that only the government was allowed to sell, am I deceiving you out of a real diamond, am I committing fraud ? I don't see the difference with a piece of paper if it is an identical copy, we all know the piece of paper is ultimately worthless, except for government force backing it.
Depends on what you are going to do with that diamond. Are you trying to pass this diamond off as a genuine "government" diamond? If so, it is fraud.
It is still fraud if you do not tell a recipient of the diamond that it is not the genuine "government" diamond. Even if you do not specifically say it is genuine, it is still fraud because any reasonable person would assume it was without you stating otherwise.
Now if you made it clear to a recipient that this diamond was not a genuined "government" diamond, then I would not have a problem with it. The government, on the otherhand, probably would. But I think they would be wrong for doing so.
I dunno, Matrix. You seem to be begging the question, which is, why can't people make unauthorized copies of anything they damn well please?
The only reason a perfect copy of a dollar bill is fraud is because its an unauthorized copy. When the mint makes a perfect copy, that's cool, because its authorized. If the exact same copy is made by someone else, that's fraud.
Because its unauthorized. Which is exactly what makes a copy of a book or song a copyright violation.
Just to clarify a bit: the only reason passing a perfect, unauthorized copy of a dollar bill or diamond or whatever is fraud is the legal fiat that says that the authorization matters.
Those two copies are identical at a molecular level. No one can tell them apart. They function exactly the same. The only difference between them is the legal fiction that one is good because its authorized, and one is not, because its not.
Just like with copies of songs and movies.
...songs for free.
The libertarian dream.
Thanks RC, this is what I'm trying to get at too. I have a vague notion of what I think is "right" and "wrong" in these cases. I understand others have other notions of "right" and "wrong". I'd like to have a clear understanding of both sides so I can settle myself on a firm belief instead of a vague notion.
which is probably why the MPAA would still be mad at me for making digital copies of my legally purchased blu-ray movies using a program on my computer for my own personal enjoyment. They might not want to bother me, but they could if they wanted. Still, I spent $10-30 on a movie for the blu ray disc, I don't want to have to spend another $15 so I can watch the same movie on my iPad. I'll just rip it using my computer.
Which is exactly what makes a copy of a book or a song a copyright violation.
I'd buy that if someone was attempting to sell it.
I do not find making counterfeit dollars to be wrong, in and of itself (though the government disagrees). But when someone tries to pass it off as the genuine article, that is fraud. It is not a genuine 'copy'. It is an forgery.
The difference with federal reserve notes and MP3s is that federal reserve notes are legal tender and traded as currency. MP3s are neither legal tender not used as currency, though they can be sold in exchange for legal tender. And, again, that is where I would find fault, in profitting off of it.
I still don't think you're quite getting my question.
You have two identical dollar bills in front of you. They are completely indistiguishable by any means known to mankind.
Yet one is "legal tender", and the other is a stay in pound-you-in-the-ass prison, solely because the first is "authorized" and the other is not.
Why is that OK for dollar bills, but not OK for anything else?
Here's my real problem with the "it has to be physical or it isn't property" argument: There are vast swathes of property that are intangible. That is, not physical. You can look it up: "intangible property", of which IP is but a subset. We also treat as property all kinds of other things that are not physical, such as, I dunno, an easement over real property. For that matter, real property itself is commonly described as a bundle of rights, which are, of course, also intangible.
I haven't seen a good argument for "if it ain't physical, it ain't property" that doesn't throw some babies out with the bathwater.
I'm not arguing against IP, unlike robc. I do not believe someone has the right to make a copy of someone else's work and sell it as their own or as if they were authorized to sell it. I do, however, think someone is fine with making copies of something for their own personal use or distribution, so long as it is not done for money.
As far fed reserve notes go, you are not legally authorized to make a duplicate for distribution. Now, if you were to do so with a group of folks that traded this currency only amongst yourselves, I would not have a problem with it, though I'm certain the law would. However, if you then took your fake money and distributed it to the unsuspecting public, you are defrauding them. It also devalues the money supply, which pisses everyone off.
I'm a bit late to this party, but the UK is no better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17039722
Coming soon, to a country near you!
Copyright 2012, Reason Magazine
Yes, this has always been my point. If I set up my own version of a website, called it "Reason", ripped off their graphics, videos and articles, they would sue me for infringing their copyright, no doubt. On my alterna-Reason, you can choose whether or not comments are threaded, White Indian would be banned and graphic postings would allowed. Also, you won't see any pro-Santorum ads. If the regulars prefer my site, Reason's traffic and ad revenue declines.
I'll gladly use anti-IP quotes from Reason to advocate my case, and I'd still lose. And rightly so.
That's more of a trademark violation because you would be passing yourself off as "Reason". Making your computers and slapping the Apple logo on them to pass them off as Apple products would rightly get you sued.
As long as I wasn't making profits off it, what's the difference? IP isn't "real" property, right? I didn't "steal" anything from Reason, besides the fruits of their labor, talent, ideas, etc.
Which is exactly what people do with music, film, etc. This idea that we have a "right" to own someone else's songs or movies because they're easy to replicate is not a particularly libertarian idea.
Moreover, if it's not "real" property, and the musician asserts no control on the property after the initial version is sold, what's wrong with my selling it?
I only have a problem with someone else profiting off of the work of another without agreed upon compensation between concerned parties. So a record label has an agreement with an artist to produce and distribute the artists' songs for an agreed upon compensation. Now, if you, not being part of this agreement, make copies and sell them, that is wrong. If you buy a CD and sell that same CD, of course there should be nothing wrong with that. But if you take that CD and make copies and give them to friends, family, co-workers, or complete strangers... well I don't care
So I take it you're against resale shops and garage sales then?
Yup. Call yourself Ian Doberty, copy Brian Doherty's forthcoming book (on Ron Paul) and sell it as your own on Smashwords. See if any of the anti-IP "libertarians" at Reason complain about the intellectual theft. They'll go weasel-words on you and claim that copying a book for profit is not the same thing as taking a song or movie without paying for it. They'll invent a million examples and excuses and explanations of how theft isn't theft and how piracy isn't really piracy.
Maybe restricting block ciphers to 40-bit length wasn't such a good idea? Anyway it's such a delight reading libertarian hatred of intellectual property rights. Libertarians: the Marxists of the information age. We can't allow one man to own and rule over that farm, it will become stagnant! The farmland belongs to us all. Oh, silly me, hours or months of effort put into anything from writing music to writing software doesn't equate to producing property, does it?
Nice post by Mr. Lee. See also my post on The Mountain of IP Legislation -- http://blog.mises.org/14752/th.....gislation/ and Death by Copyright-IP Fascist Police State Acronym also at c4sif dot org.
Libertarians who see the dangers of the coming police state in the name of copyright should come out for abolishing patent and copyright, not merely "reform." Unfortunately, to date, Mr. Lee is not opposed to copyright, as I note here: http://c4sif.org/2012/02/reaso.....copyright/ The problem is not efforts to enforce copyright. It is copyright itself. SOPA and other laws and actions detailed by Mr. Lee are just a symptom of the copyright disease. We most oppose copyright tooth and nail for the illegitimate, anti-property rights, anti-free market state-granted anti-competitive monopoly that it is.