I assumed no such thing. You are the one saying I made such an assumption.
Since I made no such assumption, it seems to me that the one who looks foolish is you for the assumption you made (as per your usual).
This is not to say that some comments I may make do contain underlying assumptions. Perhaps the best example is that by your use of the word "tons" I assume its use is for effect, and not an literal statement of fact. Of course, it is possible that this particular assumption is erroneous.
Actually, the overwhelming majority of the 'new generation' support the ARTIST getting paid.
Probably a fair statement, but a bit short of the mark. The creation of music and movies involves a team that is far larger than just the "artists", as well as necessary facilities, equipment, supplies, etc.
My missive on respect was not limited to government, but included content owners and creators .. actually, anyone who wants cash for goods or services. I didn't misunderstand at all.
Surely you do not mean to imply that everyone who is an author and relies upon the rights accorded by copyright law must earn the respect of those who consume his/her/their works before they dare ask for things as simple as payment, non-distribution, etc. What about respect being extended at the outset to those who have collectively labored so diligently to create a work in the first place?
Taking someones life savings away for an 'infringement' of 1 or 2 songs, or destroying a new business because someone using it might be using it improperly ( Megaupload, DaJaz ) will not earn respect, and I will put forward that 'respect' was never the goal. Fear and control are your goals.
This statement makes me wonder if this is a subject with which you have intimate familiarity. How many situations are you aware of where someone's life savings have been taken away because of downloading 1, 2,...50 songs? As for sites like Megaupload, Rapidshare, ect., whenever liability has sought to be imposed upon the sites it is predominantly based upon longstanding, common law priciples of secondary liability. Don't like secondary liability? Well, all you have to do is convince the courts these tort doctrines that reach back to the common law of England are simply inapt. Infringement being a tort, then it would be incumbent upon you to at least convincingly demonstrate why this tort should get a "free pass". In fact, were it not for the DMCA and its safe harbors, these doctrines would greatly expand the potential liability of websites.
Two people can review the same thing and reasonably come away with opposing conclusions. You see it your way and I see it mine. I will admit, however, that mine does also rely in part on many comments I have read elsewhere on this site where so many in the "new generation" express disdain for those who do not share their penchant for copying and distributing the works of others without any remorse or concern whatsoever.
BTW, my comment about "progress" in which I used the word "respect" was obviously misunderstood by you. Apparently, I was not as clear with my words as I thought. The comment had nothing whatsoever to do with government and the veiled threat of force. It had to do with the wishes expressed by individual authors.
The first comment was directed to interpersonal relationships, and not to the relationship between individuals and the government with its inherent police power.
The second comment is directed to a general summation of comments here wherein persons proclaim that technology has changed the rules, and that they will do what they darn well please using it without the slightest concern or remorse that they are ignoring wholesale the wishes of so many persons who have long labored to provide products for the use and enjoyment of consumers.
This general summation underlies the point being promoted by the commenter.
Quite frankly, I am a bit surprised that one of your self-dentified age would resort to insulting words.
Actually, virtually all of your statements and assumptions about me are wrong. I do not promote IP. Nor for that matter do I denigrate it. I simply try as best I can to state what I believe the law actually comprises in a very limited attempt to rebut misinformation that abounds.
My age? What age do you want me to be? Would you feel better if I said mine was the same as yours? Would that make my opinion more or less relevant?
In a way I feel sad for you. Technology enables you to do things, but certainly it should not define you. It is merely a tool, but in the case of the internet one that works much faster than a visit to a library for research, a telephone call where people talk to each other by sound instead of text, a simple, handwritten letter that conveys more personal involvement with the recipient than a dashed-off text message or email, etc.
Like it or not, at some point in the future we will all pass. When you do I hope that your epitaph does not identify you by what you used and did, but with who you were. "He was a netizen" does not cut it, though in all candor I do have to say that my favorite was by a man in Key West whose epitaph reads "I told you I was sick".
Actually, he is making a very simple point. This enabling technology that so many here proclaim is beyond the understanding of others, especially those of, dare I say it, more mature years is in fact well understood by them.
Every generation has some who seem to believe that those preceeding it are simply out of touch with the real world. They live in the past. Funny how when the next one comes along the process is repeated ad infinitum.
Apart from, and more important than, the technology itself is how people conduct themselves when around others.
"I'll take it because I can in my new world order. It's not like it is my fault that you are not meeting my 'needs' for what I want, when I want it, and in what form I want it. That's your problem, not mine, and what you desire be damned."
There is so much more to "progress" than is repeatedly trumpeted here. Yes, economics are important. Yes, technological achievements are important. Yes, the creation of new works is important. Unfortunately, this site fails to note that this is only a partial list, with one glaring omission being respect for what someone may ask of you.
If you resided in a society in which you were the only member, the word "right" has no meaning. You can do whatever you please without third party interference because there is no third party to interfere with your activities. Tom Hanks in the movie Cast Away is a good example. He alone was the arbiter of what he could and could not do. Only when a second person enters the picture (I submit that a soccer ball does not count) does a right begin to have any meaning. Once this happens, however, a decision must be made. Will doing whatever you please whenever you please still be the rule? If it is to be, then of course there is a downside since the same would apply with equal force to your new "friend". Thus, I hew to the line that a right arises only in the context of a society of two or more persons, and as a general rule this is because of a societal compact to which both of you have agreed in order to keep each of you from beating each other to a pulp just because each of you have the ability to do so.
You use the term "government". Let me suggest that "society" is perhaps a better word, and that "government" in its most elemental sense is little more than a mutual understanding of the rules upon which you and your "friend", i.e., your society, have mutually agreed, as well as how they will be enforced as between the two of you.
Rights being a social construct, it seems to me that what they are and what they are not results from the societal compact into which each of you have entered.
Privilege to me suggests your ability to operate within your society, you and your "friend", without your "friend" throwing a justifiable tantrum because you have not paid heed to the terms of your compact. In other words, I view rights and privileges as generally being synonyms. Whether you choose to use the word "right" or "privilege", they merely reflect the terms of your compact.
With the above in mind, you may want to reconsider your use of the word "privilege", for in truth it derives from your compact. Under your use of the word, "due process", "right to a jury", "freedom of speech", "freedom of religion", "speedy trial", " the right to hold property", etc. would all be privileges conferred by the compact. Just as easily the two of you could agree otherwise, including agreement that neither of you can copy what the other has done. In fact, in your two person society this might make sense in order to avoid the duplication of effort. You decide you want to make a chair in contravention of your compact, in which case your "friend", who you previously agreed would be the "chair maker" could properly complain "You are the sole fisherman per our agreement. Why are you making chairs when you are supposed to be out fishing?"
The above are just my musings as I wait for my morning breakfast of caffein to kick in. However, you might want to give them a bit of consideration.
Your comments are for all intents and purposes a recitation of generalities and anecdotes. Even the "provocative study" you cite is merely more of the same.
Your understanding of the history associated with US copyright law mimics the same flaws. Seriously, Disney was the driving force behind many years of congressional debate that led to the US acceding to the Berne Convention after 90 years, which convention was a creature of European law that is far more restrictive than even current day US law, both in terms of the absence of formalities, moral rights, duration, etc.? Where were you in 1976 when the Copyright Act of 1976 was enacted after 12 years of congressional debate and the presentation of numerous drafts?
Again, the use of a word without context, i.e., "culture". Any informed and meaningful debate at the very least need a common baseline, and it is concise definitions of terms being used that serves the purpose lest people talk past, and not to, each other.
Comments here and on similar sites do not establish societal norms. I actually know a bunch of people within the named demographic who purchase what they consume and are none the worse for having done so. Yes, the have fewer dollars in their pocket, but then again so does everyone else who pays for things.
"The longer the right, the less likly (sic) someone is going to care about reusing the material."
If people are inclined to violate an author's copyright on the very first day a work is introduced to the public (and in some case even before introduction occurs), why would you even care whether it lasts a day, a week, a year, or longer?
"So brothers (sic) Grimm, old books, and original wax sound recordings are about the only things I can use today."
Seems to me you define the term "use" much too narrowly. Just today I "used" a movie by watching in on HBO, "used" my newspaper to read articles, etc. How do you define the term?
It is also worth mentioning that the DMCA and SOPA are directed to different parties. One fundamental purpose of SOPA was to extend court jurisdiction to hear cases to two categories of persons, namely registrars and certain persons residing in the US and operating foreign sites. The jurisdictional provision is separate and distinct from the DMCA.
You raise a valid point that generally gets lost in the "noise". Broadcast television currently depends largely on either consumer subscriptions or advertising revenues. When you start screwing around with the latter, then of course objections will arise, which are always fertile ground for litigation.
Turning now to the Betamax Case, it has largely disappeared from the legal scene. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the case turned upon the legitimacy of hardware, and the court held 5-4 that things were fine so long as the hardware was suitable for a substantial non-infringing use.
To explore what could comprise non-infringing uses, the court majority started racking-up various scenarios that would likely qualify. One of them, of course, was "time-shifting". Now, it has been repeated ad nauseum that "time-shifting is perfectly legal". In truth, this is not exactly what the court actually held. As an appellate court, the Supreme Court was bound by the factual record established by the trial court. In the case of "time-shifting", Fair Use was examined and it was determined that under the facts before the court the plaintiff's, Universal and its cohorts, did not present evidence sufficient to overcome fair use. Importantly, this is not a holding that "time-shifting" is legal in all circumstances, but only that given the then facts the plaintiff's fell short of the mark defeating the defense.
Where this case begins to depart from this part of the Universal v. Sony decision is that by enabling the "skip commerical" feature, Dish Network may have changed the fair use dynamics. Would this be enough for the broadcasters to prevail? While a longshot, the answer is "maybe it would", in which case a decision could come out that would distinguish the present case from Universal v. Sony.
I cannot begin to emphasize enough just how important it was that the factual record from the original trial did not work to Universal et. al.'s favor. They had to present proof of how they were being harmed, and the court held their proof was lacking. Here the facts are a bit different. By "skipping commercials" the broadcasters may have very well had a new arrow added to their quiver sufficient to demonstrate financial harm. Again, a longshot, but a significant factual distinction.
If "copyfraud" makes people feel good, even though virtually all (note: not all, but certainly the vast majority) as no more than an error/mistake, then those who choose to use "theft" should be free to do so without being lambasted here as legal dunces. After all, "fraud" is a legal term as well.
The more apt term, if one must try to denigrate at every opportunity everything associated with copyright law, should be "copyerr" or, perhaps, "copyerror".
Forgot I made a very brief comment earlier in this thread. Nevertheless, this comment is a bit more detailed in that it provides citations to relevant statutes and regulations that come into play when inventions are conceived or first actually reduced to practice under a US Government contract, grant, or cooperative agreement (know in the statute as "funding agreements").