Slashdot Mirror
Lessig on Streamcast/Grokster Decision
scubacuda writes "Lessig has an editorial in Financial Times regarding
the recent court decision in favor Streamcast (which distributes "Morpheus") and Grokster. 'The wisdom of this rule is something innovators in Silicon Valley are increasingly coming to see. When courts intervene to maintain copyright's balance, the inevitable consequence is that innovation is harmed. If every innovator with technologies affecting content must bear the burden of a lawsuit before his innovation can be allowed, there will be many fewer innovations in the distribution and creation of content. That in turn will harm artists and technologists alike. Better to let the innovation happen, and then consider whether the change caused by the innovation is so significant as to require new legislation by the legislature.'"
It may, in the end, come down a choice: Free speech or copyright enforcement. I know what I'd pick.
"Better to let the innovation happen, and then consider whether the change caused by the innovation is so significant as to require new legislation by the legislature."
What about the innovations of monopolies? By the time the changes caused are considered and legislated, it may be too late.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Lawrence Lessig: Grokster's victory for innovation
By Lawrence Lessig
Published: May 9 2003 16:35 | Last Updated: May 9 2003 16:35
In 1998, in a string of judicial decisions, courts in the United States found Napster responsible for the copyright infringement that occurred on its file-sharing network. The burden of these decisions effectively closed down the company. Last month, a district court held that neither Streamcast (which distributes "Morpheus") nor Grokster could be held responsible for the copyright infringement that occurred on the file-sharing networks they supported. (They both initially supported the "FastTrack" network; Streamcast now builds its client on the "Gnutella" platform.) Thus, Napster: bad; Grokster/Morpheus: good.
This decision has surprised commentators. From 10,000 feet, the two file-sharing networks look very much alike. But they are technically quite different, and that difference clearly mattered to the court. Yet more important than the technology is the difference in judicial attitude that the district court displayed. It is this difference that would really matter if upheld on appeal.
Grokster and Morpheus run on peer-to-peer networks, which means that content is shared not between them and their users but between the users of the network themselves. This was true of Napster as well. The difference is that Napster kept a central list of all the available files, which enabled it to control who got access to what content. That meant that Napster could be held responsible for copyright infringement happening on its network. Because Napster benefited from the infringement and had the opportunity to stop it, the courts held Napster responsible.
The design of the Morpheus/Grokster networks, however, means that the defendants do not have the same opportunity. Because there is no central list of files that can be shared, neither Grokster nor Streamcast are able to control the content that users access. There is therefore no way for either company to take steps to block infringing sharing.
No doubt, the court observed, these companies benefited from the sharing. And no doubt, it went on, peer-to-peer networks were designed in part to avoid the ability to block infringing sharing. But because the law requires that there be both a benefit from the infringement and an opportunity to do something to stop it, District Court Judge Stephen Wilson was not willing to find either company responsible.
The reason the court hesitated is a good one. As the district court reminded us, the practice in copyright cases has not been for courts to expand liability in response to new technologies. It is instead that any such expansion be done by Congress. This principle was the basis upon which the Supreme Court decided that Sony was not responsible for the copyright infringement that the VCR enabled. As the Court reasoned, no doubt Sony could have designed the VCR to disable the ability of users to record shows from the air. But whether Sony should have been so required was a decision for Congress. The only question that a court should ask is whether the technology is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". If it is, whether its use should on balance be considered infringing is a question for policymakers, not courts.
In the VCR case, Congress eventually decided that the use should be permitted - even though, without doubt, many people were copying copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner, and, no doubt, Sony benefited from that copying. But as Congress and the courts well recognise, copyright law is not absolute. The lines that Congress draws must balance the interests of users and copyright owners to the end of spurring innovation. That balance is inherently political. And therefore, when a new technology changes the balance, the appropriate role for a court is to leave it to the political branch to decide whether the change is to be allowed or to be remedied through new legislation.
The wisdom of this rule is s
Kinda like "innocent until proven guilty". Right?
So i could see the look on the faces of the RIAA drones turn from smug self satisfaction to shock. Go the District court!!!!
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
with the non-mispelt title
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Interestingly enough, I do feel that innovation is what is truly being attacked when the DMCA "hammer" (or war drums) are beat upon all the time.
... it's obvious that there is a problem here. We want more content, but when we steal it, the companies we love and hate so much won't be as willing to give it. Hence Palladium, DRM, etc.
.. never.
On another note, and one seldomly discussed
If people could throttle themselves, the problems that we have with content distribution wouldn't be problems at all. Sadly, we can't, so legislation is absolutely neccessary in throttling all those people that can't throttle themselves.
That delicate balance between the rights of the societ and the rights of the owner of the content is dynamically changing, but it is definitely true that technology has given society the ability to very easily steal from the owner of copyrighted material.
Everyone is to blaim. The RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft (in some cases), etc. are hardly in the 21st century. Sometimes I wonder why they complain so much since it's obvious that they should try to start a better music distrubtion model than what they already have. Sometimes sacraficing profits for common sense is a smart thing. We're also to blaim. People using Grokster, Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella2, etc. are thieves (for the most part). The last time I found a nice piece of uncopyrighted material on kazaa and not on Google was
At any rate, it's a mess out there. The RIAA and MPAA are definitely stupid. They're planning on waging war with their entire customer base (or a large part of it). I'm not bussiness guru, but I definitely see a problem with that.
Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling now. People should buy their stuff, and big companies need to take their heads out of their rear ends, and realize that their is money to be made where the biggest battles are being waged.
Good fences make good neighbours and the problems at the moment are certainly due to the nature of the business cycle in technology. Once case law has been built up significantly it will be clearer what the risks and responsibilities of innovation and law are.
Personally I think that the courts are the place to argue out the rules of innovation as if you believe in the idea strongly enough then you will be willing to fight, or raise finance to do so. If this forms part of your business proposal then that is right and good. Business decisions are implicitly risky and this will have to be bourne in mind.
However this is with the caveat that copyright should be limited and the public domain requires legislation to prevent unlimited monopoly of ideas for all time...
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
Judge Wilson's decision is the first sign of a thaw in the winter that has stopped the technology revolution cold.
;-)
Let's hope that spring and summer aren't skipped a la Monty Python.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Heres non-misplet title
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Consumers are not stupid, they all realize that:
1) buying an album without hearing the songs on it is really foolish.
2) most bands these days have one or two really well produced songs ("singles") and then a slew of filler songs on a record.
People will buy a good album, as Eminem's or any other platinum artist's sales will show you. Before technology like Napster, I never would have bought many albums that I own, because there was no other way to hear the songs. Napster was music on demand. Granted, letting people have the files probably hurt the incomes of bands whose older material is far better than their newer material (Metallica, etc). Of course people are going to steal the good songs! If bands put out enough good songs on their records, people will buy the record because it's easier than hunting for and downloading all the songs. Technology doesn't beget theft, it just shows the true value of the data it is transmitting.
stuff |
But what about Kazaa? Doesn't it have a central server?
:)
In any case, this is a great victory for the p2p community. It also shows that the RIAA/MPAA aren't all-powerful and that we can win if we just use the law against them.
Does this mean that all my keygens will be legal until proven otherwise?
Repeal the DMCA!
I can imagine what the RIAA/MPAA would think if we were today debating the freedom of the press. After all, newspapers can be used to STEAL copyrighted works! This must be stopped! It's not the messenger, it's the message. So maybe Napster/Grokster/Morpheus are mostly used for infringing...but they in themselves are not infringing anything. If I make a telephone call to get my gang together to conduct a bank robbery, the law doesn't hold the phone company liable. I know about common-carrier laws, but this is a good comparison. It's the message, not the messenger.
Why does he have such BAD HAIR?!?
Surely a quick once over with the clippers would resolve the problem and improve a particularly unfortunate hair disaster area.
And maybe Stallman would take a hint too??
As that old Joe cartoon might have portrayed Hetfield saying
"Thus, Napster: bad; Grokster/Morpheus: good."
Well they won this battle, its time for the thousands of mindless appeals aiganst them now.
You know...apple embraced the p2p sharing thing, and they are making alot of money off of it, the artists are going to make money off of concerts not cd sales, so if the governing bodies are so worried about their existance...one would think they would simply embrace this as a new distributing channel and make money off it like apple did. Guess logic isnt their strong suit.
What i find funny is how the executives talk about this as being on the same *moral* level as walking into the store and stealing the cd....please...this is comming from the people who when *their* morality was questioned for the content they advocated, they said they were just pushing the limits of scoiety...now when someone else is using morality that isnt in their interest...its *immoral* please.
Let the retarded appeals begin
call downloaders thieves
call downloading or copying theft or stealing.
Copyright infringement is never theft; it does not meet the definition of theft, especially the part about "taking" (if you create a new copy of an item, you are not taking the item).
The argument "you are depriving artists of money" argument does not wash either, due to the fact that many, if not most, instances of copyright infringement involve situations where the copier would not have paid the artist in the first place.
In the cases of bootlegs, mashes, or out of print songs being downloaded off p2p networks, there is never a loss of money to the company and artist: they refuse to sell the material in the first place!
The connection to the artist's money is tenuous at best. If a copier is a "thief", then so is anyone who protests a business. In both examples, no actual theft takes place, but there is sometimes a loss of money to a business.
It may be a crime, but it is not theft.
Boo frickin hoo.
As we have been repeatedly shown, the music industry is a business, pure and simple. It has always been like that to some degree, but now it seems it is purely a business. In any business, you take risks, and you stand the chance that you might go under. This happens to every business. If you can't change with the times, you just might collapse. This is what is happening to the music business. They refuse to accept the change that is happening. They will not accept online music, even though online music won't be stopped. If they can't deal with it, they will die as a business. I can live with that.
If the music business as we know it dies, it won't be such a bad thing. Maybe we will go back to the majority of artists actually making music instead of simply "performing". It would be like a forest fire wiping out everything. Eventually, it will grow back. Music is too important to our culture, to everyone's culture, for it to die off totally. I don't want the music to die off, just the business that surrounds it. It is just another business, and brings no real value to the people who love music. If the music industry dies, it is simply evolution.
The ironic part is that the music industry has created and fueled this need for music. They have trained people to consume consume consume. CDs are $11.99 for the first few weeks they come out, to get people to buy them. After that, they go on the rack at $18. Why? So you can buy the next latest release. They created it so that we have portable music in portable cassette and CD players. They want us to want music. So now we want music! We want to hear it all the time, we have the capabilities to store thousands of songs on our computers, to take them with us wherever we go in smaller and smaller devices. So, RIAA, you have created a monster that you can't control any more. Reap what you sow, motherfuckers.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
CNN reported today that Lessig farted during a meetup with his wife...
Cm'on... nothing here to see. No news, no new insight, nothing.
"Never mind that with pirate mp3s the artist never sees any money anyway"
I mainly use Kazaa to download bootlegs, unusual versions, and songs that the company refuses to sell. The artists and ocmpanies don't even want money for these things. If they did, they would be selling this material elsewhere.
No one is depriving anyone of money this way when the copyright owners and artists refuse to take money for the material in the first place.
I honestly think this is the only way to go.
If you release music as an audio file you can include meta data giving the URL of a Website from where you can make payment for the track.
Video can include a still frame at the start giving a URL from where a license payment can be made.
Those without Internet access could make payment via telephone or even in traditional stores.
If I was the music industry I'd be saying to myself,
"Right, can't beat 'em - exploit 'em."
By unleashing the distribution innovators of any kind of licensing or copyright problem could distribute their material further a field that they could ever dream about - and if only a small percentage actually go the appropriate payment website and make payment it could still be a huge amount compared to today's sales.
What would be the problems with this kind of set-up? Would the labels just disregard this idea outright without a second thought?
Why is anyone making any fuss at all over "peer to peer" sharing companies? What could I do with any of this *-ster software that I can't do with apache and proftpd (which I already have)?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Hilary Rosen of the MPAA, I believe, gave a speech lamenting libraries, of all things, because they loaned materials out without any payment required.
Infuriate left and right
I read a quote from a record company official who said that p2p, if not stopped, could destroy all music. Yes, all music.
Gee. I wonder how Beethoven and Bach ever existed without the RIAA.
The records companies, movie studios, etc., are trying to preserve their monopoly on the only thing that they have of value to sell, that is, their content. Before the day of P2P, they attempted to suppress cassette tapes and VCR's in much the same manner, using the same tactics of Chicken Little "sky is falling" doom and gloom. It didn't happen then, it probably will not happen now.
In fact, much of the revenue generated by a film is through it's secondary sales channels, namely videos (videotape and now DVD.) Had the masses not had the ability to record, how long would it have taken for VCR's to be adopted? Much longer would be my guess.
So at the end of the day, the content providers figured out how to actually utilize the new technology (VCR's) that previously had been the (they said) precursor of their Armageddon and make money off of it.
It may just turn out that they could do the same with P2P. Yes, piracy is rampant in that area currently, but there are ways, as iTunes has obviated, to make a lot of money by downloading music. iTunes has given consumers choice, and consumers have shown that they are willing to pay for high-quality music of their choosing.
No iTunes is not P2P, but it is what P2P really is -- an electronic distribution channel that brings the record store to the web browser. That's really what Grokster, Kazaa, etc., are -- ways to get music sitting in your underwear on Sunday morning while you're sipping coffee. Music that you choose, not the 13 other tracks on a given CD that, well, suck.
They should have learned this, if nothing else: that consumers are far less willing to accept the old status quo of buying albums by the current "pig in a poke" method -- you know the one song that Clear Channel's been bribed into playing, but the others are a mystery. More often than not, they aren't the greatest. Rare is the album that's pleasing end to end any more. And at $19 bucks a pop, it's no wonder people are refusing to plunk down the price.
Given the choice between a fair price for a legal Napster of a certain guaranteed quality, of songs that they want (no filler) I would think that many people would be happy to pay for it. Time will tell. What's clear though is that the meteor has crashed into the record companies' world and it is now their choice to be either dinosaurs or evolve into something that can survive.
If such an innovative, practical, and quality service is available and legal under the DMCA, what are we really complaining about? I think Apple has debunked a lot of myths about the DMCA, and some of us here just can't deal with that.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Actually, what will happen is artists will probably become service providers. Nothing can replace the feel and tone of live music in a restraunt or on the street. One of my greatest memories of a past vacation is of a guy wailing on a sax in the middle of the night.
That type of thing couldn't have been duplicated by a couple of kids playing some music on a boom box.
Even though all I have left of the experience is a memory (and a log in my travel diary), I gave the guy 2GBP. It was not a lot, but it was the least I could do to tell him how much I appreciated his talent.
So I can see how the gift of music will be returned to live performances, and become more of a service industry than a product-driven industry.
There will always be a market for means by which people can take music with them. I'm just hoping that the music will return to being primary reason to buy it, rather than the CD being the primary reason to make music.
Of course, during his time, he had no idea that technology would ever develop at the pace that it did in the 20th century and that it will in the 21st century. On the other hand, even if he could imagine such unimaginable technological growth rates as we have seen in the last hundred years, no one from his time could imagine such prohibitive measures being taken to prevent technological advancement in today's world.
The popular opinion regarding Malthusian theory of economic growth is that Malthus had it backwards -- his prediction that man's consumption would strip the earth of its resources failed to consider (1) technological growth and (2) that man's wants and needs evolve as well as anything else. In other words, as our resources change, our wants and needs are at least partially shaped by what we can possibly provide. We adjust to the environment in which we live. (Agent Smith says, "There is another organism on this planet...")
The question I would like to pose to Slashdot's readership is this: To what degree was Malthus right considering man's habits of mass consumption and self-imposed barriers to innovation such as copyright laws, and to what degree was Malthus wrong considering technological and other innovations? (Hmm. Ask Slashdot?)
The Apple service is a beast of a type that most on Slashdot complain about: a web page that is hardware specific. As it is, it won't work with the hardware most people have.
They need to take care of this, sooner rather than later. However, I doubt they will ever carry the rarities that the companies refuse to sell that I can get on Kazaa Lite.
I, for one, won't accept this logic.
Premise: Things fall to the Earth.
Counter-argument: Clouds don't.
Conclusion: Things don't fall to the Earth.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Thank you for your opinion, Hillary. I'll be sure to keep it in mind when I'm out not buying music. Unfortunately, your posting as an AC will prolly get the post filtered out from the vast majority of readers.
In the last 9 years, I've HAD over 230 GIGS of mp3s. Now, I have less than 150 MEGS, and those are all live shows of comedians or local acts. The only copyrighted material on cd/tape I own are of local bands, things I won off the radio, and greatest hits/compilation albums. I learned when I was 12 and got suckered into a BMG music club that mainstream music sucks. Why the hell should I pay $10 (at the time, $20 now) for 1 song that I like and 9-13 tracks of complete and udder crap?? If I had a MAC, I'd be all over iTunes. $1 a song? That's not a bad deal. Until then, if I feel like listening to a song, I'll download it, listen, and delete. Kinda like running my own personal radio station where it's all request, all the time.
BTW, there was a court ruling in the mid-late 90s that said downloading (C) material was legal for previewing purposes, but that it had to be deleted with in 24(48?)hrs. What ever happened to that?
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
I don't want to hear folks belatedly whine that they are lactose intolerant-- and hence require free milk sugar reducing medicines-- without some clear evidence (a tattoo on the forehead, perhaps?) that they previously registered all cheese purchases.
What a bloody good idea. Registration. And forehead tatooing, too.
--I hope I never see my (this) post... 'cause ya'll are gonna mod the parent into "Not getting it" dimwit-oblivion!
Christ that site is funny! See the reactions to the article Jesus and John were Gay lovers (Which is just fucking halarious in itself). People write that they're "ashamed" that a Chruch could say this sort of thing.
Christians; the biggest hypocrites the world has ever known. Love thy neighbour. But oh good God, not if he's Gay!
Well, who exactly prohibits you from doing so? I think it's called consumers. It simply is impractical, and I also assume you cannot copy your milk.
But regardless that you want the ingredients, producer etc. information printed on the bottle.
In your world, it is not fair for others to have rights over their products.
"Funny thing is that if Microsoft introduced a similar service (with same features/limitations) for us on the PC side, the froth glands would be churning it up in overdrive."
It would be just a little better, since such a service would work for most people. However, it would likely be something that would not work for Apple until maybe later, and probably never for Linux.
According to Declan McCullagh the P2P endgame is now approaching and it will be down to congress to sort this out.
He argues convincingly that the law has been changed in the past by congress when copyrights have been seen to be under threat by a judical decision, so we should expect the same thing to happen here.
This is exactly what the judge in the Grokster case has suggested, so expect an RIAA/MPAA sponsored P2P bill in congress sometime soon...
Karma me!
"Congress obliged. Three years later, President Clinton signed into law the No Electronic Theft Act, which makes--as I've written about before--copyright infringement a federal crime even if not done for commercial purposes. ""
What a mis-named act, since copyright infringement has nothing to do with theft. If they want to prevent electronic theft, they need to get more security guards at Best Buy.
I admire Lessig immensely, and maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems that he is implying it is a GOOD thing to let Congress decide what uses of p2p should exist. Maybe that is actually better than outright judicial control (it is theoretically easier to change congressional legislation than stare decisis), but I have NO FAITH in Congress to consider the people over the millions of $$$ being thrown at them by the media industry.
I believe that the recent decision is a step in the right direction, but I can't help but wonder if this is taking p2p out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Downloading music file off a server is not file sharing and has absolutely nothing to do with P2P.
Interesting...crazy bitchfest rants with no thoughts by anonymous cowards. I think I'll download some more music.
Hillary Rosen of the MPAA?
To many, facts do not matter. Barbara Streisand has protested Bush's invasion of Iran. Gore Vidal hates Fox News, and gives Chris Matthews as an example of why it is bad. Al Gore claimed that he created the Internet.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.
The Judge in "Life-Line"
This quote provided under the doctrine of fair use.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
If I read this right, this supporting constraints only after taking it into court.....
..... And then letting the courts be the ultimate judge as to whether or not the patent holds up.
Well it would be consistant with the practice of the Patent office to issue patents on anything that seems to be filed with the proper paperwork, arguement and other factors (like - Well this party has filed many patents so we are relatively sure they know what they are applying for a patent on).
Lets be clear first that not everyone agrees on what intellectual property is, or how long it exists. Different countries, different times have had different takes on this kind of property. IP is owned for a time then goes into the public domain. That time was lengthened by congress essentially so Disney would not loose control of Steamboat Willy. The time was lengthened for the rights to be held on this "image" for 99 years I believe, up from what 17 years or 20 years passed the creators death, whatever.
....or duck tape.
The Electromagnetic spectrum used to be public domain. Now it is illegal to listen into certain frequencies. Talk about a human construction. Ham radio's in this country can't be sold if they can tune in frequencies that they should not.
It comes down to business and allowing people to have a monopoy for a time on some business they can profit from. They have lobbied in the governments for that right and have recieved laws to protect those monopolies. But it is a human construction and is not universal. There are peoples that still believe that no one owns land.
When the trains came in the covered wagon's place was jeapordized. Automobiles caused the horse industry to collapse. When IC's came in, the Japanese transistor radio industry collapsed overnight.
The Internet has come and we see the frantic attempts by entrenched businesses to hold on to the value of their property, to not change. But I think the bucket has too many holes in it. The recording industry may change its focus to the live concert industry. That at least is a tangible controllable poperty they have. Bands may have to get off they duffs and tour more. Prices may have to go up. Venues may have to get larger, if these captains of industry want to maintain their current level of riches.
Wide-aspect ratio, flat panel display, one cable between it and the computer. Gee, where have I seen that before. Even the desktop image looks very similar to the default OS X desktop.
OK, they "innovated" to build-in a phone. Big deal.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
BTW, there was a court ruling in the mid-late 90s that said downloading (C) material was legal for previewing purposes, but that it had to be deleted with in 24(48?)hrs. What ever happened to that?
I think that's an Urban Myth
Although snopes.com doesn't turn up anything.
"Copy from one, it's plagiarism; copy from two, it's research."- Wilson Mizner (1876-1933)
Now, I've been meaning to read Lessig's books. I was waiting for his most recent to come out in paperback so it would be a little more affordable. Seeing his feelings in the FT editorial though, could someone ask him to just post an electronic copy somewhere, because I don't feel like paying $10.50 for it if I don't have to.
Thanks.
Milo
In what way would the world be a worse place if music was not protected by copyright?
Music would be created by talented people doing it for free (bias)like the best software(/bias) and distributed over the net by the people that wanted it. Good music would spread, bad music would die - no artist could ride on past sucess.
Musicians could get a real job (performing or working in McD's - their choice) and perform their art for art's sake. It might get some of the talentless greedy hacks out of the industry.
They would also be free to create derivative works, improving on the original and enhancing it. That way old music would get better. (Well, sure there would be some crap, but no one would d'load it.)
Sure, extend IP rights to valuable things like new power sources for limited periods (assigned on a case by case basis) to allow stimulation for innovation, but copyright of music is totally uncessary for music to thrive and so it should be removed as soon as possible.
Beep beep.
This is crap. They have blocked a "common platform" from being adopted. They create proprietary APIs so developers have a difficult time creating cross-platform products. Posix, ANSI C, X11, and even Java have allowed interoperability in software, which allows more freedom and innovation. MS has suppressed innovation to keep their monopoly.
"Al Gore claimed that he created the Internet. He "took the initiative in creating the internet". Theres a difference."
What's the difference? His wording implies that he was the first of the Internet creators, the one that "took the initiative". Any way you cut it, it is totally false. Like saying John Delorean took the initiative to create the sports car. Look at what Gore actually said, and what actually did happen in Internet history (hint: don't try Snopes. they get the facts wrong).
As for Streisand, she did talk about Bush's invasion of Iran. not Iraq.
I'm not being a troll by catching political figures when they say silly things or lie.
"So it's ok for me to take a copy of your "Great American Novel", which you have no plans to ever publish, and start selling it on Amazon?"
Who ever said anything about selling it? To make an accurate analogy: if I am so dumb as to pass around thousands of copies of the novel, and refuse to sell it when people who did not get the copies want to buy it, then I should not complain if people start to xerox copies and give them away for free to meet the demand for the book I refuse to sell.
(Yes, your analogy was quite sloppy: you compared an unpublished novel to a performance performed before tens of thousands of people).
Snopes is not that much of an authority, really.
Read their bit about Al Gore's blunder. They deny that Al Gore took credit for the Internet while they provide actual quotes showing Gore doing this. They are dumb enough to call his statement an urban legend on the same page they quote him making this statement. I wonder why Snopes has made this mistake and it has gone uncorrected for years. Political bias is one possible explanation; a more likely explanation is that they are sloppy and post stuff without thinking about it.
"Copy from one, it's plagiarism; copy from two, it's research"
Copy from one, it's plagiarism
copy from two, it's research
Copy from some kid in Belgium, it's p2p
Copy from Apple, it's Microsoft
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So your weak historical analogy crumbles.
Seeing as you're wrong, you're weak retort crumbles. Newspapers can and have reprinted unauthorized copies of creative works. When that happens, we hold the newspaper accountable. We don't (any longer) go after the people who made the printing press.
There was a time when the British Monarchy tried to control the printing press. It didn't work, so in 1557, they created copyright. Their copyright was to grant the Stationer's Guild the exclusive right to publish. By 1710, England realized that letting publishers control the printing press was a bad idea, so they created the Statute of Anne which all modern copyright is founded upon.
The U.S. constitution carefully separates patents and copyrights. Congress has the power to grant authors the rights to their artistic creations, and congress may grant inventors the rights to their discoveries. The constitution very carefully does not allow congress to grant authors control of inventions.
Letting copyright holders control p2p technology is similar to letting publishers control the photocopier, cassette recorder, VCR, radio, or any other publishing technology.
When the constitution was drafted, the Statute of Anne was less than 100 years old. The age of publishers controlling the printing press was very recent history. The constitution was carefully worded to prevent the recreation of another Stationer's Guild.
If every innovator with technologies affecting content must bear the burden of a lawsuit before his innovation can be allowed, there will be many fewer innovations in the distribution and creation of content. That in turn will harm artists and technologists alike.
What on Gods green earth makes you think that any respectable company would have any interest in doing something like protecting the people or groups that make them money? Why do that when you can simply get laws passed to enforce the way you want things to work?
If you don't stop reading this right now you owe me $1,000. Send check or money order too...
Don't forget the divide by race. One party wants equal rights for all, and the other party strongly favors punishing people for having the wrong race (affirmative action).
Yes, the campaign finance law is unconstitutional. The stated aim is censorship (getting rid of undesirable ads), and the soft money bans are just a means to the end.
I think that you have missed the point here. While it is certainly true that most people *think* that there is a signifcant difference between the two major political parties in the US based upon some of the issues that you raise, neither side of any of these issues (with the possible exception of abortion versus choice) is in conflict with the notion of a "classical liberal" state. That is, both parties (and most citizens, I suspect) agree with the fundamental principles outlined in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various subsequent amendments.
Neither political party seriously suggests, say, a return to monarchy, or massive redistribution of wealth. Likewise, very few people argue either for manditory state sponsored religion, the reintroduction of slavery or a return to the prohibition of alcohol. No contemporary US politician is willing to seriously discuss social civil rights (i.e. the right to food and shelter, freedom of movement, medicine and health care, etc.) that are guaranteed by many European states, but not by the US.
Furthermore, it is not clear that either party has a clear "agenda." It is tempting to say that the Republican party, in general, is more concerned about the individual and that the Democratic party is more concerned about the social. But this generalization breaks down pretty quickly when one considers the issues that you raise above. For instance, the desire to maintain a standing army would be a Democratic rather than a Republican concern if this were the case.
However upon closer inspection, it appears that both parties actually have the same agenda. That agenda is to support and protect the moneyed interests. The only difference is *which* vested interest should recieve the most protection. In this light, both parties look very similar.
I'm both a musician and a programmer, and I woud definitely say that theft is the wrong way to describe it.
You show it to a company and they copy it, sell it as their own and throw you out on your ass.
Selling it "as their own" implies plagiarism, which is completely different from a copyright violation. They can sell it all day long without complaint from me as long as they don't claim to have written the software without me. Credit should be given where credit is due. As long as I get that credit, then there is no problem. Even if I don't get credit, I wouldn't call it theft; I'd call it plagiarism.