Slashdot Mirror
Patti Santangelo v. RIAA May Be Over
newtley writes "Odds are that Patti Santangelo, the RIAA case defendant and New York mother who has made a determined stand against the Big 4, may have won her battle to clear her name. She and her lawyer, Jordan Glass, have signed and submitted a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice the case lodged against her by the RIAA. US federal district court judge Colleen McMahon's language had earlier seemed to indicate it was time to end the farce, and the court had the power to entertain a motion for legal fees. Unfortunately, her two children are still 'in the line of fire' in the court room."
She began singing "Ding dong, the witch is dead" which lead to the RIAA suing her again for a public performance of the song.
With hope, this will be the beginning of a trend, especially if this case can be used as precedent against the RIAA on other cases. The RIAA will hopefully realize that it is time to stop bringing frivilous lawsuits with shoddy evidence against the public. One can hope anyway...
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
i had a dream that the RIAA busted into the shower cause i was singing too loud
"To be is to do." -Socrates
"To do is to be." -Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do-be-do-be-do." -Frank Sinatra
Where's the NewYorkCountryLawyer when you need him.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
While this case is important, it has little to do with a standard RIAA case. She's probably going to get attorney's fees not because of the merits of her case in particular, but because the RIAA did not drop the lawsuit against her after it was made rather clear that her children were the more likely culprits, which the judge considered harassment (my words; read the motions/rulings). The motions for attorney's fees are quite clear on this.
That being said, there are some significantly more important cases going on for the likes of the everyday file sharer. In particular, Ray Beckerman finally managed to depose the RIAA's expert witness in UMG vs Lindor, and, while not absolutely crushing him, showed him to be a very poor witness on which to build an airtight case. The outcome of that case could have a huge impact on how these cases are done in the future. A disastrous result for UMG might well discourage further lawsuits. Before you get excited, though, that case is months from being solved.
In addition, there are some other cases going in which the defendants might get fees on their own merits, but they need some time to resolve. It's amazing, but these cases are the first ones that might actually go to a trial.
Beckerman's blog, which is great reading for those interested in this stuff, is http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
Bhuga
Patti Santangelo v. RIAA May Be Over ...in Space.
My work here is done.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
The Riaa makes the rules so they set the standards.
How would you like it if you weren't allowed to take photographs or pay HUGE fines?
How about going to the library and copying a magazine artice with the xerox?
The Riaa still has the original copies.
I know I will lose this one with all the software people on slash.
But it's NOT theft in any conventional meaning and saying so is lying. Pure spin by the Riaa and software copyright holders.
She and her lawyer, Jordan Glass, have signed and submitted a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice the case lodged against her by the RIAA
This means that her lawyer filed a motion to dismiss, which is a common practice. Federal judges often issue threats of sorts at parties which are dragging at the process, often ones for dismissal or default, which they are legally allowed to apply at their discretion in situations like this. So at minimum, the judge now has to decide whether to dismiss, the timetable of which is within her prejudice. If they lose, the RIAA will have 30 days to file notice of appeal. So this filing is complete non-news, because nothing outside of that docket has changed in this world as a result. Anybody not intimately familiar with the case and the judge's record who is trying to predict the the decision is completely off their rocker. Seriously, have Sundays become so bad around here that a sensationalist non-story from an overtly partisan website makes the front page?
---
Rabble rabble rabble
Are absolutely ridiculous.
Fine them the cost of the product if the individual keeps the item.
How could you sue someone that exaggerated amount? The legal system has been blinded by the Riaa.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=20 18&bold=stipulation||
A stipulation is an agreement between both sets of lawyers. The case is over except the part where the judge makes the RIAA pay all the legal fees.
No it's copyright infringement not theft. That requires an intention to "permanently deprive", which given that the copyright holder still holds the copyright (the "property" that is owned) when an unauthorized copy is made, has not happened. The law in the U.K. is quite clear on the subject and I suspect that it will be in most other jurisdictions. Copyright infringement is not legally theft so don't refer to is as being so.
I'd like to point attention to the words I emphasized above... Clear hear name of what? Is it, after all, a shameful act to infringe on somebody else's copyrights and to treat their creation in a way, they did not want it to be treated?
This woman, apparently, has not done it, so her name is clear. But the /. continues to pretend, there would've been nothing wrong in her actions, even if she has...
Her children, very likely, have done it, yet the same author, who slipped into admitting, there is something to clear one's name of here, is describing their fate ("in the line of fire") with puzzling sympathy...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This is just an overall observation of the RIAA's/members strategy:
Sue and scare the filesharers *without* draining the RIAA finances with attorneys salaries. Basically beef up the legal department and keep it profitable.
With these marching orders, RIAA's chief counsel laid out the, now well known plan, to extort $3k-$4K with little effort, and use this revenue to fund the operation.
This plan has worked very well until now, but with a little resistance from the defendants it will fail, and it looks like that is finally happening.
The RIAA will therefore have to:
1. Stop suing file sharers
2. Find defendant with money that they can take to court and win >$100,000 from
3. Change strategy altogether (Watermarking, give up altogether etc.)
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
United States Copyright Law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501
Further, In Dowling v. United States (1985), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that copyright infringement does not "easily equate" to theft and unauthorized copies are not stolen property. Copyright infringement is not a property crime; in fact, copyright infringement is only rarely handled as a criminal matter.
Perhaps copying a single CD or DVD from a friend for personal use is immoral (debateable), but it's certainly not criminal. Equating it to stealing will not hold up in a court of law.
The RIAA (and the MPAA and the BSA and others too numerous to mention) are all equating copyright infringement not only with theft, but murder and mayhem by calling copyright infringers "pirates". The RIAA makes copyright infringement sound worse than eating babies. Real pirates kill people.
To this layman it sounds like slander.
Can she sue for slander? If so, can she win?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
No one can hear you shower ...in space
My other SIG is a Sauer.
That's strange. I would have thought that it's 100% certain that she may have won her battle.
Perhaps the writer thinks that she may loose.
The american music industry has terrorized and pirated artist's creativity/music for long enough. Cut off their funding :
a sp
http://www.riaaradar.com/zeitgeist_topamazonsafe.
Well, can this be considered for private financial gain (through a large stretch of the imagination perhaps) since the "infringer" is not spending the money they "should have" to get the copyrighted recording? That is a financial gain, if only of a few bucks...
I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation, but that section (section 1) doesnt seem to have a dollar amount attached to the private financial gain aspect, nor does it seem to spell out what is considered private financial gain in that section, though it does for distribution. Just wondering if that would be a valid tactic to use to lump in any downloading without purchase as for "private financial gain".
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Not just legally, but also morally speaking, copyright infringement is nothing like theft. The very reason theft is wrong is that it deprives the victim of the stolen item, but that aspect is missing from copyright infringement.
If someone steals my car, I'm going to be upset because I don't have a car anymore. On the other hand, if he could "steal" a copy of my car, leaving the original untouched in my driveway, then why should I care? I have a car, he has a car too; we both win.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
It's close enough to theft for practical purposes. The essence of theft is depriving the legal owner of the benefits of possessing the item. The primary benefit of copyright ownership is the ability to control the distribution of copies and thus get paid for those copies. Copyright infringement, to one degree or another depending on the scale, deprives the copyright owner of the primary benefit of their ownership. In short, the work hasn't been stolen but the money that would be paid for copies of that work has, and that is theft.
Now, I don't agree with the RIAA's position either. There are certain rights of ownership of a copy of a work that go along with buying that copy. The RIAA wants to keep for itself not only the rights to the work but all the rights to those copies that would normally follow the copies, eg. the right to use a particular copy anywhere you want, or the right to sell it to someone else (where that sale doesn't involve making another copy, merely conveying the existing copy). That's not kosher either.
Both the RIAA and the "Copying stuff isn't theft!" sides need to grow up. They're both acting like spoiled 5-year-olds, and I find my self wishing for my Mom's solution to that: a good solid application of the lilac switch, and send both of 'em to their rooms until they decide they can play like civilized human beings.
As long as the legal copyright holders are legally entitled to payment for the right to a copy, and you make that copy without paying, it's theft.
Welcome to the internet. Please read the FAQ before posting, so you don't start topics which have been covered ad absurdum like a billion times before.
One of the worst ways to do things is this "scatter gun prosecution" mode that the RIAA runs in. And the RIAA should check its facts before it goes after people without knowing with a reasonable certainty that they have the right party.
However, in this instance, there is something I don't understand. The basic argument seems to be that it was her children, and not her, that were sharing the songs, thus she shouldn't be the one that is sued.
But at the same time, in the US one is responsible for the actions of their children up to a certain age...so therefore, if her children were in fact sharing copyrighted material, (standard anti-RIAA arguments aside) why shouldn't she be sued? They are her children, and she should be aware of what they are doing online. Further, when she signed up for internet access from her provider, I'm sure she also agreed to the standard "what happens on your account is your responsibility, even if its someone else in your household" blurbs.
This is one of those cases where I can argue both sides are wrong, and both sides are right. And I really hate that when one side is the RIAA.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Well, aren't you just the lawyerly one -- "close enough for practical purposes", shit. Listen up, asshole, this is law, not woodshop.
Theft and copyright infringement are two distinct offenses. Only one is written in the charges. Which one do you think that would be?
If I slap you in the face (get your ass over here!!!), no one is going to go into court charging me wth attempted murder -- the charge will read "battery", no matter how loud you bleat to the contrary.
Grow fucking up and quit drinking the **AA Kool-Aid (tm).
I think you may be confusing BMI with BMG.
So we just have to call RIAA and MPAA members for members of the mafia and it'll become true.
In short, the work hasn't been stolen but the money that would be paid for copies of that work has, and that is theft.
No, the money hasn't been stolen. You can't show a change to your account as a result of copyright infringement. If you can't show a reduction of inventory or a change in account balances, how can there have been theft?
If something has been stolen from you, you can tell by looking at your stuff, counting it, and itemising the things missing. With copyright infringement you can't do this.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"we both win" ...at the expense of the car manufacturer.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
"On the other hand, if he could "steal" a copy of my car, leaving the original untouched in my driveway, then why should I care? I have a car, he has a car too; we both win."
When people make the "copyright enforcement is theft" argument they are not stating that it is theft from the torrent seeder, but the holder of the copyright. Of course you don't care if your neighbor copies your car, or your collection of music, or what have you. You're not analogous to the copyright holder; the car manufacturer is. When the day comes that people can BT each other's cars, the auto industry will be right properly fucked.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I read it this way: Private financial gain in this case means that you are producing income from goods that are not within your rights to sell or manufacture. That is, there is an exchange of money involved in infringement under 506(a)1. Under 506(a)2, it's simply a case of reproduction of copyrighted materials with a total value in excess of $1,000. Though it's not clear if it means reproduction of at least one work to the value of $1,000 or the reproduction of at least $1,000 worth of works.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
Okay. You know there has been copyright infringement of work you own the copyright to. Your bank account has not changed because of this infringement. But your biz is to sell copies of that copyrighted material; therefore, if there had been no infringement, there probably would have been a change to that bank account--namely, more money rolling in from the copies that would've been bought and not, um, copied.
The big problem, if you are someone who believes in fighting copyright infringement, is that you can't prove the bank account should have changed. It may be true that the only things that were copied "improperly" were things that would never have actually been purchased or things that shouldn't have to be sold anyway.
It just doesn't seem likely.
Disclaimers: I have infringed copyright. Possibly within the last month.
I do not approve of the RIAA labels' methods of prosecuting people whom they claim infringed their copyrights.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
I don't know if it's valid to claim that all copyright infringement involves financial gain because every infringement saves someone the cost of buying a non-infringing copy.
I do know that this tactic has actually been used, with some success. Why else ban one color copy of a page of a color photobook at Kinko's?
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
So it's more likely that there are two possible outcomes: (1) I keep my car, the copier gets a car, and the manufacturer only gets paid for one, or (2) I keep my car, the copier doesn't get a car, and the manufacturer only gets paid for one. The first outcome is obviously better for the copier and neutral for everyone else, and thus preferable overall.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Anyone who has a basic understanding of logic and the english language can understand that copyright infringement and theft are 2 similar but different things. Obviously the original owner is not deprived of anything with the infringement but that is over simplifying it. Ecomonists would refer to the opportunity cost of infringement. Unrealized income is almost the same and having income stolen but once again, there is an important but slight difference.
The main reason that "infringement is the same as theft" arguement does not hold up very well is becuase you can't prove that there was an opportunity cost for the copyright holder. It is quite possible that the person who recieved the illegal copy was going to pay and now is not, but that is not always the case. Becuase it is very easy to acquire a lot of music for free many people's consumption of music goes up. People who might have owned only a dozen albums in the past may now own a few more. These people probably wouldn't have payed for the music or tried to get it unless it was free.
The RIAA is pushing too hard to convince people that every copied song is the same as theft, and the downloaders are trying to argue that every downloaded song probably wasn't money for them anyway. The truth is somewhere in the middle and sadly both sides end up wrong when they claim these extreme scenarios are 100% true.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
For example, if you're a respected reviewer and you write a negative review of an album, it probably won't sell as many copies as if you had written a positive review. If your review influences 1000 people not to buy the album, that has exactly the same effect on sales as if you had shared the album online and 1000 people ended up getting it for free instead of buying it... in fact, it might have a worse effect, because in the latter case, all those people will still hear the album, and some might go on to buy a different one, a shirt, or a concert ticket.
So under the "opportunity cost" argument--I'm not sure if that term is being used correctly, but I'll go along with it--shouldn't reviewers be held responsible for everyone who fails to buy an album after reading their reviews?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Why is that *more* likely? Lots of people buy cars. If cars were free, it would impact sales but would the people who did all of the R&D needed to create the car be compensated?
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
Elektra Entertainment Group
Virgin Records America
UMG Recordings
BMG Music
Sony BMG Music Entertainment
Thats "E", "V", "U", "B" and "S"
ummm how about V.U.B.E.S ?
Short and sweet <VBG>
I don't get your point. Services are finite. When one uses services illegally, the supplier loses the cost of supplying said service, as well as the opportunity to sell the same service to another.
I don't see what this has to do with copying cds.
:x
Which is why "property is theft" - any private property is depriving all other people of the benefits of the item in question. This is particularly true for items with a near-zero cost of reproduction. "Intellectual property" is stealing from the public.
The essential thing about this concept is not its objective validity, but that it is equally as valid as the RIAA's position. Both of them are kinda weak, but you can't reasonably admit one without admitting the possibility of the other.
If her kids did download music, illegally, why again isn't she responsible?
Much less, if by some facet of law she isn't responsible, why isn't she being a MOTHER and taking responsibility for her kids' actions?
God damn, if people in the fucking world would just take personal responsibility for their actions (and the actions they are responsible for), the world would be a better place.
If the kids did it, and mommy is shunning responsibility, time to make the kids pay.
*** It still isn't theft, because no one, not the seeder nor the copyright holder, is deprived of the thing that you download. After you download a song, everyone involved still has everything they did before you downloaded it. ***
are you really THAT stupid?
Let's do some step-by-step with the music-downloader-retard-OP:
1) I purchase a CD
2) I rip the CD to MP3 to play the songs in my MP3 player (not illegal under the Fair Use clauses)
3) I then decide to share one of those MP3s with you (regardless on the method of sharing). Unless you own the original CD/tape/record/some other form of rights, THIS IS ILLEGAL.
What part of #3 don't you get?
So, now, music downloaders try and brush it off by saying "well, I don't want to spend $16 for a CD if I don't know if I'm going to like it..."...bullshit....You hear songs on the radio, MTV, VH1, whatever. You can listen to your friend's MP3 player. Can listen to his stereo. If you don't own a license to the song, and you download it from the internet, you are technically depriving the licensor of said song the moneys that would have been gained by purchasing the CD (or song if done via ITMS, etc).
Please, don't give us your justification for owning 10000 songs that you never purchased rights to to go along with the 20 CDs you did buy, then got mad at having to pay $16 for.
If people stop buying CDs, the prices will go down...it's called supply-and-demand. Doing it illegally, though, doesn't help anyone one bit, except you cheap bastards who don't know shit.
"After you download a song, everyone involved still has everything they did before you downloaded it."
You're correct to a point. If the copyright holder wasn't attempting to sell the product to you or anybody else who downloaded it, then they're not hurt at all. For example, if it was some free software, or maybe a song which the copyright holder had purposely released for free. In those cases, they haven't lost the right to control how the work is copied, because the rightsholder has allowed free and unmetered copying.
Note that I haven't touched the "infringement vs. theft" issue. It is pointless, because when you lose money because more and more people are helping themselves to your stuff for free rather than paying you for it, it doesn't matter whether you (or the infringers) call it theft, infringement, piracy, or even some word in that African language with the clicking sound.
"Not really, they'll just have to change their business model from manufacturing to providing a service - just like musicians are going to have to do."
I was with you on the "when we download music, the musician isn't deprived of anything" point, but you appear to be acknowledging that musicians will have to find a new way to make money because of our actions.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I'd say "Wrong.". Your position assumes that J. Random Individual has a right to ownership of that item in the first place. That isn't the case. They have rights to specific items, but not to any arbitrary item in general. I don't happen to agree that, just because I worked to obtain or discover something, every other person in the world who didn't suddenly gets an ownership right to it.
This is why we'll never see the replicator technology in Star Trek with current ideas. If Picard had to pay $0.99 every time he asked for his earl grey, it would defeat the purpose.
You all are all going around in circles while talking about two distinctly different things.
1) The actual property. ie. in this case a digital copy of a song or movie. Be it the original or a copy.
2) The revenue that was or was not realized by the sale of the rights to that copy.
This distinction is necessary to have an intelligent discussion on this topic.
What? ®
> It's close enough to theft for practical purposes.
Which purposes, exactly? Even the Supreme Court has said that it doesn't easily equate to theft.
> The primary benefit of copyright ownership is the ability to control the distribution of copies and thus get paid for those copies.
It's like trying to grab hold of the wind--you can't.
> The RIAA wants to keep for itself not only the rights to the work but all the rights to those copies that would normally follow the copies, eg. the right to use a particular copy anywhere you want, or the right to sell it to someone else (where that sale doesn't involve making another copy, merely conveying the existing copy).
Right, because they're trying to control distribution. And to do that, they have to control ALL distribution. It takes -one- leak for their schemes to be foiled, so they have to forbid even fair use (which is why they call it "archaic"). Problem is, nothing is less amenable to exclusive control than an idea, and its expression in tangible form is rapidly becoming equivalent as our ability to copy grows.
Thing is, authors won't be replaced any time soon. People still want to see new works created. People want to create new works. It's going to happen, no matter what. What's now falling into obsolescence are the distributors. Their only contribution right now is the ability to make people famous. And I think that's the only part of them that can't easily be replaced at this point.
Unrealized income is almost the same and having income stolen
So... You've just STOLEN a hundred million dollars from me, because that's how much you COULD have paid me to respond.
> No, it's not theft, and there is a legal precedence that backs this up. Stop spouting idiotic bullshit.
> United States Copyright Law:
> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501
Obviously congress confuses "theft" with "copyright violation" too, just look at how they name their laws (search for "theft" in the above reference).
So you deny both positions - that the RIAA is entitled to some 'ownership' rights over things obtained or discovered by other people, and that other random individuals are entitled to them. That is consistent with what I said.
Either both the RIAA and their targets are morally reprehensible, or neither is. That's the whole point. It doesn't matter which way you happen to pick. The important thing is that you can't have one without the other.
They don't legitimately have the right to control distribution of their work. You can't own an idea, and the childish attitude of "I invented it, so it's MINE and you can't use it", which has found its way into some of our laws, is not getting us anywhere as a society.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Expecting to make money by selling copies of information to people, when anyone can easily make and distribute his own copies, is like expecting to make money by carrying water downhill, when the water naturally flows downhill by itself. Even if there's some freak wind pushing the stream uphill for a few years, you can't expect it to last forever, and you're in no position to complain when the wind stops after you've been extracting a profit for all those years. In fact, you should consider yourself lucky that you were able to make any money at all on such a ridiculous premise.
In this case, the "freak wind" was the difficulty of copying sound recordings. For a few years, it was hard, not because there's anything inherently hard about copying sound, but because the technology just wasn't there yet. Now it is, and sound can be copied as easily as poems or numbers or any other information.
Just like the guy carrying water downhill would've been wise to choose a different model from the beginning, so that he wouldn't have to rebuild his business when the wind stopped, so would musicians have been wise to choose a different model from the beginning. But they didn't, so here we are. They can either choose a different model now--like a service model that doesn't depend on information being something it isn't--or they can sit around and foolishly wonder why they aren't selling any copies anymore.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
As I pointed out here, if you start with the premise that you're automatically entitled to the potential revenue that you might get from selling something, and that you're harmed when someone decides not to buy it from you, you'll reach some pretty ridiculous conclusions.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
What part of #3 don't you get? We all know it's ILLEGAL, dumbass. That's not the point. If you don't own a license to the song, and you download it from the internet, you are technically depriving the licensor of said song the moneys that would have been gained by purchasing the CD (or song if done via ITMS, etc). Uh huh. And if you don't pay me $10,000 to search the web for you, and you use Google instead, you are technically depriving me of ten thousand "moneys". Right? You could've paid me ten grand to do a search, but you just decided not to because you got the same service from somewhere else, so that means you've stolen ten grand from me! If people stop buying CDs, the prices will go down...it's called supply-and-demand. Doing it illegally, though, doesn't help anyone one bit, except you cheap bastards who don't know shit. Actually, by ths logic, it does help, because the only thing that matters is "people stop buying CDs". Doesn't matter whether or not they get the music for free somewhere else - if the labels aren't making sales, they'll have to drop their prices, right? It's called supply-and-demand. Refusing to downloading the music illegally doesn't help anyone one bit, not even those greedy bastards who want to sell it to us.
it all comes down to money. civil laws have been about extortion long before Ally Mcbeal made it popular. but for right now who agrees with the following: 1. downloading music is no different then recording music off the radio. for one's own personal enjoyment (quality issues don't count, you never know what the exact quality is with what you download) 2. anybody can GIVE anybody else a copy of some music on cassette, cd, or even vinyl, just as long as the giver is not paid for what they gave away. (I think i saw some vinyl lp engravers on ebay) 3. if the software I use to help find music to download is for free and doesn't advertise or make money from the people who use the software then they are not reproducing any songs for a profit 4. ******* copying a song and giving it away is advertising for the song, musician, artist, etc, etc. ******* 5. copyright infringement is when someone mass produces copies and sells those copies. or sells the right to make a copy from a controlled source (back item #3)
There's certainly plenty of room for criticism of the corporate-owned version of copyright that exists in the US today, but your suggestion flies in the face of private property rights, capitalism, and other holy American values (I bet Jesus even supports copyright laws!). If an artist has no right of control over a song they create, a sculpture they make, or a book they write, then you cannot extend that protection to patents on more "practical" items. With no profit motive, most pharmaceutical research stops, technology innovation in IT and computing dies, etc.
If you consider the artist to be the manufacturer...It's more like the manufacture build a prototype of a car, the dealer buys the prototype for $100 then sells the car to owner #1 for $1000. When owner #2 makes his copy of the car it hasn't hurt the manufacturer, he already got paid and is out of the picture, it only hurts the dealer who already made his 900% profit once and is bitching because he can't do it twice.
Any property at all may be theft?
Just out of curiosity, who owns your computer?
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Copyright was originally introduced to protect the economic interests of those who reproduced writings, not the authors themselves. The version of copyright that came into vogue in the early 1700s took the power away from the printing guilds and gave it to the public. As you can see, these laws have been twisted over the years to again benefit those groups with power and money. What makes you think this wouldn't happen again if copyright was completely abolished tomorrow?
Of course, I might point out here that copyright has plenty of limitations on it too. Does that mean it's OK to add more and more arbitrary limitations, because the first limitation justifies them all? Why should some dead guy's copyright be held in higher regard than everyone else's freedom of speech? Perhaps in your utopian socialist state, but not in reality. How interesting that you'd call these ideas "socialist". I'd say they're libertarian. Research funding is speculative - people are willing to invest money in the hopes they will make more money down the road. People are also willing to spend money on things that directly benefit them. When I spend $12 on a haircut, it's not because I think my sharp new look will entice others to pay me more than $12. It's because I like the look myself. Likewise, if I contribute to cancer research, it won't be because I want to get rich off of cancer patients, it'll be because I want there to be a cure if I get cancer.
But the profit motive will still be there. If I'm a computer retailer or manufacturer, then I'll be willing to invest in new chip designs. I want to keep selling new computers to people, and I can sell a lot more when this year's model is better than last year's. Doing away with all patents, copyrights, and such will mean those who can quickly copy another's work will make the money with little upfront investment, which will eliminate all but the most high-risk investors. If the person who did the original work has already been paid for his effort, then why should he care who uses it?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
And Apple won't be harmed when Bob's Computer Shack can legally sell less dependable iBooks with an authentic-looking Apple logo on it.? If we can't own ideas, methods, thoughts, etc, we also can't own reputations so trademarks are gone. This would seem counter to libertarian philosophy of not harming others in the exercise of your liberty.
Likewise, if I contribute to cancer research, it won't be because I want to get rich off of cancer patients, it'll be because I want there to be a cure if I get cancer. Like most people, I've decided that my odds of getting cancer are low enough to opt out of the high cost cancer insurance available now. I would be even less likely to invest in an unlikely cure for a disease I'm unlikely to get. If the person who did the original work has already been paid for his effort, then why should he care who uses it? First, you are assuming that his effort has been paid for. It might take years to recoup the original investment. If you grant zero rights to the original developer or inventor, you are guaranteeing that many people would lose money despite successful research, which clearly disincentivizes the whole process. Secondly, even if you could guarantee that the person did get paid for their work, the average person will not be willing to invest large sums of time and money in hopes of only breaking even.Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
1. Let Merck develop, test, and get FDA approval for a new drug
No, I don't see anything wrong with trademarks. Decorating your product with an Apple logo, when that logo is associated with Apple Inc. in the public eye, is equivalent to saying "this product was made by Apple Inc.", which is obviously false if it really wasn't. Trademark infringement is a form of fraud, and can justifiably be punished without having to pretend that the company "owns" a picture of an apple. But your reputation is less tangible than songs, novels, and engineering plans. Why can't I start a computer company named "Apple", put a little apple on my artsy computers, load OS X on them, and sell them? I don't have to say that I'm the same company lead by Steve Jobs and headquartered in Cupertino, CA, in order to make people think I am. Stop repressing my freedom of speech. That's antiquated thinking. In a world where ideas can't be owned, you get someone to promise you money first, then you put forth the effort - just like any other service. You can't get cheated out of your labor unless you choose to give it away for free (or unless you get kidnapped and enslaved, but I think we can ignore that possibility). And you're thinking only of the laborer, not the person investing the money. Or, the situation outside of corporate America where these are the same person. If I'm an author with a small publishing company, I no longer have a business model. Free-lance everything goes out the door. A single person, probably not. But a thousand people? A million people? If the average person isn't going to invest blood, sweat, and tears (and cash) in something where their best outcome is to break even, I don't understand how you think millions of people will. The past few election cycles have proved that you can raise millions of dollars from individual contributions. They've also proven that individuals have no power in the face of corporate donations and that the will of the people doesn't matter on election day. And remember, they don't need a monetary return in order for it to be a good deal. If you're a computer enthusiast, you value the very existence of fast CPUs, and you'll be willing to contribute to the research just as you're willing to buy a CPU off the shelf. But the number of people who fall into that category is small enough to get lost in the shuffle. People buy a new CPU off the shelf knowing (roughly) what its capabilities are and how much better it is than what they currently have. This does not map at all to investing up front in the hopes of a better one existing when you need it.2. Create your own version based upon Merck's extensive R&D
3. Profit!
I really don't disagree with you too much on how things should work and this has been an enjoyable academic discussion. However, I am genuine in my belief that such pipe dreams will not work in the real world on anything more than a trivial scale. Yes, we have a good example of the potential in today's open source software movement - people use the product and a few donate money in hopes of keeping development going in the future. And, they make their code available for anyone else to use (but with certain restrictions, which would no longer be valid in your free world). I wish you best of luck; please let me know when you have completed your revolution :)
Yes, it will no longer be profitable to write something (for free) and shop it around to different publishers. Can't say I see the problem with that, though. It's a ridiculous model, one which we've become conditioned to accept in certain fields but would never tolerate in others. If the average person isn't going to invest blood, sweat, and tears (and cash) in something where their best outcome is to break even, I don't understand how you think millions of people will. Well, you've got the outcome wrong. My best outcome when I pay for chip research is for faster CPUs to become available, which I can then use to do faster computations at home/work (benefitting directly), or to entice more people into my computer store (selling more computers, accessories, and support), or to increase demand for my application that eats a lot of CPU (making users more likely to pay me for development). How is that breaking even? But the number of people who fall into that category is small enough to get lost in the shuffle. Maybe for CPUs, but for music, I think it's quite the opposite (and CPUs have the advantage that there are other entities besides individuals, including retailers, developers, and corporate data centers, who benefit from new technology).
If my favorite band sent out a newsletter tomorrow saying "we need money or else we'll never be able to release another album, please send $15", then I'd do it in a heartbeat, considering I'd already be willing to pay $15 for their next album the minute it hit the shelves - and I believe the vast majority of fans would too. Some bands have already financed their albums this way. The only tough part is becoming well-liked enough that you can do that, but if you can give away a few good tracks up front as your "portfolio", you're well on your way.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
What if all the cases were looked at differently? What if someone (not her Kid) downloaded KAZAA on Ms. Santangelo's computer without permission? What if her children only listened to the music that they owned on the computer? What if "BY DEFAULT" through Kazaa that her computer became a super-node and was being utilized by hundreds and hundreds of other users? What if due to the spyware and malware and adware that came bundled in Kazaa the family computer was conveniently used by any computer geek around? What if the simple fact that any music these people had in thier Windows music library was immediatly stolen by this Kazaa programagain without thier knowledge or permission? What if Kazaa had to verify Parental-Consent? What if the people being sued honestly did know nothing about file-sharing technology and that is how they became the chosen few that were sued? What if your mom, dad or grandma was accused or at best your 10 year old brother or sister who knew so little about this technology,would you still be so opinionated? What if these people never stole a thing in thier lives and you have so they must do it too, is this a fair assumption. Step away from your computer screens and take a good look around at the real world, not everyone is you. Not everyone even owns a computer. Imagine That!