Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

from the please-explain dept

A few months back, Public Knowledge released its five ideas for copyright reform, and we asked people to defend why any of them didn't make sense. Oddly -- despite the vast number of copyright system defenders who populate the comments around here -- not a single person suggested any reason why the five suggested reforms didn't make sense. Some people suggested other ideas for reform, but the regular defenders of the system miraculously disappeared when asked to defend the current system. I'd say it was funny... but, really, it's just sad.

PK is now drilling down deeper into each of the five topics, and the latest one is the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, which makes circumventing any kind of "technical protection measures" illegal -- even if you are doing it for perfectly legal reasons. It also makes it illegal to make or distribute tools that can be used to circumvent DRM. In PK's rewrite, those specific problems are fixed:
To remedy the situation, PK proposed two simple changes to the DMCA. First, Section 1201(a)(1), which now bans circumventing a technological protection measure which that "controls access" to a copyrighted work would should be changed "to allow circumvention for the purpose of making a non-infringing use of the protected work."

Second, Section 1201(a)(2) and Section (b)(1), which ban the making and distribution of circumvention tools, should be amended to permit the making and distribution of tools capable of enabling substantial non-infringing use of a work, in order to give those making lawful uses the practical ability to circumvent.
So, once again, I will ask the copyright defenders among the community here: what's wrong with this proposal? I'd like to understand a defense of an anti-circumvention law that makes the tool, rather than the uses, illegal -- and which makes a perfectly legal action illegal just because of the method used. Because, frankly, I've never understood how either provision in today's law makes sense, and I'm sure there must be someone out there who thinks they do make sense.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:01pm

    Catch-22

    The DMCA makes it illegal to perform a lawful act by outlawing an essential step in performing that lawful act i.e. backing up a copyrighted work that you own. I still don't understand how this political contrivance isn't unconstitutional. See Leary v. United States.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), May 15th, 2010 @ 3:01am

      Re: Catch-22

      It's like making it illegal to take away a person's freedom (say, not locking him in your basement) but instead leaving the door unlocked, taping a hair to the door to detect unauthorized entry, and then claim that if the person inside breaks the hair, he's "circumventing security measures" and thus breaking the law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:03pm

    Devil's Advocate

    The creator of a work should be able to decide how their work is being consumed and used. This change will undermine that ability, and take that ability to decide out of the creators hands.

    If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Sneeje (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:09pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      Well, except that right already exists, regardless of the legal status of the tool. The courts recognize that right, and abuses of that right are called infringement.

      I could equally argue that the law as stated artificially extends those rights you stated by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend. Why does that not bother you?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        abc gum, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:00pm

        Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

        "Just Another Moron in a Hurry" can not come up with a response, apparently ....

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 1:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          Of course not, he's too busy. :P

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 5:51am

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          No, I can't. I'm trying to argue for a side I don't really believe in here (hence, why the subject is 'Devil's Advocte') and I've run out of reasons to argue.

          But by the size of the comment thread, I'd say I kicked off some healthy discussion, so mission accomplished.

          What more is there that I need to say?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:15pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      "The creator of a work should be able to decide how their work is being consumed and used."

      Under that same logic, Ford would have the "right" to determine what places you could take your car for service, or even what states you can drive it in.

      "If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."

      So if Ford were to install a system in a car that prevents the car from going over 40mph, and you removed that system so you could drive 50mph on a road with a 50mph speed limit, taking the system out would be illegal, even if you're still following the speed limit?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:22pm

        Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

        Yes, if Ford wanted to put that sort of restriction in the contracts for selling their cars, then he should have that right. And if you don't like it, you have the right to buy from someone else, or at the very least, not buy from Ford.

        Whats wrong with that? No one is forcing you to buy from Ford. But you are trying to force Ford into doing business in a way that they may not agree with. Why should you have that power over a company that isn't yours?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Sneeje (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          Well, there isn't anything wrong with that because the restriction would have been disclosed in a contract that was explicitly agreed-upon by both parties. That is not the situation we're discussing, however.

          We're discussing whether or not the creator's wishes should extend beyond their mutually-understood rights to things that the law says are possible and allowable by consumers.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            abc gum, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

            and again, "Just Another Moron in a Hurry" can not come up with a response.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Niall (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 4:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

            Essentially, 'fair use' is an automatic part of the copyright contract, even if not placed in there specifically, by the very nature of copyright law. So yes, preventing people from lawful exercise of that legitimate part of the 'contract' would be unlawful (assuming Leary v. United States works the same way here).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          When I buy something, I own it (the thing, that is). The manufacturer of my car (to follow that down) no longer owns it after I've purchased it. Likewise, if I buy a copy of something that's on physical media, that specific instance of it is mine. Control of that specific instance is transferred to me, because frankly there's no way to stop me from doing anything with it once it's in my possession. In the overwhelming majority of anti-circumvention violations, there is absolutely no way for anyone to know it happened except for the person who did it. Therefore to argue that it does any harm is absurd.

          Sellers agree to sell at a price, and when the buyer pays that price, the seller has gotten everything they asked for and are entitled to. Even if the buyer later finds a way to extend the use-value, the seller has still gotten everything they asked for and the buyer's paid everything they owe.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Nate, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          You're right; no one is forcing me to buy from Ford. But the keyword there is "buy;" these sound more like the provisions of a rental or a lease, two contracts which are already well established and acknowledged.

          If I would like to remove the governor chip, change the upholstery, add a supercharger, or tint the windows, it's well within my right because I own that car. It's no longer Ford's, and they hold no claim over my property.

          A crowbar is potentially a tool for theft, and a gun for murder -- we've already seen how thorny it can get to limit access to those.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Cynyr (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 3:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          That would hold water if there was a contract, i.e. a piece of paper dictating the terms in a language both parties can understand clearly outlining the terms of the contract and what was being purchased, or if there was such a thing as "standard agreement". The problem is that when i buy a DVD, I plan on watching it in my own home in what ever way i want. I've never seen a contract pre purchase of a DVD. Now i understand that redistribution of copies is disallowed by copyright law. How is watching the DVD(from a rip) a different purpose than what the DVD was sold for, watching it in my home.

          Would you be ok, if a dvd came with a licenses to only one viewer at a time, but with a bit about how multiple licenses would allow for multiple viewers at once? if you wanted to show the dvd to a family of 4, you need to buy the dvd 4 times. just stick it in 3pt font in the back of the brown label in black text right now and BAM! "but you should have read the terms and conditions on the back, WAAA!!!".

          Does craftsman say that you can't use a wrench as a hammer? nope, they sold me a hunk of steel, and I can do what i like with it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            abc gum, May 15th, 2010 @ 8:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

            "Would you be ok, if a dvd came with a licenses to only one viewer at a time, but with a bit about how multiple licenses would allow for multiple viewers at once? if you wanted to show the dvd to a family of 4, you need to buy the dvd 4 times."

            I understand that this is seriously being looked at. There would be some sort of sensor in the set top box or DVD player that could determine how many people were in the room and some how charge accordingly. There have been assurances that said sensor would only be infrared and limited to counting people. However, there are many problems with this and I doubt consumers would be happy with it.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      weneedhelp (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:21pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      "and it is not our place to strip that right from him"
      Nor his place to strip our fair use rights of said works.

      Try again.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:24pm

        Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

        Fair Use is a loophole that should never have been placed into the law. It prevents a creator from controlling their works, if they so desire. Nothing prevents a creator from putting their work into the public domain, or creative commons non-commercial, and allowing someone to use their work for whatever they like.

        But the difference is that its the creator's choice. Under the current system of Fair Use, and with the changes proposed above, you are taking that choice away.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Sneeje (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          No, you are restricting that choice to only the rights granted to them. Creators currently have the choices you outlined, to include NOT distributing their works if they do not want consumers to do things with their works that are legally allowed under the law.

          What you are suggesting is that creators should have their cake and eat it too. They should be able to gain the benefits of distribution and sale while also restricting activities post-sale. First, that isn't even really possible with physical goods, so you could only practically try to apply it to digital goods. And second, let's suppose we make that change--are you willing to accept that would likely devalue many offerings, often significantly?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 1:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

            "What you are suggesting is that creators should have their cake and eat it too. They should be able to gain the benefits of distribution and sale while also restricting activities post-sale. First, that isn't even really possible with physical goods, so you could only practically try to apply it to digital goods."

            It's not really possible with digital goods either. So...yeah.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          Never the less, it is the law, and many people can tell you why they think it should be the law. What Mike is asking is why there is a law to prevent people from exercising there legal fair use right? Is it really just to patch the fair use "loophole?" If your making laws, why not just close the loophole and make it illegal? The reason is that it probably wouldn't pass, because fair use isn't a loophole, its an impotent part of our society.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.

          Exhibit A: Reality.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          abc gum, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:06pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          "Fair Use is a loophole that should never have been placed into the law."

          Call the Whaaabulance.
          Your twisted view of society does you a disservice.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          CrushU, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          Fair Use is a loophole that forms the basis of our culture.


          Fixed That For You.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 8:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          "Fair Use is a loophole that should never have been placed into the law."

          Says who, you? So the law should only be followed when you like it, otherwise it should be ignored? Is that what you think? and anything that you don't like about the law should be ignored, only the parts that you like should be followed? and others should just follow the parts of the law that you like, not the parts that you don't like, because the parts that you don't like are loopholes that shouldn't exist and hence should be ignored. You get to pick and choose which parts of the law you like and ignore the rest. Why can't I do the same thing then? With your logic I'll just argue that copyright is a loophole in the law and should have never been placed into law. So I will just ignore it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 8:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

            The public domain is the rule and copyright is the exception.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 6:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

            Now, that is not what I stated. I never said anyone should not follow the law. My argument was that the law was not a good law, and it should be changed so that there was balance on both sides, allowing the creator to choose whether their works would eventually go public, be public immediately, or never go public.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              btr1701 (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 2:12pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

              > it should be changed so that there was balance on both sides,
              > allowing the creator to choose whether their works would
              > eventually go public, be public immediately, or never go public.

              So you're not only advocating the repeal of the Fair Use provisions in the U.S. Code, but also advocating perpetual copyright, which would require amending the Constitution itself to repeal the "limited times" portion of the Copyright Clause?

              Good luck with that.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:48pm

        Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

        Or what about when the works expire into the public domain?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:34pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      I don't think it's written anywhere in law that a creator gets to decide with absolute authority how their work is used. What's you're saying implies that I can't tear out pages of my newly purchased copy of "Under the Dome" by Stephen King and use them to wipe my nose?

      He may not approve, but it's certainly well within my rights as the owner of the actual book to do so.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Grey Ferret, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:47pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      If a creator wants to maintain control of how their invention is used, then they should retain ownership of it. By selling it, they are giving up that right. They should keep it for personal use only or rent it out to consumers.

      If I buy something, it is mine to do with as I please. If I choose to use my new purchase for illegal purposes, then that's between me and the authorities, not the creator.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:48pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      If the creator didn't want his work to spread, he should have it locked up in an underground bunker in the middle of nowhere.

      If he makes it available in any way or form, he's gonna have to cope with the fact that digital goods spread rather quickly, if they're any good, because people like to share.

      And that's a good thing he can take advantage of and make some serious profit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bubba Gump (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:50pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      "creator of a work should be able to decide how their work is being consumed and used"

      So, if I buy up all the Metallica CDs and DVDs I can find and smash them with a hammer, Metallica should be able to tell me I can't do that? Is that what you're saying?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 6:07am

        Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

        Not quite, but close.

        What I am saying is that if Metallica offers to sell their CDs with the stipulation that you can't smash them with a hammer, and you agree to purchase the CD with that stipulation, then you should not be able to smash it. And if you don't agree to that stipulation, then you should not buy the CD to begin with.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 6:16am

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

          No you own the medium.

          Smash CDs all you want.

          The Art on the medium is what is controlled by the copyright, not the medium it is transmitted on.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:57pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      Really? How would you explain libraries? Or renting? Not all authors or "creators" or publishers/distributors want their work distributed this way and vice-versa.

      My opinion, the idea of "distribution" was very well thought up. Content creators today don't sell their work but distribute it. We don't buy works (because if you buy something you personally should be able to do whatever you want with the product) but are granted "a limited use license". WTF?

      A stupid(?) example: "buy" a car with a "license" that states that you may only use cheap crap fuel and not any form of premium fuel and any "work" or "works" done on the car may only be done by the "retailer" or you will violate that license and be processed to the full extent of the law. Wonder if this has been thought up? Maybe I'll apply for a patent.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:04pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      The maker of my gardening shears hates Azalias. Too bad, I'm trimming my flowers regardless of what he thinks.

      The maker of my kitchen knives thinks that filleting a fish is a travesty of the culinary arts. Too bad, I'm filleting my bloody salmon all I want.

      The CD recording company doesn't want me listening to their music on my Netbook without lugging around an expensive USB CD-Rom drive. Too damn bad, I'm ripping it straight into memory.

      Anyone who says that creators get to control usage is either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 3:28pm

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      The creator of a work should be able to decide how their work is being consumed and used. This change will undermine that ability, and take that ability to decide out of the creators hands.

      And that will be really GOOD for the health and wellbeing of the creators because it will divert them away from the soul destroying obsessions that start when people get too wrapped up in trying to control the way that others use their works.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 4:48am

        Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

        And then watch them cry to the government when no-one wants to buy/consume their over-controlled, restrictive output :)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      mike allen (profile), May 15th, 2010 @ 1:10am

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      So under this rule a recoeding company puts this restrition on say an album. nnw Radio stations run mainly from mp3s stored on servers that link to a broadcast playout program (the station i work for has a licence to copy and store 30,000 tracks) which are changed often. now if this was to be the case I do not beleave that a musician would be too pleased that we could not use his work. this also means we could not use the actual CD. until it was defined weather a broadcast was a copy of the work. see how stupid it gets.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 1:46am

      Re: Devil's Advocate

      The creator of a work should be able to decide how their work is being consumed and used.

      Creators have never had this right. An author could have his or her books printed and offered for sale. People might buy them. If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this. Why should we suddenly make changes to the law? Completely new and revolutionary changes?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 8:47am

        Re: Re: Devil's Advocate : If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this.

        point : "The creator of a work should be able to decide how their work is being consumed and used."

        your counterpoint :
        Creators have never had this right. An author could have his or her books printed and offered for sale. People might buy them. If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this. Why should we suddenly make changes to the law?


        My ans: TO "give them away or lend them or borrow them."
        is not an issue as no $$ is exchanged , Of PUBLIC use intended.

        If money is exchanged -- the book , tape , CD , Picture, Copywrited Software- is re-sold at Amazon let us say ---
        then the Orgingal Artist deserves a cut.

        If there is NO Public use , then there is NO issue.

        If there IS public use ,, the Artist reserves the right to control it.

        Got it ?!?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Brendan (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 12:14am

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate : If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this.

          Uh, I disagree.

          The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?

          To use an earlier example, VW doesn't expect (and won't get) a cut of my earnings when I resell my Jetta. I've already paid them.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 10:11am

            Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?

            Clearly you write more than you read here.
            read this thread:
            http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml

            but to save you time:
            A: Pay -for-play ,, Radio stations , advertisiers, Broadway play , and bars with cover bands ,, all PAy-Per-play royalities EACH time the "art" is used.

            so the shortest answer to :
            "The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?"

            IT is the core, function and purpose of copyright law .
            ----------

            TO You and everybody else:

            READ , READ , READ , and then maybe write a little. It will be rare if you come up with a new question. If you have a new question ,, please do posr it.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Brendan (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 10:24am

              Re: Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?

              And this is a _mistake_ that will come back to haunt them.

              These corporate copyright holders are desperate for cashflow, and are overreaching. It's creating massive distrust both in the public eye, and in the minds of he actual creators who don't have their heads in their asses and can see where the industry is going.

              Radio, covers, blogs, youtube and filesharing all serve as PROMOTION for the music. If anything youtube should be demanding payments from the MAFIAA for so heavily promoting their product AND footing the bandwidth bill. The symbiotic relationship with no payment is likely the best/easiest for both parties.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

              Re: Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?

              so the shortest answer to :
              "The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?"

              IT is the core, function and purpose of copyright law .


              No, it is not. The function and purpose of copyright law is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Artists getting paid is a *means*, not an end.

              It's amazing that the actual purpose of copyright law is so widely misunderstood among those discussing it.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 7:29pm

                "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Artists getting paid is a *means*, not an end.

                Artists getting paid is a *means* and AND an "end."

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 6:37am

      Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."

      exactly true.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 10:33am

        Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."

        Exactly false.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 11:12am

          Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."

          "Exactly false."

          Why and how is it false?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 11:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."

            Why and how is it exactly true?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."

            The burden is on you to prove a positive, not on someone else to prove a negative.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 2:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."

              I don't think they're arguing in good faith.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Derek Kerton (profile), May 18th, 2010 @ 5:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate :"If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right, and it is not our place to strip that right from him."

              First sale doctrine.

              Once I buy the work, it is mine. Now I should get to define how it is used.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PopeHilarius (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:13pm

    The creator of a work should be able to decide how their work is being consumed and used.

    This isn't true. If it were, fair use wouldn't exist. The creator gets many many rights regarding their works, but there are fair use exemptions. Mike isn't discussing circumvention for unlawful purposes, but lawful ones. What the anti-circumvention clause does, essentially, is outlaw fair use.

    I could back up all my VHS tapes in case of loss, and that'd be perfectly acceptable. But do that same, perfectly legal act, with DVDs, and it's illegal. There cannot exist a logical justification for that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dementia (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 3:23pm

      Re:

      Actually, if you remove the macrovision protection from the videotapes, you are still running afoul of the anti- circumvention clause.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 6:40am

      If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.

      Artists are claiming rights re: "Un-fair use" only.

      "Fair use" is fair. No complaints there.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Brendan (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 12:16am

        Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.

        So then you agree we should be able to break locks in order to preserve our ability to use the work for legal "fair" uses. Good.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 10:13am

          Re: Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.

          that is a nonsensical statment,
          READ ;
          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Brendan (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 10:26am

            Re: Re: Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.

            I have read that, a week ago when it was posted. Unfortunately, it is completely unrelated to this discussion.

            Creators are granted certain rights. Consumer hold certain rights through fair use. Creators rights do not extend to REMOVING consumers rights. DRM blocks consumer activity that is within our rights.

            Ergo, we must have the right to break DRM in order to make our other rights meaningful.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 7:53pm

              Ergo, we must have the right to break DRM in order to make our other rights meaningful.

              that is too weird to be meaningful.

              But try lobbying on that point, and try making that point in a court of law..

              I hear the laughter already.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jens, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:15pm

    definitely no defender of copyright here, but it keeps the copyright owner off the burden of proof of your purpose, don't you think?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:21pm

      Re:

      "it keeps the copyright owner off the burden of proof of your purpose, don't you think?"

      How is that defensible? You can't just throw people in jail for a crime because the state doesn't want the burden of proof on them. Why should a content creator have any more privilege than them?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hulser (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:28pm

      Re:

      definitely no defender of copyright here

      That's a rather broad generalization. While there may be many readers of TechDirt that would want to abolish the concept of copyright altogether, I think the majority of the critique is of the current copyright system itself, not necesarilly the overall concept of copyright. Your statement indicates an oversimplified understanding of a complex topic.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:26pm

        Re: Re:

        Oversimplified understanding usually comes from having an oversimplified mind.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 6:45am

          Re: Re: Rethere may be many readers of TechDirt that would want to abolish the concept of copyright altogether, I

          too many, and I suspect mike is (secretly) part of the cult.
          Monty Burns is their leader.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:27pm

    I will take "Because your government made it that way" for the win. Now if you are going to ask why they made it that way, you aren't going to like the answer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 6:51am

      Re: Because your government made it that way"

      Because Laws are for the benefit of the Victims,, not the criminals-- (if the law has been properly constructed, which is NOT always possible , because of powerful lobbyist who advocate unjust, greedy & often"morally criminal" causes. )

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        crade (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 3:25pm

        Re: Re: Because your government made it that way"

        Being a criminal requires being convicted of something. If you give me a stick and say I can beat anyone I think is violating copyright (as they are doing to the copyright holding companies), I am not beating criminals, I am beating whoever I feel like it.

        Plus, laws are for everyone.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:10pm

          Being a criminal requires being convicted of something.

          no going to jail requires being convicted of something.

          Criminals are not always convicted ( and usually they get re-elected or promoted.)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            crade (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 11:25am

            Re: Being a criminal requires being convicted of something.

            True, there are some criminals who haven't been convicted.
            It would certainly be more efficient if we didn't bother trying to distinguish them from the non-criminals.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

    Copy protection is an anomaly. Humanity hasn't advanced to it's current technological and cultural state by hoarding and hiding ideas and culture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:43pm

    I can explain why. It is easy. You may not like it, but here it is: if someone creates a means of circumvention for non-infringing purposes, then it will be available for use for infringing purposes. They want to kill the possibility of the circumvention ever existing.

    This isn't any different than laws against drug use / distribution which discriminate against responsible users in an effort to stop the irresponsible users. It isn't any different than laws against prostitution, which discriminate against those who can't get any tail in the socially sanctioned manner, in an effort to stop skanky sleaze from spreading disease, ruining marriages, and taking over the streets.

    Note that in both those cases, the law is selectively enforced in order to more effectively achieve the desired outcome. Same as with anti-circumvention clauses and pretty much any other IP laws.

    It's all the same. A few butt-heads ruin it for everyone else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:07pm

      Re:

      That's like saying swimming should be outlawed because a lot of people drown.

      This isn't an explanation. It's idiocy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:25pm

      Re:

      Ok then, explain to me why do dvd-burners and blank dvds exist and are available to the general public at modest prices.

      Shouldn't they be outlawed since some may use them for infringing purposes?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Nick Coghlan (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 8:12pm

      Re:

      So, since guns can be used to kill people, they should be banned?
      Since computers can be used for nefarious purposes, they should be banned?
      Since VCRs can be used to infringe copyright, they should be banned?

      Bzzt, try again. Laws against certain behaviours and laws against technology which enable both legal and illegal behaviours are not the same thing. The former make sense (sometimes), but they latter generally do not.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 6:56am

        Re: Re:

        "So, since guns can be used to kill people, they should be banned?"

        Maybe , but the courts and the President have tilted towards the 2nd admendment freedoms of late.


        while CopyRIGHTs are undisputed as inalienable rights for Artists, everywhere.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 7:27am

          Re: Re: Re:

          A: It's disputed

          B: It's only a legal right, it's a natural privilege. But law doesn't dictate morality.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 8:50am

            It's only a legal right, it's a natural privilege. But law doesn't dictate morality.

            Laws are for the benefit of the Victims,, not the criminals.

            If the law has been properly constructed, which is NOT always possible.

            Because of powerful lobbyist who advocate unjust, greedy & often"morally criminal" causes -- like "stealing" copyrighted work.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Brendan (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 12:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Laughable. I dispute the artificial monopoly rights granted to artists. Lots of others do, too.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 4:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Laughable. I dispute the artificial monopoly rights granted to artists. Lots of others do, too."

            Some people still dispute laws against slavery and human trafficking.

            Why do you dispute "the artificial monopoly rights granted to artists" ? Please cite any historical "philosophical and/or political" writings that support such view. ( Or Any comic-books that support such views if that is your level.)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Brendan (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 8:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              There's been tons of research put out lately that challenges the assumption that expanding copyright laws leads to greater creativity. At some point, it becomes a disincentive, because creators can rest on their laurels, rather than continuing to push the art.

              To link that to a historical reference, how about the US Constitution? Which allows, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

              If copyright cannot be PROVEN to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" we should get rid of it. Copyright and patent law in their current form are doing more to STIFLE rather than PROMOTE the progress in their fields.

              Also, I made several other comments. Perhaps you can address those. Search the page by username (I suggest threaded view).

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 10:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Also, I made several other comments. Perhaps you can address those. Search the page by username (I suggest threaded view)."

                Doing that now .

                ---
                "There's been tons of research put out lately that challenges the assumption that expanding copyright laws leads to greater creativity"

                I would love to read them . Please suplly the specific links and/or references.

                -------
                """To link that to a historical reference, how about the US Constitution? Which allows, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."""

                Well written Gibberish w/o citation : Grade; D- / F

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Chosen Reject, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:44pm

    If we're thinking about changes...

    If we're considering changes to copyright law, how about we just say you can either have a government granted monopoly on the rights to copy, OR you can try to enforce it on your own using DRM; NOT BOTH. I wonder which system copyright holders would choose to use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nelson Cruz (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 2:50pm

    Because they want to keep the tools illegal

    I don't support this policy. It's stupid and harmful. But I do understand the rational for it. They want to keep circumvention tools illegal and out of the public's hands.

    If you legalize circumvention for "Non-Infringing Purposes", you have to legalize the tools as well. And then it all becomes a matter of what people do with those tools in the privacy of their own homes, where copyright holders can't exert any control. People can use these tools for legal backup copies, or they might copy rented DVDs. In essence the entire anti-circumvention thing is neutered.

    What people do with the tools in the privacy of their own homes can't be controlled. Only the making, distributing and selling of the tools, in public, can be controlled and prosecuted. That's why it's illegal.

    And yes, I do realize that applying this same principle a lot of other tools with illegal uses could be banned. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:01pm

      Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

      Guess what? Those tools still exist and are easy to get. Making them illegal has not reduced the illegal use of them, it only prevent legal usage. I'm guessing the actual intention of making these tool illegal is to prevent there legal use.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      hegemon13, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:04pm

      Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

      Better outlaw hammers then, because a person could use one to break windows, destroy property, build a shed to grow pot, or kill someone. Don't want to risk the public getting their hands on such a dangerous tool. They obviously can't be trusted to use such a tool legally and responsibly.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dementia (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 3:27pm

      Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

      I think your "a lot of tools with illegal uses" should probably be changed to simply "all tools". I have yet to come across a tool that couldn't be used for an illegal purpose if you happened to try and come up with one.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 7:02am

        Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

        you used to ( and still can somtimes) be able to " royalty tax" some tools, lake cassette tapes , CDs.

        No being a core techie , I am not not qualified to address how a "royalty tax" and Tech tools could work.

        Any answers out there ??-- Even if you would be against a "tech tools royaliy tax." -- on how it should, could , would be done?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

          Any answers out there ??

          Guess not. But this is techdirt, so it is par for the course.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 9:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

            Maybe the answer is because it wouldn't work, so why would you ask how it would work if it wouldn't work.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Brendan (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 12:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

            The answer is because such a tax would be unjustifiable and unfair. It assumes that the consumer is going to break the law, and is being charged to compensate for that.

            But what about the (vast majority) of consumers with no intention of breaking any laws? They still have to pay such a tax. How is that fair? How does that place the blame/consequences on the appropriates parties? Answer: it doesn't.

            It's a lazy, stupid solution.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 3:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

              weak answer : c- /d+
              -----
              http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2007/08/bardot-french-copyright-and-first.html

              "Blank cassette tapes were taxed" --[in some countries]- "and rights paid to musicians' collecting societies because music would be copied to them without paying additional royalties."

              http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2007/08/bardot-french-copyright-and-first.htm l

              ( I neither endorse or dismiss any other views on the cited blog. It was just the first thing that poped up when I search for "Blank cassette tapes were taxed".)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 10:31am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

              "But what about the (vast majority) of consumers with no intention of breaking any laws? They still have to pay such a tax. How is that fair?"

              The vast majority of people are law abiding. Yet we pay taxes , to fund the police and courts.

              Royalty taxes , would be paid by the majority of fair users, to make sure unfair users pay.

              Every Body clear.

              ---

              I come to techdirt , to learn. I like post if I see a flawed -- but other-wise honest and well intentioned , and well though out -- argument.

              I post in reply to folks like you , who fail to read and do research , the same way a cat plays with a mouse before he
              kills it.

              because posting boards can be fun, and i am guilty too , of getting a kick here at someones -- an unread idiot like -- expense.

              But I prefer the quality , educated, and thoughful dissussions , that actually might affect the formation of public policy.

              Which , I hope is Mike's goal here . Not only to have techdirt be entertaining, but first and foremost to be a serious public policy forum.

              -----------------
              I am off to play my guitar , everybody have a nice day.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                nasch (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 12:22pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

                Royalty taxes , would be paid by the majority of fair users, to make sure unfair users pay.

                Um... what? You're saying it's ok for the majority who do not break the law to pay taxes to the music industry to compensate them for the minority who do? Why is this OK? We pay taxes for police and the courts because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way. None of that is true of the blank media tax. It certainly doesn't have widespread support, it is definitely not necessary, and almost everyone is worse off because of it.

                Every Body clear.

                Definitely not.

                You claim to want well-reasoned debate. Well, how about you start off by coming up with some?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 9:07pm

                  "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way": Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

                  "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way"

                  Exactly the truth concerning copyright law -- throughout history.

                  Good Job.

                  How do you fail to understand: that iF I create Art , I own it. I control it. i live and eat off money generated by it. Use w/o pay is stealing.
                  If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Mike Masnick (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 11:29pm

                    Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way": Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

                    How do you fail to understand: that iF I create Art , I own it. I control it.

                    Both the law and pretty much all of human history say otherwise, but thanks for playing.

                    i live and eat off money generated by it.

                    Only if you come up with a business model that works, given the realities of the market. You seem to not want to do that. For the life of me, I can't figure out why.

                    Use w/o pay is stealing.

                    If you can't understand the difference between making a copy and taking something away from someone, you have no business taking part in this debate.

                    If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.


                    Actually, he's right in the midst of mainstream human history.

                    " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 18th, 2010 @ 3:23am

                      Re: Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way":

                      me : How do you fail to understand: that iF I create Art , I own it. I control it.

                      Mike : Both the law and pretty much all of human history say otherwise, but thanks for playing.

                      Me: Sorry Mike ,, nice wordplay, but again , {copyright} laws protect victims , not criminals.

                      Artist own their work ( --but not the physical medium of transmission--), and pirates want to subvert that some or all of that ownership right.

                      I am sure you read the ASCAP Bill of Rights . IF you got issues with those specific rights -- do a post where you Mike , address them case -by -case.

                      http://www.ascap.com/rights/

                      Invite a famous respected copyright law professor or two to join the discussion.

                      I'll buy popcorn and watch.
                      -----------

                      Me: i live and eat off money generated by it.

                      Mike : Only if you come up with a business model that works, given the realities of the market. You seem to not want to do that. For the life of me, I can't figure out why.

                      Me: I think we got a core point here . I live off my Art. Whether I am a good or bad biz person is not the issue.

                      The laws protect Artists who may not have an MBA , nor can afford lawyers.

                      Laws that protect rights -- even if those RIGHTS stifle someone elses privileges.

                      THAT is price you pay for living in a free democracy.

                      ( That basic Pol-Sci 101, or even 8th grade social studies, if you do not grant me that point, any further conversation is useless , and you are a copyright fascist - from the Artist's perspective.)

                      Artists have copy-RIGHTS. Users are granted certain USE-Privilege's -- only if I choose to give it to them.

                      I can produce Art , and choose not to to grant ANY privileges for use.

                      Too many posters here are confusing Artists RIGHTS , with User Privileges -- you seem to be one of them Mike. This a a major crux of my points.

                      Clearly fair use , and Artist cannot stop, but fair use is only granted for an excerpt and/or part of the Art-- never ( --ok maybe rarely ---)the useful /resell-able whole thing.
                      -----------

                      Me: Use w/o pay is stealing.

                      Mike : If you can't understand the difference between making a copy and taking something away from someone, you have no business taking part in this debate.

                      Me:
                      So why are you here Mike ? Clearly you don't.
                      I write a Poem.
                      I sell the poem on the streets.
                      You take poem home. Make copies.
                      What can you do with those copies ?

                      Sell them? - Never w/o permission and/or royalties

                      Give them Away? - only with the poet/artists specific ( i.e. case-by-case ) written permission.

                      Quote them on your term paper : only with proper citation.

                      Eat them : feel free to.
                      ----------------------------------------

                      Me: If you do not hold by that premise , you are far outside the mainstream of human history.

                      Mike : Actually, he's right in the midst of mainstream human history.

                      Me: I see where these posters here learn their cute tricks from. Make a vacuous platitude statement , claim it is fact , ridicule all who disagree. How Rush Limbaugh of you.

                      CopyRIGHT Laws - like any laws - are what define a civilized society. ( Do you accept that point? If not you are a lost cause. )

                      Then you put a long quote for Thomas Jefferson -- the Godfather of copyright as embedded into the American Legal System , w/o specific comment on what element[s] of you long quote supports your argument.

                      I will finish my coffee ,carefully read , and verify the quote below ,
                      and will respond.

                      But maybe in a few days , as a it's a major Jewish Holiday starting tonight at sundown ( "Shavous" or "Pentecost" in latin) , and I will be occupied today preparing, then observing for two days. And G-D willing no one will mention the word "copyright" to me during that holy time.

                      But promise I will -- happily -- get back to Tommy J.'s quote soon.
                      ------
                      ME to Mike::-->>>

                      My friend ::

                      You have to decide if you want to be the: Rush Limbaugh of the loony techno-left-anarchist fringe"

                      or the

                      "Bill Moyers of the techno world"-- balanced fair and Truth seeking -- where your readers are NOT quite sure what side you take , but know you understand the issues. Someone better at asking questions than giving answers -- (which Mike, is when you personally are at you best.)

                      You Mike are very capable of being either Rush Limbaugh or Bill Moyers. Choose wisely

                      AND Techdirt's profits margin should be no factor in you choice, as if it does you have surrendered your journalistic dignity for popularity.

                      I have been reading TechDirt for years. You , Mike , have taught me alot.

                      Enlightened me to issues I never thought of , and sometimes caused me to often re-examine my views.

                      You have also at times made me giggle , and even given me a few good belly laughs on issues where we see exactly eye to eye -- like electronic voting , diebold , etc .

                      But on copyright laws -- as they apply to Artist , I am telling you as a (cyber-)friend and loyal reader: You not only missing the boat , but you don't even see the ocean.
                      Or you do , but are just playing the "Rush(Limbaugh) - for -ratings game."

                      Thanks for writing to me.

                      While I really wish I could ,, I can't live here @ techdirt -- (unless you hire me for pay.)

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Mike Masnick (profile), May 19th, 2010 @ 12:50am

                        Re: Re: Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way":

                        Me: Sorry Mike ,, nice wordplay, but again , {copyright} laws protect victims , not criminals.


                        I have no idea what this means.

                        Artist own their work ( --but not the physical medium of transmission--), and pirates want to subvert that some or all of that ownership right.

                        Neither assertion here is true. You do not "own" the work. You *hold* certain rights to that work -- specifically laid out by copyright law. Those who engage in infringing practices may subvert some of those rights, but not the right of ownership.

                        I am sure you read the ASCAP Bill of Rights . IF you got issues with those specific rights -- do a post where you Mike , address them case -by -case.

                        ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organization.

                        And we've already addressed them point by point, in a post written by a songwriter:

                        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080529/2308011264.shtml

                        Me: I think we got a core point here . I live off my Art. Whether I am a good or bad biz person is not the issue.


                        Yes, it very much is the issue. Copyright law was never intended to protect bad business people.

                        The laws protect Artists who may not have an MBA , nor can afford lawyers.


                        Wrong. The law is to promote the progress. It is not about protecting artists.

                        Laws that protect rights -- even if those RIGHTS stifle someone elses privileges.

                        THAT is price you pay for living in a free democracy.


                        This is meaningless babble that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one denies that laws protect certain rights. The problem is that you are flat out lying about what copyright law does (and doing so in barely comprehensible English).

                        Artists have copy-RIGHTS. Users are granted certain USE-Privilege's -- only if I choose to give it to them.


                        False. I'm sorry. Go talk to a lawyer. You are wrong. Copyright is an exception to the public domain, and is a * privilege* doctrine. Users do have certain privileges as well, but many of them DO NOT need the artist's approval. Fair use, for example. Compulsory licensing in certain areas as well.

                        It's difficult to take you seriously when you don't seem to be aware of the law.

                        I can produce Art , and choose not to to grant ANY privileges for use.


                        This is simply false. You are misinformed and/or ignorant of the law.

                        Too many posters here are confusing Artists RIGHTS , with User Privileges -- you seem to be one of them Mike. This a a major crux of my points.

                        I fear the problem is that you are severely misinformed as to the law.

                        Clearly fair use , and Artist cannot stop, but fair use is only granted for an excerpt and/or part of the Art-- never ( --ok maybe rarely ---)the useful /resell-able whole thing.

                        Contradicting your original statement. You make me shake my head in wonder. You also don't seem to understand fair use.

                        I write a Poem.

                        I have no idea what you are saying here. Please take a course in basic logic. Your arguments make little sense.

                        CopyRIGHT Laws - like any laws - are what define a civilized society. ( Do you accept that point? If not you are a lost cause. )

                        Then consider me a lost cause. I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.

                        Then you put a long quote for Thomas Jefferson -- the Godfather of copyright as embedded into the American Legal System , w/o specific comment on what element[s] of you long quote supports your argument.

                        I'm sorry if it was unclear, but the point was obvious. You claimed that use of an idea without paying was stealing and arguing otherwise was outside of the mainstream of human history. I quoted Thomas Jefferson to show that you were wrong.

                        But on copyright laws -- as they apply to Artist , I am telling you as a (cyber-)friend and loyal reader: You not only missing the boat , but you don't even see the ocean.
                        Or you do , but are just playing the "Rush(Limbaugh) - for -ratings game."


                        Trust me, if I were in this for the "ratings game," I wouldn't be writing about copyright law. Believe it or not, that's not exactly a hot topic with the kids out there.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2010 @ 11:55pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way":

                          "that's not exactly a hot topic with the kids out there."

                          What is, I wonder? I guess I don't keep up with this stuff.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 7:16pm

                            Those who engage in infringing practices may subvert some of those rights

                            "Those who engage in infringing practices may subvert some of those rights"

                            exactly. That is why it is illegal.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 7:12pm

                          ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio

                          Actually ,i read the ASCAP rights very carefully ,, and they do reflect how copyright law now does stand in the USA.Which quiet frankly has the strongest and the best copyright laws in the world.

                          The ASCAP B.O.Rs. extends focus of artist rights onto new areas of the digital age, as well better international protections.

                          That is what I suggested you review and critic them, and they do actually summarize the law as it stands in the USA for printed media , and most digital media. ( But if you read them you would know that. More reading , less writing Mike.)
                          -----------
                          Why do we have the best copyright/patent laws?

                          Because the laws are an embedded institution
                          within the U.S. Constitution ,
                          right there with the formation of the President and Congress and the Supreme Court and balance of powers..

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
                          Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States 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."

                          (**Limited times are determined by law. If you want to cut the time to 10 days ,, try to get the law passed. Good Luck.)

                          Free speech is in the "bill of rights" , of the first of the ten amendments to the u.s const.

                          There was much opposition to granting absolute free speech and press in 1700's.

                          there was no opposition to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,

                          If you fail to understand how this torpedoes your worldviews on copyright and patent laws,

                          ,, you, well, should quit your job , or be fired.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Mike Masnick (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 11:36pm

                            Re: ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio

                            Actually ,i read the ASCAP rights very carefully ,, and they do reflect how copyright law now does stand in the USA.

                            ASCAP's bill of rights is incredibly one sided, misleading and inaccurate. It presents copyright as a tool to protect, rather than as an incentive to promote the progress.

                            There was much opposition to granting absolute free speech and press in 1700's.

                            there was no opposition to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,


                            TP, once again, you are 100% wrong. Let's see if you'll admit it this time. In discussing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, James Madison wrote:

                            "But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."

                            He was okay with it, but only in extremely limited arenas.

                            In response to this, Jefferson sent a letter to Madison, in which he suggested that it include a prohibition on patents and copyright -- noting that he was opposed to the very concept of patents. Madison replied, noting that *if greatly limited* it could inspire ingenuity, and Jefferson replied:

                            "the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."

                            You do not know your history.

                            If you fail to understand how this torpedoes your worldviews on copyright and patent laws,

                            Well, well. Considering you got it 100% wrong and I got it right... then perhaps I should not quit my job at all.

                            Anyway, given that you clearly are not interested in debating this with facts or logic, good luck to you. I will not discuss this with you further. I have made my points and you have ignored them.

                            As for your bizarre claim that I need to discuss this with copyright lawyers, I do so all the time. We have one copyright lawyer who writes for this site on occasion (expect to see more from him soon) and another may be joining soon. Eric Goldman -- one of the most respected copyright lawyers, regularly contributes content and comments and we have done an interview with William Patry -- who perhaps knows more about copyright than anyone else in the world. The man literally wrote *the book* on copyright, which is quoted regularly by judges in copyright cases. I email with him regularly about this stuff, and he tends to support my position.

                            If you want to see an interview I did with him, it is here:

                            http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090823/1538545965.shtml

                            Unless you are willing to admit that you were wrong multiple times in your initial post (falsely suggesting ASCAP's one side view was an accurate description of copyright and then falsely claiming there was no debate over the IP clause) I will not respond to you again. It is not worth my time to respond to people who live in a fantasy world.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 11:52pm

                              Re: Re: ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio

                              I got to got to bed ,, I will reply later ,, but just briefly ,, glad to see you did research for once.

                              I was wondering if you would catch my off -the -cuff comment on no opposition to copyright laws in the 1700's. I knew is was unsubstantiated -- but not necessarily untrue when I typed it . But there was little opposition, as evidenced by the historical fact that copyright became embedded into the constitution.

                              (Old yeshiva teacher trick , make a comment or point full holes ,, see if anybody is awake out there and catches it. There is hope for you yet mike.)

                              But the point again is is : After reasoned discussion by the greatest mind of the day copyright and patent law WAS placed into the constitution, to help the new American economy grow. Seems to have worked well as history bears out ..

                              More in the morning ,

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                icon
                                Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 5:16am

                                , make a comment or point full holes ,, see if anybody is awake out there and catches it.

                                I have pulled the trick a few times , here the in last couple of weeks of copyright threads , and nobody "caught" me till now. Good job Mike.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:01am

                              Re: Re: ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio

                              Mike :"Unless you are willing to admit that you were wrong multiple times in your initial post (falsely suggesting ASCAP's one side view was an accurate description of copyright and then falsely claiming"

                              Actually ,i read the ASCAP rights very carefully ,, and they do reflect how copyright law now does stand in the USA. (-- IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. You have yet to point out which clauses of the ASCAP do not reflect current copyright law.)Which quiet frankly has the strongest and the best copyright laws in the world.

                              The ASCAP B.O.Rs. extends focus of artist rights onto new areas of the digital age, as well better international protections __ In MY humble OPINION based on my reading of it.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:34am

                              Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business

                              Mike:
                              "Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "

                              And will you admit Mike , that your sentence above right here , is a completely unfounded , un- sourced , and now proven -- in my humble opinion-- completely false by various posters.


                              Mike , you post better , we will all comment better. And then you will make more $$ Mike ,, -- again in my humble opinion
                              http://techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:46am

                              Interview With William Patry: Understanding How The Copyright Debate Got Twisted

                              there is alot to read and digest there. Today , I got some time , and hope to get to it, but there is alot there, and it does deserve very careful and very thoughtful and well referenced rebuttal. So it make take a while,, even weeks.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:49am

                              As for your bizarre claim that I need to discuss this with copyright lawyers, I do so all the time

                              but you only seem to talk to folks who you are already in agreement with-- in my humble opinion.

                              That is never a way to grow & learn.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:53am

                              Anyway, given that you clearly are not interested in debating this with facts or logic, good luck to you. I will not discuss this with you further. I have made my points and you have ignored the

                              again I will strife to be better , clearer and more academically honest in my posts.

                              I hope everyone one here will , as we will all gain by doing that.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:56am

                              In response to this, Jefferson sent a letter to Madison,...........................

                              If I read Madison and T.J. right , (always a big IF early in morning and on little sleep) ,, you helped my stance with your words.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 11:12am

                              Unless you are willing to admit that you were wrong multiple times in your initial post (falsely suggesting ASCAP's one side view was an accurate description of copyright and then falsely claiming there was no debate over the IP clause) I will not respond

                              don't walk away now , we are just beginning to understand where tyhe other is comming from.

                              I accept your anarchist philosophy re: copyright and patent.

                              And you should accept that I believe that a constitutional democracy -- that our U.S. Constitution builds, is the best system of gov't for all areas of life and law ,, including copyright.

                              If we both come to further posts with that in mind ,, we can have a meaningful exchange.

                              But you must accept the fact Mike the the USA is NOT an anarchist republic, and copyright law is clearly embedded into the constitution to "promote" ---(and protect too , in my humble opinion) --- economic growth and innovation at all levels.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 7:23pm

                          This is meaningless babble that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one denies that laws protect certain rights. The problem is that you are flat out lying about what copyright law does (and doing so in barely comprehensible English).

                          Mike I have a B.A. in Pol-Sci , with a Writing Arts Minor and concentration in English lit. . My written papers always got "A"s.

                          Again , bring in some Copyright Laywer Pros, professors , judges, and you Mike discuss with them copyright laws with them in a locked thread, no other posters allowed.

                          I challenge you. And I hope you are not too chicken to do it.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 7:42pm

                          Wrong. The law is to promote the progress. It is not about protecting artists.

                          "Wrong. The law is to promote the progress. It is not about protecting artists."

                          The law promotes progress BY protecting artists and inventors.

                          That is why Jefferson embedded patent and copyright into the Constitution, he knew the new nation could not build a vibrant economy without proper Copyright and patent laws. It is basic political-economic theory , a "self-evident truth" even.

                          Did you ever take a high school social studies course, this was there ? Check you notes.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 7:47pm

                          False. I'm sorry. Go talk to a lawyer. You are wrong. Copyright is an exception to the public domain, and is a * privilege* doctrine. Users do have certain privileges as well, but many of them DO NOT need the artist's approval. Fair use, for example. Com

                          "False. I'm sorry. Go talk to a lawyer. You are wrong. Copyright is an exception to the public domain, and is a * privilege* doctrine. Users do have certain privileges as well, but many of them DO NOT need the artist's approval. Fair use, for example. Compulsory licensing in certain areas as well.

                          It's difficult to take you seriously when you don't seem to be aware of the law."

                          Site sources mike. Meaningless words with proper MLA citation.

                          Again do a thread with Judges , lawyers and you. I will watch.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 8:37pm

                          Then consider me a lost cause. I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.

                          Do you consider yourself an anarchist?
                          Which is a respectable political philosophy,
                          Some of my best friend are anarchists -- really .

                          The Tompkin Square riot
                          was a lot of friends and co-workers of mine at the time who were squatters. ( i was busy playing guitar in the West Village and missed the party.) en.wikipedia.org/.../Tompkins_Square_Park_Riot_(1988)

                          If that is how you hold and are an anarchist , well then you are the type of guy , with as rearguards to Copyright and Patent laws, that the Constitution protects us Artists and Inventors from.

                          Just as the Constitution protects us from Dick Cheney eavesdropping on my phone call. Usually, I just pick up the phone and read poetry into a wiretapped phone.

                          (No Joke . when I worked for Greenpeace NYC in the late 1980s , the Reagan / Bush Admins was tapping our phones , under warrant even. Greenpeace was classified as terrorist by Ronny & co. in the 1980s. )

                          (( And as far as my resume , in 1986 while employed at NYPIRG , I had a co-worker who is now our American President.))

                          My Point. Don't tell me , i do not know what I am talking about. I have been there and done that politically since you where in diapers. I have deep sympathy for anarchist philosophy. However , I do view as unwork-able in practical terms, as long as evil exists in the world.

                          (I personally , am an extreme personal civil libertarian , but hold that corporations have no rights- only privileges as granted to them by law.. I vote Democrat 90 % of the time. I like Sen.Oran Hatch {R-Ut.} and the late Bill Safire of the NY Times, but often differ with them.)

                          But as long as you cite sources for for your points in our discussions -- ( and I will too) , and you renounce terrorism, we can talk and be friends.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 11:42pm

                          And we've already addressed them point by point, in a post written by a songwriter:

                          I will read it carefully and try to find time to thoughtfully reply ,,
                          but again , it is really a thread that a copyright law professor should moderate ,, not some anarchist songwriter,, or any songwriter for that matter ,, including me.

                          you know our President was a law professor ,, maybe you could get him to comment on copyright & Patent law vis a via Songwriters , Prose writers , and folks who patent lifeforms.
                          -----------------------

                          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.s tm

                          "Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell."

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 3:28am

                          Me: Sorry Mike ,, nice wordplay, but again , {copyright} laws protect victims , not criminals." Mike: I have no idea what this means.

                          Mike , pretty basic tenant of law and history.

                          As applied here ,, copyright laws protects artist {victim} from Pirate websites { criminal}, that make illegal use of their Art for profit , and fail to pay any of that profit $$ back to the Artist in the manner proscribed by law.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 3:44am

                          MIKE: "Copyright law was never intended to protect bad business people."

                          Sorry , mike , I think it it was, thus the clause "to promote the progress"

                          "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."

                          It would be nice if we could raise T.J.'s spirit from the next world , to explain this to us. While there are Kabbalistic formulas for raising the spirits of the dead, Jewish law forbids its practice. ( c.f. `First Samuel chapter 28 , and Leviticus 19:31)

                          However if on of you pagans out there want to give a shot , and raise T.J.'s spirit form the dead, please do ask him about the root reasons for copyright and patent law. And also that blasted comma in the 2nd amendment on gun rights , that till today is causing so much debate.
                          http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=re5&pwst=1&rls=en&ei=0GP2S_ SgGYK78gas67ngCg&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CBcQvwUo AQ&q=2nd+amendment+comma&spell=1

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:15am

                            Re Are you an anarchist Mike ? you say: ""I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws."

                            you seem to admit so by saying "I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws."

                            Which is -- as I understand it , in my humble opinion --a core anarchist pillar of belief. If you are an anarchist , and are coming at thinks from that prospective, I think you should state so , when needed for context , as it will save your readers a lot and commentators --like me-- a lot of time.

                            ( Bill Safire often pointed out his libertarian prospective when it was relevant for his readers to know that -- if I remember his writings correctly.

                            I am always willing to exchange ideas and words, if you thought I "stepped out of the baseline" , "to elude being tagged" on mis-statements, I apologize for my sloppy writing. I will state more clearly in the future when i am stating a supported and referenced fact , and just my meaningless -- though usually correct :) -- opinions.

                            {Remember , "my opinion is fact!!". (sic)}

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 18th, 2010 @ 2:41pm

                      " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.” -- Thomas Jefferson

                      " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.” -- Thomas Jefferson

                      MY REPLY :

                      Ok ,, now I see the problem.

                      As , Daffy Duck would say : “ hmm Adverb Trouble “ : except here it is a noun: IDEA.

                      Thomas Jefferson is lamenting that you cannot copyright IDEAS.

                      Take an Average human brain:

                      The levels of Brain Function:

                      1]Instinct /Reflex : I digest food. If food bad I throw up. This is deep in the “reptilian brain , and I cannot control.

                      2] Animal thought : Animal need food, Animal needs sex. , but animals stop there , they do not ove to next level:

                      3] Human thought: Ideas and concepts. Let us make a spear . Easier to kill Food.
                      Ideas and concepts , can also , be : Freedom, Love , Woman’s and Human suffrage.
                      Idea s are nice , but cannot be copy righted thus , Jefferson Lament. Ideas need to next step-

                      4] execution into physical action.
                      I have Idea, We Hunt Food. Let us make a spear , or dig a hole in ground to trap our game.
                      That is execution into physical action. If it is a good spear , with some new innovation – even today ,, I can patent it.

                      Artist have IDEAS / inspiration : again the IDEA , cannot be copyrighted.

                      But , Artist make ART . A painting , a song , a play , a poem, a book .

                      Artist apply for and get copyright to protect work from Pirates.

                      Pirates sets up website with ART :

                      Artist call lawyer. Artist: Throw up { see #1}.

                      Quite Frankly , Mile , I am deeply disappointed, and somewhat heartbroken, that you did not know the difference between “Idea” and “Execution /Creation /Physical Action” that puts the Idea , into the world where is can be copyrighted.( It is high school stuff.)

                      For with Ideas alone ,, there no copyright , thus Jefferson’s Lament ? No Jeferson’s Ode to the beauty of human thought , to free slaves , heal the sick , end suffering.

                      So now read Tommy J.’s quote again, with that thought in mind:
                      …. [I]deas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson

                      Man , that is beautiful – and if written today , would be covered by copyright

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Technopolitical (profile), May 18th, 2010 @ 3:03pm

                        Re: " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.� -- Thomas Jefferson

                        T.J. is also condemning censorship in this quote . That is why Techdirt readers in China , might never see it .

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 9:01pm

                          typos

                          sorry , I am more than a bit dyslexic, and really don't have the time to proofread 15 x --- plus 2 friends proofreading --- as i would with a formal paper.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 12:04am

                        Re: " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.� -- Thomas Jefferson

                        will you admit mike ,, that you TOTALLY mis-read T.J. , and then based your points on it?

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    nasch (profile), May 18th, 2010 @ 8:15am

                    Re: "because we agree as a society that it's necessary and we're all better off that way": Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal

                    You've finally convinced me you're either completely and willfully clueless or a flat-out liar, and either way I don't think it's worthwhile to try to discuss anything with you.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 10:02pm

                      willfully clueless or a flat-out liar,

                      me? never. I can give you personal references of profs , teachers , and co-workers , who would swear under oath to that.
                      ----------

                      "willfully clueless"
                      If you meant mike ,, and not me , with your comment ,, well then , no comment from me is needed.

                      There is self -evident truth
                      ------
                      "flat-out liar," [re: Mike}
                      even i would not say that !!
                      Mike is honest in his assertions and beliefs. Wrong , but honest,

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        nasch (profile), May 20th, 2010 @ 11:14pm

                        Re: willfully clueless or a flat-out liar,

                        Yes, you. I really don't care what your professors, teachers, and co-workers think, I can make my own judgments based on your words here. And you continue to reinforce my opinion. I will still read what you have to say, and if you start engaging in useful discussion rather than making stuff up and deflecting criticism, I'll jump in. I've seen worse trolls than you change their ways, so I'm not ruling anything out.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 2:56pm

    the real problem here is that the tools to circumvent would be used almost exclusively to defeat protection measures put in place to stop copyright abuse. just like the limewire or grokster cases, the few legal uses would be far outweighed by the massive abuses that would come. the discussion is pretty much a non-starter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:04pm

      Re:

      You say that as though making the tool illegal makes them go away. The "massive abuse" is happening despite the restriction, only the "few legal uses" are being stopped. I bet that is the real reason for these laws, to prevent legal usage of such tools.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:34pm

        Re: Re:

        by your logic, we should make crack legal, and stop worrying about people carrying machine guns with 1000 bullet clips, because the only things the laws are stopping are the few legal uses of those things. your logic just doesnt fly.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Crack cocaine. Machine guns. Circumvention for non-infringing purposes. Totally the same thing.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 6:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            'Crack cocaine. Machine guns. Circumvention for non-infringing purposes' - not right. it is 'circumvention' in any form. remember, crack cocaine sitting on a table isnt dangerous, machine guns are meaningless without bullets, and circumvention tools arent bad, until each of them is used for a bad purpose. the example is just to show that things are illegal for reasons, and you need to grasp that simple concept. please mike, log on with your real name when you make posts like this.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 6:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              hi mike.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 6:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "he example is just to show that things are illegal for reasons"

              Copyright exists for a reason, to enrich the elite, not to promote the progress.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 6:29pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Everybody gets that, state-the-obvious-boy. But if you stopped spending all your time trying to sound smarter than everyone else and actually comprehending what is being written to you, you'd understand that you've made everyone's point.

              Yes things are made illegal that have other purposes, but the point is that the degree and precision with which those are made is directly proportional to the impact. In one case you impact someone's life and in the other you impact someone's business model. Dumbass.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 7:28am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                you dont think that impacting a business model doesnt in turn impact someones life? what is the movie company produces less movies, hires less people, spends less money, maybe fires some of its existing staff. was a life not impacted? its easy to rail against 'the industry', but right behind them is a whole pile of individual people whos lives are affected. what you are doing is the typical way of deflecting harm by assigning the harm to some faceless thing, when there are really people involved. it makes me think that you are self-justifying your own infringements online.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 7:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  It's called economics dummy. The market drives change. Those jobs go somewhere else despite your belief it is a zero-sum game.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 8:50am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Think of the popcorn farmers

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 9:00am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  So if I buy from company X and not company Y, I am impacting those individuals who work for company X by buying from company Y. So it's the governments job to pass laws that unfairly favor company X so that they can make money.

                  and when criminals are punished for their crimes, they are impacted. So what? Yes, people are impacted by law but that's no excuse for us to accept a government that passes unfair laws that unfairly benefit a small minority.

                  "what you are doing is the typical way of deflecting harm by assigning the harm to some faceless thing"

                  I am assigning harm to criminals, those who commit crimes to humanity. Sure, their actions may not be illegal according to our broken laws, but they should be illegal and they should be put in jail, just like a criminal.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 12:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "what you are doing is the typical way of deflecting harm by assigning the harm to some faceless thing, when there are really people involved."

                  We consider a corporation a "faceless thing" to the extent that its "existence" limits the liability of the corporation's individual people. If you want us to not consider a corporation a "faceless thing" then remove the limited liability aspect of it. You can't have it both ways.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 6:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The purpose of this discussion, you stupid retard, is to determine if the laws we are discussing make sense or not. So instead of assuming that the laws in place make sense because you think that other laws make sense, why not explain why you think the laws make sense to begin with.

              We argue that the sky is blue because when we look at it, it looks blue. Your argument is that the sky is purple because when you look at the grass, the grass is green. Irrelevant. Instead of changing the topic, why not discuss why the current laws in this discussion make sense.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Or, your examples could be flawed. Let's see... copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...

          One affects fundamental human rights (life) and the other affects a government-granted temporary monopoly...hmmm....

          Yup, dramatically different things!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:06am

            . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...

            damage is damage , physical or financial

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 9:18am

              Re: . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...

              If I buy from a competitor it can cause financial damage to your business, but so what? Just because you can claim there is damage doesn't mean people owe you money. You can claim that because I'm not voluntarily giving you money for no reason I am inflicting damage. So what? Just because someone doesn't give you money doesn't mean they should have an obligation to.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:49am

                Re: Re: . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...

                those are issues for a court of law ,, not this forum.

                Courts determine if and when there are damages based on the law. Not you.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:29pm

                  Re: Re: Re: . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...

                  Yes, because the court of law is the ultimate authority of what the law should be and they are the ultimate authority over morality and so no one should discuss ideal laws nor should they criticize current laws.

                  "Courts determine if and when there are damages based on the law. Not you."

                  Because the law is infallible and us citizens should not do anything to ensure the law is fair and balanced and courts can't possibly misinterpret laws and so we should never question them ever or seek to change the laws, we should just pretend like courts and the laws are infallible no matter what.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 1:02pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: . copyright infringement versus physical injury and death... hmmmm...

                    Don't bother arguing with him. He (or she) is using a common rhetorical trick. When it becomes difficult to respond, deflect to another unassailable source. Oh, we can't argue that because the courts/god/my mother/the voice inside my head is the decider of that, not us.

                    Regardless, he's either baiting you or being disingenuous--no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages", regardless of the basis of their ethics. He knows that's not true.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

                      no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages",

                      no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages"

                      Sorry they would ,, and I just did.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 1:29pm

                        Re: no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages",

                        Got any responses used by those older than 5 or 6? Perhaps you'd be willing to explain from which branch of ethics does the statement derive?

                        If you'd like a refresher, I'm sure wikipedia can help you in your review.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 1:33pm

                          Re: Re: no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages",

                          On second thought, don't bother. You just admitted you're lazy, so I see no point in debating you further.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:21pm

                            Re: Re: Re: no serious ethicist would say something as lazy as "damages are damages",

                            "damage is damage , physical or financial"

                            was the full phrase . I stand by it.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          LOL, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          omg, you're priceless

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      crade (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 3:19pm

      Re:

      What are you talking about? "the tools to circumvent" could litterally be anything. There is no basis for saying they would be "used almost exclusively to defeat protection measures put in place to stop copyright abuse"? There is nothing in the legislation that discusses that, not is there any reason that would be true, nor is it even true today. Companies use DRM for all sorts of stuff, and a great deal of it has nothing to do with protecting from copyright abuse. Even if they didn't, there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the future.
      Plus... DRM is a blunt tool. Even the ones that are trying to block out infringment are also blocking out legitimate activities. It it easy to block out everything, but not possible to block out everything except parody, or everything but still allow use for educational purposes, even if the creator wanted to.
      Plus... what is legal varies from place to place. If some undemocratic country requires all their news be locked with digital locks, why shouldn't we be able to watch the news if it should be legal to do so here?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:31pm

      Re:

      Tools required to circumvent any type of copy protection:

      - Computer
      - Brain

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Sneeje (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 3:26pm

    Fair use is a loophole?

    "Fair Use is a loophole that should never have been placed into the law."

    The more I read this, the more foolish it sounds. Are you really saying that news organizations, researchers, reviewers, and parodists (makers of parody) should not have the right to use elements of a copyrighted work? Really? I'd like to know how that's even possible...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:30pm

      Re: Fair use is a loophole?

      It's not, never was and won't be.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:08am

      Re: Fair use is a loophole?

      "Fair Use is a loophole that should never have been placed into the law."

      even as a struggling Artist , I dissagree with that!

      Fair use is fair. and the Artist has the right to determine what what is -- and IS NOT- fair use for their art

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 9:17am

        Re: Re: Fair use is a loophole?

        "Fair use is fair. and the Artist has the right to determine what what is -- and IS NOT- fair use for their art"

        No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:51am

          No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

          how ?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 10:39am

            Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 11:29am

              Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

              I understand fair use,, YOU , please ,explain your points -- with your words,

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 11:32am

                Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

                No artist can tell me what to do with their own work if it's a parody. They have no control over their work. My right to make a parody is greater than their right to control the work in question.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 11:38am

                  Re:parody // Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

                  Parody is part of the law. Parody is ok. Parody is the highest form of compliment any artist can receive.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

                Shut up TAM.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

                No you do not understand fair use, or to the extent that you do understand it you are being dishonest.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: No, that just defeats the purpose of fair use.

                "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders"

                (from that article)

                DRM circumvents fair use, DRM should be illegal.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Svante Jorgensen (profile), May 14th, 2010 @ 3:47pm

    Confusing work vs. copy of work

    I think many in this thread confuses a work, with a copy of said work.

    Post #2 said "If a creator wants to distribute his work in a way that restricts the use, then that is his right".

    The problem here is that the creator is not "distributing his work" - he is selling a copy.
    Yes, as long a creator owns his work, it is his right to decide what people can do with it.
    But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.

    Are copies of copies too easy to make? Then STOP basing your business model on producing and selling them!

    Sorry Mike, I can't defend the anti-circumvention laws (and can't see how anyone could), but this is just my 2 cents :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:16am

      But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.

      Wrong

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:19am

        Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.

        Wrong , while he does not not own the medium, the CD , or physical book,
        he or she does still control use or re-sale of the art

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 10:22am

          Re: Re: But if he decides to make a copy and sell it, the copy does not belong to him any more, and he should loose all rights associated with that copy.

          Wrong , while he does not not own the medium, the CD , or physical book, the ARTIST (or their estate) still -- and always will --control ANY use or re-sale of the art as long as the copyright is in force.

          [Which should be forever and a day !! AND in any or all universes ,parallel or otherwise that currently or ever have been in existence :)]

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 8:13pm

      Re: Confusing work vs. copy of work

      "Sorry Mike, I can't defend the anti-circumvention laws (and can't see how anyone could), but this is just my 2 cents :)"

      Glad I am not alone. Thanks for being here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 3:54pm

    Hell, even in the case of a rental every party involved got everything that they asked for. That adds up to zero harm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 4:54pm

    We are trying to compare a physical object to a string of binary code. Which may or may not work so well because one is tangible and the other is not.

    Let us use the car for example, when you buy a car, you own the phsyical object. But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium. Now what is being argued is that because the contents of that medium are easly copied and distributed. The content creator now has to compete with that legal user plus anyone who dicides to not aquaire that object in a legal manner. (Because lets face it folks, how many of us haven't made a copy of a cd for a friend?)

    In the car example, lets say you buy a car and have a replicator at home that makes exact copies of this car for little to no cost to you. With the ablity to give out these copies to all your buddies and the rest of the world. Would it be okay for the goverment to crack down on these tools that would limit the amount of replicated cars not from the creator of the content to the open market? or should said car maker find a new business?

    Sure you own of that car and have every right to do with that car as you please. But is it fair for that car marker to have to compete with you and every one who purchased that car as well.

    While you have your rights as a consumer to a product, the creator has his rights to not have to compete with foriegn distribution entites for his work.

    To that, there is no easy answer. Yes, you as a user have rights but so does the producer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      CrushU, May 14th, 2010 @ 5:07pm

      Re:

      "The content creator now has to compete with that legal user plus anyone who decides to not acquire that object in a legal manner."

      (Spelling corrected. No harm, no foul.)

      Wait. So you're saying a content creator has to compete with people who buy the product and don't buy the product? I don't think that's quite what you meant, but you actually hit on the right idea.

      Content creators have to compete to get people to buy a product. Some people will buy it, some people won't. This is more akin to trying to capture market share, or adoption rates.

      Also note that I said 'a product'. The product people are 'purchasing' may not always be content, nor may it always be money that they are purchasing with. There are numerous examples of free-to-play games that are free simply because of the theory that those users will pay for add-ons or bonuses later on down the road. The examples are numerous because they work. (I tend to not like them, but OGame and Neveron are two in particular that I can point at.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:59am

      Re: But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium.

      wrong. The artist still controls the use or re-sale of the Art -- even w/o owning the medium. That is the Law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re: But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium.

        The artist still controls the use or re-sale of the Art -- even w/o owning the medium.

        You really need to read up more before hitting the keyboard. Or stop lying, if you actually know what you're saying is false.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 5:30am

          Re: Re: Re: But when you buy a cd you own the physical object + non-tagable object that exist on that medium.

          The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule."

          ***** as long as no additional copies are made.!!!!!!! ******

          Single copy , to give away to friend is OK. Multiple copies is illegal-- if I read it right, in my humble opinion.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, May 14th, 2010 @ 7:59pm

    It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

    "Dementia(profile)
    I think your "a lot of tools with illegal uses" should probably be changed to simply "all tools". I have yet to come across a tool that couldn't be used for an illegal purpose if you happened to try and come up with one."

    Yes, lots of tools can be used for illegal purpuses, but there are also a class of 'tools' that are generally used for illegal purpuses, If you have a bomb for example, unless you're a miner you probably are going to do something illegal with it.

    If you have a gun, if you are not law enforcement you are bound by laws about how you use that thing (tool).

    there are many things that you are not allowed to own many kinds of weapons, substances (drugs, uramium etc), the reason why you are not allowed to own these products is because those products have a very limited use, that is mostly illegal.

    The same applies to DRM cracking software, DRM software cracks DRM, so what is it's purpose ?

    It's the creators of a products right to do with that product whatever he/she wishes. If he wants to encript it and sell it to only very select people that is his right.

    If he wants to put it in the public domain, for anyone to view or download for free. He has that right, and would release the version in a DRM free forms.

    But if he chooses to not do that, or restrict who and when he makes that product available, and how, in what form.

    And under what conditions that is his choice.

    When you purchase a copy of a movie, you do not purchase the copyright, therefore you do not have the right to copy.

    If the seller of the product wants to sell you that product under specific terms that is his right, and when you purchase that product under those terms that is the contractual agreement you have entered into.

    If that agreement means you purchase DRM protected software, the intension is that you are not allowed to make copies of that, for "fair use" or any other reason.

    Those are the terms of the agreement you entered into when you purchased that item.

    If you dont like those terms or do not agree with the terms, you do not make that purchase.

    So having tools that are for the single purpose to remove the rights of the creator/distributor to determine the means of product distribution. Is an illegal tool, or it's purpose would most probably be used for illegal purposes.

    So like high power guns, home make bombs, drugs, uramium and many others things (poisons too), it's an illegal product.

    So government if fully within their right to protect markets, manufactures, producers, retailers and you know the economy, by ensuring tools clearly used for undermining commerce should be and are illegal...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 8:05pm

      Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

      "It's the creators of a products right to do with that product whatever he/she wishes. If he wants to encript it and sell it to only very select people that is his right."

      It's a privilege, not a right, and the creator has no right to restrict things like fair use.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 10:39am

        Re: Re:It's a privilege, not a right, and the creator has no right to restrict things like fair use.

        "It's a privilege, not a right, and the creator has no right to restrict things like fair use."

        Cases of 'fair or unfair use' -- if in dispute--- are for courts of law to determine.

        And it is CopyRIGHT. The is no such thing as ungranted copy-privileges.


        Any granted privileges of use , are at the sole discretion of the Artist

        see:http://www.ascap.com/press/2008/0417_billofrights.aspx

        A Bill of Rights for Songwriters & Composers
        Created by ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

        Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so – an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations.

        At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys.

        We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.

        We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.

        We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.

        We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.

        We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.

        We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.

        We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.

        We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.

        We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.

        We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 10:41am

          Re: Re: Re:It's a privilege, not a right, and the creator has no right to restrict things like fair use.

          Even if it fucks up the rest of society. How privileged!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 8:08pm

      Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

      "If the seller of the product wants to sell you that product under specific terms that is his right, and when you purchase that product under those terms that is the contractual agreement you have entered into."

      and this is fine, but if the buyer gives me a copy of the movie and I never agreed not to make copies and I make copies and give them away or re - sell them, I nor anyone else I give the movie to should be held liable. Just the original buyer who made an agreement and broke it. and the law should not force third parties to be held liable for breaking agreements they did not agree to.

      Now you may argue that we voted in politicians that made these unfair agreements for us on our behalf. and that's fine, which is why I encourage people to vote for politicians that will remove the existing copyright laws in favor of more reasonable laws.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 10:50am

        and this is fine, but if the buyer gives me a copy of the movie and I never agreed not to make copies and I make copies and give them away or re - sell them, I nor anyone else I give the movie to should be held liable.

        and this is fine, but if the buyer ***gives*** me a copy of the movie and I never agreed not to make copies and I make copies and give them away or re - sell them, I nor anyone else I give the movie to should be held liable.

        IF he had GIVEN you a copy , so you do not have to buy it , that is illegal. With one on one personal transaction , while illegal , it is not realistic to enforce it on small case by case instances.


        However if the "giving" become , organized and of a larger scale, call the lawyers

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 8:12pm

      Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

      "So having tools that are for the single purpose to remove the rights of the creator/distributor to determine the means of product distribution. Is an illegal tool, or it's purpose would most probably be used for illegal purposes."

      Then it is the copy privilege holder should provide us a method to utilize our fair use. They can't have it both ways, they can't both have a copy privilege on a piece of work and prevent us from utilizing from fair use.

      "So like high power guns, home make bombs, drugs, uramium and many others things (poisons too), it's an illegal product."

      Except we are not talking about high powered guns, home made bombs, etc... We are talking about something that prevents us from doing something perfectly legal with a piece of art. and to the extent that legal applications exist for guns, etc... the law should allow exemptions for those uses. Likewise, the law should allow exemptions for circumventing DRM for the purpose of fair use.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 8:15pm

      Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

      "If that agreement means you purchase DRM protected software, the intension is that you are not allowed to make copies of that, for "fair use" or any other reason."

      But this intention violates copyright law. So, by your logic, DRM itself should be illegal since it's use is to violate law. Just like high powered guns, bombs, illegal drugs, the use of DRM is mostly used to violate laws by denying us our right to fair use and to make copies of the work once it enters the public domain. It should be illegal and not used.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 8:17pm

        Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

        and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right. My right to circumvent DRM and to make as many copies of your work as I want and to give them to whomever I wish for free is a natural right. My natural right is more important than your legal right.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 10:56am

          and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.

          Sorry wrong.

          Copyrights laws , simply formalize all legal rights.

          Artists rights are natural and inalienable rights--- with or without law.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 11:27am

            Re: and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.

            My non-artist's rights are more natural and inalienable and I am saying this as an artist.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 11:34am

              rights are more natural and inalienable

              ALL "natural and inalienable" rights are equivalent and/or equal.

              that is natural

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 11:57am

                Re: rights are more natural and inalienable

                My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.

                Exhibit A: Reality.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 12:18pm

                  Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.

                  as long as you don't sell , or un-fairly use them ,, copy all you want

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:24pm

                    Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.

                    There is no such thing as unfairly using them, and reselling them is also a natural right. and if "ALL "natural and inalienable" rights are equivalent and/or equal." then his right to copy is equal to your right to prevent him from copying and so he can copy. But in reality, our right to copy is greater than your privilege to prevent us from copying and not all rights are equivalent. But you will convince no one with your lame arguments and the public will simply turn against you in mass amounts and congress and governments will eventually be forced to comply with the public consensus so long as your views keep on hinging on nonsense.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 12:31pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.

                      There is no such thing as unfairly using them? nonsense !!

                      When the GOP in the 2008 elections, un-fairly used Springstein songs,, Bruce told then to stop , or he'll sue. They stopped.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.

                        Just because you or a broken legal system labels it unfair doesn't make it so. Truth is not based on your proclamations or the authority of any legal regime.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.

                          But "truth" is practically applied by the Courts of Law.

                          If you do not like that -- Find another planet to live on.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:41pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rights are more natural and inalienable// My right to make copies (it's in our DNA) trumps your right to prevent me from making copies.

                            "If you do not like that -- Find another planet to live on."

                            Better yet, I can seek to correct our laws and our legal system and discuss what's wrong with our legal system with others as part of my effort to correct it.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 12:54pm

                              Better yet, I can seek to correct our laws and our legal system and discuss what's wrong with our legal system with others as part of my effort to correct it.

                              Grooooovy ,, have fun doing too!!

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:58pm

                                Re: Better yet, I can seek to correct our laws and our legal system and discuss what's wrong with our legal system with others as part of my effort to correct it.

                                I don't know if it's fun, but it's better than finding another planet to live on only to have some broken government destroy that planet too.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:21pm

            Re: and to make it clear, your "right" to a monopoly is a legal right. It's not a natural right.

            and by what authority do you make that determination?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 14th, 2010 @ 8:36pm

      Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

      "If that agreement means you purchase DRM protected software, the intension is that you are not allowed to make copies of that, for "fair use" or any other reason."

      So first you complain that DRM circumvention tools should be illegal because they can be used to violate the law and you think that the law should be followed. Then you subsequently ignore the portions of the law that you don't like, the portions that allow for fair use, while only paying attention to the portions of the law that you like.

      Typical IP maximists. You don't care about the law, you only care about yourselves. You're selfish, and you only care about the law to the extent that it benefits you, otherwise you ignore the law when it doesn't. Just like with the constitution, which says IP should be to promote the progress, you completely ignore the promote the progress part of the constitution and only pay attention to the aspects that you like. Then you turn around and claim this is about following the law and that we have a moral obligation to follow the law. but the parts of the law you don't like don't apply to you. Hypocrites.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 5:27am

        Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

        On top of that IP maximists ignore the part of the constitution that says IP should last for a limited time and they insist that copyright should last forever minus one day. They insist that there should exist indefinite retroactive copyright extensions. Then they turn around and claim that this is about the constitution and about following the law. IP maximists don't care about the constitution, they don't care about the law, the only care about themselves. Nothing more.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 5:28am

          Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

          they only care about themselves *

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 10:59am

            it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

            it is ?

            er , I mean ,, it is !!!

            ( "Honey , take the rocket launcher off the lawn.... before the children get to it. )

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:30pm

              Re: it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

              "Honey , take the rocket launcher off the lawn.... before the children get to it. "

              Been posted here for 6 hours , and yet none here commented -- or even noticed --that in many parts of this troubled war-torn world, "Honey , take the rocket launcher off the lawn.... before the children get to it." is a used daily sentance.

              Geeks

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 7:32am

          Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

          welcome to the bizarre absolutes segment of the discussion. because of a lack of valid arguments, terms like 'ip maximalist' and 'natural rights' will be tossed about, mostly as proof that the poster long since lost the argument, and now much haul out all the straw men and absurd characterizations just to try to look good. you may want to join rd and his identical twin nameless.one in using lots of caps too.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 7:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

            Valid lack of arguments and strawmen? I'm sorry, are we referring to TAM? Pot meet kettle.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 8:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

            Ha ha - look in a mirror when you say that.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 9:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

            "because of a lack of valid arguments"

            So why don't you actually address the arguments being made instead of changing the subject and merely making baseless proclamations.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 9:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's an illegal tool - it's illegal to own a rocket launcher too..

            DRM is used to circumvent fair use. DRM should be illegal.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, May 14th, 2010 @ 9:19pm

    cause the mpaa and riaa say so?

    LOL
    sorry couldn't help it its like there stats....
    cause they say so....
    and ill add cause poor people that wouldn't buy anyhting might enjoy themselves more and the disabled might just be able to smile once a day?

    naaaa mpaa and riaa don't want anyone smiling they want CASH
    ALL OF IT
    NOW
    NOT LATER
    NOW

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, May 14th, 2010 @ 9:24pm

    copyright

    for a LIMITED TIME you are afforded a monopoly to advance the art of invention of writing such that you can afford to continue to advance works to the public.

    THATS the TRUE meaning.
    ITS a right like driving is and we should be able to take it away if you start mass lawsuits
    we should be having low terms like 5-10 years
    FAIR USE SHOULD be enshrined.

    HOW does a 50 year copyright benefit me , a citizen of canada? OR how does 150 + years benefit a USA citizen?
    NOTTA ZERO ZILCH.

    THIS is why the DMCA and other long term copyright laws should be struck as unconstitutional as they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS on the ENTIRE NATION they are inflicted upon.


    patents....
    PATENTS on drugs should be extremely limited and NOT ON SOFTWARE

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 11:03am

      THIS is why the DMCA and other long term copyright laws should be struck as unconstitutional as they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS on the ENTIRE NATION they are inflicted upon.

      "THIS is why the DMCA and other long term copyright laws should be struck as unconstitutional as they are CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS on the ENTIRE NATION they are inflicted upon."

      Will never happen.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), May 15th, 2010 @ 3:51am

    Here's a fun one for you:

    Under the current terms of the DMCA, using Nero for any purpose is illegal because IT COULD BE used for illegal purposes. Same goes for Ashampoo, Roxio and all those others.

    Nice law you have there, that you want to inflict on others.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 11:06am

      Under the current terms of the DMCA, using Nero for any purpose is illegal because IT COULD BE used for illegal purposes. Same goes for Ashampoo, Roxio and all those others.

      Can you explain why ? I am not a techie, but would like to better understand your point.

      Please explain in {polite} layman terms, w/o using bad or insulting words

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 11:28am

        Re: Under the current terms of the DMCA, using Nero for any purpose is illegal because IT COULD BE used for illegal purposes. Same goes for Ashampoo, Roxio and all those others.

        Circumventing DRM, under the DMCA, is illegal.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 12:27pm

          Circumventing DRM, under the DMCA, is illegal

          please explain why , in laymans words.

          And if for or against , please explain why you are for or against , in layman terms, too

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:33pm

            Re: Circumventing DRM, under the DMCA, is illegal

            So then are you arguing that we are allowed to circumvent DRM?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            nasch (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 1:06pm

            Re: Circumventing DRM, under the DMCA, is illegal

            Explain why the DMCA outlaws circumventing DRM? Because that's what the entertainment lobby told Congress to do, that's why.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 18th, 2010 @ 5:02am

              Q: Explain why the DMCA outlaws circumventing DRM? A;" Because that's what the entertainment lobby told Congress to do, that's why"

              a useless comment

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, May 15th, 2010 @ 6:05am

    What Fair Use Tenant ?

    So it's interesting that you all cry "fair use", without too much of an understanding of what fair us actually means.

    Ie, under what circumstances would copying the entire song or movie be "fair use", which on of the 4 fair use tenants would you apply in court, if you had a copy of DRM cracked song or movie in youre possesion ?

    Lets see:

    Purpose and Character: of the use (from Wiki).
    Is it of a commercial nature ?
    Or is it for nonprofit educational purposes.

    If you creat it so that you do not have to purchase a copy or so you can make it available for someone else to copy (or make it possible for them to do so) that is a commercial purpose.

    And unless you intend to use short segments of a work for NON-PROFIT EDUCATION. that you fail the "purpose and character" test for fair use.

    NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK.
    So is it a hit movie, or a song you want to listen too, or a book you want to read.
    Ofcourse for these purposes you would intend to gain a copy of the complete work, not a small segment.
    The work you copy, has value (to you as well as the creator). So the nature of the works you want to copy makes it clear to youre motives for breaking the DRM or other copyright protections.

    By the creator of the works protecting their works with Copyright protection, they make their intent clear that they do not wish their works to be copies, and fair use does not give you any rights based on the nature of the works you wish to copy. (songs, music, books, movies, software).

    3. The Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work:
    Fair use is, or can be used as a defense if you are clearly not using the entire works for youre own personal gains. (financial or material).

    4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    It's very easy to see that even one copy of a movie illegally downloaded, as opposed to buying the commercial version is a loss of profit, all you have to do is find people who have an illegal copy of a work and not also a legal commercial version.

    This means if you have an illegal copy, you have not purchased to legal/commercial version of the works.
    It's very hard to prove to a court that this does not represent a loss of a sale. Even if the person says they would not have purchased to legal version anyway. That makes no difference.

    Just wanting something, does not give you the right to take it or have it, or give you the right to deny the creators of the works from making profit for their efforts.

    Because it's something you want and like, after all, you know youre intension for cracking it is so that you can watch/listen/read to the work. Otherwise why would you care.

    You know you not just going to use it for non-profit educational, and youre not going to be at all interested in you were able to crack short segments (limited in number) for educational purposes or paridy.

    So you cry "fair use", "fair use" mantra, and it appears you have (as usual) done little or no research on what "fair use" actually is, and in what countries it applies.

    So please explain you defense of "fair use" for what you want to do with this anti-DRM software or any other methods that defy the wishes of the produces of the works ?

    Just crying "fair use",,, we'll you have to do a little better than that, imagine standing infront of a judge saying "fair use, your honour". Yea,,,, right,, dream on..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Sneeje (profile), May 15th, 2010 @ 6:22am

      Re: What Fair Use Tenant ?

      Nice strawman there. No one associated fair use with COMPLETE COPYING. But it was brought up in the discussion that not only should legal methods of DRM circumvention not be allowed but neither should fair use. They were related because some saw them as similar loopholes.

      I suspect that very few here would argue that straight copying is a legitimate form of fair use, but I would ask you to consider that sometimes a strict interpretation of fair use is too limiting. An example would be the RedLetterMedia reviews which cover the whole movies. They are a combination of review and parody and use extensive portions of the movie.

      What about the original question, that anti-circumvention clauses prevent legal actions allowed by the consumers? I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend. Why does that not bother you?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:46pm

        Re: Re: What Fair Use Tenant ? I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend.

        "I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend."

        you could , but , i doubt it would get through congress , or stand up in courts if it did,

        but it might.


        Finally a thoughful post from your side .

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 10:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: What Fair Use Tenant ? I could argue that the law as stated artificially extends creator rights by preventing lawful uses to which the creator's control does not extend.

          Well then we need to increase our efforts to make sure congress and the courts act in the public interest, not merely in the interests of IP lobbyists.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 8:54am

      Re: What Fair Use Tenant ?

      "Ofcourse for these purposes you would intend to gain a copy of the complete work, not a small segment."

      Why?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    copycense (profile), May 15th, 2010 @ 9:20am

    Definition?

    Michael:

    Please define "copyright defender." The members of our editorial staff, William Patry, Rick Cotton, Jessica Litman, Jane Ginsburg, Lawrence Lessig, the MPAA, the RIAA, Ray Beckerman and the average artist who seeks compensation from creative work all could be defined as "copyright defenders." Yet, there are wide ideological and doctrinal differences among these parties.

    The premise of this post (and your request to challenge the Public Knowledge proposals) depends almost exclusively upon a clear definition of "copyright defender." Unfortunately, you've left this open, so it's difficult to say whether your assertion that "copyright defenders" failed to challenge the Public Knowledge copyright reform proposals, or to defend the current copyright system is correct.

    Thank you in advance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 9:51am

      Re: Definition?

      (I'm not mike)

      In the context of the original post it should be obvious that the definition is directed towards anyone who disagrees with the proposal being discussed.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 9:58am

      Re: Definition?

      and notice what is being asked and how a basic understanding of how to read should help you figure this out.

      "So, once again, I will ask the copyright defenders among the community here: what's wrong with this proposal?"

      Clearly, he is not directing his questions towards those who believe there is nothing wrong with the proposal. His question is what is wrong with the proposal so it is logical to assume that this question only applies to those who believe there is something wrong with the proposal.

      "The members of our editorial staff, William Patry, Rick Cotton, Jessica Litman, Jane Ginsburg, Lawrence Lessig, the MPAA, the RIAA, Ray Beckerman and the average artist who seeks compensation from creative work all could be defined as "copyright defenders." "

      Yes, the RIAA also argues against infringement because it could undermine humanitarian efforts in Haiti. These people have no credibility whatsoever and the fact that they are included in your staff explains your basic reading comprehension difficulties. I don't even know why our broken government pays any attention to such entities with so little regard for morality. I don't understand how you can even look at yourself in the mirror you dishonest scumbag knowing that society would be much better off without you and all you do is lie and pretend like you're stupid. I hope your business dies, I will make every effort to ensure congress and our government ignores you and doesn't pass a single law in your favor.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 2:02pm

      Re: Definition?

      From your site.

      http://www.copycense.com/2009/08/is_creative_commons_good_for_copyright.html

      "Empirical question: how much is it worth in publicity, goodwill for creator to use Creative Commons license vs. copyright registration?"

      Depends on the creator and his/her specific values. Perhaps some creators value goodwill more than others. Who are you to determine how much something is "worth" to someone. If you mean monetary value, that's a different thing, but don't assume that money is all people value. Perhaps people just want to help out society or something and they want their work to be free regardless of publicity/goodwill. It's up to each individual, not you.

      "what percentage of CC license users have read the “legal code” to CC’s licenses?"

      I would say most of them. It's not long.

      "If the typical CC user understands that language, then he or she can read and understand the Copyright Act of 1976."

      I don't know about that. As an extreme example imagine if someone said, "if a typical English speaker understands English, then they understand Spanish." This maybe an extreme example, but the point is that legal jargon in the form of statutory law is more complicated than a simple CC license. and do you really expect each user to understand all of copyright law before deciding if they don't like it? I think basic common sense says this isn't necessary. Copycense even admits in another blog post

      "And make no mistake: the Copyright Act of 1976 is horribly written. It’s torturously complex. It is (in many places) nonsensical and even contradictory. Arguably, it reflects the wishes of only a certain set of actors."

      http://www.copycense.com/2009/08/your_copyright_responsibility_as_a_citizen.html

      You admit that it's complex, yet you believe that anyone who can easily understand a very short CC license can just as easily understand a very long and complex copyright statue. Your position seems to be as contradictory as copyright law.

      "Empirical question: If creators don’t understand basic copyright, how can they reasonably distinguish between copyright & Creative Commons?"

      First of all I think that most creators have some general understanding of copyright law. They may not know all of the particulars, but they understand some of the generalities.

      Secondly, if creators like CC licenses then they can use them regardless of existing copyright. To the extent that they don't, they can create their own licenses or modify an existing license to their liking and use that one instead. If CC and copyright are the same then there is no harm in using CC. If they're different and the creator is satisfied with CC then what's wrong with using it. Your argument amounts to, "if a creator doesn't fully understand the GPL" or "if a creator doesn't fully understand X license" or "if a creator doesn't fully understand Apple's Eula then the creator can't distinguish among these licenses." Does a creator have to fully understand each and every existing license and how to distinguish among them before deciding that they like a particular license? I think not. No, we create a bunch of selection criteria, we attribute value to them, and we find out enough about a bunch of different "licenses" to determine the extent that each meets are criteria. If we find something in copyright that strongly doesn't meet an important criterion, we ignore the entire thing, instead of reading throughout the entire law, and we ensure that we understand certain important copyright laws (like fair use) that will always govern whatever license selection we choose to use. Then we go onto the next license, like the GPL. Say the GPL requires open source code and you don't like that. Instead of reading all of the GPL licenses (since they all require open source code and you don't like that) you skip the entire GPL licenses and move onto creative commons. Etc... This is a basic common sense approach that pretty much everyone uses to determine which licenses they want to apply to their works. Alternatively, if they can't find a satisfactory license they can write their own.

      "We hope that in the future, Creative Commons will put more of its considerable intellectual and economic resources toward resolving the problems with copyright law instead of promoting contractual workarounds."

      Resolving the problems with copyright law, the laws that the organizations you represent are responsible for creating, is a long term solution. It requires tons of money and is very expensive. There are already groups trying to do that, like the pirate party. In the mean time we have no choice but to make a cheap work around. It has done more to fix the problem then you have ever done.

      "In the best case scenario, with a balanced and effective law that serves citizens and corporate owners equally well, a Creative Commons license is unnecessary."

      I agree, this is a good long term solution, but the creation of the creative commons license has done more to correct the problem than you copycense has. In fact, it is the industries that you represent that has created the copyright problems to begin with and you have done little to fix them and it seems that you only seek to make them worse.

      I find it interesting how copycense doesn't allow comments. What's the matter, can't defend your position?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 2:08pm

        Re: Re: Definition?

        ""what percentage of CC license users have read the “legal code” to CC’s licenses?""

        and if by legal code, you mean the entire contract laws and copyright laws and other laws that the wording might depend on, then my answer is that you don't have to read the entire copyright laws in order to understand a creative commons license. That's like saying I need to read an entire dictionary before understanding a book for first graders.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 2:44pm

        Re: Re: Definition?

        "In the best case scenario, with a balanced and effective law that serves citizens and corporate owners equally well, a Creative Commons license is unnecessary."

        and what about retroactive copyright extensions? What about an artist who intended for their works to go into the public domain after X years only to have their works never enter the public domain or end up completely lost in history because no one was allowed to copy it? Now that the artist may no longer be alive (ie: old age) they can no longer actively place their works into the public domain. What about the artist who initially sold their works to corporations under the expectation that their works will enter the public domain after X years and be available to all only to have the copyright on their works extended. Is copyright law fair to these people? At least, to some degree, a CC license would circumvent potential copyright extensions that a creator of a work may be unable to anticipate at the time they created their works. That way their works won't just be lost in history due to never ending copyright extension nonsense. So CC and other licenses like it do have a good purpose.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 2:03pm

      Re: Definition?

      and there is so much else that's wrong with that post but I don't have time to go into all of the details.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 4:03pm

      Re: Definition?

      "The members of our editorial staff, William Patry, Rick Cotton, Jessica Litman, Jane Ginsburg, Lawrence Lessig, the MPAA, the RIAA, Ray Beckerman and the average artist who seeks compensation from creative work all could be defined as "copyright defenders.""

      I'm sorry, I thought you were listing the members of y our editorial staff and the RIAA as being one of them. You were saying that they were also considered copyright defenders in addition to members of your editorial staff. After reading your site a little bit more, it seems like you are honest, UNLIKE the RIAA. Ok, so you asked that question legitimately. I answered it but it just seemed like such a dumb question I automatically assumed you were a troll and that copycense was an industry lobbying organization. My mistake.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 4:25pm

        Re: Re: Definition?

        (to continue)

        The thing is we have so many trolls on techdirt (ie:TAM) that intentionally say stupid things and ask stupid questions that it's so easy for us to automatically snap at someone who legitimately asks a stupid question or says something stupid. I've kinda had it even happen to me before while making jokes even after putting a :) after the joke, I was taken seriously and someone reacted negatively. So while Copycense is a sincere organization (unless the RIAA/MPAA and TAM and many of the IP maximists that troll on this blog) I had assumed, based on the silly nature of your question, that you were being dishonest. Well, now that I see you are honest and you represent an honest organization that actually means well, I apologize. I did answer the question though and the question still stands.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), May 15th, 2010 @ 9:48pm

      Re: Definition?

      Please define "copyright defender."

      Those defending the *existing* copyright system. I'm sorry if that was not clear from the context. Obviously not implying those who see problems in the system, as those are system reformers or critics. Defenders are those defending the system as it is today.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 15th, 2010 @ 10:11pm

        Re: Re: Definition?

        I hope I did not scare the copycense representative away. I actually started reading through more of their website and they seem to have a good website with a lot of interesting information. Not sure I agree with it all but it's very informative and thought provocative and certainly seems to be written with honest intentions. Once again, I apologize. I thought he was an RIAA representative, I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to yell at an RIAA representative.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 10:41am

          Re: Re: Re: Definition?

          I hope I did not scare the copycense representative away. I actually started reading through more of their website and they seem to have a good website with a lot of interesting information.

          Yes, Copycense is quite good, actually. I've been a fan for a while.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 12:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition?

            Yeah, I might start reading their blog a bit more often. I hope they get my apology. We do have tons of trolls on techdirt and I mistook them for trolls. Please ensure they get my apology or something, I don't want to scare them away.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 5:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition?

            nice litte sub-thread here. We need more like that !! I am telling you ,, it will get techdirt better readers, better posters ,, better advertisers , and better profits.

            The topic you Mike raise at techdirt are useful and interesting and important.

            Sometimes out exposition in posting turns into mud-wrestling. To which I plead guilty too sometimes.

            Let us all work to get better.

            I really do want to learn more and understand better , by coming to techdirt.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 8:34pm

            Yes, Copycense is quite good, actually. I've been a fan for a while.

            Just started reading them there. Seem like great folks @ copycense.

            I plan to be a daily regular reader now.

            Right after I scan techdirt for the "news and views" of the day, ( but I am chilling on posting comments for a while :) )

            They could be the bridge between us Mike, as both of us confess respect for Copycense .

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, May 16th, 2010 @ 7:42pm

    Copyright and wrongs...

    "Being a criminal requires being convicted of something"

    Ah yes, the old defense of 'it's not illegal unless you are caught".

    I would say, youre a criminal if you commit a crime.

    So according to you, I can kill someone, and it's not murder unless im caught and sentanced.

    ___

    And yes, the creator or producer of a product has every right to determine who, how and when and IF they want to make that product available.

    They can also define any terms, restrictions or limitations on that product. And unless the customer chooses NOT to enter that agreement, they will not make the purchase.

    If I write a custom software application for a customer, that product is intended ONLY for that particular customer.

    I cannot sell them that product, and then make a commercial version of the same thing for my own profit, so copyright works both ways.

    It's my choice if I want to make my products available to the public, or to anyone specifically I want.

    It's not you're right to claim if it exists, you have a right to have a copy of it.

    Thats why we have copyright laws, and thats why copyright laws ramain and will cnotinue to ramain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 8:48pm

      Re: Copyright and wrongs...

      "And yes, the creator or producer of a product has every right to determine who, how and when and IF they want to make that product available."

      You wish.

      "They can also define any terms, restrictions or limitations on that product."

      They can define whatever they want, that doesn't mean we should follow whatever it is they define.

      "If I write a custom software application for a customer, that product is intended ONLY for that particular customer."

      Not only your intents matter.

      "I cannot sell them that product, and then make a commercial version of the same thing for my own profit, so copyright works both ways. "

      What?

      "It's my choice if I want to make my products available to the public, or to anyone specifically I want. "

      and if you make them available to a specific person and they break the terms of agreement, only that person should be held liable, not someone who received a copy and didn't agree to the Terms of the agreement.

      "It's not you're right to claim if it exists, you have a right to have a copy of it. "

      Then don't release it to the public and don't release it to someone who will break their terms of agreement and give me a copy. If you do, go after that person, not after the person who got the software and agreed to nothing.

      "Thats why we have copyright laws,"

      We have copyright laws because evil lobbyists lobbied for them.

      "and thats why copyright laws ramain and will cnotinue to ramain."

      Not if I can help it. I will make every effort to either correct our current copyright laws and make them more equitable for everyone or to abolish copyright altogether.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 8:40pm

        Not if I can help it. I will make every effort to either correct our current copyright laws and make them more equitable for everyone or to abolish copyright altogether.

        "Not if I can help it. I will make every effort to either correct our current copyright laws and make them more equitable for everyone."
        Good. Though I believe they already are equitable for everyone, in my humble opinion.

        " or to abolish copyright altogether."

        IT would take a Constitutional Amendment to " abolish copyright altogether" and that ain't NEVER going to happen.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2010 @ 9:33pm

      Re: Copyright and wrongs...

      "And yes, the creator or producer of a product has every right to determine who, how and when and IF they want to make that product available."

      Because you said so.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 3:54am

        Re: Re: Copyright and wrongs...

        "And yes, the creator or producer of a product has every right to determine who, how and when and IF they want to make that product available."

        ""Because you said so.""
        ------------

        No, because the law of any civilized nation says so.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 17th, 2010 @ 11:47am

          Re: Re: Re: Copyright and wrongs...

          Just like the law of any civilized nation said that slavery was so. Or that women couldn't vote. What's your point?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 8:44pm

            Just like the law of any civilized nation said that slavery was so. Or that women couldn't vote. What's your point?.

            Laws can be wrong through.

            Slavery used to be legal.

            Did slave owners have "natural rights" to be slave owners.

            While a few may argue that , most would say that a human being has a natural right to be free, in all places and all circumstances. It just took the laws of various legal systems time to catch up to the natural law.

            (Yes I know slavery is in the "five books of Moses". 3000 years ago , the Five Book of Moses, vastly expanded the rights of slaves relative to other legal systems of the time. The Five Books of Moses, humanized the slave, at the time a radical concept.)

            In a civilized society "copyright protection" is a legal right that needs to developed out of the natural right. and Thomas Jefferson , James Madison and company understood that. Better than I do.

            Was that helpful?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 9:56pm

      " In Jersey anything is legal as long as you don't caught".

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBFsg93xtq0

      The Travelling Wilburys-"Tweeter and the monkey man":
      " In Jersey anything is legal as long as you don't caught".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 16th, 2010 @ 10:00pm

      Thats why we have copyright laws, and thats why copyright laws ramain and will continue to ramain..

      I am glad you are here. Kudos on you post.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 3:57am

      Re: Copyright and wrongs...

      "If I write a custom software application for a customer, that product is intended ONLY for that particular customer.

      I cannot sell them that product, and then make a commercial version of the same thing for my own profit, so copyright works both ways."

      Very interesting point. Thank you . I never thought of it that way before, as Artist rarely make custom Art -- except in adv.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Transbot9, May 17th, 2010 @ 12:37am

    Technopolitical, I'A bit of confusion

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Transbot9, May 17th, 2010 @ 12:37am

    Technopolitical, I'A bit of confusion

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Transbot9, May 17th, 2010 @ 12:46am

    Bah, stupid misstype...

    Bumped the Enter button on accident.

    Technopolitical, your assertion that copyright is a natural right I find somewhat confusing, even with the link you provided. The concept of Natural Right is something that came out of the Enlightenment period of history, involving a particular philosophical bent. Rather than explain how it is a Natural Right, you point to a source of a famous but relatively minor religion that is not even treating it as a Natural Right.

    Please keep in mind that I am not arguing against your position, merely asking for clarification.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 3:46am

      Re: copyright is a natural right

      "Technopolitical, your assertion that copyright is a natural right I find somewhat confusing, even with the link you provided. The concept of Natural Right is something that came out of the Enlightenment period of history, involving a particular philosophical bent. Rather than explain how it is a Natural Right, you point to a source of a famous but relatively minor religion that is not even treating it as a Natural Right."

      Basically: Fundunmental to any civilizied society are laws and courts to enforce laws. So people are not radomly murdered for a nickel , w/o punishing the murderer.

      Laws can be wrong through.

      Slavery used to be legal.

      Did slave owners have "natural rights" to be slave owners.

      While a few may argue that , most would say that a human being has a natural right to be free, in all places and all circumstances. It just took the laws of various legal systems time to catch up to the natural law.

      (Yes I know slavery is in the "five books of Moses". 3000 years ago , the Five Book of Moses, vastly expanded the rights of slaves relative to other legal systems of the time. The Five Books of Moses, humanized the slave, at the time a radical concept.)

      In a civilized society "copyright protection" is a legal right that needs to developed out of the natural right. and Thomas Jefferson , James Madison and company understood that. Better than I do.

      Was that helpful?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Modplan (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 5:07am

        Re: Re: copyright is a natural right

        Whether copyright is maintained should be based on the evidence that it serves its purpose to further the arts and sciences, not on faith.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 17th, 2010 @ 5:41am

          Re: Re: Re: copyright is a natural right

          "Whether copyright is maintained should be based on the evidence that it serves its purpose to further the arts and sciences, not on faith."

          Interesting point.

          I would argue , that IF copyright and patent laws stifle creation and inovation -- (which I do not grant you)-- that is the price we pay for having copyright and patent laws.

          Freedom has a price, as we often see with national security issues. I do not like the fact that the Gov't snoops -- curtailing my absolute natural right to privacy,, but the gov't has no choice but not to snoop , in order to protect the nation as a whole.

          But is it always a good debate -- with strong points on all sides.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Transbot9, May 17th, 2010 @ 3:06pm

        Re: copyright is a natural right [Technopolitical]

        >Basically: Fundunmental to any civilizied society are laws and courts to enforce laws. So people are not radomly murdered for a nickel , w/o punishing the murderer. [snip]
        >Was that helpful?

        Nope, neither have any of your other posts. With this particular analogy, you are assuming that the correlation automatically follows suit, with asserting that freedom is a natural right, copyright principles that you are espousing = freedom; therefore, your definition of copyright = natural right.

        The problem is the assumption of your definition of copyright = freedom. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

        The second flawed argument is that copyright law is necessary for civilization to exist, placing it under the same category as morals such as murder or physical theft. Heck, the concept of the artist as anything more than a tradesman is fairly recent. Tradesmen guarded their secretes in other ways (Da Vinci, for instance, left a fatal flaw in his blueprints so that his inventions, as drawn, would never work).

        Third, you are showing a poor understanding of the philosophy of art and the principles of communication. Granted, much of art philosophy is esoteric bull, but one point remains: Art, once displayed, is ascribed meaning by the viewer. That may or may not be the response the artist was intending. Because of that disparagement between what the artist is trying to convey and what is received, the message is already out of the artist's control. Read up on communication theory for more details on this.

        Fourth, slavery in the ancient world was quite a bit different than the old south (which has also been romanticized and politicized) or how it was depicted in Ben Hurr. A sizable chunk of Torah law was already standard operating procedure. In Roman times, it wasn't unusual for some slaves to be more educated than their owners, especially clerks. Heck, the biblical/judaic hero Joseph was a slave that did clerical work. The same with Daniel when the Jews were in exile.

        Fifth, further posts beyond this one continue fail to clarify just HOW your view of copyright protection is a natural right. So I'm still lost on this.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 5:55am

    Fifth, further posts beyond this one continue fail to clarify just HOW your view of copyright protection is a natural right. So I'm still lost on this.

    re-read the whole thread carefully , top to bottom. All posteds and all commmets.

    If you still have a question, please specifically point out where and on what point your question[s] is/are , and will do my best to respond.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 3:18pm

    Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

    Circumvention.

    Any time you Circumvent the law , it is illegal.

    in my humble -- unsupported and UN-researched -- opinion.

    really don't have the time to look it up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 3:24pm

      Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

      For For Non-Infringing Purposes it is Illegal, because after reading all the posts here , it just is.

      That what the deliberative bodies that make law have said.

      If the law is unconstitutional , challenge it.

      If not , change it by lobbying.

      but you will loose there.

      in my humble opinion

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 3:32pm

      Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

      TP, please. STOP COMMENTING.

      You keep saying things that are so far off base and so wrong you're making yourself look like a total idiot.

      Circumvention.

      Any time you Circumvent the law , it is illegal.


      This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM. I can't figure out how you can claim to know so much about copyright law and clearly know absolutely nothing about the subject.

      Please, stop commenting.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 3:49pm

        Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

        Sorry mike ,, please stop writing about copyright.
        Or I will keep commenting.


        What Does DRM Really Mean?
        http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1164014,00.asp

        Is circumventing DRM really against the law?
        "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law]." Some very narrow exceptions are made, but for the most part, trying to dodge DRM systems—even when the restrictions imposed are not reasonable—is a criminal offense. The sale of hardware or software whose purpose is to help you get around DRM is likewise illegal."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 4:06pm

          Re: Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

            Paranoid much? We did not cut you off in any way, shape or form. You had a network hiccup and blamed us. Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:43pm

              Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.

              I do apoligise. But it was just too coincendental , so I think you can see why i thought so, though it dod seem very out of character.

              I will humbly correct and remove my blog post.

              And I will openly admit some lack of expertise on DMCA vis a vi DRM.

              But even with that I stand by the comments for a legal wonk perspective, by not as a tech-pro.

              It is almost Sabbath ,, i got to go. Enjoy your weekend.

              I hope to be back to learn more.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:20am

                Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.

                I retract my apology, and will re-post to my blog later.

                I feel I do have "reasonable cause to believe" that you , Mike , did try to block me from techdirt -- however briefly.

                Proof , I do not have , as I do not have the tech skills to prove it from my end of the internet, but "reasonable cause to believe" I do have.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:34am

                  Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.

                  I feel I do have "reasonable cause to believe" that you , Mike , did try to block me from techdirt -- however briefly.


                  Trust me, TP, I did not block you. Why you would lie, I have no idea. But I would suggest that you reconsider your plan to make false statements about me.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:43am

                    Re: Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.

                    All , I am saying is that I have "reasonable cause to believe" , but not "proof". I stand by it , as Mike you have ZERO creditability with me.

                    Now , I ask you to apologize to me and Thomas Jefferson for to mis-use of T.J.'s quote and your attacks on me base on the quote thereof.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 12:57pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.

                      Now , I ask you to apologize to me and Thomas Jefferson for to mis-use of T.J.'s quote and your attacks on me base on the quote thereof.

                      I did not misuse the quote. I used it accurately.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 4:24pm

                        I did not misuse the quote. I used it accurately.

                        I disagree.

                        I think most any college prof would too.

                        Though in academics there IS ALWAYS room for debate.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 1:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Please apologize for making false statements about Techdirt, and correct your blog post.

                      All , I am saying is that I have "reasonable cause to believe" , but not "proof". I stand by it , as Mike you have ZERO creditability with me.

                      Let me explain. If we were to block you -- and the only people we block are spammers -- it would say "your comment is held for moderation." It does not pop up a "cannot connect" page.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 4:53pm

              and to change the sbject ,, you might find this funny

              my internet goes on and off when it rains,,

              I have been working with cablevision for 2 months now, Multiple home appointments, missed appointments ,, the wrong tech person assigned to the appointment . It has been fun

              http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/2010/05/it-rains-my-internet-modem-goes-on-and.htm l

              enjoy

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 4:36pm

        Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

        mike: if TP is so off base , just do not respond.

        We all here have to deal with putting up a good factual post, and then having some nut go flame-war with us and calling us dirty names. At least TP is trying to be nice.

        Though he clearly does not know what he is saying and is writing giberish.

        Rule of thumb. If you think he is a nut ignore him.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:38am

          Re: Re: Re: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?

          "Though he clearly does not know what he is saying and is writing giberish."

          Clearly untrue , even to a simple mind,

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 21st, 2010 @ 3:39pm

    "A few months back, Public Knowledge released its five ideas for copyright reform, and we asked people to defend why any of them didn't make sense. Oddly -- despite the vast number of copyright system defenders who populate the comments around here -- not a single person suggested any reason why the five suggested reforms didn't make sense. Some people suggested other ideas for reform, but the regular defenders of the system miraculously disappeared when asked to defend the current system. I'd say it was funny... but, really, it's just sad."


    No Mike , it probably just was not worth their time to reply to a ludicrous proposal.

    The only folks who want to re-form copyright laws ,,are the people currently breaking copyright laws.

    (ASCAP wants to expand them , not re-form them.)

    Law-breakers always want to change the law. If they cannot , it means the lawmakers cannot be convinced their claim has any merit.

    In my humble opinion

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 4:08pm

    This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.

    that is really off base mike DRM is a law !!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 4:12pm

      Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

      Actually DRM is not law , just covered by law

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2010 @ 4:12pm

        Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.

        i stand corrected

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:10am

          Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.

          circumvent :
          {as a ]verb.
          from thesaurus:::
          avoid doing, be cunning, be sly, beguile, bypass, circonvenir, circumscribere, cloak, conceal, confuse, contravene, contrive, counteract, counterwork, cover, deceive, defeat, defraud, delude, disrupt, elude, escape, evade, foil, hoax, mislead, outreach, outwit, pettifog, practice chicanery, prevaricate, proceed by stratagem, scheme, swindle, thwart, tourner la loi, traverse, trick
          Associated concepts: circumvent the law

          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumventing

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.

            That is why "Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal !!!!"

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not about circumventing the law. It's about circumventing DRM.

              What Does DRM Really Mean?
              http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1164014,00.asp

              Is circumventing DRM really against the law?
              "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [copyright law]." Some very narrow exceptions are made, but for the most part, trying to dodge DRM systems—even when the restrictions imposed are not reasonable—is a criminal offense. The sale of hardware or software whose purpose is to help you get around DRM is likewise illegal.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 10:19am

    "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8

    [Volume 3, Page 42]

    Document 12

    Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
    13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--35

    It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that [Volume 3, Page 43] these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

    Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.


    The Founders' Constitution
    Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, Document 12
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
    The University of Chicago Press

    The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.

    © 1987 by The University of Chicago
    All rights reserved. Published 2000
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:31am

      Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson

      Now , I know why , you , Mike , cite an excerpt from this quote , a few times at techdirt over the years , w/o proper citation.

      As given proper citation , even the average techdirt poster could figure out , that you are citing T.J. wrongly and completely out of context.

      Any reply Mike?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:35am

        Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson

        Now , I know why , you , Mike , cite an excerpt from this quote , a few times at techdirt over the years , w/o proper citation.


        I have pointed out the citation many times.

        As given proper citation , even the average techdirt poster could figure out , that you are citing T.J. wrongly and completely out of context.

        The quote was neither wrong nor out of context.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 11:50am

          Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson

          Giberish Mike,, and you know it ,, the words speak for themsevles.

          You used this quote to attempt to show haw T.J. would if alive today be in perfect sync , with your outlandish views on copyright and patent law. Clearyl you you are wrong , and are not mature enough to admit it.

          "Have you no decency , Sir?" ***

          ***Army–McCarthy hearings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          The Army–McCarthy hearings were a series of hearings held by the United States Senate's Subcommittee on Investigations between March 1954 and June 1954. ...
          Background - McCarthy Hearings - Homosexuality
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army–McCarthy_hearings -

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 1:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson

            You used this quote to attempt to show haw T.J. would if alive today be in perfect sync , with your outlandish views on copyright and patent law. Clearyl you you are wrong , and are not mature enough to admit it.

            I did no such thing. I used the quote to show that the idea that monopoly rights were natural thoughout history (a claim you made) was in no way true. I used *different* quotes (not the Macpherson letter) to show that prior to the Constitution, he was concerned about such monopoly rights, and that their harm might outweigh their benefit. I have pointed out, repeatedly, that he was later convinced otherwise. My point in using those quotes is to show that he knew there was both a positive and a negative.

            I would suggest, however, that with the evidence in place today, he might reconsider. But, obviously, no one knows that one way or the other.

            Please do not claim I said stuff I did not. It only continues to harm your own credibility on this manner. And, once again, as others have pointed out, it might improve our ability to take you seriously, if you wrote in proper English, such as learning what a comma is.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 2:23pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson

              "I used the quote to show that the idea that monopoly rights were natural thoughout history (a claim you made) was in no way true. I used *different* quotes (not the Macpherson letter) to show that prior to the Constitution, he was concerned about such monopoly rights, and that their harm might outweigh their benefit."

              At the time , in the midst of our dissussion, I saw you useing Jefferson to suport you views on copyrights as they stand today. My reaction was is response to that. If that was not you intent to me it was not clear from the context of the diccussion at that time. But I am not perfect.

              I did my interpretation based on what I saw ,, and still see -- maybe incorrectly -- on you mis-interpretation of the word "idea" in T.J.'s quote.

              I will admit,,,,,,,,,: That I do disagree with ol' T.J. on his view that on copyright & patent -- as he wrote into the U.S. Constitution-- DOES NOT manifist form Natural Right.

              I believe CopyRight and Patent Laws ARE a manifistcation of Natural Right.

              And I am allowed to do so academically. Just as I did with John Locke's views on "Reason" in this paper here:

              " How Voltaire and Samuel Johnson Deal with John Locke’s Emotional Problems."
              http://tilliebaum.blogspot.com/2002/05/how-voltaire-and-samuel-johnson-deal_03.html

              I might take on T.J.'s views one day , but got other things to occupy my life now-- like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.


              As far as the commas:

              1] As I stated elsewhere , I am dyslexic. I do not read and see the words the way a "normal" (-- weak but only term that fits--).

              When posting here , I find the commas help me and other dyslexics read the posts much easier.


              2] Once seeing that commas help my dyslexic brain read online posts and emails, et al ,, ,, , , ,, , I decided to make it an are form. With my keyboard as the artists tool.

              3] you will find that my "John Locke" paper (--- -- cited and linked above-- which was written for an honors philosophy/english lit course -- you were able to apply the course to either major ----- for whcich I got an "A" in and was 90% of the grade ----- and this paper to which the prof , not only gave me an "A" but also added how much he enjoyed reading it -----------) there is zero grammatical error.

              ------

              and back to :

              "We've covered this silly move in the past by music publishers and songwriters, but they're apparently still at it, and the NY Times is giving them publicity for trying to shut down lyrics sites online. This is ridiculous for any number of reasons, but shows you the state of some parts of the music industry these days. Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "
              http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0404369357.shtml#c2291


              "Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "

              That is patently false ( pun indented).


              AND you owe Robert Hunter (the lyricist for the "Grateful Dead") , AND all "Tin Pan Alley" and "Brill Building" folks ( who put American History into song) , and me, an apology for saying "lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business" .

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 2:30pm

                - like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.

                "Any Rebroadcast of This Game ....... for $$$$ ,, is Strictly Prohibited."

                Go find the whole quote if you want .

                Do a post on it.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 5:21pm

                    Re: dyslexic typ-ohs

                    and you still have not apologized for insulting my use of commas,
                    even after I posted I have a learning disability : dyslexia .

                    And even after my explaining the "method to my maddness: of commas.

                    Making fun of disabled people.

                    Though when some people insult you , it is a compliment.

                    Just shows their base character.

                    If a racist insults my views on race ,, well , i am honored and strenthened.

                    I will stop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, there.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 3:41pm

                  Re: - like the Met-Yankee game*** on tonite. {intetional mis-spell}.

                  Go find the whole quote if you want .

                  In fact we have posted about how that quote is copyfraud, misstating the law.

                  You keep demanding we do posts that we've already done, and you keep thinking that private organizations (ASCAP, MLB) that have biased and incorrect views of copyright law are the same as the gov't.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 3:50pm

                    You keep demanding we do posts that we've already done,

                    I do often check , but like to see it in your own words now at this time in this context.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 3:58pm

                    and you keep thinking that private organizations (ASCAP, MLB) that have biased and incorrect views of copyright law are the same as the gov't.

                    no.

                    I believe that copyright laws are just and fair as written -- and even could be stronger in today's digital age-- and copyright laws covering $$ making websites are also a clear constitutional right.

                    And also , I personally hold , copyrights and patent laws are manifest from natural law, though T.J. disagrees.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 3:26pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society," --Thomas Jefferson

                "Basically, lyrics -- which, by themselves, generated absolutely no money for songwriters/publishers for pretty much the entire history of the business "

                That is patently false ( pun indented).


                I was speaking about after they were written. The market post-creation, for lyrics. That was clear from the context. Obviously lots of people get paid to write lyrics. But the market post-creation was non-existent.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 3:48pm

                  I was speaking about after they were written. The market post-creation, for lyrics.

                  So your are telling me YOU do agree that Pirate lyric websites that make $$$ off of lyrics ,, should pay royalties as proscribed by law , or be taken down.

                  If you don't . We will have to start over.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 4:01pm

                    Re: I was speaking about after they were written. The market post-creation, for lyrics.

                    TP. We are going in circles. That particular post was about why it made no sense at all for lyrics sites to pay. I will not repeat the argument again, nor will I respond further to this thread. Best of luck to you.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 4:12pm

                      why it made no sense at all for lyrics sites to pay.

                      And I I explained why it DID-- even w/o the current good law that says it does.

                      Wanna start again?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 4:16pm

                      nor will I respond further to this thread.

                      checkmate.

                      You cannot respond.

                      That is why you quit.

                      Techdirt posters never admit defeat , they just quit.

                      No mas!!! ***
                      --------------

                      ** Leonard-Duran II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

                      In the closing seconds of the eighth round, Duran turned his back to Leonard and quit, saying to referee Octavio Meyran, "No Mas" ("no more" in Spanish). ...
                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard-Duran_II -

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Mike Masnick (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 4:22pm

                        Re: nor will I respond further to this thread.

                        You cannot respond.

                        That is why you quit.

                        Techdirt posters never admit defeat , they just quit.


                        TP, no. I quit because we have gone over this before and it is a waste of my time to do so again. Read into that what you will, but declaring victory would be a mistake. Anyone else reading this thread can see that.

                        Good luck to you, sir.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 4:47pm

                          Re: Re: nor will I respond further to this thread.

                          I repeat you say " No Mas".

                          I will meet one as of un-met challenge you have send my way.

                          To go over ASCAP BoRs , point by point , to show HOW THEY DO reflect current Print laws , and most current digital laws.

                          I will post on MY blog -- which has no ads nor take comments, and is just a hobby -- when done,, and

                          "I will be back"

                          Call it a re-match if you want.

                          It will be a while-- my be months .
                          Life comes first.

                          Techdirt is really of little importance in the scheme of things.

                          Esp Re: public policy formation on Copyright and Patent law.

                          As you mike are way to outside the mainstream om copyrights and patents to ever really be taken seriously in any debate there.
                          In my humble opinion.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 4:59pm

                          Re: Re: nor will I respond further to this thread.

                          History will bear me out as victor.

                          So would any objective academic. Weather s/he agrees or not with either of us

                          On the lyric thread ,, i clobbered everybody who came my way, showing why lyrics ,

                          1] are meaningful ,

                          2] a difficult artisitc craft that takes much talent ,

                          3] and is " morally worthy of" and "legally due $$" from profit making websites.

                          ALL while you sat on the sideline Mike cowering w/o making a comment. A sure sign of fright.

                          Here in this thread I out pointed you easy.

                          Next , the ASCAP bill of rights. If you want ,,we can both bring independent referees to both moderate and declare the winner.

                          I challenge you.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 6:34pm

                  Obviously lots of people get paid to write lyrics. But the market post-creation was non-existent.

                  "market post-creation" !?!?!?

                  Search google for the phrase : "market post-creation" (w/ quotes)

                  Google says :
                  No results found for "market post-creation".

                  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=A8M&rlz=1R1GPM D_en___US361&q=%22market+post-creation%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=& ;gs_rfai=

                  ---------------

                  No wonder why your words make no sense in your defense , of your "silly" post on Lyrics Websites.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 6:42pm

                    But the "market post-creation" was non-existent.

                    Remember that little Google game , try to find , a two-work combo , that yielded zero results at Google.

                    Well Mike , you did find a 3-word one : "market post-creation".

                    We will see if it becomes a "Streisand effect".

                    Good Luck there Mike.

                    -----------
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
                    Mike Masnick originally coined the term Streisand effect in reference to a 2003 incident in which Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully attempted to sue photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have the aerial photograph of her mansion removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns.
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    nasch (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 12:18pm

                    Re: Obviously lots of people get paid to write lyrics. But the market post-creation was non-existent.

                    The "[lyrics] market post-creation" means the market for lyrics after they have already been written. In case English is not your first language, "post" means after. So that is to distinguish them from the market for lyrics that haven't been written yet, in other words lyricists being paid to write. Mike's point is that writers have seldom been paid much for copies of lyrics they've written in the past.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 6:12pm

                      Mike's point is that writers have seldom been paid much for copies of lyrics they've written in the past.

                      "Mike's point is that writers have seldom been paid much for copies of lyrics they've written in the past."

                      ANS:Which is a bizarre statement. They have , and will.

                      once written or created ART is owned by the Owner of the CopyRight

                      ----
                      "++seldom +++been paid much for copies of lyrics they've written in the past."

                      ANS: the word "seldom" is unsubstantiated , and also untrue , and was the foundation of mike's premise. Mike said "almost never"
                      --------

                      If Market Post Creation is such a cool term , used by academics and economist , it would be all over Google results.

                      to intrude a term into a debate -- at the very end , and then refuse request to define it ,

                      and whose meaning known only to you -- if even ,

                      is intellectually dishonest when engaging in Honest Discourse.

                      Mike made up a B.S. term -- "market post creation" , to bamboozle his way out of admitting ::

                      that Mike's original post on the Lyrics thread was , a flat out lie , all nonfactual , grossly inaccurate;;;;;;;; and to use Mike's word : "SILLY."

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, May 23rd, 2010 @ 3:18pm

              I would suggest, however, that with the evidence in place today, he might reconsider. But, obviously, no one knows that one way or the other.

              "I would suggest, however, that with the evidence in place today, he might reconsider. But, obviously, no one knows that one way or the other."

              I re-peat what I said above:

              It would be nice if we could raise T.J.'s spirit from the next world , to explain this to us. While there are Kabbalistic formulas for raising the spirits of the dead, Jewish law forbids its practice. ( c.f. `First Samuel chapter 28 , and Leviticus 19:31)

              However if one of you pagans out there want to give a shot , and raise T.J.'s spirit form the dead, ,,,,,,,,,,,,

              ,,,,,,please do ask him about the root reasons for copyright and patent law.


              And also that blasted comma in the 2nd amendment on gun rights , that till today is causing so much debate.

              http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=re5&pwst=1&rls=en& ei=0GP2S_ SgGYK78gas67ngCg&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CBcQvwUo AQ&q=2nd+amendment+comma&spell=1

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 3:23pm

                Re: I would suggest, however, that with the evidence in place today, he might reconsider. But, obviously, no one knows that one way or the other.

                whhoops me .

                I clear browsing data in Mozzilla -- by habit ,, at least once and hour. I find if I don't ol' Moz slows down on my 512MB machine, with XP sp 3.

                I find techdirt's posting features-- which are GREAT -- thanks Mike --- works best in Mozzilla

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 23rd, 2010 @ 3:42pm

                  512MB machine, with XP sp 3.

                  yes I tried using Ubuntu,, but it does not fit side by side with XP in my 512.

                  And I need XP for Creative Soundblaster and my music production .wav editing.

                  Eventually , I plan to have machines with both XP (offline) and Ubuntu ( online) .

                  Am I a geek yet ?

                  ( p.s. My Dad is now -- my he live long and be well --a retired "data system analyst" , who learned computer stuff in the early 1950s while in the air force. ( I still remember playing with the computers & "punch-cards" when he brought me to work sometimes.)

                  Dad very happily retired in 1987 @ the age of 55. After years of NEVER touching a computer , till 2002 , he then at my urging bought a computer ,, a 128 MB for XP.

                  After a week , he trashed it , and it is now mine to play with.

                  Now Dad has a crazy space laptop with 3G.
                  He wants 4G, but not sure if it worth the $$.

                  Dad was a geek before anybody knew what geek was. He also beats me -- soundly --in political discussions till this day. But Mom helps so it is not really fair.

                  Hey,, its Father's Day soon, and might be reading this)

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 10:43am

    Mike , Really please explain : "The market post-creation, for lyrics. That was clear from the context. "

    " market post-creation?!?!"

    I Googled & yahooed and even Asked.

    You owe me and your readers ,,,,,in all intellectual honestly & fairness ,,,,an explanation of what you mean by " market post-creation".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 26th, 2010 @ 12:29am

    @troll

    I lol'd.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ed, Dec 23rd, 2010 @ 7:40pm

    Just my 2 cents

    This is not about keeping people from breaking the law as it is clear that lawbreakers can and will continue to break the law and steal copyrighted material for nefarious purposes as they always have. We live in a fearful time for media. You see, record companies and movie studios (the real powerhouses in this issue) have made soooo much money every time a new format has come out. They were always in support of the "new technology. Why? Simple. They knew that they already had a whole back catalogue of product whose upfront costs have already been paid for (to make the movie or album), and reissuing in the new format would sell and be almost all profit. There was a bit of an issue when folks started copying records to tapes themselves, but it died down pretty quick when record companies realized that tapes were still selling regardless.

    The problem happened with CDs and DVDs. Now that music/movies are digital and can be put into computers, I'll never need to buy a copy of the Beatles White Album or Blazing Saddles again. I imported them into my computer and now I have the freedom to convert it into any format I see fit. That's what they hate. They do not believe that you should have the right to rip a movie into your computer and watch it however/whenever you wish. In truth, they don't believe that you don't really even own the dvd you bought. They believe that you purchase the right to watch the movie. Does anybody remember the support by likes of Speilberg a while back for that format (I can't remember the name, but it might have been DivX) where you buy the movie and then after like 4 plays, it no longer works? That's what they want. So, if you really like the movie, you'd have to continue paying them to view it. You see, they get royalties every time their movie airs on TV, so why shouldn't they get paid every time it plays in your DVD player?

    There is a big push beginning in the digital world right now to take everything into the "Cloud". Home storage has become extremely cheap, but certain companies are deliberately making excellent home devices that have no onboard storage. All content has to be streamed. Nobody will have to store all their movies and music anymore. They'll do that for you. Right now it is a small fee to rent a movie or TV show. Then it will likely be just a small monthly fee to access it. Small now, but once all the media is back out of the hands of the consumers, think it will still be so cheap? Just remember, there is a whole lot of money at stake here, and don't be fooled into thinking that there aren't a whole lot of people trying to find a way to take the media out of your hands and put that money back into their pockets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This