Slashdot Mirror
Alternatives to the CBDTPA?
badBillStomper asks: "In the next few days I will be meeting with my Congresswomen to discus the effects of a Sen. Hollings CBDTPA on your average customer/techie. I have read tens (if not hundreds) of comments on the various OSDN sites explaining the very obvious reasons why the CBDTPA would cause a great deal of harm to the technology sector as well as consumers. Unfortunately the only postings/articles I have seen which offer a resolution to online piracy have been limited to ways in which the entertainment industry needs to change its business model. While this may be a valid argument, it does not provide a legislative alternative (something which many on Capitol Hill are scratching for). Therefore my question to the slashdot community is what new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track? Most internet users are familiar with the fact that someone with an intermediate amount of network knowledge can tap into data which is sent from one location to another. Vice President Al Gore was the first to link the internet to the idea of the 'information superhighway.' Since Americans are already used to this term, what would the effects of the creation of a kind of 'net traffic cops;' i.e. a law enforcement type of agency which monitors web traffic and fines individuals which break laws, i.e. distribute copyrighted information?"
Why does there have to be any legislation involved at all? Piracy is something the commercial software industry has been dealing with for over 20 years. I don't understand why MPAA & RIAA need hardware changes legislated to solve a problem that is not new. Especially a law that won't even solve the problem (wrt overseas pirates whose governments look the other way).
Why should Congress be the ones playing traffic cop? The corporations have money. If online pirating is hitting their pocket books in a serious manner, they should do what any other group would do: bring the offenders to court.
Take gnutella for example. How hard would it be to write a client which trolls for people providing my copyrighted information? Log the top X number of abusers, and take them to court. Don't smash them like a bug, that is too expensive. Just hit them up enough that it is no longer worth it to them to distribute copyrighted materials. For every one of these guys slapped on the wrist, you will convince 10 people that it isn't worth the trouble.
Just my $0.02.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
No legislation will be acceptable. It isn't the federal government's place to enact any legislation above standard copyright protection. The RIAA and MIAA need to either "Come up with a new business Model" OR start enforcing their copyrights. It is up to the owner of the copyright to enforce and protect his/her copyright. This whining about "We need legislation because there are far too many people pirating..." just won't do. It is up to the copyright holders to protect their own copyright by prosecuting individuals who infringe and pirate, and sue for damages.
When you go to the grocery store, do you see a policeman walking around following you everywhere you go, each aisle you walk thru.... NO! This is because it is up to the grocery store to provide it's own security... and press charges upon anyone who shoplifts from the store. The government needs to stay out of this. This is between the RIAA/MIAA and consumers. PERIOD.
The argument should be that consumers and the electronics industry should not bear the cost of protecting the intellectual property of the RIAA and MPAA.
If you want alternative legislation, propose a consumer's bill of rights that guarantees consumers the right to copy multimedia files for their own use and that prohibits technology that would impinge on that ability.
How about these alternatives: (a) no bill (b) a bill which is 180 degrees off from those currently pending: strong protection of fair use, prohibition of changing technology standards (HDTV) to benefit content providers at the cost of consumers, explicit acknowledgement that the Constitution does not guarantee any industry a certain rate of return no matter what their profit margin was in the past, etc.?
sPh
As far as 'the IP police', this may be actually more preferable to any legislation concerning copyrights/intellectual property piracy. I firmly believe that the government should not set standards for technology (should be resolved within the industry), nor should they legislate morality (what happened to parents/community and mores?). I am afraid that I would be opposed to any legislation that would restrict my fair usage of any piece of equipment or media.
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Upon calling Paul Wellstone's local office, I told the person working the phone how i was opposed to any legislation mandating draconian DRM solutions and made several valid points. I made a point to inform that I was planning on voting in my first election in 2002 and that my opinions on these issues helped form many of my peer's opinions. Tell some high school kids that this will make burning CDs or making copies of free over-the-air TV programs and they'll get interested real fast.
They said they would have the Senator write me back with a response as soon as possible, but being a Senator, he was a very busy man. Ok, I thought, I'm a reasonable man, what's a few weeks. I don't mind waiting a month or two? I took the form letters from The EFF and tailored them to my needs. I sent compies of this e-mail to recently-elected Senator Dayton (D-MN), and my Congressman, Representative Martin Sabo (D-MN).
Well my e-mail and phone campaign was way back in September and just now have I received a response from one of my elected officials. What follows is an e-mail I just received on April 29th from Senator Wellstone, seven months after my inquiries:
I liked the part where I he didn't really answer my question... It seems you are correct in thinking Capitol Hill is hell bent on passing legislation. I don't think ANY legislation is a good thing, but I feel that they [capitol hill] see us [letter-writing geeks] as meddlers who refuse to offer a solution. Who says there needs to be a solution? Has anyone had any other luck with their representatives?
"Unfortunately the only postings/articles I have seen which offer a resolution to online piracy have been limited to ways in which the entertainment industry needs to change its business model."
Change happens. The entertainment industry has to change to keep up with the rest of the world. What congress needs to understand is that the government does not exist to to protect business models from potential threats. It is one thing for the government to punsh those who redistribute someone else's intellectual property without permission, it is another thing entirely for the government to tie the hands of the people, restricting legitimate use of computers, in an attempt to preempt theft.
Does the government put antitheft systems into our cars to prevent people from from stealing them? No. Should the government put antitheft systems into digital devices to protect music? No.
Change happens. Old industries die, new ones are born. That is the nature of reality. The entertainment industry MUST change, and a democratic government has no choice but to sit back and watch.
They've consistently been rejected by the market, which should tell Congress something.
They want to squash our Fair Use, so as a "comprimise" include a rider bill that requires any producer of physical content that does not allow fair use to require a 100% replacement gaurentee within 7 days of notification for the length of the copyright on the content (100 years now??).
This would be fair since it puts as much burdon on the associations of "content providers" as it does to the whole technology sector. Maybe some will then see how obsurd the whole thing is since they already have a good amount of protection.
Next - what party is she?
If Republican - advocate a free-market solution, pointing out the revenues (and earnings, and by extension, taxes) from the technology industry far outweigh the income from the Content Cartel.
(If she's a Republican on the Religious Right, you may also want to point out that Hollywood hasn't been terribly friendly to her party in terms of donations, or her constituents' values, either. When was the last time Andy Grove of Intel decided to advocate sexual promiscuity and drug use? :)
Second - no matter what party she's from, avoid terms like "Content Cartel". Works great on Slashdot. Makes you sound like a tinfoil-hat-loon to a politician.
If Democrat - go for the "why subsidize Hollywood and 'big business' over the little guy selling hardware out of his storefront" angle.
Also, and most importantly, if she's a Democrat - point her to Rep. Boucher. A fellow Congressman from her side of the aisle who truly "gets it".
(For that matter, pointing a Republican Congressman to Rep. Boucher wouldn't hurt either. "Hey, man, even some of the Democrats realize that Fritz' bill is a Big Mistake, and they realize so for precisely the same reasons I do. When a Democratic Congressman can find common ground with Sen. Orrin Hatch (e.g. the DMCA has gone far beyond what its legislative proponents intended), there's probably some room for not just bipartisanship, but there's also something fundamentally wrong with the Hollings bill."
Finally - it's not just the Hollings bill. Rep. Boucher put it very well in the interview when he said there were two ways to look at it: Either all your base are belong to Hollywood, or not.
If you can educate your Congresswoman as regards to what to look for (and what to look out for - (including, but emphatically not limited to, Hollywood-mandated restrictions on hardware manufacturers and computer owners, backed up by force of criminal law) - you stand a reasonable chance of not just stopping the CBDTPA, but whatever successor bills Hollywood tries to put through if CBDTPA is defeated.
Finally-finally - and you probably shouldn't have to be told this, but just for the sake of completeness - be respectful and professional. Get a haircut. If you're male, wear a suit and tie. Dress like you're going to the most important job interview of your life.
Just 'cuz there are a lot of long-haired, wild-eyed geeky types on Slashdot, doesn't mean you have to fill the stereotype. The more they can see that opposition to CBDTPA isn't just a "long-haired freak" position, but a rational response on the part of consumers and businesses alike to a poor law, the better for our side.
It's very simple. Introduce some sort of Draconian legislation, not because you expect it to be passed, but to soften the electorate for a "compromise," which is what you really wanted in the first place.
We don't need legislation. Neither the motion picture industry nor the record industry needs protection. They're doing just fine, and if they started being smarter, they'd do even better. When they say that profits are being sucked out of their businesses by hordes of evil pirates, they are lying and they know it. What they want is very simple; they want more control over the market so that they can bring back the halcyon days of poorly paid "studio talent" and ring in the new days of corporate-controlled boy bands and Britney Spears clones. The motion picture industry tried this before with chains of theaters and this practice was declared illegal. They want legislative imprimateur not only to own the theaters this time but to own the idea of a theater. It is the exact same deal.
What is this, annual Falling for the Bloody Obvious month?
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Congress has the ability to pass laws. Therefore, every "problem" must have a solution found by passing a new law.
If the solution does not include passing a new law, then you must have the wrong solution.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
It needs to be emphesized that the 'problem' Hollywood is confronted with has already been confronted, and solved, by the software industry.
No legislation of any kind is necessary, except the repeal of the DMCA of course.
Software is even more prone to illegal copying and distribution than video or music, yet the software manufactuerers gave up on 'copy protection' schemes years ago as unworkable, ineffective, and harmful to their legitimate customers' need to back up their software and data.
The solution instead is to serialize each instance of the software sold and cross-reference that serial number with the credit card or other identification of the purchaser, such that if 10,000 copies of program A, serial number #12345, appear on the web the copyright holder can go after the original purchaser as a first step.
This doesn't stop all copyright violations, but it does make most people very, very reluctant to share copies of their software, and, as a result, the software industry is flourishing.
There is absolutely no reason Hollywood couldn't attach a serial number to every digital movie or braodcast sold and downloaded on the web. Sure, some would crack the serial number and remove it, but the vast majority of people are not inclined to give away things they themselves had to pay for, especially if there is some risk (however remote) of their name staying attached to the illegal copies.
I say it again, Hollywood doesn't need this law any more than software manufactuerers needed it 15 years ago. The problem has already been solved without legislation, by the marketplace, and if Hollywood weren't so rigidly stuck in the 20th century they would have long since figured that out by now.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
They can develop a copy-identification system along these lines with three separate elements, and then announce that it has four.
They'll even be telling the truth -- FUD (I've filed off three serial numbers... were they bluffing about the fourth one?) becomes an additional element.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Because politicians must do something about this problem that bothers their owne^H^H^H^Hlocal industry.
Is there any compromise between doing nothing and Disney's Law?
If they must pass a law... how about something along the lines of... If the owner of digital content places a unique serial number on a given bit of digital content it is illegal to remove or modify that serial number, and doing so has penalty X....
Sure, modifiying someone else's copyrighted works is already illegal, but this would allow people to modify their own works in a very specific way and still keep their copyright... it would also spell out a specific penalty for removing such a serial number.
With legal protection of serial numbers on digital content, lawsuits against the people who illegally release pirated content are possible. It's hard to sue every kid who has a pirated Brittney Spears CD, but this would help you sue the kid who made the original illegal copy.
The entertainment folks can then negotiate with the hardware manufacturers to get some sort of serial number scheme thet would be difficult to bypass... and the law would help stop the few people with the ability to bypass the technology.
Personally, I'd rather not have any more laws... I just tried to think of a way to let the entertainment industry save face, but avoid too many negative consequences... so please don't mod me as a troll just because I actually tried to answer the question... however, please do flame my idea all you want..
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
I have some thoughts on this, thanks for prompting me!
I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.
The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.
This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.
In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.
Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.
The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.
Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.
The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.
People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.
Capitol Hill ©(TM)®, both side alike, are listening to where their money comes from. Big companies, especially Disney, Macrovision, Microsoft, and other lobby the hell out of these people and coerce them into suppressing you; and the rest of the world to some degree via trickle down. These mongoloids in Washington have to get with the program, and start reading the law. There is precedent to handle this stuff; usually most of it can be found pre 1850. There is no need to suppress the people.
Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.
I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.
And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)
I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
......
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On
Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...
Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789
I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting.
*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.