Re:Jon, corporations are not the danger
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
I find it really hard to believe that you are against all government. Even the most libertarian of libertarians is unwilling to face up to the anarchy that would result in a world where there are no laws at all. (Who ultimately enforces contracts? Who ultimately defends property rights? Do you want to live in a society where you must personally defend everything you own yourself through force of arms?)
But you're not seeing that corporate interests wield great power over the government, and are quite dangerous. Perhaps they would be less dangerous if they were not already receiving the benefit from the government of being a corporation. (Personally I'm opposed to coprorations in most cases - individually owned businesses or partnerships are more my style)
Additionally, a capitalist system is not inherently the only way to do things. It is the economic system that most closely aligns itself to the 'shape' of natural human liberties.
But just as we have government and laws to preserve the lion's share of our natural liberty at as minimal an expense as possible (e.g. it's illegal for you to randomly kill people - this preserves freedom in general by permitting people to exercise their freedoms without being killed) so must economic systems be bent to fit PEOPLE. People must not serve the goals of capitalism, or socialism, or communism or anything else like that.
Antitrust regulations PRESERVE the integrity of the market by preventing it from lurching into a broken condition where monopolies squash competitors in a defiance of ideal capitalism.
Some zoning I can understand - it's irresponsible to put a toxic waste dump next to a school. Other zoning is stupid, I agree - completely segregating residential areas from commercial areas is dumb; cities thrive on having storefronts underneath apartments)
And workplace regulations, while sometimes going too far, are generally another example of requiring some infringement to be taken for an undeniably better good. Largely because again, capitalism isn't perfect. Why shouldn't consumers achieve their goals by voting with their votes as well as their wallets? Both are acceptable mechanisms for PEOPLE living in a better society, at the loss of as little freedom as possible.
There are abuses. Just as frequently at the hands of corporations as people. Perhaps that's what you ought to be complaining about.
What I've heard is that Apple had A/UX for about the same reason that Microsoft had Xenix (IIRC).
For a while the govt. wouldn't buy computers unless they could be POSIX compliant. So people who wanted Macs were allowed to buy them because they could run A/UX on it. They didn't, but that's what they had to do to get around the restriction.
More recently, this has been lifted. Which is not necessarily good - I like the idea of POSIX - but that's why A/UX vanished into deep space.
Bah. I remember before we had user accounts. I didn't like having/. putting cookies on my machine at the time and it took Rob quite a while for there to be any advantage to user accounts other than having your name automatically attached to the post. I held out til the mid-3000s. My neighbor got one just over 1000, and both of us had started reading at the same time.
No, seriously, I don't personally care for a split at all. I'd be content with binding MS with so many government lawyers (who they would pay for as a part of the measure) that they couldn't look cross-eyed at someone without having to carefully prove that it wasn't going to give them access to that market.
You'll remember that this is about what happened to IBM, which managed to come to terms with the government before getting to the breakup part. And what happened when IBM could no longer ruthlessly dominate computing? The age of microcomputers began, and Microsoft got a chance to go to the top (along with Apple, Intel, Compaq, Dell, etc.)
I don't know Steve. Everything I've heard about him indicates that he is an asshole of the highest caliber. I honestly don't think that he has any friends.
If I had a choice though, I'd rather know the Woz.
As for referring to famous people in the computing industry by first name, initials or nickname, that's just commonplace. Steve, the Woz, Bill, Paul, Linus, RMS, etc. That's how it is. I don't need to know them.
Do you mean Zip disks, or Zip archives? I'm hoping the former, 'cos the latter's pretty obvious.
Not that it matters much whether you can read them or not. Too many damn Mac files have dual forks which makes them hard to deal with on single fork systems.
The Fat Mac (512KE) could do it IIRC. I still have one of those around someplace running a *very* old system.
I'm iffy on the 512K. I don't remember if it had it or not.
And given that LaserWriters cost $7000 and Macs were only around $2500 or so, you HAD to have printer networks. They were going to introduce a central file server too, but it never worked and was killed off. Not many people remember the 'Macintosh Office' ad (also known as Lemmings) from the 1985 superbowl.
They couldn't even do it while Steve was in charge. Most of the important people on the Mac project (Steve came in late and contributed relatively little; he's a royal jerk) knew about the importance of networks. And even knew about ethernet. But when asked what network they were going to put on the Mac, Steve replied by handing them a floppy disk.
(and in fact, that the Mac had a 3.5" drive was an act of rebellion by the engineers...)
I do hope that you'll find this debate sufficiently interesting to continue. It's been fun so far.
Anyway, you keep thinking that holding a copyright somehow implies ownership in the same way that it does for property.
It does not. Hell, creative works aren't even property (though they are likely to be embodied in some property, which clouds the issue)
Copyright very clearly means that someone has a particular ability to control a few related uses of a work. It is not ownership in any way. A quick definition of ownership would be: the use of something, the ability to dispose of it and to benefit from it.
So if Alice sells Bob a CD under existing copyright law Bob owns the CD. He has the use of it and the copyrighted material on it. He can benefit from it. The one limitation is that he cannot dispose of COPIES of it. Though he can dispose of the copy he originally bought.
This is why we call it COPYright. It's not just a random compound word. The types of rights you consider to be 'copyright' contain ever so much more than that.
But Alice has no natural right to restrict Bob's use of work she created. Whereas Bob has every natural right to use, dispose and benefit from it in any way. That is how things would operate naturally were it not for intervening laws.
Binding men with laws is not something to be entered into lightly, thus the form of laws should conform as closely as possible to natural law, only deviating in order to improve society. Humans cannot be thought of as shapeless in the sense of rights, able to fit into any unnatural set of laws.
Alice has not got a leg to stand on at this point, and neither do you. Yes, it's true that she *could* operate in a twisted market in which she gets Bob's first born in exchange for a minimal ability to use a CD. And in such a market, maybe Bob could refuse.
You willfully ignore the fact that capitalism is not self-regulating. That capitalism breaks severely as monopolies appear on the scene. (If Alice controls the only supply of water, is it acceptable for her to be draconian when selling it? The answer is no. Economic systems are subservient to the good of society. What is best for society is broad freedom, with only enough restrictions to keep the lion's share of freedom intact)
This is not to say I'm a communist. I think that it's a nice idea, but totally unworkable. Of course, I also think that you wouldn't know communism if it bit you on the ass. It's not what was practiced in the Soviet Union, believe me.
However, I'm not wedded to capitalism like you are. Just like fools who feel that human beings should be crammed into a set of laws for no better reason than that they are internally consistant, you feel that people should be shoved into capitalism even though capitalism is a tool of people, and not the other way around. One hopes that we will someday find something better, more suitable for people, and that it will be widely adopted.
Backing up a bit, you keep ignoring the fact that I accept copyrights. I do not accept the abuse of copyrights by copyright holders.
Copyrights DO NOT exist for Alice make money, though you keep telling yourself that despite all the evidence.
Copyrights DO NOT exist to artificially prevent the free use of works, which being intangible and freely copied are a resource of infinite quantity.
Copyrights DO exist to serve a particular public interest. This interest is to increase the number of goods which _are_ freely available. Your version of copyrights serves no public interest at all. You think that Alice exists in a vacuum. You think that she can create works without there being works to freely create upon.
Doesn't she, in your fantasy, owe money to the Phonecian invetors of A, L, I, C and E? Doesn't she owe money to the creators of music? Of the design of instruments? Looks like she does. After all, you've already claimed that it is unfounded for copyrights to expire.
Basically DfL, you're being penny wise and pound foolish. If copyrights are as absolute as you want it harms society, and the CREATION of works more than it would if the works were restricted as little as possible with very weak copyrights.
You said: "Wanton copying of recorded music MUST and WILL result in the production of less music. It is inevitable. Free music is essentially the same as saying 'almost no music.'"
I tell you that you might be right, although as an artist I am certain in my heart of hearts that you're sorely mistaken as to how many people like to create art for art's sake.
But you are WRONG when you use your argument to press for the expansion of copyright. The inability to stand on the shoulders of others results in EVEN LESS MUSIC than _may_ result if music is copied freely.
I'm sorry but the tactic of shouting "Communist" or "Marxist" at anybody that won't toe the corporate line simply will not wash. I believe in a free market economy with no artificial restrictions on duplication.
To which you (Dictator For Life) replied:
LOL! That's rich. How do you simultaneously hold beliefs that are in such manifest conflict?
You obviously weren't paying attention. I said that it is intrinsically Marxist to suggest that a producer of something does not own it ("From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"). This is the very heart and soul of the GNU philosophy. It is evil.
To which I reply:
You're wrong DfL. This is not to say that I agree with the the AC. A purely free market would be BAD. My favorite examples of free marketeers are the Mafia. They (try to at least) operate in a market which is unrestricted by law. Completely free markets require might making right. It's a lousy idea.
But... in such a free market, there are, after all NO copyright laws. It interferes with the market to say that Bob cannot copy Alice's work. Alice only has rights to her work insofar as she can keep it scarce HERSELF. She won't have a government helping to keep it artificially scarce, as is the case with copyrights. If Bob can copy Alice's work, he can. It's not going to have significant value for him though. Charlie can copy Bob's copy, etc.
This is not Marxist. This is anarchy. They're about as diametrically opposed to each other as can be.
And it illustrates that only a fool would place his faith in unregulated capitalism. Usually the same type of fool that would place his faith in communism or socialism. NONE of these systems work alone. What makes them work is the constant effort by people to keep them working in a fashion that most people can accept.
But MY priorities lie where yours ought to; having a system that is acceptable. I care nothing for idiotic economic ideologies like yours or the AC's when they make it impossible for people to thrive. You sir, believe in laws that only work one way. (in favor of the owner of a thing, and never in favor of the user. You very much deliberately ignore the tendancy of capitalism to choke on monopolies as illustrated again and again throughout history) The AC believes in no laws at all. I think you're both deluded.
Does this mean that people have a right to free content? Yes, BUT only insofar as they do not willingly conceed that right (which is a facet of freedom of speech - the freedom to say what another has also said) for some greater benefit.
In the real world, a place you don't seem to have become familiar with, though I suggest you at least drop by and take a look, people are only willing to give up their God-given right to copy other people's creative content without taking that content away from the creator, in exchange for the encouragement of more works to be created, and the expectation that those works will become free for all to use.
This is the same reasoning that is used that permits people the freedom to swing their fist, but not the freedom to hit someone. It is because they exchange that freedom in order to not be hit themselves.
No he's not. You're not allowed to use work that someone else has copyrighted in certain ways - basially those revolving around distributing copies of that work (such as by creating a derivative work, or simply exercising your freedom of speech to duplicate the work entirely)
Patents are simply more restrictive on how you can't use them. (at all)
I'll just respond to your post in order. It worked for you, and it's common enough practice around here. I do very much look forward to seeing your response.
FIRST Ah the semantic point about theft.
Theft, although IANAL, as far as I have been able to determine the legal definition of theft has to do with deprevation of property. Or theft of services (typ. receiving some service and not paying for it)
Copyright infringement appears to be seperate. If you have something hard to indicate otherwise I'd like to see it. It never hurts to learn more.
At any rate, this means that talking to a lawyer about the law for an hour and not paying is theft of a service. Talking to a lawyer about the Red Sox for an hour is not, even if he could be billing someone else for that time. Copying the novel he wrote in his spare time but leaving his copy instact is not theft, it is copyright infringement. It is clearly not theft in the material sense. Nor is it theft of a service - a book is not a service. This gets sticky in the case of descrambling cable tv transmissions which are technically considered to be a service, but even this is a very difficult argument to work with. The last time I asked about it in a legal forum the people who replied felt that it's not really a service. (I don't have a problem with non-private broadcasts being decrypted, though the govt. does. I refrain from decrypting them, however.)
As I said, I could be wrong. But some poking around in my spare time is what has led me to this conclusion. Show me something better and I'll be glad to take a good look at it.
SECOND Well I have not yet heard you explicitly say what you think about copyright then.
I had been interpreting you pretty accurately I think. Given your argument, I see no reason to reassess my interpretation yet. When you clearly tell me what you think (still waiting) I just might have to.
Here's what you say: "...the owner of a thing has the right to declare the terms under which he will part with it."
Now, I guess I'm just kind of confused here. From your argument, I cannot answer the following question: If Alice makes a CD, and sells the CD to Bob, who owns the CD, Alice or Bob?
Let me then consider the possibilities. I can see three.
1) Alice sells Bob the CD, no strings attached.
This is very generous of Alice. In the real world it would mean that she has granted Bob the same rights that she has as the copyright holder including the right to further grant others copyright power. Or the music has no copyright at all, and is in the public domain.
Bob owns the CD.
2)Alice sells Bob the CD. But she does not transfer her copyright. There's *ONE* string attached.
This is what really happens when people buy music. I don't have a problem with it generally, though there are certainly some fine points to be hashed out. Bob can do anything he wants with the CD. Listen to it, copy it, burn it. But he may not give a copy of the music on the CD to some third party. Alice retains that right, and only that right. Thus Bob may resell it. Bob is able to exert nearly complete control over the CD and can be justifiably said to own it.
Bob owns the CD, but there's one thing he can't do with it.
3)Alice sells Bob the CD. There are *MANY* strings attached.
Here is what I think you argue for. Alice may require that for Bob to buy the CD he must never resell it, must be the only one who listens to it, must not copy it, etc.
ALICE owns the CD. She didn't part with it at all. She still retains the rights to utilize it in any way she wants.
Now then, if I read you correctly, you argue that Alice has all rights over something she creates. I dispute this. I believe that this is a Bad Idea and that it is wholly unrealistic. And, if you think about this for a bit, you'll find that your argument defeats itself because it is based too closely on traditional property rights. (which is a horse of a different color)
By your argument, if Alice plays the music which she holds the copyright to, and Bob overhears it, Alice owns Bob's memory of her song. It is, after all a copy. Maybe even a perfect copy - Bob's got a good memory.
Firstly, I have difficulty believing that anyone thinks that it is a good idea for people to even attempt to exert property rights over the contents of your mind. Yet you argue this. (unless you want to backtrack to transaction interpretation #2)
Secondly, it is (thank God) impossible for this to actually occur. Alice may wish desperately for control over Bob's memory - especially as he will never 'buy' Alice's CD. He'll merely remember it to himself. But she cannot control the contents of Bob's mind. Which brings us to
Thirdly Alice's rights over her music have been, as you say, PROPERTY RIGHTS. Your version of copyright has Alice able to make any restriction she pleases on the use of her music, the media one version is contained within, etc.
But, as any good American-Who-Took-Land-From-The-Indians-Farmed-It- And-Now-It's-Ours knows (I'm not knocking it, just saying) posession is 9/10ths of the law. Thus do we have squatter's rights as well.
Bob has a copy of Alice's music. Alice cannot exert control over it. Thus the property rights over the music now split. Alice still retains ownership of whatever music she has. However, property rights being the fickle things they are, go to whomever controls the property. Bob now controls a copy of the property. This might not be the case if Alice *could* control Bob's mind, but unless she's got friends in the CIA Mind Control Satellite Department you must surely realize that's impossible.
Because your version of copyright is, as far as I can determine by what you're actually saying, just property rights. REAL copyrights, the kind that learned people put some thought into (even going so far as to debate whether or not copyrights and even property rights are natural at all) have nothing to do with who exerts any control over the COPIES.
It's who gets to distribute copies. By clearly limiting itself to just the ONE small restriction, and avoiding property rights that are useful for tangible objects and just tangible objects copyright manages to work out reasonably okay.
Sure there are property rights that typically go along with copyrighted material. Taking a book without paying is theft. You deprive them of the book. (not the value of the book, the book) Copying a book is not theft - it is copyright infringement, because you are distributing a copy to yourself. Only the copyright holder can make copies to distribute to people without copies. (though any schmuck can distribute copies they didn't make, or copy without distributing)
THIRD I bet you forgot about that. Now the economic bit of the argument. You fail to make a distinction between being paid for some creative work and holding the copyright on it.
Gribnak the Younger probably isn't going to be creating much music. (aside from random tunes to hum, etc.) And you're right, it's because he'd rather have potatoes (which kind of means he lives in the Americas, as potatoes hadn't been brought to Europe in the 14th century;).
But let us suppose that Lord Shellac learns of the beauty of Gribnaks' random humming. HE CAN STILL PAY GRIBNAK TO HUM, EVEN THOUGH GRIBNAK HOLDS NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO WHAT HE HUMS.
That is, Gribnak may hum. Nothing stops Lord Shellac (who is law-abiding) from humming the same tune, mimicing it perfectly, until the end of his days. But it was Gribnak who is the artist, and it was Gribnak who created the tune in the first place.
Paying for creative works in pre-copyright days was *different* from how it is now. Now copyrighted material is treated like property. Largely because it's still mostly transferred on various mediums which are property. The Napster debate largely has to do with the transferral of content without a medium also being transferred.
Pre-copyright payment was not for a work as though it was a good. It was for the SERVICE of CREATING the work. Materials might be seperate. They might be factored into the service cost.
(Hire a lawyer - service - and you pay for a lot of legal pads. Hire a detective and you pay for a service, and expenses are seperate. You pay for them too. No significant difference in the end.)
But Lord Shellac is paying Gribnak to hum for him. He might even pay Gribnak to write him a book on his humming technique. Nothing would stop Gribnak from selling his book to other people.
This is more or less how musicians really did support themselves. Sure, any jerk could play your music. But fewer jerks could play it as well as you could. You might write songs for other people as well.
Quality is still a factor today. You don't buy records from Jerk, because that band sucks. So that has remained the same, and can be ignored from arguments about people with or without copyright.
Was this a billion dollar industry? No. In fact there WERE NO INDUSTRIES AT ALL YET.
FOURTH Okay - I will imagine that there are relatively few people who give art away. (though as an artist myself, I doubt this. I've personally seen many people who, if able to live by some other means, would happily give away their work for the enjoyment of others. This is no fluke. Necessity forces them into it; not will.)
This does not invalidate the above arguments. There are still people who give things away for free. It IS an incentive for creating works without copyrights. Just as the service model functions without copyrights.
FIFTH And even more works are likely to be created with very loose copyrights - derivative works. Copyrights do not have to be extremely far-reaching in order to promote the creation of works. (which is, as we already covered, more important, in the wording of the fundemental clause that permits copyrights in the US, than profits)
SIXTH Did you stop reading my post halfway through? I did explicitly say "...I can see how copyrights can be a useful incentive."
Do you dispute that copyrights which grant the creator less control over their work, and which are intended to create additional public domain works - as well as rapidly enter copyrighted works into the public domain - would result in the creation of fewer works?
The reform proposal is, IMHO the most interesting bit. It relies on the fact that copyrights do not exist for mere profit, but for artistic and scientific growth, but that's not disputable in the context of US copyright law anyway.
Heh. If Moses tried to re-do the first 9 plagues (let's not even get into the 10th), I suspect he'd be tied up in Environmental Impact Statements and town council meetings for decades.
It's not theft unless you deprive the original posessor of his copy. A fine point, but an important one.
Additionally, artists do not have much control over their works as it is. Copyrights give them authority over some types of distribution of copies of their works. Copyrights (always a vague notion anyway) tend to lose out to Real Property rights a lot. Thus the first sale doctrine, whereby artists recieve no compensation or control over authorized copies of their works after they themselves sell copies. This is presently under attack by copyright holders.
Additionally there are quite a few fair use exceptions to copyright infringements in current law. (though they're under attack as well) These include personal backups, time shifting, space shifting, format shifting, educational usages, quoting, parody, etc.
By YOUR argument, you pretty clearly believe that copyrights are total, absolute and permanent. Thus in your little fantasy world, if copyright holder Foo sells a CD they are not only within their rights, but acting morally by: *Prohibiting people from reselling copies of the CD *Playing the CD in unapproved players *Quoting the lyrics, or the music *Referring in any way without authorization to the contents of the CD (e.g. track listings) *Parodying the CD because you think it's funny (so much for Wierd Al) *Thinking about the music without authorization (after all, his memory of the song is a copy, and an illegal one at that)
Now having demonstrated that your argument goes _way_ too far and crashes and burns, like the coyote running off the edge of a cliff, let's look at another part of your comment.
What incentive would artists have for producing works without copyrights?
Gee, let's think. When were the first copyright laws enacted? IIRC the mid-18th century. Now, were there any creative works produced before the creation of copyright laws? Why, YES, there WERE.
In fact people *HAD* to be even more creative than they are now, because they could not depend on a permanent revenue stream for some work. Artists looking for money got whatever they could from the first sale. This could be anything from the performance of a play (wherin you could keep making money until your actors left, or other actors saw it enough to memorize the lines; there are some very funny Shakespeare plays I've read where the lines were dictated - incorrectly - by some generic actor) to a work that had been commissioned by a patron.
However, many other artists created stuff because they wanted to. While you might not believe it there are no small number of people in this world who create potentially valuable pieces of art and give them away because they want to. To them the only value is the beauty of the piece. It has no monetary value to such a person.
Additionally, not only were original works being created for millenia before copyrights were even thought up, but the lack of copyrights encouraged the creation of new works. By now your brain is working overtime to figure this one out. Basically, there are these things which we now call Derivative Works. Basically you create a work which is closely based on someone else's work.
This can be creative. I've seen it. Hell, I've done it. Want an example? Let us consider the fairy tale of the Little Mermaid. The earliest version I know of was written by Hans Christian Andersen. Later a statue was placed in Copenhagen (IIRC) of the mermaid. This is a derivative work. Although Andersen likely never made any statues himself, the very famous Little Mermaid statue is clearly based on his story. Moving forwards to the late 80's, the Walt Disney company made an animated musical based on this story. Although they changed quite a few elements (and made it a damn lot more cheerful - the original is not that nice) it is clearly a derivative work. The core of the movie was not original; it was based on someone else's story.
By YOUR argument, which may now be trying to crawl, accordian-like out of the crater it made at the bottom of the canyon, Disney, and the sculptor of the statue have both stolen from Andersen. And since Andersen has total control over his work, he could will it to his heirs forever. Thus no small number of descendants of Andersen have been ROBBED of the millions upon millions of dollars that their fairy tale is worth.
Even though we have just seen proof that by permitting derivative works MORE creative art has been made. If Andersen et al retained control of the story there would in fact be LESS work. The lack of copyrights can be shown to be conductive to the creation of art.
And SLAM - a giant boulder lands on your argument, squashing it flat.
To recap: 1)You argue that creators have complete, perpetual rights over their work 2)You argue that unauthorized copying is theft 3)It's not theft 4)The world would suffer greatly if creators had complete, perpetual rights over their work; it's good they don't. 5)Throughout most of history creators have had virtually no control over their work 6)This did not stop things from being created 7)By permitting unauthorized use of works many more works will be created 8)Your argument is full of beans
Now, I will say that I can see how copyrights can be a useful incentive. But they are not the POINT, they are an incentive. The POINT is to have as many works as possible enter the public domain, whereupon anyone under the sun can use them, especially in the creation of MORE works.
You will note of course that the relevant language in the Constitution says IIRC "In order to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences..."
It does NOT say "In order for authors to make money..." Authors making money is just a useful side-effect.
Thus I propose: *Copyrights must be registered with the US Copyright Office in order to exist. A minimal fee to cover the costs of registration (paying the clerks, etc.) is required. *In the case of software, a copy of the working source code (which will remain confidential while the work is copyrighted) must be given to the Library of Congress, just as they already require a copy of the work you want to register. Similar requirements could exist in other contexts in which much of the value of the work in the public domain originates in from a different form of the work. *Copyrights last for 10 years, starting at the time when the Copyright Office approves the copyright. Works are NOT copyrighted prior to this. *By copyrighting your work under these rules, you never get to copyright them under rules created later on. (so there are no retroactive copyright extensions) *They may be extended ONCE for another 5 years, provided that (off the top of my head) 2.5% of the gross profit of the work over the entire fifteen years be paid to the Copyright Office. *The fee for the extension goes to the NFA, with the requirement that works of art or literature, etc. created with that money immediately enter the public domain.
At any rate, that's what I'd like to see. If you really want a copyright, then you need to promote the existance of works that you are relying upon. You don't get one to cover your ass; save your pennies for things that are worth it. (rather like patents, which are non-trivial to acquire)
And of course, it promotes the creation of more works b/c authors can't coast on a few popular works for their lives. And they do still have the cachet of their name and the newness of their works. (e.g. you can get a Stephen King novel for $5 now, or wait 15 years and get it for free. As long as he keeps writing well he'll keep making money. Many derivative works will be made. Everyone wins.)
Yeah - I had a copy of the original Might and Magic. HUGE frickin game. Eventually got stuck due to, I believe, a corrupted disk. (Ruby whistle my ass!)
Make the cost a percentage of the gross profits (there's never any net). Then send that money to the NFA with the requirement that the art created with the funds is immediately placed in the public domain.
$100 per item per 5 years is nothing to a lot of big businesses, but could be to a prolific but poor author.
Some people have no other means of ripping CDs. Why shouldn't you be able to have someone else do it provided that you proved to them that you had a legal copy of the CD? It's merely a fine point in the law. But there's no particular moral argument to restricting it. OTOH there is a very good moral argument towards permitting it.
Unethical behavior is not enough to justify the sorts of draconian attacks on the freedom of speech and privacy rights that have been appearing lately. The members of the RIAA are unethical as all hell, but you're not bitching about them.
I think that you mean the Edge, and at any rate IIRC I've also heard that he was just being friendly to maintain U2's image, but that they really don't like Negativland at all.
And do you know how much work goes into getting a wiretap? While they're used way too much these days (blame it on the War on Some Drugs) and the police constantly want to expand their wiretapping ability it is still not trivial.
Oddly enough, keeping copyright holders from engaging in the abuse/frivolous use of the powers in the proposal is not mentioned.
Acts which are hostile to freedom of speech - such as liberally granting injunctions preventing it - are suggested in the paper. This is usually seen as an extreme step by the courts. Free speech is generally considered to be more important than copyrights, at least until the case has been decided.
If you look at the 2nd amendment you will see TWO clauses, not one.
The first is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
And the second is: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now. Look closely. It did not say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state shall not be infringed." Nor did it say "...the right of well-regulated militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A good interpretation of the meaning would, however, be: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and because of this the states rely on the availability of well-regulated militias."
Remember that during the Revolutionary War, many of the military forces belonged to the STATES, not the Continental Congress. Similarly, while there was a federal military, the states still relied on their ability to muster troops internally (which is why you used to have things like the 11th Massachusetts Infantry. Around WWI, IIRC, units became mostly/entirely mixed wrt place of origin)
Of course, what 2nd amendment debate would be complete without mentioning that in 18th century English, 'Well-Regulated' would basically mean in modern English 'Competent.' A militia that didn't know how to shoot is not all that necessary to the security of a free state. One that can, is. No significant command structure is needed, and none is implied.
And lastly, bear in mind that these guys had just finished fighting a WAR in which they REBELLED against the government. They had no idea at the time that the Constitution would last one day, much less 200+ years. If (and this is still a possibility today) the US government loses it's legitimacy, the people are justified in overthrowing it. Hell, it's a moral imperative. People are supposed to be free.
If the US is threatened by tyrannical forces from within or without, then it's a damn good thing that you'll have firearms to use to ensure your liberties. Placing them in the hands of a fallible government and trusting that they will never become corrupt nor be invaded is grossly irresponsible.
But the reason that the Swiss are often held up as examples is because they are responsible and yet still heavily-armed. It's not all that common for people to go on shooting rampages there.
If there were a way to assure responsibility in the US that didn't put the government or some other fallible, controllable entity, I'd probably go for it. But the way that preserves freedom has it's own dangers. That's the price you pay to be free.
Those people in the southern United States and in South Africa who in the early part of this century passed laws against 'miscegenation' did so for reasons which they viewed as moral - just as significantly moral as Meyer's (or Stallman's) view their arguments on free software.
Last I heard laws prohibiting miscegenation (also known as 'amalgamation' if you start delving into history here) were around in the southeastern US since the late 1600's.
And you know, you probably don't pass laws until something happens.... I doubt that it was based on morality though. Even the morality of the people there at the time.
This having been said, I think that there are absolute as well as relative morals. But the absolutes are the more important of the two. I just wish more people would live up to 'em.
I'm sorry - I just don't see how copying information is stealing.
If Bob copies Alice's document, Alice still has a copy. Alice never, ever had a god-given right to the information within her document. That's a nonsensical argument; go to some place with no copyright laws and you will find that the natural state of things is that you can copy information.
The ability to copy information is an important application of the freedom of speech, which is a god-given right, as it happens. You do not have to pay the long-lost coiner of the word 'the' every time you speak or write it. You do not need his permission. Just imagine if copyright laws suddenly extended into people's brains. I'm sure that moneyed copyright-holders would like this. But people who morally defend copyrights would have to insist upon it.
Copyrights are totally artifical constructs. They are not rights in the way that free speech, or the right to bear arms, or the right not to bear witness against yourself are. Assuming that you're an American (safe assumption on/.) take a look at the section on copyrights (I,8,8) in the Constitution.
It pretty clearly is *not* directly intended to give authors control over their content. Rather, it is intended to promote the useful arts and sciences. We have copyrights, ironically enough, because it is supposed to get more content into the public domain. Information is MOST useful when anyone can use it. How many adaptations of Shakespeare are there? Now how many adaptations of Mickey Mouse? (probably just as popular)
What's unfortunate lately is that many copyright holders have managed to get laws which attempt to make an end-run around the constitution by perpetually extending the duration of copyrights. Virtually nothing has entered the public domain for quite a while now. Nor is anything likely to for decades.
Personally, I can accept a short-duration copyright. Perhaps 5 years, with a 5 year extension, the cost of which (a percentage of the overall gross?) would go to the NEA for creating public domain works.
The number of overall works would probably skyrocket. Authors would be forced to be more prolific. No longer could an author coast on a single success. Additionally, we'd see more derivative works. This isn't a bad thing; *many* works you think are original are derivative. And many derivative works are better than the originals, but rely on pre-established characters or backstory. (think about how many works with genies in them owe something to 1001 Arabian Nights)
I think that it's still likely that a lot of work would be created if there were no copyright at all, as has been the case throughout much of history (getting back to Shakespeare, his plays were performed by companies other than his own, and he didn't see a penny. But then he never had an original plot in his life, and routinely readapted earlier plays, poems, stories, etc.)
Anyway, I'd like to see what you think, with all this in mind. Good luck on your paper - I've been there (and posting on/. instead;)
Slashdot Mirror
I find it really hard to believe that you are against all government. Even the most libertarian of libertarians is unwilling to face up to the anarchy that would result in a world where there are no laws at all. (Who ultimately enforces contracts? Who ultimately defends property rights? Do you want to live in a society where you must personally defend everything you own yourself through force of arms?)
But you're not seeing that corporate interests wield great power over the government, and are quite dangerous. Perhaps they would be less dangerous if they were not already receiving the benefit from the government of being a corporation. (Personally I'm opposed to coprorations in most cases - individually owned businesses or partnerships are more my style)
Additionally, a capitalist system is not inherently the only way to do things. It is the economic system that most closely aligns itself to the 'shape' of natural human liberties.
But just as we have government and laws to preserve the lion's share of our natural liberty at as minimal an expense as possible (e.g. it's illegal for you to randomly kill people - this preserves freedom in general by permitting people to exercise their freedoms without being killed) so must economic systems be bent to fit PEOPLE. People must not serve the goals of capitalism, or socialism, or communism or anything else like that.
Antitrust regulations PRESERVE the integrity of the market by preventing it from lurching into a broken condition where monopolies squash competitors in a defiance of ideal capitalism.
Some zoning I can understand - it's irresponsible to put a toxic waste dump next to a school. Other zoning is stupid, I agree - completely segregating residential areas from commercial areas is dumb; cities thrive on having storefronts underneath apartments)
And workplace regulations, while sometimes going too far, are generally another example of requiring some infringement to be taken for an undeniably better good. Largely because again, capitalism isn't perfect. Why shouldn't consumers achieve their goals by voting with their votes as well as their wallets? Both are acceptable mechanisms for PEOPLE living in a better society, at the loss of as little freedom as possible.
There are abuses. Just as frequently at the hands of corporations as people. Perhaps that's what you ought to be complaining about.
What I've heard is that Apple had A/UX for about the same reason that Microsoft had Xenix (IIRC).
For a while the govt. wouldn't buy computers unless they could be POSIX compliant. So people who wanted Macs were allowed to buy them because they could run A/UX on it. They didn't, but that's what they had to do to get around the restriction.
More recently, this has been lifted. Which is not necessarily good - I like the idea of POSIX - but that's why A/UX vanished into deep space.
This is what I heard anyway.
User numbers?
/. putting cookies on my machine at the time and it took Rob quite a while for there to be any advantage to user accounts other than having your name automatically attached to the post. I held out til the mid-3000s. My neighbor got one just over 1000, and both of us had started reading at the same time.
Bah. I remember before we had user accounts. I didn't like having
What are user numbers up to these days, anyway?
No, seriously, I don't personally care for a split at all. I'd be content with binding MS with so many government lawyers (who they would pay for as a part of the measure) that they couldn't look cross-eyed at someone without having to carefully prove that it wasn't going to give them access to that market.
You'll remember that this is about what happened to IBM, which managed to come to terms with the government before getting to the breakup part. And what happened when IBM could no longer ruthlessly dominate computing? The age of microcomputers began, and Microsoft got a chance to go to the top (along with Apple, Intel, Compaq, Dell, etc.)
I don't know Steve. Everything I've heard about him indicates that he is an asshole of the highest caliber. I honestly don't think that he has any friends.
If I had a choice though, I'd rather know the Woz.
As for referring to famous people in the computing industry by first name, initials or nickname, that's just commonplace. Steve, the Woz, Bill, Paul, Linus, RMS, etc. That's how it is. I don't need to know them.
Do you mean Zip disks, or Zip archives? I'm hoping the former, 'cos the latter's pretty obvious.
Not that it matters much whether you can read them or not. Too many damn Mac files have dual forks which makes them hard to deal with on single fork systems.
The Fat Mac (512KE) could do it IIRC. I still have one of those around someplace running a *very* old system.
I'm iffy on the 512K. I don't remember if it had it or not.
And given that LaserWriters cost $7000 and Macs were only around $2500 or so, you HAD to have printer networks. They were going to introduce a central file server too, but it never worked and was killed off. Not many people remember the 'Macintosh Office' ad (also known as Lemmings) from the 1985 superbowl.
1985.
They couldn't even do it while Steve was in charge. Most of the important people on the Mac project (Steve came in late and contributed relatively little; he's a royal jerk) knew about the importance of networks. And even knew about ethernet. But when asked what network they were going to put on the Mac, Steve replied by handing them a floppy disk.
(and in fact, that the Mac had a 3.5" drive was an act of rebellion by the engineers...)
Well System 7 _did_ have Blue Meanies if that helps any.
I do hope that you'll find this debate sufficiently interesting to continue. It's been fun so far.
Anyway, you keep thinking that holding a copyright somehow implies ownership in the same way that it does for property.
It does not. Hell, creative works aren't even property (though they are likely to be embodied in some property, which clouds the issue)
Copyright very clearly means that someone has a particular ability to control a few related uses of a work. It is not ownership in any way. A quick definition of ownership would be: the use of something, the ability to dispose of it and to benefit from it.
So if Alice sells Bob a CD under existing copyright law Bob owns the CD. He has the use of it and the copyrighted material on it. He can benefit from it. The one limitation is that he cannot dispose of COPIES of it. Though he can dispose of the copy he originally bought.
This is why we call it COPYright. It's not just a random compound word. The types of rights you consider to be 'copyright' contain ever so much more than that.
But Alice has no natural right to restrict Bob's use of work she created. Whereas Bob has every natural right to use, dispose and benefit from it in any way. That is how things would operate naturally were it not for intervening laws.
Binding men with laws is not something to be entered into lightly, thus the form of laws should conform as closely as possible to natural law, only deviating in order to improve society. Humans cannot be thought of as shapeless in the sense of rights, able to fit into any unnatural set of laws.
Alice has not got a leg to stand on at this point, and neither do you. Yes, it's true that she *could* operate in a twisted market in which she gets Bob's first born in exchange for a minimal ability to use a CD. And in such a market, maybe Bob could refuse.
You willfully ignore the fact that capitalism is not self-regulating. That capitalism breaks severely as monopolies appear on the scene. (If Alice controls the only supply of water, is it acceptable for her to be draconian when selling it? The answer is no. Economic systems are subservient to the good of society. What is best for society is broad freedom, with only enough restrictions to keep the lion's share of freedom intact)
This is not to say I'm a communist. I think that it's a nice idea, but totally unworkable. Of course, I also think that you wouldn't know communism if it bit you on the ass. It's not what was practiced in the Soviet Union, believe me.
However, I'm not wedded to capitalism like you are. Just like fools who feel that human beings should be crammed into a set of laws for no better reason than that they are internally consistant, you feel that people should be shoved into capitalism even though capitalism is a tool of people, and not the other way around. One hopes that we will someday find something better, more suitable for people, and that it will be widely adopted.
Backing up a bit, you keep ignoring the fact that I accept copyrights. I do not accept the abuse of copyrights by copyright holders.
Copyrights DO NOT exist for Alice make money, though you keep telling yourself that despite all the evidence.
Copyrights DO NOT exist to artificially prevent the free use of works, which being intangible and freely copied are a resource of infinite quantity.
Copyrights DO exist to serve a particular public interest. This interest is to increase the number of goods which _are_ freely available. Your version of copyrights serves no public interest at all. You think that Alice exists in a vacuum. You think that she can create works without there being works to freely create upon.
Doesn't she, in your fantasy, owe money to the Phonecian invetors of A, L, I, C and E? Doesn't she owe money to the creators of music? Of the design of instruments? Looks like she does. After all, you've already claimed that it is unfounded for copyrights to expire.
Basically DfL, you're being penny wise and pound foolish. If copyrights are as absolute as you want it harms society, and the CREATION of works more than it would if the works were restricted as little as possible with very weak copyrights.
You said: "Wanton copying of recorded music MUST and WILL result in the production of less music. It is inevitable. Free music is essentially the same as saying 'almost no music.'"
I tell you that you might be right, although as an artist I am certain in my heart of hearts that you're sorely mistaken as to how many people like to create art for art's sake.
But you are WRONG when you use your argument to press for the expansion of copyright. The inability to stand on the shoulders of others results in EVEN LESS MUSIC than _may_ result if music is copied freely.
I'm sorry but the tactic of shouting "Communist" or "Marxist" at anybody that won't toe the corporate line simply will not wash. I believe in a free market economy with no artificial restrictions on duplication.
To which you (Dictator For Life) replied:
LOL! That's rich. How do you simultaneously hold beliefs that are in such manifest conflict?
You obviously weren't paying attention. I said that it is intrinsically Marxist to suggest that a producer of something does not own it ("From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"). This is the very heart and soul of the GNU philosophy. It is evil.
To which I reply:
You're wrong DfL. This is not to say that I agree with the the AC. A purely free market would be BAD. My favorite examples of free marketeers are the Mafia. They (try to at least) operate in a market which is unrestricted by law. Completely free markets require might making right. It's a lousy idea.
But... in such a free market, there are, after all NO copyright laws. It interferes with the market to say that Bob cannot copy Alice's work. Alice only has rights to her work insofar as she can keep it scarce HERSELF. She won't have a government helping to keep it artificially scarce, as is the case with copyrights. If Bob can copy Alice's work, he can. It's not going to have significant value for him though. Charlie can copy Bob's copy, etc.
This is not Marxist. This is anarchy. They're about as diametrically opposed to each other as can be.
And it illustrates that only a fool would place his faith in unregulated capitalism. Usually the same type of fool that would place his faith in communism or socialism. NONE of these systems work alone. What makes them work is the constant effort by people to keep them working in a fashion that most people can accept.
But MY priorities lie where yours ought to; having a system that is acceptable. I care nothing for idiotic economic ideologies like yours or the AC's when they make it impossible for people to thrive. You sir, believe in laws that only work one way. (in favor of the owner of a thing, and never in favor of the user. You very much deliberately ignore the tendancy of capitalism to choke on monopolies as illustrated again and again throughout history) The AC believes in no laws at all. I think you're both deluded.
Does this mean that people have a right to free content? Yes, BUT only insofar as they do not willingly conceed that right (which is a facet of freedom of speech - the freedom to say what another has also said) for some greater benefit.
In the real world, a place you don't seem to have become familiar with, though I suggest you at least drop by and take a look, people are only willing to give up their God-given right to copy other people's creative content without taking that content away from the creator, in exchange for the encouragement of more works to be created, and the expectation that those works will become free for all to use.
This is the same reasoning that is used that permits people the freedom to swing their fist, but not the freedom to hit someone. It is because they exchange that freedom in order to not be hit themselves.
No he's not. You're not allowed to use work that someone else has copyrighted in certain ways - basially those revolving around distributing copies of that work (such as by creating a derivative work, or simply exercising your freedom of speech to duplicate the work entirely)
Patents are simply more restrictive on how you can't use them. (at all)
I'll just respond to your post in order. It worked for you, and it's common enough practice around here. I do very much look forward to seeing your response.
- And-Now-It's-Ours knows (I'm not knocking it, just saying) posession is 9/10ths of the law. Thus do we have squatter's rights as well.
;).
FIRST
Ah the semantic point about theft.
Theft, although IANAL, as far as I have been able to determine the legal definition of theft has to do with deprevation of property. Or theft of services (typ. receiving some service and not paying for it)
Copyright infringement appears to be seperate. If you have something hard to indicate otherwise I'd like to see it. It never hurts to learn more.
At any rate, this means that talking to a lawyer about the law for an hour and not paying is theft of a service. Talking to a lawyer about the Red Sox for an hour is not, even if he could be billing someone else for that time. Copying the novel he wrote in his spare time but leaving his copy instact is not theft, it is copyright infringement. It is clearly not theft in the material sense. Nor is it theft of a service - a book is not a service. This gets sticky in the case of descrambling cable tv transmissions which are technically considered to be a service, but even this is a very difficult argument to work with. The last time I asked about it in a legal forum the people who replied felt that it's not really a service. (I don't have a problem with non-private broadcasts being decrypted, though the govt. does. I refrain from decrypting them, however.)
As I said, I could be wrong. But some poking around in my spare time is what has led me to this conclusion. Show me something better and I'll be glad to take a good look at it.
SECOND
Well I have not yet heard you explicitly say what you think about copyright then.
I had been interpreting you pretty accurately I think. Given your argument, I see no reason to reassess my interpretation yet. When you clearly tell me what you think (still waiting) I just might have to.
Here's what you say: "...the owner of a thing has the right to declare the terms under which he will part with it."
Now, I guess I'm just kind of confused here. From your argument, I cannot answer the following question: If Alice makes a CD, and sells the CD to Bob, who owns the CD, Alice or Bob?
Let me then consider the possibilities. I can see three.
1) Alice sells Bob the CD, no strings attached.
This is very generous of Alice. In the real world it would mean that she has granted Bob the same rights that she has as the copyright holder including the right to further grant others copyright power. Or the music has no copyright at all, and is in the public domain.
Bob owns the CD.
2)Alice sells Bob the CD. But she does not transfer her copyright. There's *ONE* string attached.
This is what really happens when people buy music. I don't have a problem with it generally, though there are certainly some fine points to be hashed out. Bob can do anything he wants with the CD. Listen to it, copy it, burn it. But he may not give a copy of the music on the CD to some third party. Alice retains that right, and only that right. Thus Bob may resell it. Bob is able to exert nearly complete control over the CD and can be justifiably said to own it.
Bob owns the CD, but there's one thing he can't do with it.
3)Alice sells Bob the CD. There are *MANY* strings attached.
Here is what I think you argue for. Alice may require that for Bob to buy the CD he must never resell it, must be the only one who listens to it, must not copy it, etc.
ALICE owns the CD. She didn't part with it at all. She still retains the rights to utilize it in any way she wants.
Now then, if I read you correctly, you argue that Alice has all rights over something she creates. I dispute this. I believe that this is a Bad Idea and that it is wholly unrealistic. And, if you think about this for a bit, you'll find that your argument defeats itself because it is based too closely on traditional property rights. (which is a horse of a different color)
By your argument, if Alice plays the music which she holds the copyright to, and Bob overhears it, Alice owns Bob's memory of her song. It is, after all a copy. Maybe even a perfect copy - Bob's got a good memory.
Firstly, I have difficulty believing that anyone thinks that it is a good idea for people to even attempt to exert property rights over the contents of your mind. Yet you argue this. (unless you want to backtrack to transaction interpretation #2)
Secondly, it is (thank God) impossible for this to actually occur. Alice may wish desperately for control over Bob's memory - especially as he will never 'buy' Alice's CD. He'll merely remember it to himself. But she cannot control the contents of Bob's mind. Which brings us to
Thirdly
Alice's rights over her music have been, as you say, PROPERTY RIGHTS. Your version of copyright has Alice able to make any restriction she pleases on the use of her music, the media one version is contained within, etc.
But, as any good American-Who-Took-Land-From-The-Indians-Farmed-It
Bob has a copy of Alice's music. Alice cannot exert control over it. Thus the property rights over the music now split. Alice still retains ownership of whatever music she has. However, property rights being the fickle things they are, go to whomever controls the property. Bob now controls a copy of the property. This might not be the case if Alice *could* control Bob's mind, but unless she's got friends in the CIA Mind Control Satellite Department you must surely realize that's impossible.
Because your version of copyright is, as far as I can determine by what you're actually saying, just property rights. REAL copyrights, the kind that learned people put some thought into (even going so far as to debate whether or not copyrights and even property rights are natural at all) have nothing to do with who exerts any control over the COPIES.
It's who gets to distribute copies. By clearly limiting itself to just the ONE small restriction, and avoiding property rights that are useful for tangible objects and just tangible objects copyright manages to work out reasonably okay.
Sure there are property rights that typically go along with copyrighted material. Taking a book without paying is theft. You deprive them of the book. (not the value of the book, the book) Copying a book is not theft - it is copyright infringement, because you are distributing a copy to yourself. Only the copyright holder can make copies to distribute to people without copies. (though any schmuck can distribute copies they didn't make, or copy without distributing)
THIRD
I bet you forgot about that. Now the economic bit of the argument. You fail to make a distinction between being paid for some creative work and holding the copyright on it.
Gribnak the Younger probably isn't going to be creating much music. (aside from random tunes to hum, etc.) And you're right, it's because he'd rather have potatoes (which kind of means he lives in the Americas, as potatoes hadn't been brought to Europe in the 14th century
But let us suppose that Lord Shellac learns of the beauty of Gribnaks' random humming. HE CAN STILL PAY GRIBNAK TO HUM, EVEN THOUGH GRIBNAK HOLDS NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO WHAT HE HUMS.
That is, Gribnak may hum. Nothing stops Lord Shellac (who is law-abiding) from humming the same tune, mimicing it perfectly, until the end of his days. But it was Gribnak who is the artist, and it was Gribnak who created the tune in the first place.
Paying for creative works in pre-copyright days was *different* from how it is now. Now copyrighted material is treated like property. Largely because it's still mostly transferred on various mediums which are property. The Napster debate largely has to do with the transferral of content without a medium also being transferred.
Pre-copyright payment was not for a work as though it was a good. It was for the SERVICE of CREATING the work. Materials might be seperate. They might be factored into the service cost.
(Hire a lawyer - service - and you pay for a lot of legal pads. Hire a detective and you pay for a service, and expenses are seperate. You pay for them too. No significant difference in the end.)
But Lord Shellac is paying Gribnak to hum for him. He might even pay Gribnak to write him a book on his humming technique. Nothing would stop Gribnak from selling his book to other people.
This is more or less how musicians really did support themselves. Sure, any jerk could play your music. But fewer jerks could play it as well as you could. You might write songs for other people as well.
Quality is still a factor today. You don't buy records from Jerk, because that band sucks. So that has remained the same, and can be ignored from arguments about people with or without copyright.
Was this a billion dollar industry? No. In fact there WERE NO INDUSTRIES AT ALL YET.
FOURTH
Okay - I will imagine that there are relatively few people who give art away. (though as an artist myself, I doubt this. I've personally seen many people who, if able to live by some other means, would happily give away their work for the enjoyment of others. This is no fluke. Necessity forces them into it; not will.)
This does not invalidate the above arguments. There are still people who give things away for free. It IS an incentive for creating works without copyrights. Just as the service model functions without copyrights.
FIFTH
And even more works are likely to be created with very loose copyrights - derivative works. Copyrights do not have to be extremely far-reaching in order to promote the creation of works. (which is, as we already covered, more important, in the wording of the fundemental clause that permits copyrights in the US, than profits)
SIXTH
Did you stop reading my post halfway through? I did explicitly say "...I can see how copyrights can be a useful incentive."
Do you dispute that copyrights which grant the creator less control over their work, and which are intended to create additional public domain works - as well as rapidly enter copyrighted works into the public domain - would result in the creation of fewer works?
The reform proposal is, IMHO the most interesting bit. It relies on the fact that copyrights do not exist for mere profit, but for artistic and scientific growth, but that's not disputable in the context of US copyright law anyway.
Anyway, I look forward to your response.
Heh. If Moses tried to re-do the first 9 plagues (let's not even get into the 10th), I suspect he'd be tied up in Environmental Impact Statements and town council meetings for decades.
It's not theft unless you deprive the original posessor of his copy. A fine point, but an important one.
Additionally, artists do not have much control over their works as it is. Copyrights give them authority over some types of distribution of copies of their works. Copyrights (always a vague notion anyway) tend to lose out to Real Property rights a lot. Thus the first sale doctrine, whereby artists recieve no compensation or control over authorized copies of their works after they themselves sell copies. This is presently under attack by copyright holders.
Additionally there are quite a few fair use exceptions to copyright infringements in current law. (though they're under attack as well) These include personal backups, time shifting, space shifting, format shifting, educational usages, quoting, parody, etc.
By YOUR argument, you pretty clearly believe that copyrights are total, absolute and permanent. Thus in your little fantasy world, if copyright holder Foo sells a CD they are not only within their rights, but acting morally by:
*Prohibiting people from reselling copies of the CD
*Playing the CD in unapproved players
*Quoting the lyrics, or the music
*Referring in any way without authorization to the contents of the CD (e.g. track listings)
*Parodying the CD because you think it's funny (so much for Wierd Al)
*Thinking about the music without authorization (after all, his memory of the song is a copy, and an illegal one at that)
Now having demonstrated that your argument goes _way_ too far and crashes and burns, like the coyote running off the edge of a cliff, let's look at another part of your comment.
What incentive would artists have for producing works without copyrights?
Gee, let's think. When were the first copyright laws enacted? IIRC the mid-18th century. Now, were there any creative works produced before the creation of copyright laws? Why, YES, there WERE.
In fact people *HAD* to be even more creative than they are now, because they could not depend on a permanent revenue stream for some work. Artists looking for money got whatever they could from the first sale. This could be anything from the performance of a play (wherin you could keep making money until your actors left, or other actors saw it enough to memorize the lines; there are some very funny Shakespeare plays I've read where the lines were dictated - incorrectly - by some generic actor) to a work that had been commissioned by a patron.
However, many other artists created stuff because they wanted to. While you might not believe it there are no small number of people in this world who create potentially valuable pieces of art and give them away because they want to. To them the only value is the beauty of the piece. It has no monetary value to such a person.
Additionally, not only were original works being created for millenia before copyrights were even thought up, but the lack of copyrights encouraged the creation of new works. By now your brain is working overtime to figure this one out. Basically, there are these things which we now call Derivative Works. Basically you create a work which is closely based on someone else's work.
This can be creative. I've seen it. Hell, I've done it. Want an example? Let us consider the fairy tale of the Little Mermaid. The earliest version I know of was written by Hans Christian Andersen. Later a statue was placed in Copenhagen (IIRC) of the mermaid. This is a derivative work. Although Andersen likely never made any statues himself, the very famous Little Mermaid statue is clearly based on his story. Moving forwards to the late 80's, the Walt Disney company made an animated musical based on this story. Although they changed quite a few elements (and made it a damn lot more cheerful - the original is not that nice) it is clearly a derivative work. The core of the movie was not original; it was based on someone else's story.
By YOUR argument, which may now be trying to crawl, accordian-like out of the crater it made at the bottom of the canyon, Disney, and the sculptor of the statue have both stolen from Andersen. And since Andersen has total control over his work, he could will it to his heirs forever. Thus no small number of descendants of Andersen have been ROBBED of the millions upon millions of dollars that their fairy tale is worth.
Even though we have just seen proof that by permitting derivative works MORE creative art has been made. If Andersen et al retained control of the story there would in fact be LESS work. The lack of copyrights can be shown to be conductive to the creation of art.
And SLAM - a giant boulder lands on your argument, squashing it flat.
To recap:
1)You argue that creators have complete, perpetual rights over their work
2)You argue that unauthorized copying is theft
3)It's not theft
4)The world would suffer greatly if creators had complete, perpetual rights over their work; it's good they don't.
5)Throughout most of history creators have had virtually no control over their work
6)This did not stop things from being created
7)By permitting unauthorized use of works many more works will be created
8)Your argument is full of beans
Now, I will say that I can see how copyrights can be a useful incentive. But they are not the POINT, they are an incentive. The POINT is to have as many works as possible enter the public domain, whereupon anyone under the sun can use them, especially in the creation of MORE works.
You will note of course that the relevant language in the Constitution says IIRC "In order to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences..."
It does NOT say "In order for authors to make money..." Authors making money is just a useful side-effect.
Thus I propose:
*Copyrights must be registered with the US Copyright Office in order to exist. A minimal fee to cover the costs of registration (paying the clerks, etc.) is required.
*In the case of software, a copy of the working source code (which will remain confidential while the work is copyrighted) must be given to the Library of Congress, just as they already require a copy of the work you want to register. Similar requirements could exist in other contexts in which much of the value of the work in the public domain originates in from a different form of the work.
*Copyrights last for 10 years, starting at the time when the Copyright Office approves the copyright. Works are NOT copyrighted prior to this.
*By copyrighting your work under these rules, you never get to copyright them under rules created later on. (so there are no retroactive copyright extensions)
*They may be extended ONCE for another 5 years, provided that (off the top of my head) 2.5% of the gross profit of the work over the entire fifteen years be paid to the Copyright Office.
*The fee for the extension goes to the NFA, with the requirement that works of art or literature, etc. created with that money immediately enter the public domain.
At any rate, that's what I'd like to see. If you really want a copyright, then you need to promote the existance of works that you are relying upon. You don't get one to cover your ass; save your pennies for things that are worth it. (rather like patents, which are non-trivial to acquire)
And of course, it promotes the creation of more works b/c authors can't coast on a few popular works for their lives. And they do still have the cachet of their name and the newness of their works. (e.g. you can get a Stephen King novel for $5 now, or wait 15 years and get it for free. As long as he keeps writing well he'll keep making money. Many derivative works will be made. Everyone wins.)
I'm sure that if the Allies could have bombed Germany with 'vettes they would have ;)
(it would certainly _look_ neat)
Yeah - I had a copy of the original Might and Magic. HUGE frickin game. Eventually got stuck due to, I believe, a corrupted disk. (Ruby whistle my ass!)
Would love to play that some more....
Make the cost a percentage of the gross profits (there's never any net). Then send that money to the NFA with the requirement that the art created with the funds is immediately placed in the public domain.
$100 per item per 5 years is nothing to a lot of big businesses, but could be to a prolific but poor author.
Some people have no other means of ripping CDs. Why shouldn't you be able to have someone else do it provided that you proved to them that you had a legal copy of the CD? It's merely a fine point in the law. But there's no particular moral argument to restricting it. OTOH there is a very good moral argument towards permitting it.
Unethical behavior is not enough to justify the sorts of draconian attacks on the freedom of speech and privacy rights that have been appearing lately. The members of the RIAA are unethical as all hell, but you're not bitching about them.
I think that you mean the Edge, and at any rate IIRC I've also heard that he was just being friendly to maintain U2's image, but that they really don't like Negativland at all.
And do you know how much work goes into getting a wiretap? While they're used way too much these days (blame it on the War on Some Drugs) and the police constantly want to expand their wiretapping ability it is still not trivial.
Oddly enough, keeping copyright holders from engaging in the abuse/frivolous use of the powers in the proposal is not mentioned.
Acts which are hostile to freedom of speech - such as liberally granting injunctions preventing it - are suggested in the paper. This is usually seen as an extreme step by the courts. Free speech is generally considered to be more important than copyrights, at least until the case has been decided.
Payphones?
Sigh.
This is getting really old.
If you look at the 2nd amendment you will see TWO clauses, not one.
The first is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
And the second is: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now. Look closely. It did not say "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state shall not be infringed." Nor did it say "...the right of well-regulated militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A good interpretation of the meaning would, however, be: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and because of this the states rely on the availability of well-regulated militias."
Remember that during the Revolutionary War, many of the military forces belonged to the STATES, not the Continental Congress. Similarly, while there was a federal military, the states still relied on their ability to muster troops internally (which is why you used to have things like the 11th Massachusetts Infantry. Around WWI, IIRC, units became mostly/entirely mixed wrt place of origin)
Of course, what 2nd amendment debate would be complete without mentioning that in 18th century English, 'Well-Regulated' would basically mean in modern English 'Competent.' A militia that didn't know how to shoot is not all that necessary to the security of a free state. One that can, is. No significant command structure is needed, and none is implied.
And lastly, bear in mind that these guys had just finished fighting a WAR in which they REBELLED against the government. They had no idea at the time that the Constitution would last one day, much less 200+ years. If (and this is still a possibility today) the US government loses it's legitimacy, the people are justified in overthrowing it. Hell, it's a moral imperative. People are supposed to be free.
If the US is threatened by tyrannical forces from within or without, then it's a damn good thing that you'll have firearms to use to ensure your liberties. Placing them in the hands of a fallible government and trusting that they will never become corrupt nor be invaded is grossly irresponsible.
But the reason that the Swiss are often held up as examples is because they are responsible and yet still heavily-armed. It's not all that common for people to go on shooting rampages there.
If there were a way to assure responsibility in the US that didn't put the government or some other fallible, controllable entity, I'd probably go for it. But the way that preserves freedom has it's own dangers. That's the price you pay to be free.
Last I heard laws prohibiting miscegenation (also known as 'amalgamation' if you start delving into history here) were around in the southeastern US since the late 1600's.
And you know, you probably don't pass laws until something happens.... I doubt that it was based on morality though. Even the morality of the people there at the time.
This having been said, I think that there are absolute as well as relative morals. But the absolutes are the more important of the two. I just wish more people would live up to 'em.
I'm sorry - I just don't see how copying information is stealing.
/.) take a look at the section on copyrights (I,8,8) in the Constitution.
/. instead ;)
If Bob copies Alice's document, Alice still has a copy. Alice never, ever had a god-given right to the information within her document. That's a nonsensical argument; go to some place with no copyright laws and you will find that the natural state of things is that you can copy information.
The ability to copy information is an important application of the freedom of speech, which is a god-given right, as it happens. You do not have to pay the long-lost coiner of the word 'the' every time you speak or write it. You do not need his permission. Just imagine if copyright laws suddenly extended into people's brains. I'm sure that moneyed copyright-holders would like this. But people who morally defend copyrights would have to insist upon it.
Copyrights are totally artifical constructs. They are not rights in the way that free speech, or the right to bear arms, or the right not to bear witness against yourself are. Assuming that you're an American (safe assumption on
It pretty clearly is *not* directly intended to give authors control over their content. Rather, it is intended to promote the useful arts and sciences. We have copyrights, ironically enough, because it is supposed to get more content into the public domain. Information is MOST useful when anyone can use it. How many adaptations of Shakespeare are there? Now how many adaptations of Mickey Mouse? (probably just as popular)
What's unfortunate lately is that many copyright holders have managed to get laws which attempt to make an end-run around the constitution by perpetually extending the duration of copyrights. Virtually nothing has entered the public domain for quite a while now. Nor is anything likely to for decades.
Personally, I can accept a short-duration copyright. Perhaps 5 years, with a 5 year extension, the cost of which (a percentage of the overall gross?) would go to the NEA for creating public domain works.
The number of overall works would probably skyrocket. Authors would be forced to be more prolific. No longer could an author coast on a single success. Additionally, we'd see more derivative works. This isn't a bad thing; *many* works you think are original are derivative. And many derivative works are better than the originals, but rely on pre-established characters or backstory. (think about how many works with genies in them owe something to 1001 Arabian Nights)
I think that it's still likely that a lot of work would be created if there were no copyright at all, as has been the case throughout much of history (getting back to Shakespeare, his plays were performed by companies other than his own, and he didn't see a penny. But then he never had an original plot in his life, and routinely readapted earlier plays, poems, stories, etc.)
Anyway, I'd like to see what you think, with all this in mind. Good luck on your paper - I've been there (and posting on