"This is not to say that media piracy is moral or correct, but we're talking about 13-year-olds downloading the latest Usher song, not hardened criminals."...after they are convicted felons, when they do get out of jail, many of them will lose the right to vote to change the law that has abused them. It is quite brilliant.
This is one of the big problems I have with these sorts of laws. You seem to face a smaller penalty for going into a store and actually stealing the CDs or DVDs.
Is that what we really want to teach people to do?
"Personally I believe that this is a case of only the lawless need fear the law."
If only it were like this in general.
In my country, if you go to a store and buy a dvd and take it home and discover it is a knock off, you can supposeldy face jail time and a $50,000.00 fine for posession of that one disk. Are you sure it is not that way in your country?
Let the Fortune 1000 and world governments switch to linux and a free office suite. Let them take one half of their it budget for licenses not needed anymore and buy the time of some polishers.
"Ask the customers what they want, then design the product! Actually listen to your customers when they ask for features!"
Yes, but what are you going to do when your customers will not tell you because they don't want you freeloading off of their "intellectual property" - come up with your own ideas and see if I want them. Or, you can pay me for mine and give me a percentage of the pie. Now that's capitalism boys. Or is it?
"Corporations are great at throwing money at getting great salesmen, but they're not always so good at getting good leaders, programmers, designers, etc."
You may have hit on something very powerful:
Salesmen, you need them, but they cause you big problems. (To be fair, and are often a big part in paying your salary if you have one.)
Well, with Free Software, our reliance on salesmen goes way down.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but with Free Software can't a user put an ad out for a programmer to implement the feature they want? So what if the original programmer tells them to write it themselves, they don't have to, they can pay someone to do it for them. Contrast with non-Free Software.
If you do this right, when you are done you and possibly the community own this innovation. Contrast with non-Free Software.
Company owns product. Product lacks features. User suggests feature to implement. Company implements. Company owns users innovation and sells it to the user.
The new way:
Community owns product. Community member implements feature or suggests feature to implement and community implements feature. Community owns innovation and members benefit from it.
That is in very simplified terms. But do you see how the old way might lack some incentive for a user to give his innovative ideas to the company only to have them own them and sell them back to him?
There is no social contract, it is a numbers game. People put ads on billboards, if I choose to keep my eyes on the road instead of looking at their ads, that violates some sort of social contract? (Let's assume I am on a paid roadway and the billboards are owned by the same company that owns the road.)
Do you read all of the ads in the newspaper? Do you think everyone does? No social contract violated if you don't even though the ads keep the cost of the paper down.
The advertisers put out ads and get a certain bump in sales (at least that is what they shoot for). If the profit on the extra sales exceeds the cost of the ads, they keep going.
They pay their money for the opportunity to reach us and sell to us, not for the guaranty to do so.
Let them take down their content, let them go paid subscription, let them have people sign agreements to watch the ads.
I will continue to go to the bathroom during commercials, go to the kitchen, talk to friends, channel surf where the button gets pressed when the commercial starts. No contracts made and none broken despite what they wish. I will continue to do the equivalent with all forms of media and advertising as it suits me.
Again, businessmen have an opportunity to make a profit, not a guaranty of a profit. We don't owe them a profit, they must earn it.
Give a discount when purchasing replacements for damaged media?
Use a POD service (like lulu.com ?) and keep a complete catalogue available for purchase at all times. Any work not available in POD catalogue is free to copy.
Pledge never to use the criminal part of the law for private individuals.
for some copyrighted material and feel free to share it via p2p. Not only no theft involved, no crime whatsoever. Just abide by the license.
Let's reword it a little better for you shall we?
"Illegal copying of copyrighted material _is_ theft."
Even with this better wording, no it is not, it is copyright violation, however, for the sake of arguement, I will grant that it is theft if you will grant that what the big record companies do/have done is rape, both of the artists with their over the top contracts, and of the fans with the price fixing that is alledged to have gone on in the past. If so, would you really have that big an issue in the real world if a person that was raped chose to then steal something from the person that raped them? I don't mean to condone theft (or copyright violations for that matter) but it would be interesting to hear your answer.
"No. You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be. That's what the law is for. It's a form of unvigilante unjustice that's just as bogus as vigilante justice, and is what seperates civilisation from anarchy."
You ignore one of the chief reasons why the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is important.
If they pass a law making breathing without a permit illegal, are you going to think the same way?
"You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be."
I do in many way agree with this though. The government should not leave any laws on the books that are not enforced fairly, regularly, and evenly across the board. I say this because people will decide for themselves and I think it tends to reduce their respect for all law and get them in the habit of choosing for themselves in all cases, even for laws which really should be there. (I hope you can get my meaning from that.)
Just because what you are saying concerning the problems caused by the lack of enforcement of current law is true, that doesn't mean that there is not something wrong with the current law as well. There is. Certain things that should not be legally patentable, are. However, will it help if the law gets fixed if there is still improper enforcement?
"The point here is that citizenship and where you work don't need to be the same. So why shouldn't you pay NYC taxes for work in NYC?"
I think the thinking goes something like this:
In a democracy, if you don't like something, the answer given to you is vote for a change then. Well, if the taxes are set up in an unfair or some other wrong manner, you can't vote to fix the situation if you can't vote.
"Well, I have the standard issues with the concept of copyright violation as "stealing," but I don't have any innate problem with the idea of copyright violators being civilly prosecuted for such violations of civil rights.
I do have some problems with fairly recent changes to the law and its perception (such as civil rights violations as criminal theft of property) which broadens what is protected, for how long it is protected, what may be done to protect it, criminalizes violations and makes abhorent means available to prosecute violations."
Hear! Hear!
Isn't this now a federal crime? If convicted, aren't you now a felon? Will you lose your right to vote? If so, not only will you get burned by a crazy law, but when you get done, you will no longer have the right to vote and try to change things. That's a cool plan, right?
"They should probably be punished the way that speeders are.
Instead, this "crime" of copyright "theft" is treated almost like a capital crime."
Not even speeders. Go back to it being a civil issue and to having to prove damages.
That will remove a lot of opposition.
Bring the copyright durations in check. (Reduce them drastically.)
That will remove a lot more oppossition.
When you run ads (or any other efforts) trying to "educate" the public on copyright issues, tell the truth and tell both sides. Explain to them whay copying they do is considered legal for once will you?
That will remove even more opposition.
Keep you whole catalog (all works for which you own the copyrights) available to the public at or below current mass market prices for the current hits. This could easily be done via a POD (publish on demand) company.
Still more oppostion gone.
Stop playing these region games. Or at least find a way to have them stop shafting the people of the various regions. Honestly, if there is no legal means for people in a country to buy your content, STOP complaining when they copy it without your permission. (You won't give it!) Along with this, take language issues into account.
Opposition waning further.
Get the drift?
Finally, stop opposing others who are creating and giving away their works to others who are willing to share similarly.
"I should be the only person allowed to decide who gets to copy the music I've made (=duplicat the results of my work)."
Why exactly? There are plenty of other people who produce things from their intellect the way you produce music from your intellect who are offered no protection for their creations.
If you answer is because the law says so, you then need to tell us why the law "should" say so.
"And it so happens that I choose to only allow those who pay me for the work that I've put into it to do so. By stating that I should now allow anyone to make copies you are taking away my right."
Let's imagine that all copyright law was abolished tomorrow.
What will you do? You could perhaps sign a contract with people you hand over your work to specifying the terms of the deal you both agree to. So, you will now not have published your work and the world will not have rights to it.
Some may be totally against copyrights (or at least some think they are and some are) but I figure most who are against the current state of affairs are just that. They would be happy to support a more sane state of affairs.
Many people (many of them ordinary people) around the world are working hard to bring about a change for the better. Many are giving of their time, many of their money.
"Let's just say that the IP gravy train has ended."
He may be right. (I don't like the "IP" meme however.) He may not be. I would like to see the current state of affairs drastically changed. However, I would also like to see it become easier for the single artist/practioner to make a comfortable living doing what they love.
I have little faith that either of these will happen while the current big boys have their way.
"so the producers and record company makes $14-$19 per sale."
Perhaps if they are selling direct, but things do not play out that way in the retail world.
Now, I am not happy with how things stand, but on the whole, we will be better off getting the facts right. (I think we can be fairly certain they will not.)
And for a little conspiricy theory...
Since you posted as AC, how do we know you are not from the ??AA and club and posting things as your opponents that you can then argue against?
all the best,
drew
Files that you can legally put on most (perhaps all) p2p networks:
"They didnt say 90% of file transmitted were copyrighted and transmitted illegaly just that they were copyrighted!"
So, if they are telling the truth, (and the quote acurrately reflects what they said) then we now know that 10% of the files transmitted are in the public domain.
So, we would still need to determine what percentage of the copyrighted files were legal transfers and what percentage resulted in copyright violations. Right?
all the best,
drew
Hey, you can find some of my copyrighted files to trade legally over the p2p networks here:
Slashdot Mirror
"This is not to say that media piracy is moral or correct, but we're talking about 13-year-olds downloading the latest Usher song, not hardened criminals." ...after they are convicted felons, when they do get out of jail, many of them will lose the right to vote to change the law that has abused them. It is quite brilliant.
all the best,
drew
" Rapists can get less time than this..."
This is one of the big problems I have with these sorts of laws. You seem to face a smaller penalty for going into a store and actually stealing the CDs or DVDs.
Is that what we really want to teach people to do?
all the best,
drew
"Personally I believe that this is a case of only the lawless need fear the law."
If only it were like this in general.
In my country, if you go to a store and buy a dvd and take it home and discover it is a knock off, you can supposeldy face jail time and a $50,000.00 fine for posession of that one disk. Are you sure it is not that way in your country?
all the best,
drew
Let the Fortune 1000 and world governments switch to linux and a free office suite. Let them take one half of their it budget for licenses not needed anymore and buy the time of some polishers.
all the best,
drew
"Ask the customers what they want, then design the product! Actually listen to your customers when they ask for features!"
Yes, but what are you going to do when your customers will not tell you because they don't want you freeloading off of their "intellectual property" - come up with your own ideas and see if I want them. Or, you can pay me for mine and give me a percentage of the pie. Now that's capitalism boys. Or is it?
all the best,
drew
"Corporations are great at throwing money at getting great salesmen, but they're not always so good at getting good leaders, programmers, designers, etc."
You may have hit on something very powerful:
Salesmen, you need them, but they cause you big problems. (To be fair, and are often a big part in paying your salary if you have one.)
Well, with Free Software, our reliance on salesmen goes way down.
all the best,
drew
Forgive me if I am wrong, but with Free Software can't a user put an ad out for a programmer to implement the feature they want? So what if the original programmer tells them to write it themselves, they don't have to, they can pay someone to do it for them. Contrast with non-Free Software.
If you do this right, when you are done you and possibly the community own this innovation. Contrast with non-Free Software.
all the best,
drew
One thought to ponder:
The old way:
Company owns product. Product lacks features. User suggests feature to implement. Company implements. Company owns users innovation and sells it to the user.
The new way:
Community owns product. Community member implements feature or suggests feature to implement and community implements feature. Community owns innovation and members benefit from it.
That is in very simplified terms. But do you see how the old way might lack some incentive for a user to give his innovative ideas to the company only to have them own them and sell them back to him?
all the best,
drew
"Unless you have a problem with clean room reverse engineering"
If he's got a problem with reverse engineering, he must be buying all of his PCs from IBM right? I mean, wasn't the BIOS reverse engineered?
http://www.macintouch.com/pchistory.html
http://www.macintouch.com/pchistory.html
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm
Links from a quick google sesssion.
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/
There is no social contract, it is a numbers game. People put ads on billboards, if I choose to keep my eyes on the road instead of looking at their ads, that violates some sort of social contract? (Let's assume I am on a paid roadway and the billboards are owned by the same company that owns the road.)
Do you read all of the ads in the newspaper? Do you think everyone does? No social contract violated if you don't even though the ads keep the cost of the paper down.
The advertisers put out ads and get a certain bump in sales (at least that is what they shoot for). If the profit on the extra sales exceeds the cost of the ads, they keep going.
They pay their money for the opportunity to reach us and sell to us, not for the guaranty to do so.
Let them take down their content, let them go paid subscription, let them have people sign agreements to watch the ads.
I will continue to go to the bathroom during commercials, go to the kitchen, talk to friends, channel surf where the button gets pressed when the commercial starts. No contracts made and none broken despite what they wish. I will continue to do the equivalent with all forms of media and advertising as it suits me.
Again, businessmen have an opportunity to make a profit, not a guaranty of a profit. We don't owe them a profit, they must earn it.
all the best,
drew
MOD parent up.
How in the world could this have been modded a troll?
Honestly, if they want to go around having other industries sign a code of conduct, they should be willing to sign one themselves.
all the best,
drew
As a matter of fact, should we collect a link to all the similar posts on this topic that are not in the same thread?
Don't give them more ideas...
all the best,
drew
Yes, the AC post was mine...
d =12212629
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=145816&ci
How about:
Give a discount when purchasing replacements for damaged media?
Use a POD service (like lulu.com ?) and keep a complete catalogue available for purchase at all times. Any work not available in POD catalogue is free to copy.
Pledge never to use the criminal part of the law for private individuals.
Let the artists own their copyrights. (C) & (P)
More?
all the best,
drew
"p2p sharing of copyrighted material _is_ theft."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
It is not, go here:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
for some copyrighted material and feel free to share it via p2p. Not only no theft involved, no crime whatsoever. Just abide by the license.
Let's reword it a little better for you shall we?
"Illegal copying of copyrighted material _is_ theft."
Even with this better wording, no it is not, it is copyright violation, however, for the sake of arguement, I will grant that it is theft if you will grant that what the big record companies do/have done is rape, both of the artists with their over the top contracts, and of the fans with the price fixing that is alledged to have gone on in the past. If so, would you really have that big an issue in the real world if a person that was raped chose to then steal something from the person that raped them? I don't mean to condone theft (or copyright violations for that matter) but it would be interesting to hear your answer.
all the best,
drew
Here is one more link:
http://www.seark.net/~jlove/jury_null.htm
drew
Can anyone comment on the accuracy of these links?
"how are you supposed to abide by the law if that law is determined at trial-time?"
You abide by the law on the books, it can't go any worse for you at trial time.
They can only act towards mercy though and supposedly, they don't set precedent, their decisions apply only to the case at hand.
They can't convict on a charge not brought or give a stiffer penalty than the law provides.
It is interesting. I am reading more now but have to run out for a bit. I will include a few more links when I return.
all the best,
drew
"No. You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be. That's what the law is for. It's a form of unvigilante unjustice that's just as bogus as vigilante justice, and is what seperates civilisation from anarchy."
s hment.html s hment.html#death i cts.html#partialverdicts / geweb/PUBLICEX.htm J uryNullification.html
You ignore one of the chief reasons why the right to a trial by a jury of your peers is important.
You might want to read these links:
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/puni
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/puni
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/verd
http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434
http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07
Just from a quick google session.
If they pass a law making breathing without a permit illegal, are you going to think the same way?
"You can't decide for yourself what should and shouldn't be a crime, and ignore the ones you think shouldn't be."
I do in many way agree with this though. The government should not leave any laws on the books that are not enforced fairly, regularly, and evenly across the board. I say this because people will decide for themselves and I think it tends to reduce their respect for all law and get them in the habit of choosing for themselves in all cases, even for laws which really should be there. (I hope you can get my meaning from that.)
all the best,
drew
Just because what you are saying concerning the problems caused by the lack of enforcement of current law is true, that doesn't mean that there is not something wrong with the current law as well. There is. Certain things that should not be legally patentable, are. However, will it help if the law gets fixed if there is still improper enforcement?
all the best,
drew
"The point here is that citizenship and where you work don't need to be the same. So why shouldn't you pay NYC taxes for work in NYC?"
I think the thinking goes something like this:
In a democracy, if you don't like something, the answer given to you is vote for a change then. Well, if the taxes are set up in an unfair or some other wrong manner, you can't vote to fix the situation if you can't vote.
all the best,
drew
"Well, I have the standard issues with the concept of copyright violation as "stealing," but I don't have any innate problem with the idea of copyright violators being civilly prosecuted for such violations of civil rights.
I do have some problems with fairly recent changes to the law and its perception (such as civil rights violations as criminal theft of property) which broadens what is protected, for how long it is protected, what may be done to protect it, criminalizes violations and makes abhorent means available to prosecute violations."
Hear! Hear!
Isn't this now a federal crime? If convicted, aren't you now a felon? Will you lose your right to vote? If so, not only will you get burned by a crazy law, but when you get done, you will no longer have the right to vote and try to change things. That's a cool plan, right?
all the best,
drew
"They should probably be punished the way that speeders are.
Instead, this "crime" of copyright "theft" is treated almost like a capital crime."
Not even speeders. Go back to it being a civil issue and to having to prove damages.
That will remove a lot of opposition.
Bring the copyright durations in check. (Reduce them drastically.)
That will remove a lot more oppossition.
When you run ads (or any other efforts) trying to "educate" the public on copyright issues, tell the truth and tell both sides. Explain to them whay copying they do is considered legal for once will you?
That will remove even more opposition.
Keep you whole catalog (all works for which you own the copyrights) available to the public at or below current mass market prices for the current hits. This could easily be done via a POD (publish on demand) company.
Still more oppostion gone.
Stop playing these region games. Or at least find a way to have them stop shafting the people of the various regions. Honestly, if there is no legal means for people in a country to buy your content, STOP complaining when they copy it without your permission. (You won't give it!) Along with this, take language issues into account.
Opposition waning further.
Get the drift?
Finally, stop opposing others who are creating and giving away their works to others who are willing to share similarly.
all the best,
drew
"I should be the only person allowed to decide who gets to copy the music I've made (=duplicat the results of my work)."
Why exactly? There are plenty of other people who produce things from their intellect the way you produce music from your intellect who are offered no protection for their creations.
If you answer is because the law says so, you then need to tell us why the law "should" say so.
"And it so happens that I choose to only allow those who pay me for the work that I've put into it to do so. By stating that I should now allow anyone to make copies you are taking away my right."
Let's imagine that all copyright law was abolished tomorrow.
What will you do? You could perhaps sign a contract with people you hand over your work to specifying the terms of the deal you both agree to. So, you will now not have published your work and the world will not have rights to it.
Some may be totally against copyrights (or at least some think they are and some are) but I figure most who are against the current state of affairs are just that. They would be happy to support a more sane state of affairs.
Many people (many of them ordinary people) around the world are working hard to bring about a change for the better. Many are giving of their time, many of their money.
"Let's just say that the IP gravy train has ended."
He may be right. (I don't like the "IP" meme however.) He may not be. I would like to see the current state of affairs drastically changed. However, I would also like to see it become easier for the single artist/practioner to make a comfortable living doing what they love.
I have little faith that either of these will happen while the current big boys have their way.
all the best,
drew
"so the producers and record company makes $14-$19 per sale."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
Perhaps if they are selling direct, but things do not play out that way in the retail world.
Now, I am not happy with how things stand, but on the whole, we will be better off getting the facts right. (I think we can be fairly certain they will not.)
And for a little conspiricy theory...
Since you posted as AC, how do we know you are not from the ??AA and club and posting things as your opponents that you can then argue against?
all the best,
drew
Files that you can legally put on most (perhaps all) p2p networks:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
Honestly,
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
"They didnt say 90% of file transmitted were copyrighted and transmitted illegaly just that they were copyrighted!"
So, if they are telling the truth, (and the quote acurrately reflects what they said) then we now know that 10% of the files transmitted are in the public domain.
So, we would still need to determine what percentage of the copyrighted files were legal transfers and what percentage resulted in copyright violations. Right?
all the best,
drew
Hey, you can find some of my copyrighted files to trade legally over the p2p networks here:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
"They couldn't just go work in another colony and avoid the taxes."
Care to explain further?
all the best,
drew