If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong

from the it's-not-about-what-anyone-deserves dept

For many years, we've explained why the debate about copyright is not a moral issue at all. Yet, whenever we get into discussions on it, sooner or later, someone makes an argument about how this or that creator "deserves to make a living" from their art. There are two things wrong with this statement. First, it assumes, incorrectly, that the way you make a living is from copyright. It is not. In fact, much of what we discuss on this blog are ways in which artists might be better off by not enforcing all of the privileges copyright grants them. But, more importantly, the use of the word "deserves" is especially problematic.

Julian Sanchez, who has been doing excellent work on copyright issues of late, has a nice post about how such arguments are totally irrelevant to copyright policy. He notes that it's no surprise that artistic and creative people want greater copyright privileges, and fewer exceptions such as fair use, but that's meaningless:
These will often be wonderful, likeable, creative people, and the correct policy response to these objections as such is: Cry me a fucking river; now piss off.
And the reasoning why is that copyright policy is not about what someone deserves or about rewarding people based on some moral grounding. Its purpose is and has always been clear: to provide incentive to promote progress. There are tradeoffs in these policies, and the end argument should never be about what someone deserves, but about what is the best net result for society on that progress bar. As Sanchez explains:
Wise assessment of copyright policy should have nothing to do with how you feel about the person or entity who holds the right at any particular time, because copyright policy is not about identifying wonderful and meritorious people and ensuring--certainly not as an end in itself, anyway--that their income is proportioned to their intrinsic moral desert--or lack thereof. We are all the massive beneficiaries of millennia of accumulated human scientific knowledge and cultural output, and not one of us did anything do deserve a jot of it. We're all just extremely lucky not to have been born cavemen. The greatest creative genius alive would be hard pressed to create a smiley faced smeared in dung on a tree trunk without that huge and completely undeserved inheritance.

So banish the word "deserve" from your mind when you think about copyright. Nobody "deserves" a goddamn thing. (I say this, for what it's worth, as someone who makes his living entirely through the production of "intellectual property.") The only--the only--relevant question is whether a marginal restriction on the general ability to use information incentivizes enough additional information production over the long run to justify denying that marginal use to every other human being on the planet, whether for simple consumption or further creation.
Exactly right. Yet, somehow, I get the feeling that people will continue to toss out moral arguments. They can't resist... and since they tend not to have the empirical data to support their position, it always gets reduced to irrelevant moral arguments.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:13pm

    I think people simply expect that if they offer something for sale, that if people want it to consume it, they have to pay for it.

    If they don't want to consume it, walk away and don't pay anything.

    But don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for.

    This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why.

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

    • identicon
      Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:16pm

      Re:

      Did you pay your dues to the creators of your car, house and furniture already, if not you don't deserve the use of those and you are a low life thief who deserves no respect.

      This is a simple and moral concept that I never see you address here. I wonder why.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:10am

        Re: Re:

        Because the author is misguided...

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

        • icon
          harbingerofdoom (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:10am

          Re: Re: Re:

          why.
          if you cant offer anything more than "you're wrong" and nothing to back it up.... then YOU my friend, are the one that is wrong.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            if you cant offer anything more than "you're wrong" and nothing to back it up.... then YOU my friend, are the one that is wrong.

            Do you have something to back that up?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:28am

        Re: Re:

        One word: Scarcity.

        The underlying principal of all economics is that for every satisfied want, there is an opportunity cost- Another want which cannot be satisfied due to limitations on resources. Price is a measure of scarcity; one must sacrifice more to obtain an expensive good than a cheaper good.

        Unlike a house, car, or piece of furniture, an item of "Intellectual Property", one created and available for distribution at no extra cost to the producer, is no longer scarce, as there is nothing that must be sacrificed to obtain the good. Because no scarcity exists, and price is a measure of scarcity, such goods should be available without cost.

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

        • icon
          alex (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:45am

          Re: Re: Re:

          so all of the music, literature, movies, software etc in the world combined is worth exactly £0.00?

          sorry dude but that's some old-school economics you're using. =]

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 8:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            There are other definitions of "worth" that don't include money. There's also the difference between "worth" and "cost" - the AC you're replying to said "cost", but you used "worth"...

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

      • identicon
        bigpicture, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:12am

        Re: Re: Lame

        What a Lame Brained argument. Did you build and pay for the factory that built the car? Who owns the device that creates the copy? What did the copy cost, and to whom did it cost? You are making the HUGE presumption that one copy made equates to one lost sale. What Business School did you go to?

        Do you understand markets and the concept of what makes for plentiful supply (easy copying) versus low market demand. (crappy products) Someone invented coping devices for sale to the public, and it was not musicians, authors, record labels etc. but musicians, authors, record labels want to control them, in fact they wanted to stop Sony from making cassette players. BOO HOO it will disrupt our business model. Well there are no more horse carriage manufacturers because someone disrupted that business model, and so we move on.
        Let's see where the price of cars go when they invent replicators.

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

        • icon
          Greevar (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Lame

          Or invent matter teleportation. Oh no! Cars are now irrelevant!

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

          • icon
            Nom du Clavier (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Lame

            First the teleportation devices will be too large and need lots of energy, meaning they'll only be stationary. Car manufacturers will pay them no attention.

            All of a sudden there are personal teleportation devices and car manufacturers will be arguing they should be illegal, or at least subject to a tithe to them.

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

          • icon
            Nom du Clavier (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Lame

            First the teleportation devices will be too large and need lots of energy, meaning they'll only be stationary. Car manufacturers will pay them no attention.

            All of a sudden there are personal teleportation devices and car manufacturers will be arguing they should be illegal, or at least subject to a tithe to them.

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

        • icon
          Jay (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:44am

          Re: Re: Re: Lame

          Uhm... Based on Doggy's other comments, I think he was mocking the original author...

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

      • identicon
        Charlie Potatoes, 9 Apr 2011 @ 4:33pm

        Re:

        When I paid Ford Motor Credit $22,000 I assumed that somewhere in that price was a little something for the man or woman who 'created' my Mustang. Same with my house and my furniture. Hell yes I paid. And when someone wants to read the novel that I worked on for two years, well... yes, I think its morally right that they should pay me. You can say that 'morals' are irrelevant all you want, but we all expect compensation. Check out John Locke.

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

        • identicon
          Nicedoggy, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:17pm

          Re: Re:

          Well then you have no problem with me buying your book and renting it without paying you anything after all in the price of that book I paid I assume you got a little something amiright or what?

          Did you paid Ford Motors for all the R&D necessary to produce that car? Did you paid the engineers for the project?
          Of course you didn't paid the full price, you didn't even paid enough to pay one designer for a year and those things could take a decade to come to market, so what you paid by your own standards is not enough.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:24pm

          Re: Re:

          "And when someone wants to read the novel that I worked on for two years, well... yes, I think its morally right that they should pay me."

          It's morally right to give to charity, but it's not a moral obligation. and it shouldn't be a legal one either.


          "but we all expect compensation."

          Who are you to speak for everyone.

          and the flute player who plays his flute on the streets in hopes that people who enjoy his music will put money in his can also expects compensation for his labor. But if a passerby enjoys his music and doesn't provide compensation, is there anything wrong with that? Should the law force that person to compensate the flute player? Just because someone expects something doesn't mean the law should provide it. and, if many people like the persons music, they may compensate him. The flute player may expect compensation for his work, but it's not a moral imperative that everyone who enjoys his work should compensate him and neither should it be a legal imperative. and the flute player can get some compensation from those willing to pay without the law requiring it.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:21am

            Re: Re: Re:

            the flute player who plays his flute on the streets in hopes that people who enjoy his music will put money in his can also expects compensation for his labor.

            Did someone solicit him to do that in order to consume his music? No. How could he expect payment then? He couldn't, and doesn't.

            The rest of your post becomes irrelevant because of that fact.

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

            • identicon
              Irate Pirate, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:28am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Did someone solicit him to do that in order to consume his music? No. How could he expect payment then? He couldn't, and doesn't.

              So you argument is that compensation only becomes a moral obligation if the author/creator/performer is hired by some third party? I don't understand your logic, please explain it to me.

              He couldn't, and doesn't? Perhaps it might not be logical for the flute player to do so in your book, but he most certainly could if he wanted to and in doing so would be no different than all the other so-called artists out there. That is the crux of the problem; most of them, whether hired or not, do tend to expect compensation of some sort. This brings us right back to the whole "I deserve" problem.

              Here is the other side of it. Humans have an inborn tendency to also believe they don't deserve all kinds of things, no matter how small or insignificant. I hit my shin on the coffee table the other day, and feel I definitely didn't deserve that. We all lack a certain amount of humility in this regard, believing ourselves to be the pinnacle of evolution when the reality is that what we deserve or don't deserve doesn't matter one iota in the grand scheme of things. An asteroid could wipe out all life on earth tomorrow and the universe would go on. It doesn't care what we think one way or the other.

              Like my favorite line in the movie Unforgiven, deserves got nothing to do with it. It is your right to believe you deserve something in return for any kind of work you do, just as it is the right of others to believe you don't (for starters). You can attempt to turn what you think you deserve into a debate about morality, and that is perfectly fine. Just remember it can be a double edged sword as you may not hold the moral high ground as firmly as you believe. After all, a lot of "pirates" do what they do on the basis of morality too, and feel every bit as justified. That is what happens when corporate entities attempt to trample the natural freedoms and rights of those they oppose, for their own gain.

              Who has the ultimate authority to dictate what is right and what is wrong? The government? The people? Those that believe they are the most deserving? What is moral today can easily become immoral the next. Change is the only certainty we can rely on. It is the fundamental principle of the natural world and those whom oppose it do so at their own peril. All I know for certain is that there is an unending litany of examples where those whom couldn't or wouldn't adapt, met their demise because of it. What do you think the dinosaurs felt they deserved at the end?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:31pm

          Re: Re:

          and if I spend 10 days making a hammer and sell it to a friend for $100, should I get compensated every time he uses it? If he sells the hammer to someone else and that person uses it, should I get compensated again? If he lets someone else borrow it and that person uses it, should I get compensated? If he makes copies of it and starts giving those copies away or selling them to others who use those copies, should I get compensated?

          Same thing with a book. You expect compensation, you can first prove your work is compensation worthy. Then you can charge people for the initial release. What they do after the initial release is their business. Just like with the hammer that I sold to my friend, what he does with it later (make copies, sell it, give copies of it away, etc...) is his business, not mine. I don't expect compensation every time someone else uses and benefits from that hammer or a copy of it.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:35pm

            Re: Re: Re:

            and the point is that why should copy'right' be any different. These laws should exist to serve the public good, not to ensure you get compensation every time someone makes a copy of your book. That's not the purpose of copy'right'. It's purpose is to promote the progress, not to compensate you for your work. There are other ways you can get compensation, like selling the first release at a premium to a large group of people who would be willing to each pitch in a small fraction of the cost. and then, what they do with their copies is their business.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              This is so beyond silly that it is literally shocking. You have an MBA and you post stuff like this.

              The cost of a hammer includes the entire cost of production plus profit. And if you wanted to make a copy of it, that cost is also already covered, minus your labor.

              So here's an idea: You like music but don't want to pay for it? Go make your own.

              Problem solved. I hope you have hours of listening pleasure with your creations.

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

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:40pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I think you completely missed the hammer analogy. If his friend builds and sells copies of the hammer he bought, that's no problem right? So if I make and sell (or give away) copies of the song I bought from you, why is that any different?

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:14pm

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

                  You copying a hammer would require investment on your part.

                  You copying a song doesn't.

                  Care to try again?

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

                  • identicon
                    Irate Pirate, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:36am

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

                    You copying a song doesn't.
                    I think it is pretty obvious you are wrong. Before one can copy anything in the digital realm, they first need to invest in a computer, either pre-built or one they build themselves using parts from various manufacturers. Then they need to invest in an internet connection. Finally, they need to invest in providing power so both the computer and internet connection can work.

                    Perhaps in addition to going after ISP's, the entertainment industry should also consider going after the manufacturers and power companies? ;-)

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:56am

          Re: Re:

          When I paid Ford Motor Credit $22,000 I assumed that somewhere in that price was a little something for the man or woman who 'created' my Mustang. Same with my house and my furniture.

          You assumed wrong. Auto workers don't get residuals. And every time those things are resold in the future, they won't get a cut of those sales either. But to be fair, if we're going to give authors copyrights, then we should probably give everyone else rights in anything they help create, like your Ford.

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

        • icon
          vivaelamor (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:14am

          Re: Re:

          "Check out John Locke."

          Adapated from a previous comment of mine:

          If you're going to base things on Locke then I should point out first that much of his work was reliant on his interpretation of the bible and that I'm not religious.

          Under the Lockean definition of property I would argue that the rights are already fulfilled by physical property rights. This is backed up by the fact that he did not define anything approaching intellectual property in his treatise. Locke refers to a right to the fruits of one's labour, which is sufficiently afforded by ownership of physical property.

          If anything, intellectual property impedes on the Lockean idea of property rights. In his Second Treatise Of Government, Locke states: "every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his". As you copy someone their idea also becomes part of you, no less part of you than if you had come up with an idea yourself. Should you labour to create a physical manifestation of that copy then Locke's philosophy would let you claim that as your property.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:57am

          Re: Re:

          "And when someone wants to read the novel that I worked on for two years"

          The fact that you worked on the novel for two years is your problem, not mine. By forcing me to go through the trouble of figuring out what is and what isn't infringement over each piece of content that comes my way and potentially getting punished if I accidentally infringe on your content because someone else gave it to me and falsely told me that it's released under a CC license, you're making it my problem. I don't care if you spent ten years writing that novel or digging a hole, don't make it my problem. I shouldn't have to hire a psychic to determine what content is permissibly licensed vs what content isn't just because you decided to spend your whole life writing a novel. and no burden should be placed on service providers either because they'll just pass that burden back down to me via higher prices, less/no service, or whatever.

          If you do sell your novel to someone under a certain license and they break their end of the agreement, your only problem is with the person who broke his/her end of the agreement. Don't get everyone else involved.

          Maybe at most you can have a system that forces me to either pay for the the novel or to destroy my copy of the novel after I discover it is infringement if I don't want to pay for it. and that's only provided it doesn't serve an undue burden on my part. No further punishments beyond that. Something reasonable.

          But then such a system will get really complicated really fast.

          but the point is that, at the very least, I should never get punished for unknowingly infringing on something when there is no reasonable way for me to have known. I'm not psychic and our legal system shouldn't require me to be.

          You may say that ignorance is no excuse to law, but that's in the case where I have open access to the law. I have no open access to the information required for me to know what is and what isn't infringement. In a sense, a copy'right' holder is creating a secret law that's not on the lawbooks, a law that says that copying his works is punishable by law but there is no central location for people who acquire your works to know that it's against the law. Someone else could have removed the license and redistributed the copy'right' holders works. How are others going to know that it's against the law to copy such works. Ignorance is an excuse in this case. Sure, the law says that generally infringing on protected material is against the law, but the key here is that there is no way, outside of being a psychic, for us to know what is and what isn't protected by law. Ignorance is an excuse to a secret law whereby I have no reasonable way of knowing that I am breaking the law and in this case the law is secretly making it illegal for me to copy some works and not others without telling me what works I'm not allowed to copy. This is my biggest problem with copy'right' law. This needs to be resolved in a reasonable manner. I should NEVER be punished for breaking a secret law but copy'right' practically forces that possibility on me or else it forces me to consume no content in fear that I might be punished for accidentally consuming content that I thought I could consume. This needs a resolution and I am against ANY copy'right' system that doesn't solve this problem in a reasonable manner. PERIOD. and passing the burden over to Youtube or ISP's or any service providers isn't an acceptable solution either.

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

          • identicon
            Irate Pirate, 11 Apr 2011 @ 9:34am

            Re: Re: Re:

            People who work in law enforcement tend to agree with the stance that ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. The average citizen would likely argue otherwise, especially when their neck is on the line. Sadly, life is cruel and unfair, which in turn breeds apathy. I think law enforcement officials tend to get jaded due to what they see on a daily basis too, causing them to eventually lose their ability to empathize.

            I'm surprised copyright supporters haven't jumped on your comment yet to tell you that almost all copyrighted material bears the © logo, pretty much nullifying the ignorance defense. Of course, one has to wonder what is going to happen to all those original works that will continue to bear this mark even after they've become public domain. I believe the mark will eventually become useless because of this dilution, provided the copyright maximalists haven't managed to achieve retroactive copyright in perpetuity before then. It is certainly an argument to consider in regards to creating a system where all creative works must be registered and tracked in order to prevent such confusion. Wouldn't want the infringers, innocent or not, to have an excuse that might hold up in court one day, right?

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

    • icon
      Chuck (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:19pm

      Re:

      "But don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for."
      So, have you started paying your parents back?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:26pm

        Re: Re:

        What did my parents offer for sale that I took without paying?

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

        • icon
          The eejit (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Food, clothes, morality, ethics.

          Just to name a few.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 2:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I don't what your parents were like, but those things were not offered for sale to me...

            but my condolences if that was your situation.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I don't what your parents were like, but those things were not offered for sale to me...

              So, you just took them anyway? THIEF!

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

            • icon
              The eejit (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              You did have a childhood, right? That's something you get for 'nothing'. The average cost of a child is $144k/annum, if all the things you get as a child that you don't pay for.

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

          • icon
            harbingerofdoom (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            your parents sold you food clothes morality and ethics?

            that must have been one helluva jacked up childhood.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              your parents sold you food clothes morality and ethics?

              that must have been one helluva jacked up childhood.


              He didn't say they did, and neither did he say "don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for", and the person he was replying to did. But, perhaps your own "helluva jacked up childhood" keeps you from seeing that.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:50am

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

                You seem to have reading comprehension fail.

                The OP's "don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for" quite clearly is in reference to what he wrote in the previous sentences about taking something for sale without paying.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:58am

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

                  You seem to have reading comprehension fail.

                  The OP's "don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for" quite clearly is in reference to what he wrote in the previous sentences about taking something for sale without paying.


                  Sorry, no one said otherwise, so the failure seems to be yours. Keep trying.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What did my parents offer for sale that I took without paying?

          Were your parents slaves or did they generally expect payment for their work?

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

      • identicon
        Charlie Potatoes, 9 Apr 2011 @ 4:35pm

        Re:

        You pay back your parents by raising your own children. quid pro quo.

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

    • identicon
      Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:26pm

      Re:

      Copyright people think they have a right to defraud the public in the biggest theft ever committed in human history.

      If anybody tried to claim that you didn't buy something but rented after it they were told what they bought was a real sale anyone would call the other guy a thief, still somehow it is ok to let artists rent things and call them sales I wonder why that is?

      If anybody sold me a house and comeback to me and told me I couldn't profit from it without paying him more or I couldn't rent the house to others without asking for permission I would say to him to sod off and still somehow art is different.

      I don't see those people addressing those really serious concerns and I wonder why.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:28pm

        Re: Re:

        I see you have no answer or defense to the simple question I asked, and felt the need to change the subject.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          How did I change the subject, you are claiming that it is perfectly normal to charge people over again and again and again even after you told them they "bought" something, that is fraud to me, or do you think it is ok to say that you sold somebody something and come asking for money if they make use of it in some manner?

          If car companies started charging cabs because they make a living out of the creators cars would that be ok?

          Would it be ok if you bought a house and the creator of the house charged you because you rented the house to someone else?

          You claim copyright is fair, how that is fair? How that is morally justifiable when no one else could possibly do such things and be called and honest person, but somehow artists apparently live in another reality where that is perfectly normal and I wonder why.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            My post said nothing about copyright. I asked a simple question that you don't want to answer.

            Everyone knows why, too.

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

            • identicon
              Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Answer what the absurd insinuation you made?

              You above all should not be the one trying to make a moral claim, because copyright is so absurd and proof of that is that you wouldn't find it fair if the creators of the instruments you use to make a living come calling you asking for more money because they feel entitled to the money you make with their "property" that they "created".

              That is how absurd your position is, that is how everybody sees it except you and your gang apparently.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:00pm

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

                You seem to be making assumptions about who I am; perhaps you should sign in so everyone can see that you are indeed who we suspect...

                you wouldn't find it fair if the creators of the instruments you use to make a living come calling you asking for more money

                You seem to have jumped ahead a few too many steps. I didn't ask a question about copyright. I'm talking about taking something without paying; whether its copyrighted or not is irrelevant to that question.

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

                • identicon
                  Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:05pm

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

                  Nope you are the one making wrong assumptions, if you are a musician your instruments would be musical, if you are a software engineers your instruments would be software, computers, if you are a street vendor your cart would be your instrument.

                  Well and if you are talking about taking something without paying you are in the wrong thread because I see nothing in the post that refers to that, care to point out where in that article it says it is ok to take something without paying?

                  You can't and we all know why don't we?

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

                • icon
                  Chosen Reject (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:10pm

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

                  I'll answer your "question". I only put it in quotes because I can't find you asking any question, but I think that you are asking the following question (correct me if I'm wrong):

                  "Is it immoral to take something from someone without paying for it?"

                  Here's my answer to that question (again, if that's not the question you are asking, correct me). I think it's morally wrong to take something from someone without paying them an amount that they agree to.

                  However, morally speaking, I don't think there is anything wrong whatsoever to copy something that someone is selling. Legally speaking may be a different matter. But morally, I have no problem copying something that someone else has, even if they are offering it for sale. So the keyword here is take. So take without just compensation? Sure, that's morally wrong. Copy without any compensation? No. No moral objections whatsoever.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:21pm

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

                    So because technology has availed you to the ability to copy something you want for free, thus removing the need for you to purchase it, you're ok with doing that despite the fact the creator offered it for sale only?

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

                    • icon
                      Chosen Reject (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:30pm

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

                      Absolutely. When/if Star Trek replicators come into existence, I will never pay for food again, no matter how much Kroger may want me to. If you feel that it is morally wrong, you are free to pay. I however, will feel no moral reason for paying if I have a replicator.

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:54pm

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

                        While I think that your stance is immoral, at least you are man enough to say exactly what your beliefs are.

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

                        • icon
                          Chosen Reject (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:00pm

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

                          I have no problem someone else thinking I'm immoral. So long as I don't do things that I think are immoral, I'm happy. However, I do have a problem with hypocrisy. Unless someone else is posting from the same IP address as you (and I admit it's possible) then either you owe me $5 so you can follow your own morals, or you can admit that you don't actually find it immoral to take something without paying the person who is selling it. Your read my post below. I stated upfront that you owe me $5 for doing so. Pay up and follow your morals, or admit you don't find it immoral.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 4:33am

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

                          The problem with morals is they are fluid, based on religion, culture, upbringing and many other factors.

                          I too have absolutely no moral compunction with copying something that is on sale elsewhere. Also, I honestly don't care if you morally object to my morals.

                          This is the very problem with the moral argument - it's meaningless unless your personal morals coincide with the moral argument, which makes it self defeating because you will of course agree with your own morals.

                          This is why you, and your paytard elk will always fail.

                          Pathetic. Troll harder.

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:24am

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

                            hey pal, I've trolled plenty hard enough today.

                            The whole idea was to get people to verbalize the depth of their moral depravity, and everybody came through with flying colors.

                            Having people voluntarily offer up numerous examples of why they are sociopaths and bloodsuckers was the plan all along.

                            Now go feed your content addiction, little boy.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:09am

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

                              "The whole idea was to get people to verbalize the depth of their moral depravity, and everybody came through with flying colors."

                              But none could match yours, could they?

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

                            • icon
                              The eejit (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:32am

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

                              I'm a psychopath. Right tree, wrong diagnosis. Now I'll have to murderise you. /s

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 12:54pm

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

                              For some reason, your post reminded me of the following image:

                              http://ur1.ca/3tuqi

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

                        • icon
                          Richard (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:37am

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

                          While I think that your stance is immoral, at least you are man enough to say exactly what your beliefs are.

                          Your stance does not coincide with the morality of the Christian religion on which western civilisation was built

                          If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Luke ch 6.

                          If that verse is true even for physical goods how much more is it true when the "taking" costs you nothing?

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:07am

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

                          While I think that your stance is immoral, at least you are man enough to say exactly what your beliefs are.

                          I seem to remember a story about a man who replicated some food for a gathering of people. I think his name was Jesus. You think Jesus was immoral? Yeah, well, your type would.

                          Copyright is evil.
                          Abolish copyright.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:40pm

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

                      The creator offered the original for sale only. If someone else offers a copy for free, there is nothing morally wrong with me making a copy, even if the creator doesn't like it. If the creator doesn't like it, no one is forcing him/her to create. He or she can find another job instead. But to force everyone else to go through the economic inefficiency necessary to enforce a monopoly (ie: it wastes everyone's time and effort to determine what is and what is not infringement before copying something) just because some creator wants to charge for copies that others may make is not a burden that any creator should be allowed to put on others. The creator can simply contribute to the economy elsewhere by finding another job and content will still be created without him/her.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:40pm

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

                      The creator offered the original for sale only. If someone else offers a copy for free, there is nothing morally wrong with me making a copy, even if the creator doesn't like it. If the creator doesn't like it, no one is forcing him/her to create. He or she can find another job instead. But to force everyone else to go through the economic inefficiency necessary to enforce a monopoly (ie: it wastes everyone's time and effort to determine what is and what is not infringement before copying something) just because some creator wants to charge for copies that others may make is not a burden that any creator should be allowed to put on others. The creator can simply contribute to the economy elsewhere by finding another job and content will still be created without him/her.

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

                      • identicon
                        Memyself, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:56pm

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

                        In most instances, what the creator actually offers for sale is a copy, not an original. The sale of the copy comes with limited ownership rights which is why the copy you can buy costs what it costs. Usually, full ownership (reproduction and distribution) rights are available at a much higher cost.

                        Is it morally wrong to purchase an item under specific conditions and then violate the terms of the purchase? Morality is impossible to discern under the best of conditions. The real question whether or not sellers should be allowed to dictate terms of sale on products they create, and if those terms are legally binding when the agreement is entered into willingly by both parties. My personal opinion is - if you find the terms of sale constrictive or repugnant, don't buy what the seller is offering. But just because you disagree with the terms set should not give you a free license to break the terms once you have what you want.

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

                        • icon
                          blaktron (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:59pm

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

                          So what about the person who doesnt buy? Hmm? The point about copyright law is that its all encompassing contract law that doesnt require agreement to be enforceable.

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

                          • identicon
                            Memyself, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:08pm

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

                            If you want the good in question, and it is only available at a cost, and you circumvent the cost... what do you think? You've broken the conditions required to acquire the item in question.

                            No one is forced into any form of copyright agreement. You are free to turn your back on any offering. Just because you disagree with the terms set should not give you a free license to circumvent the purchase price.

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

                            • identicon
                              Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:18pm

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

                              Nobody is also forcing creators to sell limited rights too, if that doesn't work why not start asking for the entire cost up front, like I dunno everybody else in society does?

                              Why can't they just ask for a 100K and when that is achieved put the work for the world to do whatever they want to and have no further claims just like everybody else in society?

                              Why do they need to be different?

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

                              • identicon
                                Memyself, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:42pm

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

                                Everyone else in society does NOT ask for 100% cost upfront from a single consumer. There are many forms of transactions that occur in society on a daily basis. In regards to this one - if you don't like the terms of sale, don't purchase the product. Saying that "Nobody is also forcing creators to sell limited rights" is akin to saying "why are you hitting yourself" when you are hitting someone with their own hand. Why should any seller not be free to set the terms of sale on their product? If the terms are disagreeable, don't participate.

                                Basically you're asking why art should not be sold as if it weren't art. Because it's art. Not a car and not a house and not textbooks and not medicine. Not everything should be treated exactly the same in regards to economics.

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

                                • identicon
                                  Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:49pm

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

                                  Really?
                                  Who else do you know that sells anything below the cost of production?

                                  There is no such thing, either they give it away to make money elsewhere or they charge the full price of production of that item, why are artists any different from other industries?

                                  Why can't they make money from merch, live gigs or ask for people to give them money to directly produce and release that without further claims like every other industry out there?

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Memyself, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:53pm

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

                                    Do you pay the full for a car or a house when you rent it? No. When you get a haircut does the barber charge you the full cost of his business operations? Splitting the cost of business or goods amongst many consumers is a very common practice. You claiming otherwise does not change this.

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:40pm

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

                                      No, I also don't hear them trying to rent anything to me saying they are selling the stuff to me.

                                      What is not common is to have any further rights, I don't see the barber saying to me how I should wash my hair or which products I am authorized to use in his hair cut.
                                      I also don't see car manufactures claiming royalties from cabs do you?

                                      I also don't see them being able to stop me from manufacturing my own parts and putting on that car, I also don't see how they could possibly stop me from modifying that car?

                                      Now why can't you just ask the price for something and let it go?
                                      Why should people be forced to fallow your rules that are being imposed, not agreed like in a rental or something like that but imposed upon the consumer, how is that good?

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:51pm

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

                                        No, I also don't hear them trying to rent anything to me saying they are selling the stuff to me.

                                        They should stop that. They are, at best, selling you a license. However, if you understand copyright law at all, then you understand that you are buying a limited license. So you have minimal excuse to be angry.

                                        also don't see car manufactures claiming royalties from cabs do you?

                                        No, but if a car manufacturer wanted to be able to sell a car to a cab company at a substantially reduced price, but with royalties for use, I think they should be able to do that. They probably don't not because it's not possible, but because the car company doesn't want to risk losing money on a car just because the cab company doesn't use their car effectively. However, if the car company were convinced that more people would ride in cabs made by their company (because the car was ultra-luxurious, for example) then they might be incentivized to make such a deal with cab companies.

                                        I also don't see them being able to stop me from manufacturing my own parts and putting on that car, I also don't see how they could possibly stop me from modifying that car?

                                        Again, if they put that in the sales contract for the car, and you agreed to it, then why shouldn't they be able to do this? Let's say, hypothetically, that Toyota suspects that all these "unintended acceleration" cases were caused by aftermarket modifications using non-Toyota parts. The ones being damaged by that accusation are Toyota, and they would have an interest in minimizing these incidents. That would be an incentive to put a clause in their contract that says that no unauthorized modifications are to be made. If you don't like the contract, go buy a car from somebody else. If everybody has that in their contract, start your own car company without that clause.

                                        Now why can't you just ask the price for something and let it go?

                                        Some people get too attached to their work to let it go for any price. I would bet you that most artists would sell you the copyright on their work for some price. It will be substantially higher than the price for a copy. Why can't you just pay full price for a copyright, instead of paying for a copy? Once you own the copyright, you can put it in the public domain for everyone to enjoy.

                                        Why should people be forced to fallow your rules that are being imposed, not agreed like in a rental or something like that but imposed upon the consumer, how is that good?

                                        Those rules were agreed upon by your legislators that you elected. They are not "my" rules, they are "our" rules - they are as much your fault and responsibility as mine.

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

                                        • identicon
                                          Dave, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:10am

                                          Nested Commets

                                          I really prefer nested comments, but when we get this far into a discussion, it looks silly to have each word on its own line. :P

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

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:20am

                                            Re: Nested Commets

                                            It boggles my mind that this site uses custom software to the extent that it seems to. It would seem that rendering your fans' posts one word per line would be a really shitty way to CwF and build community, but that's just me.

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:43pm

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

                                      Also for customers everywhere there is no "buying" option is either rent or rent, with one called sale and the other option rent.

                                      And one of those looks a lot like fraud to me, artists are tricking people into higher price renting without being told assuming that they bought something, when they hold no real rights to it apparently.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:55pm

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

                                        And one of those looks a lot like fraud to me, artists are tricking people into higher price renting without being told assuming that they bought something, when they hold no real rights to it apparently.

                                        Ignorantia juris non excusat.

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

                                        • icon
                                          The eejit (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:45am

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

                                          Ignorance is no excuse? Then I suppose that Senators Hatch, Leahy and co. can be charged with treason, seeing as they're pissing on the Constitution.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:14am

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

                              You've broken the conditions required to acquire the item in question.

                              Legally, not morally.

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

                              • identicon
                                Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:48pm

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

                                Morality is subjective. There is no true definitive moral or amoral rule. I pointed out early on that the only means to examine this issue is a legal one.

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

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:53pm

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

                                  I pointed out early on that the only means to examine this issue is a legal one.

                                  Legality does not equal morality. That's why the wheels fall off the IP-tards carts when they start arguing morality, which was kind of the point of Mike's article.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:24pm

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

                                    I never said legality equals morality. As I said earlier - morality is subjective.

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:37pm

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

                                      I never said legality equals morality.

                                      Which is why there is moral argument for copyright law.

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

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:57pm

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

                                  "I pointed out early on that the only means to examine this issue is a legal one."

                                  So if the law made killing your first born mandatory, then doing so is moral.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:27pm

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

                                    If the entire culture in question agreed on this action, then yes. Morality is defined by society. It used to be considered moral to own slaves. It used to be considered moral to burn heretics. In some cultures, it was considered moral to perform ritual sacrifices. Treating women as property was considered the just and moral thing to do.

                                    Morality is an empty word that only means what we decide it to mean.

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:48pm

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

                                      and, by your logic, I, as a member of society, decide that copy'right' is immoral. This post is my opinion. Yes, I'm only one member of society and the government shouldn't represent me alone, but for the government to represent its constituents, then its constituents need to communicate its will. As a member, that' what I'm doing. If enough people agree, then copy'right' is immoral and, by our logic, as a society we should abolish it. My opinion, lets abolish it.

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:44pm

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

                                      If the entire culture in question agreed on this action, then yes. Morality is defined by society. It used to be considered moral to own slaves. It used to be considered moral to burn heretics. In some cultures, it was considered moral to perform ritual sacrifices. Treating women as property was considered the just and moral thing to do.

                                      Good example. There were even then people who said those things were immoral, and those who didn't (like today's IP supporters). You can add copyright to that list now.

                                      Copyright is immoral.
                                      Abolish copyright.

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

                        • identicon
                          Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:12pm

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

                          Well, so car creators should start selling cars with limited rights too, house creators, furniture creators they all have to get their rights too.

                          Also my personal opinion on the fact that those restrictions are just ridiculous and impossible to enforce is that if somebody want to get paid they do what car manufactures do, they ask for an acceptable price and release that product to be used for whatever purposes others want to without further claims.

                          If that is not acceptable nobody is forcing them to release anything they can just not produce and hope people will beg them to produce something and pay more upfront for it.

                          Now creating absurd terms and expecting others to respect those term ain't happening, people told them loud and clear already that they won't respect crazy claims no matter how loud those people complain about it.

                          Recently 12 years old girls all started taking pictures from the big screen, would anybody have the balls to send them all to prison, or initiate legal proceedings that would ruin their families financially?

                          The day that happens is the day, artists will have to buy bullet proof armor because I doubt the ruined parents of those kids will take it kindly and that is how I know those laws are just crazy.

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

                          • identicon
                            Memyself, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:29pm

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

                            Car and house owners do exactly what you describe. It's called "renting". You get use of the property, but not full rights of ownership.

                            There are many, MANY different kinds of transactions currently at play within our society.

                            The problem with the "acceptable" price idea is that the cost of creating art and the value to the individual are rarely going to be in accord. A book might take a few days to read but more than a year to write. So in an effort to make a reasonable price available... we have the current system.

                            The "nobody is forcing them to release anything" argument might hod value if it wasn't also true that nobody is forcing you to consume what the artists release. You think that people should be discouraged from releasing their endeavors into the public if they do not meet your specific expectations? To meet the specific demands of each person everywhere? Isn't it easier for you just not to participate?

                            If you don't like the terms of sale - Walk Away.

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

                            • identicon
                              Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:44pm

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

                              Car owners sell cars and say they need to be paid for use of it?

                              Car owners sell cars and charge you if you use it to make money off of it?

                              Car creators hold rights to their cars after being "sold"?
                              Car creators complain about all that money invested in R&D?

                              Quote:
                              You think that people should be discouraged from releasing their endeavors into the public if they do not meet your specific expectations? To meet the specific demands of each person everywhere? Isn't it easier for you just not to participate?


                              You think car manufactures should sell their cars for $10 dollars and have claims over every penny you make?

                              Why can't artists just ask for the money they need up front and have no further claims down the line just like every other industry?

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

                              • identicon
                                Memyself, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:49pm

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

                                Rent a car. Rent a house. It's not fully analogous by any means, but it is you, paying money for something with a limited set of rights.

                                Art is art. Trying to force it into the economic framework of something that is not art does not work.

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

                                • identicon
                                  Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 10:54pm

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

                                  Does not work? Says who?

                                  I see Sellaband working, I see PledgeMusic working, I see Jamendo working, I see Magnatune working, I see open source working, everywhere I look I see people making money directly or indirectly for art without the benefit of full copyrights and you are saying it does not work? are those people imaginary people like imaginary property?

                                  Even this blog has several examples of alternatives that work and you willfully ignore them why?

                                  Copyright need to change or go away.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:00pm

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

                                    You seem to willfully ignore context. All of those instances are art being sold as art.

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:02pm

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

                                      What's art supposed to be sold as, flying monkeys?

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Memself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:28pm

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

                                        According to the person I am discussing this with, apparently it is meant to be sold as if it were a car or a house.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    E. P. Donkeytonshire, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:51pm

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

                                    Yes.

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

                                • identicon
                                  Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:44pm

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

                                  But to call it property and equate it to real theft in the real world then it is analogous and is perfect?

                                  I see.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:02pm

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

                                    Apparently, you only see what you want to see. Attributing false arguments to me in an effort to advance your own failing arguments serves no purpose.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:12am

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

                          The sale of the copy comes with limited ownership rights...

                          Only legally (which isn't being questioned), not morally. Legal doesn't mean moral.

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

                          • identicon
                            Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:03pm

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

                            And I stated very early on in this discussion that morality is subjective and is of little value in the discussion. I'm discussing the legal aspect. Not the moral one.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:06pm

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

                              "morality is subjective and is of little value in the discussion."

                              It maybe of little value to an amoral person like you, but that doesn't mean that it's of little value to others. Just because you have no morals outside of law doesn't mean others don't.

                              "I'm discussing the legal aspect. Not the moral one."

                              But we're discussing the moral aspect, not the legal one. We all know the legal aspect, but that's not what we're discussing.

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

                              • identicon
                                Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:32pm

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

                                You have no morals outside societal conditioning. You might think otherwise. But you're wrong.

                                Last I checked, you were not the arbiter on what can and cannot be discussed.

                                It is true that framing the discussion as one of morals is false, as the article above claims. But that is true of anything in society. Morals change depending on society. Basing laws off morality alone only creates absurd laws. Which unless I am mistaken, was one of the original points made in the original article.

                                Maybe you should check exactly what is under discussion again. I'm not sure you grasped it the first time.

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

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:02pm

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

                                  "You have no morals outside societal conditioning. You might think otherwise. But you're wrong."

                                  What?

                                  "Last I checked, you were not the arbiter on what can and cannot be discussed. "

                                  No one said I was. You can continue to look foolish by going off topic and not addressing the points made, but don't expect others to take you seriously.

                                  "Morals change depending on society."

                                  So if a society thinks murder is moral, then it must be so.

                                  "Basing laws off morality alone only creates absurd laws. "

                                  What should laws be based off of, immorality? and if copy'right' laws aren't based off of morality, then what are they based off of?

                                  "Which unless I am mistaken, was one of the original points made in the original article."

                                  There is a difference between saying that laws should be based off of morality and saying that not everything is a moral issue. Whether I choose to drink a glass of water right now vs 10 minutes for now is not a moral issue and there is no law dictating when I must drink my glass of water. But if a law is to exist, there generally should be some moral basis for its existence. Laws that prohibit behavior should generally only prohibit immoral behavior.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:41pm

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

                                    "What?"

                                    Exactly what I said. Morality is a reflection of the values of society. That morality is subject to change depending on the perceptions of society.

                                    "You can continue to look foolish by going off topic and not addressing the points made, but don't expect others to take you seriously."

                                    What point or question directed at me have I not addressed? My inclination is to call bullshit on your accusation.

                                    "So if a society thinks murder is moral, then it must be so."

                                    Ever hear of war? How about human sacrifice? How about burning people at the stake for being heretics? How about the Crusades? How about execution? Historically speaking, the killing of others has been considered a moral act on many occasions. I should not need to explain this basic fact to you.

                                    "What should laws be based off of, immorality? and if copy'right' laws aren't based off of morality, then what are they based off of?"

                                    Laws should be based off of the benefit to society, not the perceived "moral" value. Which was the point made in the original article as I read it.

                                    "There is a difference between saying that laws should be based off of morality and saying that not everything is a moral issue. Whether I choose to drink a glass of water right now vs 10 minutes for now is not a moral issue and there is no law dictating when I must drink my glass of water. But if a law is to exist, there generally should be some moral basis for its existence. Laws that prohibit behavior should generally only prohibit immoral behavior."

                                    And who decides what constitutes said "immoral" behavior? You?

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:51pm

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

                                      I'm not the one saying that making copies is immoral, you are. I'm saying it's not immoral. If you want to claim it's immoral, if you want to restrict my behavior, then you need to justify it. I'm not telling you that it's immoral for you to breath the air you breath, so I don't have to justify allowing you to breath that air. I'm not telling you that you must copy others, if you don't want to, then don't. I'm not forcing my standard of morality on you, I'm not deciding for you what constitutes immoral behavior, but you're deciding for me what constitutes immoral behavior and hence you're forcing your standard of morality on me. Who are you to tel me what is and what isn't immoral behavior on my part. I'm in a better position to make that determination than you are.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 7:17pm

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

                                        "I'm not the one saying that making copies is immoral, you are."

                                        Where did I ever make that claim?

                                        "If you want to claim it's immoral..."

                                        Seriously, where did I ever make that claim. Quote me. I dare you.

                                        "...if you want to restrict my behavior, then you need to justify it."

                                        I have already explained that your behavior is not restricted in any significant way that could be alleviated without restricting the options of the seller. You have the right to decline purchasing anything at any time. You are not forced to participate in anything you do not care to participate in. Abolishing copyright removes the choice of how to distribute artists products from the artist.

                                        Over and over you accuse me of making determinations about your morality. To that I have little to say other than to tell you that you need to work on your reading comprehension. Desperately.

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

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 8:54pm

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

                                          "Where did I ever make that claim?"

                                          So then are you saying there is nothing immoral about making such copies.

                                          "I have already explained that your behavior is not restricted in any significant way that could be alleviated without restricting the options of the seller."

                                          Your argument is akin to saying that slavery abolition restricts the options of the slave holder, now he can't own slaves.

                                          Copy'right' is an imposition, it requires a government to exist. Government impositions that restrict my behavior should serve my interest and the will of those that the law is imposed on. Copy'right' abolition is not a government imposition. As a citizen, it is my will that these laws get abolished. They impose an undue burden on me and the government that upholds them needs to represent its citizens. I'm encouraging other citizens to hold my views and to demand that our government repeal these laws. If the citizens demand these laws be repealed and they get repealed, then there is nothing wrong with me copying as I please being that you don't really believe in any morality outside of law. Lets abolish copy'right' and make freely copying moral.

                                          "You have the right to decline purchasing anything at any time."

                                          and I should have a legal right to make copies of what I please at any time as I please. and I encourage others to hold that position and I'm expressing my position to others and to the government in hopes that it will encourage them to consider the will of its constituents when making policy. and if and when these laws are abolished, then you would have no problems with me making copies as I please, because morality is based on law according to you.

                                          "You are not forced to participate in anything you do not care to participate in."

                                          I am forced to make the effort to determine what is and what isn't infringement if I want to consume non-infringing content. In many instances, I need to be psychic to know. Copy'right' material displaces permissibly licensed material on public airwaves and so it forces such material off of public airwaves yet I'm forced not to broadcast whatever I please (including permissibly licensed content) on such public airwaves and I am forced not to copy and redistribute the content that is published on such airwaves. These are impositions I could do without.

                                          The problem here is that you are restricting my rights, you are restricting what I can participate in. Your argument is akin to saying that preventing me from drinking water doesn't force me to participate in anything that I don't want to participate in. Free speech is banned in China, but they're not forced to participate in going to the movies if they don't want to. That misses the point. You're still restricting my rights through a government imposition. Copy'right' abolition restricts no ones rights through a government imposition. I do not want my rights restricted through a government imposition in this manner, I do not want my government telling me that I can't copy as I please. and while I'm not the only member of society and so the government shouldn't represent me alone, the only way that citizens can really get the government to represent them is for us to express their will to the government and to others. and that's what I'm doing. If enough people like me resent copy'right' and resist it and express their opinions against it, it will be abolished. I'm just one of those people expressing my opinion against it. Maybe I'm alone, and if so the government will likely ignore me. Or maybe more people will agree with me. But if I don't express my opinion against it and no one else expresses their opinion against it and everyone is against it, then how can the government know the will of its constituents to implement it? If you wish, you can express your opinion in favor of the law and be represented just as well. You have a vote too. That's called democracy. Unlike the mainstream media, where IP criticisms are systematically filtered out and restricted from being communicated on wrongfully monopolized distribution channels thanks to our corrupt government. That's not democracy, that's tyranny.

                                          "Abolishing copyright removes the choice of how to distribute artists products from the artist."

                                          Removing slavery removes the choice of being able to enslave slaves by the slave holder. So what. Artists can find other choices. Other choices exist outside of copy'right'. I don't want my government implementing an artificially created choice.

                                          Lets give a group of pencil makers a monopoly too. Not doing so removes their choice of being the only pencil makers around. Think of the pencil makers.

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

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:18pm

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

                                            "Removing slavery removes the choice of being able to enslave slaves by the slave holder. So what. Artists can find other choices. Other choices exist outside of copy'right'. I don't want my government implementing an artificially created choice."

                                            Addendum: the government should implement universal health care because not doing so restricts a citizens rights towards getting free health care. No, that wouldn't be a valid argument for universal health care. A valid argument might be, we are all better off with it than without. Not that the government not imposing it restricts our rights to have it. It's not our right to have it and it's no ones right to have the taxpayers fund their healthcare. If it's done it should be done because taxpayers think everyone is better off with it and maybe because taxpayers are philanthropic enough in your time of need, not because you feel that removing such a healthcare program restricts your rights. You have no such right, the government owes you nothing and neither do taxpayers. They do not owe you a monopoly and they do not owe you universal healthcare, to the extent it's implemented it should be for the public good.

                                            Same thing with welfare and workers compensation. No one is entitled to workers compensation and welfare and artists aren't entitled to a governmental monetary subsidy for their work either. "but the government not handing them money for their work takes away an artists option of getting paid by the government for your work." You're not entitled to such payment by the government or by taxpayers. Just like you're not entitled to a government imposed monopoly and the options that it provides. The people get to decide what the government can provide for you and if the people decide that the government should give you welfare, then it can. If they decide it shouldn't, then it shouldn't. Same thing goes for copy'right'. I do not want my government providing you with copy'rights'. Heck, I'd rather them just give you money for your work than to provide you with copy'rights' and restrict my rights in the process. Maybe I'm alone and maybe not, but just like you and everyone else, I get a voice too. So do you. That's called democracy.

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

                                            • identicon
                                              Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:54pm

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

                                              You've drifted very far off topic. But if we are going to follow this path...

                                              If we go with the argument that all aspects of rights should be determined by majority rule, where would we be on the various civil rights issues?

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

                                              • identicon
                                                Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:27pm

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

                                                "If we go with the argument that all aspects of rights should be determined by majority rule, where would we be on the various civil rights issues?"

                                                You're the one that argues

                                                "If our society deems piracy immoral, it is. If our society deems murder a moral act, it is."

                                                By your logic, if society deems piracy a moral act, then it is. Then the law should change to permit piracy. I'm taking your logic to its logical conclusion by stating that I'm a member of society and I deem piracy moral and copy'right' immoral. Now, if enough people agree with me, then by your logic it's true. Why should our legal system pass immoral laws?

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

                                                • icon
                                                  Jay (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 10:34pm

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

                                                  "By your logic, if society deems piracy a moral act, then it is. Then the law should change to permit piracy. I'm taking your logic to its logical conclusion by stating that I'm a member of society and I deem piracy moral and copy'right' immoral. Now, if enough people agree with me, then by your logic it's true. Why should our legal system pass immoral laws?"

                                                  Isn't filesharing already disagreeing with you?

                                                  And add to this the fact that other cultures don't have a problem with gay couples except for the religious end of America. So saying that immoral laws haven't been passed is a little misleading.

                                                  If you must pull up an old example, Jim Crow comes to mind.

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

                                                • identicon
                                                  Memyself, 12 Apr 2011 @ 3:20am

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

                                                  As I keep saying, morality is a fluid concept. So basing all laws only on what society deems moral or immoral is a losing battle.

                                                  The point in the original article is that morality is not what copyright law is about. I agree. But the standard applies in both directions. Furthermore, you're treating this as if it were a binary scenario. Just because something isn't immoral does not equate to it being moral.

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

                                            • identicon
                                              Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:58pm

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

                                              It also might be a good time to point out to you that the US (as the focus here has been on US copyright) is not a democracy.

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

                                              • identicon
                                                Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:22pm

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

                                                I know, it's more of a plutocracy. Which is partly why I want copy'right' abolished. Same with patents.

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

                                              • identicon
                                                Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:59pm

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

                                                Remember what you said

                                                "If our society deems piracy immoral, it is. If our society deems murder a moral act, it is. I don't think morality is an issue in this equation at all, which I have stated repeatedly from my first post on this topic onward."

                                                (U.S) copy'right' not being a democracy suggests that it's disagreed on by most people. By your very own standards, (U.S) copy'right' is immoral, since society doesn't agree with it. Lets abolish it (or at least change it) so that it's a democracy and agreed on by most so that it can be moral.

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

                                          • identicon
                                            Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:50pm

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

                                            "So then are you saying there is nothing immoral about making such copies."

                                            As I have clearly indicated, morality is subjective. If our society deems piracy immoral, it is. If our society deems murder a moral act, it is. I don't think morality is an issue in this equation at all, which I have stated repeatedly from my first post on this topic onward.

                                            My personal beliefs lean towards empathy and respect. If someone paints a picture and puts it in a gallery with a sign that says "no photography", I respect that request.

                                            "Your argument is akin to saying that slavery abolition restricts the options of the slave holder, now he can't own slaves."

                                            No, because art is not a human being with legal rights. In slave trading there are three parties. The slaver, the slave and the buyer. In the trading of art there are only two parties. It's not like we abolished slavery so that the buyers of slaves wouldn't have to pay.

                                            "Copy'right' is an imposition, it requires a government to exist."

                                            So do roads and streetlights and speed limits and emergency medical services and so on. I don't care if government is required in the establishment of something that is arguably beneficial. The only thing that matters is if the issue in question is genuinely beneficial.

                                            "you don't really believe in any morality outside of law."

                                            I never said that I believe in no morality outside of law. I said that morality is subjective and determined by society.

                                            "and I should have a legal right to make copies of what I please at any time as I please"

                                            What makes your desire to freely copy more important than the desire of the artists to distribute their work as they see fit?

                                            "The problem here is that you are restricting my rights, you are restricting what I can participate in."

                                            Is Disneyland restricting your rights by charging admission?

                                            "Lets give a group of pencil makers a monopoly too. Not doing so removes their choice of being the only pencil makers around. Think of the pencil makers."

                                            If you don't need a pencil, don't buy one. The pencil makers will go out of business or adapt. That's fine. But forcing the pencil makers to sell according to your specifications? No.

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

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:05pm

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

                                              "But forcing the pencil makers to sell according to your specifications?"

                                              They're not forced to sell according to my specifications. They can choose not to sell pencils.

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

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:20pm

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

                                              "Is Disneyland restricting your rights by charging admission?"

                                              Yes, they are, but are restrictions of rights that I more or less agree with. The restriction that copy'right' imposes on me are restrictions that I do not agree with.

                                              "What makes your desire to freely copy more important than the desire of the artists to distribute their work as they see fit?"

                                              No one is preventing them from distributing their work as they see fit. I don't want my government imposing these artificial distribution mechanisms that don't exist outside of government. Aside from that, they can distribute their work as they see fit. The government shouldn't provide for every distribution method that an artists may want. For example an artist may want a distribution method that allows him to distribute their content by forcing me to fund its delivery through the postal service. That's not a distribution method I want them to have. Neither is copy'right'. Outside of government, they can distribute their work how they see fit (so long as it doesn't involve harming someone or damaging property or something like that). I don't want my government giving them copy'right' as an artificial distribution method.

                                              I don't even have to justify why I believe that copy'right' shouldn't exist to your satisfaction, or at all. As a citizen, I should still have a say in these matters just like any other citizen. and I am expressing my say and perhaps others can express their say and if enough people agree with me maybe we can get our say. That's what democracy is. You get a voice too.

                                              "So do roads and streetlights and speed limits and emergency medical services and so on."

                                              and these are impositions that I agree with. Copy'right' is one that I do not agree with.

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

                                            • icon
                                              Karl (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:29pm

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

                                              Sorry, I know I'm butting in here...

                                              The only thing that matters is if the issue in question is genuinely beneficial.

                                              On this, I think most of us agree, amazing as it seems.

                                              Is Disneyland restricting your rights by charging admission?

                                              No, but Disneyland could do this without copyright. What copyright allows is Disneyland restricting my right to create another Disneyland, completely at my own expense, whether I charge admission or not.

                                              This is a pretty critical point, which seems to get lost quite often. Copyright does not grant anyone the ability to create works, and taking it away would not prevent anyone from creating works. The only thing copyright does is allow some people to prevent others from creating works.

                                              Until that is universally understood and recognized, a sane discussion on the topic is not really possible.

                                              What makes your desire to freely copy more important than the desire of the artists to distribute their work as they see fit?

                                              Without copyright, you have both. The artists can distribute their work as they see fit, and everyone else can freely copy. With copyright, you only have one.

                                              But forcing the pencil makers to sell according to your specifications? No.

                                              Except that's exactly what copyrights* do: force the pencil makers to sell according to someone else's specifications - the pencil designers.

                                              Many of us "pencil-makers" have this attitude towards the copyright holders: "The pencil designers will go out of business or adapt. That's fine. But forcing us to sell according to their specifications? No."

                                              *Yeah, in this case it would actually be patents, but it's just an analogy.

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

                                              • identicon
                                                Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:45am

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

                                                "On this, I think most of us agree, amazing as it seems.

                                                Nice, isn't it?

                                                "No, but Disneyland could do this without copyright. What copyright allows is Disneyland restricting my right to create another Disneyland, completely at my own expense, whether I charge admission or not."

                                                Yes, but this is the problem with long dialogs and analogies. The point is that sellers can currently operate with or without copyright. Choosing to price themselves out of business is a choice they should be allowed to make. And if they make that choice, they're not restricting your rights. The reason this is the case is because you are not obligated to participate.

                                                Taking the choice out of the hands of the artists makes little sense to me. Reforming copyright law, sure. But abolishment is excessive.

                                                "Without copyright, you have both. The artists can distribute their work as they see fit, and everyone else can freely copy. With copyright, you only have one."

                                                No, because without copyright artists lose the legal ability to decide how and when their work is disseminated and reproduced.

                                                "Except that's exactly what copyrights* do: force the pencil makers to sell according to someone else's specifications - the pencil designers."

                                                They're free to design their own pencils. In the analogy you're quoting, consumers are still consumers - the purchasers of pencils. Not the pencil makers. Regardless, the point remains - while no one is required to keep any business in business, no outside party one should have the ability to "decide" how to keep said business in business.

                                                If artists want to price themselves out of the market, that is their choice. Right now, work can be protected by copyright or it can be distributed freely. It's a choice made by the creator. Take away that choice and you have less options - not more.

                                                If the market will truly only support free distribution minus copyright protection, it will correct itself.

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

                                                • identicon
                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:57am

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

                                                  No, because without copyright artists lose the legal ability to decide how and when their work is disseminated and reproduced.

                                                  Good. Then let's get rid of it.

                                                  The truth is, without copyright people (note that I'm not so elitist to think "artists" are special) can still choose how to distribute their works. They just can't then tell *others* on down the line how to do so. Of course those elitists who think "artists" are "special" think they should be able to tell everyone else what to do.

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

                                                  • identicon
                                                    Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:13pm

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

                                                    You don't seem to understand the underlying economic structure of art.

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

                                                    • identicon
                                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:32pm

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

                                                      The underlying economic structure of art doesn't require copy'right' as a government imposition for art to be created. I'd be happy with whatever art is created without copy'right' and plenty of art will be created without such impositions.

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

                                                      • identicon
                                                        Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:35pm

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

                                                        And what do you propose for keeping art profitable and thus encouraging and promoting the development of new art?

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

                                                        • identicon
                                                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:26pm

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

                                                          Nothing, art will be created and promoted without these copy'right' laws. There will be profit to be made from art with it without these laws. Museums can pay for original artwork and charge for admission. People can pay for first releases or they can donate to artists.

                                                          You're asking the wrong question. What do you propose for making breathing air profitable. You're breathing air, I'm not profiting. So what? Even if creating art isn't profitable, art will still be created and not everything has to be profitable to someone. Profitable to whom, the big corporations? The artists? No one is saying they can't make a profit, just that they can't use government impositions on me like copy'right' to do it. If they can make a profit in a free market, I'm fine with that.

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

                                                          • identicon
                                                            Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 3:30pm

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

                                                            The question is whether a restriction on copying art creates an incentive to ensure a higher production of art. That's the purpose of copyright, and if you want to abolish it you need to show that you have a sustainable plan that will maintain or improve the current artistic output.

                                                            I'm not seeing any definitive evidence that a complete abolishment of copyright creates the benefits you believe it will create. I'm in favor of reform, but relying on the free market alone seems a recipe for disaster.

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:01pm

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

                                                              "and if you want to abolish it you need to show that you have a sustainable plan that will maintain or improve the current artistic output. "

                                                              No I don't. Why should the laws that I'm required to follow revolve around the level of artistic output of your choice?

                                                              Even if copy'right' abolition reduces the current output of art, I'm happy with whatever artistic output that will exist without copy'right'. Artistic output will exist without copy'right'. I do not want to subsidize any extra artistic output at the cost of my right to copy. If you want more artistic output, you can subsidize it with your own money and your own efforts. Comply with copy'right' principles on your own, don't impose them on me and don't force me to give up my rights to subsidize more artistic output just because that's what you want. That's rather selfish if you ask me.

                                                              "I'm in favor of reform, but relying on the free market alone seems a recipe for disaster."

                                                              Depends on how you define the word 'disaster'. A disaster for whom, middlemen? A disaster for corporations. A disaster for the **AA? That's fine with me. A disaster for artists who want these laws? So what, they can find other jobs. The current situation is already a disaster for me. My rights are being impeded by a government in a way that I could do without. Even if less artistic output is produced, I don't care, I don't see that as such a huge disaster. If anything, it's creates economic efficiencies. Much of that labor that was artificially directed towards art production would go somewhere else and produce economic efficiencies elsewhere. I don't see that as a disaster. Art production requires labor which diverts labor away from other sectors of the economy. By subsidizing art production with artificially monopolies, you're artificially diverting labor away from other sectors of the economy, marginally. It's not the governments job to determine where labor should be directed. If anything, that's a disaster. What we already have is a disaster. I'll live with whatever 'disaster' results from copy'right abolition. I'm fine with it.

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

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:08pm

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

                                                                Sorry, delete the word marginally in that paragraph, it shouldn't have been included.

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

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:13pm

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

                                                                A disaster is something like hurricane Katrina. A disaster is something like the tsunami that happened in Japan or India. Copy'right' abolition is hardly a disaster. I'll live through copy'right' abolition just fine and whatever 'disaster' that results. Such a 'disaster' isn't the end of the world, life will continue and, for the most part, it'll continue just fine. Sure, some special interests, like the **AA, may not like it, but why should they be allowed to make their money by imposing laws on me that I disagree with.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:33pm

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

                                                                  Context. Disaster is a relative term being used to describe a negative outcome regarding the scenario under discussion. The purpose of copyright is to help ensure artistic production. If abolishment leads to a dramatic decrease in artistic output, that is a disastrous result.

                                                                  Really, such pedantry is only a waste of time. You already know what I mean.

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

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:45pm

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

                                                                    "If abolishment leads to a dramatic decrease in artistic output, that is a disastrous result."

                                                                    Even if it does lead to such a dramatic decrease in artistic output, that maybe a disaster to you, but not to me. Why should I be required to follow a law just to satisfy your desired level of artistic output?

                                                                    You not giving me a million dollars is a disaster for me. Now I'm a million dollars short. You have dramatically decreased my income. That's a disastrous result.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:49pm

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

                                                                      Like I said, if you think the art reduction that results from copy'right' abolition is a disaster, if you want more art to be produced, I'm not stopping you from contributing whatever money that you have or rights that you want towards art production. Don't force such sacrifices on my rights on me. Sacrifice your own rights.

                                                                      Me not giving you a million dollars maybe a disaster to you, but if you want a million dollars, make it yourself. Don't force me to give up my money because you want a million dollars. If you want more art production, contribute to it yourself. Don't force me to contribute my rights just to subsidize your desired level of artistic output. Subsidize it yourself.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:41pm

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

                                                                        It's a disaster according to the stated intent of copyright. Now I get that you don't care if less art is produced. Great for you. Many other people disagree, and it is generally considered that more art is better for are culture.

                                                                        Pretending that something is being taken away from you personally by copyright is a pointless game. It's not about you (the individual), but about society overall. That's the context of this discussion if you care to follow along.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:16pm

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

                                                                      Slaveowner: "Even if it does lead to such a dramatic decrease in human rights, that maybe a disaster to you, but not to me. Why should I be required to release my slaves just to satisfy your desired level of human rights?"

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:25pm

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

                                                                        I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue or how it even makes sense. Even if what (change) leads to such a dramatic decrease in human rights, slave abolition?

                                                                        Holding slaves imposes rules on those slaves, copy'right' imposes rules on the behavior of others, copy'right' abolition imposes rules on no one (since its abolition can exist without a government that imposes such rules and it can exist without anyone around to make rules). So your argument makes no sense.

                                                                        I'm not the one using the law or a government (or any other) imposition to hold slaves, you're the one using a government imposition to impede on my human right to copy.

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:44pm

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

                                                                          Sorry, you're never going to live in a world free of restrictions. Right now, artists can choose to release art with or without copyright. They, the generators of the content in question, get to make the decision about the product of their own labors. You want to remove this choice. That's you imposing and impeding rules on the behavior of others.

                                                                          If you don't like the terms of sale, walk away. Your rights then remain intact.

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

                                                                          • identicon
                                                                            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:49pm

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

                                                                            "Sorry, you're never going to live in a world free of restrictions."

                                                                            I don't intent to. Copy'right' isn't a restriction I want imposed on me though.

                                                                            "That's you imposing and impeding rules on the behavior of others."

                                                                            No, because what I want requires no government, and so I'm not imposing rules on them, since governments are required to make laws. I want these rules that the government creates removed. What I want is the default position that exists outside of government, what I want imposes nothing on anyone since governments are the imposters and what I want can be done without government.

                                                                            "If you don't like the terms of sale, walk away. Your rights then remain intact."

                                                                            No, because I'm still not being allowed to copy some things without breaking a law, so my rights aren't in tact because that right has been removed from me.

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

                                                                            • identicon
                                                                              Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:13pm

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

                                                                              Again, this is like claiming that your rights are not intact because the ice cream you want to purchase does not come in the flavor you would prefer.

                                                                              You don't like the terms of sale, no one is forcing you to participate.

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

                                                                              • icon
                                                                                nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:15pm

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

                                                                                Your livlihood depends on copyright, doesn't it?

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

                                                                                • identicon
                                                                                  Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:25pm

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

                                                                                  No. In fact, I have been championing free distribution within my industry since around 1992 and free digital distribution since around 1999. As recent as 2005, I was participant in a panel discussion on this topic where I forwarded the need to switch to a fully digital distribution method and to work towards free distribution. I was laughed out of the room by people who lacked understanding of the way the wind has been blowing. I reached out to one of the largest pirate communities within my medium and reached an arrangement where the site in question became a legitimate free distribution arm of the work of myself and my publishers back catalog.

                                                                                  But operating without copyright is a choice I made as an artist. The existence of copyright did not prevent this. Copyright is simply an option - a tool - that creators can use if they want. If that choice leads them out of business, so be it. That's the free market. I firmly believe that copyright does encourage artistic growth, and that if it is to be abolished (as opposed to reformed) there needs to be a reasonable and substantive plan in place beyond "I hate copyright".

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

                                                                                  • icon
                                                                                    nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:35pm

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

                                                                                    That's interesting, because your comments sometimes read like someone unwilling to understand the issues. Glad to know your position doesn't come from monetary necessity.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:37pm

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

                                                                      It's a disaster according to the stated intent of copyright.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:45pm

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

                                                                        The constitution doesn't require congress to promote the progress by granting these monopolies. It only gives it power to. Congress is not required, by the constitution, to promote the progress, and so there is no reason why congress not promoting the progress should be considered a disaster. No where in the constitution does it say that congress must or even should promote the progress by granting these monopolies. It only says that congress may. It's an allowance, not a recommendation or a requirement.

                                                                        and,besides, what makes the intent of copy'right' important enough to impose its rules on its citizens against their will? As a citizen, it's my will that these laws get abolished. Sure, I'm only one citizen, but I do have a vote (and so do you).

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

                                                                      • icon
                                                                        nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:13pm

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

                                                                        And you have data to back that up, of course. Right?

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:28pm

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

                                                                          I hardly need data to support my opinion regarding a hypothetical outcome.

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

                                                                          • identicon
                                                                            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:11pm

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

                                                                            Then copy'right' abolition will solve world hunger.

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

                                                                            • identicon
                                                                              Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:18pm

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

                                                                              You seem to have missed an important step. The existing belief that has shaped the law is that copyright encourages artistic output. Consequently, a lack of copyright would then result in a lack of artistic growth. My opinion - the part you seem to have missed and that I do not need a "source" for - is that this would be disastrous (based on the stated intent of copyright).

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

                                                                              • identicon
                                                                                Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:31pm

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

                                                                                "The existing belief that has shaped the law is that copyright encourages artistic output. Consequently, a lack of copyright would then result in a lack of artistic growth."

                                                                                Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

                                                                                You're being asked to support the hypothetical outcome that no copy'right' means less artistic output. If copy'right' abolition doesn't result in less artistic output or if it results in more artistic output, then copy'right' isn't supporting its alleged intent. Just because some people believe that copy'right' results in more artistic output and this belief has shaped its existence doesn't mean that copy'right' does indeed result in more artistic output.

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

                                                                                • icon
                                                                                  Jay (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 10:38pm

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

                                                                                  " Just because some people believe that copy'right' results in more artistic output and this belief has shaped its existence doesn't mean that copy'right' does indeed result in more artistic output."
                                                                                  It doesn't but it's difficult to get data on this because no one is willing to compromise at all on copyright. It's usurped for larger businesses and ironically, the ones it's supposed to help (artists) seem to be left out in the cold.

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

                                                                              • identicon
                                                                                Nicedoggy, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:23pm

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

                                                                                http://www.un.org/apps//news/story.asp?NewsID=30707&Cr=nigeria&Cr1=

                                                                                Quote:
                                                                                5 May 2009 – The Nigerian film industry has overtaken Hollywood and closed the gap on India, the global leader in the number of movies produced each year, according to a new United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report released today.


                                                                                The funny part is that this comes from the same country that is famous for scams, so is safe to assume that there is no meaningful copyrights to be found there anywhere.

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

                                                                          • icon
                                                                            nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:33pm

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

                                                                            Ah, well it sounded like you were presenting that as a fact. In my opinion, artistic output would continue unabated in the absence of copyright.

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

                                                                            • identicon
                                                                              Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 10:41pm

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

                                                                              Sorry if I communicated poorly.

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

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:56pm

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

                                                                    "Context. Disaster is a relative term being used to describe a negative outcome regarding the scenario under discussion."

                                                                    I understand, but the point that I'm making is that whatever negative output that will likely result isn't important enough to me when compared to the rights that I'm giving up. It's insignificant. My right to copy is more important to me. and, as a citizen, I want my government to, at least in part, represent me. Not me alone, but if many others agree with me and no one expresses their position then the government can't know our position to represent it. So I'm just expressing my position to you, to others, and maybe to elected officials if they're reading this.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:47pm

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

                                                                      You seem to be placing what you perceive as your individual rights over the progress of society as a whole. That's great for you, not so great for everyone else.

                                                                      Additionally: Your rights are not being lost. Terms and conditions in regards to transactions are a part of capitalist society. You don't care for the terms, don't participate. Your rights remain intact.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:56pm

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

                                                                        "You seem to be placing what you perceive as your individual rights over the progress of society as a whole."

                                                                        No, I'm simply placing my individual rights over your desire that society produce a level of art that you desire. I consider the government giving me back my right to freely copy a progressive move, so to me, society has progressed when our ability to copy is unimpeded by any government. You say that's not your definition of progress? You have a vote too, but so do I.

                                                                        "Terms and conditions in regards to transactions are a part of capitalist society."

                                                                        and that's fine, but terms and conditions can exist without copy'right'. Copy'right' places terms and conditions on third parties that never agreed to them.

                                                                        and not all terms and conditions need to be enforceable by law. Many states won't enforce non-compete clauses. Just because I disagree with the enforcement of some terms and conditions doesn't mean I must agree with the enforcement of any possible term or condition. As a citizen, I get a say into what terms and conditions my government will enforce (and so do you).

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:12pm

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

                                                                          My desire? My definition? So I wrote copyright law? I created the justification for it?

                                                                          Are you out of your fucking mind?

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

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:41pm

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

                                                                "No I don't. Why should the laws that I'm required to follow revolve around the level of artistic output of your choice?"

                                                                You're the one who wants to change existing system. The burden of proof is upon you. The intent of copyright is to ensure artistic growth, and the context of this discussion is that copyright protection should be discussed on those merits (or lack thereof) as opposed to an artificial morality.

                                                                If your answer is "I just want it gone, no matter what the effect", then I have little interest in your opinions or arguments.

                                                                "Depends on how you define the word 'disaster'."

                                                                What do you think? A disaster in regards to the output of art. That's the intended purpose of copyright, and the context of the discussion revolves around this aspect. You should know this without me explaining it.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:04pm

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

                                                                  "The burden of proof is upon you."

                                                                  The burden of proof is on me to prove what? That the new system will provide the artistic output of your liking? No, I do not have to prove that, because I'm not claiming that the new system will produce the level of artistic output of your desire. I do not have to prove something that I'm not claiming.

                                                                  What I am claiming is that the new system will stop impeding on a right that I value. My right to freely copy as I please is very valuable to me and abolishing copy'right' will give me my valued right.

                                                                  I want to change the existing system and I have no burden to prove that the level of artistic output will be to your satisfaction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me wanting to change the system, and to express my desire that the system be changed, without proving to you that the new system will produce the level of artistic output of your desire. I have no such burden and there is nothing wrong with me expressing my desire that the current system be changed without proving to you that the change will produce the level of artistic output of your choice.

                                                                  "If your answer is "I just want it gone, no matter what the effect", then I have little interest in your opinions or arguments. "

                                                                  Good, but I will continue to express my opinions and arguments. This is a democracy and I have (or should have) a voice. So do you.

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

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:11pm

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

                                                                    (I'm also claiming that artistic output will continue perfectly fine without copy'right'. It may not be the level of artistic output that you want, and I'm not claiming it will be so I don't have a burden to prove that it will be, but art will still progress).

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

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:50pm

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

                                                                    You don't seem to understand. It's not about you or me, the individuals. It's about society as a whole. The question is whether or not copyright increases artistic output, and if so, how can that level of output be maintained without copyright.

                                                                    If you want to change the system for everyone, then the burden of proof is upon you.

                                                                    You are free to voice whatever you like, but the US is not a democracy. It's a republic.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Nicedoggy, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:03pm

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

                                                                      He doesn't have any burden, because frankly he doesn't have to address anything, if he as an individual want to copy something you can't stop him from doing so, if a large group of people decide they don't need to follow that law there is little you can do about it, so if you want people to respect the law you need to show them why they should do so, otherwise that law is meaningless and only serves to undermine authority and the rule of law and that is not good for society, because we need laws and they should be respected, to that end you need the general population to agree to those and help enforce them.

                                                                      Aside from that artistic through output would probably not be undermined even if there was no copyrights in place at all as India and Africa proves that in a rather real terms, there are no meaningful enforcement in those areas and culture is flourishing there with even the president of India giving a speech about "soft-power"(the power to influence others through culture) on TED.

                                                                      So please, show how exactly culture arts and sciences would be harmed by even the complete elimination of copyrights when we know for a fact that throughout history those didn't stop those things from flourishing can you do that?

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:09pm

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

                                                                        If you want a law altered, then the burden of proof IS on you. Sorry.

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:11pm

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

                                                                          The burden is on me to prove what? That the altered law would produce results of your liking?

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

                                                                          • identicon
                                                                            Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:15pm

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

                                                                            That it is in the best interest of society. Are you seriously unable to grasp this? Or are you just a troll?

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

                                                                            • identicon
                                                                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:21pm

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

                                                                              No, you're failing to grasp how democracy works.

                                                                              What's in the best interest of society is strongly based on what society values. I value my right to copy more than I value your desired level of artistic output. So I get more of what I value with copy'right' abolition than without it. Copy'right' abolition is in my best interest.

                                                                              Now, you may disagree.

                                                                              We both vote. I vote copy'right' be abolished. You vote it stays. The majority of people agree with me and so, collectively, we vote copy'right' gets abolished. It gets abolished. Collectively, the government has served our best interests since, collectively, everyone values their right to freely copy more than your privilege to prevent me from copying and the level of artistic output that results. Makes sense?

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

                                                                              • identicon
                                                                                Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:27pm

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

                                                                                Except that this (the US) is not a democracy.

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

                                                                                • identicon
                                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:37pm

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

                                                                                  I know, it's more of a plutocracy. Which is partly what I'm protesting against.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Nicedoggy, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:07pm

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

                                                                      http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fuck+copyright

                                                                      Now if you want to see how the public view copyright now, just search on Youtube "f. copyright" and you will see thousands of people speaking in no uncertain terms what they think about that right to stop them from doing something.

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

                                                                    • icon
                                                                      Karl (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 10:43am

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

                                                                      The question is whether or not copyright increases artistic output, and if so, how can that level of output be maintained without copyright.

                                                                      One thing I'd also like to mention: that is only half of the goal of copyright.

                                                                      It's not specifically to increase output, but to "promote the progress of... the useful Arts." More output is certainly part of the goal, but the other part of the goal is public use of that art.

                                                                      Copyright law, if it is to exist at all, must promote two, and only two, things:

                                                                      1. Greater artistic output.
                                                                      2. Greater public use of that artistic output.

                                                                      The two are sometimes in conflict, so what we need to do is find a system that maximizes both variables.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 11:52am

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

                                                                        Confusion is understandable, however, "useful arts" is associated with patents and "science" with copyrights.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Memyself, 11 Apr 2011 @ 3:23pm

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

                                                                        In this we are in full agreement.

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

                                                            • icon
                                                              nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:08pm

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

                                                              That's the purpose of copyright, and if you want to abolish it you need to show that you have a sustainable plan that will maintain or improve the current artistic output.

                                                              I disagree. I believe the people who want to curtail, or continue curtailing, everyone's freedoms (eg you) should have to provide a justification for that, regardless of the status quo. The only justification so far has been in the form of campaign contributions and made-up facts.

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

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Meyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:53pm

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

                                                                Nice that you try to make this personal. I've already stated that I favor copyright reform. Turns out though, that this is not about the individuals, it's about society overall. So your petty attempt to suggest that I am somehow in favor of what you deem oppression is noted and dismissed.

                                                                The justification is that artistic output is increased under copyright. If you want to abolish copyright then you need to show that abolishing copyright will meet the ideal standards as currently set. If you can't do that, there is little room for discussion.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:01pm

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

                                                                  "If you want to abolish copyright then you need to show that abolishing copyright will meet the ideal standards as currently set."

                                                                  Standards as currently set by whom, you? Why should you be the only one to set the standards?

                                                                  Maybe I don't care if the changes meet your desired standards and so I don't have to prove they do. If you want them to continue meeting the current standards and you believe copy'right' contributes to those standards, go vote. As for me, I vote abolish it.

                                                                  Or, better yet, if copy'right' is abolished, why don't you continue to contribute to the current standards by finding an artist you like and buying their work and/or paying them money. You can comply with copy'right' principles without forcing such laws on me. If enough people agree with you, then they will follow such principles voluntarily and the current level of standards won't be affected much by the small minority that disagrees with you.

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

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:11pm

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

                                                                    Set by me? I had no idea I created copyright law.

                                                                    No. Seriously. Who do you think? Must I hold your hand through the simplest aspects of a dialog?

                                                                    You can vote on whatever you like. Doesn't mean it's a matter that is or will be determined by a vote.

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

                                                        • identicon
                                                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:42pm

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

                                                          and people who create music can offer a low quality sample of their music to the public and then, if they like it, sell the first copy of a high quality sample to whoever or whatever group wants it. People who create books can give away a sample of a few chapters and sell the rest of the first complete copy to whoever or whatever group wants it.

                                                          Questions like "what do you propose for keeping art profitable" suggest that art can't be profitable without copy'right'. You may not have said it directly, but you implied it, otherwise why even ask the question. Then you'll turn around and deny that you claimed art can't be profitable without copy'right'. But you're implying it. You keep asking questions like these, then when it's pointed out that art can and will be created and profitable without copy'right' you claim that you never said otherwise. When you ask the question, "what do you propose for ... encouraging and promoting the development of new art?" you're suggesting that art can't be promoted and encouraged without copy'right'. Otherwise, why ask such a question. It can be. I suggest the government do nothing to interfere with the free market by encouraging the development of anything. What do you propose be done to encourage and promote more breathing or people drinking more water? Should the government impose rules on me to do it? No. It's something the government shouldn't encourage or promote. The free market can do it. Same thing with art creation. May to some extent, I don't mind them funding publicly open museums, but they shouldn't impose rules on me to encourage new art, just like they should impose rules on me to encourage breathing or drinking water.

                                                          If you want to encourage the development of new art, find an artist you like and pay them for their art. That's what I suggest you do to encourage the development of new art. Don't impose rules on me to encourage new art, go out there and encourage it yourself by paying for it. That's what I propose.

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

                                                          • identicon
                                                            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:44pm

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

                                                            just like they shouldn't impose

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

                                                          • identicon
                                                            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:44pm

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

                                                            err...

                                                            just like they shouldn't impose rules on me to encourage breathing or drinking water. *

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:01pm

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

                                                              Breathing and drinking are functions required for survival. False analogy is false.

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

                                                          • identicon
                                                            Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:01pm

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

                                                            The suggestions you make for copyright free transactions would be ineffectual when considering large scale distribution.

                                                            Your assumptions about what I am implying are noted and dismissed. I say what I mean. You inferring incorrectly and applying said inferences to me are pointless.

                                                            Regardless - Art under copyright has been shown to be profitable, thus encouraging the production of more art. The cost of production is split amongst multiple customers, consequently making art affordable to all people while still allowing artists to make a living. I never claimed that other approaches could not be profitable. But the burden of proof is upon you, the one who wants copyright removed.

                                                            You talk about the free market, but you want to limit the options allowed to those who sell. The true free market is you voting with your wallet.

                                                            There are no rules upon you. You can step back and not participate at any time.

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:08pm

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

                                                              "I never claimed that other approaches could not be profitable."

                                                              Then why are you claiming that

                                                              "The suggestions you make for copyright free transactions would be ineffectual when considering large scale distribution."

                                                              Large scale distribution of hammers exists despite the fact that hammers aren't subject to copy'right'. Copy'right' is needed to pay for large scale distribution? Techdirt itself is supporting large scale distribution of my typing. Youtube supports large scale distribution of plenty of content that doesn't benefit much from copy'right'. Many songs are released under CC licenses, designed to at least in part circumvent copy'right', and the Internet supports large scale distribution of those songs. People will continue to make content and that content will continue to benefit from large scale distribution without copy'right'.

                                                              "But the burden of proof is upon you, the one who wants copyright removed."

                                                              The burden is on me to prove what, something I'm not claiming?

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Nicedoggy, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:19pm

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

                                                              Quote:
                                                              The suggestions you make for copyright free transactions would be ineffectual when considering large scale distribution.


                                                              Look at Africa, every street vendor creates a market where he is and thus create wealth where there was none before, if it was just only one distributor he would hoard more money for himself but it wouldn't be able to supply the entire market alone, this is true for every monopoly that ever existed, if we are talking about effective then copyright is a problem for effective economic growth because it can't supply all segments of the market, excluding the bottom markets to cater tor the upper portion of it, it also prevents start ups from appearing because of the high prices asked by incumbents slowing down innovation, services and products that would benefit society are no longer able to be implemented because of copyrights.

                                                              All indications show that copyrights are not needed at all, in fact history shows in practice that we don't need them to flourish otherwise we would never have had a Roman Empire.

                                                              Now please show everybody how would the absence of copyright reduce production of said art, when we know that in places where there is no meaningful copyright protections those are the parts of the world that are seeing a kind of renascence in the arts.

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

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:29pm

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

                                                                Lets see some links o the artistic Renaissance of Africa.

                                                                Even then: If such a Renaissance can exist in a world WITH copyright, what is the problem? An abundance of art free from restriction is already available to you.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:54pm

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

                                                                  Because it places a burden on me (or service providers) to go through the trouble of determining what is and what isn't infringement and, say I own a restaurant and I take a song that I thought wasn't infringing and I played it in my restaurant. If someone later sues me for it, I may face liability, so it places an undue risk on me (even if I win the lawsuit, I may still pay a lot in legal fees).

                                                                  For some things it maybe easy to determine what is infringement (ie: very popular stuff), but for other, small item things, it may not be. Situations like this could arise. For all I know, the person who has 'rights' over such content may have been the one to upload it under a CC license just so that he can later deny that he uploaded it under a CC license and sue others (be it service providers or consumers) for consuming it and using it. If I have to be afraid of what I copy and how I use what I copy, in fear that I might be infringing on something that I thought was released under a CC license, then I'd be less likely to consume CC licensed content. That not only hurts me, it hurts CC content creators who now have a harder time acquiring an audience.

                                                                  Also, copy'right' material displaces non-copy'right' material over monopolized cableco infrastructure and monopolized broadcasting space and the amount of content over those distribution channels is limited. Not everyone has the Internet to have access to the large library of freely copyable content that it provides.

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

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:14pm

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

                                                                    "For all I know, the person who has 'rights' over such content may have been the one to upload it under a CC license just so that he can later deny that he uploaded it under a CC license and sue others (be it service providers or consumers) for consuming it and using it."

                                                                    (and, when it comes to copy'right', copy'right' abuse is legendary. Well, people trying to find ways to abuse the law isn't uncommon at all. So when I say that something like this could happen, it probably has happened. In fact, I remember Techdirt articles about big labels giving certain entities permission to freely distribute songs or samples over the Internet or elsewhere and then later suing consumers of such content. It doesn't seem to happen as much anymore, thanks to public outcries about it, but the point is that where absurd abuses can happen, they likely will, so my above complains aren't speculative and without merit).

                                                                    Now, really, if copy'right' can find reasonable ways to deal with these possible abuses without punishing me for not being psychic if I accidentally download a song that I thought was released under a CC license and use it in a manner that I thought was allowed, then I won't be so against it. If copy'right' stops being used to persuade/compel restaurant and other venue owners from hosting independent singers without paying some collection society under the pretext that someone "might" infringe, and if it's not used to potentially hold the restaurant liable if one of its performers does infringe and the restaurant didn't know they were infringing, then I'll be much more inclined to accept it.

                                                                    But I just don't really see that happening. What I see coming from these laws isn't the promotion of progress, but the large scale promotion of abusive behavior.

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

                                                                  • identicon
                                                                    Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:34pm

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

                                                                    As you know, we live in an era where data is accessible virtually anytime anywhere. If you own a business and you want to discover if the music you want to play for the public is legal to play, take a few minutes and do your research.

                                                                    Beyond this, you're talking about some fairly fantastically paranoid scenarios. A musician uploads a song with a posted CC license and then removes it so he can sue you for playing it in your restaurant?

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:09pm

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

                                                                      "Beyond this, you're talking about some fairly fantastically paranoid scenarios."

                                                                      Copy'right' is legendary for the occurrence of some fantastically ridiculous scenarios. My complaints aren't without merit.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:23pm

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

                                                                      "Beyond this, you're talking about some fairly fantastically paranoid scenarios."

                                                                      You say that because you haven't been paying close enough attention to the fantastically ridiculous scenarios that have resulted thanks to copy'right'.

                                                                      For example, see

                                                                      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml

                                                                      Pay attention. The scenarios that I'm telling you aren't speculative, they have happened. That's why I bring them up, because they're apparently likely enough to have happened before.

                                                                      and if you look at the whole Viacom case with Google, it appears that Viacom employees were the ones that uploaded the content on Youtube and then Viacom sued Google. See

                                                                      http://www.komplettblog.ie/8008/viacom-uploads-to-youtube-then-sues/

                                                                      There is a whole controversy over whether or not Viacom uploaded the content or whether or not its employees did, but the corporation consists of its employees, so as far as I'm concerned, if the employees did it, then Viacom did it. Then they sued Youtube over it.

                                                                      There were other cases of similar things happening where record labels gave certain entities permission to distribute various songs or samples for promotional purposes and later sued others for it. I don't think that really happens anymore, or at least I haven't seen any recent articles about it (and I don't want to go back and dig, it was a while ago), but like I said, I'm not bringing up these possibilities because I'm speculating some highly unlikely paranoid scenarios. Saying that shows that you haven't been paying attention to the ridiculous scenarios that have resulted from copy'right'. I'm bringing up these possibilities because they, and equally ridiculous scenarios, have indeed happened in the past. So my bringing up of these scenarios does indeed have merit, as much as you'd like to ignore that.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:24pm

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

                                                                        (and now Youtube is stuck having to fight an expensive lawsuit. Again, these aren't unlikely speculative scenarios, this is reality).

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:39pm

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

                                                                        "but the corporation consists of its employees, so as far as I'm concerned, if the employees did it, then Viacom did it."

                                                                        (and I know, this is a bit short sighted and I don't think this is always the case. I apply these standards to Viacom in this case because they persist in an unnecessary lawsuit when all they had to do was tell Youtube to take down the videos that its employees uploaded instead of trying to sue Youtube for ridiculous damages over something Viacom's employees uploaded. If anything, Viacom's target in these lawsuits shouldn't be Google, but its very own employees, but by going after Youtube instead, Viacom is encouraging its employees to participate in this sort of behavior and so they are effectively the ones that uploaded that video).

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:46pm

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

                                                                        (and I can go on and on and on .... probably for a LONG time over all the equally ridiculous scenarios that have resulted thanks to copy'right', scenarios that are at least as ridiculous as the "fantastically paranoid" scenarios I have brought up on this forum. So my "fantastically paranoid" scenarios that I'm bringing up aren't without merit).

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:32pm

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

                                                                        if you look at the whole Viacom case with Google, it appears that Viacom employees were the ones that uploaded the content on Youtube and then Viacom sued Google.

                                                                        The whole case? That's a huge lie.

                                                                        In fact, how about you list the videos that Viacom is suing YouTube for that were uploaded by Viacom.

                                                                        This will help you get started:

                                                                        http://www.google.com/press/youtube_viacom_documents.html

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:47pm

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

                                                                          "The whole case? That's a huge lie."

                                                                          I said if you look at the whole case, not that this is what the whole case consists of.

                                                                          How is it a lie? At least it's what Google is claiming as part of their defense.

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

                                                                    • identicon
                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:05pm

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

                                                                      "If you own a business and you want to discover if the music you want to play for the public is legal to play, take a few minutes and do your research."

                                                                      What if the author didn't put his works on the Internet? What if the author has no website? How much research am I required to do? 10 hours of research? What if I do all that research and come up with nothing? Someone gave me a song and told me it was a CC licesned song. The true author never put the song on the Internet, has no website, etc... the song itself does not tell me who the true author is, I use the song for a public performance, I get sued.

                                                                      Not everything is located on the Internet. Someone may give me some independently made movie that has no website because the author made a website. Your "search Google for it" assumes its on Google and then it assumes that I even know what to look for. What if the true name of the song has been renamed, so I don't know the title of the song to look for. Say I search for the renamed title and it comes up short. "Well, I can search for the lyrics." Lyrics are copy'right'able too, so if copy'right' law had its way, no I can't. You're assuming the artist gave some website permission to post those lyrics.

                                                                      Your, "Google" it solution doesn't always work.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:07pm

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

                                                                        because the author made no website *

                                                                        What if the author doesn't want his content on the Internet. Then how am I supposed to find out who the true author is or that the song really isn't released under a CC license.

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

                                                                      • identicon
                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:11pm

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

                                                                        What I'm bringing up are real issues. and if you're going to discard them with a "but, you can simply Google it" response, instead of actually addressing them, then I'm against copy'right'. These issues are real and they are worthy of being addressed.

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

                                                                        • identicon
                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:21pm

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

                                                                          What I'm bringing up are real issues. and if you're going to discard them with a "but, you can simply Google it" response, instead of actually addressing them, then I'm against copy'right'.

                                                                          You're doing nothing of the sort.

                                                                          You're using outliers to create FUD.

                                                                          I'm aware that's a standard debate tactic on this site, but it doesn't make your argument any more compelling.

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

                                                                          • identicon
                                                                            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:31pm

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

                                                                            "You're using outliers to create FUD."

                                                                            Even if true, winning the lottery is an outlier, yet many people play. On average, people lose money even. and studies will show that people (and especially corporations and businesses) can be very risk aversive. Outliers affect our behavior. Implementing some safety mechanism in a piece of equipment may cost a lot of money, but not doing so may cost a company a whole lot more, even if the danger of someone getting hurt from not implementing such a safety mechanism is an outlier.

                                                                            If people have to worry about what content is and what isn't released under a CC license when downloading and publicly playing content that they thought was released under a CC license, as the above link (with the Flikr post) shows, it will affect people's behavior. Less people will consume CC licensed content and publicly play it and so that will discourage people from producing CC licensed content (since content production is often assisted by consumption). For me to have to worry about which songs are truly released under a CC license or not is a huge risk that I'm not willing to take. Unless you can address that, copy'right' should be abolished.

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

                                                                            • identicon
                                                                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:35pm

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

                                                                              (people often have fire insurance, building insurance, flood insurance, car insurance, life insurance, health insurance, they go through the inconvenience of wearing seat belts. Car accidents, burned buildings, flooded buildings, etc.. are outliers, but the risk affects our behavior. My scenarios are real, and they deserve to be addressed, not ignored).

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

                                                                            • identicon
                                                                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:46pm

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

                                                                              For me to have to worry about which songs are truly released under a CC license or not is a huge risk that I'm not willing to take. Unless you can address that, copy'right' should be abolished

                                                                              People choking on the spaghetti I make is an outlier. For me to have to worry about that is a huge risk that I'm not willing to take.

                                                                              Unless you can address that, spaghetti should be abolished.

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

                                                                              • identicon
                                                                                Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:53pm

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

                                                                                Not eating creates the bigger risk of dying of starvation.

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

                                                                              • identicon
                                                                                Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:57pm

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

                                                                                So you believe in a legal system that puts people who copy and perhaps publicly play songs that they believe are CC licensed songs at risk of facing a potentially expensive lawsuit? I don't.

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

                                                                                • identicon
                                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 10:21pm

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

                                                                                  You are one amusing dude.

                                                                                  Copyright isn't going to be abolished because you didn't bother to figure out whether or not something was legal or not. There are abundant avenues for determining that, which make your "abolish copyright" remedy absurd.

                                                                                  And if on the very small chance you were actually sued(FUD btw) for the situation you describe, maybe you could try this:

                                                                                  http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2008/08/12/teenager_filesharing_damages_reduced/

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

                                                                                  • identicon
                                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 10:51pm

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

                                                                                    "There are abundant avenues for determining that, which make your "abolish copyright" remedy absurd."

                                                                                    Those avenues don't always work. Authors may not want their songs or content showing up on a search engine.

                                                                                    As far as your link goes, that case was appealed and the lowered damages were overturned.

                                                                                    http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100226%2F1553078323&threaded=true&s p=1#comments

                                                                                    Furthermore

                                                                                    "As you may know, copyright law does allow for reduced statutory damages on innocent infringement, "where the infringer sustains the burden of proving . . . that [she] was not aware and had no reason to believe that . . . her acts constituted an infringement of copyright.""

                                                                                    In other words, if I unknowingly infringe on something, even if there is no reasonable way for me to know that I'm infringing, I can still face punishment. That's unacceptable. The government should not create unreasonable risks like this. and, as the above flikr post shows, these risks can affect people behavior in a way that's detrimental to society.

                                                                                    and this isn't FUD. The only FUD is the argument that copy'right' abolition would result in the creation of no work or in a huge detriment to society or that 95+ year copy protection lengths are necessary or less progress will be promoted.

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

                                                                                    • identicon
                                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:08pm

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

                                                                                      Enforcing these laws isn't cheap. Service providers must employ labor to take down DMCA notices. Labor is expensive. People must take the time required to figure out what is and what isn't infringement. The argument, "But ignorance is no excuse to law" misses the point. The question isn't whether or not ignorance is an excuse to breaking the law, it's whether or not the law itself should exist. This law requires me to spend time to acquire the information necessary to know if an instance of content that comes my way is infringement, and in some cases there maybe no easy and cheap way for me to know. Information on some content may not show up on search engines. Some authors may not have websites. Some authors may not want their content on the Internet. I don't want to have to spend the time and energy necessary to figure these things out, especially if the information isn't easy to figure out.

                                                                                      There is also a burden placed on service providers. Service providers have to police that. and there were instances where content was wrongfully taken down that wasn't infringing because someone wrongfully claimed that it was. Service providers then don't want to face the risk of an expensive lawsuit and they don't want to spend the time and money necessary to determine if something is infringing or not. So they often just take down content on request without spending the cost necessary to determine if the takedown notice comes from the true copy'right' holder or not. Then the service provider may get sued by the person who originally posted the content for taking it down. More expenses on the service provider that wouldn't exist without copy'right'.

                                                                                      I may get deprived of such content, at least for a period of time, as a result. and I don't want the service provider to be required to spend the money necessary to make such a determination (because they will pass those costs back down to me somehow). These are real issues. They're a lot more real than any alleged justification for copy'right', which is why I believe copy'right' should be abolished. As much as you'd like to simply ignore them, that doesn't make these issues go away.

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

                                                                                      • identicon
                                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:09pm

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

                                                                                        (or at least they're a lot more important to me than any alleged justification for copy'right'. and I hope others agree).

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

                                                                                    • identicon
                                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 12:49am

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

                                                                                      "As you may know, copyright law does allow for reduced statutory damages on innocent infringement, "where the infringer sustains the burden of proving . . . that [she] was not aware and had no reason to believe that . . . her acts constituted an infringement of copyright.""

                                                                                      See? You've answered your own question.

                                                                                      Have you read up on cases where a songwriter sued for infringement suggesting he wrote a song first and then someone else had success with a very similarly written song? It's enlightening.

                                                                                      But that's creative infringement. So to directly answer you, do you have an example of where the consumptive infringement was
                                                                                      (1)so egregious that someone was sued,
                                                                                      (2)the defendant legitimately claimed ignorance,
                                                                                      (3)yet was still liable for damages
                                                                                      ?

                                                                                      If you can't name at least a few, then you're spouting FUD and your stance that copyright abolition is the correct remedy is absurd.

                                                                                      In fact, let's see you give me just one example.

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

                                                                                      • identicon
                                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 1:36am

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

                                                                                        "See? You've answered your own question."

                                                                                        What?

                                                                                        "But that's creative infringement. So to directly answer you, do you have an example of where the consumptive infringement was
                                                                                        (1)so egregious that someone was sued,
                                                                                        (2)the defendant legitimately claimed ignorance,
                                                                                        (3)yet was still liable for damages
                                                                                        ?"

                                                                                        The above link is an example of it. and the quote that I showed shows that even if the infringement was accidental and the infringer had no reason to believe the content was protected (reduced) damages are still possible. They should not be. No damages should be possible. At most, the infringer should be given a choice to either pay for the content or destroy his copy.

                                                                                        Here is an example of another ridiculous case that won't exist if it weren't for copy'right'.

                                                                                        https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680

                                                                                        Even if the plaintiffs lose, the cost of lawsuits in time and money is not cheap. That's partly why I want these laws abolished, they encourage these sorts of lawsuits.

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

                                                                                        • identicon
                                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:17am

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

                                                                                          Here is an example of another ridiculous case that won't exist if it weren't for copy'right'.

                                                                                          You're hilarious.

                                                                                          Bonehead doesn't avail himself to the protection copyright gives him, and gets screwed because he used CC instead.

                                                                                          And in your opinion that's an argument for copyright being abolished?

                                                                                          Most amusing.

                                                                                          Go beg for change on a corner somewhere.

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

                                                                                          • identicon
                                                                                            Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:02am

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

                                                                                            Did you not even bother to read the case? You probably didn't.

                                                                                            I'm referring to the potentially expensive lawsuit the defendants have to face for doing nothing wrong. Copy'right' encourages this nonsense. This discourages people from consuming CC licensed content because they don't to face a potentially expensive and time consuming lawsuit, even if they'll win. Discouraging consumption discourages production.

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

                                                                                  • identicon
                                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:16pm

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

                                                                                    "There are abundant avenues for determining that, which make your "abolish copyright" remedy absurd."

                                                                                    You're missing the point. Copy"right" is opt out, which means no one is required to provide an avenue for me to know that consuming such content would be infringing. There is no central database that people are required to register on that I can simply look up. I may not know what to search for. There is no requirement that protected content show up on any search engine and some content may not (if no one put it on a website, how would it?). Or I may look up a word and get a million results. I can't search through every page to figure out which one is the relevant one. So these avenues aren't reliable and they can be very time consuming.

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

                                                                                    • identicon
                                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 12:56am

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

                                                                                      There is no central database that people are required to register on that I can simply look up.

                                                                                      I am actively lobbying Congress for this exact thing; to be online and available to everyone via a .gov website.

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

                                                                                      • identicon
                                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 1:42am

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

                                                                                        Like I said, if you can make copy'right' a whole lot more reasonable than it currently is (and not last inordinate periods of time either), then I won't be so much against it. I'll still be against it, but not so much.

                                                                                        But I don't see that happening. These laws are abusive in nature, they have a long history of abuse, they originated by abusive entities that intended these laws to be abusive. Abolish them.

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

                                                                                        • identicon
                                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 1:46am

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

                                                                                          I want the entities that benefit from these laws the most to be punished, because they are most likely the ones responsible for the abusive nature of these laws (ie: inordinate lengths). The best way to punish them is to abolish these laws and I see no problem with that because I see these laws serving far more harm than good.

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

                                                                                      • identicon
                                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 6:19am

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

                                                                                        There is such a cental database that can be searched, and it resides within the copyright office.

                                                                                        Importantly, however, beginning with the entry into force of the Copyright Act of 1976 when formalities were removed from US Copyright Law in order for US law to conform to the requirements of the Berne and other later international conventions, it could no longer be said that the Coryright Office's database was the authoritative source on what is and what is not subject to valid copyrights under federal law. Neverthelsss, it remains the most valuable database concerning copyrights. Importantly, in order for a work secured by copyright to be entitled to assertion against others, it must be first formally registered with the Copyright Office and, thusly, added to the database. Additionally, copyright holders are well advised to formally register their claims to copyright with the Copyright Office in order for such holders to be able to avail themselves of all remedies provided by US Copyright Law. This is particularly true if a copyright holder desires to be able to seek "statutory (AKA, "in liew") damages.

                                                                                        Prior to 1989 the US retained the requirement under law for copyright holders to adhere to longstanding marking practices (i.e., mandatory copyright notices meeting stated formalities to be effective). Of course, copyright notices are nevertheless encouraged, and it is a foolish author who does not use such notices in its ordinary course of business.

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

                                                                                        • icon
                                                                                          nasch (profile), 12 Apr 2011 @ 5:05am

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

                                                                                          Importantly, in order for a work secured by copyright to be entitled to assertion against others, it must be first formally registered with the Copyright Office and, thusly, added to the database.

                                                                                          The copyright holder can still sue for injunctions and actual damages even if it's not registered.

                                                                                          Of course, copyright notices are nevertheless encouraged, and it is a foolish author who does not use such notices in its ordinary course of business.

                                                                                          Where do you put the copyright notice on an MP3?

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

                                                                                  • identicon
                                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:20pm

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

                                                                                    "Copyright isn't going to be abolished because you didn't bother to figure out whether or not something was legal or not."

                                                                                    Ignorance is an excuse to a secret law. If there is no reasonable way for me to know that something is infringement, and such a case is very possible, then the law places an undue risk on me by secretly making the consumption of certain content illegal.

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

                                                                                  • identicon
                                                                                    Nicedoggy, 11 Apr 2011 @ 3:29am

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

                                                                                    No copyright will be abolished because it is unworkable, it doesn't really protect anything and it got abusive, that is why copyright as you know it will go away.

                                                                                    There is no government in the world capable of stopping that trend.

                                                                                    Doubt?

                                                                                    Can you watch me inside my house?
                                                                                    Will you wipe out all recording devices from the face of the earth?
                                                                                    Can you police the internet?
                                                                                    Can you break encryption?
                                                                                    Can you stop emails?
                                                                                    Could you stop anonymous IMs(instant messengers)?

                                                                                    The simple answer is no, so your "rights" are not going to be enforced on the public and we all know you can't do anything about it.

                                                                                    Shaming didn't work, enforcement didn't work, there are more people sharing today than 5 years ago.

                                                                                    Further legal alternatives are coming up everywhere so you will be forced if you want to sell anything to abide by the rules of those legal alternatives eventually and they are nothing like what you want to keep, not to mention that ultimately the consumer can survive without you, but you probably can't survive without support from the public.

                                                                                    Is that simple.

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

                                                                              • identicon
                                                                                Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 10:05pm

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

                                                                                The difference is that I don't want a legal system that creates an artificial risk for doing something that no one could have reasonably known was against the law (ie: for infringing on content when there is no reasonable means of knowing that such content is protected).

                                                                                There is a difference between a legal system creating a risk against its citizens for doing nothing wrong (ie: coping and publicly playing a song that they were under the reasonable impression was released under a CC license) vs people having to face the risks that the legal system isn't responsible for. Sure, risks exist outside our legal system, but our legal system, the laws that it creates, shouldn't be responsible for subjecting people to unreasonable risks (spaghetti abolition is a law, its allowance isn't, and so by allowing it our legal system isn't the one responsible for creating any risks since the existence of our legal system isn't required for such a risk to exist).

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

                                                                                • identicon
                                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 10:07pm

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

                                                                                  errr. coping should read copying *

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

                                                                              • identicon
                                                                                Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 12:42am

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

                                                                                Oh, and btw, when courts make (poor) decisions thanks to the existence of copy'right' law, that's not an outlier, it's called precedent. Those decisions are expected to be followed through in future cases. So many of the risks that I speak of are more than just outliers.

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

                                                                                • identicon
                                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 6:00am

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

                                                                                  For the benefit of those who are not intimately familiar with our system of jurisprudence within federal courts:

                                                                                  1. A decision by a judge at the district court level is never binding precedent. The decision may be found by other judges to be particularly well-thought out and compelling, but the decision does not bind them to apply it to any case at hand.

                                                                                  2. Decisions by federal appellate courts are binding precedent, but only in the appellate distict over which the courts preside. A decision by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is not binding on, for example, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It should be noted that there are some appellate courts whose jurisdiction is national in scope, e.g., the Court of Appealls for the Federal Circuit. In such cases their decisions are binding everywhere.

                                                                                  3. The ultimate arbiter of what is binding precedent is the Supreme Court. Its decisions are required to be followed by all inferior courts, district and appellate courts alike (including courts that are not what are known as "Article 3" courts).

                                                                                  I mention the above solely to assist others to understand what "precedent" actually means within our legal system.

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

                                                                                  • identicon
                                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 6:52am

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

                                                                                    I know what precedent means. An appellate court refusing to hear the case of a lower court is precedent because it confirms the possibility that the decision could stand in future cases. The supreme court deciding not to hear the case of an appellate court is also precedent for the same reason.

                                                                                    The above example was an appellate court making a decision.

                                                                                    and a federal district court making a poor decision also sets bad precedent because it confirms the possibility that future federal district courts could make bad decisions forcing people to have to fight expensive appeals and forcing others to have to fight expensive district court trials. Most people don't want to fight expensive lawsuits.

                                                                                    The only good decision would be for the district courts to sufficiently punish plaintiffs for

                                                                                    A: False accusations (accidental or intentional).

                                                                                    Unfortunately the potential punishment for such false accusations is far less than the potential punishment for infringement. This encourages many careless mass infringement suits that often target innocent victims, perhaps because the offenders (ie: the **AA) know that many innocent victims will rather pay than to face an expensive lawsuit. "But mistakes happen", copy'right' isn't important enough to warrant the possibility of these mistakes. People shouldn't face the possibility of an expensive lawsuit, with the risk of huge penalties for not settling, just because the plaintiff made a mistake, with the small possibility of being rewarded a very small compensation in comparison if such turns out to be a mistake.

                                                                                    B: and for the law not to punish people at all who accidentally infringe who had no reasonable way of knowing that what they did was infringement.

                                                                                    Anything else is a bad decision.

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

                                                                                    • identicon
                                                                                      Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:16am

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

                                                                                      Perhaps many do not realize that an appellate court, quite unlike the Supreme Court, must consider all appeals.

                                                                                      In contrast, the Supreme Court is required to hear appeals in only limited instances. In all other instances it has the power (but not the obligation), via a writ of certiorari, to voluntarily take up a case for consideration by the full court.

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

                                                                                      • identicon
                                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:21am

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

                                                                                        and your point?

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

                                                                                        • identicon
                                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:49am

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

                                                                                          To note what is and what is not "binding precedent", a matter over which there seems to be much confusion. Simply because a federal district court renders a decision, it does not mean that the decision is binding precedent of national scope. It might be what is known as the "law of the case" with respect to the particular lawsuit, but it is certainly not binding precedent with respect to other lawsuits.

                                                                                          It was also to point out the a federal appellate court subordinate to the Supreme Court must hear appeals. It does not have the discretion to do otherwise.

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

                                                                                    • icon
                                                                                      nasch (profile), 12 Apr 2011 @ 5:07am

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

                                                                                      IANAL, but I don't think the Supreme Court declining a case sets any precedent, but only allows any precedent set by the lower court to stand. Anybody know for sure?

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

                                                                                      • identicon
                                                                                        Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2011 @ 9:22am

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

                                                                                        You are correct. The court's declining to hear a case means that the case stands as previously decided, as a consequence of which the case constitutes precedent only in that judicial district over which the lower court has jurisdiction.

                                                                                        There is another situation where this also holds true. If the Supreme Court hears a case, but then cannot establish a majority position, the case is treated as if it had never been considered. This happened quite recently in a case before the Supreme Court where one justice recused hilself/herself, leaving 8 justices to hear the case, and they later evenly split 4-4.

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

                                                                                        • identicon
                                                                                          Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 8:41pm

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

                                                                                          "as a consequence of which the case constitutes precedent only in that judicial district over which the lower court has jurisdiction."

                                                                                          If the federal district court decided on a federal matter and the appellate court refused to hear the case, that suggests that there is nothing wrong with the federal district court's decision. It's sets a persuasive precedent for other courts to rule similarly.

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

                                                                                  • identicon
                                                                                    Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2011 @ 8:38pm

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

                                                                                    Also, you're confusing mandatory precedent with persuasive precedent.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Nicedoggy, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:04pm

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

                                                                  Nollywood second producer of films behind only India.
                                                                  http://www.un.org/apps//news/story.asp?NewsID=30707&Cr=nigeria&Cr1=

                                                                  Both countries lacking any meaningful copyright enforcement capabilities.

                                                                  Should I believe my eyes or your words?

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Nicedoggy, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:16pm

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

                                                                  Also worth noting is the output, according to the U.N. Nollywood produces 2x more movies than Hollywood.

                                                                  So one can argue that copyright actually reduces the ability to a country to produce more culture.

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Nicedoggy, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:22pm

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

                                                              Quote:
                                                              The suggestions you make for copyright free transactions would be ineffectual when considering large scale distribution.


                                                              Woodstock was paid concert, and when the organizers got their money back, they oppened the gates for everyone to go inside.

                                                              Maybe the rights should be the same thing, artists should set a reasonable value for their work and when reached rights are dropped automatically.

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

                                                              • identicon
                                                                Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:26pm

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

                                                                Woodstock was ONE paid concert.

                                                                I actually agree with the rights issue as you suggest (and think it's one of the better suggestions I have heard), but I think that level should be reached by the existing system so that the distribution of art is not impeded.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:36pm

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

                                                                  Youtube can distribute art just fine. The Internet too. We have technology that is more than perfectly capable of distributing art.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Nicedoggy, 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:11pm

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

                                                                  Thank you for the correction.

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

                                                              • icon
                                                                nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:20pm

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

                                                                Maybe the rights should be the same thing, artists should set a reasonable value for their work and when reached rights are dropped automatically.

                                                                And they have to pay taxes on the amount they set as the value.

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

                                                                • identicon
                                                                  Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:29pm

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

                                                                  Provided that amount is achieved, minus the cost of doing business. Or do you favor people paying taxes on income not received?

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

                                                • icon
                                                  Karl (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 10:35am

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

                                                  Nice, isn't it?

                                                  It is, at that.

                                                  The point is that sellers can currently operate with or without copyright. Choosing to price themselves out of business is a choice they should be allowed to make. And if they make that choice, they're not restricting your rights. The reason this is the case is because you are not obligated to participate.

                                                  Well, "not participating" is exactly what downloaders do. (Actually, that's not what they do, because downloaders buy significantly more than non-downloaders, but never mind.) They don't like the price, so they go with a competitor - exactly as the free market is supposed to work.

                                                  Taking the choice out of the hands of the artists makes little sense to me. Reforming copyright law, sure. But abolishment is excessive.

                                                  I'm a reformer myself, rather than an abolitionist, but we must understand what copyright actually is: it is the legal grant to eliminate competition, backed by force.

                                                  No, because without copyright artists lose the legal ability to decide how and when their work is disseminated and reproduced.

                                                  That's not really true. The reason artists have rights is not because of copyright. Like all other types of workers, they have rights because of collective bargaining. Copyright didn't increase anyone's wages; going on strike, did.

                                                  They're free to design their own pencils.

                                                  If their design is too much like someone else's design, they are not free to design their own pencils.

                                                  In the analogy you're quoting, consumers are still consumers - the purchasers of pencils. Not the pencil makers.

                                                  If that were true, they couldn't be pirates. What is unlawful about piracy is reproduction and distribution.

                                                  Regardless, the point remains - while no one is required to keep any business in business, no outside party one should have the ability to "decide" how to keep said business in business.

                                                  Pirates do no such thing. Even with piracy, you are free to choose how to conduct your business. You are simply not allowed to decide how other people conduct their own business.

                                                  If the market will truly only support free distribution minus copyright protection, it will correct itself.

                                                  The problem is that copyright is fundamentally a restriction on the market. The market truly does support only free distribution; but instead of accepting that, IP-dependent industries use the law to try to force the market into compliance. They have a legal tool to quash competition, prevent newcomers from entering the market, and protect their own interests above all others. In their eyes, that's what copyright is for.

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

                                                  • identicon
                                                    Memyself, 11 Apr 2011 @ 3:22pm

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

                                                    "Well, "not participating" is exactly what downloaders do."

                                                    Acquiring and using the material while knowingly and intentionally circumventing the cost is still participation.

                                                    "That's not really true. The reason artists have rights is not because of copyright."

                                                    If you scan in a book and re-distribute it without permission you have taken the decision of how said book is disseminated and reproduced out of the hands of the artist.

                                                    "If their design is too much like someone else's design, they are not free to design their own pencils."

                                                    Right. So they must try to conceive of a new and creative way of designing a new pencil. Which hardly seems like a bad thing to me. In my line of work, I encounter this all the time. I discard ideas that feel to similar to the work of others and try to conceive of something original. It pushes me to be more creative and has improved my work in many ways.

                                                    That said, you can't really copyright the most common design elements.

                                                    "If that were true, they couldn't be pirates. What is unlawful about piracy is reproduction and distribution."

                                                    I wasn't talking about piracy or pirates, but about copyright abolishment.

                                                    "Pirates do no such thing. Even with piracy, you are free to choose how to conduct your business."

                                                    As above, you're losing the context here.

                                                    "The market truly does support only free distribution

                                                    If that were true, no one would be able to sell anything.

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

                                                    • icon
                                                      Karl (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 10:26pm

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

                                                      Acquiring and using the material while knowingly and intentionally circumventing the cost is still participation.

                                                      Then you need to change your argument. You previously said that consumers are free to not pay the asking price. Now, you're saying that consumers who don't want to pay the asking price are not allowed to participate at all in that market.

                                                      If you scan in a book and re-distribute it without permission you have taken the decision of how said book is disseminated and reproduced out of the hands of the artist.

                                                      Not exactly. You have not prevented the artist from disseminating and reproducing the book as he or she sees fit. They can still charge whatever they like, and put whatever conditions they like on disseminating or reproducing that book. The artist has not lost any rights or abilities whatsoever.

                                                      What they have lost is the ability to prevent others from doing the same. The government has given them a monopoly on material that is similar to theirs. Copyright is simply a restriction on competition; it is a monopoly, with all of the bad things that implies.

                                                      Now, that monopoly could be beneficial to the public. In fact, I think that it was. It is not any longer, and we need to scale that monopoly back, in my opinion.

                                                      Right. So they must try to conceive of a new and creative way of designing a new pencil. Which hardly seems like a bad thing to me.

                                                      So, every single artist must re-invent the wheel, and none are allowed to use any of the knowledge from the centuries that came before them. Do you honestly think this is a good thing?

                                                      If (say) perpetual copyright was allowed, and everyone who avoided parallel 5th intervals in music was required to pay a royalty to Bach's descendants, would this actually result in more (or better) works?

                                                      Yes, that's an extreme example, but we're living in pretty extreme times, copyright-wise.

                                                      I wasn't talking about piracy or pirates, but about copyright abolishment.

                                                      The whole dichotomy actually came to me after watching your exchange with Nicedoggy (and others). You are looking at it from a viewpoint of "maximizing the art that is produced." They are looking at it from the viewpoint of "maximizing the public's use of the art (me being a member of the public)."

                                                      My point was that you are both right. Their unrestricted use is the entire purpose of copyright law, but they can't use something that isn't produced. So, the question becomes - how to we tweak the laws so that you're both happy?

                                                      "The market truly does support only free distribution"

                                                      If that were true, no one would be able to sell anything.


                                                      Quite the contrary. They just would have to sell something other than mere distribution.

                                                      Last I checked, Netflix was doing a great amount of business. Despite the fact that all of the content that they distribute can be acquired without payment.

                                                      Hell, I pay for it myself. I do that for a couple reasons: it's cheap, and it's a hell of a lot more convenient than putting up with "pirate sites." I've been a member for some years now, despite the fact that I had a couple of accounts at local movie rental stores. I even bought a DVD player so that I could stop renting VHS tapes.

                                                      This is the direction that content is going in the future - according to the free market. It's also the direction that IP-dependent industries are lobbying to make illegal, because they're "stealing" the content. At this time in history, copyright only serves to help those industries shut the upstarts down.

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

                                                      • identicon
                                                        Memyself, 12 Apr 2011 @ 12:44am

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

                                                        "Then you need to change your argument."

                                                        I believe I made that aspect clear enough early on, though the thread is pretty thick at this point.

                                                        "Not exactly. You have not prevented the artist from disseminating and reproducing the book as he or she sees fit. They can still charge whatever they like, and put whatever conditions they like on disseminating or reproducing that book. The artist has not lost any rights or abilities whatsoever."

                                                        If I create an art book, meant to be printed in newsprint only because of the way the colors are absorbed by the paper or because I believe the texture is an integral part of the artistic experience I have crafted, and you scan in that book and transform it into something else, you have usurped control over my art. You have changed it into something it wasn't meant to be.

                                                        You may not find those aspects important. They're actually not important to me at all. But I value the opinions of many people in my field that feel very passionately about these things. These are people who have been producing art for the sake of art and money be damned - for at least 25 years. What drives them is a deep passion for their work, and it's simply human nature for that passion to come with a high need for control.

                                                        "So, every single artist must re-invent the wheel, and none are allowed to use any of the knowledge from the centuries that came before them. Do you honestly think this is a good thing?"

                                                        As I already stated, there's quite a bit copyright does not cover. No one has to re-invent the wheel. They simply need to refine it.

                                                        Yes. I honestly say this is a good thing.

                                                        "If (say) perpetual copyright was allowed, and everyone who avoided parallel 5th intervals in music was required to pay a royalty to Bach's descendants, would this actually result in more (or better) works?"

                                                        One - I know nothing about music, so your terminology looked like something from a sci-fi novel to me.

                                                        Two- I've told you many times that I favor copyright reform. What I have been speaking out against is full abolishment.

                                                        Three - So no, of course I don't. I think art should be released into the public. I just think that there needs to be a limited term protecting said art from infringement.

                                                        "My point was that you are both right. Their unrestricted use is the entire purpose of copyright law, but they can't use something that isn't produced. So, the question becomes - how to we tweak the laws so that you're both happy?"

                                                        You're asking the wrong person. I've already engaged in a discussion on this thread of alterations that could be made to copyright. Most of the others I spoke to were arguing for full abolishment. In short - yeah, I'm all for compromise. Address the question to the ones that are not.

                                                        As for the last bit - I think you've completely missed what I have been saying. That if no one will buy anything then the market will correct itself and those that insist on selling rather than freely distributing will be forced to change or vanish. You seem to be just reiterating that back to me.

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

                                                        • icon
                                                          Karl (profile), 12 Apr 2011 @ 7:10am

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

                                                          I believe I made that aspect clear enough early on, though the thread is pretty thick at this point.

                                                          Possibly, but I'm not sure you're quite getting the distinction.

                                                          For most people, piracy is simply their way of saying "I'm not paying your price for that." They wouldn't pay the asking price for the content even if they couldn't get it for free.

                                                          So, in neither case does anyone make any money. The only difference is that in one scenario, the public still gets to use the content; in the other, the public does not. All else being equal, I think the latter is a better situation.

                                                          If I create an art book, meant to be printed in newsprint only because of the way the colors are absorbed by the paper or because I believe the texture is an integral part of the artistic experience I have crafted, and you scan in that book and transform it into something else, you have usurped control over my art. You have changed it into something it wasn't meant to be.

                                                          Trust me, I know many people who are the same. (To some extent, I'm one of them.) You can't be a passionate artist without worrying over details like this. For example, lots of people I know hate file sharing, not because of fans getting free stuff, but because they hate the sound of MP3's. A few (myself included) hate to see the art they've slaved over put into the same cultural basket as Lolcats.

                                                          But really, this is the type of control that an artist should not have over their work. If we were to grant artists this kind of control, fair use goes right out the window. Plus, as Nina Paley has pointed out, the value of the work ultimately comes from the public, not the artist. Both as consumers, and as re-creators.

                                                          So, no matter how much my musican friends hate the sound of MP3's, they shouldn't have the right to prevent the public from creating them. If someone wants to listen to a beautiful symphony on crappy iPod headphones, that's their business. And if someone wants to take that newsprint book and read it on their Kindle, that's their business too.

                                                          One - I know nothing about music, so your terminology looked like something from a sci-fi novel to me.

                                                          Ha, fair enough. (FYI, it's one of the rules of harmonizing voices, especially in four-part harmony - each voice is meant to be distinct, and if you allow two of them to "travel" in parallel 5ths, they aren't distinguishable enough.)

                                                          Two- I've told you many times that I favor copyright reform. What I have been speaking out against is full abolishment.

                                                          I don't happen to believe them, but there are good arguments for full abolishment. Those arguments affect reform as well.

                                                          Three - So no, of course I don't. I think art should be released into the public. I just think that there needs to be a limited term protecting said art from infringement.

                                                          Part of the debate is what "infringement" actually is. In my view, it should not include public, non-commercial use - especially since maximizing that use is the ultimate goal of copyright (in America and England at least).

                                                          You're asking the wrong person. I've already engaged in a discussion on this thread of alterations that could be made to copyright.

                                                          True, but my point is that you seem to be only taking the artists' perspective into account. Like it or not, once anyone publishes anything, its "ownership" belongs to the public and the artists, equally.

                                                          As for the last bit - I think you've completely missed what I have been saying. That if no one will buy anything then the market will correct itself and those that insist on selling rather than freely distributing will be forced to change or vanish.

                                                          Yes, but copyright prevents the market from correcting itself. Yes, the market will correct itself - but only in the long term, after the current copyrights expire, and legacy players are indeed forced to change or vanish. Until that happens, we will have all sorts of bad laws written, all kinds of people will be put in jail, and the public will be denied the fruits of innovation that would have happened otherwise.

                                                          Netflix, thankfully, appears to be safe - despite the fact that movie studios (and others) have been attacking it since its inception. Not so lucky is Hulu. I like that service too, but if things keep going the way they are, I don't think Hulu is long for this world, and it's due 100% to copyright laws and legacy industries. Similar things are happening in music streaming.

                                                          This is one reason the abolishionists have a point: no laws are better than bad laws. Right now, we have bad laws. In a sense, the current laws are only fueling the fire for full abolishment.

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

                                                          • identicon
                                                            Memyself, 12 Apr 2011 @ 12:48pm

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

                                                            "Possibly, but I'm not sure you're quite getting the distinction."

                                                            I'm not sure how your point relates to mine. I certainly think that we face a better scenario if the public has access to content than if they do not, but that is only presenting things in the most binary terms. My belief is that when a large scale customer base circumvents payment while still enjoying the work in question, they undermine the economic structure that the product rests upon which (in my belief) can lead to a diminished creative output. You say they would not have paid anyway. Maybe, maybe not.

                                                            "But really, this is the type of control that an artist should not have over their work. If we were to grant artists this kind of control, fair use goes right out the window."

                                                            Why does fair use go out the window? Legally speaking, we already have fair use while having copyright measures more stringent than either of us support.

                                                            "If someone wants to listen to a beautiful symphony on crappy iPod headphones"

                                                            Those same headphones sit less than a foot from me as I read your post, and I question what kind of monster I have become.

                                                            Anyway, I agree that the consumer base should have some freedom with work they have purchased. If you want to transform the art you purchased for your personal use - that's going to happen no matter what and I think it's fair. If you're going to then re-distribute work that you have altered... that's where I take issue. Even then my issue with this is only short term, compared to current copyright law.

                                                            "Part of the debate is what "infringement" actually is. In my view, it should not include public, non-commercial use - especially since maximizing that use is the ultimate goal of copyright (in America and England at least)."

                                                            I take issue with large scale re-distribution. That's likely a sticking point on this topic between us.

                                                            "True, but my point is that you seem to be only taking the artists' perspective into account. Like it or not, once anyone publishes anything, its "ownership" belongs to the public and the artists, equally."

                                                            Not according to current law. And how else do we measure this? Idealism?

                                                            Anyway, to a degree you are correct. My argument does favor the artists first and the consumer second. Because without the artist there is no art, and I believe the system should be oriented to helping artists monetize their work so that further works are created.

                                                            "Yes, but copyright prevents the market from correcting itself. Yes, the market will correct itself - but only in the long term, after the current copyrights expire, and legacy players are indeed forced to change or vanish."

                                                            If nobody buys the art from these legacy players, then said copyright holders will be forced to change or vanish sooner. This is something I agree with fully. I only take personal issue when people take this stance but help themselves to the art in question anyway.

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

                                                            • icon
                                                              Karl (profile), 12 Apr 2011 @ 11:58pm

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

                                                              My belief is that when a large scale customer base circumvents payment while still enjoying the work in question, they undermine the economic structure that the product rests upon which (in my belief) can lead to a diminished creative output.

                                                              My point was that diminished creative output is only half of the equation. The other half is public use of that output. If we have enormous creative output, but the public is not allowed to use it, then copyright has failed.

                                                              Why does fair use go out the window? Legally speaking, we already have fair use while having copyright measures more stringent than either of us support.

                                                              If your friends want to prevent the public from making a copy of their book for their own use, then they're going beyond what fair use currently allows. And in the abstract, allowing artists that degree of control would give them veto power over what is currently fair use. Many would like veto power over scathing parodies, or the ability to sue news organizations that show their works in an expose. (Though not a copyright case, the recent Lindsay Lohan lawsuit comes to mind.)

                                                              If you're going to then re-distribute work that you have altered... that's where I take issue.

                                                              In my opinion, it depends upon what you mean by "re-distribute." If they charge for that re-distribution? You probably have a point. But someone who turns your friend's book into something people can read on a Kindle, then distribute it non-commercially? I have an issue with making that illegal.

                                                              I take issue with large scale re-distribution.

                                                              My issue is not at all with re-distribution, nor with scale. It's with profiting off of my content without permission. You're a fan who shares a million MP3's of my music for free? Go for it. You're a guy who sells a hundred CD's of my music on a street corner? Now I have a problem.

                                                              This may seem pretty nonsensical, but the reality is that giving away something (especially when it's an infinite good) is vastly different than selling an infringing product. Sure, some of it is purely motivated by economic self-interest. A law that allows the street-corner CD-seller will also enable mega-corporations to do the same, and we both agree that this would be a terrible thing for artists, and probably for art in general; plus, counterfeit goods have a much higher "substitution rate" than mere filesharing. But another consideration is for the public: if they buy this guy's product, they are almost certainly getting ripped off.

                                                              Some on here (especially Mike and Nina) argue that both I and the public would be better off, economically and artistically, if I allowed the street-corner vendor to hawk his wares. Their arguments have merit, but at present I'm unconvinced.

                                                              Not according to current law. And how else do we measure this? Idealism?

                                                              According to the intent of copyright law, they do. More importantly, it's the only realistic viewpoint. Once you make something available to the public, they will use it as they see fit. It's natural and, frankly, unstoppable.

                                                              Anyway, to a degree you are correct. My argument does favor the artists first and the consumer second. Because without the artist there is no art, and I believe the system should be oriented to helping artists monetize their work so that further works are created.

                                                              As I said above, this is only half of the equation. The ultimate goal of copyright, remember, is to maximize the public use of art. Obviously they can't use work that is never produced, but production - in and of itself - is not the ultimate goal of copyright.

                                                              If nobody buys the art from these legacy players, then said copyright holders will be forced to change or vanish sooner. This is something I agree with fully. I only take personal issue when people take this stance but help themselves to the art in question anyway.

                                                              As I said, I don't see a problem with members of the public who won't or can't pay "helping themselves to the art" anyway. The only "bad" thing that happens is that more people have my art. I don't see that as a problem.

                                                              I do see a problem with legacy industries blaming "piracy" for what is really the market correcting itself. Losing money? Call everyone who doesn't pay you a "pirate" (like the RIAA did with terrestrial radio), have the government write bad laws that hurt everyone for decades to come, and then fail anyway. That's what's happening now.

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

                                                            • icon
                                                              Karl (profile), 13 Apr 2011 @ 12:37am

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

                                                              Those same headphones sit less than a foot from me as I read your post, and I question what kind of monster I have become.

                                                              On a completely different subject:

                                                              Once you get some scratch, you should buy yourself a pair of Grado's. I personally think the SR-80's are the best bang for the buck, but really you can't go wrong with any of them. Your ears will thank me.

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

                                                        • identicon
                                                          Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2011 @ 7:36am

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

                                                          "If (say) perpetual copyright was allowed, and everyone who avoided parallel 5th intervals in music was required to pay a royalty to Bach's descendants, would this actually result in more (or better) works?"


                                                          Strawman, false dilemma and false dichotomy.

                                                          If you're cornered into using these tactics, then you have no argument.

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

                                                          • icon
                                                            PaulT (profile), 12 Apr 2011 @ 7:58am

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

                                                            Wow, I know you hear those terms on a regular basis, but you should learn what they mean...

                                                            Strawman? He presented you with an openly hypothetical situation and asked your opinion on its implications. How is that a strawman?

                                                            False dilemma / false dichotomy (they're both the same thing)? Where did he present you with 2 choices, and pretend those were the only options? He simply presented you with a situation and asked a question with at least 3 different possible answers (yes, no and this would have had no effect).

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

                                                            • identicon
                                                              Memyself, 12 Apr 2011 @ 11:20am

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

                                                              "He simply presented you with a situation"

                                                              Just for clarification: He asked me the question and I answered (to the best of my ability). The AC who you are responding to that declared the question to be a logical fallacy was someone else.

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

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:57am

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

                                              As I have clearly indicated, morality is subjective.

                                              Yes, I know many people think that morality is "subject" to be what they want it to be. Some people belong to social groups (gangs, etc.) that define morality in terms that most benefit themselves. These people may then define murder, rape and such things as perfectly moral in their minds. Kind of like what IP supporters do with copyright.

                                              Is Disneyland restricting your rights by charging admission?

                                              Do gangsters restrict your rights by charging protection fees?

                                              If you don't need a pencil, don't buy one.

                                              But whatever you do, don't make your own! Because that would be stealing!
                                              /s

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

                                              • identicon
                                                Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 3:14am

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

                                                And going to war with Iraq. And abortion. And many other things that some cultures hold immoral and other cultures would not hold immoral. Morality is subjective. Either you can grasp this very simple fact or you cannot. I'm guessing you can't.

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

                                                • identicon
                                                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:24pm

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

                                                  And going to war with Iraq. And abortion. And many other things that some cultures hold immoral and other cultures would not hold immoral. Morality is subjective. Either you can grasp this very simple fact or you cannot. I'm guessing you can't.

                                                  The very simple fact is that to you morality is based on what you can get away with. That seems pretty easy to grasp.

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

                                                  • identicon
                                                    Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:25pm

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

                                                    I'm sorry this simple concept is beyond you.

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

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:32am

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

                                          I have already explained that your behavior is not restricted in any significant way that could be alleviated without restricting the options of the seller.

                                          The "options of the seller" to restrict your freedom, eh? That is, indeed, a significant restriction.

                                          You have the right to decline purchasing anything at any time.

                                          And you have the right to decline selling. But once you do, you should have no future control over the buyer.

                                          You are not forced to participate in anything you do not care to participate in.

                                          Now you're really piling it on. No force? Really? Why do you think it's called law "enforcement"? Because it is by FORCE. And copyright is in turn a government granted monopoly backed by FORCE.

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

                                          • identicon
                                            Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 3:06am

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

                                            "The "options of the seller" to restrict your freedom, eh? That is, indeed, a significant restriction."

                                            As I have already pointed out, that is akin to claiming that Disneyland has restricted your freedoms because they don;t let you in for free. Or that a car company has restricted your freedoms because they charge more than you want to pay.

                                            As a customer you are completely free. Free to refuse to purchase any product you do not want.

                                            "Now you're really piling it on. No force? Really? Why do you think it's called law "enforcement"? Because it is by FORCE. And copyright is in turn a government granted monopoly backed by FORCE."

                                            For fucks sake. Seriously? Try that again but spice it up with a little bit of context and reading comprehension please.

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

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:16pm

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

                                              As I have already pointed out, that is akin to claiming that Disneyland has restricted your freedoms because they don;t let you in for free.

                                              Preposterous. It's more like Disney trying to put a gag order on you for the rest of you life to keep you from saying anything they don't approve of about your experience there.

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

                                          • identicon
                                            Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:53pm

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

                                            ...and title to land in the US is a government granted monopoly backed as well by FORCE (i.e., the force of law).

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:04pm

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

                                      "What point or question directed at me have I not addressed? My inclination is to call bullshit on your accusation."

                                      We were discussing the moral aspect of copy'right' and you changed the subject by talking about the legal aspect.

                                      "I'm discussing the legal aspect. Not the moral one."

                                      Instead of addressing the points made.

                                      "Morality is a reflection of the values of society. "

                                      So first you say you're not discussing the moral aspect, and now you're discussing the moral aspect.

                                      "Laws should be based off of the benefit to society, not the perceived "moral" value."

                                      and my point is that copy'right' hurts society more than it benefits it and so we are better off abolishing it. I have given reasons for that. You haven't addressed them and you haven't provided reasons why copy'right' should remain beyond the speculation that less work might be created.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:19pm

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

                                        (and, even then, I addressed the argument that less work might be created in arguing that any extra work created as a result of such a government imposition is similar to a subsidy. The creation of such work diverts labor resources away from other sectors of the economy which harms those other sectors. It's not really the governments job to determine where labor should be directed. You haven't addressed this point either).

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

                                        • icon
                                          Kaden (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:50pm

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

                                          Given current unemployment rates, that's about the lamest talking point ever.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Memyself, 9 Apr 2011 @ 7:11pm

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

                                        "We were discussing the moral aspect of copy'right' and you changed the subject by talking about the legal aspect."

                                        Bullshit. In my very first post I addressed the moral question afterwards I expanded the subject. There's an important distinction between the two that you seem to have completely missed.

                                        "Instead of addressing the points made."

                                        Because I already addressed the moral point. Like I said, find one I have ignored.

                                        "So first you say you're not discussing the moral aspect, and now you're discussing the moral aspect."

                                        Yes. It is capable to have two concurrent but separate discussion within one thread. And I'm only discussing the morality because people like you keep demanding I address the morality. And my answer to that has been consistent since my first post. Morality is subjective. It changes according to the demands of society, so there is no reasonable way to frame this issue as a moral question.

                                        "and my point is that copy'right' hurts society more than it benefits it and so we are better off abolishing it. I have given reasons for that. You haven't addressed them and you haven't provided reasons why copy'right' should remain beyond the speculation that less work might be created.Which I believe was Mike's point.

                                        And what aspect of this have I not addressed? Your simple statement of opinion? Was there more to it than that? Be specific. I fail to see how abolishing copyright is of benefit to society. Reform? Yes. Abolishment? No.

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

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:38am

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

                                          Yes. It is capable to have two concurrent but separate discussion within one thread.

                                          And conveniently conflate them too, huh?

                                          And I'm only discussing the morality because people like you keep demanding I address the morality.

                                          The real reason you should be discussing the morality is because that was the topic of the article. Or did you not bother to read it?

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

                                          • identicon
                                            Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 3:09am

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

                                            "The real reason you should be discussing the morality is because that was the topic of the article. Or did you not bother to read it?"

                                            That's funny considering how ignorant your response to me is. I have been discussing the topic of the article from my first post onwards. The point of the article, as I understood it, is that morality has no place in these matters. I acknowledged that fact with my very first post. You claim I'm conflating topics when you don't even understand what the topic really is...

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

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:19pm

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

                                              You claim I'm conflating topics when you don't even understand what the topic really is...

                                              The topic is the place of morality in copyright, not the legality of copyright (which you keep trying to inject).

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:18am

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

                                      Ever hear of war? How about human sacrifice? How about burning people at the stake for being heretics? How about the Crusades? How about execution? Historically speaking, the killing of others has been considered a moral act on many occasions. I should not need to explain this basic fact to you.

                                      This will apparently come as a shock to you, but many people *do* actually find those things to be immoral. Maybe not you and your type, but others.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 3:02am

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

                                        It may shock you, but the point was that the cultures who practiced these things did not necessarily consider them immoral at the time. How we view things now and how much things have changed was very much the point.

                                        That's why I clearly stated "historically speaking".

                                        Maybe "your type" of person has difficulty with context?

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

                                        • identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:14pm

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

                                          That's why I clearly stated "historically speaking".

                                          "Historically speaking" there were lots of people who considered those things immoral at the time. But powerful, special interest groups often influenced things. Kind of like the IP lobby does today.

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

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:55pm

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

                                  Last I checked, you were not the arbiter on what can and cannot be discussed.

                                  He didn't claim to be, either. What's more, he can point out when you're trying to change the subject too, whether you like it or not.

                                  You have no morals outside societal conditioning. You might think otherwise. But you're wrong.

                                  Funny. That is, itself, a perfect example of a morally bankrupt argument. I've noticed that those with no morals tend to like to pretend that morals are whatever they want them to be.

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

                                  • identicon
                                    Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:55am

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

                                    "Funny. That is, itself, a perfect example of a morally bankrupt argument. I've noticed that those with no morals tend to like to pretend that morals are whatever they want them to be.

                                    Morality is fluid. You can try to turn that fact into an insult all you like. It won't be any less factual.

                                    The fact that morality is fluid is exactly why the morality argument has little place in the discussion of copyright.

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

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:04pm

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

                                      Morality is fluid. You can try to turn that fact into an insult all you like. It won't be any less factual.

                                      For you, obviously so. In fact, I suspect that, for you, morality boils down to what you can get away with.

                                      Sorry if the facts insult you. Them's the breaks.

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

                                      • identicon
                                        Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:11pm

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

                                        Morality is fluid for everyone. It is a facet of societal conditioning. Insulting me while betraying your own ignorance is just amusing. Please, continue.

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

                                  • icon
                                    Chris in Utah (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:43am

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

                                    The Heathens say it best you have your gods and we have ours.

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

                    • identicon
                      Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:41pm

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

                      Sure why not, I can copy the work done by photostands with Gimp(or Photoshop) now, should I be ashamed of it?

                      Printers killed the market for instant photo revelation should I care about those business? nope

                      Digital distribution killed CD's should I care about it? nope

                      If some people want to get paid ask for the money before to create it and have no claims after that, you know work like others have to and be done with it.
                      http://www.pledgemusic.com/

                      Maybe the future of music is in pledge systems, live gigs and merch, but I'm certain copyrights will be changed sometime in the future, because it is so abusive right now.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:45pm

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

                      Furthermore, if a creator doesn't want others copying his/her work, his/her music/movies shouldn't be broadcasted over broadcasting spectra that the government grants usage monopolies on. It displaces permissibly licensed content that others can freely copy and redistribute. Same thing goes for similarly monopolized cableco infrastructure. No government should ever grant a monopoly on both content and content distribution.

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

                • icon
                  Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:12pm

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

                  Anonymous Coward, Apr 8th, 2011 @ 9:00pm
                  You seem to be making assumptions about who I am; perhaps you should sign in so everyone can see that you are indeed who we suspect...


                  SRSLY?

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

                • identicon
                  Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:13pm

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

                  There is a post in detention right now, that tries to answer your questions.

                  Can you show us where in the article it says it is ok to take something without paying?

                  All I see is something written clarifying how we should look at copyrights, but you don't answer that and I wonder why?

                  Instead you jump to conclusions and go on a tangent trying to sense your way to try force a moral issue and when confronted goes running and trying to hide shame on you dude.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:02am

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

                  "...perhaps you should sign in so everyone can see that you are indeed who we suspect..."

                  Ditto yourself.

                  I'm talking about taking something without paying; whether its copyrighted or not is irrelevant to that question.

                  So now you're saying that even using non-copyrighted, public-domain stuff without making a "payment" to someone is somehow wrong? Wow. Just wow. What a sense of entitlement. But typical of your type.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:05am

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

                    So now you're saying that even using non-copyrighted, public-domain stuff without making a "payment"

                    No, I'm still answering replies to my original post about taking something offered for sale without paying.

                    So sad Mike, that you must twist things to to try and further your agenda.

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

                    • icon
                      The eejit (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:37am

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

                      Again, childhood is offered without payment, and children can, in theory, be sold. Therefore being a child, by your own logic, is taking something offered for sale without paying

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

                    • icon
                      Any Mouse (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 10:03am

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

                      But they aren't offering anything for sale. They're offering it for rent. Or so another in these comments keeps saying. If it were truly for sale, then there would be no issue with copying and sharing, would there?

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

                      • identicon
                        Memyself, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:17pm

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

                        Sale of the single copy. It's a sale without distribution or reproduction rights. However, the full rights are often available for sale as well. In that circumstance you're right. There is no issue with copying and sharing. Of course, the price goes up considerably.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:45am

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

                      No, I'm still answering replies to my original post about taking something offered for sale without paying.

                      So, if I offer non-copyright, public domain stuff for sale, then according to what you've said everyone who uses that stuff should pay me what I ask. Okay, I offer for sale the use of the English language. Now, pay up or shut up, hypocrite.

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 4:56pm

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

                        Is it ok to take a box of cereal that is offered for sale in a store w/o paying?

                        See how the question of copyright is irrelevant?

                        Keep twisting and avoiding the point of the original question. It's all you've got left, isn't it?

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

                    • icon
                      Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:41pm

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

                      So sad Mike, that you must twist things to to try and further your agenda

                      I've noticed that multiples times this weekend you responded to an anonymous commenter, and referred to them as me. I'm not sure why you did so. I always comment signed in with my name. I was not near my computer this weekend as I had family engagements.

                      It's really kind of childish for you to suggest that others' opinions are mine.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hate to repeat myself, but there's a simple answer that applies to all goods, not just copyrighted goods...

              One word: Scarcity.

              The underlying principal of all economics is that for every satisfied want, there is an opportunity cost- Another want which cannot be satisfied due to limitations on resources. Price is a measure of scarcity; one must sacrifice more to obtain an expensive good than a cheaper good.

              Unlike a house, car, or piece of furniture, an item of "Intellectual Property", one created and available for distribution at no extra cost to the producer, is no longer scarce, as there is nothing that must be sacrificed to obtain the good. Because no scarcity exists, and price is a measure of scarcity, such goods should be available without cost.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I see you have no answer or defense to the simple question I asked, and felt the need to change the subject.

          I see that you seem to be unable to read. The very title of the article for these comments has the word "copyright" right in it, so it seems to be you who is trying to change subjects while accusing others of the same thing. What a hypocrite, but then that's what I usually see from your type.

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

        • identicon
          Burt Fisher, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:38pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That is a good point and I was wondering why no one is talking about the merits of the original article, but instead about personal philosophies unrelated to law and copyright. Even in the original, he says "the correct policy response to these objections as such is: Cry me a fucking river; now piss off." Does anyone challenge that statement? How about my ability to quote those words... is that a copyright problem?

          I haven't read all the replies yet, but someone is bound to mention patents and trademarks, which also do not appear in the original article, and are also red herrings, a.k.a. personal philosophies.

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

          • identicon
            Ohb1knewbie, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:06pm

            Here let me do it for you...

            Trademark, copyright, and patent rights apply to the “MARKETPLACE” ! ! !

            Two hundred years ago, you could invent a new plow, patent the design, and either manufacture and sell them or license the right to do so to another. I could then buy one of your plows to use on my farm. If I were a blacksmith as well as a farmer, I could make a plow based on the one I bought and put my son to work plowing a second field while I used the “store bought” plow in my first field. Because I did not sell the plow I made and thereby did not enter the marketplace you had no legal claim over me or my actions.

            If a friend comes to my house and brings a book of poetry to read over wine after dinner, that reading is beyond the reach of copyright restrictions because it is not a public performance. If I am moved by a particular poem, my friend can pass me the book and I can use pen and paper to copy the poem. If I am very skilled and have the right type of pen and paper, I may even make a copy using elaborate calligraphy that I'll frame for my wall. Because I and my friend are not participating in the marketplace, our actions are entirely beyond the reach of copyright law and restrictions founded on copyright law have no force in that situation.

            If while I'm copying the poem, my friend asks me to pass her a Kleenex has she committed a trademark infringement because the box of tissues were manufactured by a competing company?

            If while I'm doing my calligraphy thing, my friend stands to admire the art print on the wall above the table, I may suggest that she photograph the print so she can print a smaller version for her desk in her home office. Depending on the type of printer she has, she may even be able to print a copy large enough to hang on her wall. Again, even though I do not own the copyright to the painting from which the art print was reproduced, our actions are beyond the scope and reach of copyright law because we have not entered the marketplace with any of the copies we have made.

            Now, you may argue that once my friend and I move from around my table to the internet all bets are off. But I will only yield ground to the extent that we enter the marketplace. The fact that we both have internet service from a commercial ISP is insufficient to establish that we have entered the marketplace for the same reason that my purchase of pens and paper did not render my private copying a market activity.

            This is the same reasoning that applies to the singing of the happy birthday song. Sing the song at a private party and copyright is a non-issue. But if you own a restaurant and your employees sing at a customer's table, then you had better make up your own song or be prepared to hear from one of the music licensing agencies. Again, the difference is actions in the marketplace and actions outside of the marketplace.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 9:57pm

              Re: Here let me do it for you...

              Your mistaken understanding of many provisions of law notwithstanding, you do put your finger on a critical matter. No rights holder I have ever dealt with or represented has ever pursued an action for what is clearly de minimis infringement, simply because it has a virtually nil impact on the rights holder's financial bottom line.

              Screw around with their bottom line, however, and you stop flying under their radar.

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

              • identicon
                Ohb1knewbie, 12 Apr 2011 @ 4:13pm

                Re: Re: Here let me do it for you...

                As IANAL, I will readily admit that my opinions and understanding of the law tend to be overly clouded by common sense. And I am being earnest here, please specify my “mistaken understanding of many provisions of law”.

                In the various situations that I described, what law is broken by the actions described? Am I mistaken in thinking that private acts not involving active participation in the marketplace have historically been beyond the purview of copyright/patent law and that the inclusion of such acts as legally actionable violations of the law is a relatively new application of the law?

                Comparing today's digital file sharing with the copying of vinyl records onto cassette tapes of the late '70s and early '80s – have the laws changed or is it only the application of the law that has increased in situations which were in the past overlooked as not worth the effort to pursue?

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

    • identicon
      Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:28pm

      Re:

      Copyright can also be used to create monopolies for other industries like ink cartridges, Sony, Microsoft and other have been trying real hard to do recently.

      There could be a time where you washing machine would not accept "unauthorized" detergent brands, or it could tweet to the police if an unauthorized technician tried to open it.

      Those things the crazy defenders of copyright never address and I wonder why.

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

    • icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 8:50pm

      Re:

      Here is a lady who is claiming ownership of the sun. She is offering the use of it for sale. Morally, she has as much right to be paid as anyone who is selling "intellectual property". Legally she is in a bit of a bind, but morally, she stands on the same non-existent ground.

      Just because you offer something for sale doesn't mean anyone has to pay you for it. Now if someone takes it away from you without paying for it, that's theft and we consider that to be wrong, both legally and morally. However, if someone acquires what you have without taking it away from you and still doesn't pay for it, that's not theft and there is nothing morally wrong with that. Due to copyright laws, there may be legal consequences, but there is nothing morally wrong with it.

      Can you refute that?

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

    • identicon
      Nicedoggy, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:09pm

      Re:

      What people don't expect is to be harassed and persecuted for something they already paid and accused of theft for not paying more because some crazy person feels entitled for more money.

      That you never address and I wonder why.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:03am

        Re: Re:

        No one is harassing anyone for something they purchased. They are harassing people that break the license that came with that purchase or the people that don't pay anything at all, yet still feel entitled to consume.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "or the people that don't pay anything at all, yet still feel entitled to consume."

          No one is entitled to a monopoly on anything.

          I'm not entitled to the air I breath. It's my right to breath it. It's my right to copy as I please.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 2:41am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            It's my right to copy as I please.

            Says who?

            I like this idea of making up rules that work for yourself without consideration of anyone else.

            I've made up a new one too: I have the right to come over every morning and repeatedly kick you in the balls.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 2:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Says who?"

              The founding fathers for one. But that's irrelevant. No person said it, it's the fact that I can do it without government that makes it a natural right.

              "I like this idea of making up rules that work for yourself without consideration of anyone else."

              Copy'right' is a rule that works for IP maximists and with little consideration for others. IP abolition isn't a rule that works for me without consideration for someone else, it's the lack of a rule. I'm not making up rules that work for me without consideration of anyone else, you are, and I am saying that these made up rules shouldn't exist.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:23am

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

                The founding fathers for one.

                The founding fathers said nothing of the sort.

                This is easily the best thread in TD history. I set that shizz up on a tee, and you freetards hit it out of the park.

                Stoked that Victoria Espinel supposedly reads this site...

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:33am

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

                  "The founding fathers said nothing of the sort."

                  I suspect you have been around techdirt long enough to know better and you are simply being disingenuous here.

                  See

                  http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ide as/

                  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml

                  http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jeffe rson/

                  and there are other quotes with the same type of language from them. The founding fathers were very skeptical of these laws and they did not consider them to be natural rights. They considered their absence to be the normal state of nature and thought that they should exist only to the extent that they promote the progress.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:36am

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

                    (and not only can I and others provide several quotes supporting our position that the founding fathers didn't believe copy'right' to be a natural right, notice how IP maximists will fail to provide a single quote supporting their position).

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:01am

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

                      I see language from Thomas Jefferson about 'ideas'; iow, he probably had issues with what we now know as patent law.

                      I see nothing about the "founding fathers" saying people have a "right to copy"; taking an artistic work that is for sale without paying for it.

                      The fact that you guys have to stretch and spin this hard says everything.

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

                      • icon
                        Liam (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:21am

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

                        If this was a simple debate then the pro-copyright side wouldn't need to streth, spin and down right make up their facts and numbers.

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:11am

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

                        If the founding fathers believed that copy'right' is a natural right, why is their purpose of existence to promote the progress? The logical conclusion is that they believed that its purpose is to promote the progress, not to fulfill some natural right that you think you have, because they believed that you have no such natural rights.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:26am

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

                          (and if the founding fathers believed such a natural right exists, why did the founding fathers not require it to be granted. Instead, they only give congress permission to grant it to promote the progress, they do not require congress to grant it. Perhaps they make no such requirement because they believe that no such requirement should exist. It makes sense that they believe that no such requirement should exist because they do not believe copy'right' is a natural right.

                          The context of patents and copy'right' were often discussed together and they were written together. The same general attitude about ideas that apply patents can reasonably apply to their concept of copy'right' as well. Heck, Jefferson didn't even really believe anyone had a natural right to his house or land.

                          "It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance."

                          How much more do you think that applies to ideas and books (read what he wrote). No one is entitled to a monopoly on anything and its everyone's natural right to copy as they please. These laws exist for one reason and one reason alone, to promote the progress, not to enforce a right that artists don't have.

                          "By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common"

                          It's everyone's natural right to copy whatever they please as they please. The founding fathers believed this. Just like its everyone's natural right to use any piece of land that as they please, the same thing applies to ideas and expressions, even moreso. That's why the constitution allows their existence only for the purpose of promoting the progress, not for the purpose of protecting some 'right' that artists allegedly have. They believed no such right existed. Provide me quotes that suggest otherwise.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:34am

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

                  Stoked that Victoria Espinel supposedly reads this site

                  Really? If she reads the comments, it's likely this site has set back the anti-IP crowd back decades further than the most effective RIAA/MPAA lobbyist could ever have dreamed.

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

                • identicon
                  Nicedoggy, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:45am

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

                  I'm also stocked, I hope she gets more stringent laws in place soon, because that would be a boom for legal free alternatives, that will welcome the refuges from the villain copyrights that we possess today and reflect in no way the moderation that men of virtue should pursue.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:32am

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

                  I set that shizz up on a tee, and you freetards hit it out of the park.

                  In case you hadn't noticed, the shizz getting hit out of the park are your balls.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I have the right to come over every morning and repeatedly kick you in the balls.

              See? I knew you were from the copyright industry.

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

            • icon
              Richard (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 1:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It's my right to copy as I please.

              Says who?


              It is just the obvious default position. On the contrary, people like you made up the rules that say you can't.


              I like this idea of making up rules that work for yourself without consideration of anyone else.


              As I said, people like you like making up rules to impose on others.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:09pm

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

                As I said, people like you like making up rules to impose on others.

                Bzzt. Wrong. If you don't like the terms, you are free to walk away. Nothing is imposed on you whatsoever. This was pointed out in the very first post. Try to keep up.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:16pm

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

                  You're using the government to force me to avoid copying something without complying with your terms. That's an imposition.

                  Your argument is similar to saying that the Chinese government restricting free speech isn't an imposition because it doesn't force people to express their free speech. No, it's still an imposition. The government is imposing its will that people can't express their free speech on others.

                  The government is imposing its will that I can't copy whatever I please without complying with your terms.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:21pm

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

                    You're using the government to force me to avoid copying something without complying with your terms. That's an imposition.

                    You're using the government to force me to avoid repeatedly kicking you in the balls without complying with your terms. That's an imposition.

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:31pm

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

                      and it's an imposition I agree with. Copy'right' is one that I don't agree with. Just because some impositions are desirable doesn't make all impositions desirable. I don't have to agree with every possible imposition that the government can come up with just to agree with some.

                      I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water. But, by your logic, just because I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water, now I must disagree with them preventing you from punching me in the face. No, that's nonsense. I do not have to agree with every possible imposition just to agree with some.

                      but I do think that I have a much better chance of getting many people to agree with my position of copy'right' abolition than you have of getting others to agree with your position that the government lets you kick others for no reason. If you want the imposition that restricts you from kicking me abolished, go vote. I vote it stays, I vote copy'right' goes. If enough people agree with you, maybe you can have your way. If they agree with me, maybe I can have my way. It's called democracy.

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 5:50pm

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

                        and it's an imposition I agree with. Copy'right' is one that I don't agree with. Just because some impositions are desirable doesn't make all impositions desirable. I don't have to agree with every possible imposition that the government can come up with just to agree with some.

                        I agree with copyright. Not being able to kick you in the balls is an imposition that I don't agree with. Just because some impositions are desirable doesn't make all impositions desirable. I don't have to agree with every possible imposition that the government can come up with just to agree with some.

                        I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water. But, by your logic, just because I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water, now I must disagree with them preventing you from punching me in the face. No, that's nonsense. I do not have to agree with every possible imposition just to agree with some.

                        I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water. But, by your logic, just because I disagree with the government preventing me from drinking water, now I must disagree with them preventing you from copying music without the creator's permission. No, that's nonsense. I do not have to agree with every possible imposition just to agree with some.

                        but I do think that I have a much better chance of getting many people to agree with my position of copy'right' abolition than you have of getting others to agree with your position that the government lets you kick others for no reason. If you want the imposition that restricts you from kicking me abolished, go vote. I vote it stays, I vote copy'right' goes. If enough people agree with you, maybe you can have your way. If they agree with me, maybe I can have my way. It's called democracy.

                        but I do think that I have a much better chance of getting many people to agree with my position of being able to kick you in the balls than you have of getting others to agree with your position that the government should abolish copyright. If you want the imposition that copyright is to you to be abolished, go vote. I vote it stays, I vote not being able to kick you in the balls goes. If enough people agree with you, maybe you can have your way. If they agree with me, maybe I can have my way. It's called democracy.

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

        • identicon
          Nicedoggy, 9 Apr 2011 @ 2:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          A license forced onto them, not agreed upon, not accepted by the two parties as a valid deal, not what people expected, thus not very compelling to be respected, more likely people will find a way around it that is legal until then piracy will reign supreme and we all know you can't do anything about it.

          That is why you get so upset, if it helps I don't pirate anything, I get my software from open source, my music from Jamendo, my video needs from Miro which allows me to search for specific licenses like CC Commons and books from Librivox.

          Well, I did copy all my DVD's to my NAS so technically I'm a pirate because it is against the law, but I'm not going to fallow that inside my own home with things that I have already paid for, no matter what the law says.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          They are harassing people that break the license ...

          Heh, you couldn't make the moral argument stick, so now you're falling back on the legal argument. Legal doesn't mean moral.

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

        • icon
          Rose M. Welch (profile), 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          They are harassing people that break the license that came with that purchase...

          License with purchase? Either you licensed it's use or you purchased it, not both. Those terms are mutually exclusive.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:29pm

      Re:

      "I think people simply expect that if they offer something for sale, that if people want it to consume it, they have to pay for it."

      People expect that if you don't want to allow others to copy your work, no one is forcing you to distribute it, but don't expect others or a government to enforce a monopoly for you if you choose to distribute it. Monopolies cost time and money to enforce, others have to spend the time and effort to determine what is and what isn't infringement and that time and effort is worth money you aren't entitled to the benefits of the time and effort spent to enforce your monopoly.

      "This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why."

      No, it is addressed. If you don't want others to copy something you said or distributed, simply don't say it and don't distribute it. No one is forcing you to. But don't expect others to let you monopolize something that you choose to distribute. That's the moral of the story. Copy'right' isn't about making sure that people get paid, the founding fathers didn't intend for it to be. The founding fathers recognize that no one is entitled to a (free or non-free) monopoly. It's about promoting the progress.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:10am

        Re: Re:

        Monopolies cost time and money to enforce

        Quality content costs time and money to create.

        If you don't want to pay me for my work, then don't avail yourself to my labor. That's a simple contract that society follows, in case you haven't noticed.

        And you obviously value it a great deal, as you are so addicted to it that you must obtain it illegally.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Quality content costs time and money to create. "

          So?

          "If you don't want to pay me for my work, then don't avail yourself to my labor."

          A: Don't tell me what to do. If you don't like me copying your work then find another job.

          B: If you don't want me to have your content without paying then I won't consume your content period and you won't get paid. I'll respect your wishes, and so would many others, but I do not want the law to enforce your specific wishes.

          "And you obviously value it a great deal, as you are so addicted to it that you must obtain it illegally."

          I do not obtain it illegally. I do follow the law.

          "That's a simple contract that society follows"

          I never agreed to this contract and I want it abolished.

          "in case you haven't noticed."

          I think most of society doesn't follow it and hasn't followed it in the past. Ie: see China. It's an imposition that the government wrongfully imposes on us, it's not a contract that I ever agreed to.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Since you never agreed to many things, do you pay taxes? Do you drive on public roads? Do you have automobile insurance? Do you sneak through airports to get around security?

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

            • icon
              The eejit (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No, yea, no, and yes. Simple, eh? Not been caught once. :p

              Oh, wait, you were serious.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I agree to pay taxes. I agree to drive on public roads. I agree to have automobile insurance. I agree not to sneak around security. Though I disagree with some of our current TSA security measures, I'll follow them if I have to. But I'll also seek to have them changed. Just because I disagree with a law doesn't mean I'll break it. I even avoid breaking copy'right' law, even though I don't agree with it. But my disagreement with it causes me to try and change such laws. It's not a contract I ever agreed to.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 2:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Don't tell me what to do. If you don't like me copying your work then find another job.

            Don't tell me what to do. If you don't want to pay for someone's labor but still want the end result...

            Do it yourself.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 2:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Don't tell me what to do."

              no one is telling you what to do. If you don't want to find another job ... I guess we have a welfare program for you. You don't have to find another job.

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

            • identicon
              Nicedoggy, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I believe the labels are feeling the results of that line of thinking rather dramatically by now are they not?

              Meanwhile others are growing and having a blast on the market, have you visit Jamendo?

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

        • identicon
          Nicedoggy, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't think you have paid attention to the last decades, because not even you could have uphold those laws and if you tell me you never pirated anything I will know you are just a liar.

          Mix tapes, VCR, Walkmans, Discmans, MP3 players, digital readers, photocopiers and so forth, at some point you violated the laws you don't want other to break now.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Quality content costs time and money to create.

          Copyright applies automatically. There is no "time and money" test applied to qualify for copyright. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of "quality" content produced for little time and money, and plenty of crap produced with lots of time and money. So your time and money = quality thesis is just another example of more copyright bunk.

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

        • icon
          RadialSkid (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you don't want to pay me for my work, then don't avail yourself to my labor.

          No danger of that. Although if you don't want anyone to view or listen to content you create, you should probably considering not publishing it in the first place.

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

    • icon
      Any Mouse (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 9:36pm

      Re:

      I think, perhaps, you should come down off your moral high horse and stop asking loaded questions, then acting all superior and changing what your saying when someone responds to it. All this post of your's was is troll bait. Now, get back on topic.

      No, I didn't address your question, because it's a dishonest question.

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

    • identicon
      Bleh, 8 Apr 2011 @ 11:30pm

      Re:

      You're apparently not familiar with the nature of capitalism. It's all about getting something that you didn't fully pay for. Buy low, sell high. Pay the cheapest possible wages for labor, cut costs where you can like quality and safety, charge as much as you possibly can regardless of consideration for anything but profit, and hide as much of it as you can from the government because, by god, you earned that profit!

      As soon as the wealthy start paying back to society the wealth they have extracted at the expense of the rest of society, they and their advocates will have to forgive my inability to pretend that they have any moral high ground from which they can preach about thinking you're entitled to benefit from someone else's labor.

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

      • icon
        blaktron (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:33am

        Re: Re:

        Can I double vote insightful for this? This is the absolute core of the entire debate. Capitalism ALWAYS rewards the person who takes everything they want and need at the absolute lowest cost. In fact the entire thrust of our technological march forward is to make EVERYTHING cost less, towards zero. This has been the result of millions of job losses and the export of the entire manufacturing industry overseas. So if its OK for the legal fictions that own these copyrights to do this, why is it wrong for me to do this? All I'm doing when I copy a file 'illegally' is maximizing my profits and minimizing my costs.

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

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:24am

      Re:

      I agree.
      If something is offered for sale than it is up to the consumer/market to either accept that offer, negotiate a better one, or refuse it.

      That is basic common sense and I don't see anyone saying different here.

      Though having sold the item in question after the acceptance was done by the purchaser what copyright is then allowing the offerer to do is change the terms of that offer after acceptance has occurred.

      Say I you bought an item 50yrs ago. At that time you were under the absolute knowledge that in 50yrs time or so that item would be out of copyright and you could then do WHATEVER you wanted with it.

      40yrs later all of a sudden the offerer goes running to the government sobbing and creating FUD screaming that they require more money from things they had already sold. THE DESERVE IT. They are struggling artists/publishers/fraudsters/whatever and they cannot survive and neither can their silver spoon fed offspring without the terms of the ORIGINAL SALE being changed retrospectively.

      So, I am now left with an item that is valueless to me under one of the the original conditions of why I purchased it in the beginning.

      But hey lets not talk about forfeiture of contract, unconscionable behaviour, estoppel, fraud, etc because its all about copyright.. its different.. *eye roll*

      Think of the artists and what they deserve.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:31am

        Re: Re:

        Retroactive copyright extension is the anti-IP crowd's titanic red herring. The actual practical effect of this in your personal life is what? If we got rid of it, would you shut up? Seriously, you can have the Wizard of Oz and the shitty-looking version of Mickey Mouse if you do.

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

        • icon
          G Thompson (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:57am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's not a red herring, in fact its an absolute breach of contract law.

          You know that actual base precedent law that has been around since before the USA was a republic and is the foundation of all transactions in commerce everywhere in the world nowadays.

          Contracts cannot be retrospectively changed without full consent of all parties to the contract.

          Contracts of Sale on the other hand cannot be changed at all since once the sale has been finalised the contract has been completed and therefore NO variation on terms of that contract can be changed by any party since there is no longer an actual contract. Though there is a contractual agreement and caveat on the ORIGINAL INSTANCE of sale

          If copyright law had been extended with the priviso that it will only affect copyrightable items that had been created AFTER the extension had been passed into law then we wouldn't be having this major problem we currently do.

          But alas, artists need to feed their families for stuff they did when they were alive or decades before, that had already been sold for some sort of value. They deserve it.. whereas if I did the exact same thing to artists and retrospectively had the law changed that the original sale of their item was now TAXED differently and that either they or their extate had to pay it NOW all hell would break loose..

          Tell me, what is the difference between my proposal to retrospectively Tax the original sale, and what artists (and their agents) currently have allowed to happen? Since one could equate retrospective copyright extension as a ' private tax/fee'

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yes, as I said, we will give you the retroactive copyright extension. You win. Please make all the Judy Garland/Glinda/Crazy-looking Mickey/Munchkin porno that you want. The question is, will you shut up after that?

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

            • icon
              RadialSkid (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The question is, will you shut up after that?

              Sadly for you, it wouldn't be that easy. A step in the right direction is still only one step.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:13pm

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

                ] The question is, will you shut up after that?

                Sadly for you, it wouldn't be that easy. A step in the right direction is still only one step.


                As I suspected, retroactive copyright extension is indeed a red herring for you. It's your Sudetenland. It's what you use to distract people from your full but hidden agenda.

                Color me unsurprised.

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

                • icon
                  RadialSkid (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:53pm

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

                  There is nothing hidden about my agenda. I have always been upfront in my beliefs about the radical scaling back - if not elimination - of copyright.

                  Then again, you copywhiners frequently behave as if you're only talking to one person, so I'll forgive you if you're confusing me for someone else.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:19am

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

                    He's pointing out how delusional freetards are for thinking anyone is buying the bs that it's long term copyright that they're really upset about.

                    Everybody knows you're addicted to content, resent that you are and that you have to rip people off to feed your addiction like an alley crack bum.

                    You also resent the fact that creators live a much more exciting life than you could ever dream of having. You're all very sad, pathetic creatures.

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

          • icon
            G Thompson (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I just noticed, serves me right from reading TD chronologically in reverse [ Take that chinese time machine haters ;)] But there is a story down below this one that actually is talking about retrospective copyright ad why it is wrong and that Denmark is now doing it *sigh*

            Just wanted to point out that my comments above were not in response to ahveing read that article but are actually dealing with basic moral, ethical, and LEGAl reasonings on contract law and SALE of goods.

            Also it must be noted that this does NOT apply to licensed items of copyright since retrospective action can occur since the contract was NOT a contract of sale. Licensing is a whole new quandary

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

    • icon
      Nick Coghlan (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 4:14am

      Re:

      Paid any money to Isaac Newton's estate lately? How about Albert Einstein's?

      I guess we can count ourselves fortunate that not everyone thinks the way you do.

      Still, you're missing the point that Mike has said many, many times that he agrees with you: if a copyright holder chooses not to make their works available the way you want to consume them, then the correct legal choice under the current system is to walk away.

      The reason many people don't walk away, and go for an illegal copy instead, is that they figure they're using their own resources (power, bandwidth, time) to create a new copy, rather than taking anything from anyone. Is someone taking a photo of the Eiffel Tower stealing it? Enjoying benefits they aren't entitled to? That's the kind of point of view you're railing against here.

      And that brings us to another point Mike regularly brings up: it doesn't have to be this way. Many artists have shown that you can give fans what they want (convenient access to your work) and still make a decent living. Probably not the obscene mega-profits of the winners of the current hit-based lottery systems, but certainly enough to sustain a comfortable middle-class lifestyle for the artist and their family.

      One way adds a lot of net misery to the human condition (artists stressing about people "stealing" their work, fans struggling to get their hands on the products of their favourite artists, law enforcement barging in on adolescents and grandmothers). The other way... doesn't. We can do better. We should do better.

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

      • icon
        Nick Coghlan (profile), 13 Apr 2011 @ 8:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Random thought:

        In the context of current intellectual property laws and the associated public debate, discuss the following proposition: "Tourists taking their own photos of the Eiffel Tower are stealing from local professional photographers and postcard vendors."

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

    • icon
      harbingerofdoom (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:22am

      Re:

      nice dodge.
      not even close to what the article was talking about... but kudos for the attempt and oh by the way, your post pretty much just proved one of the points of the article.


      as to your post itself:
      you can think all you want that if someone creates something and offers it for sale that it must be paid for.
      but dont think the world owes you a living just because you created something.

      your last sentence can only mean one of three things
      1. you dont actually read everything here
      2. you are stupid
      3. you are intentionally being misleading
      your moral crusade is addressed here all the time.

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

    • icon
      aiming4thevoid (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 6:58am

      Re:

      I usually hate analogies but maybe this will help:

      If you put your couch up for sale, and I want to buy it, AND we agree on the value of it, you get paid I get the couch.

      If I want to consume your ideas because I value them, I buy you a beer and become your friend. Then I have access to all your ideas for free. (yes, it reductive and cynical, but it will serve for the purpose)

      Added value only exist in the second case as the collision of our ideas can and usually ends up creating something that is greater that the some of its parts. This is what copyright keeps from happening and why its limitations can only be 'balanced' against the loss for society has a whole.

      Now if you want to sell your ideas, you have to prove first that they are worth buying... like everyone else. You don't deserve to get paid just cause you decided your ideas are worth something.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re:

        If you put your couch up for sale, and I want to buy it, AND we agree on the value of it, you get paid I get the couch.

        But if I put my couch up for sale, and you want to buy it, BUT you don't agree on the value, I don't get paid and you still get the couch?

        Bzzt.

        That's not how it works and you know it.

        The only difference is you can take the "couch" (media) without paying and without fear of being charged by law enforcement.

        Problem needs a solution.

        Law enforcement must be able to somehow protect the "couch" owner.

        And that is indeed what law enforcement is finally doing.

        Which makes Mike Masnick and the rest of the freetards here very angry.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "But if I put my couch up for sale, and you want to buy it, BUT you don't agree on the value, I don't get paid and you still get the couch?"

          The day that I can freely make copies of your couch is the day that your argument makes sense. The difference in this analogy is that, just because I get the couch doesn't mean you lose the couch. You still have it. I just made a copy. Sure, I get the value of the couch, but you get the value of the air you breath and you're not paying me for it. So what?

          "The only difference is you can take the "couch" (media) without paying and without fear of being charged by law enforcement."

          No one is taking the couch, we're just making copies.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "That's not how it works and you know it."

            Only because taking the couch deprives you of it. But making a copy of it does not.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "But if I put my couch up for sale, and you want to buy it, BUT you don't agree on the value, I don't get paid and you still get the couch?"

          I'm selling you the air that you're breathing. You don't agree on the price, you want to pay nothing, but I'm still not getting paid and you're still getting the air that you're breathing. Now pay me.

          Just because someone isn't getting paid for something doesn't mean that they can morally deprive someone else of it. You have no moral basis of depriving me of a copy of that couch. So what if you don't get paid, I'm not getting paid for the air that you breath.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          But if I put my couch up for sale, and you want to buy it, BUT you don't agree on the value, I don't get paid and you still get the couch?

          No,you get to keep your stinky old couch and I can go build my own copy if I want to.

          That's not how it works and you know it.

          That's exactly how it works (although you may wish I *didn't* know it).

          Law enforcement must be able to somehow protect the "couch" owner.

          From the couch copier? Sounds kind of corrupt to me.

          And that is indeed what law enforcement is finally doing.

          What a shame.

          Which makes Mike Masnick and the rest of the freetards here very angry.

          And the IP-tards very happy.

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

    • icon
      Ken (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 7:28am

      Re:

      It is interesting how some argue that we have copyrights because artists DESERVE to be paid for their work. That is nonsense. Is copyright some kind of entitlement program for artists?

      No one in a business venture deserves anything. They must work to build a market for their creations. A market has two components supply and demand. Demand also has two components and that is how many people want the product and at what price they are willing to pay. For example if there is a high demand for your product but your price is very high then even though there is a high demand the actual market will be very low because only a few will be willing to pay that price.

      The Internet has created a dilemma in normal market forces of supply and demand. Normally in a real market when something is scarce it adds value to it especially when there is a large demand however the internet has made supply equal to demand, there will always be a download for every person that wants it. There is no scarcity which is always going to lower prices and will even tend to zero if that is where the market sets it.

      Copyrighters decry piracy but piracy is in fact a market unto itself. This market is actually separate from the copyrighter's market. Copyrighters claim they are losing billions to unauthorized copying but are they really? I would suggest no, because their market and the pirate market, for the most part, are separate and have very little overlap. People who buy or take bootlegs will not buy the legitimate item even if the bootleg was not available. On the flip side those that are willing to pay the asking price for the product are not the ones buying bootlegs. So even if the movie or music or software or what ever industry was to completely stomp out all illegal forms of distribution they will not see a significant increase in their revenues because the market for the bootleg items was never theirs and never will be.

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

    • icon
      Karl (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 7:41am

      Re:

      But don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for.

      This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why.


      Funny you claim this, because it was addressed, point blank, in the article:
      We are all the massive beneficiaries of millennia of accumulated human scientific knowledge and cultural output, and not one of us did anything do deserve a jot of it. We're all just extremely lucky not to have been born cavemen. The greatest creative genius alive would be hard pressed to create a smiley faced smeared in dung on a tree trunk without that huge and completely undeserved inheritance.

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

    • icon
      Trails (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 8:54am

      Re:

      Because it's outside of the scope of copyright.

      As well, your strawman is ridiculously oversimplified, and glosses over the issues. Typically many people pirate because they want consume something in a fashion other than it is offered.

      Consider movies. I don't want to shell out $20 bucks a ticket, find a sitter, schlepp to and from the theater, line up for an hour to get decent seats, get gouged at the concession stand, and sit in a smelly, poorly maintained theater with some idiot who brought their crying baby, while some other asshole tries to take pictures of the screen with their flash on (I've had this happen, took the theater an hour to do anything about it) in order to see a movie, when I can watch it in my home.

      Consider the success of netflix despite widespread availability of exactly the same material over bittorrent.

      The arrogance of trying to control how people consume what you sell is the fallacy. Further, with anything digital which can be downloaded, it's downright stupid.

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

    • identicon
      hxa7241, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:34am

      Re:

      You are confusing the morality of following a law with the morality of the law itself. You are also confusing ownership and transaction of ordinary physical property with those of abstract objects.

      The basic logical/physical fact is that abstract objects are infinitely reproducible. So a law or rule that constrains transactions to only symmetrical pay-for-copy is necessarily restricting what would otherwise be available.

      Why restrict a beneficial abundance, where there is no essential need? Any rule that does that really ought to seem immediately suspect morally. And for any 'natural rights' position it seems impossible that it can ever give a satisfactory answer.

      The response that pay-for-copy pays for production fails, because there is nothing *essential* in that arrangement. Logically, the copies depend on production, not the reverse; and it is quite possible for production to be paid for in other ways. So pay-for-copy is neither forced by necessity, nor provides something otherwise unavailable that would compensate for loss of use of copy abundance.

      The response that pay-for-copy benefits the 'owner' fails, because it is not a *universalised* justification. A moral rule is one that makes sense for all. It is justified not simply by its gain for an individual, but as something that works for everyone. Since pay-the-'owner'-for-copy restricts access to the abundance of copies, but only to the benefit of an individual, or in aggregate to no net benefit, it is not persuasive morally.

      The only reasonable argument for pay-for-copy is the orthodox economic one of supporting and sustaining a market. This is a pragmatic moral argument: one that is a matter of evidence and practicality (neither of which currently stands up well) -- so if you want to argue for copy-restriction, you need to set to work there.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:39am

      Re:

      I think people simply expect that if they offer something for sale, that if people want it to consume it, they have to pay for it.

      Oh goody, because I offer licenses for sale to people allowing them to breath the air on planet Earth.

      "But don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for."

      Really? How much did you pay for the benefit of posting your comment here? Are you breathing the air? Have you bought one of my licenses?

      This is a simple and moral concept that I never see addressed here. I wonder why.

      Perhaps you have reading problems, because it's been "addressed" here many, many times. Now you know.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 9:51am

        Re: Re:

        Oh goody, because I offer licenses for sale to people allowing them to breath the air on planet Earth.

        So people should be allowed to pollute as much air as they want without paying for it?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Anti pollution laws also exist (or should exist) to serve the public good. They're not exempt from that requirement. Neither is copy'right'. It shouldn't exist because someone has a natural right to it, we do not, it should exist to serve the public good.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:26pm

        Re: Re:

        If you have the right to that license, I'll be happy to pay.

        I can prove that I have the right to my license, the one for music.

        Can you prove that you have the right to your license for the sun?

        Try again.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Again, we're confusing a legal right with a moral right. We're not discussing whether or not you have a legal right, we're discussing whether or not you ought to have such a legal right.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you have the right to that license, I'll be happy to pay.

          Since the discussion is about moral rights, I have every bit as much right to that license and anyone does to any IP license, which you have been supporting. Now pay up, freetard!

          Oh, wait, you're not a freetard. You're a hypocrite. I guess you won't pay then.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:50pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I can prove that I have the right to my license, the one for music.

          The moral right? Go ahead, prove it.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 2:22am

        Re: Re:

        Please post the address of the person that created the sun and air. While he didn't ask for payment up front, I'm happy to donate.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 11:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Please post the address of the person that created the sun and air. While he didn't ask for payment up front, I'm happy to donate.

          You don't usually pay the creators directly, you pay their representative and assignees. There are plenty of churches out there willing to take your money. If you can't find one, let me know and I'll start one for you.

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

    • identicon
      bigpicture, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:01am

      Re: Genius

      Well genius, if I only I had a copyright on air I would make you pay plenty for it, and see if you are of the same opinion about free/pay. If only I could somehow monopolize your water supply because the government granted me special privileges, I could make you thirsty. You seem to think that somehow creativity comes from individuals and not from education, culture and society in general. That in the larger picture creativity belongs to society in general, because it was society in general that took it to that point.

      What if Michael Angelo had been raised by monkeys?

      Red Hat is now only after a short time a Billion dollar company. You can download their product for free and legally off the internet. So how do they make their money, you figure that out genius.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 10:15am

        Re: Re: Genius

        Red Hat makes a lot of that money because companies are insecure. People will claim it's for "support" but really it's more like the illusion of support. Have you ever called tech support for an issue? How much would you realistically pay for that level of "support?" Companies will pay a lot more so their IT departments can have someone else to blame if things go wrong, because it is in their interest to hide the truth.

        Many companies are realizing this and switching to CentOS instead, which is the free version of RHEL. RHEL is already purposefully behind the curve and CentOS is now lagging the latest RHEL release by five months. So can you really get RHEL for free? No, you can't. They use trademark law to make it painful for people to get their actual, real product for free.

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

        • identicon
          bigpicture, 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:34am

          Re: Re: Re: Genius

          I think you are missing the point here, the discussion is about copyright and free downloading. Irrespective of what you think about the particular company, the point being made is that copyright is not required to maintain a viable business.

          Hey I work for the largest company in the world, and they have an IT department too, a Microsoft house if you will. And you really don't want to know what I and all those that work with me think about that. It seems that they have outsourced to Disney Land when they should have outsourced to Google. A corporate service level should not "Waaaay" be lower than what I get at home for free.

          Maybe you should read the book "Idea Man" by Paul Allen and his experiences with Bill Gates the shark champion of monopolies, patents and copyright. I have a copy of Bill's original letter to the hobbyists if you want to see it.

          But again the point, "copyright is not required to run a viable business" there are many others whose product can be downloaded by the user for free. Canonical, Google, Yahoo etc. etc. come to mind, but I suppose you will have some problem with them too.

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

        • identicon
          Nicedoggy, 9 Apr 2011 @ 11:51am

          Re: Re: Re: Genius

          Don't be stupid the GPL grants you the right to get RHEL for free if somebody gives it to you, so it is free so free that CentOS can be done and nobody complains about it, but if it was you, you would be like "OMG those thieves, they are robbing me" on the other hand the open source community look at it and say "Cool!".

          About support, yah, yah, yah is all about fear right?
          Not because people need something they can use and don't have the money to expend on other solutions and the proof that it makes money despite being free is that RHEL is almost a billion dollar company already.

          Also there Oracle Linux(from Oracle LoL WTF), Scientific Linux(from Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory), Yellow Dog Linux, ClearOS and others is that free or what?

          I just believe you are an idiot.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius

            You cannot take an unlicensed copy of RHEL from a friend and install it. Trademark law prevents you from doing so. The GPL gives you no rights here. Stop lying.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:31pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius

              You cannot take an unlicensed copy of RHEL from a friend and install it. Trademark law prevents you from doing so.

              Huh?

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

            • identicon
              Nicedoggy, 9 Apr 2011 @ 1:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius

              I was being a douche calling you an idiot, but now I just want to state the obvious, you are an idiot.

              Quote:
              If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

              No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.


              I could even become an unauthorized reseller if I wanted too.

              Quote:
              Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

              Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)


              http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
              Now please shows us all were in the law says I can't do that.
              Because you know without the specific law, you are telling stories about unicorns LoL

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2011 @ 2:06pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius

                I was being a douche calling you an idiot, but now I just want to state the obvious, you are an idiot.

                Why am I an idiot when you're the one that's clearly wrong?

                Read the following very carefully. If it doesn't make sense, read it again. If it still doesn't make sense, ask a smarter friend to explain it to you.

                RedHat has done an "end-run" of sorts around the GPL by incorporating their trademarks throughout the software. Trademark law is a completely separate branch of law than copyright law. The GPL does not also require you to donate your trademarks. So, while you can certainly download RHEL and even the source code for it, you then have to go through an onerous auditing process to scrub all of RedHat's (and other) trademarks out of the system before you can legally redistribute it. This is what CentOS and other distributions have to do.

                Apparently this is not very easy, since RHEL 6 came out 5 months ago, and CentOS 6 (the equivalent build) is not ready yet.

                Here is a list of all the packages that still have to be manually audited in preparation for a release of CentOS free of trademark restrictions.

                Now please shows us all were in the law says I can't do that.

                This is that law. There. Now please kindly apologize for calling me an idiot when it is your ignorance on display here.

                If you still refuse to believe any of this, you might want to head over and update the Wikipedia entry for RHEL to correct the following statement, which you assert is wrong:

                While trademark restrictions prevent free re-distribution of officially supported versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, compliance with open source licenses requires Red Hat to freely provide the source code for the distribution's software.

                Please don't complain when your changes are swiftly reverted.

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

                • identicon
                  Nicedoggy, 9 Apr 2011 @ 3:22pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius

                  Quote:
                  4.3 Marks. Unless expressly stated in an Order Form, no right or license, express or implied, is granted in this Agreement for the use of any Red Hat, Red Hat Affiliate, Client or third party trade names, service marks or trademarks, including, without limitation, the distribution of the Software utilizing any Red Hat or Red Hat Affiliate trademarks.


                  Source: Red Hat Enterprise Agreement

                  Here is my apology:

                  I'm an idiot, and acted like a jackass longing for some public shame, my sincere apologizes for calling you and idiot, you were right about Red Hat being able to stop others from using a verbatim copy of the enterprise edition without scrubbing the trademarks.

                  Also I want to thank you for enriching my knowledge.

                  However that doesn't mean I will not act like an idiot in the future and not call you one again. I reserve the right to be an idiot from time to time :)

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:33am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius

                    Source: Red Hat Enterprise Agreement

                    Red Hat does not write, and their user agreements are not, the law. Quoting their self-written agreement as "the law" is a mistake.

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

                • icon
                  wvhillbilly (profile), 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:22pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius

                  "So, while you can certainly download RHEL and even the source code for it, you then have to go through an onerous auditing process to scrub all of RedHat's (and other) trademarks out of the system before you can legally redistribute it."

                  If I recall correctly, that's only if you modify it. I could be wrong but that's the way I remember it.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:24am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Genius

                    If I recall correctly, that's only if you modify it. I could be wrong but that's the way I remember it.

                    You are correct. Red Hat's trademark only prevents you from making your own distribution and passing it off as Red Hat. It does not keep you from passing on unmodified copies (as claimed above) as Red Hat if they are genuine.

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