Ownership of expression is not compatible with freedom of expression. And not possible.
Take for example the many ways religions have tried to claim ownership of who can express their holy books and in what way, even reproduction of holy books without "permission", yet the Reformation still happened. It's no good saying that people put lots of work into those stain-glass windows, cathedrals and paintings and therefore all appropriation (i.e. blasphemy) and piracy is off limits - in the end they all get copied, and quite rightly.
Can you imagine the ridiculousness of saying the King James Bible should never have come into existance because it was an infringement?
Or that famous works of literature should be banned from other countries' languages based entirely on the whims of the copyright holders? How much more anti-free-expression can it get than that? Denying the rights of people to read a book if they speak the wrong language. And insisting this power to do so should have a place in civilisation.
Freedom of expression isn't just about the right to speak your mind remember: it is also the right of everyone to read and listen.
"and there's no way to reconstruct the original order."
Except the hidden script that would record the order in memory. If this were an attempted magic trick shuffling cards, an audience would be quite right to assume something else is going on inside that CPU and it would be a lousy trick, because computers can't be trusted to really shuffle the cards.
With an empty tangible box that can be witnessed to be locked in that empty state beforehand, not even the most sophisticated trick-boxes in the world would be able to tell from hundreds of folded, concealed papers which order they went in.
People can see empty boxes, they can't see empty bits.
"...for decades: paper ballots hand counted locally reported"
Also, arguably the most crucial: shuffled. So that voter anonymity is protected.
When the votes are in that box, nobody knows who voted for who as they are all mixed up, not even the "shuffler". Not even a good magician can pull off any sneaky zarrow techniques in these circumstances. This way you can't tell who voted what by taking a note of the order voters walked into the booths.
Try making computers scramble the votes in the same way and you can't do it. Because since the votes have to be stored in memory at some point, it is possible to record the order in which they were stored. Doesn't matter if you entropy-shuffle it after: the damage of storing the order in the first place had already been done.
Digital voting is a utopia, even from a blockchain perspective. It doesn't work, and the paper ballot is superior for this reason of shuffling alone.
"Well, the argument about fiat currency is spectacularly silly. I know what you're trying to say, but it's as idiotic to suggest that currency would be based on a file format as it would be to say that it should be based on pints of cream."
That's actually what copyright folk are trying to argue.
In regards to internet pirate traffic it comes up as a regular figure over the years despite what people claim about "easy convenient paid services" reducing it:
Cer tainly nowhere near as low as 3%. And that really should be "CitationS please" in the plural if we're really talking skepticism. I can provide more if needed, but that's the general picture found by most studies.
"So, you're saying that no employee in any other field gets screwed over, denied payment for services, forced to give free labour without direct compensation, etc.? Because whenever you decide to work in the real world, you're in for a shock."
Actually all I said was that creators would actually have a chance to get to know what they'll be paid before they do their work akin to an employment contract - no more, no less.
"You are ignoring the vast majority of creators who do it for fun, or altruistic reasons, and are often faced with a problem of fans demanding ways to pay them. The majority of works published on the Internet are published their for reasons other than directly raising money."
There is such a thing as anonymity, which is rather easy. Including that of aliases. Even further still, there is such a thing as anonymity with the ability to still prove you are that particular person on multiple platforms - my personal favourite is using the inverse of the RSA encryption algorithm to prove it's really you: clever use of very large prime numbers you see.
"The people who demand strong copyright protection, and or forced payment are dominantly the middlemen who have built a business that relied on them controlling what works were published, and so inflating the price they could demand for that work. Such people hate the openness of the Internet because it allows creators to go directly to their audience, bypassing their ability to manipulate the market to maximize their, (and not the creators), profits."
I like how you used the word "inflating"; it supports my copyright-as-dud-money metaphor. As Orwell liked to point out again and again, language is everything.
I don't believe the internet eliminates middlemen. It may reduce their numbers, but it is still nonetheless a bridge of some kind between the buyer and seller, and so middlemen are bound to be there. In the internet's case it would be the ISPs, the search engines, advertisers etc.
Even fans need to find a way to access the artist, which requires someone to help make the connection. That person is the one to remain vigilant towards, and even in my case of assurance contracts it would be the likes of Kickstarter and Patreon. For one thing they need to start refunding for failed projects, but the other big thing for the future is to watch that their % cuts are fair. Because we'll need to be ready for it.
"The facts are uncontested: Copyright owners cannot reach all channels where the product could be available."
Those facts most certainly are uncontested. And it is the very fact that copyright owners cannot possibly watch over every single inch of this planet that they will never be able to enforce copyright.
There is a reason why dollars, pounds, euros, all the fiat currencies of the world do not have "MP3" as a legal tender. To do so would collapse that currency spectacularly fast. Nobody would be dumb enough at that point to say "well the system just needs to be enforced better". Nor would they say "well the fact that 75% of people still use the system honestly proves the system deserves credit for being effective and so we need to keep it going".
Copyright is, like it or not, a privately owned fiat currency, without the luxury of on-hand police to watch over forgeries in quite the same way. You have a single party giving permission out to print something, excluding others, for the purpose of adding value to objects where there was none before. But there's a reason why the forgery rate of the pound is kept at about 3% - coins and notes are scarce enough naturally to make it work.
But when it comes to copyright, ANY medium is a legal tender, ANY material construct of it is fair game including digital, which is why 25% of all internet traffic is pirated: it's an undisputed failure. Not even Ron Paul with his absurd theory of scrapping state fiat currency and replacing it with privately competing currencies would support this if it were presented to him as such. Libertarians do not call for a return to the "JPEG" standard or the ".TXT" standard for a reason. Both fiat advocates and gold standard advocates would agree that money made out of digital files wouldn't work no matter how much wish-thinking we had otherwise.
Assurance contracts is how you protect the labour of artists. And is the only paywall which will work. Simultaneous payment from all customers set at a price the artist demands, and all the problems of property rights are solved with no copyright necessary. When millions pay their bills every month, they are participating in an assurance contract of simultaneous service. Same with tickets for gigs, same with pre-orders, same with reality-TV phone-voting, same with just about everything that involves a simultaneous pay-in or pay-out. It works, has been proven to work, and is the only way artists are going to have a say in their rights to be paid for work.
It also means the golden luxury of knowing what you're going to be paid for your work. You know, just like any other employee with basic contract rights.
Copyright is a currency. It involves a party, in this case the copyright holder, having the legal authority to make copies of something and exclude others from doing so, for the purpose of adding artificial value to that something making it a tradeable commodity.
That's what the dollar, pound and euro is. A fiat currency.
Now tell me. Why is the forgery rate for pounds something like 3%, while for copyrighted material it's something like 25%? The reason being that the printers of pounds (and the dollar and euro) are not insane enough to make "MP3" a legal tender. It's notes and coins, nothing more and nothing less.
And who's really going to say that "actually, the MP3 'tender' does get credit if 75% of them are still legit!", as if there's any real difficulty getting your hands on the forgery 25% without being caught in some way by lawyers or police? Whatever's causing people to act honestly and not make MP3 forgeries, it aint copyright law.
We all know what would happen to a currency if it went JPEG. Hint: a lot of stock market crash, and a whole lot of irrational anger towards Google instead of the system that provided Google the means to cheat in the first place.
If Digital Rights Malware, sorry "Management", really will end up making a game uncopyable, then there's no excuse for copyright law for games anymore, is there? After all if the DRM does the job, that's all you need, right?
Though I might add, if journalism demanded payment through assurance contracted crowdfunding before being worked on and released, this kind of paywall WOULD get credit for funding the discovery of those facts.
Precisely because it's not being dependent on the utopia of "artificial scarcity". Crowdfunding paywalls are natural scarcity, and it gives the journalists the advantage to set a price they require to do their work and actually get it.
If you paid for journalism on a paywalled news site, when you could have easily gone to another site that didn't have a paywall to find those exact same non-copyrighted facts, it can only be concluded that the paywall doesn't deserve any credit for the factors that caused you to pay for the journalism.
Everything is an uproar here at the moment. Mr Johnson just got subjected to a monstrous put-down, therefore helping to ruin the country for nothing. Corbyn thought it'd be a good idea to mention Israel and ISIS in the same breath at a counter antisemitism rally whilst a Labour MP is accused of Zionist treachery right in front of him.
As a Scot up here who wants both unions to live I LITERALLY CANNOT EVEN RIGHT NOW.
Saying this will infuriate copyright advocates but it is the truth: this ban is what you really need to do to stay consistent with copyright mentality.
Because what is the difference between sending a copy over the internet of a work, and making a copy of the work via the beams of light that bounce off a pre-owned paper? In both cases one physical good (whether that's paper or electricity) has ended up producing two copies with one copy in one mind each. If "pay-per-view" demands all the Digital "Rights" "Management" in the world, the logic must also extend to Physical "Rights" "Management".
And why shouldn't there be a big padlock that snaps shut your newspaper at unauthorised moments? You might make an infringing copy for all we know! If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear! Because the burden of proof is on you to prove innocence! Those beams of light that bounce from the paper and hit somebody else's eyes except yours are facilitating piracy!
HOW WILL PAPERS EVER MAKE MONEY AS LONG AS THIS BLATANT THEFT GOES ON? PHYSICAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT NOW! PRM! PRM!
Oh... what's that? Oh? People still pay for papers even though everyone can wait for everyone else to buy and then free-ride?!? Whereas our "game theory" analogy says this should be impossible?! People still pay despite 0% enforcement against second-hand readers?!
Well... uh... that's still because of copyright law ya know!!!
The whole point about journalism is that it doesn't require your respect. Or anyone else's.
I've also noticed "journalism" is now more and more becoming a synonym for anyone who has an opinion of any kind. Just replace the word "Gawker" in your comment with the word "Deepthroat" and you've got every single Nixon lover (yes, they still do exist) an excuse to crush every single paper's reporting of the corruption on the grounds they don't "respect" it. Further still, replace it with the word "Daily Mail", "Guardian", etc.
People here are not going to respect your comment. Should you shut up? No.
And though I think the jury were in the right to award Hogan damages, I can still say all of the above without hesitation.
Contrary to what a lot of folk have been saying on Twitter, Orwell did not in fact say "journalism is printing what someone else does not want to hear, everything else is PR". Though the sentiment is true enough (just don't follow it up with screams of "BIAS!" and then demand the sacking of X number of TV reporters from the BBC and ITV, as these fools from where I am in the UK were doing. The shit-for-brain fuckers had no idea how profane they were being when they were doing that).