ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important

from the wow dept

Michael Scott points us to one of the best summaries I’ve seen of the state of the music business today — published in the ABA Journal. It’s an incredibly balanced piece, that really does carefully present both sides of the story on a variety of issues, and presents actual evidence, which suggests the RIAA is blowing smoke on a lot of its claims. The piece kicks off by highlighting that the music industry appears to be thriving, and then noting that it’s not the same as the recording industry, which has been struggling.

Much of the piece does present the RIAA’s viewpoint on things, such as the idea that the legal strategy the labels have taken has been a “success.” However, it follows it up by questioning what kind of success it has been when more people are file sharing and more services are available for those who want to file share. From there it segues into a discussion on “three strikes” and ACTA, which includes the jaw-dropping claim from an RIAA general counsel that “three strikes” was “never even put on the table.” I’ve heard from numerous ISP folks who say that’s not true at all. However, the article does a good job (gently) ripping apart the RIAA’s claims, with evidence to the contrary, and does a beautiful job digging deep into ACTA to show how the text might not explicitly require three strikes, but is worded in such a way as to make it hard to qualify for safe harbors without implementing three strikes.

The latter part of the article then focuses on how the music industry really is booming, and how more people are making music, and there are lots of opportunities for musicians to do well these days, even without relying on copyright law. The arguments made (and the people and studies quoted) won’t be new to regular Techdirt readers, but it really is a very strong piece, targeted at lawyers (many of whom may not have realized some of these details). For example:

If the ultimate goal is to promote the creation of new works, then perhaps it isn’t really necessary to take stronger legal actions against illegal file-sharing because the evidence does not suggest that it is hindering the creation of new works by musicians

I certainly don’t agree with everything in the article, and there are a few statements from the RIAA folks that could have been challenged more directly. But, on the whole, it’s definitely one of the better articles I’ve seen looking at the music industry from the perspective of the legal profession that doesn’t automatically drop into the “but we must protect copyrights!” argument from the outset.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “ABA Journal Highlights How The Music Industry Is Thriving And How Copyright Might Not Be That Important”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
165 Comments
Karl (profile) says:

Comments

The comments on that story are really worth reading as well. For example, there’s a lot of talk (with numbers to back it up) about the effect of “substitution” on CD sales – e.g. people spending money on DVD’s instead, the effect of iTunes on CD sales, etc. None of these are even considered in most studies on “piracy.”

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Comments

“there’s a lot of talk (with numbers to back it up) about the effect of “substitution” on CD sales”

This is a really big one, there is so much competition from so many new sources. Cell phones, texting, social sites like facebook, video games, every TV channel on earth, e-mail, etc. Everyone is yelling piracy and not even looking at the changes in media consumption and usage.

Atkray (profile) says:

I’m relatively new here and am in way over my head intellectually with many of you but something I don’t see being addressed that bothers me is stuff like this from the article:

“Illegal file-sharing also has wider economic implications, said the RIAA, citing a 2007 report by the Institute for Policy Innovation in Lewisville, Texas. That report, titled The True Cost of Copyright Industry Piracy to the U.S. Economy, estimates that in 2005 at least $25.6 billion in potential revenue was lost to piracy in sound recordings, motion pictures, business software and entertainment software/video games. The report claims that copyright piracy costs the U.S. economy more than 373,000 jobs annually in related fields and industries, and also results in more than $2.6 billion in lost tax revenue for local, state and federal governments every year.”

This is just false.

I know many teenagers who download music from sources like Limewire etc… They all have fixed amounts of income and the tend to spend 100% of it. By not spending it on shiny plastic disks they are free to spend it on pizza at lunch, or gas for their cars, or sometimes they even get together as a group to go to a movie theater(explains why they are doing so well). The sales tax revenue is not lost it is simply spent elsewhere.

Also many file sharing networks have a high percentage of malware which creates lucrative repair work for small computer repair shops and for large outfits like Geek Squad.

It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The Past, The Present, And The Future Of The Man In The Middle
subtitled : bringing the newbies up to speed on the media distribution industries.

The reality of it is there are many reasons the corporate and copyrighted media industry is doing poorly. Infringement contributes but is not the only cause.

All of the corporate media industries, news papers, record labels, TV studios, Movie Studios, Video Games, and software companies have three things in common that affect their profitability. The first is competition from outside and inside their respective industries. The sheer volume of what is available is stagering. The second is a change in peoples habits. That has resulted in less time being spent on any individual sections of corporate media. The third problems is a failure to give the consumer what he wants, at a reasonable price. This is a really big problem with media companies, as they want to sell you the same content over and over at highly inflated prices.

Newspapers rely on advertising to survive. There are some that rely on subscriptions, but these are specialized, targeted, and normally high cost papers. The local classifieds market has been decimated by Craigs List and its imitators around the world. Newspapers advertising rates are based on the number of newspapers distributed. The profitability of corporate advertising that newspapers rely on has been decimated by a reduction in newspaper sales. This comes from a change in the way people consume, contribute to, and share news. A sizable percentage of peoples reading habits have changed, they now read the specialized news that interests them, general news, and what their friends suggest. People also want to interact more with the news, to comment, to discuss, to point out the problems with a story and make corrections (factual errors, grammar, and spelling Nazi’s). Newspapers dont allow for this. Their websites are similar in that they either dont allow comments or the comments are moderated and may not show up. This leads to a lack of interest in participating in that newspapers website and a decline in visitors. The trend for news consumption is towards more personalized and interest targeted news, more interaction (commenting, etc) with the news. There will be less spoon fed, “here is the news, now shut up and read it, we dont care about your opinion, and if we did, we would tell you what that opinion should be”, news in the future.

Record Labels began by selling plastic disks, in the beginning their sales were growing but pretty stagnant. Radio changed that, it allowed the labels to promote their music AT NO COST. Unless you count payola. For decades their growth was limited, records did wear, but rarely to the point of being unuasble, so there were few repeat sales. New artists were added to LP collections. That changed with the creation of portable magnetic media (I am skipping reel 2 reel and DAT as they are inconsequential). It began with 8 track players allowing music to be played in places you normally had a limited choice in what you listened to, the office, the beach, the park, and most importantly in the car. This resulted in a surge of sales as people replaced the records they could only listen to at home with portable use anywhere versions. Eight tracks had several flaws, after 50-100 plays they tended to unwind into the player, if they lasted the sound quality went down as the tape slowly degaussed. This resulted in a repeat sale of the same item. After 8 tracks came cassettes. The record labels fought tooth and nail to prevent the cassette, it allowed people to record things themselves. Little did they know that the cassette tape was more likely to unwind and cause a repeat sale than the 8 track. That copying a cssette reduced the quality. Then the CD was invented. The CD was another opportunity for the labels to sell the same content again. People upgraded from cassette and vinyl to CDs priced at almost twice the price of a cassette. Making the labels an extremely large sum of money. This upgrade didnt happen all at once, the distribution is actually a very long bell curve that began petering out the year the record labels CD sales flat lined. Enter stage left the mp3 format and mp3 player. The mp3 format pretty much did away with the labels , upgrade, and broken content container (degaussed or unwound tapes and scratch CDs), cash cows. People began ripping (format shifting) CDs to mp3 format. This was a huge opportunity for the record labels. Like every other time in the past they did anything the could to stop “the new technology” and delayed using it themselves. This was a ~ten year long span where the labels didnt sell what the consumers wanted, DRM free mp3’s. That span was filled by internet technologies (P2P, torrents, websites, e-mail, ftp, etc), and sneakernet. The on going gap in listening to the consumers wants and needs, and not attempting to understand the trends which include free music as a loss leader, dooms the record labels to bankruptcy a couple years after the newspapers.

TV Studios originally only had competition from two to four competitors in any given market. The stations in most US markets were ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and a local station or two. In the rest of the industrialized world the situation was similar. The profits of the TV studios have decreased based on increased competition from a variety of sources. Cable appeared on the scene and stations from around the nation and the world began competing for the same advertising dollars as ABC, CBS, and NBC. Over time technology advanced and the number of stations available in any given market increased to around 100. NetFlix, redbox, online distribution of TV shows, YouTube, Hulu, Roku, etc have combined in a way that allows people to cut the cord (cable). About 12-15% of cable customers have cut the cord. The chart of people cutting the cord by age looks like any past implemented disruptive technology. With the reduction in cost of video production equipment, the increased ease of use of edittiing and CGI software, the ease of distribution, you will in the future see more collaboration and competition from independent and amateur production crews. The TV studios will become less and less relevant over time as competition continues to increase and more people find sources for video media online.

Movie Studios are an interesting subset of the media creation and distribution industries. Seeing a movie is a non-interactive social event, but going to a movie with friends is a social event both before and after. It is the face to face interaction with family and friends that makes it so viable as a survivor in the internet age. In the beginning the studios began showing movies only in theaters, that was the only venue available to them. Then came TV and a new window opened for the studios to sell the content. To the consumer it was free, it was paid for by the advertisers. Then cable happened and they had a new window, pay cable stations like HBO. At about the same time VCRs showed up and another window opened to charge people for content. All of these windows were reselling the same content to the same individuals. These windows are closing. From a consumer sales perspective the Movie Studios are going to be reduced to two windows, the theater, or-and the digital online sale and only if they make it easy and non intrusive.

Video Games . Truth be told I am skipping this one I have no interest in the video game industry and only follow the general trends and number and dont crunch them. If someone were to create first person, id software game engine based, educational games I might be interested in following this sector. If MS robotics studio was turned into an single player or MMO game with a commerce side, where you compete, design and create robots, build cities using what you have put together, and design manufacturing technologies and factories I might be interested. Just an idea for a collaborative game that would end up creating clanking replicators and change the world. 😉

Software companies are facing competition from open standards, GNU GPL etc licences, free versions (open office, etc) and internet based applications. The OS sector dominated by Microsoft is facing increasing competition from Linux hence the inclusion of countries going open source software on the USTR 301 report. In the end no amount of political pressure will save closed source software companies. The only thing holding back open source software the lack of a requirement for the creation of manuals, professional instructions on building software, and educational material. If this material was available it would increase the usage of open source software among corporations and governments.

Copyright is an wholly artificial construct that was created in 1709 by Queen Anne to allow printers and publishers to profit from the works of writers. That is the short version of what is going on. I hope that brings the Newbie up to speed on what is going on in the media creation and distribution industries.

Did I miss anything???

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:Radio changed that, it allowed the labels to promote their music AT NO COST.

I Do . WCBS-FM in NYC .

BEST Oldies top 40 music 1950- today .

Great D.J.s

the great DJ , Cousin Brucie of CBS-FM ,, once photographed me performing in Washington Square.

Gave a few bucks into the ol’ guitar case too.

I was playing Neil Young’s “Ohio.”

( I owe Neil a quarter. Please sue me , Neil, Pleasssssse.)

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:Radio changed that, it allowed the labels to promote their music AT NO COST.

“Not true. There is always cost , in paid promotion staff and their needed materials”

If the studios were to pay standard advertising rates for air time on the radio there would be a substantial cost. But instead they had a one dollar piece of vinyl, one daollar in mailing cost, and the cost of a phone call or visit. This got them repeated airplay. As the labels like to say … its a rounding error.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

Let us change one word :It seems to me that SLAVERY has a negative impact on some individuals but overall SLAVERY has no negative impact on the economy, and SLAVERY may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy.

Do I have to elaborate ?

But to be clear. Copyright and Patent Laws are Morally Just and a Civil Right for Artists and Inventors ( maybe even according to Natural Law.)

IF some -non Artists feel , CopyRIGHTS stifles their economic opportunity is some instances -TOUGH.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

I doesn’t sound right, when the word is “piracy” it sounds much better there.

Copyright and Patents are imoral and a threat to humanity, people are trying to patent and copyright DNA now already.

SteelWolf (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

Just because “right” is in the name doesn’t mean it’s a right. They are not rights, but a suspension of personal liberty made (ostensibly) to promote progress.

They do not promote progress, therefore, give the public its liberty back.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

You don’t think retroactive copyright extensions are a right! Used to be that art and culture would pass into the public domain at a timely rate but nowadays, forget it!

Literally, forget it.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

“Just because “right” is in the name doesn’t mean it’s a right.”

ans: That is non-nonsensical.

They are not rights,
Ans : Then what are they ?
Take a civil liberties class find out . Let me know.

“but a suspension of personal liberty made (ostensibly) to promote progress.”

Ans: Wrong. Slave owners used that argument in the 1850s. History, War , and Law, has proven the slave owners wrong.

“They do not promote progress, therefore, give the public its liberty back.”

Ans: Give it up guy.

Go to a country to where you can buy a slave or two, if you want.

Or course , the slave could then rebel , and enslave you.

If you took a law, civil liberties , or political theory class,, you would fail.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

How does art work? How does culture work? Remember when it was legal to own people? How about their cultural heritage?

Nothing is created in a vaccuum.

Richard Corsale (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

You seem very hostile and confused. First, lets just find common ground.

Copyright is a good thing. I agree.
Patents are a good thing. I agree.

So, just like any other right, Patents and Copyrights are to be respected.

Now, your not getting anywhere with slavery or other such arguments, so you can pretty much drop those. They’re invalid and frankly, juvenile.

Think about this, if you have any right granted to citizens, such as the right to own “slaves” for example; then you understand that these rights incroach on the rights of others, and are therefor anti-rights. There are many examples of such rights, which infringe upon the liberty of others. The point is, who is more valuable to society? How did slavery end given the value propitious of slaves vs. wealthy plantation owners? How will the over powered lawyers deal with every conceived violation of their IP? What rights will they have to recoup the hypothetical losses incurred?

These are the most relevant questions facing us today. No one wants to live in a world lorded over by iron fisted content dictators who crush someone else’s right to express themselves because they sing a song on youtube. Do you see the concern being expressed here? This is *not* totenkopf vs content. This is about the average kid who will grow up in a world of extreme cultural rigidity. The 90’s were about progress. The 0’s(?) were about serialization and it seems that the 10’s are going to be about consolidation of power. The question is, who looses the power and who takes the power.

Tell me you understand the concern of these people? Because if you cannot understand it now, you’re clearly refusing to understand. That moots you and your voice. Lobbyist’s opinions are so predictable, they could just develop robots to spam their talking points all over the web.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economyNow, your not getting anywhere with s

“Now, your not getting anywhere with slavery or other such arguments, so you can pretty much drop those. They’re invalid and frankly, juvenile”

Sorry . Been used in classes and papers by not only me ,, but many,

It is a standard political theory argument.
=================

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Now, your not getting anywhere with

Yeah, let’s just not put up any of those corny emotional strawmen, as I did in the following paragraph to illustrate how it goes both ways.

The talking points, the rally cries, slogans and all of the BS that goes with stump debate can be shed. This is a forum of mostly savvy people who are not swayed by banter. More to the point, let’s talk about the issues. Somewhere between piracy and the British crown; there has to be a place where we can serve the people as well as our culture of freedom which includes the rights of creative individuals. Also, I worry for the advancement of the arts, a world where so much power is placed in the hands of so few people cannot possibly have a positive outcome for anyone; neither the creative class nor the consumer.

The balance is more likely going to be struck in highlighting the positive aspect of supporting an artist rather than cajoling them through fear and tyranny. Either way, think about the longterm, beyond today’s hyperbole and think about these actions twenty years from now. Consider how these laws will be used, and by whom. The artist is a pawn in all of this, you must know that. The creative class argument is misdirection.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Now, your not getting anywhere with

If only there was a way to measure how many artists choose to cover their work in copyright and how many artists choose to cover their work in the alternatives.

Oh right, every idea that is expressed in a fixed medium is automatically copyrighted.

The game is rigged.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

Copyright and Patent Laws are Morally Just and a Civil Right for Artists and Inventors ( maybe even according to Natural Law.)

Why do you keep saying this as if it’s true?

Copyright robs the public of its culture, so it’s not morally just.

It has absolutely nothing to do with “civil rights.” Can you name another civil right that can be transferred to a third party? One that was intentionally designed to be temporary?

And – as you know – according to copyright’s author, it’s not a “natural law.” The sharing of ideas is a natural law, one that copyright takes away.

You are the one defending slavery here. The slavery of the public (including artists) to rights holders.

It may or may not be a necessary form of slavery, but it is still slavery.

IF some -non Artists feel , CopyRIGHTS stifles their economic opportunity in some instances -TOUGH.

Except that the ones who are defending copyright are the ones who brought up economics. They are pointing to “losses” as a way to justify greater government involvement.

So, let’s rephrase: “IF some Artists feel, ignoring copyright stifles their economic opportunities in some instances – TOUGH.”

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

Incidentally – if you believe that ignoring copyright is like slavery, then you are yourself a slave-holder. You may not get caught, but then again, neither will most file sharers. The fact that you’re a musician doesn’t matter – just as it doesn’t matter if a slave holder is black.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: It seems to me that piracy has a negative impact on some individuals but overall has no negative impact on the economy, and may in fact actually have a net positive effect on the overall economy

Sorry, another point about copyright being a “civil right:”

The Constitution does not actually say that artists and inventors have rights. It says that Congress has the power to grant those rights (so long as those rights are temporary). If Congress decides tomorrow to do away with copyrights altogether, it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

That doesn’t sound like a civil right to me.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The Constitution does not actually say that artists and inventors have rights.

“The Constitution does not actually say that artists and inventors have rights. “

Fundamentally wrong. The law formalizes the particulars of those rights , i.e. limited times,, what is infringement.

But the fundamental right is ..well right there. I make Art or music , the moment I make it is FORMALLY protected. You do NOT have to register it w/ the Gov’t to protect your RIGHTS. It is a good idea to , in case the there is legal stuff down the road ,, but even then ,, you just have to prove you composed on a set date. Today you can copyright by emailing yourself a MP3 of you song. In the old days ,, many artists printed out their lyrics had it notarized and sent it back to themselves by registered mail

THE RIGHT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION , that artist activates by creation.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The Constitution does not actually say that artists and inventors have rights.

THE RIGHT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION

THE CONSTITUTION reads, “The Congrss shall have the Power…” Not, “The People shall have the Power,” nor “the Rights of the People.”

Yes, it’s law – made by Congress. Congress giveth, and Congress can taketh away.

You do NOT have to register it w/ the Gov’t to protect your RIGHTS.

You did before 1972. Prior to that, if you didn’t register your copyright, you didn’t have one. Made sense, because a copyright is supposed to be an intent to publish for profit.

Yes, I’ve heard of the “poor man’s copyright.” I’ve never heard of it ever being used in court.

WammerJammer (profile) says:

Read the article

This was a great article and of particular interest was to read that music industry insiders suggest a blanket copyright fee of $2.00 or $3.00 imposed on each person’s monthly internet bill. I as an artist have been saying this on this forum for 4 years and it is refreshing to finally see more sane minds being listened to.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Read the article

Yes, that’s a great idea. Let’s assume everyone is a thief and punish accordingly. While we’re at it, let’s add 20$ to each driver’s license renewal since the majority of people must speed. Oh, and we can add a 20% levy to any recordable media, since they must be used to hold pirated illegal material…

How about ‘as an artist’ you actually work for your money by creating material people actually want to buy, and give up the welfare state mentality.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Read the article

Imposing it on your Internet bill may not be such a good idea. ISP’s are just conduits, and many internet users won’t be interested in downloading copyrighted material.

A better idea would be to offer this as a paid commercial service: a monthly “all you can download” fee. Except that companies (e.g. Napster, post-2002) tried to do this, and it failed.

Still, the Isle of Man experiment will be interesting to watch. They apparently have an “opt out” policy, so we’ll see how that works out.

Anonymous Coward says:

Copywrong is the root of all evil.

A monopoly for 200 years is not enough, Billions in revenue annually is not enough, preposterous fines for filesharing with 7 digits are not enough when the same act to a physical product would have get them $50 bucks fine, absurd controls on household appliances are not enough, intrusive potentially dangerous DRM are not enough, other stream revenues are not enough.

Those people need to go to the poor house and learn some humility, they lost any common sense and think everybody is like them, liars and thieves the majority of people strive to be honest, absurd laws is preventing them to do it and making lots of people loose faith in that system.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art) can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.

An ARTIST (or the copyright holder of the Art)
can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.

To me , this is the core point of copyright law. Some poor artists ( or musicians who have strait jobs) may see no need to enforce their copyright control,, But others who make some $$ may see a need most or some times.

Personally , I post some of my songs online for all to record if they wish , but other songs I choose to keep offline.

It is all about Artist Control.

With that in mind re-read from the Good article :

“I’M WITH THE BAND

There is, however, another view about the purpose of copyright law. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to establish copyright protections for authors and inventors to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”

To achieve that goal, copyright law creates “a system to ‘incentivize’ creators and their backers so they can be rewarded for the fruits of their labors so they can continue to create new works,” Goldring says.

If the ultimate goal is to promote the creation of new works, then perhaps it isn’t really necessary to take stronger legal actions against illegal file-sharing because the evidence does not suggest that it is hindering the creation of new works by musicians. That is, at least, the contention of Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf. They note in their paper that, despite the growth of illegal file-sharing, more music than ever is being created and made available to the public. “This makes it difficult to argue that weaker copyright protection has had a negative impact on artists’ incentives to be creative,” their paper states.

The reasons for the surge in musical output aren’t entirely clear to Oberholzer-Gee, Strumpf and other researchers. They suggest that part of the answer is that making music isn’t just about making money. For a lucky few music can be highly lucrative, but most musicians can’t even afford to make it their full-time job.

“Given these poor prospects, why are there so many musicians?” ask Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf in their paper. “One explanation is that musicians enjoy their profession. Under this view, musicians take pleasure from creating and performing music, as well as aspects of the lifestyle such as flexible hours and the lack of an immediate boss.++++ If this theory is correct, the economic impact of file-sharing is not likely to have a major impact on music creation.”+++++
========================

“If this theory is correct, the economic impact of file-sharing is not likely to have a major impact on music creation.”

“Music creation” for the pursuit of Art for Arts sake, is very different than trying to make a living out of it.

For a struggling full-time musician, every CD sale , legal download, and paying gig is how they feed themselves.

If fans of smaller grossing , but well respected artists — like Steve Erle** for exmp. — can get the music for free , when they would otherwise pay, they are taking food off of the Musicians table.

IT is rightly against to law , to take for free, what you should be legally paying for.
————————————-
( **One of the best , but not a household name at all , unless the household is full of musicians.
http://www.steveerle.com/ )

Karl (profile) says:

Re: An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art) can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.

Hi, Technopolitical! It’s been too long, old chum.

“Music creation” for the pursuit of Art for Arts sake, is very different than trying to make a living out of it.

Copyright law does not care if you make a living off of the “useful arts,” just if more of it is created.

That’s because copyright law is not there to protect artists’ incomes. Copyright law is there to grow the public domain. Creating a temporary monopoly on profits from art, is just an incentive to make that happen. If that incentive doesn’t get the right results (i.e. it results in fewer public domain works), then it’s not doing its job, and should either be changed or abolished.

For a struggling full-time musician, every CD sale , legal download, and paying gig is how they feed themselves.

Plus every T-shirt sold, every business deal (Fahrenheit 9/11, Slacker Uprising), and every merchandising deal (the Martin M-21). None of these are negatively affected by file sharing – just as paying gigs are not. All have been steadily increasing since file sharing became popular. The only things possibly affected are CD sales and paid downloads – and if you’re on a major label and don’t break into the Top 10, you will never make any money on mechanical royalties anyway.

If fans of smaller grossing , but well respected artists — like Steve Erle** for exmp. — can get the music for free , when they would otherwise pay, they are taking food off of the Musicians table.

The “when they would otherwise pay” condition is pretty important.

Artist: “You can’t listen to my music unless you pay.”
99% of file sharers: “Fine, we won’t listen to your music.”
The other 1% will pay anyway, even if they can get the music for free.

Also, you’re probably thinking of Steve Earle (Steve Erle is a photographer). If you believe he’s underrated, maybe you should help get the word out. Make an MP3 “mix tape” of his best songs, and share them with people who haven’t heard of him. Maybe post it in a music blog, with a writeup about how great he is. Share his music to as many people as possible, so that you can get the word out.

Oh, wait – that’s “taking food off of the Musicians table.” I guess he’ll have to languish in obscurity, then.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art) can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.

By the way – you might like to read this interview with Michelle Shocked (PDF). Start at the bottom of Page 7. She talks all about label deals and the fact that most artists don’t own their own music.

That system is the one you are defending – not artists.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: She talks all about label deals and the fact that most artists don't own their own music.

big problem,, esp. if the musician has been hoodwinked . bullied , tricked ,
or circumvented out of control of the music.

buy many artist DO give up (— because it can be a big job, esp. if your a Beatle,, to administer your Artists rights)—–and SELL their rights

Like Paul sold to M.J..

Control.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The Beatles - Sgt. Peppers Lonely... 1967 [Vinyl] [FLAC] HMV

cool ,, I am down loading now!!

Be i will then sent a check to Paul and Ringo , and Yoko , and Oliva, of whatever is due .

==========
US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
by Grant Gross, IDG News
May 19, 2010 4:30 pm

http://www.pcworld.com/article/196692/us_lawmakers_target_the_pirate_bay_other_sites.html

=============

Usage policy for The Pirate Bay tracker system.

http://thepiratebay.org/policy

Our tracker system (hereby “the tracker”) is free of charge for anyone for personal usage. Organisations (for instance, but not limited to, non-profit or companies) may use the system if they clear this with the system operators first. Permission for organisations/companies is not needed for obvious “well meaning” usage, i.e. distributing works of cultural benefit for the end user.

The tracker may not be used by anyone with the intention to track usage, log ip addresses/usage or anything else that we consider intrusion of privacy or disruption of tracker service. If you are not sure if this would be the case for your usage, please contact us in order to get our permission.

The tracker is run privately. That means that we do not guarantee that the tracker will be available for users at all time but we try our best to make the tracker run stable. We take no responsibility for loss of income or similar due to tracker downtime/failure.

The responsibility lies upon the user to not spread malicious, false or illegal material using the tracker.
We do not censor but we do block people that use our service wrongfully (i.e. commercial organisations that have not cleared the usage with us first).

We reserve the rights to charge for usage of the tracker in case this policy is violated. The charge will consist of a basic fee of EUR 5 000 plus bandwidth and other costs that may arise due to the violation.
Personal usage, although violating this policy, will not be charged. We will simply block those users.

We also reserve the rights to publish any information regarding violations. Info hashes, IP addresses and all other information that is supplied to the tracker
will be considered our right to publish.

This policy may change at any time, please check in before using the tracker.

Connecting to any of our trackers means that you accept this policy agreement.

Last updated: 2007-07-04
http://thepiratebay.org/policy
===============

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The Beatles - Sgt. Peppers Lonely... 1967 [Vinyl] [FLAC] HMV

http://www.pcworld.com/article/196692/us_lawmakers_target_the_pirate_bay_other_sites.html

“Our nation and our economy is what it is today, because of the ingenuity and ideas of our people — ideas that have been safeguarded through strong intellectual property rights protections,” Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and caucus member, said in a statement.

“Those very ideas are increasingly at risk from piracy and counterfeiting abroad.”

Copyright infringement is not a victimless crime, as it is often portrayed, added Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.

“Piracy denies individuals who have invested in the creation and production of these goods a return on their investment thus reducing the incentive to invest in innovative products and new creative works,” he said in a statement.

“The end result is the loss of billions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. each year and even greater losses to the U.S. economy in terms of reduced job growth and exports.”

http://www.pcworld.com/article/196692/us_lawmakers_target_the_pirate_bay_other_sites.html

======================

I LOVE DEMOCRACY.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 She talks all about label deals and the fact that most artists don't own their own music.

Instead of seeing ‘piracy’ as a danger to the music world, you could also see it as a lost opportunity.
Clearly, there is a market, but you are not tending to that market properly.
Perhaps the filesharers don’t like the limitation of the music being available only in a few select countries (Amazon) or worse, on just one device in certain select countries (iTunes). Or are just too high priced. Or they don’t like the limitation of how they can share the music with their friends.

An artist’s worst fear shouldn’t be filesharing, it should be obscurity, unless you’re one of those rare artists who would gladly remain in the background, with as few as possible exposure to the outside world to keep the work pure.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art) can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.It is all about Artist Control.

this i where you show you are lost.

I am am Artist. Copyright gives me control of my Art.

That means more than $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art) can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.It is all about Artist Control.

I am am Artist. Copyright gives me control of my Art.

Sorry, you are mistaken.

The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based on any natural right that the author has in his writings(…) Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public such rights are given.

Congress addressing the basis for copyright in the United States

The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

– Justice O’Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

And of course:

Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society(…)

Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson

Also:

Like Paul sold to M.J..

Paul did not sell to M.J. Michael outbid Paul and Yoko. They were pissed. Paul still does not own the publishing rights to those songs – though it’s rumored M.J. may have left them to Paul in his will.

By buying the publishing rights, he gained control of Paul’s art. For example, he licensed a Beatles song to Nike, against the express wishes of Paul.

Don’t believe me? Here it is straight from the horse’s mouth.

Still think copyright is about “artist control?”

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 It's a good thing copyright doesn't last 1000 years.

“It’s a good thing copyright doesn’t last 1000 years.”

Not yet .

But I thing the rights should revert the the Artists Familes, for all time, after the Artist dies.

Even if the Artist sold the rights off during their lifetime

I admit it is a long shot — a fat chance .

But it is legally possible.

But I know Mike and all techdirt posters , will take up that good cause one day soon.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 It's a good thing copyright doesn't last 1000 years.

“But it is legally possible.

It is, however, unconstitutional. The constitution specifies that copyrights are “for a limited time.””

Karl thanks, I finally figured out the line “Forever minus a day” from a legal perspective. It means that it is limited. As opposed to just forever.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society(...) - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson

” Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right,+++++ but for the benefit of society++++”

— Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson

ME: As i have said , I disagree with TJ. on the natural right point. It is academic and philosophical and unproofable
. One day I will do a paper on it. As I already did with John Locke’s “Emotional Problems”. But there I have Voltaire and Samual Johnson making my case for me.

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100514/0126329423#c4358

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society(...) - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson

No Karl.

This really lame comment by you. Shows your shallowness of thought.

——-

I disagree with T.J. on the root reasons for copyright.

We see eye to eye on its “institution” & “reasons for” into law and the constitution.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

– Justice O’Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

ME: Proves my point. It is not about $$ .

It is about the Artist and inventors COMPLETE control ,, which is that promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
===================

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

It is about the Artist and inventors COMPLETE control ,, which is that THAT promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

( I love double thats. )

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

It is about the Artist and inventors COMPLETE control ,, which is that promotes the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

No. The free exchange of ideas is what promotes progress. Just like Jefferson said. If you’d bothered to actually read the context of those quotes, they are all from cases that rule that certain things cannot be copyrighted. They are arguing against control (COMPLETE or otherwise).

You keep making these claims about copyright, which everyone continues to prove wrong. You: “You’re taking money from artists.” Everyone: No, here’s proof that artists aren’t losing money. “Well, it’s not about money, it’s about control.” No, and here is the proof that it’s not. “Well, it’s still against the law.” Maybe, but if you read that law, you’re breaking it yourself. “Dude, give it up, you lost, I win, and no matter how many ‘laws’ or how much ‘proof’ you show me, I’m right because I’m a musician and a mouse isn’t kosher.”

When are you going to give it up? You’re mistaken. We’ve all proven you’re mistaken. I’m pretty sure you know you’re mistaken. Why do you keep repeating the same mistakes, over and over again?

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

Karl ,, take a Formal College Course in civil rights & copyright law.

Get back to me with your Grade.

Till then ,, By again
———————–

I am going back to the Mets and the Brewers.

Mets up , 4-2 ,, top of sixth.

where my ciggies

============

Enjoy the weekend,, but remember to remember , all those who gave there lives
to protect this nation and all it’s constitutional rights.

======================================

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

I think in Politicla theory , I got B +.

I am more of a nuts and bolts activist, than a big time theirost.
( read Robert Dahl if you want to know that stuff.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Dahl
—–
I worked a 15 year career ( 1982-95 ) with GreenPeace , NYIRG ( where some kid named Barack was my co-worker in 1986. I hear he is doing well now.,) ,,,

plus I worked for several political candidates , and did some staff Press work for the 1992 DEM party convention.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

NYIRG,,uurrgh

NYPIRG .

http://www.nypirg.org/
==================
first sis and steve earle , are pissed at me ,,
now my NYPIRG buddies.

Good Grief!

Go Mets

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." - Justice O'Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

So you want other people to show their law degrees, and yet when we ask the same of you, you make a joke of it.

Wow, congrats for working together with some kid named Barack (I went to a school with a guy named Bill, so what?) and well done for working with Greenpeace. None of it is actually relevant to this discussion, now is it?

When you are called upon admitting defeat you start going wildly off topic, and yet you want people to take you seriously? Amazing how your mind works.

Anonymous Coward says:

“For a struggling full-time musician, every CD sale , legal download, and paying gig is how they feed themselves.”

The same struggling artists you would never help, and you probably call them bumbs, but that for you now is convenient to keep calling on them.

Its only a minority that makes money it have been like this for almost a century now and filesharing is not going to change that either.

What is ridiculous is that this small group of people have unprecedented privileges that no one has, and even got multiple revenue streams and have the courage to say they can’t make a living out of it.

How is that? Are they so incompetent that they need all of this and more so they can do something? is the working class of the world more smart or capable than those people that they don’t need any special privileges and have to make due with only 1 revenue stream in most cases while some whining chicken little people keep screaming they can’t survive and the world will end?

WTF!

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: It is all about Artist Control.

It is all about Artist Control of their ART.

Who uses is. When they use it . How they use it.

Who gets it . How they Get it — free or for a price.

AND what they can do with it AFTER they get it. ( No copies , outside of personal private use.)

This is undisputed in Law and rational society.

If and Artists want to give away for FREE some aspect of their ART , in order to promote other aspects of their ART,, that is the Artist’s choice, and the Artist’s choice ALONE.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: It is all about Artist Control.

No its not just about that is about the ever expanding territory given to one side and ignoring the other side society do you remember society right?

It is about the loss of ownership, privacy and freedoms that we all had for centuries and now some think they can change the game.

It ain’t happening.

Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.

If you mean me ,

way off.

Art is my Job. My Work. My role in society.

I love the Public, they feed me.

I love then enough to also give the public
some of my art for free.
Pro Bono.

The rest of my Art people got to pay for.

Rent is due.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.

I love then enough to also give the public some of my art for free.

That’s not what “public domain” means. It means that the art is the “property” of the entire public, nobody can control what anyone does with it, and nobody has to pay (or get paid) to use it.

Originally, art could only be under copyright for 14 years (with an optional 14 year renewal) before going into the public domain. I still think that’s fair. If you haven’t earned back your investment in 28 years, you’re probably never going to.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.

Karl , give it up, you are wrong.

As , I stated in another thread…

You can find 100 good reasons why a mouse is kosher,, right out of Jewish Law.

But the answer is : A mouse AIN’T KOSHER.
( I know , I am also an [nearly fully] ordained orthodox Rabbi. )

You can find alot of arguments , for all forms Priacy. From the high seas to the world wide web.

THEY All sound nice.

But Piracy — of all forms is, unjust , immoral, and illegal.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.

see you congress.

see you in the courts.

See if you can win there, on copyright extension issues.. ( but clearly not copyright itself , as that is embedded into the constitution.)

Fat chance,

( but in 1968 Ronald Reagan was a political fat chance ,, so who really knows.)

=============

P.S. Once I public perform a song I have written , IT is automatically copyrighted. All songwriters know that. The New Song has been witnessed.

Filing forms of copyright with the Copy-Right gov’t thing , just makes it easier to sue the Pirates.

I hate forms. I only file for recordings , if then.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.

But Piracy — of all forms is, unjust , immoral, and illegal.

(Unless it’s part of “musicians culture,” says you.)

But, it could be that art belongs to everyone. As Paul said, “just in the sky.” In which case, “piracy” is just taking back what is rightfully yours (and everyone else’s). And copyright – of all forms – is unjust, immoral, and should be illegal.

The difference is that your position is based on selfishness and control, and the one I just presented is based on altruism and freedom.

Personally, I don’t believe in either extreme. I think the fundamental purpose of copyright is sound. Art belongs to everyone; but art costs money to create. So artists and their backers should own the profits; but nobody should own the art itself.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.

But Piracy — of all forms is, unjust , immoral, and illegal.

(Unless it’s part of “musicians culture,” says you.)
===================

ANS : YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

game over.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 I'm a musician which means I don't have to follow copyright laws because we're exempt from the law.

“I’m a musician which means I don’t have to follow copyright laws because we’re exempt from the law.”
===========

ANS : No . My point here is that Musicians usually do not sue other good faith-ed musicians.

**Artist CONTROL RIGHTS ,, as to when & how to enforce infringements on their Art** is the point.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 I'm a musician which means I don't have to follow copyright laws because we're exempt from the law.

Musicians usually do not sue other good faith-ed musicians.

Musicians usually do not sue file sharers, either. That is the work of the labels – who, after all, are usually the copyright holders. And labels have sued musicians for copyright infringement, plenty of times.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Copyright and patents today are immoral, unbalanced, unfair and a threat to the health of society.

What in the blue blazes does a mouse being kosher or not have to with this discussion. Stick to the points at hand, and don’t start veering off.

Fact is, copyright was once meant as a social contract between artist and public. “You get a monopoly on your work for a _limited_ amount of time, and after that time you get the chance to renew it for another _limited_ amount of time, after which it ultimately becomes public domain, as cultural heritage.”
Would people still listen to Beethoven’s music, if it had been locked up behind perpetual copyright?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: It is all about Artist Control.

Lets get the top hundred artists today and compare with inflation adjustment to the top hundred artists from the 90’s and 80’s, anyone want to bet they are better paid today than they was at those decades before?

How is that some liars have the courage to say they loose anything when there is no loses?

Change? oh that is a different story, change is painful some loose and others gain, the economics didn’t change they are all here today, advertisement is a billion dollar industry ask Google about it, ask Microsoft and Yahoo and ask why are they starting to fund content with their own money.

Sales for merch are going thru the roof, and still chicken little claim it is harming him yah right.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

the public learning not to pay for stuff is the issue.

How, exactly, do you think they “learned” to do this? They wanted the product in a certain format. Labels didn’t offer it, and “pirates” did. So, people turned to the pirates to get what they wanted. You can blame the people for this (and it’s legal to do so), but in reality, it’s the labels’ fault for being afraid of new technology.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

no, i think they wanted the product, were planning to buy it, and someone explained to them how they can get it for free online. people spent incredible amounts of time downloading some of the crappiest squashed mp3s just to avoid paying for stuff. it wasnt about getting something they couldnt buy, it was about getting something for nothing.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/weekinreview/30rosenthal.html?hp

“Americans have long had an unswerving belief that technology will save us — it is the cavalry coming over the hill, just as we are about to lose the battle.

And yet, as Americans watched scientists struggle to plug the undersea well over the past month, it became apparent that our great belief in technology was perhaps misplaced.

“Americans have a lot of faith that over the long run technology will solve everything, a sense that somehow we’re going to find a way to fix it,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. He said Pew polling in 1999 — before the September 2001 terror attacks — found that 64 percent of Americans pessimistically believed that a terrorist attack on the United States probably or definitely would happen. But they were naïvely optimistic about the fruits of technology: 81 percent said there would be a cure for cancer, 76 percent said we would put men on Mars. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/weekinreview/30rosenthal.html?hp

“Our Fix-It Faith and the Oil Spill”
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: May 28, 2010
=================================

Where’s my tape decK ?

Technopolitical (profile) says:

"In Czar Peter’s Footsteps" ,, very interesting

May 28, 2010
In Czar Peter’s Footsteps
By ELLEN BARRY

MOSCOW

THREE hundred years ago, after becoming king of the creaky behemoth that was Russia, Peter Romanov went west. Traveling under a pseudonym, the czar turned himself into an apprentice — studying European advances in shipbuilding, firefighting, dentistry, locksmithing and parliamentary procedure, among other cutting-edge technologies.

He returned to remake Russia. The poor rebelled at switching to the European calendar (as far as they knew, it was 7208) and aristocrats stood in livid silence as he hacked off their beards. But Peter insisted that it was in Russia’s interest to integrate westward, writing later that other nations “are working diligently to exclude us from the enlightened world.”

That line of argument is surfacing again in Moscow. Next month, in California, President Dmitri A. Medvedev will spend a day acquainting himself with Silicon Valley, the template for a new scientific city that the government is building outside Moscow. And increasingly — as sketched out in a Foreign Ministry working paper leaked to Russian Newsweek this month — policymakers are airing a new principle: Russia needs alliances with the West if it hopes to modernize.

The impulse is no surprise. In recent months, Moscow has acknowledged the Soviet massacre of Polish officers at Katyn 70 years ago; invited NATO troops to march in Red Square; and offered cautious support for sanctions on Iran. Alongside those gestures, Russia is pursuing economic goals like visa-free travel arrangements with the European Union and admission to the World Trade Organization.

More revealing is the reasoning behind it. The leaked Foreign Ministry draft suggests that foreign policy can be marshaled to help Russia attract investment, acquire new technology, update crumbling infrastructure and wean itself from dependence on resource extraction — all challenges that came into painful focus when the price of oil fell.

Absent is the language of NATO encirclement and external threat that appear in Russia’s official military doctrine, including an update Mr. Medvedev approved four months ago. Fyodor Lukyanov, editor in chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, dwelt in amazement on one strategic goal in the draft — “to form the image of Russia as a desirable partner and ally for European countries.” For Moscow, he said, that is revolutionary.

“If Russia, finally, in the spirit of the ‘diplomatic smile’ is able to overcome the inferiority complex which has gnawed at it since the collapse of the Soviet Union,” he wrote in an editorial, “maybe a new chapter is really beginning.”

On both sides of the ocean, skeptics have dismissed the leak as sweet nothings directed, above all, at the European Union and the White House. When Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was asked about it, he derided Russian Newsweek’s journalists as “masters of sensationalism”; still, he lent the draft some authority by calling it “absolutely routine work on the direct orders of the president.”

Indeed, Mr. Medvedev has argued that diplomacy could have a direct economic payoff, and has stressed his belief that Russia be converted from an energy supplier to a modern European economy.

It’s not clear how much agreement there is on that point, since oil and metals make up 80 percent of Russia’s total exports. Pavel Salin, an analyst at the Center for Political Conjuncture, a political consulting firm here, said pro-Western elites in the government can now agree with counterparts who are suspicious of the West on this much: “We will take technology from the West, but we will not adopt its political system.” For that, he added, “we need, at a minimum, nonconfrontational relations.”

But it is not clear, either, that diplomacy can produce the kind of innovation Russia wants. Russia has a vibrant consumer market, but investors also look at its corruption and its problems with the rule of law. And even Mr. Medvedev’s own flagship project — the high-tech village of Skolkovo that has inspired his trip to Silicon Valley — is fueled not by market forces but by state power.

“Competition produces innovation,” said Cliff Kupchan, a director at the Eurasia Group, a global risk-consulting firm based in New York. “I still don’t see a working appreciation of that.”

Still, Mr. Kupchan said, the Newsweek draft may represent a genuinely new strain of thinking. Russia has long looked west for technology to exploit its oil and gas resources, he said, but has rarely suggested that it needs outsiders to help fix its bad roads, low worker productivity and energy inefficiency.

That notion would have sounded outlandish here before the financial crisis underlined Russia’s dependence on Western capital — and before Barack Obama offered a reboot of Russian-American relations. “The ‘reset’ has provided political cover, so that it doesn’t look like Russia backing down, but like Russia facing a new challenge in becoming a modern country,” said Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In any case, it would be a mistake to confuse the reach for technology with a yearning for lasting closeness. Slavophiles still blame Peter the Great for forcing Western customs on Russia, but the foreign experts who flocked to Russia at his invitation were replaced, as soon as possible, by Russians they had trained. Historians tell us he distrusted Europe to the end of his life.

The czar said as much himself, according to a trusted minister. “Europe is necessary for us for a few decades,” he said. “Then we must turn our back to her.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/weekinreview/30BARRY.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fweekinreview%2Findex.jsonp

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "In Czar Peter�¢ï¿½ï¿½s Footsteps" ,, very interesting

If you didn’t have to break the law to get those things to people I think it would have been more effective.

Also not getting permission to any of the material you used goes against your own rants and speak volumes of how practical what you keep saying people should do really is.

You can’t do it, you keep infringing and breaking your own rules and want the rest of the people to fallow them, yah right LoL

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "In Czar Peter�¢ï¿½ï¿½s Footsteps" ,, very interesting

Neither this blog nor your post are affiliated with a teaching institution, so it’s not “academic use.”

“Citations provided” only covers plagiarism (which is legal); it’s still copyright infringement, even if you credit the source.

Masnick almost certainly has safe harbors provisions. He’d just have to delete your post, and ban you from Techdirt if you posted more news stories. (That might have happened if the NY Times was still behind a paywall.)

As for the story itself – if it says anything about copyright, it’s that sharing ideas helps the human race. If you believe Cliff Kupchan (“Competition produces innovation”), then that’s an argument against copyright – since copyright is a state-granted monopoly.

Anonymous Coward says:

"In Czar Peter�s Footsteps" ,, very interesting

Unbelievable LoL

The guy tries to claim copyright is good and people should respect it when he goes out of his way to show something and by doing it falls out of the law completely but wants others to fallow it.

He can’t do it but somehow others need to do it LoL

Please continue breaking the law that you are trying to support and say you love LoL

Anonymous Coward says:

Musicians usually do not sue other good faith-ed musicians.

Delusional is the word that comes to mind when I read statements like that.

Musicians are some of the most irrational emotional creatures in the world and they sue each other all the time.

BTW M.J. got the rights to the Beatles songs in a sneaky way. Paul was very upset with him and even said and I quote “I thought we were friends, friends don’t do what he did”.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Thomas Jefferson School of Law: Copyright Course syllabus

http://www.tjsl.edu/research_bibliographies
Copyright

“This course focuses on the legal issues arising from the creation, ownership, production, marketing, and distribution of literary, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, musical, digital, and related works. “

T”his will include examination of copyrightable subject matter, the idea/expression dichotomy, compilations and derivative works, duration and renewal, fair use and the impact of past laws, related state laws, and international copyright law.”

Thomas Jefferson School of Law

http://www.tjsl.edu/research_bibliographies
Thomas Jefferson School of Law . 2121 San Diego Avenue . San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: 619.297.9700 . Toll Free: 800.936.7529 . Email: info@tjsl.edu

Website Questions / Comments: webmaster@tjsl.edu . Copyright © 2006 Thomas Jefferson School of Law
==================================================

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Copyright Law in the U.S.

http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.

“The framers of the United States Constitution, suspicious of all monopolies to begin with, knew the history of the copyright as a tool of censorship and press control. They wanted to assure that copyright was not used as a means of oppression and censorship in the United States. (Loren 1999)

This consuming fear of monopoly and censorship is captured in the words of Thomas Jefferson:

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush ,September 23, 1800.
(Thomas Jefferson Online Resources, ME 10:173)

And, with respect to the copyright monopoly and the 1774 reasoning of Chief Justice Mansfield in Millar v. Taylor,

Thomas Jefferson, in 1788, exclaimed: “I hold it essential in America to forbid that any English decision which has happened since the accession of Lord Mansfield to the bench, should ever be cited in a court; because, though there have come many good ones from him, yet there is so much sly poison instilled into a great part of them, that it is better to proscribe the whole.”
(Commons 1924: 276)

Four years after the Continental Congress called on the States to introduce copyright the US Constitution was adopted in 1787 and was ratified a year later in 1788. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is now known as the “Intellectual Property or Copyright Clause” and states:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The importance of the clause is evidenced by the fact that the power to promote ‘progress’ was one of very few powers to regulate commerce initially granted to Congress. Two years after ratification of the US Constitution, Congress passed the first Copyright Act of 1790: An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.

The state copyright statutes, most of which were enacted in response to the Continental Congress Resolution, were modeled on the Statute of Anne and thus presaged the inevitable. The federal copyright was to be a direct descendant of its English counterpart. The language in the United States Copyright Clause was almost surely taken from the title of the Statute of Anne of 1710; the American Copyright Act of 1790 is a copy of the English Act; and the United States Supreme Court in its first copyright case, Wheaton v. Peters, used Donaldson v. Beckett as guiding precedent in confirming copyright as the grant of a limited statutory monopoly.
(Patterson 1993)

Inclusion of a ‘monopoly-granting’ power in the Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790 involved great debate and deliberation particularly between Thomas Jefferson, who initially opposed all monopolies including copyright, and James Madison who proposed its benefits and inclusion.

In this debate Madison played both sides of the fence, supporting natural or common law rights for Creators on the one hand, and promoting regulation and limitation of the publishing industry through statute on the other. His apparently contradictory opinions are expressed in his correspondence with Jefferson and in the Federalist papers.

These documents prove that Madison accepted traditional English ideas of copyright. That is, he understood copyright as a monopoly granted for only a limited term. Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist when he clearly understood that copyright and patent were inevitable monopolies to promote science and literature? He seemed to believe it would be easier to persuade the people, amid the current mood of antipathy toward monopolies and England, to accept copyright and patent as natural rights than as trade regulation laws which were monopolistic in nature. It is well known that the Americans adopted the common law after screening aristocratic or prerogative elements out. The Founding Fathers understood the nature of copyright as a monopoly that was granted for administrative purposes to promote the sciences and they adopted copyright law after modifying its doctrine to suit American taste. That was America’s first copyright statute, the Copyright Act of 1790.
(Shirata 1999) “

http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.

=======================

Great Page here . A MUST READ .
http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Copyright Law in the U.S.

Incidentally, you didn’t post huge parts of the article, which are very very important:

The issue came to a head in the first major American copyright case – Wheaton v. Peters in 1834. (…) The Federal Supreme Court concluded (…) that copyright was a privilege, not a right. In its opinion, the case was about protection against monopoly and accepted the English precedent for the United States. In the process, however, the Court also rejected what later became known as the “moral” rights of authors.

Emphasis mine.

In fact, nearly every sentence in this article supports most of the stuff I and others have been saying – and that you have repeatedly denied. For example:

[the Copyright Act of 1790] stands as the point of divorce between the perceived purposes (which became the protection of authors and publishers) and the methodology of the law (which remained to protect a movable-type based printing industry). The understood goal of the law was set adrift from the actual workings of the law. (…)

Copyright to a work created by an employee or under commission belongs to the employer and neither economic nor moral rights attach to the actual author employee. (…)

The extension of the renewal term of copyright… is unconstitutional because (1) it is motivated by a desire to establish perpetual copyright; (2) it provides nothing to authors (most of the authors being dead); (3) it does nothing to encourage the arts…; (4) its effect will be to discourage the arts by preventing the timely entrance of works into the public domain; and (5) it exceeds any reasonable interpretation of the constitutional requirement of “limited times.” (…)

Three words sum up the US rationale for granting copyright: progress, learning & knowledge. All three relate to the public domain and thereby to the third party in the copyright equation: the User. (…)

Works are to become freely available to Users after the ‘limited’ time has passed, that is, they should enter the public domain. (…)

In the simplest terms, this means: nonprofit copying is fair use.

Seriously, do you actually read the articles you post?

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Copyright Law in the U.S.

The issue came to a head in the first major American copyright case – Wheaton v. Peters in 1834. (…) The Federal Supreme Court concluded (…) that copyright was a privilege, not a right. In its opinion, the case was about protection against monopoly and accepted the English precedent for the United States. +++In the process, however, the Court also rejected +++what later became known as+++ the “moral” rights of authors. +++

===========================
The primary goal of copyright is not to reward authors, but “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

– Justice O’Connor, from the majority opinion in Feist v. Rural

——————

Do some more research Karl :
search : “the “moral” rights of authors”
http://www.google.com/search?q=the++%22moral%22+rights+of+authors&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___US361

————
please remember in 1834. (…) The Federal Supreme Court,, was also supporting slavery.

Karl , you are too quick and sloppy with your replies. You can do better.
You are smart. Read more critically and more objectively.
Now you read everything with an agenda. Accept times you may be wrong.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

In this debate Madison played both sides of the fence, supporting natural or common law rights for Creators on the one hand,

In this debate Madison played both sides of the fence, supporting ***natural or common law rights for Creators ***on the one hand, and promoting regulation and limitation of the publishing industry through statute on the other. His apparently contradictory opinions are expressed in his correspondence with Jefferson and in the Federalist papers.

http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist

http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.

“Why did [ James Madison] explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist when he clearly understood that copyright and patent were inevitable monopolies to promote science and literature? He seemed to believe it would be easier to persuade the people, amid the current mood of antipathy toward monopolies and England, to accept copyright and patent as natural rights than as trade regulation “

http://www.guardster.com/?Tutorials-Copyright_Law_in_the_U.S.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist

Are you dumb or something?, what you are showing is that even at the beginning people understood what copyright was, a monopoly to regulate commerce and it was presented as a different thing to persuade others to accept it.

Is not a natural right, its a tool you fool.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist

Wrong. The “natural right” of copy right was debated then , and even now, and Madison objectively illustrated that debate. In my humble opinion

It is a philosophical question, and unresolvable, except academically ,, but people will reach different conclusions there. A good proff with grade based on how well you express your view,, not weather they agree with you.

Law —in practical application –is not philosophical .

Piracy is illegal.
Whether land , sea. or online

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist

You are smart. Read more critically and more objectively.
Now you read everything with an agenda. Accept times you may be wrong.

Man, you are really unbelievable sometimes. I’ve been doing nothing but giving you information from critical and objective sources, and you’ve done nothing but say “you’re wrong” without evidence. When you do quote something, you deliberately (often hilariously) twist the words to make them fit your radical agenda.

Accept that sometimes you may be wrong. This is one of those times.

reply :I WORK FOR ME.

You miss the point. If what you say is true, then works for hire would be a violation of civil rights. They’re not. For why it’s relevant, you might want to read this:
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/music/feature/2000/08/28/work_for_hire

The only people in the world , who want to abolish copy right & Patent LAW are all AND ONLY certain techdirt readers. Maybe a few hundred in the whole world.

Ha ha, I’ve met a “few hundred” in the Boston area alone, most of whom have never heard of Techdirt. But I don’t want to abolish copyright, just roll it back to what it was before 1997. Most Techdirt readers don’t want to abolish it either, just reform it.

search : “the “moral” rights of authors”
http://www.google.com/search?q=the++%22moral%22+rights+of+authors&ie=utf-8&oe=utf- 8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___US361

If you read those linked articles, every one agrees that copyright and “moral rights” are different, and that the U.S. only has “moral rights” in the case of visual arts (and only since 1990). Many of those links I’ve already cited here.

Perhaps I’m not the one who needs to do research.

It is a philosophical question, and unresolvable, except academically

…Unless it’s specifically written into the language of the law, which it is. That copyright is not a “natural law” is not a philosophical question, it is a fact. If you say otherwise, you’re not having an academic debate, you’re simply wrong.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist

Get an impartiel academic law proff to read this thread. Trust me you guys did not win ,,

Copy right is Law.

Piracy is illegal.
Find me one member of congress who endoreses abolishing copy right & Patent LAW.

As cited above , Congress is working hard to kill the Pirates.

Welcome to reality.

If you do not like it . Use Democracy , run for office , on a platform of abolishing copyrights — MIKE & co.

See how far you get

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist

Get an impartiel academic law proff to read this thread. Trust me you guys did not win ,,

Why? Supreme Court judges have already ruled on this. We’ve quoted them to support our arguments, you’ve ignored them and offered no evidence of your own.

Read this article. Read the passage that you quoted. They clearly state that copyright is a monopoly right and a subset of trade regulation. It says specifically that copyright does not come from a “natural right” – though Madison said it did, so the public would accept it. (Kind of like how Bush said invading Iraq was about WMD’s.)

It says, in very clear and specific terms, that you’re mistaken. If you can’t see that, then you can’t read.

Copy right is Law.
Piracy is illegal.
Find me one member of congress who endoreses abolishing copy right & Patent LAW.

Find me one person in this thread who believes differently. It ain’t me, that’s for sure.

I agree with copyright’s purpose: to encourage artistic output by allowing publishers to reimburse the costs of production. I agree that “piracy” is illegal: I just think that the current definition of “piracy” is against the intent of copyright law. I don’t want to abolish copyright, I want it to do what it’s supposed to do: grow the public domain.

You are the one who doesn’t like copyright. You are the one who supports piracy (at least, for musicians). By saying IP rights should last forever, you are the one who wants to abolish copyright and patent law.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist

ME: Find me one member of congress who endorses abolishing copy right & Patent LAW.

YOU: Find me one person in this thread who believes differently. It ain’t me, that’s for sure.

ME: This is getting surreal Karl. The only people in the world , who want to abolish copy right & Patent LAW are all AND ONLY certain techdirt readers. Maybe a few hundred in the whole world. Mostly Anonymous Cowards.

Anonymous Coward do not make or judge the law.

Think man. think.

Marcel de Jong (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Why did he explain copyright as a natural right in the Federalist

I want copyright REFORM, not abolishment. I want much like Karl to have copyright that actually promotes creation of new works rather than a welfare state for lazy musicians, who want to get paid for their work they made umpteen years ago.

I want my public domain back. Right now the public is being cheated out of their cultural heritage, by greeding corporations and their lobby groups.

Perpetual copyright will not help the ‘poor and starving’ artist. All it will do, is have him or her languish in obscurity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Man technopolitical, what a control freak! You keep spewing trash about “artists controlling their work”…You can’t control ideas!

Think about it: you tell me something, an idea. Once I know it, you can no longer control the spread of that idea. You can only control how YOU spread it, but you can’t control how I spread it (free will is such a bummer sometimes…). Now you have two people that know that idea, but you have an unknown variable that you cannot control.

But now you have a much bigger problem. For every new person that hears that idea, you have a new unknown variable that might or might not share it. If you’re extremely lucky, every new person that hears that idea might not share it but, mathematically speaking, good luck with that (think 10 people with 50% chance of sharing. The chance that they all don’t share is less than 0.1% if I didn’t screw up the math).

Copyright is just an artificial barrier that tries to put a stop to that sharing of ideas. It basically says: “You can’t tell this idea to anyone else. Only I can.”. But what happens if someone defies that rule and tells that idea to somebody else (somebody who, by the way, might not bound to the original contract)? Your whole system falls apart! You lost your control again. Your system achieved nothing…

Copyright is a weak system that is completely unenforceable since ANY of the links can break the system. Once the system is broken, you’re screwed. Might as well remove that layer of bloat and adjust to the new system.

There are some things that are beyond human control. Deal with it.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Originally, copyright was artificial barrier that tried to stop competitors from selling ideas.

Somewhere along the way, it got confused with this notion of “creator control” – that copyright gave publishers the right to the ideas themselves, as if they were property.

It’s not true, but it’s a viewpoint that helps out the multinational media corporations, so the public has been hoodwinked into believing it.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Copy right is Law.

Piracy is illegal.
Find me one member of congress who endoreses abolishing copy right & Patent LAW.

As cited above , Congress is working hard to kill the Pirates.

Welcome to reality.

If you do not like it . Use Democracy , run for office , on a platform of abolishing copyrights — MIKE & co.

See how far you get

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You know, after reading your self described bio, I can’t imagine that you aren’t even a little bit ashamed of yourself. You have gone from someone that (I presume) wanted to change the world, to make it a better place. Surly you realize that you have become the oppressor of youth. Despite the dogmatic rational that “It’s justified because it’s us or them” you really should stop to consider the vast majority of real people that will be harmed in your Scorched Earth policy of cultural dictatorship. If you buy into the idea that “Pirates” are trying to “enslave” you and that ANYONE other than lawyers and the occasional misguided artist; wants you to have, yet another gross escalation of authority. Then, pirates are the least of your problems. You do realize that you’re only doing so via corruption, not Democracy.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Pirates” take away artists right of control.

Pirates also hijack ships of the coast of Somalia

Why do you thing they are called “Pirates”?

They are not called, ” nice People who respect the rights of others according to U.S. and international law.”

The “Pirate party ” is an unjust cause.
It is fueled by too much coffee , too much meth ,and other chemical drugs that pollute your moral judgment. It will not go far. Trust me.

(Smoke weed man !! Make Peace ! hug a tree. Go to the Gulf and clean some oil up.)

History is not on the Pirate side.

President Thomas Jefferson would hate you , and would use force to stop you from Pirating.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Ohhhhhhh I get it, you’re just confused about what “morality” actually is. Let me help you out.

A moral act is something like helping someone who is drowning. When faced with the option of helping someone on a catamaran who might have a small leak and someone who is ACTUALLY drowning, it is a decent persons “moral obligation” to save that which is in the most peril.

An immoral act would be allowing (thus condemning) the individual to perish because you desire the favor of someone on a catamaran.

The pirate party is undeniably ill conceived in an era of conspiracy, but has the appropriate moral alignment. Someone needs to stop worshiping Ayn Rand long enough to fight the good fight. This is the civil rights movement of our day and you sir, are on the wrong side of history.

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Ayn Rand

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_profresources_reprint_permission_classroom

Requesting Reprint Permission for Classroom Use

There are two easy ways to obtain permission to photocopy articles by Ayn Rand for classroom use.
Copyright.com

Copyright.com is a website that enables professors to request reprint rights to Ayn Rand’s works for classroom use. There is a small fee to use this service.

* Go to http://www.copyright.com/
* Create an account or log in
* Enter the title of the essay you want to photocopy in the “Get Permission / Find Title” box
* Click “Order”

It’s just that simple!
The Estate of Ayn Rand

You may also obtain permission to photocopy Ayn Rand’s works directly from the Estate of Ayn Rand. There is no fee when permission is granted. Please send your request to:

The Estate of Ayn Rand
c/o The Ayn Rand Institute
Rights and Permissions
2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606

Or by:

Fax: 949-222-6558
Email: rralston@aynrand.org

In your request, please supply the following information:

* Your name and title
* University or college name and address
* Title of course
* Title of article for which you are requesting permission
* Approximate number of photocopies needed
* Date or term of course
* Date permission is needed

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_profresources_reprint_permission_classroom

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Ayn Rand

Patents and Copyrights
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html

Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130.

What the patent and copyright laws acknowledge is the paramount role of mental effort in the production of material values; these laws protect the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property.

An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence.

It is important to note, in this connection, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

The government does not “grant” a patent or copyright, in the sense of a gift, privilege, or favor; the government merely secures it—i.e., the government certifies the origination of an idea and protects its owner’s exclusive right of use and disposal.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “Patents and Copyrights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 130.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Ayn Rand

As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the potential with the actual. The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t. Since the issue is one of commercial rights, the loser in a case of that kind has to accept the fact that in seeking to trade with others he must face the possibility of a competitor winning the race, which is true of all types of competition.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.html

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Ayn Rand

OK – let’s look at a case where something a bit like your example actually happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_telephone_controversy

whatever side of the argument you take the fact is that the patent system creates too big a reward for too small a difference. In ordinary business it is unlikely that so much could hang on so little. Had there been no patent system then the winner would have been the person with the best product – and the effort would have been directed towards the public good (better technology) nrather than legal shenanigans.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Welcome to reality.

If you do not like it . Use Democracy , run for office , on a platform of abolishing copyrights — MIKE & co.

See how far you get”

The really funny thing is that ACTA is as far as copyright can go. With the exception of forever minus a day. It is the final nail that is going to cause a reversal in copyright.

But that isn’t why I am commenting …

You seem to think the only way to take on the media companies is to lobby for the change you want, which is a loosing proposition the other side has to much money. Or run for office which is also a loosing proposition because of all the lobbyists for the media companies.

It is far cheaper to actually attack them from a new technology, profit removal, standards, and competition perspective.

Anonymous Coward says:

Copywrong its a law right now that is correct, but is like those laws that are just for dressing windows, they look beautiful but serve no real purpose.

ICU in 20.

Translation:

In 20 years I will see you. Probably you will still be crying out loud. Why?! Why?! won’t they stop sharing, it is my baby, it is my precious LoL

Technopolitical (profile) says:

intellectual property Counsel // http://ogc.caltech.edu/moral_rights.htm

Moral Rights
http://ogc.caltech.edu/moral_rights.htm

“The moral rights of a work does not refer to the ethics of the author(s). Rather, this bundle of rights derives from the French term droit moral and refers to the right of the author to exercise control over his/her work. Whereas copyright may be transferred and lasts beyond the life of the author, moral rights resides with the author until the author’s death.

In the US, moral rights vest only in visual arts and can be found at 17 U.S.C. §106A (also known as the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990). Sculptures and paintings are common examples of objects in which moral rights would attach.

Moral rights give an author the ability to protect his or her work from alteration, degradation or distortion, regardless of the owner of the particular work. The Visual Artists Rights Act also allows the artist to control how a work is associated or perceived to prevent distortion of the work and possibly tarnish the artist’s reputation.

For more information about moral rights, see Moral Rights Basics.”

http://ogc.caltech.edu/moral_rights.htm

Ari Cohen says:

Re: intellectual property Counsel // http://ogc.caltech.edu/moral_rights.htm

Yeah, you seem to skirt every tough question, regardless of who posts it. I’m starting to think you’re just a propaganda machine. Your arguments are trite, boilerplate responses to legitimate questions. You simply point to the law with all caps when someone makes a point on the ethics of crushing expression and you fall back on logic loops like “If it isn’t legal then it is morally reprehensible and I don’t talk to people like you”. Maybe this is more about you sleeping at night than making an honest intellectual argument?

Technopolitical (profile) says:

Re: Re: intellectual property Counsel // http://ogc.caltech.edu/moral_rights.htmMaybe this is more about you sleeping at night than making an honest intellectual argument?

I would sugest you click my profile here ,, read all my recent posts .

I make sound factual points all though out ,, the last 3 weeks of debates here on copyright.

thru , my profile you can find out all about me,,

Christopher Bingham (profile) says:

File sharing isn't theft

“The idea goes like this: Impose a blanket license on copyright owners, making it legal for all their musical works to be shared online. In return, ISP customers would pay a monthly licensing fee. Music rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI would collect the licensing fees and distribute royalty payments to performers and songwriters.”

Sorry, but that is simply a scam to funnel money to record labels again. Their payment models and collection methods more closely resemble extortion for mom and pop coffeehouses than anything equitable. Again they want to base the payment scheme on extrapolating the number of song plays from small samples – and they get to choose the sample pool.

The bottom line is that sharing is not stealing. If I make a copy of your shovel I am not stealing your shovel – I’m creating another bit of chattel. If I build a few more shovels, based on your design, and sell them, I might be infringing on your market. If I give them away and say “keep it if you like it” the person has the choice to keep it or pass it on – which *might* have cost you a sale or it might not have.

We’ve moved into a different business model of how music is heard and sold. In the old days, the only music that made it out to the market was controlled by a handful of gatekeepers – and they made the money. Now I can record a tune in my office and it can available to the entire world in minutes. It would be grossly unfair to anyone who creates to use the law to support the gatekeepers again instead of the creators.

You can try to force people to buy every copy of your music, but good luck getting heard. File sharing is the new radio play. I’m selling more now than I ever did in the old days.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...