Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons & Webcomics
xerexes writes "This week Comixpedia is publishing an article written by T Campbell called "Creative Commons and Webcomics" which features a roundtable discussion with comments from Lawrence Lessig, Neeru Paharia, Mia Garlick, JD Frazer and Cory Doctorow. Traditional copyright faces webcomics with an uncomfortable choice. Its restrictions, properly enforced, would mean a virtual end to crossovers and homages, fan art, fan fiction, and many other staples that make the webcomic a more entertaining creation and foster artistic growth. A total lack of copyright, however, leaves unscrupulous readers free to "bootleg" subscription sites, program tools to deprive comics of advertising revenue, and even profit from others' labor without permission. The Creative Commons license presents a possible solution. It lets copyright holders to grant some of their rights to the public while retaining others, through a variety of licensing and contract schemes, which may include dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms. "
Why are people so hell-bent on compensation beyond the value of their work?? Profit begets greed. Greed begets envy. Envy begets hatered.
If you aren't doing something for the love of doing it, don't do it at all. Society will be better off for it.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
It's not copyright that's the big limiting factor here. Any Web Comic with enough of a following to generate fan art should have its characters and logos trademarked. We're talking about leaving the realm of "doing something neat" and entering the realm of "making a living".
As far as trademark law is concerned, you either defend it or lose it. Fan art can exist in this realm, as it does with Lucas' properties, but Creative Commons isn't some panacea for all that ails these artists.
If they want control whilst allowing variations, they need to first pursue trademark protection.
Video Game News, FAQs, etc
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp02242005.shtml
http://www.checkerboardnightmare.com/d/20050224.ht ml
http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/fanart/queenofwan ds.html
Of course, this being Slashdot, five people have probably already posted this by now...
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Okay, I didn't RTFA, so I'm guilty of being a slashdotter. Also, IANAL and other standard disclaimers. But why would you need some special general purpose license?
You can already just give anyone you want permission to use your work... why would giving someone permission to use your characters in a crossover have anything to do with someone bootlegging your site? That makes no sense to me.
On commercial sites, I really only run adblock on (mostly news) sites that don't know the bounds of rational taste and good judgement on advertising on their site.
Yes, this includes Slashdot.
And, I've got a massive block on IGN as well.
But on sites I enjoy reading for their original content, like VGCats, Penny-Arcade, or PVP, I leave the adblocks off, and frequently I'll purchase goods and services from those advertisers they support.
... actually see ads anymore...? I universally block them across the board, most people do I think. Been quite a while since I saw one.
I donate to a couple webcomics i frequent (somethingpositive.net most recently), but there is no reason I'll look at ads at any site. If i want a product-- i'll look for it. I don't like, appreciate, or accept people throwing commercials up in the middle of my relaxing online browsing experience.
Privoxy+Firefox+A few manual blocks = no ads, ever. Also manages to take out about 99.99% of the virus crap that shows up for other people.
Shadus
I believe all copywritten works should go to the public domain after 20 years. Period. That should be plenty of time to make money off your work. And if you don't make any money, then it should pass to the public domain so someone else can take it and maybe make some money off of it. The majority of artists/musicians/filmakers/writers never get rich from their work. (Like me!!!) I would imagine that in the public domain, you might have another chance to get some recognition for your art. If you didn't make any money, letting somebody else alter it and re-package it could help you receive some recognition and lead to some $$$ for your other works. Maybe... what do I know... I'm a peasant.
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.
As an aspiring comic myself, I have to say the concept is pretty good (of flexible license as opposed to copyright)... one of my larger worries is that my actual comics (not just the sketches on my art site) ... will be stolen and/or plagerized, this provides at least a source for advice and subject for consideration.
If you didn't read the article and are a comic or other artist, it's worth a read through!
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
This reminds me a lot of a problem my company is facing. One of partner sites that uses our free video hosting software http://video.freevideoblog.com/ gets a lot of "fan" dedications to popular TV shows like Buffy the Vampire slayer or Anime music videos set to popular songs. It's damn good work, and IMOHO only creates more awareness and popularity to the original work, but because we're paranoid of getting sued by the RIAA and MPAA, we have to delete those videos from the system.
I have to wonder how the Music industry gets around this as often I hear music that "samples" tracks from other artists, or even sound bites from TV and the movies. So I know there is a process in place to take an original work and modify it (And combine it with your own original work) to create your own unique art...but I don't know what it is, or where that shade of gray turns black.
I have to say that in this lawsuit happy time I'm more inclined to ere on the side of caution, but I feel a lot of unique and original work is lost or covered up by folks like myself moderating content off the system.
Anyhow just some idle rambling from my own experience.
-Adam
a bitter ex-fan decides to take the strips and replace the writing with, say, something you might find in Penthouse Forum. Not to say that there isn't a market for that kind of thing, just that UserFriendly has always been PG-rated for very specific reasons. I also don't appreciate someone else taking years of my own sweat and tears and in minutes turning it into something of which I don't particularly approve.
Could someone with more legal knowledge than me clear something up: wouldn't such use of Frazer's comics be considered parody, and therefore fair use? Or at least, so the "bitter ex-fan" could argue.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
With traditional copyright, you can still authorize people to do all of the things mentioned. Sometimes, I think the only reason there is a movement to create something new is because people don't understand the current standard.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
It's not that bad.
Most people mixing up their own derivative works for fun will share within their circle of friends privately, or via centralized services that haven't grown big enough to care about being legally anal, or via decentralized p2p (which is where I find most of those anime music vids, halo vids, GTA trick vids, CS cheater vids, WoW "hammertime" vids, and whatnot).
Power to the Peaceful
Sinfest.net is one of my favorites - great strip, now available as a book.. And the idiot who argued that people shouldn't get paid for their work - pray tell, what is your job ?
You mean like how Metallica wants to stop you from stealing their CD's? I guess if it's a "cool" cartoon, it's bad to rip it off, but if it's an "evil" CD, then it's OK to rip off. I hope this article helps people see why copyright issues are so complex -- you just can't treat one media differently from the other. Many hours of labor are involved in the initial creation of ANY product, and the people who put in those hours deserve just compensation and equal protection under the law.
stuff |
I love the Creative Commons license, but I actually think that the example Lessig gives in his book "Free Culture" of the douginshi is a better market example.
Doujinshi are illegal comics that are openly tolerated because the legal owners know that the comics actually help the overall market (a fan fiction that keeps people interested, trains aspiring artists, and promotes creative freedom.
Of course, another reason that they flourish, was provided to Lessig by a Japanese buisinessman, who said, "we don't have enough lawyers," to prosecute the cases. If only!
The same issue exists for all artistic endeavors (although music, through sampling, seems to be at the forefront these days). It really is worth considering the dampening effect that these policies have on creativity and innovation.
Already done that. Myself and several others produced a print suitable minicomic in pdf format that is free to download, read, print, sell. The only restrictions we had were no changes to it allowed. There've been some distributed at various conventions in dead tree format. Watch out for "Deadly Bear Attacks". As for my normal comic, I don't worry about it. It's purely a hobby and I'm not after any compensation for doing it.
Most people mixing up their own derivative works for fun will share within their circle of friends privately, or via centralized services that haven't grown big enough to care about being legally anal, or via decentralized p2p (which is where I find most of those anime music vids, halo vids, GTA trick vids, CS cheater vids, WoW "hammertime" vids, and whatnot).
True, but it's still unfortunate the really good stuff can't make it onto more mainstream web-sharing services. Bit Torrent is great, but I wouldn't call it mainstream or even user friendly when it comes to the "can my grandmother use it" test.
warcraft hammertime? got a link?
... program tools to deprive comics of advertising revenue ...
Now WTF does *that* mean?
You don't have things like Adblock in mind, do you? Let me point out that no one has a RIGHT to advertising revenue. I am quite sure I don't have any obligation, moral or legal, to look at the ads.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Parody fan art?
Visit jabcomix.com
the forums have fan art of jab's parody art, ahahaha.
As an aspiring comic-writer (see .sig) I would love to quit my job and draw all day long. As a realist, I know that this will likely never happen. However, if it /does/ happen, I would like some way to profit from it while giving people the right to do with it what they want. Being also very busy, I haven't looked into it (considering it will likely never be an issue).
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Flawed comparison. The OP is still wrong, but your analogy sucks.
His situation: The marginal cost of his digitally duplicating one more copy for himself is pretty much nil. Any argument that the recording industry lost money is based on the idea that if he had not been able to score it for free, he would have bought the item, which is the logic that allows the BSA to declare "ONE HOJILLION DOLLARS" in piracy per week.
Your analogy: He can't sell his labor more than once. Labor isn't easily duplicatable. While 2 digital copies of "White Rap Song.mp3" cost the same as 1 digital copy, 2 hours of labor cost the employee (shocker!) twice as much as 1 hour cost him.
So, no, it's not the same. You fail it.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
PS: As an aside to my above post. My company is currently operating in the negative (as any new start up does). So if the RIAA/MPAA comes a knocking asking for a cut of the profits, right now we'd just hand them a bill
You don't think so? In that case, I have an "official" Captain Jean-Luc Picard (TM) "Make it so!" Talking Toilet Bowl seat that I want to sell you. It programmed to offer such encouragement as:
"Make it so!"
"Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!"
"Engage!"
"These are not the droids we're looking for!
Yours for only four easy payments of 29.95!
An article having to do with webcomics and absolutely no plug for Penny Arcade in the Slashdot post? Amazing!
This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
"from the dept." From what dept?!
It's interesting to me that most of these discussions assume that preserving the making of money in the entertainment business overrides all other considerations. As Doctorow sums up, "The inkers, artists, writers and pencillers should be protected by statute and practice in a way that guarantees them a decent wage and the means to care for their families." This is always taken as a given. The enterteinment business must endure.
Why?
Would a world without professionally produced entertainment be as bad as a world in which you need approval from some central authority every time you access a hard drive or move bytes from one piece of equipment to another? I can live a pretty full life without Madonna, Spiderman or Star Wars. I can't live nearly such a full life if every action I perform electronically is monitored, and everything I personally create and distribute must be checked for possible infringement or I risk losing my house in a lawsuit.
Preservation of copyright in the modern world creates these consequences. Like the War On Drugs, which currently accounts for 65% of our prison system, the War On Infringement will entail greater and greater enforcement costs. I don't want to pay those costs to preserve an industry that contributes only a few percent to the economy. I also don't want to further entrench the modern notion that ideas and property are one and the same, or that rights and property are one and the same. Given a choice between preserving the profitability of entertainment for the few people who earn a living that way, and perserving the personal freedoms that the other 99.999% of the population will lose -- and it IS a binary choice -- give me the latter.
As long as hordes of naive users are acting as DDoS zombies, are installing spyware, are buying things from spammers, are still using IE 5.5...
Then I think the proportion of Slashdotters adblocking everything and spoiling the commons isn't dangerously high.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Is there any way to correct the misleading copyright statement for the NY Times news article archive http://query.nytimes.com/search/advanced of 1851-1922?
Aren't the articles from 1922 and earlier are now in the public domain.
Of course, a lot of this happens in curriculum development anyhow. When you're stuck for ideas, you look at activities and lesson plans others have written and pull what's relevant to adapt to what you're doing - no reason to reinvent the wheel. As long as you don't copy it all wholesale, there's not much worry since you can't copyright an idea. (When you do pull an entire graphic organizer, activity, graphic, etc from another source, of course you've got to cite it and get permission.) So that sort of "license" is, in a way, taken for granted in the educational community. I'll have to actually go to their site and look at the science section to see what they're all about.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
I have to wonder how the Music industry gets around this as often I hear music that "samples" tracks from other artists, or even sound bites from TV and the movies. So I know there is a process in place to take an original work and modify it (And combine it with your own original work) to create your own unique art...but I don't know what it is, or where that shade of gray turns black.
The test of legality used to boil down to something like "does the work stand on its own without the sampled material, and does it not detract from the value of the original."
So Skinny Puppy could get away with using tons of dialogue from television and film in the 80s, because:
- Their music didn't depend on the samples, it just incorporated them.
- Using those samples didn't devalue, for example, Bugs Bunny cartoons, Charles Manson documentaries, or incredibly awful Canadian vampire movies.
- The samples were used to provide commentary on society.
Over time, sampling became more about swiping someone else's bassline, or another part of their music. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this (although I think the incest factor makes the new work less interesting), but it did change the nature of using sampled elements.
Today, basically if you are a major-label band, you *must* clear all your samples, no matter how short, or there will be a legal battle.
Most copyright holders seem to ignore bands on non-mainstream labels (e.g. Metropolis), but if there is enough publicity, and the copyright holder takes issue with the music, there have still been court battles.
You can't buy Apotheosis' "O Fortuna" new anymore, because Karl Orff's estate sued over it. Granted, that failed the "does it stand on its own?" test miserably, but on the other hand even the total worldwide sales of that track wouldn't have covered the licensing costs for the music, so it would never have been made "legitimately" anyway.
The money issue is a big one for smaller bands. Some copyright holders will charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for the use of a single sample, even if it's for an album which will sell 2000 copies at most.
The pricing makes some sense in the inflated world of major labels, but it stifles independent artists. For example, I once estimated that to clear the samples in *one* of my tracks from back in 2000, it would cost something like $50k-$100k, far more than the entire album it was from would ever generate even in gross profit.
Personally I think it's illogical to the point of frustration that a visual artist can make and sell collages made from Chiquita banana stickers and newspaper clippings all day, but using audio samples is somehow different.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
IP Industry:
Please cease and desist infringing my privacy and free speech rights immediately. If you fail to comply with this request we will be forced to initiate copyright infringement against you.
Thanks for the input it sounds like you have some solid industry insight. I too have to wonder why Audio/Video copyrights get protection to the point of stiffling other artist, yet visual arts have more lenient creative commons...probably because less money is at stake.
they would create merchindise.
That's where most paper comics make their good money.
"...methods like paid for context links."
which very few people would suscribe to.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My god, not that. Oh, Jesus, I think I'm going to vomit. Just the thought of someone profiting from others' labor without permission makes me sick.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
"It's interesting to me that most of these discussions assume that preserving the making of money in the entertainment business overrides all other considerations. As Doctorow sums up, "The inkers, artists, writers and pencillers should be protected by statute and practice in a way that guarantees them a decent wage and the means to care for their families." This is always taken as a given. The enterteinment business must endure."
It's not the perservation that's the issue. It's those who feel that being entertained is an entitlement, and will do everything in their power to see that that happens.
If people truely put actions to words then they wouldn't have ANYTHING (buy, possess, talk about) to do with the commercial industy, and subsiquently they would collapse, IP laws or not. Instead being the ethical "sprinters" they are. They take the short-term easy solution to the issue.
"Would a world without professionally produced entertainment be as bad as a world in which you need approval from some central authority every time you access a hard drive or move bytes from one piece of equipment to another?"
As opposed to a world were artists refuse to produce anything in the face of a respectless audiance. Were whatever you produce is seen by the audiance as "theirs" not because they had any hand in it's creation, but just because "they can".
"I can live a pretty full life without Madonna, Spiderman or Star Wars. I can't live nearly such a full life if every action I perform electronically is monitored, and everything I personally create and distribute must be checked for possible infringement or I risk losing my house in a lawsuit."
The fact that there's widespread dissemination of copyright material means that while you can "do without". that doesn't mean the majority can.
"Preservation of copyright in the modern world creates these consequences."
More like "perservation of the unreasonable aspects" than the idea itself, but a lot is created by those who've either never learned what morals or ethics are, or don't care to learn. It's easy to blame the laws for the consequences. It's much harder to look at one's own heart and see the consequences arising from it's nature.
"Like the War On Drugs, which currently accounts for 65% of our prison system, the War On Infringement will entail greater and greater enforcement costs."
If it does, it's because people on BOTH SIDES either didn't do what they're suppose to, when they're suppose to. Or did do something they weren't suppose to. Actions have effects. Rights have responsabilities. That is an immutable rule, that humanity still refuses to come to terms with.
" I don't want to pay those costs to preserve an industry that contributes only a few percent to the economy."
And once again slashdot demonstrates it's myopic world view. Just as there's a world beyound the US. There's a world beyound just the "content industry" The contribution from all the individuals and companies, amoungst others who produce IP is incalcuable. IP rules are for everyone.
"I also don't want to further entrench the modern notion that ideas and property are one and the same, or that rights and property are one and the same."
That's not what's being etrenched. The basic idea that a man can enter in reciprocal agreements with his fellow man for the purposes of earning a living is what's being entrenched.
No one see's a problem with this idea when physical goods are being discussed. But when it comes to digital goods and services. Suddenly that rule no longer seems to apply, and it's every greedy person for themself, damn any agreement.
"Given a choice between preserving the profitability of entertainment for the few people who earn a living that way, and perse
If you want to publish your stuff free without any advertising, you should use bittorrent. Instead of hosting the entire thing online, you just need one page with a couple of samples and a link to the torrent. You'll have to help seed it, and maybe run the tracker, though there are free public ones you can use. All of this is quite possible to host off a home DSL connection - which presumably you pay for anyway, right?
The Creative Commons site features a set of educational comics done under the CC license.
This sounds really interesting. I've always felt that the future of education is in comics. I really wanted to see what had been done when I saw this quote, but, alas, I couldn't find it on their website. Does anyone know what he's specifically talking about or, even better, have a direct link to said comics?
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
So, you have a panel on webcomics, and only one of the five people there happens to be a webcomics guy.
(to say nothing of the quality of his work, oy!)
[o]_O
For example, I once estimated that to clear the samples in *one* of my tracks from back in 2000, it would cost something like $50k-$100k, far more than the entire album it was from would ever generate even in gross profit.
I'm not familiar with your work (or, maybe I am but just don't recognize you from your slashdot name), but that is a really sad state of affairs.
The worst part is that the RIAA types would see you as a drain on society, eg, they wouldn't see your work as being a contribution to the arts at all, they'd see the lack of revenue from licensing your samples as a loss of money (they'd probably even call you a pirate or whatever the insult du jour is), they would then go on to claim that by you not paying this money, "real" artists are hurt and less "real" music is then made. Sad.
If you like a webcomic, and it has great attributes... why try to steal from it and depreciate the people who work hard on those webcomics???
On the otherhand If you are developing a webcomic and it has great attributes... why not copywrite or trademark your work???
For great web comics, visit:
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/
http://www.penny-arcade.com/
GCS/MU d- s: a--- C++ W+++ w+ M-- PS--- PE++ t+ R+ tv b+ DI++ G e- h! !y
I am currently in film school. I want to direct films that are entertaining, yet make me and the other people involved some money. As others have said, if I can't eat, I'm not going to be making many films.
However I think the current situation regarding copyright is, quite frankly, bullshit. So I am going to do something in return for the limited right to exclusivity copyright should provide me.
I am going to place a clause with my films stating that they are to revert to Creative Commons after 11 years. After that, you will be free to copy it ad nauseam for nothing, nada, zilch. Modify it, redistribute it, add to the universes the films have created; whatever. All I ask in return is that you be fair to me as well and do the right thing by recompensing me if you like my work.
I do plan to allow uploading/downloading of my films. In fact I will no doubt be the one initially seeding them since as a potential artist, I want others to see my films and provide them with entertainment. Think of it as shareware for films. I also plan to enforce a clause for my films on DVD etc that they cannot have any unskippable ads or FBI/interpol style crap before the main menu. We've all seen them by now, and if we haven't heeded the words already we're unlikely to start now are we? So my films will be accompanied by a small logo like "NoPUOs" or some such to let you, the potential customer, know that I respect your viewing my movie as much as you will hopefully respect me trying to make a living from my art.
Why 11 years? Well, ten seemed good at first but then I figured an extra year won't hurt, but it gives me one last chance to release a 10th Anniversary DVD for example and still perhaps make a little more money off it before returning it to the public domain. To me it sounds fair to do this and hopefully others will do the same.
Believe me, most of us coming through film school currently think that copyrights as they stand are untenable and will only serve to alienate us as filmmakers from our audience. I plan to do something constructive towards fixing it, but I will need your help to do it. I look forward to providing my films to you in the near future.
Visceral Psyche Films
i posted this on the comixpedia site, throw it up here for sweet sharing love and esoteric posterity. word. well this is fascinating. we [sugarlab, aka the supraliminal guerrilla army] advance released, in digital format, the upcoming uberbabe collected graphic novel and soundtrack, online, free, in digital format - back in march 2005.multimedia package hits stores in july. we released it early, in this format, as a show of support for the open source movement, and evolving consumer rights. it's one of a whack of things we're doing on this front. i actually talked to lawrence in early may, giving him the heads up on sugarlab's open content model and wiki - which is extensively using the cc license scheme to manage an open content library of uberbabe assets, including narrative, graphic, music and flash. we launch the first iteration of it in the fall. it will ALSO include a new licensing protocol that extends the creative commons license... dealing with derivative works we think have commercial value... and includes a royalty component. basically it retriangulates profit amongst all parties - artist, producer, end user/content modifier. if anyone's interested in being involved as we proof it all out, email info@sugar-lab.com. you can check out a little discussion on our model here.... http://sugar-lab.com/what.html...and check out the uberbabe files using the cc licenses, here... http://uberbabe.com/found/evo-mediaExperiment301.p hp
lis, the lady uberbabe
is this the starship? the platform starship?
While you make a sensible try at going a bit deeper into the matter, it is a pitty you feel the need to post as an AC. The post is good enough to post under your 'own' nick, as far as that goes, obviously.
Anyhow, some points of disagreement:
"It's not the perservation that's the issue. It's those who feel that being entertained is an entitlement, and will do everything in their power to see that that happens."
I would rather say it's a matter of what kind of 'entitlement' it is about. I think that few would argue that musicians performing live/on stage or cartoonist who make a cartoon for a paper do not deserve a payement *for their actual work*. Just like one pays almost anyone else for the what they actually DO - as in: workhours. What most oppose, however, is the notion that one could get virtual perpetual earnings for something you created once, and that goes beyond what you actually worked for in real sense.
If tommorow a mason would tell me you don't only have to pay his work on the walls, but thanks to 'mp' (Mason Property) laws, you now have to pay him for his creation untill his death + 50 years, then, yes, people would be right to be pissed about it, and think it is undeserved.
"As opposed to a world were artists refuse to produce anything in the face of a respectless audiance. Were whatever you produce is seen by the audiance as "theirs" not because they had any hand in it's creation, but just because "they can"."
This is a fallacy; namely a false dilemma. It is NOT a matter of: allowing it, and having no art being produced - and not allowing it, and having art being produced. The notion you try to make convincing flies in the face of the fact that IP laws are fairly recent things, considering the total history of human societies. They became common in the 19th century; hundreds, nay, thousands of years *before* that, we had artists and art being produced (of an astonishing quality, I may add), regardless of IP laws or not. And when IP laws will become nothing more then a bad memory, there STILL will be artists and art. Even today, at the hight of IP-emperorship, there are large amounts of artists that make art, and don't rely on IP.
So, the notion that "artists" will stop because the people don't pay for their IP rights seems demonstrately untrue, if not ludicrous.
"If it does, it's because people on BOTH SIDES either didn't do what they're suppose to, when they're suppose to. Or did do something they weren't suppose to. Actions have effects. Rights have responsabilities. That is an immutable rule, that humanity still refuses to come to terms with."
That's a fine piece of philosophy, but, alas, it dwindles out in platitudes without any concrete argumentation. The war on drugs is, in all respects exept the most cynical ones, a failure. That was, which the parent poster was alluding at. All the "if people did what they are told, we wouldn't have to put them in prison" doesn't change that. That's like arguing that if people were all nice to eachother, we wouldn't need jails.
Well, perhaps, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Laws that go contrary to human nature in such a way that it is and will be massively ignored even when legal and justicial repression is huge, should be abolished, period. Anything else will lead to huge amounts of effort, time and money being wasted on a futile attempt to win a war that can not be won, that could be used for far better purposes.
The similarities with IP vs. P2P downloads are obvious, which was why the parent poster made the comparison in the first place, I think.
"That's not what's being etrenched. The basic idea that a man can enter in reciprocal agreements with his fellow man for the purposes of earning a living is what's being entrenched."
Not really. If that were true, and it was only about that, they wouldn't try to sue and jail people who downloaded music where they never agreed to any 'voluntary agreement'. After all, it's only the first one copying from the original t
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---