Heh, heh. Mike: so you hold that the above comments outline YOUR “position” on copyright? — I can’t even write “position” without the quote marks, cause “know nothing, need more data” isn’t a position, it’s just as the AC say, HOGWASH. Ten times so when you refuse to answer explicit simple questions, especially the most basic of all: Does an author have the right to control copies?

I’ll paste in MY notions from elsewhere so posterity will have in one place a clear comparison between Masnick’s hogwash and a statement of bedrock beliefs:

Fundamentals of Rational Copyright Somewhat redundant to clarify related aspects.

) Creators inherently have SOLE RIGHT TO COPY their work.

) Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying.

) The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It’s specific setting out of “intellectual property” rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying.

) Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it’s still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.)

) Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent copiers and the general public from copying works (during the limited time). The societal agreement is that only creators can attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period.

) There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one’s “right to copy” is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work.

) Machines doing the labor of copying doesn’t confer any new right to do so.

) Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.

) Even indirect income from in any way providing “for free” the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical.

) Putting an entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.

) Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators.

) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not “public” display). In the absence of physical media, there’s no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.

) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less “owned” by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.

) When independently rendered, fashion “ideas”, “art” in general, “look and feel”, jokes, bits of wit, and musical “riffs” are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don’t throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may play “stolen” riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual “sampled” audio as basis for your main theme.)

) Many persist in using the canard of “copyright can’t guarantee income”. — Misleading. The older body of copyright (beginning in the US Constitution) was to guarantee creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt.

) Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means.