Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: How Can You Be Register Of Copyrights If You Don't Even Understand Copyright's Most Basic Purpose?

    Karl ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2012 @ 08:37am

    Re:

    her removal seems like a good potential whitehouse.gov petition topic.

    I was just thinking the same thing.

    Even if the White House does nothing about it (which I think is likely), it will at least send the message that people are watching.

    It might also reiterate the plain fact that copyright doesn't exist to serve rights holders, a fact that seems to be lost on politicians nowadays.

  • On the post: How Can You Be Register Of Copyrights If You Don't Even Understand Copyright's Most Basic Purpose?

    Karl ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2012 @ 08:34am

    Re:

    It's you that ignores the first part of the bargain--the rights and benefits to the author--and pretends like it's only the benefit to the nation that matters.

    No, it's you that ignores the objective fact that it is only the benefit to the nation that matters. I just posted a whole slew of quotes that make this absolutely, 100% clear.

    Your mistake is in thinking it's a "bargain" between authors and the public. It isn't. It's a "bargain" between two competing public interests. If that bargain benefits authors, then so much the better; if it doesn't, then too bad for authors.

  • On the post: How Can You Be Register Of Copyrights If You Don't Even Understand Copyright's Most Basic Purpose?

    Karl ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2012 @ 08:31am

    Re: Naturally you're misinterpreting this

    What if an obstetrician said, "We need to take care of the mother first and the baby second?"

    Obstetricians say these sorts of things all the time. For example, even the most rabid anti-abortion activists will acknowledge that abortion is acceptable if it's the only way to save the woman's life.

    Of course, any good obstetrician would say that taking care of the mother is taking care of the baby.

    It is an objective fact that the sole purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. I just posted a slew of quotes from Congress and the Supreme Court that make this clear.

    The "balance" in copyright is not between authors' rights vs. the rights of the public. It's between two competing public interests: the public good of access to a larger body of works, vs. the public detriment of a government-enforced monopoly.

    You are absolutely right that copyright laws, when properly balanced in this way, benefit both authors and the public. But benefiting authors is only good if it also benefits the public. If it doesn't, authors don't deserve those benefits.

  • On the post: How Can You Be Register Of Copyrights If You Don't Even Understand Copyright's Most Basic Purpose?

    Karl ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2012 @ 08:16am

    Re:

    Sorry, but the words don't say that - the "for the nation" is something added by people like yourself.

    You are 100% wrong. The primary purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, a fact that has been reiterated by Congress and the Supreme Court, repeatedly:

    The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based on any natural right that the author has in his writings, for the Supreme Court has held that such rights as he has are purely statutory rights, but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors forr limited periods the exclusive right to their writings. The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public such rights are given. Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policty is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people, in that it will stimulate writing and invention, to give some bonus to authors and inventors.

    In enacting a copyright law, Congress must consider two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights under the proper terms and conditions, cofers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.
    - H.R. Rep. No. 60-2222

    It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme."... It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," ... and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
    - Feist v. Rural

    The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an "author's" creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.
    - Twentieth Century Music v. Aiken

    The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.
    - Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal

    I could understand the usual kneejerk anti-Techdirt trolls lying about this.

    But when the person who is supposed to be in charge of copyright doesn't even know this basic fact, it's time for her to be fired.

  • On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?

    Karl ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2012 @ 11:25pm

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

    How does she make money?

    Please tell.

    Q. So how much money did you personally make releasing a Free film under an open ShareAlike license?

    A. In the film?s first year, I got about $132,000. I?ve received more since then.
    - NinaPaley.com FAQ

    When was the last time you made $132K per year from your creative work?

  • On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?

    Karl ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2012 @ 11:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Go take an econ class, you fucking buffoon.

    Please, tell me where in "econ class" it says that products with a marginal cost of zero will not eventually reach a price of zero.

    Tell me where any "econ class" has said that a government-enforced monopoly has resulted in a more efficient allocation of resources.

    Tell me where any "econ class" has claimed that driving customers away was a good business move.

    In fact, tell me where any "econ class" has disproved (or even called into question) anything I said in that comment.

    You can't, because you have absolutely no clue when it comes to economics. Or anything else, for that matter.

    What is with you, anyway? You have not once engaged in any discussion on here; the only thing you do is post crap on this site, all at once, and do nothing but insult everyone here, without actually making a single coherent argument. You'e not even as creative about it as the most ridiculous /b/tard troll. Do you get paid by the insult, or something?

    Seriously, I'm actually curious. You're nothing but an asshole, but even most assholes go away after they spray diarrhea all over the walls. But you keep coming back, day after day, year after year. What's up with that?

  • On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2012 @ 11:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If it sucked so bad, you wouldn't rip it off.

    If it didn't suck so bad, maybe they'd do something besides rip it off.

    Honestly, how many people who pirated "The Last Airbender" would even sit through it if they couldn't download it for free?

  • On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2012 @ 11:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    ah yes, the "piracy didn't hurt sales" delusion.

    Which of course then equals the "less piracy won't help sales" delusion.

    The "piracy has hurt sales" delusion is one that has never been accurately demonstrated in any peer-reviewed study. Most studies that do show losses, do not share their data, or how they came up with it (e.g. how they came up with the conversion rate), and none even consider the potential increases in sales due to piracy (e.g. widespread distribution, word-of-mouth advertising, or consumer surplus spending).

    But, even if piracy does hurt sales, it doesn't follow that "less piracy will help sales." If fighting piracy results in losing customers, then the increased sales would be more than offset by the loss in business. Since people who pirate are the best customers - the ones who buy most of the content that is sold - this is a real possibility.

    Not to mention the economic costs to the rights holders of fighting piracy (lawyers, lobbyists, etc). Or the tremendous damage that "fighting piracy" could do to society in general (e.g. SOPA-style laws).

    Less piracy will help sales only if those pirates then become paying customers. You can only do this by giving potential pirates something of value: convenience, better quality, social connectivity, "added value" products, etc. Valve's Steam is a good example of how to do this.

    But simply decreasing the amount of piracy means absolutely nothing in terms of sales. Were that the case, then you could increase sales by not releasing the content at all, or just putting it into the public domain. The first won't make you any money at all. The second one might, but if you can make money from public domain works, you obviously don't have to worry about piracy either.

  • On the post: German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2012 @ 10:50pm

    Re: Answer to that ridiculous letter by CCC members

    There is an answering letter by the CCC

    Amusingly enough, when I use Google Translate to read the article in English, the headline is:

    "Response to the open letter to the crime scene screenwriter"

    Since their opinions are tantamount to a "crime scene," this is unintentionally accurate.

    (And, yes, I know enough German to know that "Tatort" literally means "crime scene." Just thought it was funny.)

  • On the post: German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2012 @ 10:45pm

    Re: You're trying to invent your own law.

    Copyright was NEVER a natural right.

    I think he means that the rights that are granted in 17 USC 106 (here in the States) are natural rights, that by default are held by everyone.

    They are "property rights," in the sense that without government interference, they are the rights to do whatever you want with your property (a copy of the work). For example, if a work is in the public domain, that doesn't mean nobody has the right to copy it, distribute it, display it publicly, etc.; it means that everyone has the right to do so.

    Copyright doesn't grant those rights; it creates the right to prevent others from exercising them. The only "right" created by copyright is the right of exclusion.

  • On the post: German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2012 @ 09:09am

    Re: derp

    you've never invested into any content yourself

    I've done this. Can I call you an idiot now?

  • On the post: German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2012 @ 09:09am

    Re: Re:

    something that'll never appear in American copyright laws due to corporate interference.

    It's starting to be chipped away in Germany too, with 2007's law that allows "buy-out" contracts.

  • On the post: German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright

    Karl ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2012 @ 09:05am

    Re: Er...

    bringing up changes to the Statute of Anne in response to German scriptwriters is probably not the best strategy here.

    This is true. Germany's copyright laws (when it eventually wrote them) were based almost entirely on the droit d'auteur, the "moral rights" of authors.

    A better point to make is that Germany didn't have copyright laws until the late 19th century, over a hundred years after the Statute of Anne was passed in England.

    According to historian Eckhard Hoeffner, that lack of copyright was the driving force behind the "Gruenderzeit" (the wave of economic growth that Germany experienced in the nineteenth century).

  • On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?

    Karl ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2012 @ 11:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Unless they intend to live like hermits or spend their lives enjoying only Nina Paley movies, they are very likely to find themselves back in line to see a movie, or PPV, or rent, or whatever.

    There's nothing wrong with Nina Paley movies, something everyone might soon find out.

    But that isn't going to happen overnight, they have to get use to not having at all, first.

    And once they get used to not having it all, they'll soon discover that they didn't need it in the first place.

  • On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?

    Karl ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2012 @ 11:25pm

    Re:

    People who pirate, who pirated a lot, probably have a lot of material in already burned to disk or on hard drives.

    Here's where that theory falls down: if they already had a whole bunch of stuff burned to hard drive, and were satisfied with that, then they sure wouldn't slog through the terrible ads and inconvenient crapola on pirate sites in order to get new music.

    And they sure wouldn't be motivated to buy music - which they are: every independent survey shows that people who pirate are better customers than people who don't.

    You also have to consider there is a period of time where the ex-pirates are all butthurt for getting caught

    Well, if your best customers are feeling "butthurt," then they're certainly not going to be inclined to buy anything. That's true.

    But, would these be the same people who were "butthurt" when Napster, Grokster, or Limewire shut down? Because none of that resulted in increased sales. They did, on the other hand, result in the RIAA being possibly the most hated corporation on the planet, meaning everyone felt completely justified in "stealing" music from them.

    it took years to get to the current situation.

    Years of lawsuits against every single entity that tried to enter the digital music space. Years of telling customers they were "thieves." Years of punishing legit customers with crippled products that pirates could get, uncrippled, for free. You don't think this has anything to do with the labels' current situation?

    If piracy is eliminated, the most that would happen is a couple months of better iTunes sales. In the long term, music would stop being ubiquitous in peoples' lives. They will lose interest in music, and just zone out while playing video games instead. That's already happening; is this really the future you want?

  • On the post: Is There Any Value In Cracking Down On 'Piracy' If It Doesn't Increase Sales?

    Karl ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2012 @ 11:02pm

    Re: Re: Obscurity is a bigger problem...

    Justin Bieber, The Sheepdogs, Adele, Michael Buble, Feist, Arkells, Dan Mangan, Dallas Green, etc

    I've heard the names Justin Bieber, Adele, and Feist. The rest? Never heard of 'em.

    And I don't possess a single song by any one of them, even the ones I've heard of.

    Why would I? There is tons of new, exciting, and vibrant material being produced outside of the usual big media monopolies. I don't listen to Jamendo artists either, really, but if I surfed that website right now, I'd hear tons and tons of people who perform the same style of music they do, except better.

    What possible motivation would I have to listen to any of this rehashed pop pablum?

  • On the post: NYTimes OpEd Explains Why Infringement Isn't Theft

    Karl ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2012 @ 03:50pm

    Re:

    While "music" and "movies" seem to be the primary subject matter discussed here, there is a very wide body of other, unrelated works where the "incentives" do, in fact, "incentivize".

    That is a very difficult thing to quantify. Certainly, there are many successful industries whose products are covered by copyright. But is that success due to copyright?

    As a counter-example, let's consider the fashion industry. There is no question that the American fashion industry is a world leader. Yet, fashion is not covered by copyright. It is perfectly legal to copy someone's design and create a knock-off, identical in every way to the original (though trademark law means you can't claim it is the original).

    This wasn't always the case. Back in the 1930's, a strict "no-copy" rule was enforced by the Fashion Originators' Guild. They said copying was unethical and immoral, and called it "style piracy." If a retailer sold a knock-off, they were issued a "red card," and they were boycotted by everyone in the Guild.

    The only problem with the guild was that it was an illegal monopoly. At least it was according to the FTC, and the Supreme Court agreed in Fashion Originators' Guild v. FTC.

    Did the Guild's collapse harm the industry? Quite the opposite. The fact that there are "Red Carpet copycats" actually creates a demand for new designs, resulting in far greater sales of apparel. There's even a name for it: the "piracy paradox."

    Johanna Blakely did an excellent presentation about this at TED, which you can watch on YouTube if you like.

    So, here we have one industry that would be harmed by copyright laws. There are many other successful industries that don't have copyright protection: the food industry, the automobile industry, furniture design, etc.

    The question becomes: If these industries can be so successful and innovative without copyright protection, why do the others need it?

    On a final note, while we obviously do not agree on many points (though we do agree on many others), it is a distinct pleasure to engage in exchanges with one who has so obviously taken the time to give this subject much thought and who provides substantive, versus reactionary, comments.

    Not a problem. I'm an underground musician, and these sorts of topics (especially regarding music) interest me immensely. That, and I need a way to avoid my Physics homework...

    Incidentally, if a few of the commenters here seem a bit reactionary, that's because the usual "pro-copyright" folks here do nothing but call everyone "pirates," call Masnick a "scumbag," and believe Techdirt is a subsidiary of Google.

  • On the post: NYTimes OpEd Explains Why Infringement Isn't Theft

    Karl ( profile ), 01 Apr, 2012 @ 07:10am

    Re:

    Some would say that the rights are property that were taken away from the owners by force of law...

    That is in fact what I am arguing (if you assume the 106 rights are actually "property").

    Unless those "some" believe that the public domain is "theft" from the authors. In that case, they would be wrong.

    Without "force of law," there would be no copyright in the first place. The very first Supreme Court copyright case said flat-out that there is no "common law" copyright. The House of Lords said the same thing sixty years earlier (Donaldson v. Beckett). And these were the only two countries on the planet with copyright laws at the time.

    It is against how people naturally act: people want to re-tell stories, share music with their friends, invite people over for movie night, etc. What is legally "copyright infringement" is nothing more than an extension of that.

    They'd also be going against several major religions, who have flat-out said that creating abundance from scarcity (e.g. the Biblical allegory of the loaves and fishes) is morally good; and, conversely, that creating scarcity from abundance is morally evil. Copyright infringement does the former; copyright, itself, does the latter.

    So, those who think the public domain is "theft" of the natural property of copyright holders, are going against centuries of legal statutes, human nature, and universal moral codes.

    Not that it will stop them from saying that, of course.

  • On the post: NYTimes OpEd Explains Why Infringement Isn't Theft

    Karl ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2012 @ 03:07pm

    Re:

    if as you say works in the public domain are "owned" in common by everyone, then taking away such common ownership and vesting it in a single owner almost certainly is a Fifth Amendment matter

    If you believe the 17 USC 106 rights are "property" that is "owned" by the authors, then you must also conclude they are "property" that has been "taken" from the commons.

    They are not actually property rights - as I said above, copyright is actually a statutory monopoly that is treated as if it was a property right. But since nearly everyone talks about copyright in terms of property rights, then we should talk about the loss to the commons as the loss of property rights, too.

    In any case, the Fifth Amendment only refers to private property being taken for public use. I already said the "property rights" in public domain works are not private, since they are not exclusive. Furthermore, copyright turns what was "common property" into "private property." Even though this is done to theoretically benefit the public, I don't think anyone would believe that qualifies as taking "for public use."

    On the other hand, if Congress decided to do away with copyright altogether, that wouldn't violate the Fifth Amendment either.

    Glad to hear your wife is OK. (I'll refrain from the obvious jokes about your wife and a '3" black snake.')

  • On the post: NYTimes OpEd Explains Why Infringement Isn't Theft

    Karl ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2012 @ 01:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I believe you are misinterpreting the copyright law. Under Section 106 of the US Copyright Act only a copyright holder has the legal right to make a copy of his/her work.

    If a work is in the public domain, does nobody have the legal right to make a copy of that work?

    No, of course not. Everybody does, including what would have been the copyright holders had the work not been in the public domain.

    An example is "Night of the Living Dead." Because the distributor failed to follow statutory copyright laws, that film entered the public domain, where it still resides. Does that mean nobody is making copies of it? Hardly.

    Dozens of publishers are exercising the exact rights that are granted to copyright holders exclusively in 17 USC 106. The only thing a copyright on that film would have done is taken away those rights. That's the only thing copyright does: it excludes everyone but the copyright holder from exercising rights that otherwise would belong to everyone.

    Your focus seems to be what happens once a copyright holder has made a copy, and then transferred possession of that copy to a third party (typically by license or sale). That is a different issue altogether and involves other legal doctrines.

    I don't know how you got that idea. My focus is on what property rights people would have in a copy if copyright did not exist. The answer is: all of them. Thus, copyright - by definition - is "theft" of property from the commons.

    This is why traditional notions of "stealing" don't work with copyright. People generally think of "stealing" as "taking something without permission" or "taking something without paying for it." But this is exactly what happens with public domain works: you "take" something, without payment, and without permission of the authors (or original copyright holders).

    And, in fact, such "stealing" is the entire reason that copyright exists in the first place. Copyright exists to grow the body of work that is available - freely, without permission - to the public. That's obvious when we're talking about works in the public domain. It's also obvious when talking about the idea/expression dichotomy: copyright exists so the public can "steal" the ideas in copyrighted works. (See Feist v. Rural.)

    So, when other copyright defenders talk about "thieves," or "pirates," or "making money from the artist's work without paying for it," it's important to realize that the actions they're criticizing are precisely the actions that copyright is ultimately designed to encourage.

    If copyright doesn't result in more of this type of "theft," then it is not benefiting the public, and the public (through its representatives) has every right to take copyright away.

Next >>