Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?

from the focusing-on-what-really-matters dept

For a long time, the copyright industry has cried foul over technical progress, and demanded taxpayer compensation for how these new developments circumvent their existing privileges. It didn't start with the internet; they've done so for well over a century, starting with complaining about the gramophone and the self-playing piano. But as they are crying over lost sales, real or imagined, why is the rest of the world accepting that this field -- the copyright industry's profits -- is the place where the debate should be playing out?

You've all seen the stories. The sky is falling, the end is nigh, music will come to an end, people sharing their knowledge and culture and thus disrespecting the copyright monopoly rips the bread out of starving artists' children's kittens' mouths, yada yada yada.

What I can't understand for my life is why this industry's profits are even being debated. Who cares how much money a particular industry makes? That is not relevant at all for the form, size and shape of our most basic civil liberties as they apply online.

Let me try an analogy. When mankind communicated privately 30 years ago, our parents sent physical letters in the mail. They wrote a message by hand or with a typewriter on a piece of paper, put the paper in an envelope and sealed it, wrote the recipient's home address on the outside of the envelope, manually affixed a stamp to pay for delivery, and put it in a mailbox. The postal service would then physically carry the envelope with the letter inside to its recipient's home, where it could be read. This delivery took a day or a couple of days, just like when we order new shiny gadgets today and things need to be physically delivered.

So, let's take a look at what rights our parents had in this scenario. First, they and they alone determined whether to identify themselves as sender - on the outside of the envelope, for the delivery services to know; on inside of the envelope, for only the recipient to know; or frankly, not at all. That was their prerogative. Nobody had the right to open letters in transit just to see that they didn't contain any illegal material, and nobody was allowed to track who was communicating (sending letters) to whom.

It is perfectly reasonable that we demand these fundamental rights of our parents' private communications to carry over into the online world, to our children's equivalent environment of life.

Now, once you say that anybody should be able to send anything to anybody on the net without interference, because that's in the civil liberties that our ancestors fought, bled and died for, the copyright industry jumps in and complains. "We can't make any money if you allow this to happen", they would say.

My response is "So what?".

The role of any entrepreneur is to make money given the contemporary constraints of society and technology. They do not get to dismantle civil liberties, even if - and perhaps especially if - they are unable to make money in the face of sustained civil liberties.

If the copyright industry can't sell their products in the face of sustained civil liberties, they get to go out of business or sell something else instead. Mustard, perhaps.

The important trap to observe here is that it's not our problem if the copyright industry's sales are slumping - whether they are or not. It is irrelevant to the debate on civil liberties online. By starting to discuss the profits issue, the copyright industry wins the framing of the debate - that they should somehow have a right to such profit; that society must be shaped so they can continue to make a profit. No entrepreneur gets that luxury.

The copyright industry is not a stakeholder in copyright monopoly legislation. They are a beneficiary. There's a difference.

The only stakeholder in the copyright monopoly legislation is the public. The copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest of having access to culture and knowledge, and the same public's interest of having new culture and knowledge created. That's it. Those are the only two interests that go into the legal wording of the monopoly.

The copyright industry, meanwhile, profits from the current means of achieving this balance - just like Blackwater Security (or whatever their name is this week) profits off of United States foreign policy. (You remember Blackwater, the private security firm that was playing GTA IRL on the streets of Baghdad?) Actually, let's stick with Blackwater for a while. Can you imagine what would happen if Blackwater was considered a legitimate stakeholder in US foreign policy, and whose tantrums were taken seriously when they demanded more opportunities for profits in the foreign policy, violating people's civil liberties in the process?

Can you really imagine what would happen if the concern for Blackwater's continued profits would be allowed to take center stage, ahead of people's sustained civil liberties? I'm betting we would see about the same thing that's happening to the net right now with the copyright industry's equally asinine tantrums. This is the crucial difference between a beneficiary and a stakeholder.

Just because the copyright industry has benefited from this monopoly construct in the past, that doesn't mean that they have any right whatsoever to profit from it tomorrow. That's not a concern at all in reforming the copyright monopoly. In drafting such legislation, our only concern is maximizing the knowledge and culture available to the public.

Rick Falkvinge is the founder of the Swedish and first Pirate Party. Follow him as @Falkvinge on Twitter, read his private blog, or get him for a keynote.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    I would say that your dislike for copyright in any form pretty much makes your conclusion foregone. It also means that you are only looking at one side for the answer - basically, you started with your answer, and backfilled.

    "the copyright industry's profits "

    This is really your first problem. It's not about profits per se, it's about the ability to pay the artists, pay the performers, and pay to do it all again next time. One of copyright's best features is the ability for artists to be able to retain ownership of their work, while selling or granting for free selected rights to consumers, or to companies, and such. That ability to decide the fate of a work is often much more valuable to an artist than any cash. The money allows them to keep going though, and to do it all again (usually a desirable result).

    I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed. It seems a pretty unfair thing, really. I don't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why should you be able to tell an artist that they must give their work away for free?

    When you start with such an extreme view as yours, copyright will never be right for you. Socialism, even in content, is not workable in the long run. We have seen so many countries fall into economic disarray in the last few years because their socialistic tendencies are outspending reality. Do we really need MORE socialist leanings to prove that it's not working out, that we are not advancing as a people because of it?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:05pm

      Re:

      I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed.

      The burden of proof falls on the people requesting an artificial structure to prevent what's naturally possible, not on the people simply doing what's naturally possible.

       

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re:

        It's naturally possible do do all sorts of things (murder is natural, if you think about it). It's a false framing of the issue to just say "it's okay because I can".

        I don't expect anything deeper from you though, diaper boy.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I didn't say it being natural makes it automatically okay - I said it places the burden of proof on the person supporting the unnatural option.

          So, I would like you to now please prove that artists have a right to artificial control over their creation. Otherwise, time to shut that ever-flapping mouth of yours.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          JPriest, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          ^(equating copyright infringement with murder)

          We don't expect a lot from you either.

           

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 3:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You are obviously too stupid to understand how an analogy works. You're just the kind of brainless fucktard that Pirate Mike and Pirate Rick are recruiting. Kudos. You're in the club for sure.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Apr 15th, 2012 @ 2:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Just out of curiosity, is the facility you're housed in comfortable? I appreciate the fact that delusional sociopaths with the communication skills of a hyperactive 6 year old are allowed on the internet to try to acquire a normal life, I just wouldn't want to think you're being mistreated while you're there.

               

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

            •  
              identicon
              JPriest, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 9:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Any "X is murder / rape / graphic violence etc" analogy is a stupid analogy. And "brainless fucktard" sounds fitting for someone who talks like you.

               

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

            •  
              icon
              Niall (profile), Apr 16th, 2012 @ 4:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Good to see that you've learned to argue at the kindergarden level. Next, try first grade...

               

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

        •  
          icon
          Joe Publius (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What Marcus said, then again, you really think that downloading Avatar is worse than murder?

          I'm only saying that because if someone is accused of murder, the cops would still need a warrant to search a suspects belongings and property, you know, a process that would make sure that there's a real reason to root through your stuff and your privacy.

          If CISPA were the law of the land, such procedures would not be necessary in regard to your digital belongings. The best way this makes sense in my mind is if infringment was worse than murder. A crime so foul that one's rights as a citizen don't matter.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's kind of hard to kill someone with an imaginary property.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Arthur (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't expect anything deeper from you though, diaper boy.

          And, with one sentence, you invalidate everything you said. Insults are the resort of those who cannot argue effectively. With that one sentence, you admit you have no case.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 10:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The supporters of laws against murder made their case that murder should be outlawed. They made that case very publicly. The discussion about what does and does not constitute murder continues today, in public, and very passionately.

          The onus of proof lies with the persons supporting the reduction of liberty. Those against murder freely accepted that onus. The copyright industries make lying attempts to deny they have the onus. That is the difference.

          Ad hominem attacks demonstrate your viciousness and immaturity. They destroy your credibility. Try to do better in future.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      I disagree. I am for the rights of copyright holders. I have not downloaded music, movies or any of that unless I paid for it. I think they should be able to prosecute when the evidence points in that direction. I hope all those that are pirating copyrighted material get caught and fined. However, civil liberties do trump profits. These organizations need to find a way to profit within the law.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Ophelia Millais (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:31pm

        Re: Re:

        I think the point is that they're hell-bent on changing the law, both statutory and common, in ways that preserve/boost their profit, at the expense of civil liberties.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        M, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:18pm

        Re: Re:

        Bingo. There is positive things about copyright philosophically. But the kind of copyright enforcement needed does not justify copyright. And without enforcement, copyright is nothing anyway.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 12:54pm

        Re: Re:

        It may interest you to know that pirates spend twice as much as non-pirates, on average, on legitimately purchased entertainment. Please consider this fact and where it places you in the hierarchy if arts supporters the next time you're tempted to parade your smug self-satisfaction online.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Chris Brand (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

      Re:

      I don't think anyone is asking for any control over "how someone else's work is distributed". Create whatever you want and decide whether to keep it to yourself or to distribute it in some way, maybe to try to make some money - that's fine.

      The question is not about "distribution", but about *redistribution* - what level of control you should have over it after having decided to distribute it.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:32pm

        Re: Re:

        "I don't think anyone is asking for any control over "how someone else's work is distributed". Create whatever you want and decide whether to keep it to yourself or to distribute it in some way, maybe to try to make some money - that's fine."

        Chris, the point of piracy is that the end user gets to decide how something is distributed. They ignore the wishes of the artist, they ignore all the legal ramifications and contracts signed, and just decide that yes, today, they are going to seed the file and let millions of people have it for nothing, artist be damned.

        Piracy is the ultimate slap in the face for artists. Your work is good enough that I want it, but not good enough that I should respect your wishes.

        You can call it "redistribution", but the effect is the same - the end user deciding to pirate the file and seed it for others. That's never a good thing.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:49pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I would think that the "ultimate slap in the face" would be no one caring enough about your music to listen to it, let alone share it with others.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          STStone, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They ignore the wishes of the artist, they ignore all the legal ramifications and contracts signed, and just decide that yes, today, they are going to seed the file and let millions of people have it for nothing, artist be damned.

          I'll bring up a quote from a recent post on this blog: "We don't want everything for free -- we just want everything."

          The technology of today allows for cheap/practically-free transmissions of information (regardless of what form the information takes). Instead of using this to their advantage, the major media conglomerates (the MPAA, the RIAA, the major book publishers) fought for years -- and still fight today -- to limit the natural functions of the Internet.

          Information will spread, whether people spread it legally or not. Laws made to prevent this spread of information work against the best interests of the general public -- so who should receive the biggest voice when it comes to such laws, the media conglomerates or the general public?

          Copyright perpetuates the notion of "ownership" over ideas and art. Art stops belonging to a person the moment they put pen to paper or pick to guitar or speech to film. Art "belongs" to all who experience it.

          As Rick pointed out: an entrepeneur must work within the confines of civil rights to find ways of making money. Any entrepeneur who cannot make money with their current business model must either find a better business model or bow out and let the world progress.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          As a preface, I am not anti-copyright in principle, although I do thing current copyright law is immoral.

          Piracy is the ultimate slap in the face for artists.


          Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean that copyright should be so expansive that copyright holders have the power to cause so much harm to innocent others and society at large. That is the issue.

          The point of the article is related to that: why should we as a society allow a tiny portion of society such unusual influence over our laws and life, especially when that influence is being used to harm society overall as well as innocent individuals?

          The cure that they keep trying to shove down our throats is worse than the disease by a few orders of magnitude. If that's the only way that these legacy industries can survive, then they need to go out of business for the good of us all.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          The eejit (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Piracy is only the "ultimate slap in the face" if your business is selling music, and not the things surrounding the music.

          For example, one of my favourite bands is still performing almost 25 years after their inception, and they have reasonable incomes (enough to make what they do a job, rather than a hobby).

          If you literally refuse to see that (it's been obvious since I was in nursery), then your business sense is more than off.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ignoring the world doesn't seem to be working out for you guys. But, for all means, keep trying.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No actually the ultimate slap in the face for an artist would be when those that are SUPPOSED to represent them cheat them out of what they agreed to pay them in the first place for their own benefit.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Richard (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          the point of piracy is that the end user gets to decide how something is distributed.
          No - the initial distribution remains in the control of the artist - charge enoguh for that first copy and you don't need to care about what happens afterwards.

          They ignore the wishes of the artist
          So do the *AA companies!

          they ignore all the legal ramifications and contracts signed,

          Why should I care about a contract signed by someone else?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 2:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "the point of piracy is that the end user gets to decide how something is distributed."

          You're almost there. The point of piracy is to obtain product that cannot be obtained in any other way, or is only offered with restrictions that the end user finds objectionable or renders the end product useless.

          No customer gives a shit what contracts you have signed, just as you probably don't care how the distribution is signed for your favourite brand of coffee. The difference with digital content is that people can obtain the song they want, even if they're blocked from buying it. If you succeed with your bullshit and manage to eradicate "piracy" (impossible, but keep dreaming), then they will just be faced with the same choice as the coffee buyer - your chosen brand is not stocked, it's too expensive or you're only allowed to buy it if you have a passport from another country? You buy something else. Your corporate masters still don't get our money.

          You *could* offer content in the ways people are demanding it, but apparently accepting our money is against your religion if you haven't obtained it in exactly the way you want... This is your failure.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Jake (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:18pm

      Re:

      One of copyright's best features is the ability for artists to be able to retain ownership of their work, while selling or granting for free selected rights to consumers, or to companies, and such. That ability to decide the fate of a work is often much more valuable to an artist than any cash. The money allows them to keep going though, and to do it all again (usually a desirable result).

      You are correct this is a feature (your word not mine) and not a right. If the feature involves trampling on rights it is the feature that should go not the right.

      We've even seen this happen in other industries, when the Path mobile app had a feature that searched and saved user address books, but trampled their right to privacy, path removed the feature. Why should copyright be any different?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:53pm

        Re: Re:

        I would have said it's a nice feature, but not a part of the requirements.

        Other than that, I agree with you. (for whatever that's worth...)

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 6:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The point is it is a feature that comes from the rights granted in copyright. Because the artist has the initial exclusive right, they can tell sell part of all of those rights on to others.

          It's fundamental to a creative system that allows artists to work for the masses, rather than having to suck up to rich benefactors. Instead of getting paid by 1 person to do it their way, each person who wants a copy can contribute some to the artist's well being.

          But it really only works with copyright, which creates the legal framework under which the artist can sell those rights. Without it, we would go back to the times of the patron, which is not good for the masses, and not really good for artists either.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Digitari, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 7:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            right, cause http://www.kickstarter.com/ is just a patron

             

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

          •  
            icon
            nasch (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            But it really only works with copyright, which creates the legal framework under which the artist can sell those rights. Without it, we would go back to the times of the patron, which is not good for the masses, and not really good for artists either.

            Yeah, except for all the people making money from art without relying on copyright or wealthy patrons. But they must be "the exception" and not worth considering, right?

             

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

    •  
      identicon
      JPriest, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:18pm

      Re:

      ...

      You completely fucking ignored the whole civil liberty issue...

      I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:30pm

      Re:

      Which is why copyright should be 100% unassignable and should immediately end upon the death of the artist.

      Make this one simple change and 99.9% of all the problems with copyright go away...

       

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:35pm

      Re:

      Socialism, even in content, is not workable in the long run. We have seen so many countries fall into economic disarray in the last few years because their socialistic tendencies are outspending reality. Do we really need MORE socialist leanings to prove that it's not working out, that we are not advancing as a people because of it?

      What is it you're claiming is socialism? Reducing the strength of copyright law?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

      Re:

      Do we really need MORE socialist leanings
      Copyright is a government-constructed redistribution scheme that acts as a drain on society in order to transfer wealth to large, monopolist corporations. This blending of state and corporate interests is known as fascism, by the by.

      If you really want to defend free market capitalism, you'll go and learn something about economics and moral philosophy, and then come back here and argue to abolish so-called "intellectual property" entirely. Until such time, your comments remain nothing but confused ramblings.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        random reader, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:52pm

        Re: Re:

        Thank you!Ask any libertarian, ask any constitutionalists, ask any free market capitalist and they will say this. Not socialism.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:50pm

      Re:

      I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed. It seems a pretty unfair thing, really. I don't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why should you be able to tell an artist that they must give their work away for free?


      This is where you started to lose me. The debate isn't about deciding how other people's work will be distributed.

      It's also not about telling anyone how to spend their money, and it's certainly not about anyone forcing artists to give their work away for free.

      I am not anti-copyright in concept, but at the same time artists do not need copyright in order to profit from their work.

      We have seen so many countries fall into economic disarray in the last few years because their socialistic tendencies are outspending reality.


      And this is where you've lost me completely. This has nothing to do with socialism, and I'm confused as to why you brought the subject up. But while we're here, I'll just mention that if you're going to say that socialism has caused economic problems in other countries, then you should be equally prepared to say that capitalism has caused at least as many problems in the US.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 9:49pm

        Re: Re:

        "And this is where you've lost me completely. This has nothing to do with socialism, and I'm confused as to why you brought the subject up."

        It is in it's own way, all about socialism. It is actually one of the underlying, unmentioned arcs of the whole anti-copyright / pro piracy movement: Music (and movies, etc) should be a common good, not something that anyone (even the artist) really owns or controls. It's a good of the society, thus rending the creation of entertainment as a public work.

        The basic concept: As an artist, you will make these things, and make them available to everyone for free. If you won't, we will do it for you. There are no options.

        Basically, everyone else gets to decide what to do with your work, and at the same time removes all economic incentive for creating it.

        "I'll just mention that if you're going to say that socialism has caused economic problems in other countries, then you should be equally prepared to say that capitalism has caused at least as many problems in the US."

        No system is perfect. The capitalistic society has the problem that, often enough, you end up with "greed is good" as a driving factor. It should be said though that capitalistic systems tend to be the ones that grow a society, by motivating it's workers to "work harder", thus raising the GDP and so on.

        The only way China got out of the hole was to allow widespread capitalist activity. The reason Russia is in the shitter is that the government cannot control itself, and insists on stopping capitalist endeavors for the good of the state. Socialism isn't a system that drives individuals, in general ways.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Squire Headlong, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 2:50am

          Re: Re: Re:

          > As an artist, you will make these things, and make them available to everyone for free. If you won't, we will do it for you. There are no options.

          Incorrect. Anyone can make things and choose to keep them private. But if they make them public, they do not get to tell *other* people what to do with *their* copies. That gives everyone the most freedom.

          > Basically, everyone else gets to decide what to do with your work, and at the same time removes all economic incentive for creating it.

          Incorrect. Everyone decides what to do with themselves and their own actions. And anyone is free to sell their creative effort, but they cannot tell *other* people what *they* can or cannot sell.

          Sounds very like a free market, does it not?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 3:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I don't understand what socialism is, but I'll spout bullshit about it anyway in the same way I spout off about anything I don't understand here"

          We know...

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Wendy Cockcroft (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 7:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          True, but you've forgotten the work for hire contracts that see artists cheated out of their dues. Meanwhile other artists are finding ways to prosper by using the pirates as advertising.

          Furthermore, Loz Kaye of the UK Pirate Party is a musician and has to work at his regular job to make a living... in music.

          The idea that artists will quit if they can't make money via copyright licensing is rendered null by the plethora of examples of full-time musicians who don't rely on the licensing collections agencies for an income and make money from live performances and merchandising.

          The IP industry is treated differently from other industries for no good reason. Limiting creativity to those artists who are willing to sign up with the licensing collections agencies can't benefit the artists or society in any possible way.

          Besides, that's not even the real problem: the IP maximalists are determined to limit the way we experience content so they can squeeze us for the maximum amount of money via licensing so that content is being paid for many times over.

          Put it this way: if the RIAA and MPAA shut down tomorrow would culture die off? Erm, no.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 10:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So what you're saying is that government needs to interfere with the market and set up artificial monopolies in order to make it a more capitalist system, and that if they just left everyone to conduct business as they please without help from the government, that's socialism?

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 3:23pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You know what's hilarious? That even put as simply as you put it, nasch, he's not going to get the hilarity of that statement.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 6:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:


              You know what's hilarious? That even put as simply as you put it, nasch, he's not going to get the hilarity of that statement.


              I'm sure he's not. If he says anything though, it's a win. Either he can clarify what he actually meant and we can proceed with a real discussion, or he can say "yeah, that's what I'm saying" and we can all have a good laugh.

               

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 12:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Basically, everyone else gets to decide what to do with your work, and at the same time removes all economic incentive for creating it."

          Actually your statement above doesn't hold up. To prove my point I ask you are comedians a bygone creative field? No. Even though any of us can freely share their IP, in this case jokes, with each other with no recourse by the rights-holder to stop us, or regain any monetary loss by our verbal sharing of telling another person their joke(s). This human nature to share hasn't removed "all economic incentive" from being a comedian so your statement is way too broad in this regards. Likewise I deduce your statement is also way to broad when it comes to music and movies. Sure, an argument may be made that if there were a way to prevent people from verbally sharing IP there could be the potential for more people to earn a living at being a comedian. Though I highly doubt it for while protecting IP may boost monetization, it does nothing to boost talent which in comedy is greatly needed to overcome this very ease of sharing. Then there are the unintended consequences, of stop people's ability to tell jokes, to consider and the greater impact that censorship capability would have on society.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          mlang (profile), Apr 16th, 2012 @ 2:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It could indeed be argued that copyright is a socialist concept, because the aim of copyright is to benefit the public. Combine that with a genuine free market and you can get a really good system.

          Ironically, given the 'socialism is a bad word' implication in AC's comments, the model preferred by large swathes of the media marketing industry, is closer to communism, ie. "WE TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN BUY, COMRADE".

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Robert Doyle (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:45pm

      Re:

      I'm going to pick on this one paragraph:

      I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed. It seems a pretty unfair thing, really. I don't tell you how to spend your paycheck, why should you be able to tell an artist that they must give their work away for free?

      The article is not talking about telling the artist how to distribute their work - it is telling the artists that they don't get to decide how we distribute other things just because it may also be used to distribute their work. It would seem a pretty unfair thing of you to tell me that I can spend my paycheck any way I like, as long as I only use your currency that you get a % of for every transaction performed. It's akin to Mastercard saying to the public "you must use our card" and then having the government come along and enforce it.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:00pm

        Re: Re:

        @ #52
        'The article is not talking about telling the artist how to distribute their work - it is telling the artists that they don't get to decide' how customers want it. ie, if something is available in mp3 and customers want it in flac, it should be their choice to have it or not. if not, it's then down to artists to change the availability or lose sales. simple!

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:50pm

      Re:

      Since when is abolishing a govt granted monopoly socialism?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 1:57pm

        Re: Re:

        Since "WOOOOO!!! DANGER!!! SOCIALISM!!!" became synonymous with "I disapprove of this idea, regardless of the ideology behind it".

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:21pm

      Re:

      If it's about the ability to pay the artists, the entertainment industry would cease "negotiating" unfair contracts, using Hollywood accounting, and shorting or entirely refusing royalty payments to artists. They'd have better self-policing of their collection societies to make sure artists are getting paid and officers of the company aren't embezzling the funds. If companies cared about the artist, they'd license their copyrights instead of insisting on the assignment of their copyrights in addition to charging them for the privilege of creating and marketing their copyrighted works.

      When you get the artists the money they deserve and reassign contractually "stolen" works back to the artists and license the material at the rates you would charge others, I'll start to believe that copyright enforcement isn't about corporate profits.

      Corporations do tell consumers how to spend their paychecks. It's called advertising. But since copyright law was created to benefit the public, the public should have a say in how copyright works. Current copyright law has seen the absurd extension of copyright durations by politicians who didn't have the public interest in mind and therefore the extensions are illegitimate. Work to get copyright durations down to at least 30 years or less and I'll be perfectly willing to let artists do whatever they want with their copyrights.

      Consumers as a market force have the prerogative to tell any supplier in the market that they won't pay the offering price for their products. That's just basic economics. The entertainment industry thinks that it can price-fix and collude with other monopolists, so they aren't the best when it comes to understanding how the market is supposed to function.

      The fact that you perceive this perspective as radical is pretty radical. The fact that you label realistic pragmatism as socialism is very telling.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      bigpicture, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:59pm

      Re: Copyright

      Yada, Copyright, Yada, Copyright, Yada. Why does one section of society need special rights? Why should they be granted special rights at the expense of others?

      I have a restaurant, I have a special recipe that a lot of my customers like, and it increases my business sales. My competitor down the street can get a sample of this dish and lab analyze the ingredients, and make the same dish. Do I get to protect my recipe with copyright, so I can protect my sales? Do I have government granted special rights and privileges with this? (copyright or patent?)

      NO I DO NOT, I have to find a way to prevent my competitor, from getting my recipe, or a sample of the food. Just about every other business is faced with these same challenges, except of course those to whom the Government grants these "special rights and privileges.

      These "special rights and privileges industries" being the "copyright and patent" industries. That is why the industries with these "special rights and privileges" can overcharge so much for their products. Like drug companies do for their poisonous products, that relieve one symptom and and cause 5 more health problems. This really benefits society in general and the consumer in particular. It is really a great system that offers special money making rights at the expense of civil rights, the American way is really a great system. They have been brainwashed so long with this world view that they cannot see the conflict of interest, or the oxymoron, or just plain moron.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 5:49pm

      Re:

      Except without copyrights artists and companies still would be able to sell those same things and we have concrete examples of real life companies doing just that.

      Open source just proved that you don't need the monopolies to exist, survive or be successful.

      The only extreme view is the people who believe that a granted monopoly is anything to be proud off or good to anybody, there is a reason nobody likes monopolies they are harmful specially the ones that are forced upon others.

      Further, between copycrap, artists and my rights, screw you, the law and artists, nobody is messing with freedom of speech, privacy and free market, no one, no matter what they think they deserve, if they can't make it, let them go visit the Dodo.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 10:43pm

        Re: Re:

        No, open source proves that you can give away a product, and providing it's complicated enough, you can sell support.

        They aren't selling software, and further, they have little motivation to make the product more user friendly or easy to install, because they could work themselves out of business.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 3:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wasn't this crap proven wrong a few weeks ago, or did you just run from the thread when faced with facts yet again? I forget...

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), Apr 16th, 2012 @ 9:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What you forget is that every industry before 1700 *had* to survive without copyright - and funnily enough, 'artists' survived. Stuff was invented. Society progressed. Even until last century, many things currently covered by copyright weren't. So don't tell me that somehow we have all become such greedy lazy bastards that no-one will invent/create anything without serious financial benefit.

          By that argument, why should people work when they can claim welfare? That's all copyright is - a form of welfare to enable certain segments of society to get by. Not to automatically become millionaires and sit on a gravy train for the rest of their life and that of their grandchildren.

           

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

    •  
      icon
      Josef Anvil (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 6:11am

      Re:

      "I have yet to hear a really valid reason why you, the consumer, should be able to decide how someone else's work will be distributed."

      Actually you are correct. The consumer does not have the right to decide how someone else's work should be distributed. Unfortunately that isn't the argument. That's what this post is all about. Arguing about the correct thing.

      The problem is that the communications network merged with the distribution network of the content industry, and there are two separate groups of laws that are meant to deal with each network. Now they are in conflict, which is unfortunate, but civil liberties have to trump monopolies.

      As for the laws, we have a King Solomon situation. The content industry is happy to split the baby in half to get it's way. The only reasonable solution is to accept that things have changed and the content industry will have to adapt to the change and create new business models while the old laws about copyright infringement are altered to allow sharing on a mass scale.


      To answer the original question, there is no valid reason for the consumer to decide how someone else's work is distributed, but the consumer didn't decide, the technology changed and allowed the consumer to choose. You cannot put the Djinni back in the bottle.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Rick Falkvinge, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 6:53am

      Re:

      Actually, that's a misconception. I don't need to justify to one single human being why I rearrange my own property (bits on my hard drive) to match a pattern that I can observe.

      The notion that this can be outlawed is highly unnatural and illogical.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 9:14am

        Re: Re:

        It is publicly reported that you practice polyamory.

        Obviously, you have the "natural" right to arrange your "1" is any "0" you choose, and yet the definition of the term provides that agreement by all parties effected thereby have to provide their consent/approval/permission/etc.

        What I have a difficult time reconciling is your apparent willingness to take into account the wishes of those close to you, but an unwillingness to do likewise when it comes to the wishes of others in matters pertaining to original works of authorship. Both provide a cultural and pleasurable experience.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 10:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Obviously, you have the "natural" right to arrange your "1" is any "0" you choose,

          Are you intentionally obscuring your language? Because nothing in your post after that makes much sense to me.

           

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

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 1:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            In your quote from my comment, "is" should be "in" (my typo).

            Otherwise, take a look at any dictionary and my comment should start to make some sense.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 6:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Otherwise, take a look at any dictionary and my comment should start to make some sense.

              It's not the words I don't understand, it's the way you put them together. But hey, maybe it's just me and it made perfect sense to everyone else.

               

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

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 7:36pm

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

                My comment was intended for the author who seems to think he has a natural right to do anything he wants with his "property" without having to account to anybody for his actions. Apparently, he practices a somewhat different philosophy when it comes to his personal "property" in his private life, where accountability does seem to count.

                Given what is reported as being his chosen lifestyle, I would think "arrange your "1" in any "0" you choose" is a relatively easy phrase to decipher, and especially by him.

                 

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 3:37pm

        Re: Re:

        Actually, that's a misconception. I don't need to justify to one single human being why I rearrange my own property (bits on my hard drive) to match a pattern that I can observe.

        The notion that this can be outlawed is highly unnatural and illogical.


        Absolute bullshit, Pirate Rick. Some rights in those bits on your hard drive belong to others. Those rights were never yours in the first place. Like it or not, the rights are not yours. You are lying piece of piratical shit to pretend like rights are yours that clearly belong to another by operation of law. You are disgusting. Just like Mike likes 'em.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 2:35am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Converting formats is disgusting? And you wonder why most people would consider you psychopathic...

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Eponymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 12:20am

      Re:

      "It also means that you are only looking at one side for the answer"

      Just because there are 2 sides doesn't mean both are equal, or due equal treatment. In this equation rights-holders are but a subset of society and thus subservient in its greater interest. Society doesn't exist to serve its different subsets, thus why there isn't royalty here in the States. An easy analogy would be the US Marines and the Scout Sniper: being a subset the Sniper exists to serve the interest of the Marines and if the decision is made to change policy/tatics the Sniper follows policy; they don't commandeer it for that is mutiny. Likewise this is a rights-holder "mutiny" where they hold the rest of society hostage to their interests. While you may protest the analogy of using the military as an example on the grounds that society isn't as regimented so to protect the interests of its subsets against their harm by errant policy, but I beg to differ. This isn't a civil rights issue like letting women vote or gays marry where the subset can argue for equal standing with other subsets. This is a greater conflict where the rights-holders stand in the way of advancement of society on the scale of the "founding of the Americas". Thus, them being the Native Americans in this comparison, the rights-holders are, most likely, going to get totally fucked in the end. I see it as a point of inevitability (not to be confused we me actually defending past or future horrors inflicted by society on its individuals) for society will not halt in its progress no matter who gets trampled under foot along the way. One only needs to look into the rear-view mirror of history to see the way too numerous number of bodies left in our wake! So where does this leave us? I think rights-holders should advocate and negotiate for their cause sure, but all while bearing in mind that whatever they get is at Our behest and even that can be quickly taken away.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      AdamF (profile), Apr 15th, 2012 @ 1:49pm

      Socialism in Copyright


      Socialism, even in content, is not workable in the long run. We have seen so many countries fall into economic disarray in the last few years because their socialistic tendencies are outspending reality. Do we really need MORE socialist leanings to prove that it's not working out, that we are not advancing as a people because of it?


      I couldn't agree with you more. Except, we are already living in the socialism you warn against. Government legalizes and enforces exclusive monopolies on creative work for the common good of the people. And more recently, government is even passing legislation to keep industries afloat. If that is not a clear example of socialism, what is?
      I say, lets go back to free market. Scale back copyright to the single right of having one's name associated with one's work. Why not let the free market sort out the true value of creative content? Or is it not socialist enough for you?

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Niall (profile), Apr 16th, 2012 @ 4:42am

      Re:

      Oh, because the wannabe-fascist US of A is such a model of financial prudence, flair and business sense?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Unrepentant Iconoclast, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      First, the artists, performers, producers, etc. had already been paid when they sold the copies to buyers. The copies which had belonged to the buyers were EXCLUSIVELY the buyers' property and the buyers can do whatever they want with those copies, including multiplicating them. How can the "copyright-holder" "own" the data in those copies anyway? This is analogous to Shakespeare "own" the sonnet 18 memorized and imprinted in my head.

      Copyrights violated the property rights of the owners who owned the REAL, TANGIBLE copies which they had legitimately acquired.

      Second, Socialism never exists, Soviet-style state capitalism isn;t socialism, nor is crony capitalism free market!

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Unrepentant Iconoclast, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      First, the artists, performers, producers, etc. had already been paid when they sold the copies to buyers. The copies which had belonged to the buyers were EXCLUSIVELY the buyers' property and the buyers can do whatever they want with those copies, including multiplicating them. How can the "copyright-holder" "own" the data in those copies anyway? This is analogous to Shakespeare "own" the sonnet 18 memorized and imprinted in my head.

      Copyrights violated the property rights of the owners who owned the REAL, TANGIBLE copies which they had legitimately acquired.

      Second, Socialism never exists, Soviet-style state capitalism isn;t socialism, nor is crony capitalism free market!

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:02pm

    The best evidence that Pirate Mike loves piracy? He lets Falkvinge post. Yarrrrrr!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:04pm

    You've all seen the stories. The sky is falling, the end is nigh...

    I thought you were describing the freeloaders mantra any time a new measure is proposed to keep thieves from unlawfully appropriating the content of others to monetize for their own benefit.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Machin Shin (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      You greatly underestimate the "freeloaders" none of these measures will stop them from "unlawfully appropriating content". I have not seen any laws come up that made me worry that piracy would vanish. I have seen some on the other hand that would destroy large chunks of the internet that are perfectly legal.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Joe Publius (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:20pm

      Re:

      If the activity is clearly unlawful, why are more measures needed? More importantly, why do the measures have to be so broad as to fundamentally affect how valuable technologies work (SOPA and the internet), or outright violate our liberties (CISPA, and the 4th Amendment)?

      Perhaps even more importantly, if these measures are the best solutions our lawmakers have to offer, maybe the laws that prohibit these activities are too broad or no longer relevant.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:35pm

      Re:

      "If you don't want to let the police kick your door in every night and search your house for contraband, you must be a criminal."

      Yawn. Get some new material, shilltroll.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 5:54pm

      Re:

      Yay! go freeloaders.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:07pm

    giving works away for free isn't the issue. giving the works away in formats wanted at fair prices are big parts of the issue. trouble is, the entertainment industries that control the release and distribution know what they need to do to get consumers (back) on board but instead of doing that, they moan to the various governments to make more/harsher laws. what is the point of knowing what to do to improve a situation, then ignoring that knowledge and actually doing the exact opposite? all that does is make things harder for everybody, especially those that are moaning the most, the entertainment industries themselves.

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:10pm

    How cute. Falkvinge has a Masnick quote and picture on his website (http://falkvinge.net/keynotes/). I wonder if they've registered at Target yet?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:21pm

    Wow. You seen to have gotten the dander up on the copyright maximalist up on this one Rick.

    Five comments in and four of them are ad hominem attacks. LOL.

    #ricksdoingitright

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 4:38pm

      Re:

      They don't have any valid counterarguments, is why they're resorting to insults. Arguing that the profits of the entertainment industries are more important than the rights of the public is an argument for facism.

      You know, I'd probably have more respect for them if they just came out and said "yeah, I want to live in a police state". At least that would be honest. I guess even that is too much to expect from these (excuses for) people.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 4:55pm

      Re:

      They don't have any valid counterarguments, is why they're resorting to insults. Arguing that the profits of the entertainment industries are more important than the rights of the public is an argument for facism.

      You know, I'd probably have more respect for them if they just came out and said "yeah, I want to live in a police state". At least that would be honest. I guess even that is too much to expect from these (excuses for) people.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 12:45am

        Re: Re:

        "You know, I'd probably have more respect for them if they just came out and said "yeah, I want to live in a police state". At least that would be honest. I guess even that is too much to expect from these (excuses for) people."

        There's a guy over on Torrentfreak who is like these ACs here. I'm pretty sure he is a shill. I find most people have a distinctive writing style, even while anonymous. The guy went from sounding like an idiot for the longest time and saying "you're all thieves" to decent arguments (full of the usual phrases and words) to sarcastic ad homs. I think the name/email has been handed over to others to take over as they get called out/put in their place. But I digress, like I said, he's like the ACs here and he has openly advocated for and said if stopping piracy and freeloading means getting rid of all people's rights then he's for it. I pressed him on the issue bringing up the Constitution and Bill of Rights, he said yep if they need to be done away with he's for it and given the opportunity he'd shred the documents himself.

        I found his "end justifies the means" a bit much. But he is 100% serious. It's that kind of attitude that is truly frightening.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:24pm

    "Can you really imagine what would happen if the concern for Blackwater's continued profits would be allowed to take center stage, ahead of people's sustained civil liberties?"

    Oh, Oh, I know this one.

    What is the current US Foreign Policy, Alex...

     

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

  •  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:37pm

    Awesome

    This is beautiful, Rick, one of the best things I've seen on copyright.

    The copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest of having access to culture and knowledge, and the same public's interest of having new culture and knowledge created. That's it. Those are the only two interests that go into the legal wording of the monopoly.

    I especially like that. I just wish it were true.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      mischab1, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:58pm

      Re: Awesome

      Ok, I'll concede that it is only true in terms of what copyright was intended to be, not in how it is acting at the moment. But I think this is an important point we should remind the politicians of.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    STStone, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:39pm

    The only stakeholder in the copyright monopoly legislation is the public. The copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest of having access to culture and knowledge, and the same public's interest of having new culture and knowledge created. That's it.

    I will quote this for years to come.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:43pm

    Love This

    The copyright monopoly is a balance between the public's interest of having access to culture and knowledge, and the same public's interest of having new culture and knowledge created. That's it.
    Fantastic!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Tired of all the crap..., Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:45pm

    Our representatives are nothing but corporate whores.

    You really have to ask? The reason is that the people whom we elect to represent us are corporate whores who no longer represent the people. They are nothing but bought and paid for corrupt lofty individuals who believe they are better than the rest of "us".

    Its time to take America back.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:51pm

    Just curious if you personally engage in the copying and distribution of someone else's work without regard to their wishes?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:13pm

      Re:

      Yes. Every night when I read my children their bedtime story.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 3:44am

      Re:

      Yes, although I'm not sure anyone cares what Bram Stoker's wishes were when I let people download copies of the public domain novel Dracula from my blog. That's as it should be - even though people like you wish to rob the opportunity for future generations.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 3:33pm

      Re:

      Of course Rick does. And he encourages others to do so. Rick's whole deal is about violating other people's rights. Just like Mike. It's what makes them disgusting human beings.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 4:48pm

        Re: Re:

        If you want to take people's basic human rights away, just because you're only making huge amounts of money when you used to make obscene amounts, then you're a fascist.

        So who's the real "disgusting human being" here, fascist?

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 4:55pm

        Re: Re:

        If you want to take people's basic human rights away, just because you're only making huge amounts of money when you used to make obscene amounts, then you're a fascist.

        So who's the real "disgusting human being" here, fascist?

         

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

  •  
    icon
    hfbs (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:01pm

    Put simply - I don't give a damn about your profits and I don't see why I should.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:58pm

    As someone who thoroughly enjoys mustard on a hot dog or burger I am alarmed at the suggestion that these parasites change to that industry.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:23pm

      Re:

      Yeah they would ruin yet another perfectly good thing.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Baldaur Regis (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 3:31pm

      Re:

      Recall that TPB has a new section called 'Physibles'. The first time I have to sit through a mandatory 2 minute video telling me what a filthy mustard pirate I am, I'll just cruise over to the Bay and DL some of that tasty condiment.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 5:52pm

    "Piracy is the ultimate slap in the face for artists."

    Nope. Speaking as a musician, someone else taking the credit for my work by blatantly plagarizing me is what I'd consider a slap in the face. I could care less if somebody somewhere distributes my work so long as they're not profiting off it financially.

    Most songs cost, what, a buck? Now think about the cost of your civil liberties, paid for with the blood of our ancestors, being stripped away for the supposed sake of an artist's work being 'protected.'

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    jem40000, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 9:37pm

    30 years ago

    From original blogpost above :

    "When mankind communicated privately 30 years ago, our parents sent physical letters in the mail."

    True -- but our parents also spoke via telephone 30 years ago and, at least in the USA, such conversation was subject to a wiretap if the Law guys could convince a court to issue the proper search warrant.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 2:28am

      Re: 30 years ago

      If you can convince the courts that taking a flamethrower to get rid of a mosquito is legal, sane and sensible, by all means go ahead. Don't come crying to us when you fail to do so.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 10:38am

      Re: 30 years ago

      True -- but our parents also spoke via telephone 30 years ago and, at least in the USA, such conversation was subject to a wiretap if the Law guys could convince a court to issue the proper search warrant.

      And if law enforcement gets a warrant related to criminal activity to eavesdrop on someone's electronic communication, that's fine. But it's not what this post is about.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Joshua Bardwell (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 11:20am

    "For a long time, the copyright industry has cried foul over technical progress, and demanded taxpayer compensation for how these new developments circumvent their existing privileges."

    Rick, this is really a masterfully constructed sentence. There is so much that you've done right in the way you've framed the situation here. Kudos.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Eponymous Coward, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 1:29am

    Synopsis...

    TL;DR fyi FYI! (Fuck Your Industry!)

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 7th, 2012 @ 9:49pm

    oh, your a pirate, you only care about you, getting your stuff for free, of course you hate other people haveing rights to the things they created, your a filthy subhuman creature

     

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), May 8th, 2012 @ 8:05am

      Re:

      oh, your a pirate, you only care about you, getting your stuff for free, of course you hate other people haveing rights to the things they created, your a filthy subhuman creature

      It's getting really hard to tell what's parody and what's real.

       

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This