The uploaded has 1 copy of foobar. In order to send a copy of foobar, they need to either remove that single copy from the disk and send it out the network connection or they are making a copy.
Ah, there's the problem.
The law defines a copy as being a tangible object (17 USC 101). You cannot send a tangible object over a network connection. Rather, the infringly made copy we're talking about is the RAM, or hard disk, or other memory of the downloader's computer.
What's infringing is to fix a work into a tangible object, thus making it a new copy (17 USC 106). Since the tangible object is on the downloader's end by necessity, and since the work (which is intangible and is what is being communicated over the network) is being fixed into the tangible object at the behest of the downloader, it's easy to pin the blame on him.
It's important, when discussing legal matters, to use the relevant legal definitions of words, since they override everyday definitions. Many people overlook this, and you seem to have done so.
If you'd like, I can cite some caselaw backing me up on this, but even a cursory glance at the statutes themselves will reveal the truth of my post.
I am not disregarding fair use, but as it is a defense to infringement, it would have to be infringing already just to get to that point. The issue previously was whether downloading infringed at all. If it did not, fair use would not apply; it would be superfluous.
I can download something I already have the (limited) right to copy.
Maybe, but usually you don't have a right to reproduce; it's exclusive to the copyright holder for copyrighted works (17 USC 106). So your claim is inappropriate for a discussion mostly about downloading music from P2P networks, since you have no "(limited) right to copy" those works to begin with.
Plus, of course, you don't understand fair use. Fair use is an equitable doctrine, and is entirely based on the circumstances in each case where it is claimed. Two people could download the same music in an otherwise infringing manner, but depending on a variety of factors surrounding the download (see e.g. 17 USC 107, which makes no mention at all of 'making more copies of things you own a lawfully made copy of'), one of them might infringe, and the other might not.
There's very little support in statutory or case law for ripping, incidentally. While there is a theory of space shifting, and I do believe it is fair up to a point (which downloading likely exceeds), it is a very weak theory, resting entirely on the fourth factor in a normal fair use analysis.
Nope; clearly the RIAA has retained better council than you.
A lawyer is counsel. An advisory body is a council.
They don't go after downloaders because they're not complete idiots.
I agree with that much at least. Going after P2P networks themselves is like cutting off the head of the snake; without the network, infringement plummets.
Going after uploaders is more like attacking the body; there's still plenty of snake. It damages the network insofar as now the ratio of sharers to leechers is worse, and it's more difficult for sharers to acquire files. But the network could cope.
Going after downloaders is possible, just not practical. No other downloaders are taken off the network as a result, and in fact, it likely makes the network more useful, since by definition a downloader who is not an uploader is a leecher.
Given that it costs time and money to pursue any particular defendent, it simply makes no sense to go after downloaders in the main.
But that doesn't mean it isn't possible. In fact, most suits against networks and uploaders are entirely predicated on the fact that downloading is illegal, and thus supports contributory and vicarious infringement causes of action.
Read the Napster case and Intellectual Reserve cases to see courts finding downloading to be infringement, using it in the manner I have just described.
The caselaw in the US is that the person who causes the reproduction to occur is the infringer as to the downloading. Almost always, this is the downloader, since he caused a new copy to be made by requesting the download. Only if his computer were somehow downloading things without having been instructed to by the user (perhaps in a malware situation?) would he be likely to get off the hook.
It's a fairly common sense rule, especially given that the reproduction occurs on the downloader's end.
It might interest you to know that copyright is both a civil and criminal matter. People can and have been prosecuted for copyright infringement, which is a felony, and can be sent to prison and/or fined.
It is illegal. I wouldn't call it a tort, however, as that implies the common law of torts, and copyright is a purely statutory creature.
you are depriving the copyright-holder of the right to distribute the copyright-bearing work as he/she/it sees fit.
No you're not.
Copyright grants that right exclusively to the copyright holder
No it doesn't. Copyright is the power to prevent others from doing certain things, including but not limited to distribution of creative works. It is NOT the power to actually do so oneself, however. E.g. child porn or libel cannot generally be lawfully distributed, but is generally copyrighted.
That's why the law uses the magic word 'exclusive.' As in 'to exclude others.'
Patents do the same thing, and are more obvious about it since A can patent an invention, and B can patent an improvement to the same invention, and A cannot use B's improvement since he's excluded from it, and B cannot use his improvement because it would infringe upon A's patent, which he is excluded from doing. They end up having to come to terms or be stymied.
I repeat: you are depriving someone of their rights when you download copyright-protected content without permission (through fair use or otherwise).
Not quite, you'll get the $250,000 fine for making copies available to others (e.g. uploading), not for downloading.
Not quite; downloading is just as infringing as uploading is, as downloading constitutes a reproduction, which, like distribution, is an exclusive right of the copyright holder per 17 USC 106.
The reason that RIAA et al haven't bothered to go after downloaders isn't legal; it's tactical. They would rather go after uploaders since they are easier to catch and in effect reduce the number of downloaders, since there are fewer people to leech from.
Same reason why they went after the P2P networks originally -- that had been hoped to shut P2P sharing down with one fell swoop. Since that didn't happen, they have to go after users.
If I understand you correctly, it's manifest that the right to a creative work belongs with the consumer, not the producer. Is that true?
Mm, ultimately yes. But there's really a lot more nuance than that.
First, if the rights are in the public, then it's not as though they can exclude others from it, whereas when rights are held by an individual entity, those rights are rights to exclude others. So they're not really the same rights, though I suppose one might try to construe them in such a manner. End result seems to be the same either way.
Second, it's not that the public wants to take things per se. Really the public can be seen as having several independent, equal desires. Copyright is an attempt to satisfy all of those desires to the greatest possible degree, in the long run. Without copyrights, or with the wrong kind of copyrights, some desires might be more greatly fulfilled, others left wanting, and the overall public good would be less. Of course, we probably have the wrong kind of copyright now.
Naturally, I'm not calling you an "Indian killer," but just pointing out that human nature is constant. If enough people are united in wanting something and they have the technology to overcome social contracts, they'll take it, and rationalize it as they see fit.
That's more or less what I'm talking about, really. Copyright is a utilitarian system. It's intended to do nothing other than to provide the most utility for the most people. Because I think that copyright is capable of providing greater utility than no copyright would be, I support the general idea. I merely differ as to implementation. However, it's difficult to convince people that the current implementation is wanting in various ways unless they properly understand the overall point. From an incorrect point of view, the system is doing pretty well.
Don't forget that "the deal" behind copyrights is to allow a monopoly for a limited time to the author/creator of intellectual works (books, etc) to encourage authors to produce quality works.
In exchange, that copyright is void after (originally) some 20 years, and the works are released into the public domain.
If the quid pro quo were merely to encourage authors to create works, why would the copyright term expire? Surely an artist is more encouraged by, say, 10 year copyrights than by 1 year copyrights, and thus more by infinite copyrights than 10 year copyrights.
Furthermore, why are we interested in encouraging the creation of works? Wouldn't it be easier all around to say, put Shakespeare's plays back under copyright, and then sell the copyright to the highest bidder?
Who is it that is interested in having copyrights encourage the creation of new works, but not too much, since they also want it to expire? And why are they interested in these things.
Many ask "What's in it for me?" because this other end of the deal, the cancellation of said rights in a reasonable period of time has been cancelled on you.
Nope. Copyright is a wholly utilitarian doctrine. Self-interest is totally central to the entire thing. The most perfectly functioning copyright system will be that which most greatly slakes the unslakeable desires of the public.
Of course, you generally can't claim copyright on the CONTENTS of the database, but the structure or "compilation" of the database is perfectly copyrightable....
No, hence my 'database as a database' comment.
You cannot copyright anything unless it is, among other things, original and creative. Facts are neither. Compilations of facts which are not original and creative in their selection and arrangement of those facts are not copyrightable even as compilations.
In the copyright world, when we talk about copyrighting databases, generally this means that they are copyrighted REGARDLESS of originality and creativity, and rather merely for the labor involved. This 'sweat of the brow' idea is unconstitutional in the US, however, as seen in the Feist case.
So I don't think I was particularly wrong. Terse, but not wrong. (C.f. The Copyright Office refusing to register copyrights for 'typeface as typeface.')
Sort of like land ownership rights removing your right to walk on it?
Yes, actually. Just like that. And again, the idea of land as property may be an acceptable one, but not inherently so. It needs to be justified.
If you listen to MY music, or use MY software, or wish to benefit from MY database, I have a right to demand MY dinner, or don't use my stuff. Simple, no?
No, not simple in the least. Only a simpleton would think otherwise.
There's nothing about the works you create that ties them to your person. When you, say, compose music, you cannot inherently prevent other people who come in contact with that music from spreading it. Nor are you diminished in your ability to use that music by their doing so. This is because, unlike real or tangible property, creative works are nonrivalrous. An infinite number of people can listen to a piece of music without causing harm to it.
In fact, it's very difficult to prevent this from happening, since once some work spreads, it generally cannot be recovered, quite unlike property.
You, I'm afraid, have no inherent right to demand compensation when people spread works around. Spreading works around is a function of the inherent right of free speech and press, and inherent rights don't really conflict like that.
This probably explains why copyright as we know it did not exist at all until the early 18th century, and why it was not widespread until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Instead, you have only one route to go.
While you can predicate access to the work on payment, you cannot stop those people from spreading the work further, nor continuing to enjoy it, nor can you repair the 'damage' to yourself once they've done so.
Your only viable option then, is to make it in people's best interests to not do so. You can't police people, but they can police themselves, and they will generally act in their own interests. Hence copyright from the Statute of Anne has existed solely to promote the public good. The generally small number of people acting contrary to that are much more easily dealt with than the whole of society, which is what you'd be up against in your me-me-me system that promotes no one's good but the artist's.
This way, we let the laws of economics determine the viability of my products
Capitalism would demand the abolition of copyright. Once a work has been created, the marginal cost is generally nearly zero. It's easy to see the discrepancy: copies of popular public domain works cost far far less than copies of popular copyrighted works. This is because rather than paying the author, he can be eliminated. Rather than cater to the author's desire to, say, only sell in certain markets, or not invest in translation, all possible viable markets will be exploited.
Basically, you're trying to ignore the beneficial effects of having lots of competition for a single commodity good. And almost all the time, a healthy market is the one with competition.
It's probably worth pointing out here that you can't get a copyright on a database as a database in the US.
copyrights are not about removing rights of consumers
Despite doing precisely that.
it's about offering producers choice about their works
Sure.
But if I'm a member of the public, my rights are undeniably being limited in order to give you a choice.
To this, I must ask, why the fuck should I tolerate this? Should I let you come over to my house and eat my food just because you're an artist? You're already deciding for me what I can and cannot say or write.
Copyright levels the playing field so that "little guys" can eke out a business without having to suck up to the big guys.
And in the process, we lose the desirable effects of competition on the marketplace. We lose efficient production and inexpensive goods, because you are in effect asking for a monopoly.
Now all that having been set straight, I am nevertheless willing to suffer a copyright system. But never for any of the horrible reasons you suggested, all of which do nothing but screw me over for your own gain. Nor due to the silly hope that I might somehow benefit as an artist (though n.b. I've been a professional artist, and did support myself as such for years) because most artists never make any money of note.
Rather, I would only ever suffer copyright to exist if it left me, an ordinary member of the public, better off than I would be otherwise. Given that people have been pirating, there's obviously a lot of public benefit in getting stuff for free. (e.g. if manna fell from heaven, we could eliminate world hunger, which is probably better than propping up farmers who then would only be producing something no one needed anyway)
So you need to start convincing people that it is better for THEM to pay for stuff instead of trying to get it for free.
I think it's possible.
But you've done nothing but to undermine your own position by basically telling people to suffer for your advantage. That just won't stand.
Again, the only weakness is the term of copyright.
There are, in fact, many, many weaknesses. Term is just a noteworthy one.
What it says is that it is legal to do certain sorts of realtime editing other than ad skipping.
That doesn't make ad skipping illegal. It just doesn't make it specifically legal under this proposed subsection. OTHER parts of the law can still operate to permit you to legally skip ads.
You really need to read the whole thing, in light of the section it's to be inserted into.
It's not illegal now, and it would not be illegal given the provisions of sec. 112 of the bill. This is true for several different reasons, not least of which is that this specific section of the bill expands the scope of what is not infringing; it doesn't take anything away overall because it doesn't touch on the sections, if any, that permit playback w/o commercials now.
Frankly, I think that 112 is very interesting, in that opens up the derivative right somewhat.
Where the head judge who oversaw the recount effort was friendly enough with Dick Cheney to go duck hunting.
I imagine you're referring to J. Scalia?
First, he's an Associate Justice, not a judge. Second, he's not the Chief Justice; C.J. Rhenquist is. Third, the Supreme Court didn't oversee anything, really.
Many lessons will hopefully be learned from our current times.
And there's three of them.
And IIRC, the duck hunting thing didn't happen until well afterwards, but I don't know for sure.
Actually it DOES have to be novel (never been done before) as well as nonobvious. The Constitution only allows patents to be granted to the inventor. Except in fairly rare cases, a johnny-come-lately is not the inventor of a particular technology. He's a reinventor. (which is why we don't issue patents for the wheel when people reinvent it)
Copyrights, OTOH, have no novelty requirement. Independent creation of a work is not infringing, though fairly rare.
No, I agree. My point was against the idea that merely dialing a call was unacceptably intrusive.
Still, while I personally like the DNC list, I admit that I am dubious. It is still some regulation of speech, and that shouldn't be treated lightly. Especially when you recall that pretty much everyone proposing regulations of speech have enjoyed life without that speech, that they generally regulated unpopular speech, etc. The enemy could be us, and so I take very seriously any challenge to the DNC list. The challengers, even if you hate 'em, might be right.
Not at all. It's your responsibility to have a good automated doohicky, so long as what they do is not fraudulent. I suspect that the problem here was that the doohicky sucked, and had gaping flaws in it (though feel free to supply facts about the situation, since I never heard of the thing you're mentioning).
For example, if you get junk mail in a handwritten envelope, you're more likely to open it than not. That's not fraudulent, but it did get by your inbuilt filter for junk mail.
OTOH, if there was a knock at the door, and you saw a person in an officious looking blue uniform, but it turned out to be the Fuller Brush man, then that's more likely wrongful.
When a telemarketing call's caller ID says that it is from your mother, and it's not, then that's fraudulent.
It is not incumbent on solicitors to make it easy for you to discern them, so long as they aren't being fraudlent about who they are.
By having a house connected to the public sidewalks, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited visitors.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.
By having a phone connected to the public networks, you're accepting unsolicited ATTEMPTS to call you. I.e. people can freely dial your number. What you do once they place the call -- pick up, ignore it, send it to some sort of automated doohicky -- is up to you; they can't force you to do a particular thing, though they can initiate the attempt.
This is akin to people being allowed to send you mail by default, but your not having to read it. Or people being allowed to knock on your door by default, but your not having to answer it. And so forth.
The telemarketing industry has done precisely that
Quite false, until the day comes when telemarketers can magically cause my phone's handset to levitate off the hook. They cannot force you to answer. There is no trepass. Only a request for you to answer, which is not any different than someone asking you at your door if they may enter.
It is clear that businesses publish their phone numbers for the purpose of receiving business contacts
Which brings us back into the realm of implicit intent. Why do people publish their home phone numbers? Because they must want to receive unsolicited phone calls. If they don't want that, then they are free to a) not have a phone, b) not publish the number anywhere, c) explicitly tell people not to call them (e.g. by saying so to individuals, or by saying so to the world via a DNC list).
It isn't, particularly. By having a phone plugged into a public network, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited calls. This is no different than having an address is an implicit acceptance of door-to-door or mail communications.
You are free to retract that acceptance, but you need to do so explicitly, either to a specific individual, as to them, or as to broad groups of people by providing sufficiently good notice in advance. (e.g. a no trespassing sign)
After all -- you don't have to pick up the phone or even have a phone. Trepassing would be if they forced you to answer, or broke through your door. Standing on your porch, asking to talk to you is not, as a rule, trespassing.
(Plus of course, your analogy opens yourself up to abuse -- if people have no right to call other people, then when you call business X, they could sue you for trespass by calling them, unless you give them the right to make unsolicited calls to you, and to give others that same right.)
Slashdot Mirror
The uploaded has 1 copy of foobar. In order to send a copy of foobar, they need to either remove that single copy from the disk and send it out the network connection or they are making a copy.
Ah, there's the problem.
The law defines a copy as being a tangible object (17 USC 101). You cannot send a tangible object over a network connection. Rather, the infringly made copy we're talking about is the RAM, or hard disk, or other memory of the downloader's computer.
What's infringing is to fix a work into a tangible object, thus making it a new copy (17 USC 106). Since the tangible object is on the downloader's end by necessity, and since the work (which is intangible and is what is being communicated over the network) is being fixed into the tangible object at the behest of the downloader, it's easy to pin the blame on him.
It's important, when discussing legal matters, to use the relevant legal definitions of words, since they override everyday definitions. Many people overlook this, and you seem to have done so.
If you'd like, I can cite some caselaw backing me up on this, but even a cursory glance at the statutes themselves will reveal the truth of my post.
I am not disregarding fair use, but as it is a defense to infringement, it would have to be infringing already just to get to that point. The issue previously was whether downloading infringed at all. If it did not, fair use would not apply; it would be superfluous.
I can download something I already have the (limited) right to copy.
Maybe, but usually you don't have a right to reproduce; it's exclusive to the copyright holder for copyrighted works (17 USC 106). So your claim is inappropriate for a discussion mostly about downloading music from P2P networks, since you have no "(limited) right to copy" those works to begin with.
Plus, of course, you don't understand fair use. Fair use is an equitable doctrine, and is entirely based on the circumstances in each case where it is claimed. Two people could download the same music in an otherwise infringing manner, but depending on a variety of factors surrounding the download (see e.g. 17 USC 107, which makes no mention at all of 'making more copies of things you own a lawfully made copy of'), one of them might infringe, and the other might not.
There's very little support in statutory or case law for ripping, incidentally. While there is a theory of space shifting, and I do believe it is fair up to a point (which downloading likely exceeds), it is a very weak theory, resting entirely on the fourth factor in a normal fair use analysis.
Nope; clearly the RIAA has retained better council than you.
A lawyer is counsel. An advisory body is a council.
They don't go after downloaders because they're not complete idiots.
I agree with that much at least. Going after P2P networks themselves is like cutting off the head of the snake; without the network, infringement plummets.
Going after uploaders is more like attacking the body; there's still plenty of snake. It damages the network insofar as now the ratio of sharers to leechers is worse, and it's more difficult for sharers to acquire files. But the network could cope.
Going after downloaders is possible, just not practical. No other downloaders are taken off the network as a result, and in fact, it likely makes the network more useful, since by definition a downloader who is not an uploader is a leecher.
Given that it costs time and money to pursue any particular defendent, it simply makes no sense to go after downloaders in the main.
But that doesn't mean it isn't possible. In fact, most suits against networks and uploaders are entirely predicated on the fact that downloading is illegal, and thus supports contributory and vicarious infringement causes of action.
Read the Napster case and Intellectual Reserve cases to see courts finding downloading to be infringement, using it in the manner I have just described.
The caselaw in the US is that the person who causes the reproduction to occur is the infringer as to the downloading. Almost always, this is the downloader, since he caused a new copy to be made by requesting the download. Only if his computer were somehow downloading things without having been instructed to by the user (perhaps in a malware situation?) would he be likely to get off the hook.
It's a fairly common sense rule, especially given that the reproduction occurs on the downloader's end.
It wasn't seven years. It was 14 years with an optional additional 14 years.
One, I'm pretty sure copyright is an entirerly civil matter
It has not been since the late 19th century. Check out 17 USC 506 for a current criminal infringement statute.
It might interest you to know that copyright is both a civil and criminal matter. People can and have been prosecuted for copyright infringement, which is a felony, and can be sent to prison and/or fined.
It is still illegal, it is still a tort.
It is illegal. I wouldn't call it a tort, however, as that implies the common law of torts, and copyright is a purely statutory creature.
you are depriving the copyright-holder of the right to distribute the copyright-bearing work as he/she/it sees fit.
No you're not.
Copyright grants that right exclusively to the copyright holder
No it doesn't. Copyright is the power to prevent others from doing certain things, including but not limited to distribution of creative works. It is NOT the power to actually do so oneself, however. E.g. child porn or libel cannot generally be lawfully distributed, but is generally copyrighted.
That's why the law uses the magic word 'exclusive.' As in 'to exclude others.'
Patents do the same thing, and are more obvious about it since A can patent an invention, and B can patent an improvement to the same invention, and A cannot use B's improvement since he's excluded from it, and B cannot use his improvement because it would infringe upon A's patent, which he is excluded from doing. They end up having to come to terms or be stymied.
I repeat: you are depriving someone of their rights when you download copyright-protected content without permission (through fair use or otherwise).
Are you trying to say that fair use is illegal?
Not quite, you'll get the $250,000 fine for making copies available to others (e.g. uploading), not for downloading.
Not quite; downloading is just as infringing as uploading is, as downloading constitutes a reproduction, which, like distribution, is an exclusive right of the copyright holder per 17 USC 106.
The reason that RIAA et al haven't bothered to go after downloaders isn't legal; it's tactical. They would rather go after uploaders since they are easier to catch and in effect reduce the number of downloaders, since there are fewer people to leech from.
Same reason why they went after the P2P networks originally -- that had been hoped to shut P2P sharing down with one fell swoop. Since that didn't happen, they have to go after users.
Actual answer: Only if we are in immediate danger (I don't purpose going to the UN if the missiles are inbound)
Of course, it would be weird going to the UN in such a case, since the UN Treaty already allows for use of force in such cases.
If I understand you correctly, it's manifest that the right to a creative work belongs with the consumer, not the producer. Is that true?
Mm, ultimately yes. But there's really a lot more nuance than that.
First, if the rights are in the public, then it's not as though they can exclude others from it, whereas when rights are held by an individual entity, those rights are rights to exclude others. So they're not really the same rights, though I suppose one might try to construe them in such a manner. End result seems to be the same either way.
Second, it's not that the public wants to take things per se. Really the public can be seen as having several independent, equal desires. Copyright is an attempt to satisfy all of those desires to the greatest possible degree, in the long run. Without copyrights, or with the wrong kind of copyrights, some desires might be more greatly fulfilled, others left wanting, and the overall public good would be less. Of course, we probably have the wrong kind of copyright now.
Naturally, I'm not calling you an "Indian killer," but just pointing out that human nature is constant. If enough people are united in wanting something and they have the technology to overcome social contracts, they'll take it, and rationalize it as they see fit.
That's more or less what I'm talking about, really. Copyright is a utilitarian system. It's intended to do nothing other than to provide the most utility for the most people. Because I think that copyright is capable of providing greater utility than no copyright would be, I support the general idea. I merely differ as to implementation. However, it's difficult to convince people that the current implementation is wanting in various ways unless they properly understand the overall point. From an incorrect point of view, the system is doing pretty well.
Don't forget that "the deal" behind copyrights is to allow a monopoly for a limited time to the author/creator of intellectual works (books, etc) to encourage authors to produce quality works.
In exchange, that copyright is void after (originally) some 20 years, and the works are released into the public domain.
If the quid pro quo were merely to encourage authors to create works, why would the copyright term expire? Surely an artist is more encouraged by, say, 10 year copyrights than by 1 year copyrights, and thus more by infinite copyrights than 10 year copyrights.
Furthermore, why are we interested in encouraging the creation of works? Wouldn't it be easier all around to say, put Shakespeare's plays back under copyright, and then sell the copyright to the highest bidder?
Who is it that is interested in having copyrights encourage the creation of new works, but not too much, since they also want it to expire? And why are they interested in these things.
Many ask "What's in it for me?" because this other end of the deal, the cancellation of said rights in a reasonable period of time has been cancelled on you.
Nope. Copyright is a wholly utilitarian doctrine. Self-interest is totally central to the entire thing. The most perfectly functioning copyright system will be that which most greatly slakes the unslakeable desires of the public.
Of course, you generally can't claim copyright on the CONTENTS of the database, but the structure or "compilation" of the database is perfectly copyrightable....
No, hence my 'database as a database' comment.
You cannot copyright anything unless it is, among other things, original and creative. Facts are neither. Compilations of facts which are not original and creative in their selection and arrangement of those facts are not copyrightable even as compilations.
In the copyright world, when we talk about copyrighting databases, generally this means that they are copyrighted REGARDLESS of originality and creativity, and rather merely for the labor involved. This 'sweat of the brow' idea is unconstitutional in the US, however, as seen in the Feist case.
So I don't think I was particularly wrong. Terse, but not wrong. (C.f. The Copyright Office refusing to register copyrights for 'typeface as typeface.')
Sort of like land ownership rights removing your right to walk on it?
Yes, actually. Just like that. And again, the idea of land as property may be an acceptable one, but not inherently so. It needs to be justified.
If you listen to MY music, or use MY software, or wish to benefit from MY database, I have a right to demand MY dinner, or don't use my stuff. Simple, no?
No, not simple in the least. Only a simpleton would think otherwise.
There's nothing about the works you create that ties them to your person. When you, say, compose music, you cannot inherently prevent other people who come in contact with that music from spreading it. Nor are you diminished in your ability to use that music by their doing so. This is because, unlike real or tangible property, creative works are nonrivalrous. An infinite number of people can listen to a piece of music without causing harm to it.
In fact, it's very difficult to prevent this from happening, since once some work spreads, it generally cannot be recovered, quite unlike property.
You, I'm afraid, have no inherent right to demand compensation when people spread works around. Spreading works around is a function of the inherent right of free speech and press, and inherent rights don't really conflict like that.
This probably explains why copyright as we know it did not exist at all until the early 18th century, and why it was not widespread until the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Instead, you have only one route to go.
While you can predicate access to the work on payment, you cannot stop those people from spreading the work further, nor continuing to enjoy it, nor can you repair the 'damage' to yourself once they've done so.
Your only viable option then, is to make it in people's best interests to not do so. You can't police people, but they can police themselves, and they will generally act in their own interests. Hence copyright from the Statute of Anne has existed solely to promote the public good. The generally small number of people acting contrary to that are much more easily dealt with than the whole of society, which is what you'd be up against in your me-me-me system that promotes no one's good but the artist's.
This way, we let the laws of economics determine the viability of my products
Capitalism would demand the abolition of copyright. Once a work has been created, the marginal cost is generally nearly zero. It's easy to see the discrepancy: copies of popular public domain works cost far far less than copies of popular copyrighted works. This is because rather than paying the author, he can be eliminated. Rather than cater to the author's desire to, say, only sell in certain markets, or not invest in translation, all possible viable markets will be exploited.
Basically, you're trying to ignore the beneficial effects of having lots of competition for a single commodity good. And almost all the time, a healthy market is the one with competition.
Note that the IDEA is not copyri
It's probably worth pointing out here that you can't get a copyright on a database as a database in the US.
copyrights are not about removing rights of consumers
Despite doing precisely that.
it's about offering producers choice about their works
Sure.
But if I'm a member of the public, my rights are undeniably being limited in order to give you a choice.
To this, I must ask, why the fuck should I tolerate this? Should I let you come over to my house and eat my food just because you're an artist? You're already deciding for me what I can and cannot say or write.
Copyright levels the playing field so that "little guys" can eke out a business without having to suck up to the big guys.
And in the process, we lose the desirable effects of competition on the marketplace. We lose efficient production and inexpensive goods, because you are in effect asking for a monopoly.
Now all that having been set straight, I am nevertheless willing to suffer a copyright system. But never for any of the horrible reasons you suggested, all of which do nothing but screw me over for your own gain. Nor due to the silly hope that I might somehow benefit as an artist (though n.b. I've been a professional artist, and did support myself as such for years) because most artists never make any money of note.
Rather, I would only ever suffer copyright to exist if it left me, an ordinary member of the public, better off than I would be otherwise. Given that people have been pirating, there's obviously a lot of public benefit in getting stuff for free. (e.g. if manna fell from heaven, we could eliminate world hunger, which is probably better than propping up farmers who then would only be producing something no one needed anyway)
So you need to start convincing people that it is better for THEM to pay for stuff instead of trying to get it for free.
I think it's possible.
But you've done nothing but to undermine your own position by basically telling people to suffer for your advantage. That just won't stand.
Again, the only weakness is the term of copyright.
There are, in fact, many, many weaknesses. Term is just a noteworthy one.
That's not what it says.
What it says is that it is legal to do certain sorts of realtime editing other than ad skipping.
That doesn't make ad skipping illegal. It just doesn't make it specifically legal under this proposed subsection. OTHER parts of the law can still operate to permit you to legally skip ads.
You really need to read the whole thing, in light of the section it's to be inserted into.
It's not illegal now, and it would not be illegal given the provisions of sec. 112 of the bill. This is true for several different reasons, not least of which is that this specific section of the bill expands the scope of what is not infringing; it doesn't take anything away overall because it doesn't touch on the sections, if any, that permit playback w/o commercials now.
Frankly, I think that 112 is very interesting, in that opens up the derivative right somewhat.
Of course, the rest has got to go.
Where the head judge who oversaw the recount effort was friendly enough with Dick Cheney to go duck hunting.
I imagine you're referring to J. Scalia?
First, he's an Associate Justice, not a judge. Second, he's not the Chief Justice; C.J. Rhenquist is. Third, the Supreme Court didn't oversee anything, really.
Many lessons will hopefully be learned from our current times.
And there's three of them.
And IIRC, the duck hunting thing didn't happen until well afterwards, but I don't know for sure.
but aren't they supposed to actively enforce these patents, or is that copyright?
Neither. You're thinking of trademarks. And oversimplifying, but that's not really important at the moment.
Actually it DOES have to be novel (never been done before) as well as nonobvious. The Constitution only allows patents to be granted to the inventor. Except in fairly rare cases, a johnny-come-lately is not the inventor of a particular technology. He's a reinventor. (which is why we don't issue patents for the wheel when people reinvent it)
Copyrights, OTOH, have no novelty requirement. Independent creation of a work is not infringing, though fairly rare.
Having a doohicky is implict, not explicit prohibition. But I think a great deal hinges on precisely what it does, and how it is avoided.
Can you provide details, or what?
The game came out a while ago in Japan. All that's new is that it'll be translated and sold in the US market. That's not a huge surprise.
Puh-leeze.
There's a big difference between outright theft and merely getting your foot in the door.
Er, cracking past the TeleZapper[tm] IS fraudulent
I'd have to know more about the exploit, but I doubt highly that it's fraud.
No, I agree. My point was against the idea that merely dialing a call was unacceptably intrusive.
Still, while I personally like the DNC list, I admit that I am dubious. It is still some regulation of speech, and that shouldn't be treated lightly. Especially when you recall that pretty much everyone proposing regulations of speech have enjoyed life without that speech, that they generally regulated unpopular speech, etc. The enemy could be us, and so I take very seriously any challenge to the DNC list. The challengers, even if you hate 'em, might be right.
Not at all. It's your responsibility to have a good automated doohicky, so long as what they do is not fraudulent. I suspect that the problem here was that the doohicky sucked, and had gaping flaws in it (though feel free to supply facts about the situation, since I never heard of the thing you're mentioning).
For example, if you get junk mail in a handwritten envelope, you're more likely to open it than not. That's not fraudulent, but it did get by your inbuilt filter for junk mail.
OTOH, if there was a knock at the door, and you saw a person in an officious looking blue uniform, but it turned out to be the Fuller Brush man, then that's more likely wrongful.
When a telemarketing call's caller ID says that it is from your mother, and it's not, then that's fraudulent.
It is not incumbent on solicitors to make it easy for you to discern them, so long as they aren't being fraudlent about who they are.
By having a house connected to the public sidewalks, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited visitors.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.
By having a phone connected to the public networks, you're accepting unsolicited ATTEMPTS to call you. I.e. people can freely dial your number. What you do once they place the call -- pick up, ignore it, send it to some sort of automated doohicky -- is up to you; they can't force you to do a particular thing, though they can initiate the attempt.
This is akin to people being allowed to send you mail by default, but your not having to read it. Or people being allowed to knock on your door by default, but your not having to answer it. And so forth.
The telemarketing industry has done precisely that
Quite false, until the day comes when telemarketers can magically cause my phone's handset to levitate off the hook. They cannot force you to answer. There is no trepass. Only a request for you to answer, which is not any different than someone asking you at your door if they may enter.
It is clear that businesses publish their phone numbers for the purpose of receiving business contacts
Which brings us back into the realm of implicit intent. Why do people publish their home phone numbers? Because they must want to receive unsolicited phone calls. If they don't want that, then they are free to a) not have a phone, b) not publish the number anywhere, c) explicitly tell people not to call them (e.g. by saying so to individuals, or by saying so to the world via a DNC list).
It isn't, particularly. By having a phone plugged into a public network, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited calls. This is no different than having an address is an implicit acceptance of door-to-door or mail communications.
You are free to retract that acceptance, but you need to do so explicitly, either to a specific individual, as to them, or as to broad groups of people by providing sufficiently good notice in advance. (e.g. a no trespassing sign)
After all -- you don't have to pick up the phone or even have a phone. Trepassing would be if they forced you to answer, or broke through your door. Standing on your porch, asking to talk to you is not, as a rule, trespassing.
(Plus of course, your analogy opens yourself up to abuse -- if people have no right to call other people, then when you call business X, they could sue you for trespass by calling them, unless you give them the right to make unsolicited calls to you, and to give others that same right.)