I am not posting a comment to present a substantive point, but merely to express my pleasure that at long last I am witness to a thread marked by thoughtful, insightful, and respectful comments on a subject over which people have a wide range of diverse opinions.
I thank each and every one of you who have taken the time to engage in a real conversation, and hope that it continues with additional posts. Excellent points are being presented and I would greatly enjoy reading even more posts along the lines of the above.
My wife and daughter each gave me a book for Christmas. Imagine my shock when I notice that each bore a copyright notice stating, in essence, that I am not authorized to copy either of the books and give such copies to the masses.
Darn those hardback publishers. And here I thought I actually owned the book when in fact it appears all I have are rented copies.
This is downright un-American and an unjust infringment upon my civil rights as secured by the US Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant thereto.
Taking a cue from so-called "Tea Baggers" I am starting a "Copyright Whining Baggers" movement.
I rather doubt you will find people (other than perhaps a lunatic fringe) who speak against copyright infringement but in favor of corporate tax evasion. Tax avoidance, in a manner consistent with law, is an entirely different matter.
Actually, I do agree with the sentiment in your last paragraph. My view is merely one where disagreement with a law is no good reason to ignore it unless one is prepared to deal with the consequences of having done so.
There are many laws with which I disagree, laws that are too numerous to mention (except, perhaps, with one that is making its way through the Halls of Congress as I type). Nevertheless, my view is that there is no valid reason to cast it aside as if it does not exist.
Being in the Christmas spirit, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I do agree with your application of economic principles to matters such a copyright and its coexistence with so-called piracy. I am simply of the view that following the law in these instances is the right thing to do. If I do not like what a rights holder is trying to do, I will simply take my business elsewhere. I believe that how I spend my money is a far better way to express my opinion than an attitude like "damn the law, full download ahead".
Re the linked article by this author, not only does it not mention fair use, it does not mention anything about what rights are conferred by copyright. Frankly, it seems little more than advice to novices regarding dealing with publishers and the like.
Sharing her work if you happen to like it is extremely easy. Either give someone your copy of the book, buy them a copy, or else give them a gift card to a store such as Barnes and Noble.
Equating "civil rights" and "infringement" does seem a bit of a stretch.
Yes, a younger generation will eventually supplant those currently comprising our political representatives, at which time the younger generation can seek to amend the laws against which so many rail in comments on this site. The difference, however, is that such amendments will be sought in accordance with our system of laws, and not in a manner as some here seem prone to advocate.
Importantly, I do not disagree with you over basic economic principles. I limit my remarks merely to note that just because a law may be economically unsound does not mean than it should be ignored. If one does not like the law then work to change it, and not sit on his/her behind and do nothing.
"In one such post on the Isohunt website Defendant Fung responded to a user’s post by stating “they accuse us for [sic] thieves, and they r [sic] right. Only we r[sic] ‘stealing’ from the lechers (them) and not
the originators (artists).”
Pray tell, with whom are the words "they" and "them" associated in the context of the quote? Are we to believe that P2P leechers are the ones accusing IsoHunt of being a thief?
Rather than criticizing the commenter for not knowing your motivation, why not take the next logical step and state what your motivation comprises?
As for you view of law, there are ways to affect change within the bounds of law. What you appear to advocate is for people to pick and choose what laws they will obey and what laws they will not. Fine...do not obey a law with which you disagree and which you are not prepared to take the effort to change it. If you happen to be caught, all your protestations about the fundamental unfairness of the law and its lack of economic rationality will very likely fall on deaf ears, as well they should.
Your comments are insightful, well thought out, and thoughtfully presented. It is disappointing that their thrust is lost on many who have commented disapprovingly.
In may regards this entire "movement" of coping freebies reminds me of school classrooms where entire classes are punished because of the actions of a few. While I have no data in support, most younger persons I know do not engage it active P2P distribution as a way around having to pay for content. They do try to follow the law. Unfortunately, the laws currently on the books are there precisely because of the miscreants thumbing their noses at the law. Funny, but I have never seen rights holders complain when new technologies are used to distribute non-infringing matter. It is infringing matter as to which their efforts are directed.
Raise the word "moral" and invective will surely follow. Yet, what we have seen starting about the time of Napster is the equivalent of a lengthy morality play, and in the long run morality and ethical behavior will for the most part win out, the protestations of diehard distributors of rights protected to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yes, he did say "lechers" but it seems pretty clear from the context that he meant "leechers" (most of that sentence is misspelled). Nowhere does it suggest he meant "big, bad, holders of copyright." In fact, he explicitly denies that in that sentence.
It was the usage of "they" and "them", "they" being used to reference the defendant's accusers, and "them" being used to associate such accusers with "lechers". Add to this that the word "lechers" appeared in a quote by the defendant, his certain familiarity with the distinction between "lechers" and "leechers", and the absence of "(sic)" after "lechers", and the only reasonable conclusion is that the word was used in reference to rights holders and not in reference to a particular class of P2P users.
As for the defendant's actions that most certainly did not help his cause, the section bridging pages 12 and 13 is telling.
And, yes, I did read all of your article and your comment that the decision was not a surprise given other rulings in matters such as this, but your comment was in large measure watered down by your subsequent dicussion of perceived failures by the judge to understand the evidence. Frankly, based upon what is set out in the opinion it seems clear to me that the judge was well aware of the evidence and its import and decided accordingly.
"(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
However, it would have been more illuminating about how the Supreme Court views copyrights and the infringement thereof by continuing the remainder of the quote from Justice Blackmun's majority opinion:
"While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
There is that pesky phrase "property interests". Didn't Justice Blackmun appreciate that "property" may only be associated with "scarcity", or is it possible he and the court were noting that the notion of "property" under law embraces more than merely "scarce" goods?
As for your mentioning "leechers", the word stated was "lechers" and was in reference by the site owner himself, the defendant, to those "big, bad, holders of copyright" who have the temerity, nay...the audacity, to take umbrage at what freeloaders are doing...getting a copy of something for nothing that they darn well know is not legal.
Granted, file distribution via P2P, with the assistance of torrent sites, may involve perfectly legal activity where the file being distributed is with the consent of its creator(s). Funny thing, though, the site draws attention to top downloads in various categories...almost all of which represent works protected under copyright. Of course, it also did not help this "white knight" defendant that apparently on numerous occasions he interceded and helped downloaders figure out how to convert downloads into useable form. Only those intent on rationalizing their actions would believe that contributory infringement and active inducement to infringe could never possibly apply to situations such as these.
I for one do appreciate your economic perspectives on how new technology can be used for one's economic benefit, but am not particularly enthralled to read a constant stream of opinions to the effect "What the heck were these judges thinking? How can they possibly support their decisions?" Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that court decisions are made based upon the evidence presented to the court, which in this case, as the court noted, was virtually nil by the defendant.
A BT site that merely lists available torrents is one thing, but one where its principals go far beyond mere listings is an open invitation to being hauled into court and finding oneself on the losing end of an indefensible argument whenever matter protected by copyright is involved.
Illuminating comment that does nothing to inform anyone of the issues involved in this matter. Perhaps you may care to explain where it is you believe that the trial court and the appellate court went astray.
Plastics are chock full of substances that are known to be cardinogenic. Thus, I see nothing wrong with a warning label that cell phones should not be eaten.
Having tried to find an application package that actually performs this type of work, and having had to deal with major drawbacks associated with every application implemented on a trial basis, if this approach can actually do what the patent suggests then sign me up for a trial.
Experience teaches that this is no small matter for companies with a large "inventory" of patent, trademark, copyright, etc., both domestic and international.
I wonder how discussions would be effected if all persons making comments understood the distinction between a trade association (e.g., RIAA, MPAA, BSA, AMA, ABA, IEEE, AIAA, AIA, etc., etc.) and its membership. If appears the the distinction between an association and its individual members is largely lost in heated rhetoric. Industry associations serve to advance or weigh in on issues its membership deems of interest and/or important to its members. It does not engage in commerce. It does not produce and sell products and/or services. This is what its individual members do on a daily basis.
In the context of the RIAA, it is not the plaintiff in any of the lawsuits brought by labels. The plaintiffs are the labels who may happen to be the holders of copyright in music compositions if the contracts they enter into with one or more musicians provide that the label will be deemed the owner of such copyrights. In return for an artists agreement to transfer copyright to a label under contract, the artists receive varying degrees of consideration, oftentimes cash payments, obligations assumed by a label to produce and promote musical "products, perhaps a royalty, and other benefits designed to get an artist's name out into the public eye. The artists are getting paid by the labels, but such payment is in accordance with the terms of whatever contracts may happen to apply.
Additionally, artists are in many respects the functional equivalent of inventors in the technology arts. They help create a product with the assistance of numerous other people in the employ of labels who each serve an important role, including, inter alia, product creation, marketing and distribution. In other words, the creation of music requires a multitude of persons each having a unique role and skill set they bring to the process.
Until these fundamental distinctions are understood, it is likely that discussions will continue to proceed based upon an inaccurate understanding of the music industry. Until these distinctions are understood and the roles so many other people play in the production, marketing and distribution of music products, it seems to me that people will continue obsessing with artists and overlook all the other people who for a necessary part of the music production process...all of whose salaries are dependent upon the influx of cash for product.
So, when people say "Show me how much the artists will get", what they should be saying is "Show me how much the music production/marketing/distribution will get."
I took a look at the linked article, but I was unable to find any attribution of the "tens of thousands" to Mr. Griffin. Perhaps you have a cite because I am quite interested in learning more about Choruss.
Merely for your edification, as a general rule I do submit posts on professional blogs using my complete name. Now seems to be an appropriate time to follow my general rule on your site. No more "AC" or "MLS".
As for my "avatar", I use it merely in a humorous vein. I could use a photo, but for some reason I like the painting "The Scream" so much better.
Thank You
I am not posting a comment to present a substantive point, but merely to express my pleasure that at long last I am witness to a thread marked by thoughtful, insightful, and respectful comments on a subject over which people have a wide range of diverse opinions.
I thank each and every one of you who have taken the time to engage in a real conversation, and hope that it continues with additional posts. Excellent points are being presented and I would greatly enjoy reading even more posts along the lines of the above.
My wife and daughter each gave me a book for Christmas. Imagine my shock when I notice that each bore a copyright notice stating, in essence, that I am not authorized to copy either of the books and give such copies to the masses.
Darn those hardback publishers. And here I thought I actually owned the book when in fact it appears all I have are rented copies.
This is downright un-American and an unjust infringment upon my civil rights as secured by the US Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant thereto.
Taking a cue from so-called "Tea Baggers" I am starting a "Copyright Whining Baggers" movement.
Re: Re:
Re eBooks, I would need to take a look at any associated license.
Cute, by I do hope that this kid realizes that he is digging himself even deeper into a hole.
Re: Re: Re: Friend of big content lol
I rather doubt you will find people (other than perhaps a lunatic fringe) who speak against copyright infringement but in favor of corporate tax evasion. Tax avoidance, in a manner consistent with law, is an entirely different matter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friend of big content lol
Actually, I do agree with the sentiment in your last paragraph. My view is merely one where disagreement with a law is no good reason to ignore it unless one is prepared to deal with the consequences of having done so.
There are many laws with which I disagree, laws that are too numerous to mention (except, perhaps, with one that is making its way through the Halls of Congress as I type). Nevertheless, my view is that there is no valid reason to cast it aside as if it does not exist.
Being in the Christmas spirit, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I do agree with your application of economic principles to matters such a copyright and its coexistence with so-called piracy. I am simply of the view that following the law in these instances is the right thing to do. If I do not like what a rights holder is trying to do, I will simply take my business elsewhere. I believe that how I spend my money is a far better way to express my opinion than an attitude like "damn the law, full download ahead".
Re the linked article by this author, not only does it not mention fair use, it does not mention anything about what rights are conferred by copyright. Frankly, it seems little more than advice to novices regarding dealing with publishers and the like.
Sharing her work if you happen to like it is extremely easy. Either give someone your copy of the book, buy them a copy, or else give them a gift card to a store such as Barnes and Noble.
Re: Re: Re: Friend of big content lol
Equating "civil rights" and "infringement" does seem a bit of a stretch.
Yes, a younger generation will eventually supplant those currently comprising our political representatives, at which time the younger generation can seek to amend the laws against which so many rail in comments on this site. The difference, however, is that such amendments will be sought in accordance with our system of laws, and not in a manner as some here seem prone to advocate.
Importantly, I do not disagree with you over basic economic principles. I limit my remarks merely to note that just because a law may be economically unsound does not mean than it should be ignored. If one does not like the law then work to change it, and not sit on his/her behind and do nothing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In one such post on the Isohunt website Defendant Fung responded to a user’s post by stating “they accuse us for [sic] thieves, and they r [sic] right. Only we r[sic] ‘stealing’ from the lechers (them) and not
the originators (artists).”
Pray tell, with whom are the words "they" and "them" associated in the context of the quote? Are we to believe that P2P leechers are the ones accusing IsoHunt of being a thief?
Re: Re: Friend of big content lol
Rather than criticizing the commenter for not knowing your motivation, why not take the next logical step and state what your motivation comprises?
As for you view of law, there are ways to affect change within the bounds of law. What you appear to advocate is for people to pick and choose what laws they will obey and what laws they will not. Fine...do not obey a law with which you disagree and which you are not prepared to take the effort to change it. If you happen to be caught, all your protestations about the fundamental unfairness of the law and its lack of economic rationality will very likely fall on deaf ears, as well they should.
Re: Friend of big content lol
Your comments are insightful, well thought out, and thoughtfully presented. It is disappointing that their thrust is lost on many who have commented disapprovingly.
In may regards this entire "movement" of coping freebies reminds me of school classrooms where entire classes are punished because of the actions of a few. While I have no data in support, most younger persons I know do not engage it active P2P distribution as a way around having to pay for content. They do try to follow the law. Unfortunately, the laws currently on the books are there precisely because of the miscreants thumbing their noses at the law. Funny, but I have never seen rights holders complain when new technologies are used to distribute non-infringing matter. It is infringing matter as to which their efforts are directed.
Raise the word "moral" and invective will surely follow. Yet, what we have seen starting about the time of Napster is the equivalent of a lengthy morality play, and in the long run morality and ethical behavior will for the most part win out, the protestations of diehard distributors of rights protected to the contrary notwithstanding.
Re: Re:
Yes, he did say "lechers" but it seems pretty clear from the context that he meant "leechers" (most of that sentence is misspelled). Nowhere does it suggest he meant "big, bad, holders of copyright." In fact, he explicitly denies that in that sentence.
It was the usage of "they" and "them", "they" being used to reference the defendant's accusers, and "them" being used to associate such accusers with "lechers". Add to this that the word "lechers" appeared in a quote by the defendant, his certain familiarity with the distinction between "lechers" and "leechers", and the absence of "(sic)" after "lechers", and the only reasonable conclusion is that the word was used in reference to rights holders and not in reference to a particular class of P2P users.
As for the defendant's actions that most certainly did not help his cause, the section bridging pages 12 and 13 is telling.
And, yes, I did read all of your article and your comment that the decision was not a surprise given other rulings in matters such as this, but your comment was in large measure watered down by your subsequent dicussion of perceived failures by the judge to understand the evidence. Frankly, based upon what is set out in the opinion it seems clear to me that the judge was well aware of the evidence and its import and decided accordingly.
Nice quote from Dowling:
"(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
However, it would have been more illuminating about how the Supreme Court views copyrights and the infringement thereof by continuing the remainder of the quote from Justice Blackmun's majority opinion:
"While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
There is that pesky phrase "property interests". Didn't Justice Blackmun appreciate that "property" may only be associated with "scarcity", or is it possible he and the court were noting that the notion of "property" under law embraces more than merely "scarce" goods?
As for your mentioning "leechers", the word stated was "lechers" and was in reference by the site owner himself, the defendant, to those "big, bad, holders of copyright" who have the temerity, nay...the audacity, to take umbrage at what freeloaders are doing...getting a copy of something for nothing that they darn well know is not legal.
Granted, file distribution via P2P, with the assistance of torrent sites, may involve perfectly legal activity where the file being distributed is with the consent of its creator(s). Funny thing, though, the site draws attention to top downloads in various categories...almost all of which represent works protected under copyright. Of course, it also did not help this "white knight" defendant that apparently on numerous occasions he interceded and helped downloaders figure out how to convert downloads into useable form. Only those intent on rationalizing their actions would believe that contributory infringement and active inducement to infringe could never possibly apply to situations such as these.
I for one do appreciate your economic perspectives on how new technology can be used for one's economic benefit, but am not particularly enthralled to read a constant stream of opinions to the effect "What the heck were these judges thinking? How can they possibly support their decisions?" Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that court decisions are made based upon the evidence presented to the court, which in this case, as the court noted, was virtually nil by the defendant.
A BT site that merely lists available torrents is one thing, but one where its principals go far beyond mere listings is an open invitation to being hauled into court and finding oneself on the losing end of an indefensible argument whenever matter protected by copyright is involved.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Illuminating comment that does nothing to inform anyone of the issues involved in this matter. Perhaps you may care to explain where it is you believe that the trial court and the appellate court went astray.
Plastics are chock full of substances that are known to be cardinogenic. Thus, I see nothing wrong with a warning label that cell phones should not be eaten.
Re: For once I agree with Mikey
Having tried to find an application package that actually performs this type of work, and having had to deal with major drawbacks associated with every application implemented on a trial basis, if this approach can actually do what the patent suggests then sign me up for a trial.
Experience teaches that this is no small matter for companies with a large "inventory" of patent, trademark, copyright, etc., both domestic and international.
Just my musings:
I wonder how discussions would be effected if all persons making comments understood the distinction between a trade association (e.g., RIAA, MPAA, BSA, AMA, ABA, IEEE, AIAA, AIA, etc., etc.) and its membership. If appears the the distinction between an association and its individual members is largely lost in heated rhetoric. Industry associations serve to advance or weigh in on issues its membership deems of interest and/or important to its members. It does not engage in commerce. It does not produce and sell products and/or services. This is what its individual members do on a daily basis.
In the context of the RIAA, it is not the plaintiff in any of the lawsuits brought by labels. The plaintiffs are the labels who may happen to be the holders of copyright in music compositions if the contracts they enter into with one or more musicians provide that the label will be deemed the owner of such copyrights. In return for an artists agreement to transfer copyright to a label under contract, the artists receive varying degrees of consideration, oftentimes cash payments, obligations assumed by a label to produce and promote musical "products, perhaps a royalty, and other benefits designed to get an artist's name out into the public eye. The artists are getting paid by the labels, but such payment is in accordance with the terms of whatever contracts may happen to apply.
Additionally, artists are in many respects the functional equivalent of inventors in the technology arts. They help create a product with the assistance of numerous other people in the employ of labels who each serve an important role, including, inter alia, product creation, marketing and distribution. In other words, the creation of music requires a multitude of persons each having a unique role and skill set they bring to the process.
Until these fundamental distinctions are understood, it is likely that discussions will continue to proceed based upon an inaccurate understanding of the music industry. Until these distinctions are understood and the roles so many other people play in the production, marketing and distribution of music products, it seems to me that people will continue obsessing with artists and overlook all the other people who for a necessary part of the music production process...all of whose salaries are dependent upon the influx of cash for product.
So, when people say "Show me how much the artists will get", what they should be saying is "Show me how much the music production/marketing/distribution will get."
Re: what about...
Google Street View (wherever villagers have not run the Google vehicles out of town) in conjunction with Google Earth?
I took a look at the linked article, but I was unable to find any attribution of the "tens of thousands" to Mr. Griffin. Perhaps you have a cite because I am quite interested in learning more about Choruss.
Mr. Masnick,
Merely for your edification, as a general rule I do submit posts on professional blogs using my complete name. Now seems to be an appropriate time to follow my general rule on your site. No more "AC" or "MLS".
As for my "avatar", I use it merely in a humorous vein. I could use a photo, but for some reason I like the painting "The Scream" so much better.