Of course, we've seen plenty of copyright holders directly allege that failure of a internet account holder to stop infringement is somehow a violation of the law itself, but that's not what the law says at all.
Indeed. That's why I wish the legal profession would use a term other than "facilitated."
Facilitation is not per se unlawful. It must be intentional facilitation, or at the very least involve some sort of willful negligence standard. One can even "facilitate" an act unintentionally, but such a facilitator is not secondarily liable for that action.
Have they ever had more than an I.P. address in the history of infringement lawsuits? Why is this coming up now?
Usually in these cases, the rights holders go to a judge with an I.P. address, and attempt to get a subpoena to identify the owner of the I.P. address. In theory, this is for discovery, so that the rights holders can investigate the owner and determine who is the actual infringer.
In reality, of course, such subpoenas are almost exclusively used to send threat letters to the I.P. owners, whether they are the infringers or not, in order to coerce a "settlement."
Please join me in shunning the terms "protection" and "piracy" in the context of copyright.
Unfortunately for everyone, those terms have been around for a very long time. In fact, the term "piracy" has been around longer than copyright itself has been around. It was used to describe people who violated the Stationer's Monopoly during the 16th century.
I think a better approach is to let people know exactly what "piracy" means. Prior to the Statute of Anne, it meant any publisher who was willing to distribute copies of texts that were dangerous to the Crown. In other words, "piracy" was a reaction against State censorship. That is, piracy is simply free speech. (Even before the Internet, this was true to some degree; examine the history of pirate radio stations... It helps if you're a fan of Christian Slater.)
I always thought fair use was a defense against claims of infringement which is a little bit different than a right.
Also, keep in mind that authorization is also an affirmative defense against claims of infringement.
Nobody, however, has ever argued that reprinting authorized copies of works was not a right. Imagine what would happen if the government tried to limit this right - it would be clearly unconstitutional (under the First Amendment, and likely others).
Something may be an affirmative defense under the law, yet still be a right.
I was quoting the English base act, from which US copyright law is derived.
And I was actually replying to LAB's assertion that copyright's purpose is "to maximize the commercial exploitation of the work by the right holder."
If you're not viewing the discussion in a threaded format, that's easy to miss.
The point I was making, and one that still largely applies today, is that the people pushing copyright were and are dominantly the publishers, rather than the authors and artists.
This is indeed an excellent point. In fact, the original Statute of Anne was intended (by publishers) to be a statutory replacement of the "Stationer's Copyright." That copyright was granted to publishers only - authors had no say in the matter at all - and it was only granted to publishers who were members of the Company of Stationers.
That didn't fly in Parliament, so the Stationers brought in their wives and children in to Parliamentary sessions to tug at the heartstrings, and shifted emphasis to the needs of the "author" in order to get the law passed. It is also no coincidence that the Statute of Anne was passed right after the unification of Scotland and England, and the abolition of the Privy Council of Scotland, which was the source of Scottish publishing monopolies.
It's also likely that it was passed out of the Crown's hatred towards John Baker. Baker was a London bookseller who published dangerous satires by outspoken but anonymous authors, including Daniel Defoe; he was also a book pirate.
I disagree with your interpretation of the case law.
You may, but judges and copyright lawyers do not.
Copyright's function/effect today is to provide a limited monopoly of use by the copyright holder.
That is copyright's effect. It is by no means copyrights purpose. Providing a limited monopoly to copyright holders has never been more than a means to achieve an end, and that end has always been to provide the general public with access to, and ultimately control over, works of authorship.
The full passage is necessary to provide context:
Except that you are emphasizing the parts of the passage that are incidental. Nobody (except OOTB) is arguing that copyright is not a statutory monopoly. Nobody is arguing that the method of copyright is to reward and encourage crreative work. Nobody is arguing that copyright is not "a balance of competing claims upon the public interest."
And absolutely none of this supports your claim that copyright's purpose is "to maximize the commercial exploitation of the work by the right holder."
But, if you're still doubtful, here are a few more quotes.
It will be seen, therefore, that the spirit of any act which Congress is authorized to pass must be one which will promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and unless it is designed to accomplish this result and is believed, in fact, to accomplish this result, it would be beyond the power of Congress.
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, for the Supreme Court has held that such rights as he has are purely statutory rights, but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will [be] promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given. Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people, in that it will stimulate writing and invention, to give some bonus to authors and inventors.
In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider, as has been already stated, two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public. The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in "Science and useful Arts."
- Mazer v. Stein
The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.
- Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal
The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration.
- U.S. v. Paramount
The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired. [...]
As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product.
- Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios
Not a one of these quotes is from the 1700's, or even from the 1800's. They are all contemporary descriptions of the purpose of copyright law. And every single one of them disagrees with you.
Re: Re: BUT we already have a working copyright system!
Correct, creators, not descendents of creators (who didn't create) or organizations (which don't create, merely appropriate.)
No, actually, because copyrights can be transferred and sold as if they were personal property. This is by design; copyright's method is to create "a marketable right," not to protect any kind of natural right.
In other words, its mechanism is designed to further the economic exploitation of works (e.g. for-profit publishing and distribution). That is how works reach the public, which is copyright's ultimate goal.
I do not mean the purpose of copyright from the 1700's but its current purpose, to maximize the commercial exploitation of the work by the right holder.
Copyright's purpose today is the same as it was in the 1800's. (I say 1800's because it didn't exist in this country throughout most of the 1700's; the first state to issue a general copyright law was Connecticut in 1783, and the first Federal copyright law was passed in 1790.)
And that purpose is not, even remotely, "to maximize the commercial exploitation of the work by the right holder." "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors" (Feist v. Rural, 1991), but "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts" (Twentieth Century Music v. Aiken, 1975).
As one often would be claiming fair use in a litigious context, I would highly suggest, right from the beginning, contemplating whether the use is or is similar to the uses mentioned in the first paragraph of the statute.
True, but if you are claiming fair use in a litigious context, then it is better to get someone who is very familiar with the case law on fair use. It is from case law, not the statutes, that fair use is determined.
fair use is not an exception, or a RULE, its a part of copyright LAW.
Fair use was around long before it was codified into law:
From the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright's very purpose, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...." [...] and although the First Congress enacted our initial copyright statute, without any explicit reference to "fair use," as it later came to be known, the doctrine was recognized by the American courts nonetheless. [...]
Fair use remained exclusively judge made doctrine until the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act. [...]
Congress meant S.107 "to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way" and intended that courts continue the common law tradition of fair use adjudication.
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (citations omitted)
Fair use has been around as long as copyright, but as a common-law doctrine, rather than a statutory doctrine (as copyright itself is). It was developed as an equitable solution, because doing otherwise would stifle the public welfare, act against copyright's purpose, and - significantly - infringe upon free speech rights.
So, yes, fair use was indeed developed to protect "the rights of the public to speak, to make use of content, to comment, to criticize and to express themselves." Legally, it is a common-law exception to the copyright statutes, but it certainly does arise out of the inalienable rights of the public.
In the United States, what is often ignored is the paragraph before the four factors of statute 107 [...] These are some of the questions that must be addressed even before the four factors are weighed to determine fair use.
That's not really true. The uses listed are merely illustrative examples ("purposes such as criticism..."). Even if the use is enumerated in those examples, the four-factor analysis must still be used; and if the use falls outside of those examples, then it is still fair use if it passes the four-factor test.
News reporting is one of the examples enumerated in S.107 to "give some idea of the sort of activities the courts might regard as fair use under the circumstances." Senate Report at 61. This listing was not intended to be exhaustive, see ibid.; S.101 (definition of "including" and "such as"), or to single out any particular use as presumptively a "fair" use.
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises
Is the use a criticism or comment? Does it dissect the work? Is it commenting or criticizing the work itself? Does the use break it down, analyze it? Is it news reporting? Is the use academic?
Those questions deal only with one factor in the fair use analysis (the first factor). Even if does not do any of those things, it may still be fair use. For example, "time-shifting" a TV program does not do any of that, but the Sony court found it was fair use.
I know I shouldn't be responding. You're only a troll, and an ignorant one at that, and will no doubt disregard anything I or anyone else says in their replies to you. But you are writing out your whole manifesto here, and have made statements that are actually verifiable, rather than just ad hominem attacks.
And what is remarkable is that almost every single one of your verifiable statements is factually wrong, wholly and completely. Not just wrong, but the opposite of correct.
Also, I apologize in advance for the length of this reply. Hopefully I can get all of this out of the way, so I never have to reply to you again.
>>> Copyright is derived from the facts of existence; it is natural law and cannot be narrowly defined; it is self-evident like the US Constitution itself which is only valid UNDER common law; statute is at best tertiary.
As I've already explained to you, copyright is not based on common law. It is only statutory. To my knowledge, not one court, ever, has granted a copyright to an author, unless they were told to by statute. That's the complete opposite of common law.
And it is hardly "derived from the facts of existence" or "natural law." It did not exist anywhere in the world until the Statute of Anne was passed in 1710. It did not exist in the pre-U.S. colonies, even after that. And until our lifetimes, it was not assumed to be held by authors automatically - you had to register to get a copyright on your works.
It is a creature of the State, and has never existed otherwise.
Creators inherently have SOLE RIGHT TO COPY their work.
Again, wrong. It's not even true under the law: according to copyright law, the copyright holders - who are in most cases not creators - have the exclusive right to authorize copying. And it does not extend to all forms of copying, such as time-shifting or fair use.
And there is nothing "inherent" about it. If you tell me a story, do you "inherently" have the right to prevent me from telling it to others? No, of course not - and that's how knowledge has been spread for the majority of human history.
Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying.
Fisrt, nobody can create without copying at some level. Every artist - hell, every speaker - uses words, phrases, languages, or tools that they didn't come up with.
Second, it's absolutely not true, at least as far as copyright is concerned. It is much easier to create something than it is to exactly duplicate the works of others. Copying the guitar solo from "Eruption" takes years of practice and training, but bashing out a few chords on your guitar is trivial in comparison. Yet the kid who plays "Eruption" doesn't get a copyright on it, while the guy who just bangs out something on his guitar does.
Third, even on a theoretical level, you're incorrect. Like many people, you're confusing "novelty" with "creativity," and it's a false equivalence. There are entire genres of high art that disagree with you. From Marcel Duchamp, to Andy Warhol, to Jeff Koons, the art world has recognized that creating copies - in the right context - can result in better works than the merely novel.
The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts.
Objectively false. Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with the relative ease of copying vs. creativity, nor with any kind of inherent right of authors or publishers. It is granted solely to "promote the progress of... science," meaning "learning." It is only an incentive to create and dissemenate works to the public, nothing more. Its primary beneficiaries are supposed to be the general public, not authors.
I've already quoted the Supreme Court and Congress in the comment I linked to above. There are many more. I suggest that you read them and take them to heart.
Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them.
Absolutely false. Copyright does not specify that authors are the only people who can gain money from their works. That is utterly ridiculous; if they were, nobody would publish them. Copyright law does, and always has, recognized that other people can and should make money off of authors' works. It only says that authors should have the right to negotiate with those other people (and, of course, withold permission if those negotiations fail).
And sometimes not even that. Statutory royalties, for example, cannot be denied by musicians. Once a song is published, than the law says that anyone can and should use those songs, and make money off them, so long as they pay the statutory fees.
(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.)
There is absolutely nothing in copyright law that even hints this. If a work is in the public domain, than anyone can print it, and they can print it for whatever price they want. They do not have to pay the original authors a dime - hell, they don't even have to provide credit. If you think that's "unethical," then you're against copyright. Because, in the end, copyright's purpose to promote exactly that kind of behavior. It's one of the primary was that the public benefits from works of authorship.
Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent TWO types of THEFT (during the limited time): 1) by commercial scale copiers directly profiting 2) by the general public taking the work without rewarding creator.
First: under the law, it's not theft. That has been made explicit by the Supreme Court. It's not "theft" in the colloquial sense, either, because "theft" implies taking something from someone else. When you make an unauthorized copy, nothing is taken - only created.
Second: you're correct about 1), but you're absolutely wrong about 2). Non-commercial copying wasn't unlawful until very, very recently in copyright's history. And for the most part, lawmakers crafted the statutes specifically so that the general public has access to works for free. There are exemptions for public libraries, schools, church services, charities, and so forth. See e.g. 17 U.S.C. 108 and 17 U.S.C. 110.
In fact, throughout most of its history, copyright infringement laws dealt only with for-profit copying by businesses. I personally think it should return to this.
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.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Of course people have a "right to copy." If I own a table, do I have a right to create a copy of that table, using my own materials and labor, and sell it? Of course I do - that's part of my property rights. If I hear a joke in a bar, do I have a right to tell that joke to someone else in a different bar? Of course I do - that's part of my free speech rights.
In fact, for things that are not under copyright (or other IP laws), I have every right to copy. I can retell jokes, I can fix food (and sell it) using someone else's recipe, I can print my own copies of the phone book. And I have every right to do so.
Under natural law, I have every "right to copy." But without the purely statutory copyright laws, you have absolutely no right to stop me.
Morally and practically, copyright is valid because exists independently of and without conflicting anyone else's rights. -- Pirates obviously want to deny the moral basis of "I made it, therefore I own it"
Obviously, copyright conflicts with property rights and free speech rights (especially with derivative works).
And, for the record, copyright law says "I made it, but I don't own it, because it's too much like something someone else made."
You don't have to be a pirate to see that there is no moral basis for that.
Machines doing the labor of copying doesn't confer any new right to do so.
This isn't true, as under the law, certain automated copies (e.g. ephemeral copies made by a web browser) are not infringing. So, at least in some sense, you're wrong about that.
I'm guessing that you're talking about secondary liability for automated copies. That has nothing to do with "confering any new right." It has to do with awareness and intent, which have to be present for secondary liability of any kind.
Or perhaps you're talking about the ease of copying. That just goes to the fact that copying is so easy, and is done by so many people in the course of the day, that copyright is effectively unenforcable at a certain level. But, again, this has nothing to do with "conferring any new rights." It may call into question the effectiveness of enforcement, or whether enforcement would have such a negative effect on society that certain forms of infringement should be legalized, or the wisdom of criminalizing behavior that the majority of the populace engages in (similar to the wisdom of criminalizing marijuana). But those are separate questions.
Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.
This is the one thing you've said that's true. In fact, that's the only reason copyright exists at all. (At least, if you include "distribution" with "creation.")
But you can't just say that "copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose" and leave it at that. You must show that copyright does, in reality, achieve this worthwhile societal purpose. If it doesn't, then the law should be changed or (in extreme cases) abolished.
And the evidence suggests that copyright, as it currently stands, does not achieve this purpose. See e.g. the story on how many works fall out of print and are no longer publicly available until they go into the public domain (or are lost forever, if they're not preserved). Or the comparison of databases in Europe (which has copyright-like database rights) and the U.S. (which does not).
Many like to jeer that copyright exists only until a creation is shared with others -- after that you've no claim to it!
This is the "right of first publication." Unlike copyright, it usually is considered a natural right of some sort. Nobody here is arguing otherwise.
No one will say that laborers don't have right to the fruits of their labor (except so far as they advocate slavery, and some DO). Copyright is the SAME common law
This is called the "sweat of the brow" argument. It is not why copyright is granted to authors, and the Supreme Court has solidly rejected it.
In any case, you don't need copyright to enjoy the rights to your labor. Most laborers, in fact, do not enjoy a monopoly on the fruits of their labor. Instead, they are paid for the labor itself.
Construction workers don't get royalties on the buildings they help build. Factory workers don't get royalties on the cars that they help assemble. Waiters and waitresses do not get a cut of every plate of food sold.
If you were to treat authors the same as other laborers, then all creative work would be work for hire. In case you don't know, if a creation is a work for hire, then the creator does not - and never did - hold the copyright to the work. To be frank, that's how most creative workers actually get paid (film workers, graphic designers, classical music performers, etc).
And, again, nobody on this website has argued against artists' rights to be paid for their labor. That is very, very different than saying they have a right to a post-publication monopoly on everyone else's labor.
Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, undeserved, immoral, and unethical.
This is clearly BS. This means that anyone who works for a public library is doing something "clearly illegal, undeserved, immoral, and unethical."
It is not illegal unless it is secondary liability under the law. And it is hard to argue that it is "undeserved, immoral, and unethical," since nearly every religion has said that creating abundance from scarcity is a moral good. (See the parable of the loaves and fishes in the Bible.) If anyone makes money from it, then they are making money from doing a social good. In fact, they are making money by distributing works to the public, which is exactly what copyright is supposed to promote.
Putting 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.
It is sharing, even if unauthorized or unlawful. But it is sharing nonetheless, whether you like it or not.
You're right that it is almost certainly not fair use, assuming it is unauthorized. But I don't think anyone here argued that it was.
Whether it is "fair to its creators" is debatable, but immaterial as far as copyright law is concerned. Copyright law exists to encourage the creation and distribution of works to the general public - and for no other reason.
There is no such thing as "potential profit." There may, or may not, be any degree of actual profit, depending upon the nature of the work being shared. Relatively unknown works, for instance, almost certainly benefit from unauthorized sharing; works by established authors that are already popular, probably do not.
But, again, this is immaterial, unless that decline in profits means that fewer works are being created and distributed. There is no evidence that this is true, and in fact the opposite is happening.
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 of non-physical works.
If copyright was truly granted by the public, for the public good, then you would be right. Unfortunately, neither is true any more. Copyright laws are mostly passed in secret (or through the back door of secret trade agreements), and nowadays nobody believes it's actually for the public good. Most people (including some in Congress) don't even know it should be for the public good.
Since that's the case, the public does not have any more duty to obey copyright laws, than they do to obey any other bad laws that act against their interests.
In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission.
According to the courts (the MyVidster case), accessing content is not an infringement of copyright. You have to make a fixed copy of it; if you (say) watch an infringing stream of a movie, then you are not infringing on copyright at all. You may lack the right for some other reason (say by providing fake login info), but it has nothing to do with copyright.
It's a good ruling, because thinking otherwise is kind of ridiculous. Do you have a clear right to listen to the radio? Of course you do. Do you lose that right if the radio station plays an unauthorized bootleg? No, you don't, at least to my knowledge. Should you, as the listener, lose that right? It seems incredibly silly to think so.
digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.
If you legitimately bought a digital file, then it should be your property to do with as you please. That is a pretty clear private property right. Of course, caveat emptor: if the mega-corporation that you bought it from suddenly decides that what you "bought" is no longer yours, then too bad for you. Should've read the fine print when they sold you that lemon.
Defending this seems to be a pretty weird stance for someone who claims to hate "The Rich," but whatever.
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.
First, this is outright insulting to fashion designers, artists, comedians, and musicians. I can tell you first-hand that they require significant effort.
Second, copyright has nothing whatsoever to do with how much effort something takes, "significant" or otherwise. A half-assed three-chord song is just as subject to copyright as a symphony.
Third, a couple of the things you mentioned are covered by copyright! Talk about disproving your own point.
No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt, nor to GRIFT off the content value either directly or indirectly (as a draw for eyes to advertisements).
Wrong on both counts, as I explained above.
Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect,
Copyright is not just "imperfect." It is acting against its very purpose at this point. At the very least, this weakens it; at most, it invalidates it altogether.
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.
If you truly believe that "I made it, therefore I own it," then why not have copyright last an infinite time? After all, property rights in (say) a car don't expire. The fact that you do believe copyright shouldn't be infinite, shows that you don't even believe your own argument. At least you do, consistently, argue for the expansion of the scope of copyright. (You already believe its scope is greater than it actually is under the law.)
And if we did resist it by "more general means," then you'd simply call us pirates, and ignore everything we say. Because we are, and you do.
But don't at same time empower mega-corporations to steal creative works from the poor.
Copyright law has nothing to do with this. For example, until the 1970's you could hold any kind of copyright on your works at all unless you registered the work with the Library of Congress. How many poor people did that, do you think?
Make a means test for copyright, prohibit it entirely to corporations
I've said this before, but if you want to prohibit it entirely to corporations, then you have absolutely no right to bitch about a $200 million movie. Or whatever other super-expensive artwork you claim can't be made without copyright. Who, exactly, is going to make those movies, if not for corporations or "the rich?"
Also, this may be news to you, but by law, movie work is work for hire. None of the people who work on those films ever held the copyright to any part of the film. By law, the copyright on a movie is always held by the studio, usually a corporation.
This ought to show you something. For all the hubbub about copyright protecting poor artists from corporations, I've never seen this to be the case. On the contrary, copyright is what enables corporations to exploit artists.
Copyrights are monopolies, and those monopolies are transferable. That means that they are being hoarded by an increasingly small number of trans-national corporations. In order to get access to their content, distributors (radio stations, record stores, booksellers, theaters, etc.) have to deal with them.
This means that in order to deal with those distributors, artists - poor and otherwise - must sign deals with those same trans-national corporations. And since media companies often act as cartels, the artists have almost no bargaining power whatsoever. They either assign the copyrights to the corporations for pennies on the dollar, or they can't get distributed.
So as they gain more of a monoply over distribution, these corporations gain more copyrights. And as they gain more copyrights, they gain more and more of a monopoly over those distribution. It's a vicious cycle, and in the end, all the money from copyrighted works is sucked from the public, into the hands of major media companies, and it never trickles down to the artists.
Make no mistake about it. If you are supporting copyright, then you are supporting the exploitation of artists.
Truly Free Speech includes the right to repeat what someone else has said.
It doesn't just include that right; the right to repeat others' speech is essential to free speech. Without it, there is no criticism, no discussion, no context. Our only "speech" would be a lone voice in the wilderness.
and you have not purchased any license to COPY, you have not purchased the copyright to the movie you buy, you have purchased A COPY, simply not the right to copy.
That's not exactly true either. When you purchase a copy, you also purchase the content that is "fixed" to that copy. You have not purchased the content that is not fixed to that copy.
However, you may have also purchased "the right to copy" in certain situations. For instance, time shifting is fair use under the Sony decision, so you have also purchased the "right to copy" if that copy constitutes time shifting.
But in reality, this outlook is entirely backwards. When you purchase a copy, by default you have purchased every right associated with that copy. The rights granted by copyright law are a limitation on those property rights.
And the rights granted by copyright law are limited in a number of ways. For example, copyright holders do not, and did never, hold any rights to control the resale of the content that is affixed to a specific copy. That is black-letter law:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
When those limitations exist, then it is the copyright holder's right to infringe on others' property rights that is limited.
And that is "ownership" of a copy. What the people above are talking about is a "license." Ownership and licensing are not the same thing. Their point is that nowadays there is no "ownership" at all, and they have purchased a mere license. So, they should get the same rights that other licensees do.
Are you thinking that because you bought a movie on DVD that you owe the Rights to the content on the DVD?, or, you own the plastic and packaging?
Without copyright, there wouldn't be any separate "rights" to the content on the DVD. You would have property rights over every part of that DVD - the plastic, the packaging, the content, everything.
With copyright, the copyright holder has rights over the property that you own. You are not allowed to make a copy of your own property, with your own labor and materials, and distribute it to others (for free or otherwise). You are not allowed to display the contents of that DVD in a public place. You are not allowed to use the content on that DVD to create your own video. And so on. These are all property rights you would have without copyright, and do have on property that's not under copyright, like clothing or recipes.
And you do own the "rights" to the content on that DVD in some ways. For example, you can resell, give away, or even destroy your copy of the DVD, contents and all. That's because of "first sale rights," which are definitely property rights. They are also rights that many copyright holders are trying desperately to get rid of.
That only scratches the surface, of course. The fact that we have property rights in our phones means that we should be able to unlock them. The fact that we have property rights in our XBox consoles means that we should be able to mod them. The fact that we have property rights in our computers means that we should be able to alter the software that runs on them. And so forth.