huh what?
immwhat
drops pants and moons the maker of said music…oh yes i did fart

Its also very very poor form, and weak argument to equate world hunger or human rights to your right to break international laws and to download movies and songs you like or might want.

You think world hunger is file sharing should be tied into the same moral and ethical arguments ?

Or that ‘mob rule’ should be the law, and if enough people break the law it somehow makes it ok to do it.

Laws are created for social stability, they are not generally arbitary, and therefore are there for a reason.

Just because you dont like a law, does not give you to right to disobey it, or to equate what you are doing to stopping world hunger, or to human rights.

It appears you are not responsible enough to obey even simple and clear laws, with the justification that “everyone is doing it”. So its “ok”.

Its not, “ok” for those who you are stealing off. Or who would be creating content but are not because of this problem.

And all you can do to help them, is to tell them to change their ways, so you can continue to flaunt the law and download files.

Sooner or later, you will not have any decent files to download, but you will have an infinite number of rubbish that no one wants for any price… and you think that will be a better world ?

Dont equate human rights and world hunger with illegal file sharing, its a bad look.

Your version of the way the world should be is the antithesis of hope.

So taking something away from authors rewards them ???

The quote makes sense, but your ‘interpretation’ of it makes none.

Just because something is non-physical and/or intellectual does not mean it can not be a scarce resource.

Example of an intellectual scarcity?

Something ANYONE writes and does not publish, anything developed or designed on contract, that is not published.

Everything secret or proprietary, every invention.

Every unique idea, every painting, art, music idea are ALL intellectual scarcities.

If you have a unique idea, it is YOUR’s and ONLY yours you have a monopoly on that idea, (as long as its original and not stolen).

If I write a short computer program to do a job, If I can not publish it, its a ONE OFF intellectual property..

And not available for file sharing or public use.

If I do not publish it it is therefore scarce, and if if is an intellectual product, that would make it an inellectual scarcity.

This composer who is not longer producing CD means that the product of his works are now effectively extint..

No one can benifit from it because he is not publishing it, if he does create it he will keep it proprietary or create it on contract for a single customer.

Either way the consumer loses because a small group want things for free, and are not willing to obey the law, and pay a fair price for a fair product.

You are not stealing the product, or the physical copy of the works, you are stealing the COPYRIGHT of the rightfull owner.

It was the creation of copyright law, and the statute of Anne that led to the creation of the public domain.

Before copyright, all publications were control by a small group, and if you did not get on their “list” you were not published.

After copyright, the publishers companys monopoly was broken and the limited time of copyright, meant that after that time, works entered the public domain.

As opposed to being locked up by a small group, forever..

I for one prefer it this way, its a fair system that has been working well for hundreds of years, it works far better than the “system” that was in place before copyright.

And after 300 years, it appears to still work, and is still the law, there is little or no sign that copyright is or will be reformed, or that illegal file downloading will suddenly become legal, or moral.

Just because you CAN steal something, and just because many do, does not make it right or legal.

And I cannot see any justification that what is being done is not doing damage to artists and inventors who do their work knowing that there is a legal framework that if they abide by they can progress.

A legal framework that has evolved, and appears to work far better than what was before.

But just because you can does not make it right, I can build a bomb but doing so is against the law.

People here only want to look at the situation from their own personal and greedy point of view, there is no consideration for others who actually want to create, and live at the same time.

You tell them their jobs are no longer worth it, and that they should go do something else !!!..

Oh my, you devalue their work to the point where you say its not worth doing it, and they need to “do something else” or as mike puts it, find a new model.

Which is double talk for do something else.

Why should they, and if they do, what benifit is it to the customer, who is willing to pay for product they want.

And what good is it for the file downloaders, who can download all the file they like, except there are no longer any files worth downloading, because artists and creators of content are doing some other business model !..

A million copies of the same song is new product diversity, and it provides no benifit to the custumer,

And if the supply is infinite or a million but the demand is 100 then you have waisted huge resources to create copies (noise) that no one wants.

In that respect it is pollution, and ‘junk’.

Customers what choice, and they are willing to pay for quality over quantity..

I would prefer 50 different songs or movies, than 50 copies of the same song or movie.

So I want different people creating different content and product,,,, not one person creating something and a million copies of it.

One day you guys might mature and see the difference, a critical difference at that…

Look the word up in the dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/flaunt
2 : to treat contemptuously

Perhaps you should take your own advice?

I must wonder if I correctly understand your comments in view of my understanding of the history associated with, and the text of, the Statute of Anne of 1710.

It is my recollection that starting about the early 1500’s a royal charter was granted to a select group of “stationers” affording them the exclusive right to publish and distribute books throughout most portions of the UK. If an author desired a book to be published, only the members of this group had the authority to do so, to the exclusion, or so I understand, of even the author himself.

At the time the royal charter was granted (which in large measure was intended not to encourage publication, but to control what was published…a means of censoring that which the monarchy deemed offensive), publication essentially involved a bunch of people with time on their hands who served as scrivners/stationers. With the introduction of typeset printing, the “stationers guild” eventually became known as the “printers guild”.

It is my understanding that the underlying purpose of the Statute of Anne was to dissolve the royal charter, place the original “ownership” of works in the hands of their authors, install a system whereby the exclusive rights under law were fixed at a certain term of years, and to effectuate a change in the then English common law whereby the rights of printers that existed under the law in perpetuity were truncated.

In view of the above, your comment about the “stationers company” lobbying in favor of what became the Statute of Anne must be more nuanced than you state. Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, they sought to influence the law to minimize the damage to the cozy deal they had enjoyed for over 150 years. Perhaps they had other motives. Interestingly, one facet of the Statute of Anne that mentions the “stationers company by name was that it became the repository for publications, reflective to some degree of the function served today in the US by the Copyright Office. Interestingly, the number of copies for deposit with the company was set at 9, with this number corresponding precisely with the number of libraries associated with universities in England. If a library wanted a copy, it merely need ask the company, at which point the company was by law required to provide same to the requesting library.

It goes without saying that the means for printing books still resided with the stationers company, a joint stock company conveniently owned by the printers, so that authors did have a rather limited choice of printers to which they could turn. However, while its actual effects are not known to me, the Statute of Anne also created a right to bring suit against printers if the event it was believed that they were engaged in what many would now call “monopoly rents”, and early manifestation of “price controls”.

Did the system created by the Statute of Anne work as its language would suggest. Frankly, I do not know the answer because I am not a student of history of the publishing industry in the UK. Even so, at least on paper it was in my view a significant shift from the “royal charter” system, and almost certainly had a significant influence on the early development of copyright law with the early colonies, and then ultimately the US via both the constitutional grant of power to the Congress and the first Copyright Act (1790) enacted under the authority of such power.

No doubt influenced by the “Screw England” views of the day, the early copyright laws within the US excluded works first published in foreign countries. They could, and were, published and distributed in the US with impunity. Only later (though I do not recall when) were foreign works afforded protection under US law when it became clear that foreign trade was of such importance the US law had to give a little in order to receive reciprocal rights under the laws of its trading partners. Obviously, this international give and take continues to date will continue into the future.

One final comment, I found it interesting to learn that one of the purposes purportedly underlying the Statute of Anne was to provide economic incentives for authors to have their works published, with such incentives being viewed as a means to an end…the encouragement of learning by the public at large (which at the time in England was limited to the chosen few, and not the public at large. Heaven forbid that a mere commoner would have access to such publications).

Again, the above is merely a simplistic summary of my historical understanding. I do not profess to being a rabid student of history, even though I do profess to being a rabid student of copyright law within the US since its inception in 1790.

That’s not even remotely true. Ideas can be copied infinitely and, thus, are not scarcities. And physical items are, well, physical items, not “intellectual”.

Ideas can be copied infinitely and, thus, are not scarcities.

An “idea” cannot be copied at all, infinitely or not, and it most certainly cannot be even stolen or used IF YOU DONT KNOW IT

How can an IDEA be copied, if you are sitting in front of the computer and you have an idea that you will post something on techdirt, how can that idea be anyone elses or be copied by anyone else.

Its YOUR idea, sure others can have the SAME idea, but it is NOT YOUR IDEA, it is their idea. Can you **NOT** understand that ?

There is no patent or copyright on an “idea”, it is not possible, you copyright a book, or a physical construct of an invention as a practical, physical realisation of the idea.

NOT the idea itself, you do not go to the patent office and get a patent on the IDEA of a recipe of Coke, you patent the actual physical technical details, the practical product of your idea, if it is original and worthy of copyright or trademark or patent protection.

The idea itself is meaninless, its not physical, its not practical (or could well be), and more often than not its **NOT** a good idea. Or practicle.

You can have a great idea, strap on some paper wings and jump off a cliff, great idea, but its not original, its not practical, its not copyrightable or patentable. Its just an idea.

So if you do not know what someone’s idea is you cannot copy it, no matter how smart you are, unless you come up with that SAME IDEA yourself, then its not their idea but yours.

If I have an idea, even if it possible to make it a practical reality it does not mean you have the ability to make infinite copies of my idea.

First, im not going to tell you MY idea, so you will never know it, so you will not be able to copy it.

The idea for a formula for Coke, was nothing, until someone wrote it down, and make the product, and tasted it.

You do not know that recipe, therefore you cannot copy that idea, you can make a similar drink but you will NEVER have the idea for Coke, because that is unique.

You can steal or copy someone elses idea, IF you can, but if they do not want you to know it, you may and probably NEVER will be aware of the underlying idea.

So you cannot copy it, and you cannot take advantage of it.

As for IP not being physical, again, the **IDEA** is not physical, but the practical realisation of it is.

How is a peice of paper with a recipe, or a song written on it, not real or physical.

Its no longer just an idea, it is a real and practical and physical entitiy in its own right.

You cannot copy an idea, you can copy something that is physical or real.

A song started as an idea, over time that idea was developed into a song, and over time that song was performed and recorded.
The idea is non-physical, the song and the performance is real and physical, you can copy their physical performance, or you can copy the music and words, but you cannot copy the idea for the song.

And when you copy the music (the sounds), it is a PHYSICAL property that you are copying, which is usually a copy of the performers physical performance of the song.

That is physical, that is real, the idea in the song writers head is not (yet) real, it cannot be copied.

As an “idea” is **NOT** anything, you cannot make copy one of an idea. To say you can is crazy,

What file format does ideas come in ?

I think you are getting a bit confused with your meaning of words.

Trying to tie an idea with the real and practical realisation of something physical is wrong.

They are not the same things, they are in fact totally different, and that is why you cannot go to the patent office with “an idea” for something and get a patent.

You cannot copyright “an idea”, you have to flesh out your idea, refine it, modify it, and most important MAKE IT REAL.

Or at least demonstrate that if you were to make it, that it would work.
So you have to “reduce” your idea into something practical, you have to make it physical to the point where it is practical and possible and if that idea is innovative, and worthy of patent or IP protection then it is granted.

But you are welcome to go to the patent office or copyright office and tell them you have a great “idea” for something, and you wish to gain IP protection for your “idea”.

They will laugh you out of the room, and probably tell you to come back when you get a clue.

What IP protected products are **NOT** physical, what invention, song, movie, book, file, photograph, painting is **NOT** physical ?

Then tell me what format you store idea’s in please.
Or what form at all for that matter.

then tell me what program you use to copy these “ideas” an infinite number of times. Is it MS windows copy of do you need linux for that ?

Then you can tell me how you can have MY idea. and in what form would you keep it in ?

You can have the **same** idea as me, but it is YOUR IDEA, and mine is mine. You cannot have MY idea. and you cannot copy it infinite times, because you cannot have it, you can have your own.

Or you can have someone else have a good idea, make it real, and you can buy that idea off them. but you cannot EVER have THEIR idea, its not possible.

Idea’s by themselves do not take phsical form, they are ideas, something that poped into YOUR head. Not physical.

If you act on that idea, it may become physical, you might write a book, or song or invent something.

But that is a physical and real thing, born from your idea.
Which is not physical, and not in itself copyable.

Again, its not that hard.

Idea’s and logic do require some original thinking, but you are very confused between what is physical and real and what is not. and its not that hard..

You are missing the point, Vivaelamor. Everything in US copyright law is geared to create a protected channel of distribution, NOT a protected channel of creativity or the creation of content.

Underground Railroad: LAWBREAKERS!!!

“Copyright in its current form is essentially an economic construct to promote the creation of works,…”

Only in the most round about way. What it is trying to do is mimic the process whereby physical goods are distributed in the marketplace and societies. Upon initial creation, content becomes a near infinite resource for the content creator, but not for the marketplace or society. In order to encourage the distribution of said content a set of rules that mimic, but do not replicate, the property laws for physical goods was created.

Take the quote from Thomas Jefferson so often used for these discussions: “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” The question that forms the basic reasoning for copyright, in my opnion, is what entices me to share my experience or taper with you? Why in the world would I ever want to give you access to something that benefits me over you?

This has already been answered in the realm of physical goods; You’ll give me access to something that you have that I do not. Thus is born a marketplace for content. Just as different rules apply to the distribution of types of physical goods, so do different types of content also need different rules vis a vis copyright and patents.

Mind you, this right here is my opinion of DESIGN and INTENT, not END USE. Niether copyright or patents are REQUIRED for the distribution of content.

***SPOILER ALERT***

Here is, I think, a little known secret that is not shared often enough. Nether copyright or patents offer any significant hinderance if you, as content creator, want to distribute your work for free. As a matter of fact, both systems will help PROTECT your right to do so.

That is actually something of an impossibility, as morality is nebulous, and differs from one person to another. Legality is not intended to be a nebulous standard, though in practice it can be interpreted differently by different people. This is the flaw in the legal system. It is also the flaw in your reasoning.

‘I disagree as it does not follow that possesion automatically allows blockage. For example, your possesion of content does not automatically block me from using that same content.’

You’re confusing real property with IP, again. IP rights and RP rights are not the same thing, and you know it.

And I would say that if that were true, then copyright would only apply to copying en-masse, which it doesn’t.

I don’t understand why you think this. Again: I never said that copyright exists *only* to prevent copying en-masse.

“If the ability to copy en-masse was the impetus to enact copyright then copyright would only apply to copying en-masse.”

I don’t see how “only” is necessarily follows in your statement.

“If the ability to copy en-masse was the impetus to enact copyright then copyright would apply to copying en-masse.” — which it does.

Enlightne me.

…and when people refer to “sharing” of unauthorized content, are they not engaging in the very same misuse of words that they decry?

Last time I looked the “sharing” of files without the permission of the rights holders is known as illegal “distribution, reproduction, etc.”.

Don’t apologize for the rant. I greatly enjoyed it! 🙂

“What it is trying to do is mimic the process whereby physical goods are distributed in the marketplace and societies.”

Then substitute creation for distribution and the point still stands.

“The question that forms the basic reasoning for copyright, in my opnion, is what entices me to share my experience or taper with you? Why in the world would I ever want to give you access to something that benefits me over you?”

While the aim of copyright might be to promote sharing, the argument was over copying. There is nothing stopping you from not sharing your work, as there is nothing stopping me from copying it, should you share it, except copyright. As you appear to understand this concept, I wonder why you’re even arguing? You appear to agree with us on the point in question even if you don’t agree with me on whether copyright is a good thing.

“Mind you, this right here is my opinion of DESIGN and INTENT, not END USE. Niether copyright or patents are REQUIRED for the distribution of content. “

Which is the fundamental difference between copyright and actual property rights. Copyright is there because it is believed to have a positive effect overall. Physical property rights are there because they solve an actual problem, the distribution of scarce resources.

“Here is, I think, a little known secret that is not shared often enough. Nether copyright or patents offer any significant hinderance if you, as content creator, want to distribute your work for free. As a matter of fact, both systems will help PROTECT your right to do so.”

I get the sarcasm but we’re not talking about what I can do with my own content, but with other peoples. Earlier you seemed to be going off topic because you didn’t understand the point we were arguing, now you’re just trying to derail the conversation.

Maybe his point had cake.

Hi, Mike. Sorry to say this but your whole article is asinine (and has a faint whiff of ‘troll’ about it…), but you have provoked quite a debate about an issue which, really, should not be deserving of debate.

“Infringement is totally different than stealing. It is making a copy of something. You have not lost anything…”

and

‘The crux of the problem: Jason Robert Brown wants control. But copyright was never about “control.”‘

Copyright is supposed to protect those who can create (us) from those who can only consume (you). It is supposed to protect our income against those who would seek to take it from us by, say, illegaly copying something we created.

In other words copyright is designed to control who has the right to derive income from copies of a work.

You make a copy someone LOSES… In economic (not moral) terms the artist’s right to profit from their invention/art/whatever has been lost.

“What I said was that moral rights only come into play in scenarios in which a choice hurts some people, and you need to choose, effectively, how to distribute the “harm.” That’s a moral discussion.

My point was that if the economics of the situation opens up the door to everyone being better off, moral rights don’t even come into play, because there’s no moral question to answer.”

I agree that morals don’t come into play – we have all seen that far too many people are devoid of a sense of right and wrong (and so many have posted here!) and will steal when they pretty much know they can get away with it. So why pretend that morals are an issue? JRB is just disappointed in human nature and people proving themselves to be douchebags, time and time again. I agree with you, Mike; get over it JRB!

And as for the thoughts of the economics of music theft making everyone better off? What lazy, hazy, communist dream did that come from? Why are the realities of the situation being countered by philosophy and rhetoric? Who is hurt by paying a fair price for some music? Who? 80¢ for a song will make no-one rich; nor will it cause anyone to starve.

(And in the words of the late, great Frank Zappa, entertainment is optional. Don’t make it sound like you are ENTITLED to it. No one is forcing you to have the movie, music etc. You are making a choice to have it and if you make that choice you have to weigh up the price against your desire to have it. No gun to your head, no ransom notes. If you decide the price is unfair, walk away. That’s it. Come back later when its in the bargain bin. You don’t get to choose your price anywhere else so why should the OPTIONAL entertainment industry have to put up with that nonsense? Oh yeah, you’re too cheap to pay 80¢ for a song…)

If artists cannot support themselves from their art EVERYONE loses; the artist, because the opportunity to create has been reduced, and everyone else because there is less art being created. Society, culture, your ‘everyone’ will be worse off for the loss.

And as for the comment about a “Smarter business model”? That is a particularly callous and insulting remark. “We want to remove your right to profit from your work so be smart, give it to us free and sell something else to somebody else, ‘cos we aren’t buyin!” Yeah, we need something smarter.

Have you any suggestions on how artists can be smarter than the thieves? Does anyone think DRM is a good idea? Not me, but it is there precisely because of self-serving arguments like yours. (And yes, the big record/movie companies are douchebags but that’s another battle.)

And by the way, your economic argument about charging £1000 for this article betrays the lack of real thought you put into your argument. The economic reality is you do not give your articles away ‘free’. You might not get cold hard cash for views… no wait.. http://www.techdirt.com/advertise.php. Jeez, Mike so you do this for nothing? Good on you!

Yes, if you attempted to sell ill-considered polemic for $1000 you would fail but no-one would argue against your RIGHT to do that.

Which is what you are doing: “Your sense of entitlement to a business model that no longer fits the market is what people are complaining about.”

For all you complaining and acting hurt when people call you on this stuff, you are breathtakingly galling.

The business model fits the market. (Maybe it needs a bit of work, but its not entirely broken.) Some consumers just don’t want to abide by the rules of said market; i.e in a capitalist, democratic society we can profit from our labors. The truth is that some are trying to do an end-run around the market, and that is a different state of affairs to a wrong market model.

Instead of the artist being out of step, as you like to see it, some sections (a small but vocal minority, some of whom have blogs) of the comsumer base are trying to BREAK or subvert the system. And you seem to be doing all you can to encourage them.

Again, to point out, there is a sense of entitlement from JRB because HE IS ENTITLED TO PROFIT FROM HIS WORK. How could you get that so wrong? And yet be so sneering in your tone?

And why, just as a question, if you believe in what you are saying, do you not go out and try to change the market in automobiles? If you and twenty friends get together and were to ‘download’ cars from your local Ford dealer, what would the news media call you? A new market force?

(Spare me the “copy” argument, I’ve dealt with that; you are depriving the dealer of his right to profit from the sale of those autos in the same way you are depriving a musician of his right to profit from the sale of his/her work.) How about it Mike? You might break the dealer of his sense of entitlement?

The bottom line? A small minority just want people to be able steal music and not be called out on it. Simple. It is, in fact, black and white. Why resort to specious economic argument when all you want is for someone to tell you that, yes, you’re smart ‘cos you got all your .mp3s for nothing. Good on you.

Well done, you. Well done.

“Copyright is supposed to protect those who can create (us) from those who can only consume (you). It is supposed to protect our income against those who would seek to take it from us by, say, illegaly copying something we created.”

What you’re arguing is that a monopolist (which is really what copyright turns someone into) should have perfect control.

This is not true at all. As a writer myself, I notice that copyright laws actually impede what I want to do. If I spell orcs as orks, then I supposedly owe Tolkien money. If I try to expand on the Dark Lord of Humdrum, then that could potentially damage their work. So within my industry, people accept that perhaps they don’t need perfect control of everything.

Composers are really no different in that regard. They create a work and sell it to others, but they move on. What happens to their older works? Should they be allowed to make money in perpetuity + 50 years? To that, I say no. Their heirs should be able to create their own works, not settle. Like the girl in the original argument said, she could literally get the sheet music from a book but once it’s digital, it’s illegal. Kinda backwards if you ask me but *shrug*

“You make a copy someone LOSES… In economic (not moral) terms the artist’s right to profit from their invention/art/whatever has been lost.”

I’m calling you on your BS. For gaming, DnD offers FREE copies of all of their materials online. And yet they haven’t gone out of business.

Radiohead continues to connect to fans.

Then there’s always The Trent Reznor model

Glad to see you do your research.

“And as for the thoughts of the economics of music theft making everyone better off? What lazy, hazy, communist dream did that come from? Why are the realities of the situation being countered by philosophy and rhetoric? Who is hurt by paying a fair price for some music? Who? 80¢ for a song will make no-one rich; nor will it cause anyone to starve.”

…

It boggles my mind that you look at just one aspect of an industry and don’t understand the larger picture. Factor in that people want 50 songs at one time. .80 x 50 = $40 bucks. For just 50 songs! I remember when mp3.com was up and the songs were .49, and they made a great deal of money. Think about that same 50 songs at $24.50. That is economics. Now imagine that even 50 Cent is saying that piracy isn’t really hurting the industry, but helping it. And really, with the example I’ve shown, how can that be a fair price for music if it impedes on my ability to assess a musician’s worth to me?

It’s kind of why I like Rhapsody’s approach of 5$ a month but all of the songs you can enjoy. Doesn’t stop people and it’s ironic… Didn’t Napster want to do that in the first place so long ago? Oh, sorry… Against the rules.

“If artists cannot support themselves from their art EVERYONE loses; the artist, because the opportunity to create has been reduced, and everyone else because there is less art being created. Society, culture, your ‘everyone’ will be worse off for the loss.”

BS yet again. Artists are being harmed, they’re gaining more fans and have more independence from labels since the barrier to entry is now more favorable to them. I could go on but I’ll let you mull that over.

“And as for the comment about a “Smarter business model”? That is a particularly callous and insulting remark. “We want to remove your right to profit from your work so be smart, give it to us free and sell something else to somebody else, ‘cos we aren’t buyin!” Yeah, we need something smarter.”

Funny how the most outspoken critic is the one that can’t back up his own argument, merely attack others…

“The business model fits the market. (Maybe it needs a bit of work, but its not entirely broken.) Some consumers just don’t want to abide by the rules of said market; i.e in a capitalist, democratic society we can profit from our labors. The truth is that some are trying to do an end-run around the market, and that is a different state of affairs to a wrong market model.”

First you criticize people by saying the model fits the market. I doubt it. Copyright shoehorns the model to fit. Not only is it (now) a square peg in a round hole, but people are using a screwdriver to try and make it fit. Let’s take a step back and figure out what JRB could have done. He could have allowed the girl to use the damn sheet music. He could have treated her with a LOT more respect than he did (he came off as arrogant and personally with all of the updates to the story, he seems to wrongly believe that his way is better with no basis.

“Again, to point out, there is a sense of entitlement from JRB because HE IS ENTITLED TO PROFIT FROM HIS WORK. How could you get that so wrong? And yet be so sneering in your tone? “

Funny how you say that and this:
“And in the words of the late, great Frank Zappa, entertainment is optional. Don’t make it sound like you are ENTITLED to it. No one is forcing you to have the movie, music etc. You are making a choice to have it and if you make that choice you have to weigh up the price against your desire to have it. No gun to your head, no ransom notes. If you decide the price is unfair, walk away. That’s it. Come back later when its in the bargain bin. You don’t get to choose your price anywhere else so why should the OPTIONAL entertainment industry have to put up with that nonsense? “

In the same sentence. When this started the teenager didn’t have access to the songs at all. I believe you forget that in your rant. Also look into monopolies. He has one on his work. Imperfect as it is, the price will never reach a point of market value. It will always his a price that he feels entitled to. Not necessarily one the market makes. Actually, if you think of it that way, it’s one reason to give incentive to people to infringe upon his work since the price is unfairly high.

“And why, just as a question, if you believe in what you are saying, do you not go out and try to change the market in automobiles? If you and twenty friends get together and were to ‘download’ cars from your local Ford dealer, what would the news media call you? A new market force?”

So glad that’s not a real argument. There’s different things to worry about in the car market. Quite frankly the reason they’re so consolidated now is because of their lobbying efforts. In the end, cars in the US haven’t innovated a lot until Toyota destroyed them with the Prius. If we could get a few of these safety laws as well as lower the barrier to entry, I’m sure you would see a renaissance here in the US in car design.

“The bottom line? A small minority just want people to be able steal music and not be called out on it. Simple. It is, in fact, black and white. Why resort to specious economic argument when all you want is for someone to tell you that, yes, you’re smart ‘cos you got all your .mp3s for nothing. Good on you.”

At least we know a few good places to get our music legally. 😉

But that’s neither here nor there.

Hey Karl, I’m glad you brought up Wheaton. I think if we talk about that case we’ll clear up some things. I read Wheaton differently. I’m sure you’re not surprised. 🙂

I’m cramming for exams right now… got about 100 Supreme Court cases to get straight in my head for tomorrow. Unfortunately one of them isn’t Wheaton. LOL!

Keep that argument on the back burner for now, and we’ll hash it out later.

Have a great one!

Great stuff, Karl. I look forward to continuing our debate. I had an exam yesterday, and I’ve got another one Monday. The one Monday is actually a take-home exam. One essay question that is 100% of the grade. Such is law school.

After that, I’ve got a huge research project to do for court. Then a couple weeks from now I’m heading up north for ten days of fishing and relaxation before school starts again in August. I’m super busy.

I have done a lot of research into these copyright issues, reading some of the same stuff you’re pointing to and a bunch more. It’s something I’d love to learn more about, and I’d love to hash it out with you and others.

I’m not really interested in debating people who just state their opinions and don’t back them up outside sources, as so many people here seem to do. That’s a waste of time. I’m glad you’re doing the research.

Take ‘er easy!

“That’s fair, but you should realize that the reason most people here don’t cite those sources, is because they’ve cited them many, many times before to others, before you showed up on the scene.

In other words: They believe they’ve already debunked your arguments, and see no reason to do it again.

Really, someone should put a FAQ or sources list together. I think I might do that tonight.”

If so many people could debunk what I’m saying with such ease, then they would bring it on. I think it’s obviously the other way: most here have nothing substantial to say. People here don’t want to be called out for their unsupported opinions. Most people here couldn’t argue their way out of a paper bag.

If I’m so easy to beat, then bring it on. Use cites and authorities. Argue like the big boys.

“The laws on witchcraft in the UK were only repealed in 1951 — but who cared by then?”

WHY THE WITCHES CARED OF COURSE!!!

Karl, I’m starting a new reply since in threaded-view it’s really hard to follow along as all the text is squished up on the right side of my netbook screen. I am just going into my Westlaw account and searching the database of law journals for things like “natural rights copyright” and I’m getting all sorts of articles like the ones I’m alluding to.

Let me give you three examples with quotes and citations. I’m not sure if you can find these exact articles on the internet without an account somewhere, but you could look them up at any law library. Beyond these three I’ve found and read dozens more just like it. In fact, I’ve found so many sources that confirm these ideas that I believe this to be the majority opinion amongst legal scholars.

Example Number 1:

“Indeed, the idea that the author owned the work he or she created was a powerful one based on the natural law that was both irresistible and irrefutable, and it provided the booksellers with an argument in their efforts to persuade the courts to nullify the Statute of Anne by interpretation and thus defeat its regulatory goal. If an author owned a work by reason of creation under the natural law, why should that author be said to forfeit that ownership by publication, the very act that would encourage learning? And, of course, a common law copyright based on natural law had no term limits and would last in perpetuity as had its predecessor, the stationers’ copyright.

There are five notable cases over a century and a half — 1834-1992 — that aid an understanding of the copyright clause. In these cases, the U.S. Supreme Court acted to protect copyright law against the intrusion of natural law urged by copyright holders in an effort to expand the copyright monopoly beyond its constitutional boundaries.

In general terms, the statutory compromise was intended to minimize the impact of the commodification of information and learning by substituting a limited-statutory-grant copyright for a perpetual-natural-law copyright.

Thus relying on Millar v. Taylor, plaintiffs in Wheaton v. Peters argued for the author’s perpetual common law copyright. That the argument was taken seriously is indicated by the two dissenting opinions. And, of course, the natural law theory of copyright has emerged in this century with a vengeance, for example in the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, and more recently, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the Copyright Term Extension Act.”

47 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 365 UNDERSTANDING THE COPYRIGHT CLAUSE

To summarize the main points:

(1) that an author owns their work is irrefutable
(2) copyright based on natural law would have no term limits for the authors
(3) the Court fights the invasion of natural copyright which would naturally give authors no term limits which would be in contradiction to the Constitution goal of taking away those limits
(4) statutory copyright is a substitution for natural copyright
(5) natural rights copyright has reemerged with a vengeance lately

Example Number 2:

“Copyright law finds its basis in one of two discrete philosophies: the natural rights inherent in the law or the economic rights recognized by statute. Each of these alternative theories (or their combination) provides the philosophical framework for copyright protection. By extension, the limits of each theory may explain the limits of copyright protection, both as a matter of positive law and as a normative guide for social conduct.

‘Labour gives a man a natural right of property in that which he produces[.] [L]iterary compositions are the effect of labour; authors have therefore a natural right of property in their works.’

This was the approach taken by the United States in Wheaton v. Peters. In a decision closely paralleling Donaldson, the Supreme Court had to determine whether a natural right to copyright existed in the United States, and to frame the scope of that right. The Court readily recognized the natural right in an author’s work, but further held that the statute divested the right upon publication, in favor of the statutory scheme, just as the House of Lords determined in Donaldson.

In this way, the Court acknowledged both the basis of the Lockean natural rights underpinning in U.S. constitutional and statutory law, as well as its statutory limitations. “That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted; but he can enjoy them only, except by statutory provision, under the rules of property, which regulate society, and which define the rights of things in general.” The Court certainly does not fully embrace natural rights. This becomes clear in light of the stirring dissent by Justice Thompson who chides the Court for failing to see the “right and wrong” in the common law that it has rejected. Despite the dissent’s call for embracing natural rights, however, the language of the opinion does not paint an absolute rejection of natural rights. The direct consequence of Wheaton should not be to reject the natural rights approach from U.S. copyright jurisprudence, but rather to recognize that these rights can be statutorily reframed, though not extinguished. As a result of Wheaton, the relationship between natural and economic theory can be articulated.”

88 Cornell L. Rev. 1278 NORMATIVE COPYRIGHT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COPYRIGHT PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS

To summarize the main points:

(1) copyright is based on two rights, natural and economic [the article goes on to explain the balancing of the two and worth a read]
(2) it is natural for an author to have the rights in his works
(3) the Court in Wheaton recognized that an author had natural rights in his works which were taken away by statutory law
(4) an author’s natural rights underpin constitutional and statutory copyright law
(5) Wheaton should not be read as a refusal of the natural rights theory, on the contrary, it is a recognition that these rights have been reframed statutorily

Example Number 3:

“Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence, [including] intellectual rights, or rights of the mind. Thomas Paine provided this definition, which is the starting point for analyzing inventor’s rights. Because invention, the generation of scientific ideas, and the mental processes of scientific discovery are intellectual functions of the mind, these activities are a natural right.

As Paine explains: Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to [the enjoyment of] which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.

Paine further concludes: That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged. An inventor does have a natural right to protect an invention through silence, but if the inventor wants to disclose an invention or idea he can only protect the invention with the help of society. For an inventor to protect a useful idea, the inventor must exchange a natural right for a civil right.

The granting of a property right by society is consistent with other natural rights associated with an invention. The underlying natural rights are never extinguished, as explained by Paine when he wrote: The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind. Civil rights come from natural rights. Civil rights become effective through the aggregation of natural rights, but civil rights do not diminish the quality of underlying or retained natural rights.

For all enumerated powers, including those relating to inventions and other useful arts, the Constitution governs this exchange of rights. Thus, as Paine explained, a civil right can only exist if there is an exchanged natural right. The natural right changes its form but is never extinguished. More specifically, the Constitution provides for the specific exchange of the natural right to keep an invention secret for the civil right of a patent, which is a property right recognized by the courts of the United States. So, it is only through the Constitution that a natural right can be exchanged for a civil right, but such an exchange cannot be used to invade or limit the natural rights of the inventor.”

1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 310 EMPLOYEE INVENTORS, THE DUAL LADDER, AND THE USEFUL ARTS: FROM THOMAS PAINE TO THE “DILBERT BOYCOTT

To summarize the main points:

(1) the inventions of the mind are natural rights
(2) civil rights are a function of man’s being a member of society
(3) all civil rights are based on a preexisting natural right
(4) copyright is an exchange of a natural right for a civil right
(5) this exchange does not diminish, negate, or extinguish the underlying natural right

As I read more articles, I’ll cut and paste the info for you since you seem interested. I’m reading a great article now about user generated content and copyright law called “Transformative User-Generated Content in Copyright Law: Infringing Derivative Works or Fair Use?” You can find a PDF of it on google.

average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.