Slashdot Mirror
Sweden's File Sharing Debate Becomes Mass Brawl
praps writes "When Sweden's Data board gave the film and games industry organisation Antipiratbyrån an exemption from data protection laws last week it seemed that file sharers were on the ropes. Then the music industry joined in with some punches of its own, saying it too will hunt those who share songs online. Suddenly, file sharers have the support of their ISPs, who are refusing to cooperate with the big industries - and it's game on." From the article: "Only the file sharer's ISP can link the IP address to the person. If the ISP receives a request for such information from the police, they cannot refuse it, but a few calls from TT revealed that requests from APB would be ignored." We've previously reported on Swedish anti-downloading laws before.
Every lawsuit against people not judged to be criminals by their friends and family is just another mark against the recording and film industries. You know what they say about business: anger one customer and they tell 10 friends.
These lawsuits go beyond anger, they financially hurt customers. For every $10,000 they receive in settlements, they could be losing multiples of in lost future business.
My luddite parents discovered P2P because of some news article about these suits in the U.S. They were blind to Napster since its inception.
I wasn't surprised to see Limewire on my dad's PC a few months ago. This is a guy who never touched a mouse until 2003.
You can stop a river with a boulder when it is still a 6" trickle. Yet the boulder does not one bit when the river is a torrent.
In the long run, ISPs who share privilege information will go out of business. I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."
So the European equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA will have succeeded in shutting down file sharing of copyrighted material in Sweden only to see it pop up elsewhere in the world. This game will continue because, like all forms of covert smuggling operations, the excise tax charged by these organizations are viewed by the consumer as onerous and overpriced. If the music and film industry were to reduce their taxes, just as England did in the mid-18th Century, they will find that compliance increases and smuggling declines to nominal levels.
You can say the same thing about prohibition. Once you create a black market for a product through legislation or exorbitant pricing, it is impossible to put smuggling down permanently.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
That seems like exactly the right thing to do to me, actually. Not that I think that copyright infringement is something that necessarily should be allowed, mind you, but if somebody's done something wrong, then it's the job of the police to investigate - not private companies'. And the fact that Antipiratbyrån seems to have planted evidence in the past (search for it, I'm too lazy to look up the story; Slashdot covered it) just shows again why this is important.
What's more, it's not immediately clear to me why it would even be legal for an ISP to give out data about customers to a private company that asks for it, without (I presume) the customer's knowledge or consent. Not that I know a thing about Swedish law, of course, but that sounds like exactly the kind of thing that could result in class action lawsuits and the like, so if I was an ISP, I'd definitely err on the safe side here and only hand over customer data to the police, not private companies, and only when ordered to do so by a court of law.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
That's a stupid statement.
... If the owner of said item wants it to be.
.50 to a another schmuck, and then .50 to the musician.
Music, information, entertainment should be free!
Musicians don't make music to just give it away (some do) but they also need to eat. I have no problems handing over some cash for a CD I like.
What I don't like doing is handing over 25.99 for a cd, and having 23.99 go to a label,
That's what I don't like.
But running around saying it all should be free is ridiculous. Remember, making that cd you listen to, or that mp3 you just downloaded, took time, took money and is someones lively hood.
It's like stating all car repairs should be free!
oogly boogly!
How about these concepts as a starting point; These are simply ideas that in my opinion are not too controversial.
We want to ensure its's possible to make a profit from creative works.
People will copy data.
Sharing between friends is not going to bring down the music/movie/software industry.
Online file sharing should probably be discouraged, or at least not strongly encouraged.
Awarding disproportionately huge damages against file sharers is not a just solution.
A distinction should be made between small scale copying for free, and large scale copying for financial gain.
When we have the government siding strongly with the media cartels, and disproportionate penalties for file sharers, as well as the invasion of privacy by a private organisation means that people loserespect for the law. This is generally speaking a bad thing. m'kay.
Most people agree that copyright is largely a good thing. Most people also have no qualms about using pirated software. I'm sure we can find a compromise.
Your sentiments are noble, but misplaced. You blame the legislators for not throwing out this stuff immediately; they aren't the problem. They'd probably be thrilled if they could simply do that. The problem is that there are very rich organizations trying to pull strings. And you cannot simply sweep aside the very rich, because they wield a great deal of economic power.
The metaconflict is arguably about the power of pure wealth versus the power of the democratic government.
Where do we draw the line? Are those 5gigs quotas gonna be enough in 2010? :(
I work for a webhosting firm and almost monthly we get calls from old dudes with fishing websites asking why they used 500 Gigs of transfer and got an insane bill last month. Invariably it's because their ftp password was "cat" or some nonsense and somebody dumped a copy of dreamweaver, or a ton of MP3s, etc. on their account and linked it to a pirate site. But the first time I saw this happen, it made me think: piracy in general can have more economic impact that you realize at first.
For example, when the above happens, we usually do a one-time refund of the bandwidth charge, which is often considerable, and I'm sure we're not the exception. That means we eat the bandwidth bill for that person. Now, consider that all webhosts are likely to do the same and I wonder what the economic impact is across the board?
Interesting how there are facets you don't even realize exist.
Sony ha
It might help if you actually provide reasoning behind your post. Like why entertainment should be free, and if it is free how you are going to fund creation of new entertainment. Independant bands haven't had much trouble so far, but making an independant game or movie is pretty hard to do if you can't be expected to get money back through sales. Most of the indie games and movies aren't anywhere near the quality of those made by game and movie studios.
So, what do you propose? Have the people fund it through tax revenue? But why should my dollars go towards music, movies, and games I don't want to buy?
Care to share your brilliance with us, instead of labelling people who disagree "brainwashed capitalist?" Ad hominem attacks, and proclaiming that you are obviously right without giving any sort of reasoning, are the hallmarks of a weak mind.
Whoever has the most money to buy legislation protecting themselves. My bet is the music/film industry will purchase the right to sue.
PB, based in Sweden, has some fun to read legal threats from Microsoft, Dreamworks, EA, White Stripes, etc. along with PB's responses.
[alk]
You can have all the free entertainment you want. Don't you know how to entertain yourself? There are libraries for books and some audio/video entertainment even if you can't entertain yourself. I'm sure you could also find other free entertainments. But no matter how much you wish or think something should be free, it is not logical to think someone should entertain you for free. They are creative, and some work hard for what they do, be it creating books, songs, movies, comedy routines, etc. and demanding that they give you it for free is the same as the grandparent said, "It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
In the US, many ISPs are a division of a larger media corporation. Therefore, their finances come from hawking such media (See AOL etc.). The obvious connection to this is that the ISP will not stop their parents from impeding their customers. In Sweeden, however, this appears to not be the case. The ISPs make money from their ability to move data. They don't care what kind of data that they are moving, if they did, they would lose money. If a customer gets sued, they are out that customer, and the people that downgrade their internet packages because they stopped using so much bandwidth for fear of a lawsuit. The media corporations are not equipped to make use of the ISPs bandwidth, so banding together with them would hurt the ISPs bottom line. Media company's solution: Try to buy them out and stop competition. To stop competition, they either have to get laws passed, or advertise more about how great their music videos are.
This brings us to the future problem. A newcomer ISP can always offer cheaper service if they only provide bandwidth and not media. To combat this the MediaISPs will make more complicated rate structures which obfuscate the fact that the customers are paying more, in hopes of staying around longer. This will be alongside their legal fight to gain more powers associated with IP. The newcomer ISP competes only if there is sufficient free content on the internet to justify the bandwidth.
2*31*37*263
Your precious China's economy is rapidly becomming a capatilist economy (one could even argue that its already there). Moreover, in case you hadn't been keeping up, China does charge for their entertainment, they are funding space exploration, and there are poor and homeless in China. What was your point again? I'm not seeing the wall here.
Come on man, think! Use that brain you were born with.
Of course, the ISP:s aren't refusing to identify customers because they're a bunch of swell guys. They make a bunch of money selling fast broadband connections, where the faster ones are primarily used by file sharers. Forwarding warning letters would also be a bunch of extra work, and they have nothing to gain - they'll just lose customers.
The only solution is legal download services. TV shows, which make up a large part of the traffic, are distributed in an antiquated fashion, and the technology is here to change that.
Imagine if music was distributed the same way that TV shows are. The new song of your favourite artist would only play on radio stations in the US, where it's interrupted by commercials halfway through. After a couple of months it'd start to play on radio stations in the rest of the world. Only after a year would you be able to buy the CD in a store, but it would be protected by DRM so you couldn't pick it up a few months early on your visit abroad. Bizarre, isn't it?
Let's hope iTunes TV download service turns out well, so we can finally get fast, legal downloads at a decent price.
READY.
#
The music industry would like you to pay every time you listen to your CD.
Having you buy another one if you break it is still waaaay off this objective, but rest assured that they will do everything in their power to get there.
Same with the movie industry of course.
So, enjoy your free re-listening while it lasts.
In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
In Ireland both Eircom (www.eircomsucks.com) and BT Ireland (www.btirelandsucks.com) have agreed in court that if any Music or Movie company asks them for customer information that they'll give it to them.
:(
All in all a crap situation compared to Sweden
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
The Swedish Data Inspection Board gave the APB a green-light to collect IP adresses.
It's not quite a big deal, since the anti-pirate folks already can do that legally in a number of countries (such as the US) which don't have strict data-protection laws.
And the ISPs are not only doing the right thing but probably the only legal thing, since it'd quite likely violate the very same data-protection laws if they gave information about their customers to a private third party without permission from either the government or their customers.
The "Anti-Pirate Bureau" isn't a government agency after all. And while the USA seems to have happily handed over law-enforcement to the copyright holders, Europe has not. So far.
In polls in swedens biggest newspaper, with 80000 respondants, on this question: "Is it morally right to download movies and music illegaly?"
> 85% answered yes.
The pirates and antipirates has debated in newspaper, television and the "piratbyrån" (pro piracy organization) has even published a book which has recieved good critics. The sum of all this is that the pirates is seen as normal humans that download stuff on internet and the antipirates are greedy corporate a**es. Its not hard do figure out which side will win the hearts of the population.
This has even gone so far as the minister of justice has stated in media that "with the new anti-piracy laws the police should not go hunt for teenagers downloading music, but for big scale for-profit copying"
Since we have a democracy the only outcome I can see in the long run is that not-for-profit private piracy will become legal, even two parties in our parliament has expressed support for piracy.
Also, the results of a lawsuit will be released next week which will determine wether it will even be possible for police to request information on IPs from ISPs when they suspect piracy. One pirate has ben sued because he shared a movie on the internet, if he gets anything below prison swedish privacy laws will make it impossible for the police to request identy of IPs in the future. (which says that for the identity to be reviled for the police it is required that the crime commited has prison as one possible punishment).
(* with piracy I mean copying of music/movies over the internet without any money going to the owner of the work).
You're pretty right... I guess we actually give subvention to those "huuuuuge" companies from Hollywood here in Canada. You know? That kind of public funds helping private companies getting more money ...? Tax refunds and stuff like that. They actually are giving my money to these guys.
... I pay 10$ to see the movie at a cinema places, THEY should give me the DVD freely since I paid my right to see it. If I go see Metallica show somewhere, THEY should give me their latest CD.
Tax refunds are not taking away money from corporations, not giving them money. Most of our tax revenue comes from those corporations anyway, you know. And the rich. More to the point, those "huuuuuuge" companies provide jobs and livelihood to a lot of people.
I don't feel that they should get as much tax breaks as they do, but lets be accurate and realistic here. The government isn't taking your money and giving it to them. They're taking less money from them than you think they should (and I think they should, in some cases). Moreover, often times its money that they earned, by funding, developing, and putting out a product.
When a band comes here, like lets say U2 or Metallica, they often get those subvention
So wait, you say entertainment should be free, but then say that you should get entertainment after paying for it, then say that you actually do pay for it? Make up your mind.
You don't tell me why they SHOULD give you their CD for attending the concert. You are paying for the concert, not the CD. And Metallica has a right to do whatever they want with their property and their events. If you don't like that you don't get a CD, then don't pay for it.
Anyways, 30$ for the DVD, 20$ for the CD is simply extorsion. If it was 5$ I don't say, but they are simply abusing. And the price of the media isn't that expensive. Why did titanic made nearly 1 billion $ in raw income?
Oh boy, you obviously haven't taken any sort of class in economics. First of all, $20 for a CD is extortion to you. There are people out there who feel that $20 is a perfectly acceptable price point, and a fair trade for that CD. They're called customers. Its basic supply and demand. More to the point, while CD's are cheap in terms of reproduction and raw materials, you have to pay to develop the content which actually goes on that CD. Studios, artists, producers, advertisement, instruments, etc are not cheap.
Special effects for Titanic, as well as sets and actors are not cheap either. Raw income is just that... raw income. It doesn't take into account how much it cost to make in the first place. And it made $1 billion because that many people thought spending money to see the movie and buying the dvds was a fair trade for the entertainment. There is no extortion going on here.
And WE don't have pretty much choice if WE like the full album. THEY whine because they make LESS money because THEY abuse our wallets.
YOU have a choice whether or not to buy the album. If enough people thought the price point was unfair, they wouldn't buy, and the price would go down. Enough people think the price point is fair to keep it there.
THEY are not forcing you to buy anything. You are making a choice to buy it, and you are the one abusing your own wallet.
You have obvious problems taking responsibility for your spending habits, and are obviously just making the same flimsy and tired arguments to support your copyright infringment as everyone else. If you're going to try to justify your actions, then you might want to do so with an ounce of acknowledgement to personal responsibility and basic economics.
No thats stupid - to say patterns can be "owned". Patterns are just patterns, and if person A knows a pattern and tells parson B this pattern there is nothing that makes a person C able to regulate it.
If some laws say otherwise, the laws are stupid to. Whats stupid or not is not determined by law but is a subjective view. You think it is natural that people own patterns, but many dont think so.
In Europe a lot of countries have stricter privacy laws then elswhere. If anybody except law askes for information with my provider and they give it, I have won my case, because the evidence was not recieved in a lawfull way.
I could even sue my provider.
Now if they just forward the mail, I can just ignore it and wait for a lawsuit, wich brings me back to step one above.
In Belgium, if you just fileshare and not sell, there is a pretty big chance that they will put your case at the bottom of the pile. The law in Belgium already once told them they would not go after each and every file-sharer. They will spend their time with people who try to make money with it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Worst. Rocky. Refernce. Ever.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
This idea that ISPs are being noble here is silly. They're doing what they do for the money as much as anyone.
Fact is, many people that pay for an Internet connection do so in part so they can swap music. Getting free
music is part of the value of that connection for them.
Now put yourself in the place of the ISP. You have customers paying you so they can have access to this free music.
Why would you want to stop this? You don't have to pay for the music yourself, but you get a financial benefit from it.
So I don't see anything heroic about these ISPs. Helping to make sure their customers can get free music helps
their bottom line.
And another thing. Why does everyone always bring up that this or that is crap and so it should be free or whatever. If you don't like then ignore it. There are not any laws or moral obligations that say you have to participate in it. If it's crap and you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, why are you downloading it? If it's crap and you don't want it, why are you complaining about it?
What I don't understand is why people think they need new music. Don't they realize there are decades of good music out there already?
I know some people who listen to oldies CDs and still buy the new stuff. Yes they are well aware that there are decades worth of music. I am sure most people are. Most people also have heard of "Leave it to Beaver" but still want to watch new TV shows. Most people have heard of Jimmy Stewart but like to watch new Movies. All gamers know about Pong but still like to play Halo. In fact, everyone has heard of Shakespeare but quite a few still like whatever Andrew Lloyd Weber might come out with next. Just because there is some old time equivalent doesn't mean that people won't like new stuff.
Curiously I wonder: Why do you think that being in the entertainment business is not a "real" job? What are your standards for "productive"?
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
The fight for freedom has many fronts. This front's name is freedom of speech (for music writers, that is - if a record label won't publish some singers' song because it doesn't benefit them or because of government crap, how effective his message will be? In this case, "Art wants to be free" (free as in freedom, not as in beer).
First: I'd gladly buy a CD if it's cheap enough and it's worth it. I don't want to spend my money in a giant marketing apparatus promoting tours. People who go to the tours ARE ALREADY paying. If I'm not going, why should my money go to them? I don't want to spend twice on a product. On the other hand, if a musician puts up his website and has a "donate" button for some tour, i'd gladly click if I consider the artist good enough.
Second, if you had to choose between spending $100 on the poor, and giving them to record companies, which one would you choose? You kill no one by downloading a file. And I'd rather download a song from the internet than financing kidnapper bands or druglords who sell pirated goods on the street.
Third, you can't force a teenager to give away his money to the poor. But in the same way, you can't force him to feed the RIAA monster companies who are already obsolete anyway. Why invest money in something that has no reason to exist?
Fourth, The only reason people have to pay for music is because the RIAA has twisted the law in their favor, lobbing them with the money the customers have paid. If I'm spending money on a music as a government tax (in the form of lobbying), I have the right to decide what should be done with my money, don't I? I'd rather download a song and donate a dollar to the group, than paying $20 to the RIAA, who will only give about 50 cents (or less) to the group in question.
Finally, The RIAA has stolen a lot of money from customers. Is it wrong to want to take that money back?
These are some of the reasons file sharers believe it's not only "not wrong", but a just cause, to share files. One thing can be wrong and legal, or viceversa. The laws supporting evil monopolies like the RIAA can, and must go away.
(You can quote, copy and link to this as the "File Sharer's manifesto". This is free speech and belongs to the public domain - permission to correct spelling / grammar is granted)
No, this is the worst Rocky reference ever:
"Hey this is like in that movie with that guy. You know the one who plays the boxer? Yeah and he like yells his wife's name and stuff at the end of the fight. This is just like that."
You're welcome.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
"Music, information, entertainment should be free! ... If the owner of said item wants it to be."
We, the public, are the owners. It is just on loan to the so called creators for a limited period of time, the period being copyright length.
I think it's time to severely reduce that copyright length. It may have made sense before but not when when costs, and thus the risks, of publishing is reduced due to online avenues for distribution.
Here's the deal: I have no problem paying ARTISTS for their work. I have a problem paying corporations who through lobbying and slimy lawyer tricks control the distribution chain for an artist's work. If
Car repair shouldn't be free, but the MECHANIC should get be the one getting paid. That's why I take my car to a locally owned shop (Frank's Auto Repair) where Frank gets my money instead of "Giant Corporate Auto Repair Inc." where they pay a mechanics $15/hour yet charge the customer $90/hour for labor on repairs. I want to see the WORKER get the money.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most of our tax revenue comes from personal income taxes. I have no problem with this but the myth that Corps pay most taxes needs to be put to rest.
Looks like you're correct. Can't vouch for the accuracy. My point that tax breaks are equivalent to taking less money rather than giving corporations still stands though.
Thanks for your input.
"It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"
bad anology. Its like telling someone how to swap out an alternator (on a radio show), and then not letting them describe to others in as much detail, how to do it. A song isnt a commodity any more than a haynes manual is. My stereo is producing the sound.
A better anology would be that going to see a band at a club is the same as taking your car to the shop. The parts (song, alternator) are availiable to both parties, what counts is that the people actually doing the work ( mechanic, stage musician performing) actually get the money for services rendered. People shouldnt OWN songs. OF course you need to have copyright to give respect to people, but ideally I shouldnt have to pay someone to sing their song, tell their story, or describe how to fix a car. If i could make perfect copies of the aleternator of my car, i shouldnt have to pay anyone to do it.
freedom is independance. slavery is control.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Are they really making such a fuss over these bands?
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
Yes well but...consider the "IP" problem in a larger light. You are the leader of a poor country whose inhabitants are mostly infected with a disease requiring a very expensive drug that can be cheaply produced in your country, but "IP" laws prevent you from saving their lives. Do you let your people die for a legal fiction?
Lets summarise:
>The **AA sucks. (+5, Insightful)
>>Yes they should all die and their pets should be raped. (+4, Interesting)
>Won't someone think of the artists! (+4, Interesting)
>> Yes, stealing songs is wrong. (-1, Troll)
>>> *five million posts on the correctness of calling it stealing*
>>>> Information wants to be free! (+4, Funny)
>>>>> *several thousand government/big business conspiracy posts*
And now my ten cents. Music is over priced, yes. And yes, the labels churn out crap, because largely that is what the average person wants, remember, we are not the average consumer. The artists do deserve to make money from their music. The **aa practice sleazy tactics at best. Downloaders often abuse the fair use rights.
So, really, the **aa fuck us over in terms of taking the public domain, and limiting our fair use rights. We fuck them over by sharing what we have with others. Both are wrong. I'd argue that theirs is typically more wrong (don't try and argue that sharing 10,000 mp3s with random people is fair, please) but the real point for me is that they have the power/money to make theirs *legally* right...
Ok, phrase it like this instead; intellectual monopolies should not be allowed.
"It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"
No, actually it's like stating anyone should be allowed to fix a car.
You're confusing the right to charge for your work with monopoly rights allowing a certain party to control what other people do with their property.
True, but bear in mind that copyrights and patents are not natural rights as determined by the founders. They were supposed to be just enough to compensate their authors for creation of the work. With the extension of copyright duration, the fundamental nature of copyright has changed. The original intent was to allow authors to continue to support themselves while putting creative works into the public domain. Now the point is to simply compensate the owners of copyrights, without thought for the public domain.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
"So if person A told person B all about your patterns, say bank account, PIN, Credit Card #"
You know, if you dont want your PIN spread around you should probably keep it to yourself.
"if a person works long and hard hours to produce something useful or that people enjoy, then it is ok for people to take what that person has done and not give him any sort of compensation for it"
Of course not. That person should be able to charge however much they wish. However, that does not mean they should be allowed to then prevent the purchaser from doing whatever they want with their newly purchased property.
"thus undercutting me and running me out of business, is that OK?"
That's the fundamental reason that the free market works; the creation of wealth through the ever increasing efficiency of production. So, yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. Unless you're opposed to or dont believe in competition or free market capitalism in general.
"If its OK, then why should I bother to develop widget A in the first place?"
Because it gives you a competetive advantage? Because it solves a particular problem you were having?
There are many reasons, but in the end it comes down to this; are we as a society satisfied with the rate of development we're getting without added incentives? If we're not satisfied with the rate we need to create a system that creates extra incentives for development. And if you start there you'll find that granting monopolies is one system that is extrordinarily inappropriate and creates such effects as slower adoption of new technology, creates legal overhead for any combination tech, sometimes even making it impossible to produce, creates lockin effects on the market, diverts resources from research into marketing, etc.
The IP system is in its essence a form of taxation/subsidy system, in the form of monopoly rent on certain items, comparable to other product taxes in economic effects. As for what the public gets for those hidden taxes, it has got to be the absolutely worst performing and undemocratic subsidy/corporate welfare scheme ever invented.
The Anti-piracy Bureau are also forced to inform everyone they register the IP address of in their databases, otherwise they aren't allowed to store the IP address according to Swedish computer privacy laws.
So... The APB then have problems with following this practice since the ISP's won't give them personal data (necessary to contact the user they log) without a police order, and it all turns into a kind of circular legal problem that benefits the file sharer, and makes the APB databases illegal if they'd keep registering IP's and bypassing the police. (in Sweden, an IP address is definitely considered private information you can't just register however you like; much like a social security number)
Personally, I believe this is more proof that our privacy safety nets are working as intended than that they're broken. If the APB find an IP address and want to register this one, they should really need to contact the police, and if they decide it's worth tracking up, let them proceed, and if not, force them to delete the IP address from their databases. That way, it's in the end the police that enforce our laws and not a private organization.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The music industry would like you to pay every time you listen to your CD.
They would also like for pay every time you end up with defective cds .
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
No, I don't think I'm entitled to free music. But I don't think artists should be entitled to a monopoly on how their creations are used. What I mean is, if no one wants to make music because they can't protect it, I'm willing to live with that as a consequence of removing that protection. And I'm willing to donate my income to support or commission work from artists who I want to encourage. But as part of that, I expect that that work becomes uncontrolled once it is released. Let those who still want to make music do so, and if no one does then so be it.
Yes, I currently do have a stick to get such things as a freely-given multimillion dollar idea or a piece of music I have composed or sourcecode or research or whatever back. That is the sort of law I am arguing against.