Slashdot Mirror
Decriminalizing File Swapping
IAmTheDave writes "Wired reports that judicial activism is taking hold in France, much to the dismay of the recording industry, as judges are beginning to suspend the sentences of convicted file swappers. Further, they believe they are starting a revolution against the draconian laws at the base of the industry's legal agenda, and that sometimes laws need to be changed. Says Judge Dominique Barella of the laws against file swapping in today's society: 'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.'"
from what i read, the French magistrates union has begun to openly advocate decriminalizing online trading in copyrighted works for personal use.
so what's personal use? less than 5 movies?
does that mean if i'm caught with more than 5 movies i'm a dealer?
can i get an exemption for medical use?
Here is a blurb from a article on the failure of prohibition by the Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University, Mark Thornton. If you read it, just substitue 'file swapping' for 'alcohol' and it seems to ring very true.
"National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment" -- was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that
much stronger."
My favorite quote from prohibition was this on by Reverent Billy Sunday:
"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."
Seems like the same kind of quote a RIAA is telling artist when they talk about their fight against file swapping.
Well, I know that I am drawing at least a couple unfounded correlations between the two, but its fun to do. Also, I should point out that I am not for or against either position. Both positions have their own problems.
--greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
When, how, and under what circumstances is it ok for copyright owners to protect their content?
Clearly, French judges want the ability to download the latest Eminem Album. And probably a copy of Return of the Sith to go with it.
/. ++
Prohibition.... they tried that in the movies and it didn't work!
Instead, criminal proceedings should be geared more toward prosecuting large-scale counterfeiting rings instead of going after "a young person who fills up his or her iPod."
See, but the music industry doesn't want to do any real investigative work. They want to make examples out of people that are just like everyone else. Everyday people who are swapping music for their portable media players are not going to feel scared of sympathetic towards large-scale operations. They are going to be scared of someone "just like them" that was prosecuted for doing exactly what they are.
"People still look at this as 'harmless, file sharing,' but the fact is that the effects are the same, or even actually worse, than a massive-scale organized crime piracy operation," Rechard said. "If you look at the number of files that are distributed and the number of music that is being offered without payment to the authors and injury inflicted to the copyright holders, at some point people need to start understanding what we are up against here."
That's because it is harmless and we have proven time and time again that your trumped up "loss" numbers are nothing more than spin and bullshit. At no point will be stop understanding that the music industry conglomorates are nothing but money grubbing, lying, pieces of shit that do nothing but steal from both sides of the equation for their own benefit.
'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s).
The prohibition period in the US continues to this day. Marijuana, LSD, opiates, and a host of other substances less harmful than alcohol remain prohibited. It's just that the propaganda is better this time around.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You should probably learn the difference between millions and billions before you decide what the world wants.
In a sense that matches up with the "fair use" notion in the US. Swapping a few songs with your friends hardly seems criminal, or at least trivial.
Pulling tens of thousands of files from other file-trading networks and then making them available for free to people anywhere in the world, that hardly sounds like "fair use". It's too bad the the technologies that enable the fair use case also enable the more clearly criminal case.
"Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society."
The proliferation of more p0rn?
'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s).'
This has some interesting implications; however, I don't think it'll be interpreted the same here in the states. See, Prohibition was viewed as the government taking away a liberty right, or the right to be left alone. Here is the Man telling me I can't buy alcohol.
Downloading MP3's is viewed as taking the "property" of somebody else. In other words, if I want to buy and drink alcohol, then who is the government to stop me? But if I want to take somebody's property (as defined by IP laws), then obviously, this changes things.
I do think that "jail time" people for downloading some music is ridiculous. Downloading music will never stop, this cycle will always continue. It's like the 55MPH speed limit. Nobody follows is, and yet the police still try to enforce it. Some of us will pay fines, and others will get away scott free.
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
You should probably work out whether you want your head stuck in a pigs bum or a cows bum before you speak out ... :D
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
While I don't mind cutting out the middleman, I think this stinks for the artist. Let the artists set up their own websites and accept a payment equivalent to their royalty. Let's kick out the guys that say who will and will not release music. There's an explosion of new music out there, some of which we may not appreciate, that is just waiting for the opportunity to get listened to. Let's break up the whole cartel, the RIAA, the radio stations and anything else that stands in the way of the freedom of musical expression, which ought to be covered in the 1st amendment.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
The laws concerning copyright of written text weren't changed when the Xerox ocopy machine became available. Should copyright laws on music recordings be changed just because it's so easy to store, copy and "share" such recordings? I don't see any argument other than "I want my free [commercial] music" and that's not a good enough reason.
Tag lost or not installed.
In a true capitalist society would patents & copyrights even exist ? I don't believe so, they're incompatible with that philosophy. The whole bitch & moan routine by mpaa/riaa/copyright holders/etc sounds like sourgrapes to me.
So now that Jusitces Kennedy and Stevens are advocating the use of international law and foreign judges opinons in Supreme Court descisions do you think they are going to take these rulings into consideration? It shall be interesting to see.
Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
Last time I checked, most places had some sort of speed limit in place which does comdemn people for going too fast, and alot of cars can go 250 kmh. What a great argument, and an awesome analogy
>So, France doesn't produce much music the world want s to listen to, or many movies they want to watch.
Really? Their music might not be to everyones taste but their movies can be absolutely superb.
RikF
In Soviet Russia you own your cat
What does this have to do with activism? This is what judges are supposed to do.
mbbac
No, it is a judge ruling with personal opinion not fact or rule of law.
Get a FREE Sony PS3
seriously though, i think it's refreshing to hear people in authority looking at the situation from this perspective instead of blindly following.
change always has to start somewhere, at some level.
How could you?!? You missed out snails in your sterotype!
And france does produce some things I like to watch... *cough*
It's even more insane to criminalize file swapping than it is to criminalize drug use. Catching file swappers basically requires the violation of either the 4th ammendment or the first.
At one point in time the freedom to copy was so unimportant to the average person that the trading away that freedom in the hopes of some greater social benefit made sense. Now things have changed, and it's time to re-evaluate how the social benefit might be achieved without trading away an important and easily exercised freedom.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Looks like they're basically saying "Sorry, EU-MPAA, but we really do have more important issues to tend to than some high school kid that's downloading little bits of "1" and "0" that he can put on his iPod. Besides, he's paid the media tax that you turkeys claimed was necessary to cover the costs of piracy. Now go away."
The government needs to reserve ethnic prisoner gang rape for the truly deserving.
Seastead this.
I agree that sometimes the laws are a bit extreme in the US when if come to Copyrights. For instance the 3 years in jail felony for downloading a pre-release movie is a bit extreme. I think a fine would be more appropriate.
but on the other hand, some of these kids that are being fined only had like 433 songs. What happened to "The RIAA will only sue 'major' contributors to copyright infringement"? I thought they defined that as at least 900+ songs.
It isn't balanced in either direction. The punishment often doesn't fit the crime which I believe is some where in US criminal law.
No kidding. These judges aren't trying to change copyright law, they're trying to put it back to what it was originally designed to be!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The purpose of the judges is to rule on current law, not make up law as they go along. We have the legislators to make up laws. And I do mean make up.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
...Fair Use is good as it exists. But the net has made Fair Use a question of scale.
Burn and share your music with your friends, sure. That's reasonable. But when you rip/put material online or P2P and you're sharing with 100 or 1,000 "friends" then you've exceeded the scope of fair use. You are DISTRIBUTING the content without permission.
1. They didn't mention what the current punishment for "swapping files" was.
2. They never gave the reader any clue as to how many "convicted file swappers" there were.
How can I judge how big this event is if they don't give me any kind of ruler to measure it against. I know the RIAA in the US has sued some swappers for money, but it was all civil. Wired seems to act like this is a Bastille Day for file swappers, but I'm not even sure anyone was even in prison.
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
Judicial activism is the right wing's name for judges who have a different opinion from themselves.
You're absolutely right. However judges should not have any opinion for themselves, but should read the law for what the law says. That is the underlying principle of the checks and balances system. Once they start 'having a different opinion' or 'having an opinion' at all, they negate the whole legislative branch and become judge, jury, and executioner in their local area. Leave it to congress and the house (albeit they are not adequately representing the people either) to make the laws. Judges don't need opinions.
Well they're gonna have to accept that policing it will never get any more effective than simply scaring people into submission. The PC is just not a locked system so there's always going to be ways to break any copy-protection you throw at it and there will always be ways to communicate with people without being caught. I think mobile phones will take over as the music platform of choice - they're already merging with pda's and mp3 players (which are a passing fad) and they are easier to lock down than PC's (although obviously not 100%). People are more likely to impulse buy on a mobile because they have it on their person 24/7, you might be in a shop or at a party and you like the music so you'll take out your phone and buy it on the spot in 20 seconds, music recognition software and debit from your mobile account will mean this takes only a few button presses, instead of waiting until you're at home or in a music shop by which time you will have forgotten. The mobile platform will be attractive to the music industry because they will have more of a chance of locking it down, making sure only their software is used, but what makes it a good idea is that while people can hack it if they want, its far more convenient for most people just to pay, I'm pretty sure more people in the world now have mobile phones than PC's with net access.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
They were right about Iraq, they're right about file swapping, their women don't get fat, and they make awesome pastries. So what if they can't fight?
Yeah, so much for the notion of judges being unbiased and impartial
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
as judges release convicted fileswappers with suspended sentences associated with otherwise draconian penalties stipulated by copyright law. [emphasis added]
File swapping is not a crime! Copyright infringement is. We wouldn't call someone who downloaded child pornography a "convicted web-surfer"
I suppose I'm rehashing the tired hacker/cracker terminology argument, but terminology does matter. Public opinion shapes public policy, and ultimately creates laws. Even though their are legitimate uses for file sharing programs, we may find them made illegal simply because they were publicly associated with copyright infringement. Nevermind the fact that web browsers facilitate more copyright infringement than filesharing programs - it's the public perception that matters.
I'm a file swapper too. But that doesn't mean I'm guilty of copyright infringement.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Yeah, he's right. So why do I have all these past speeding tickets?
Really though, I know this is common thought amung most people, but it is not the same. Speeding in a car might be illegal, but sometimes it's necissary. Not the same with downloading music. This was never a problem when VCR's came out with the double-deck, where you could directly copy one tape to another. They just put that little FBI warning at the begining stating basicly, "If you copy this, and sell it, we must break you". The downloading that is done by, um those other bad people, isn't gaining them anything. I mean, they can hear the music, that's all. Unless they attempt to sell it as the original, I don't see the difference. It would be like fining people for driving around with their music to loud, er wait, they do that, but not for copyright infringement.
Even though I can't understand this from any point except for how it is looked at from the viewpoint of a worried musician, who lacks the balls to think that their music will still sell.
My point, though probably not explained very well, is that we have the physical ability to do certain things. If we are givin that ability, and then penalised for the use of it, then I really think we need to re-think the reality that we live in.
This is a world where the cops will get an undercover female officer to pose as a prostitute, and arrest guys for wanting to pay for sex. What next? A guy opens a site where you can download music from, just to arrest people for doing so?
Speaking of which:
t xt and the response: http://static.thepiratebay.org/whitestripes_respon se.txt
Latest email to the pirate bay: http://static.thepiratebay.org/whitestripes_mail.
The French use a different legal system that the English Common Law used in North America. It is based less on precedence (previous legal decisions). The ability of the impartial judiciary to "go with the times" is an important feature in their legal system. This system changes faster to suit the times than a precedence-based one. Of course, this is a two-edged sword, especially if the public mood has taken a dramatic draconian turn.
However, its much better than the US legal sytem which still hasn't got its head out of the Victorian era's butt.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
ever hear of 'no such thing as bad advertising'? artists of all levels, from just starting out, to top of the charts benefit from internet sharing.
:-}
everyone loves to argue that it hurts the music industry or hurts up and coming artists, but the only thing it can really do, is prevent shitty artists from making money - and how is that a bad thing? if you make crap, don't cry to the world that the problem was file sharers, the problem was your crappy music.
now I know there are 100 different ways (now, due to the pressue internet sharing put on the industry - you used to get stuck with a crappy cd) to test out music before you buy it, but is there a good way to listent to a full album for a while to decide if you really want to purchase it, or go to one of their concerts or support the artist in other ways?
i'm not normally one to cheer on France, but looks like they've done something right - I wonder if you were able to internet share paintings, sculptures and other artist work (beyond music, you get me) if France courts would be handing out the same ruling.
however, after IDRTFA (i did read the f'n article) this judge's statement is way out of place: "Judge Dominique Barella told Wired News. "It's like condemning people for driving too fast after selling them cars that go 250 kmh."" uh, ok so don't condemn me for using a gun that you sold me which I used to shoot you, or drinking too much of their Wine and drive around knocking out pedestrians - maybe i should retract my statement about France being right
don't hate me for this, they have file sharing, so it fits the comment
do you have shinyfeet?
so if the law is wrong ... i'll let you follow that train of thought to whatever conclusion you'd like
In a similar vein, I read this a while back in regards to stream ripping and fair use in France:
:)
http://www.ratiatum.com/p2p.php?article=2055
Not happy about it, but appears to be legal under fair use laws. Spiffy
In a true capitalist society would patents & copyrights even exist ? I don't believe so, they're incompatible with that philosophy.
At least Yartrebo agrees with you.
Okay, for the sakeof argument, lets accept the record industries position that file sharing reduces profits, and is the sole reason for the $2 billion drop in profits
Lets also assume the first figure I came across of 200 million file sharers is correct. That means that each file sharer costs the industry an average of $10. Let's also say that sharing TV shows, movies, games and applications also cost the same amount. That's $50.
Perhaps this figure should be used when deciding on the penalty for file sharers.
If this could be given out as a something more akin to a parking ticket, where you just pay the fine, and the transgression is forgotten about, and it was made extremely easy to pay anonymously, and also extremely easy to appeal against, with some small penalty for false accusations, would it solve the problem?
It would mean less sympathy for the file sharers, since the penalty is not that great. It would provide an extra source of income for the industry. Enforcement costs would be negligible (the RIAA charges the ISP. The ISP charges the user. The user pays the fine or gets cut off, or appeals and takes the reward if succesful). It would cut down on file sharing, but those who did it would not receive a huge financial burden.
I'm really not seeing how you can see the analogy as anything other than ridiculous, unless you think that a ban on file swapping is leading today's teens to hard drugs.
In a way it does. The more you are told that something that seems obviously "OK" is illegal, the more you start to think that perhaps OTHER laws are silly as well.
The more laws you stack up that the majortiy of the populace simply do not follow (speeding, P2P, etc) the more people break other laws as well. "In for a penny, in for a pound" as the saying goes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, France doesn't produce much music the world wants to listen to, or many movies they want to watch.
The best way to understand the relationship between Anglo and French cultures is to think of them as parallel universes. There is a lot of great stuff that happens in both that doesn't 'cross the bridge' between them.
French movies tend to be 'small' and not huge CGI blockbusters, but they tend to be the best of all the 'small' movies of the world. During the movie theater era before the VCR revolution of the mid-1980s, French films were widely shown in every major US cities. French directors like Truffaut and Rohmer were known throughout the world.
French music is not only the pop songs of the radio, but also most of Europe outside of the UK. Paris is also the ground zero for the world music movement. Much of the music of Africa is recorded there and many of the best African musicians are based there. Paris is also the center of the European orchestral music movement, both modern and classical. Classical music is rare and modern orchestral music unknown on US radio.
Back to the topic. I believe that the final effect of all the DRM and legal action against the consumers of corporate entertainment product will be the marked decrease in the demand for this product.
This might be beginning to happen with Hollywood movies. The box office revenue growth seen in the past eight years seems to have stopped. This has nothing to do with movie file sharing, because that activity is very small compared to the size of the industry itself. It's more due to high prices at the theaters and unexciting movies.
What we will see, hopefully, is a lot of smaller movies on DVD that rent for 1/2 or 1/3 of the cost of the latest blockbuster. It would seem to management that 20 $1 rentals is a lot worse than 4 $5 rentals, but that isn't so because the consumption of entertainment product creates its own demand for this product. It's a different type of product from, say, food. The more entertainment that you consume, the more that you want and the more money that you will pay for it.
All this will do is accelerate the deployment of DRM type technologies.
Ripping of movies and music will have to be prevented. Of course it might be impossible as the DVD spec can't be changed and CD isn't dying anytime soon.
Metallica was stupid to take the approach they did and it cost them. If studpidity is going to mean the end of the recording industry then why take that away from them?
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
I'm moving to France!
This is definitely sweet news, but I'm just stunned that it came from a French court!
BTW: What the bloody hell is with Slashdot accusing registered users of being freakin' scripts! Seriously, have you seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers so many times that you fear human beings are actually being replaced by shell scripts!? What the hell!
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
A just government should not step in to prevent a free and voluntary contract between two individuals. If I am an producer and you are a consumer, you and I should be free to enter into a voluntary agreement that I, as the producer, will give you, the consumer, a file with a condition agreed to that you will not copy that file and share it with others.
This contract is voluntary for both the producer and the consumer. Why does the French government feel compelled to step in restrict that freedom? Can't we just live and let live? Nobody is forcing anyone to producer or consume anything.
In Europe we have legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, legalized gay marriages, and other things that in the US are seen as "taboo".
Is it really a mystery that now they're legalizing file swapping?
If judges are not coming down on defendants with an iron fist for swapping entertainment media - more power to them! It IS ridiculous in the spirit and the letter of the law to be giving more time and penalties to "file swappers" than we give to all the psycho's out there causing havoc to everyone around them through their blatantly illegal actions. *cough* Enron executives *cough*. So stop calling them "activist judges", and refer to them instead as thoughtful judges who are considering each case carefully, not just how the RIAA or MPAA (or whatever your own country's media industry middlemen are called) tells them to.
That's great in the US, but in other countries (yes, there are other countries out there Timmy) the government doesn't necessarily work the same way.
As a writer, programmer, and creative person, I've always been for strict copyright enforcement.
But I'm changing my mind. Why?
Art is about the medium, message, and reception. It used to be the medium was radio or a record, the message is the content, and the reception was just somebody absorbing the content.
That worldview is no longer valid. Therefore, laws and mores built upon it need to be re-examined.
The medium can be anything now -- disc, WiFi, BlueTooth, etc. The reception -- and here's the key point -- is not the human ear anymore. It's the hard drive. When I TiVo an old Star Trek episode, my computer's hard drive is the first to get it, not me. I use the computer as a extension to my brain and memory process. It's nothing at all like a book, or record.
This sucks for content producers, because the rules are going to change. Maybe not today, maybe not even this decade, but the world is changing. The people who made buggy whips were probably outraged that the horseless carriage came along.
I think the situation sucks. The reason it sucks is that people who have been playing by the rules are getting screwed by file-sharing. But there are no culprits here, save for the evolution of the human existance. Demonizing people and paying a lot of lawyers is just smoking so much rope. How many times was the new Star Wars movie downloaded in the last week? 100 thousand? More?
Use Occam's Razor -- has the world suddenly grew infected with souless criminals intent on stealing from the mouths of the creative industry? Or has time simply moved on?
if people listen to fox news and take it seriously then you have more to be worried about then their opinion on france :)
that the US legal system is 200 years old, a mess of patchwork laws in itself, and is no way ready to deal with digital crimes. Look at our laws against computer hacking, copyright violation, etc. None of them are adequate, and they won't be made that way for a while. You can't have a bunch of career politicians, who have never written software or in many cases never used a computer, writing laws based on what the highest bidder tells them is right and wrong. Its just like a career politician writing laws that govern abortion, drugs, alcohol, traffic (who in the US senate still drives themselves around?), etc. I lost faith in the American legal system a long time ago. its goign to take a lot of changing before i will even begin to show any faith in it again.
I think though if you make enpough people criminals you cannot rule them any longer.
What happens when a majority of the populace is "being corrected"? And by that I would even include those with monetary judgements leveled against them. instead of just those in prision I think in that case you have substansive change coming from below. If speeding laws yielded multi-thousand dollar fines I'll bet they would have changed by now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The French and Brits call 1,000,000,000 a "milliard". 1,000,000,000,000 is a "billion". But then what does it matter to us Yanks? Most of us don't even have a passport to travel outside the country.
(rant)
First, did you know that you can actually die from alcohol withdrawl? And that it is as bad or worse than heroin withdrawl in terms of pain and suffering? Really, look it up, but I digress...
I agree that opiates are pretty damn addictive, but LSD? LSD has got to be the most non-addictive substance ever. It almost has an anti-addiction property built in, where people almost always say "wow, let's wait a few weeks before we try that again". Sure, there are some wackos who trip for days and days on end, but there are wackos for every substancem legal or illegal.
As far as I can tell, there has NEVER been a death attributed directly to LSD overdose, although I'm sure many people have somehow killed themselves while high on LSD becuase of lack of sober supervisors. That's a problem caused by law enforcement, which forces people to go underground and into uncomfortable/unsafe situations to use drugs, where unsafe things can happen. If you could just hang out in the park while tripping witha sober buddy, and didn't disturb anyone, who would you be harming?
On the other hand, in 2001 there were 75,000 alcohol-related deaths in the United States, which took an average of 30 years off the lives of each person that died. That's a staggering figure. For the same year, there were only 21,683 drug-related deaths, and that ANY drug, legal or illegal, meaning botched prescriptions and overdoses on aspirin and tylenol and everything else included (opiates too).
I know, alcohol is much more readily available than drugs, so there are more deaths, but think about all the expense, pain, and misery people are put through just because they want to get high.
Is that such a crime? Since when is being sober 24/7 a necessary requirement to be a good person? Illegal drugs can lead to amazing emotional/personal breakthroughs, or just plain enjoyment. If people want to get fucked up and (eventually) damage their health, there are MUCH better ways to do it that by using alcohol. The gov gives you the least fun and most damaging of intoxicants and says "have at it!" Brilliant....=(
(/rant)
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Why do you think the laws are written in such a verbose manner? Not just to confuse the idiots. Laws are written to be clear. Judges are supposed to follow the written law.
As far as the case in point, I agree the copyright law is being abused and used to extort money from the normal people. Understand my opinion as this: I do not agree with the law, but it is not the place of 'activist judges' to correct it. If you really want to see change, ask your representatives to truly represent the people. Do this by campaigning to have lobbying banned. Prohibit the elected officials from chasing the almighty dollar. When the elected officials represent the people (instead of the corporations funding their personal lives) the peoples voice will be heard and the extortion will stop.
If that was all that was required, a court clerk could do it, or it could be automated. The same evidence would always produce the same result. In an artifically simple world, such a purely algorithmic application of law might be possible.
In practice, something different is required. The specific function of a judge is to exercise judgement, that is, to clarify and weigh the evidence presented, and ultimately to render an opinion for the court. That's the legal term for it, an opinion.
When judges are empanelled, the judgement is rendered as a majority opinion. That is, the legal system takes into account the possibility of dissenting opinions. This possibility is a logical consequence of the nature of opinion.
Opinion, while necessarily subjective, thus has both a central and ultimate role in law. Lawyers can and do present legal opinions to their clients, but in so doing are acting on behalf of themselves. Judges must present legal opinions also. The difference is that they do so on behalf of the court.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
France has a different system than ours. 'Activism' over there is part of the tradition, they are supposed to rule based on their view of 'current consent.' So, if a judge thought that society was ready for homosexual marraige, that's part of their tradition. Our judicial tradition is almost completely precedent-based, hence the outcry over 'activist' judges.
...and that sometimes laws need to be changed.
Oh my god, what a revelation! I'm so glad we have such intelligent and experienced judges to figure such things out for us.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Before you accuse me of ethnocentrism, why dont you read the quote. The grandparent poster originally said specifically 'right wing.' Right wing refers specifically to the conservatives (I.E. Republicans) in america. Deal with it.
and finally in the US
as judges restore people's rights over corporations.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
That's all it does.
If you infrigne on someone's copyright, you aren't stealing anything, what you are doing is taking away their legal right to profit from the work they own the rights to profit from.
The right to profit from an easily copyable work is something that should be protected and at the same time it shouldn't be continually extended as it has been during the past 20 or so years.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I'm a proponent of legalized file-swapping/P2P, but even I don't equate the impact of over-zealous IP law with that of Prohibition.
The Mafia had running gun-battles with tommy guns with the police through the streets of Chicago.
-to say nothing of the devestation that modern drug prohibition has wrought on our society.
File-swapping is a tempest in a teapot compared to the impact of drug/alcohol prohibition. My biggest concern is that file-swapping prohibition might lead to erosion of free speech and fair use rights, and amounts to government pandering to what should be an illegal cartel (RIAA/MPAA/BSA).
The two situations compared amount to a false analogy.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This is actually a tricky subject. On the face of it, yes they shouldn't have an "opinion". However, within a system of checks-and-balances, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret the laws and even decicide if they are unconstituational or unenforcable.
Where it can get tricky is do you believe the constitution is a "complete" document. Do you believe we are only due those rights speicifically spelled out in the constitution over 250 years ago or are there other rights we should be afforded even if they aren't really laid out in the constitution? The US government was basically laid out at a time when the assumption was the legislative branch couldn't get TOO far out of control because they have to answer to the people. Because of this they have the sole right to add constituational amendments with a 2/3 vote. Once this is done, in theory there is nothing the judiciary can do about it.
Today, in many ways you could argue the legislative branch doesn't really have to answer to the people. Its more they have to answer to the social eliete and those people can help them get elected. There is certinaly talk about media being liberal or conservitive and if the legislative makes those in charge of the media happy thats all they need to worry about as the media can then take care of convincing the "people" who to vote for. Personally, I don't think it has gotten too far out of hand and the system is still working, but this is the worry.
If the legislative DID get WAY out of control they could just pass tons of constituational ammendments and completely by-pass the "balance" the judiciary was meant to provide.
As an example, its pretty tough to read into the constitution that everyone is created equal and have the same rights, except in the case of gay marriage. Judges can easily see this and so are striking down such laws. So now there is talk of passing an amendment banning this to get by the judiciary. If this were to happen, what do you do? The constitution's core concepts clash with a new amendment so what do you do?
This is where it gets REALLY tricky. Some people subscribe to the idea of "natural law" (I personally agree with this). In a nut-shell means that reguardless of what laws are written down, there are a "natural" set of laws which also exist. For example, of this from wikipedia Natural law is intended to function as a non-theistic standard by which laws may themselves be judged. One classic example is that of the Nazi final solution: the laws which permitted the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Poles, Communists, etc. may have been formulated and ratified within the legal structures of Germany, but they violated natural law..
While I completely agree there is a natrual law, and cases like the above example is a time when it should have been envoked by someone THIS is the tricky part. Since this "natural" law is basically completely subjective, it could be used by idiot judges anywhere anytime for anything. There is no real way to say "OK, use this if Nazi are killing people but not if its something I want". It can be very dangerous in cases to use it and equally dangerous in other cases not to use it. Anyway, a use of "natural law" as the basis for a decision could easily be considered "judicial activisim". All the current talk currently about "judicial activisim" is really a bunch of crap. What they are doing now is thier JOB!!!! This balance is clearly spelled out! They ARE supposed to look at laws and decide if they are valid (unconstitional, unenforcable, etc), but those currently in power happen to want things which aren't strickly constitutional and are try to put pressure on the judiciary to have them stop doing thier jobs.
Anyone who really buys into this "judicial activisim" stuff REALLY should have paid more attention in civics class.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Prohibition is really a poor analogy for file swapping. It does however provide wonderful insight into the war on drugs. But that's a whole 'nother story. File swapping is really more about civil disobediance. Copyrights are granted as a social contract to give artists fair compensation for their creative works. And 99.9% of the population will happily pay reasonable prices for legitimate copies of copyrighted and patented works. However, prices have become rather unresonable. The balance has swung too far in favor of media interests and the peasants are revolting (They certainly are!). Unfortunately, politicians are idiots. They see this and instead of thinking there must be something wrong with copyright laws, they think "we need to give even more protection to the media interests." Rather like the war on drugs, where prohibition has made drugs very profitable, which leads to more dealers, which leads to tougher laws and sentences which leads to more expensive drugs and more incentive to sell them. Or as Chris Rock has opined, "People wanna get high." Well, maybe prohibition isn't such a bad analogy after all.
bance.net
"Right wing" does not imply the US.
This is not what copyright laws were about, and to the true die-hard oldschool believer and many creators alike still isn't. Copyrights were not ment to be a way to control revenue. Copyrights were meant to promote creativity through the temporary granting of a monopoly over a particular work, kind of a "You have solo control over this work, do with it as you please until you have to give it up to public domain where others can build upon it." After that limited time, works would go into the public domain where they could be built upon, but as the extentions become more and more, this will be seen less and less often. As far as I am concerned though, creators don't have a right to profit, instead they have a right to try to profit (which I think the law works in that sense too), because quite frankly, you really don't know how well a work will do, popularity or profit wise, beforehand.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Normally, I'm totally opposed to anything the French do, but this was a real shocker. All I can think to say is "Viva La France!"
If nothing is protected by Copyright, then it becomes impossible to even enforce proper accreditation. A small company or person of less significance might produce a work, only to have it effectively stolen from him by a company with nothing more than a stronger existing reputation, and there would be absolutely NO recourse for the smaller company, because Copyright wouldn't exist anymore to protect his interests. One could narrow the scope of copyright to prohibit profiting from other people's works without their permission, but that still doesn't stop a more prominently placed company from hijacking the works of somebody else and then giving it away to keep the other person from competing with them (and if they do have existing competitors already that they aren't trying to snuff out, they can't qualify as a monopoly). What, other than Copyright as it currently exists, could stop this from happening?
The ultimate upshot of discarding Copyright would be that there would be a _vast_ reduction in the production of new quality works.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
How much effort do you really think it would take for the recording industry giants to extend public perception of "file sharing" to include HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, etc?
While you do have a valid point, I question whether any laws resulting from a push by the RIAA would be so reasonable as to be inclusive only of known "problem" mechanisms. No, they'd probably use some blanket statement that could choke otherwise legitimate protocols only because they HAVE been infringed. (At least within their jurisdiction, i.e. the US.)
NB: YMMV. IANAL. Take the above with a grain of salt.
The French and American legal and judicial systems are different.
t em)
The American system is based on English Common Law.
The French system is based on The Napoleonic Code.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_sys
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
A group of lawyers is launching one of the first class actions in France against the movie industry. Infos here. To sum up they claim up to 1000 Euros for every DVD owner because the anti-copy features on DVDs prevent fair use, whereas blank DVDs and other digital media (yes, even hard drives!) are taxed to compensate the media industry for fair use.
Class actions are a new concept in France. Prior to that, plaintiffs had to create an ad-hoc association or rely on existing consumer associations such as UFC-Que Choisir.
This whole issue becomes problematic very fast. No one here will work for nothing and I think everybody agrees that the artists and the companies that represent them require cash flow to keep them working and providing us with the entertainment we want. It really comes down to what is reasonable.
Certainly the MPAA saying that bitorrent is wrecking Star Wars profitability is ludicrous. People will go to see Star Wars because in their mind, it is worth ponying up the cash and going and seeing it on the big screen. Other movies, well, how many movies have you seen that you have walked away from feeling ripped off? Too many for me. But there are shows that I will pay for and movies I will see. What Women Want starring Mel anyone?
Same goes for music. Motley Crue is suing NBC for lousy record sales. Could it be due to that fact they haven't done anything worth listening to in years? These arguments have been made over and over, but nothing changes.
In the end, criminalizing people for pulling down some songs or shows from the net is rather pointless. The RIAA and MPAA may make few examples of a few sites and people, but end up spawning a new tech that is even harder to track down and block. And like most punishments, after a while, people get inured to it and it loses its effectiveness as a deterrent. Going after big counterfeiters is more difficult no doubt, but really, that is where these organizations should focus their efforts rather than alienating a public that they want to woo. People have swapped tapes of all kinds for ages, and this isn't going to stop anytime soon.
As for activist judges. The reason most countries had the foresight to make the judiciary a separate branch of the government is because government and the law have butted heads for much longer than any of us here have been alive. The notion that the government should be able to force it's will on the courts has been rejected in most civilized countries. It is one of the cornerstones of democracy and people of all political stripes should have that foursquare in their minds when they read stories such as this.
This issue is not going to go away. How many years has it been since Napster?
I don't particularly care what you juice someone up with in their last days. My grandfather was on a morphine drip when he was dying of lung cancer. That's why I said opiates should be left as a controlled substance.
;-)
As far as prohibition for recreational use, I believe the potential detrimental social effects of drugs such as heroine and opium are very high versus their potential benefit. It is for that reason I don't think we should allow their recreational use.
Now then...if you want to have a discussion about how we should treat addicts. Well I'd be willing to bet you and I have some pretty similar views there
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
The comparision to Prohibition is an appropriate one. When a large number of people oppose a particular law, it's the laws problem, not the peoples problem. You simply can't argue against perception, and the perception of most people from the "mp3 era" is that file swapping is not theft.
Whether it is or is not theft isn't the issue, the issue is the RIAA's refusal to take advantage of the situation by creating new products and services which mesh with the perceptions of consumers. Intstead they use their efforts to sue people who are only going to spend more time being careful before they go about pirating again. The lawsuits accomplish nothing but create an environment of anger and desire for retribution.
There is a time for focusing on the problem and then there is a time for focusing on the solution. The RIAA spends most of their time in the former.
Judge Dominique Barella told Wired News. "It's like condemning people for driving too fast after selling them cars that go 250 kmh." Cool. We do that here in the US. You can buy a 180mph car, but can't drive it on the highways.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
The industry is not taking Barella's statements lightly. In a letter last month addressed to the French Minister of Justice Dominique Perben, more than 20 representatives of France's entertainment, music and film association bodies and advocacy groups expressed their outrage that French content was not pirated to anywhere near the same degree as content in English and even German.
"It is an insult to French Culture that American and even German language music, rap, and books are being shared widely over file sharing networks, while nobody else in the world bothers with French content; even our own teenagers prefer American content, despite decade-long indoctrination in French government facilities." wrote Perben.
Perben proposed criminalizing the distribution of copyrighted content containing lyrics that were not easily recognizable as French, creating a high-speed French government Internet that would facilitate rapid piracy of certified French content, and scanning user's harddisks for foreign content, whether copyrighted or not. He also said the French government was considering financial rewards for particularly active filesharers of the least desirable French content, often considered the most culturally valuable by the French government.
It's to stop the incessant crapfloods that have been hitting a lot of stories lately, crapfloods that are being lauched through valid registered user accounts.
And you don't get the "captcha" if you've got excellent karma.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
It's really that simple. I strengthen the bonds between myself and my neighbour by sharing cultural media like songs and movies. When certifiably psychopathic corporate entities try to "cure" me of this "dangerous and criminal" habit, they are doing damage to society.
I refuse to comply with the wishes of a certified psychopath, and the rest of the world should too.
"'Recent developments have proven that new business models to get content out to customers can work,' Wunsch-Vincent said. 'Now is the time for the content industry, access and technology providers to get out of courts and back to business.'"
Why is this so hard for the *AA's to understand? If people want to download their entertainment, why not set up a business model that provides for that? Sure some folks will continue to "get it for free", but the vast majority will take the legal route and pay for their downloads.
As for me - I don't download nearly as much as I used to. The legal implications are frankly not worth it. BUT, I no longer buy any music or go to the theatre nearly as much as I used to simply because I am sickened so greatly by the behavior of the *AA's. Their current "solution" is, in my case, costing them far more revenue through their "action" than their "inaction".
Alas, this point requires depth of understanding that I fear the *AA's lack.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
What we have here is a two way slippery slope. Mathematically it is hard to envision but the idea is that we get an unstable condition in both directions
A "two way slippery slope" is usually described by mathematicians in the know (as well as by young schoolchildren in the know) by a technical term known as a "hill".
It may be hard to envision, but if you ask the children to explain, and listen patiently, maybe you'll get the idea...
--
AC
The force which is supposed to overcome bad lawmaking by nullfiying the ostensibly "proper" but possibly ridiculous results which we often see emanating from our courts is the presence of a jury. However, ironically, the same judges who are hot to champion the latest social cause in their courtroom are loath to empower the common jurist with the information and ability to make common-sense decisions in the courtroom. juries are very hamstrung in America.
Sadly, we are left to rely on Congress. But we just vote for the guy we hate less and get back to our busy lives, instead of looking for good men to lead us. So we end up with bad laws, twisted about in nearly random ways by activist judges, and zombie jurors who have trouble believing in what they are doing. What a farce! Sigh. :-)
Currently hooked on AMP
Ignorance is bliss isnt it ?
The French are great with Electronic music:
Daft Punk
Air
Jean-Michel Jarre
Movies:
Luc Besson:
The Messenger: the Story of Joan of Arc (1999)
The Fifth Element (1997)
The Professional (1994)
La Femme Nikita (1990)
The Big Blue (1988)
Unleashed (2005)
Taxi (2004)
The Transporter (2002)
The Truth About Charlie (2002)
Kiss of the Dragon (2001)
How about American remakes of french movies, because they dont understand french and dont like redubs, doesnt mean they dont like french comedy.
Three men and a baby
The Toy
Taxi
The man with one red shoe
Nine Months
The Birdcage
The Associate
Father's Day
Just visiting
Americans love french art much more than they'd like to admit. OR maybe its just the ignorant fools that wont admit it.
French imegration law does suck. It is nearly impossible for an american to get a job in France.
I have been looking into bailing from the handbasket, and France seems lik a nice place to do it, but that looks to be impossible.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
The Right to profit from a given work BY DEFAULT includes the right to give away one's work without profiting from it. That is what Copy Right law provides.
Those rights need to be protected and once again let me state that those rights should not have been extended in perpetuity as they have been regularly extended for the past 20 or so years.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
...what you are doing is taking away their legal right to profit from the work they own the rights to
Careful there. You do not have the right to profit. You do have the right to attempt to profit.
That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's actually a huge one. Confusing the two will only muddy the copyright water even further, which nobody needs.
I'm currently in France for the summer studying abroad for school. I go to Georgia Tech, where 25 students were sued a few weeks back by the RIAA.
I was talking to some French students here a few days ago and we were talking about file sharing. To them, it's a very common occurance and it's done without any legal ramifications. I told them about the RIAA suing people and that sounded absolutely ludicrous to them.
Here in France, we have a piracy tax on blank CDs which is annoying.
Considering how little they like the idea of suing people for p2p issues, I'm not surprised to see this sort of activism coming from France.
Viva la France!
I don`t see how economy can be managed by threats. Or I do, but it doesn`t sound very capitalistic to me.;)
That is - capitalism creates and promotes desires, and then sells you that which you yearn.
If by chance you can get it for free, because the item grows wings and flies out of the store, it doesn`t seem like much of an invention of a wheel to go around with a gun shooting the item down, or arresting to whom it flies into a window;).
I am exagerating on purpose, but think, once upon a time the only people who made money from music were those who wrote it, sang it or maybe organized concerts or printed the notes. Then someone came along and registered it to tape or whatever, and then the radio and record companies had to figure out ways of making money out of that.
Go figure if people who had organized concerts banned tapes. And there`s always going to be some leak in usage. That is some of your content is going to leak out. The invention of the wheel will be coming up with ways of making money on this that go beyond forcing you to buy the product else you go to jail, and will face the fact that the cards had been shuffled.
Back to the drawing board.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
George Bush will be invading France next week (on orders from Ann Coulter) to insure "democracy" prevails!
No one will miss 10,000 French judges massacred by US troops in "accidental" checkpoint shootings...
Britney Spears (she "trusts our President") will be appointed Consul in charge of the Occupation.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.
Yeah, LAN parties are the new speakeasies, see? Arr, see? Yeah.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Very true. There has to be a balance. Currently, the balance is in favor of file swappers, via ever more inventive technology.
You're looking at the wrong "balance". If you look at the right one, you'll find that the balance is very heavily in favor of the content industry. File swapping is a mere leak in the wall.
The balance copyright law should strike is between the ways in which copyright increases the flow of ideas and expressions to the public and the ways in which it decreases them.
Content producers focus on the ways that copyright helps them, and ignore the effects, both good and bad, on society as a whole. But their benefit is irrelevant. Copyright law does not exist to benefit artists and distributors. Or, at least, that's not why it was created (arguably, current law is very much focused on supporting Big Content).
Copyright comes at a huge cost to society. Not only does it restrict the dissemination of works and the creation of new works based on existing works, but it also has direct financial costs -- it costs money to enforce the laws. Even when copyright law was a purely civil matter, we still had to pay judges, court reporters, bailiffs, build courthouses, etc. Now that it has been made a criminal offense, the costs to society have greatly expanded.
So, we have to look at what society gets in exchange for the costs of copyright to decide if it's a good idea. What society gets is an increased flow of new materials because of the incentives provided for distribution and, less importantly, production. Without some way to be compensated, an author or musician who has created a work won't be able to pay the costs of packaging and distributing their work so that society can benefit from it. As a second-order effect, copyright also makes it possible for creators to work full-time on their creations (usually after their first work, produced part time, becomes successful). So copyright increases the productivity of artists in addition to the primary goal of enabling them to fund distribution.
But under copyright those materials come to the public in a restricted, controlled, way, which limits their value. What really makes the tradeoff better for society than not having copyright is the fact that those materials will fall into the public domain eventually.
That's the theory, anyway, and in the past it was a good balance. Recent changes in both law and technology have radically shifted the balance toward the negative effects of copyright on the public. The legal changes have been based on the mistaken notion that copyright should benefit artists. Benefitting artists isn't a bad thing, mind you, but that wasn't originally, and shouldn't be now, the primary goal.
On the legal side, over the last few decades the content industry has pushed through legislation that has radically extended copyright scope and duration, as well as criminalized infringement. The changes have both decreased the benefit to society (by more heavily encumbering the copyrighted works) and increased the costs to society (more courts, more cops, more prisons, etc.). There is no evidence that the changes have increased the flow of new works.
On the technical side, keeping in mind that the primary purpose of copyright is to facilitate distribution, rather than creation, modern technology has dramatically slashed distribution costs. Of course, the content industry hasn't been very good at taking advantage of the decreased costs, because higher prices at a given margin mean higher profits. And it's really, really hard to make any money when the price approaches zero.
Since the content industry is not exploiting the new, low-cost distribution mechanisms, the system has sprung a leak: file sharing. The reason this leak is so large is twofold.
First, in large part it's precisely because copyright law is so heavily biased towards copyright owners. With terms that are longer than most peoples' lives, your average person on
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Just what do you think legal opinion is? What do you think judging is? Rarely is an case so cut and dried so as to require no opinion. It is up to the judge to examine a case, weigh it in regard to the intent of the law, and render a verdict which is in fact, an opinion. If your lawyer (or yourself) disagrees, you can file an appeal.
If the government passes a law so vague as to give a multitude of interpretations, generally it's a poor law and they revisit and redefine it.
You, sir, were bad at taking opiates. No shame in that, you know it and don't do it.
Painting them with a blanket brush of "bad" is silly though. I have done (and will probably do again) opiates, and for me it's not a problem. It's a very rare "party favor" that will never become anywhere near significant in my life. Unless, of course, I get pinched for them.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Focusing on live performances is the answer to all of this. Going to see a performance is an event, not just a regurgitation of the music that one can listen to on a CD. People do it for the thrill of the event, to socialize and be a part of a good time. By this token, I don't understand why any musician would not want their music to be shared by as many people as possible, even free of charge, as their primary source of advertising for their live shows. I really love those artists, mainstream or otherwise, who encourage the recording of their shows and not-for-profit (as in FREE) sharing of their music files or recorded performances between as many fans as possible.
If I hear a really awesome new song/album (for free), obtained for a file-sharing network, and I then IM my buddy and tell him that this new artist really kicks ass, and share my files with him, it costs neither of us anything. It costs the band a tiny fraction of their recording and distribution costs. If we both buy $30 concert tickets to the band's next show, then the band makes money. Repeat times 1000. Or 10 million. The more exposure a band has on file-sharing networks, the better, in this case, since their main focus is not their "ownership" and profit made from the sale of recordings of their music, but the money they make from their performances. Best of all, they stand to make the BULK of the profit off of their creativity, without some music execs or producers ripping them off.
Now if someone starts playing their songs live without their permission, or organized mass SALES of the artist's music without giving them a cut of it, then copyright law should protect them. And to me, this rewards the really good, talented musicians who do things their own way and put on great live performances, rather than the cookie-cutter, manufactured pop stars that the record companies rely on to make them money based on some digitally-enhanced, synthesized recording they did once in a studio, and that they go through the motions lip-synching live in order to "sell" their records.
If EVERY artist did this, then we'd see incredible new directions in music creativity take off, real talent making real money, and no need for all of the costs and debate over "ownership" of recordings.
Nothing like a good ol' fashioned pot buzz to really be the clutch for the engine that is LSD.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Quick, somebody get some mod points here! ASAP!
But are you saying we should legitimize it?
It'll happen a heck of a lot more often.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Wow. you really are sheltered and ignorant.
" When, how, and under what circumstances is it ok for copyright owners to protect their content?"
You are making an assumption in this statement, that a person owns the ideas (expressions, thoughts) they create.
I say they do not, and then I say it is up to you to give your arguement as to your justification on how you (through force?) will restrict my freedom of action with regards to accessing information ('yours' or otherwise).
first off, p2p piracy IS wrong. but the problem is that it is a different kind of wrong than stealing in the traditional sense. it is a new kind of wrong, and those who fight it are using a moral sledgehammer when moral nuance is needed. and those who fight p2p piracy are losing the battle by overreacting in their moral determination.
to put it another way: to convince people not to download movies, you have to stop using an elephant gun to shoot gnats. you need moral nuance, because those who are downloading aren't listening to fire and brimstone, as it comically outweighs the weight of their crime. the usual cut off point between otherwise moral people on the issue of p2p piracy has to do with the notion of who copying files on p2p really hurts in society.
some would say that "it's still usually worth shelling out the cash so that the people that worked on the movie get the money that they're owed." but that's wrong, philosophically AND practically. this is trying to apply binary logic to a question of scale. the determination that not paying for a movie = stealing is wrong, not because not paying for a movie is right, but because it's simply NOT "stealing" in the moral sense that is brought to bear on the situation before us.
let's say instead of downloading a movie, you sneak into another theatre after the movie you paid for, something teenagers have been doing for decades. what have you stolen? well, if you didn't sneak into that theatre, that seat would have still been empty, correct? meanwhile, if i steal a loaf of bread, i've stolen a loaf of bread. i haven't stolen half a loaf, i haven't stolen 100,000 loaves. it's a binary determination: i stole the binary value of a loaf of bread at market prices. i need to make moral amends so that "the baker that worked on the bread gets the money that they're owed."
that logic works PERFECTLY for situations where my actions results in something physically becoming unavailable for someone else's use. but that is NOT what is happening with pirated media. i'll put it another way: let's say someone makes a movie for $100 million, and no one wants to see it, and the movie grosses $1 million. what is the logic behind asking for what "the people that worked on the movie get the money that they're owed?" is it safe to infer then that you support the notion that those who made the $100 million bomb get paid by society $99 million to make up for their loss?
no really, what are the makers of a movie MORALLY owed? if someone makes a movie for $100,000 and it grosses $500 million, is that what they are MORALLY owed? what are they owed in your moral sledgehammer approach to the problem?
so what is the value of applying the old binary logic of stealing to a question of scale?
the current moral attitude of the laws on p2p simply doesn't stand up to examination, philosophically and practically. with media: movies, music, text, etc... anything that can be digitized, the binary logic of morality when it comes to theft simply does not apply. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT! again, listen to me carefully, i am not introducing a slippery slope to acceptance, i repeat: it is still WRONG to copy a movie online. but it is not the same KIND of wrong. it is more nuanced.
so what people operating in a blind, closed minded "it's just wrong" approach need to learn is nuance. the RIAA and MPAA and the people who write the laws in this country need to realize exactly WHAT kind of wrong it is, and stop swinging their sledgehammers, and thereby doing nothing but demonstrate that they don't really understand what they are really talking about.
because refusing to play anything but hardball with a situation that requires a more nuanced moral approach does not do anything except create deaf ears by the POOR and YOUNG who are doing most of the file swapping to simple minded fire and brimstone moral determinations. because P2P piracy IS a question of morality. but not the kind of moral question that simpletons who don't get the technology say it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
By that logic... as soon as something can be easily copied, then there is no longer a recourse or monopoly on the ownership of the piece of creative work.
Which means in this day and age of ubiquitous copying devices, that all Copy Rights are essentially void.
In actuality, the "Attempt" to profit that you are referring to is putting that creative work together in some kind of package and making that available for sale. If the sale of that package fails all that means is that the sale of the creative works didn't go through as planned. The holder of that copy right still maintains the monopoly on that creative work until such a time as their copyright expires...
What that means is if someone later attempts to 'steal' the original copyright holder's right of monopoly on that creative work, then the original copyright holder has the legal right to demand compensation for the profits they are entitled to by copyright law.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I agree. Drain it.
Lasers Controlled Games!
I'm really not seeing how you can see the analogy as anything other than ridiculous
The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
Try reading it again, without the pendantism...
The movie/music industries tries to get it all and is upset when it is foiled.
One thing to remember about France and Canada:
We pay a levy/tax on ALL blank media (no matter what we use them for) and MP3 players. That money go to the music industry as a compensation for the copying done by the citizens of the country.
The reasoning in Canada is that you can't make/keep laws that make the matter worse than the problem they try to solve (it's written so in our consititution). And such making joe files-swappers criminals, would make a huge % of the population criminals, which is a no go. Still the government recognize the copyright holders should be compensated hence the levy.
So the MPAA moans and whines, but it's getting millions (if not billions, I don't have the numbers) from that levy (in addition to all the legit sales of their products.) So it's not like the citizens get a free lunch.
I can't believe nobody else has commented on how funny this is... good one, Cahiha!
Hello, Laws or not filesharing is unstoppable. As encryption technology improves it becomes easier to distribute information anonoumously. I2P (www.i2p.net) is a good example of this. As these standards improve and are being put to use more frequently it will become *A LOT* harder (or virtually impossible) for law enforcement to detect whether or not someone is (il)legally sharing data. What the recording industry fails to notice is that we are in the middle of a revolution. Data is becoming almost free (bandwidht is increasing, storage is cheaper every day). The old paradigm where one single distributor has the exclusive methods of reproducing the data (i.e. pressing more cds of an artist) simply do not hold anymore. One can even start to wonder what the function of a record company is for example. There is no need for an artist to make use of an expensive studio, things can be done at home. There is no need for a middleman selling your records, since you can distribute your data cheaply using a system like bittorrent. The only problem is receiving a financial reward for your efforts. So I am curious to see as how this will all develop. Greetings, Erwin.
The problem is, this solution takes the internet down a path we do not want to go down. It will lead to regulation of what type of protocols can be used in which countries. This will require agencies which provide oversight to ISPs to monitor and enforce proper internet usage. In the meantime, Sherman Networks will just modify Kazaa's protocol slightly and call it Wazaa forcing that protocol to be made illegal. Making software or protocols illegal is not the solution to this problem.
Unleashed was released as Danny the Dog in France a few months before it was released here. (If you go see it, notice that CANAL+ is involved.) Except the dialogue was done originally in English, with American actors. (Well, Bob Hoskins is British, but he works in a lot of American movies.)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"National prohibition of file-swapping was undertaken to improve hygiene in America." Missed the mark on that one.
Oh really? Perhaps the next time you're out at the movies or at a restaurant we'll bring the internet down and let the P2P guys sit all around you. After a few minutes of someone who has spent a lifetime in a basement without a shower sitting near you you'll beg for the return of P2P to keep them occupied and out of public places.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They are going to be scared of someone "just like them" that was prosecuted for doing exactly what they are.
Of course the flaw in that reasoning they use (noting that you are only repeating what they are thinking) is that in reality, no-one fears these things until it happens to them. It's just too abstract a problem for most people to worry about.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hey, thanks a lot Web Sherrif! I went to thier site from work and took a look at This Page (NSFW) to see who they considered outlaws - now I'm probably on a company blacklist.
Warning - link is Not Safe For Work! Want to tell people what the hell thier going to be seeing before they hit the link, Mr Web Sherrif?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I live near Minneapolis where theater is doing fine as it also is in many other places. No one is stopping you from attending theatrical performances. It is also worth noting that although early movies were not much different from a recorded theatrical performance, that has not been true for decades.
One possible outcome might be the end of big budget movies which might not spell the end of civilization. However, copyright law is there to try to preserve motivation for creating, even if it is something that you (or I) might not approve.
I'm all in favor of decriminalizing copyright infringement (which has only recently been criminalized in any significant way) but I don't think we should be dishonest about possible consequences and costs.
The good thing about greed is that it by itsel is recognized as a sin, thereby touching the core of its target
RIAA and MPAA are so to speak going down the highway with the pedal to the metal hoping somebody will make sure the highway stays straight.
Since the copyright law says "any reproduction" ultimately they would like to charge you every time you wistle or humm any recognizable tune they have the copyright for.
And that is the problem. RIAA and MPAA are misusing the copyright law in my opinion. The copyright law is intended, as any other law, to render a resoanble protection, given that there are no certainties in this univers. But they are upping the stakes to hold us all ransom and make anybody hurt to the degree that we just roll belly-up and surrender to any and all of their demands. Law or no law
The verdicts handed down here in the US have, I believe, for the most been utterly out of proportions since most of what these people are doing amounts to shoplifting and should be condemmed and punished as such.
Of course I am here not talking about the counterfeit industry which is quite something else and is much more than shoplifting.
But we also need a revision of the copyright laws. It is to easy to gain the laws protection and for an unrealistic long timeframe.
The society is not served well by that. I think you should be able to get 10 or 20 years worth of copyright free and then it will cost you $1M for each consequtive 10 years. If it is worth the protection then that kind of money is nothing.
but then how would we all d/l our movies for free? C'mon please think before posting!
In the World of Slashdot does this apply to Guns as well? Car? Cell Phones?
Yeap, a gun, firearm, is just a tool.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
FalconShould there be a Law?
One of the ideas of copyright law is to encourage the activities of production even as it inhibits more widescale consumption.
The reason copyrights were enshrined in the Constitution of the uSA, was to encourage the creation of creative works just as patents were. However big business has corrupted this in having their congressional critters pass laws in their favor such as the Disney, Sonny Bono Act that extended the terms of copyright protection. These laws don't encourage creative works, instead they stiffle it...
The judgment one has to make is which alternative is more potentially damaging to society. I think that even in a society where non-commercial file swapping is completely unchecked, the majority will still choose to purchase what they want. But I could certainly be wrong about that. I just think it is lesser risk than allowing powerful entrenched interests an effective veto power over the development of new technology.
Like VCRs did, file swapping can actually be profitable to media and entertainment businesses. The video, movie and broadcast industries, tried to get VCRs illegal saying allowing people to record will hurt their business, but in fact it did the opposite as the sales of movies on tape proved to be a big boon for the industry. The same can happen with music, Apple's iTunes has shown that. Also, I've known some who won't buy an album, tape or cd, unless they've been able to listen to it first. So they'll download songs and listen to them, then if they like them they'll buy the album. I'd do this myself if I bought that many, but I don't, it's been more than a year since I bought music and I don't download any. Truth be told, I don't like digital music files, I mush prefer LPs. When new an LP sounds so much better.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What he is talking about it NOT socialism. And what YOU think is socialism is NOT socialism. You think russia/china == socialism. NO, they were and are not. Never were. Socialism is something that has not yet been implemented. Just like the flying car has not yet been implemented. And nanomachines. etc. Governments are engineered devices. Engineering takes work. Also, to build any machine requires an environment that allows one to build.
Anyway....
What he is talking about is just freedom. Freedom to work and live without domineering forces. I was hoping that some of you free market slashdotters would start to see the light because of the rather obvious case that sits right in front of us all--the monopoly power of cablecos and telcos. Obviously, they are inhibiting the advance of technology through their dominant power.
All he is talking about is engineering. If you want what wall st wants, what the GOP/Dems want, then go to the Serengeti in Africa. You will find it there. All that is, is nature. But raw nature never built the technical marvels we have now. Engineering built that.
All he is talking about is building a better place to live. You wouldn't build a chainsaw without an overspeed protector, would you?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I live near Minneapolis where theater is doing fine
Yea, I live in Minneapolis myself and though I haven't been to any I know there's a number of theatres. Though I don't know the area there's that well two or three within 5 to 10 minutes walk. Heck Walker Art Center is within a few minutes though I've only been there a couple of tymes while working on photography assignments.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If it's legal to share stuff you've legally attained (say you buy a DVD), hasn't someone who you share it with also gotten it legally and hence they can also legally share it to others?
It's legal as long as you give the other person the media and any fair use (however the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, has made fair use backups illegal) backups you've made, the same applies to the person they share with. Though it's not sharing, I've taken tapes and dvds to shops that buy used audio/video media as well as having bought from them and that's perfectly legal. For now at least, until the MPAA and RIAA get their way by having their congress critters pass new laws. When that happens though the laws will face legal challenges, these laws would restrict the right of a person to sale property they legally bought.
If I record a program from tv have I attained it legally?
If I recall right the US Supreme Court has already ruled on whether it's legal to record a broadcast and said it was. However I don't think you can legally sale it later.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Anything that is gained must be taken from something else...
If you mean for every winner there has to be a looser this isn't neccessarily true, win/win is possible, someone/think doesn't need to loose for someone else to "win".
FalconShould there be a Law?
"It's like condemning people for driving too fast after selling them cars that go 250 kmh."
Yeah, cause that never happ.. er, wait..
I need to move to France. Government officials that are confused by the concepts of capability and responsibility are just the thing I've been looking for. "But sir, you can't issue me a speeding ticket.. clearly if I was able to buy a car that goes 140MPH, I have every right to drive that fast. Don't blame me, blame the auto industry!"
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
And you lose, because that's my sig, not part of the message.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Only problem is currently they are going after people who take that same song then share it to others.
They arent suing the person that is downloading that song...
Is that a fine line? No, i dont think so. They know they cant win a case against a downloader..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What he is talking about is just freedom. Freedom to work and live without domineering forces. I was hoping that some of you free market slashdotters would start to see the light because of the rather obvious case that sits right in front of us all--the monopoly power of cablecos and telcos. Obviously, they are inhibiting the advance of technology through their dominant power.
Monopoly power, which government enables, isn't freedom or the free market. Much as what you say in that socialism doesn't exist, neither does the free market. Instead what we have is a corporate aristocracy. It bares no resemblance to Adam Smyth's capitalism.
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
FalconThomas Jefferson, 1814
Should there be a Law?
Do you have a link to some documentation for that the original thought behind copyright was?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Most movies I see are shown at "limited art houses", at least at first. My favorite theatres where I live now are Landmark Theatre. Many of them latter make it the general cinemas. And if I like it enough I also buy the DVD when it comes out. Actually that's the only reason I got a DVD player, one movie I saw I wanted to get but it didn't come out on tape at first so I bought a DVD player to watch the dvd on. Now I buy mostly DVDs and not the tape, and no I don't rent movies, these places want your name, rank, and serial number, or at least your credit history which they will not get from me.
stolen material before it's even been released to the theatres.
This is a problem with the studios and/or distributers not file sharing. How can file sharing be responsible when a movie appears on a P2P before it's even released? Nobody from a P2P service should be able to get a hold of a movie before it's released.
FalconAh, I see their playing a documentary on Steve McQueen, The Essence of Cool. I may go see it.
Should there be a Law?
Not only the nonense about he can't publish their email since that would be a copyright violation, but you look up the WEB SHERIFF domain, it is registered to an address on the biteit.net domain? That sounds very serious *G*
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
You do not need to have a copy of a song or movie that you like. No one is forcing you to obtain a copy.
Really? I'm pretty sure they are. They keep shoving their copyright material into my mind at every possible opportunity. There is all sorts of copyrighted material that is forced upon the public conciousness, be it ads placed on public billboards, music played in public spaces, videos broadcast over the public airwave, or any of the multitude of public airings of copywritten works.
Advertizing really isn't forcing as in holding a gun to their head and say they will buy it or will get shot. One entices with some message that buying an item will fulfill some desire with no harm done if it's not bought whereas the other says you will be harmed if you don't buy it. Though ads are meant to get as many people to buy the product or service it's each person's responsibility on whether they buy or not.
Me, I just wish I had the right to take a few photos of the world around me: but there are now so many logos, designs, and insignas on everything that the odds are too great that something manmade and "artistic" will end up in the photo, and then *bam*, copyright infringement!
"Violating" some trademark by photographing it shouldn't really be of concern for photographers if the photo is taken in public, especially if it's a small part of the work. Legally a photographer can take photographs of people in public. Actually a case came up about this two or three years ago. A photographer took some photos of some bare breasted women during Marti Gras in New Orleans then published them on the net. Somehow some of the women find out and sued, but lost the case because the photos were taken in public. There are some restrictions with it's use, as for advertizing or other commercial uses. A photograph of a person can't be used in an ad if the person is the main object or clearly identifiable without a signed release form.
Photographing buildings has been ruled illegal (as a violation of the architect's copyright); so there's clearly nothing safe anymore...
Now this I haven't heard of before, can you cite the case? Though I'm not a professional photographer I have taken photography at the college I attend, want to do some freelance work, and photojournalism.
FalconShould there be a Law?
All films derive their income from sales to redistributors.
This isn't the only way movies make profits, more and more movies also offer product placement, advertizing in movies is getting bigger and bigger.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'd like to see copyright reduced to ten years, for motion pictures, at least.
At first Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in copyright, James Madison had to convince him copyrights would be good. Once he was, using actuary tables he calculated copyrights shouldn't last longer than 28 years.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Stupid hippie. Drink $10 worth of beer and see what happens. You might get a buzz. Then take $10 worth of LSD and see what happens. Guarentee the beer will hardly affect you, while the LSD will have you taking Lorazapam, Paxil, and Zyprexa for the rest of your life... and your sanity will still be in the shit house.
Maybe it's a bad comparison. Maybe the key is moderation... but fucking A, don't even start spreading that hippie shit talk. Why don't you just bring up how Du Pont had the gov ban pot, because hemp was such a competitor to its business... Stupid fucking hippie, go sniff some glue, or play with some petrol filled flouresent lights.
It really made me laugh that this comes from France, remembering a couple of years back when France was bashed by an almost unison /. and now all of a sudden they are the heroes.
I don't know who was bashing France here back then, but I was supporting France then. I was and still am compleatly against Bush's war. If it was so important to invade Iraq then Reagan and Bush Sr never should of supported him to begin with. It even went so far that when Saddam was using chemical weapons against both those who opposed him in Iraq and against Iran congress debated whether to impose sanctions on Iraq Bush Sr told congress it would harm US companies if such santions were imposed. It wasn't 'til after Saddam invaded Kuwait, with the Bush Sr admin knowing, when the US opposed Saddam.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ayn Rand was a total and absolute asshole who was longing for the caveman days where the one with the biggest stick could beat the shit out of anyone else for no reason whatsoever.
I don't know where you come up with Ayn Rand supporting violence as she opposed violence and the use of force against another.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
... She very properly realized that, since the free market is built upon voluntary exchanges, capitalism requires firm moral limits, ruling out violence, coercion, fraud, etc...
The Potowmack Institute
If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door-- or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistoric savages.
The use of force-- even its retaliatory use-- cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful co-existence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbor's intentions are good or bad, whether their judgement is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice-- the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Do you have a link to some documentation for that the original thought behind copyright was?
-
The Framers, Viewing Intellectual Property As Monopoly, Sought To Constrain It
-
Guiding the Path of Intellectual Property
-
Copyright as Cudgel
...
FalconJames Madison, who introduced the copyright-and-patent clause to the Constitution, did not engage in absolutist "property talk" about copyright. He argued in terms of "progress," "learning," and other such classic republican virtues as literacy and an informed citizenry. When President George Washington declared his support for the Copyright Act of 1790, he proclaimed that it would be a step toward "teaching the people themselves to know, and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority." Thomas Jefferson -- author, architect, slave owner, landowner -- had no misgivings about protecting private property. Yet he expressed some serious doubts about the wisdom of copyright, based on his suspicion of concentrations of power and artificial monopolies.
Should there be a Law?
You didn't know that Jesus H. Fucking Christ was a faggot? I mean, he never married and was hanging out with all those guys.
Didn't you know Jesus was married? To Mary Magdaline. She was the real power behind the founding of the church but the other apostles didn't like it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
No they're not, politicians are in the pockets of the MPAA and RIAA!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
For example ? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your theory that people who, for example, drive at 10km/h over the speed limit and buying region-free DVD players this week are going to start stealing, raping and killing next week ?
Well that was pretty weak, why not just jump right to child molesting instead of mere rape? If you aren't going to take the argument seriously then why even bother to show up. You've basically already lost via the Hitler doctrine of online arguments.
But I might as well bother to gently guide you back into the reality of the situation - where people speed, they also gradually run more lights and so forth. It's a matter of degree and of kind, the slippery slope does not lead to the kind of instant Sith-like downfall you so comically put forth but a gentle acceleration down the curve of thinking less of rules laid in front of you.
If you're disinclined to believe me just settle down sometime on any busy intersection in America and watch the traffic there for a half hour.
As for P2P, do you not think it a good idea for people to at least respect the copyrights of others? But in a world where breaking those rights is so easy, the ham-fisted technique of trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle just makes people think that downloading music is "fighting the man". It's proabbly not going to lead to a coke habit but what it will do is not make people think twice about copying movies and handing them off to others. I'd have preferred a world where at least people thought about it first and tried to baalnce in the authors efforts a little.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
D;
Personally, I don't see why the corporations can't be contempt with 14 years + 1 extension for another 14 years. I bet many copyright holders wouldn't hate it.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Yes, but that is the US constitution not copyright law.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Interesting. Now i wonder to what extend the US was first with copyright notions and to what extend they followed others in judical compromise or if others followed them.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Still, I think we can use it to trace back what U.S copyrightsd were meant to do.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
D'Alembert, Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, at. al; all noted figures of the French enlightenment. A single repository for the benefit of mankind? were they planning to charge toll fees as well? After all *nobody* today has paid full price for the knowledge that produces *new* (patentable, copyrightable, etc. etc.) knowledge or artistic output.
~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am sorry, but you have no right to determin what is morally stealing for anybody else but yourslef. Copyright infringement being morally wrong is something I think a lot of (but obviously not all of us, maybe not even the majority) us feel, myself included to an extent, but not everybody feels the "stealing" analogy fits for technical and logical reasons that UI think you will have to accept.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Unbelievable, there are libertarians that actually understand this concept! These can't be the same kooks that want competing privatized "police" forces.
I'm one of them, I'm a Libertarian or Jeffersonian Liberal Democrat, and believe one legitimate fuctions of government is "police" and the courts, however that should be at the local level not the federal level, and the "Drug War" isn't part of that. Neither are many other parts of the federal government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder if it would be worth attaching copyright longevity to the lifespan of the actual creator person. think of the fringe benefit that would have on the cost of health insurance, or at least the percentage paid by your employer... Once you create something good (profitable) for them, they would have a vested interest in keeping you alive as long as possible.
(hmm.. maybe that's why disney's frozen... in case they change the law they'll still own mickey...)
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)