Do you honestly believe what you are arguing? Do you honestly believe that it's possible that P2P networks cause people to buy more music?
Granted, I don't think it can be proven one way or another, but it logically makes sense to me that great numbers of people would listen to mp3s rather than buy the CD. It doesn't make logical sense that many people would buy more CDs because of P2P networks.
Let me ask you this: why have you bought more CDs when you could have just downloaded the mp3s? Is it a morality issue? I'm really curious, because to me it seems completely irrational to donate your money to the company who makes the plasticware when you don't want the plasticware to begin with.
But the artists aren't the ones that make the money off the CDs, the record companies are. So unless you're only pirating live music, you are costing someone money. Someone who probably doesn't deserve the money, but someone nonetheless.
We need at least two frequencies dedicated to public TCP/IP over wireless. One in the high bandwidth, medium-low distance NLOS range (such as 2.4 Ghz), and one in the low bandwidth, long distance NLOS range (such as 154.6 Mhz).
I think, quite frankly, it will actually help a lawsuit because a court can more readily understand "I put it in the public domain" than they can understand "I licensed it under the GPL, which is in this 20-page document here" or "I licensed it under a BSD license".
The key here is not so much the license, but whether or not the item is sold. The UCC states that any item sold is given an automatic warranty of merchantablity and fitness for a particular purpose unless that item is clearly marked "AS IS". Now while it could be argued that agreement to the GPL is a payment for the software, I don't see how a gift of public domain software with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever can be considered a sale.
We've effectively made charity potentially illegal, since doing something out of compassion or to "scratch an itch" can lead to liability down the road.
Back up that statement with an actual law or court case. If you aren't selling the product, and you aren't acting maliciously, you're not responsible.
you're obviously getting your news only from/., which hasn't mentioned it yet.
Wrong.
Big sharers on the Gnutella and Kazaa networks are getting RIAA and MPAA DMCA notices..
They shouldn't be getting DMCA notices unless they registered with the federal government as an ISP. Otherwise they should be getting notices to appear in federal court.
Sharing your files on gnutella, unless you are registered as an ISP, has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.
Did Blacksnow buy any product directly from Mythic? I could see a justification for a contract being accepted at that time. Also because Mythic offers an ongoing service, this is a different case from a normal EULA. Blacksnow cannot use the service without permission, so it's perfectly possible that they can be forced to agree to a contract in order to get permission to use that service.
Without seeing the ruling, I think it's premature to say that EULAs are enforcible.
"Maybe you're cheating on your girlfriend and you don't want her to know you're in somebody else's dorm room."
Yeah, but alternatively you could set it up to alert you to stop fooling around and start pretending to study when your SO gets within a certain radius of that dorm room.
If we buy that, then the converse is that those who are against copyright don't value creativity.
Yes but the converse is not logically equivalent to the original statement. The contrapositive (those who value copyright value creativity) is.
There are several examples of tours that have barely broken even, or lost money.
And yet the artists made money? From what?
I'm not going to dig them up now, because this issue has already been beaten to death on slashdot.
Fair enough, but then I'm not going to bother believing you.
Better to treat them as any other freeloader-- slap a fine on them. This is what they typically do to people who ride trains without paying, for example. The punishment fits the crime much better.
That would be an excellent start. I for one would immediately start a pirating business out of my home.
Your analogy is not analogous, because the government are mandating a minimum price.
You're arguing feasibility, not morality.
If I start a golf club, am I not allowed to charge fees, and exclude freeloaders?
I accept private property as necessary to a functional society. I don't accept intellectual property as necessary to a functional society. Using someone else's golf course directly hurts that other person. Using someone else's words doesn't.
If I indeed have the causality arrow backwards, it follows that copyright is inevitable in a society that values creativity.
First off, that's not true. Look up the terms "converse", "inverse", and "contrapositive". Secondly, correlation does not imply any causation. If I eat a sandwich and the Lakers win the NBA championship, that doesn't mean that either caused the other. The two can be completely unrelated.
The fact is that the market do not support freeloader-friendly models, because people who have the decency to pay for the ride have no interest in subsidising freeloaders.
If there's a demand, and there's someone to supply that demand, the market will likely find a way to meet that demand. The government shouldn't get involved unless absolutely necessary, and I don't think it has been shown that it is absolutely necessary in this case.
There are some fairly severe secondary effects, the main one being that those countries tend not to have a "brain-oriented" economy, because they don't value creativity.
I see no reason to believe that the value on creativity is an effect of lack of copyright law. If anything, it is a cause.
It's simply not true that musicians make most of their money through concerts.
You may indeed be right, I was only going on what I've heard through the grapevine, but I have done a little research. "The vast majority of musicians make little or no money on CD sales." I'd like to see some quotes which back up your point.
I agree that small live acts would probably still stay, however, the recorded music industry would suffer greatly.
Recordings of concerts would almost certainly thrive. Studio recordings would almost certainly drop, but I think the mega pop-star would still survive. Either way music would survive. I don't think the U.S. would lose any culture from it. If anything I think it'd gain culture from increased variety.
The consumer software market would be hurt pretty badly.
What consumer software market? Games? Operating Systems? I don't know a single person who has bought a single consumer software item which wasn't a game, except from Microsoft.
You'd also see a lack of competition, because large bundling deals would become the primary means by which consumer software was marketted.
Again, what competition? Piracy has already destroyed the consumer software market. Short of throwing millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens in jail (probably after illegally searching their homes), you're not going to do anything to stop it.
No-one is forcing you to use the software.
No one is forcing me to type on my keyboard either, but that doesn't mean it's dishonest for me to type on my keyboard without paying royalties to the keyboard manufacturer. If congress made a law saying that anyone who buys a keyboard must pay $0.01 to the keyboard manufacturer every time s/he types a key, would you consider it dishonest and immoral to use the keyboard without paying? I wouldn't.
Copyright is a way for authors to get paid.
You're again begging the question as to whether or not authors should get paid.
It's a means by which authors can set up an exclusive club of people who are allowed to use their software.
The government does not have the right to allow authors to set up such a club.
Take a look at the countries that have weak IP laws, and ask yourself how they are doing in terms of technology.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Depends on how much you value creativity, doesn't it ? If you consider flipping burgers to be more useful to society than writing software, then perhaps you should indeed reward the burger flipper, but not the software author.
I don't believe it's up to me or you to decide. I believe it's up to the market to decide. Personally I'd probably tend to lean toward eating being more important than playing Doom, though. Actually, I certainly do, since I've spent much more money on flipped burgers than I have on software. I currently have exactly two pieces of payware on my system. One is Windows 2000, and the other is Borland Delphi.
The only thing that is not clear is that the fact that societies that don't value creativity don't value copyright, so the absence of copyright is confunded as a variable with a lack of respect for creativity.
Actually the other problem is that these societies can continue to freeload off the works of other countries, so it really isn't a problem that they aren't creating themselves. I don't think it's clear that very much science and useful arts would go uncreated without copyright law. Popular music might die, but local bands would continue, and would probably flourish. Probably even popular music would continue since the musician makes most of his/her money through concerts, though the quality of the recordings would likely decrease, as would much of the commercial promotion. Actually music is a great example when you consider that the Audio Home Recording Act already makes non-commercial home copying legal. The film industry might stop making such huge blockbusters, but low budget films would likely continue to be produced, as would network television. News would likely continue unaffected, as would plays. Business software development would continue through consulting and/or non-disclosure agreements. Consumer software is largely already not paid for, but a few companies such as Microsoft would likely continue through bundling with hardware, through offering services, or through protection mechanisms such as dongles. Non-fiction works would likely continue through sponsorships by schools and public institutions.
The only real problem I see is with fiction novels. Maybe schools and public institutions would take up the slack, they'd certainly take up some of it. Maybe foundations could be created where the members pay a monthly fee to support the type of books they want to read. Maybe all that's needed is a non-profit organization (or government) printing operation which agrees to print books for a low price. I really don't know.
The only substantial difference is that you're seizing an intangible asset -- the right to distribution of the book. By doing this, you devalue that right
I argue that that right does not exist in the first place. That is actually the whole basis of my argument. Everyone has an equal right to distribute any book.
It's analogous to someone deliberately breaching a contract, and trying to say they're not a cheat.
If that contract was made under duress, perhaps, since I have no choice whether or not to agree to the copyright contract.
One of them is that if someone anonymously leaked the "information", it would be difficult to prevent its distribution
Depends on the specifics. Some would be easy to control, others could be controlled through watermarks, others would not be a good candidate for relying on non-disclosure agreements.
In any case, I don't think it's good enough to get rid of the primary means of compensation for authors of creative works, and then worry about trying to compensate them after they all starve
Look, I can go around feeding the hungry and healing the sick, and if I don't arrange for a way to get paid, I'm not going to get paid. No one is forcing the authors to create their works, and I don't advocate eliminating copyright on already existing works.
and the high tech economy collapses.
Personally I blame copyright law for our current technology recession. Its elimination would certainly cause a boom in computer and internet usage.
how should authors of creative works be compensated?
That begs the question as to whether authors of creative works should necessarily be compensated in the first place.
First of all, that is not true. You only have a right to backup software, not music. Secondly, even if that were true, what in the world does that have to do with P2P filesharing networks?
If the hashes aren't signed, the labels can forge the hashes.
At the least your client can then be smart enough to start the download all over again if the hash doesn't match. A better solution (which someone else mentioned) would be to break the file up into smaller chunks, and then you could check the hashes one chunk at a time. It would also facilitate downloading from multiple sources simultaneously.
Really, this would be a nice feature. Instead of going through 10 different copies of each song to make an album, you could just leave your computer on overnight to automatically put together the album for you (finding the best quality mp3s for each song). Assuming you've received permission from the artist and his/her record label, of course.
Oh, also too lazy to listen to the music you download?
So I've heard (I never participate in these illegal activities myself), when you want to find songs from a particular artist, you generally just select all and click download. So you wind up with 500 downloaded songs when you really only wanted 5 or 6.
You don't appear to be following the thread. The specific issue we're discussing here is the proposal that taxpayer money should be used as the primary means of funding for creative works.
Then I should withdraw my participation in the thread, since I don't have an opinion as to whether or not taxpayer money should be used to fund creative works. I think copyright should be eliminated first, because it is immoral, and any problems as to supply of creative works should then be solved after seeing the actual problem in action, not by guessing as to what it might be.
Of course everyone benefits in the short term by a simple asset seizure, but in the long term, nobody wants to produce, because anything that is produced will be "grabbed".
That presumes that the resource is expendable. By copying a book, I am not expending the resource at all. In fact, I am benefitting society by helping to educate it. Writing books is a service which benefits society. This is much more analogous to the service of fighting forest fires than it is to an expendable resource such as a field.
The less honest people are, the more we're going to see things like dongles and other annoying technical solutions.
I don't think that copyright infringement has anything to do with dishonesty. Just because the powers that be decide to place unjust restrictions upon me does not mean that I am dishonest for disobeying those restrictions.
If you have a large amount [sic] of people who are wiling to cheat such contracts, the obvious response is more forceful measures.
If the majority of people believe a law is unjust, perhaps a more reasonable response is to change the law.
The measures don't have to be infallible, they merely need to be effective enough that most people won't bother to subvert them.
And in 10 years I don't think that will be possible. That is, unless bandwidth is artificially restricted, or anonymous peer-to-peer communications are outlawed. I don't think the mere propaganda that intellectual property exists and that violating copyright is immoral is going to cut it.
Do you consider the DMCA to be an immoral law?
That's a difficult question to answer. I think the DMCA is an excellent law, in that it exposes the hypocrisy of most people who call copyright infringers thieves but get all up in arms when you take away their napster. On the other hand, in isolation, I don't think the DMCA is appropriate. In any case, I find the DMCA much less horrible than copyright law itself. At least non-commercial infringement not for the purpose of private financial gain is not a criminal offense. But in any case, what I meant is that the basis of copyright law is not that it is immoral to use someone else's information for yourself. Throwing people in jail, or taking their money, for no good reason, is immoral. Well, actually the money thing doesn't really bother me all that much. I mean, you play the money game, you have to play by the rules of the money game. But throwing people in jail who don't deserve to be thrown in jail. That's immoral.
What alternative funding models for the producers of creative works do you propose?
Depends on the type of creative work. Also, I'd really like to see what the actual problems are with eliminating copyright law before deciding. For the most part I think voluntary non-disclosure contracts can fill the gap.
I'd imagine that the alternative would be a tragedy of commons scenario
Tragedy of the commons is not the proper term. That assumes a resource which is depleted by use. Information is not depleted by use. This is much closer to free-rider problems such as national defense, for instance.
Billy: We've done it. We've done it. We're rich. Wyatt. (Laughs) Yeah, man. (Laughs) Yeah. Clearly, we did it, man we did it. We did it. Huh. We're rich, man. We're retired in Florida, now, mister. (Chuckles) Whew.
Captain America: You know Billy, we blew it.
Billy: What? Huh? Wha-wha-wha- That's what it's all about, man. I mean, like you know - I mean, you go for the big money, man, and then you're free. You dig? (Laughs)
Just in case you're not trolling... Dijkstra gives a complete solution to the shortest path algorithm in O(n^2) time (actually I believe there are O(n log n) implementations). This has nothing whatsoever to do with the travelling salesman algorithm. They are two completely different problems.
Food is also something which clearly benefits society, as are most goods, but they aren't primarily funded by tax dollars.
But food only benefits the person eating it. Writing a book benefits everyone who reads it. Copying a book and giving it to a friend doesn't hurt society, it helps society.
There are advantages and disadvantages to central planning.
I find it hard to see how you can cite disadvantages to a solution of a problem when the specific problem hasn't even been defined, let alone the specific solution.
I think a lot of the technology that you enjoy today exists largely because of IP law, and because you live in a country that places a high economic value on creativity.
I think we'd enjoy a lot more technology by eliminating IP law. A lot more people are able to afford generic drugs than name brand drugs, and derivitive drugs would be available much more quickly. Plus society as a whole would benefit from lower health care costs and a more healthy society.
I'm not necessarily advocating taxpayer funded arts and sciences as the solution to the problem that information is an economic good. I think you have to wait and see the specifics of the problem before you can propose a solution. But I do think that IP law, especially copyright law, is fundamentally broken now that nearly instant, nearly free, nearly anonymous communication is in our hands.
I think that once it becomes clear to most of the public that copyright law is not about morality, but about practicality (and the "just because we can't stop a murderer doesn't mean we shouldn't try" argument goes away), there will be a major reworking of copyright law at the least, and the elimination of it at the most.
It would be possible to use taxes to fund creative works, but I don't think it would be a terribly popular idea in most countries
Why not? Do people not deem science and the useful arts as something which benefits society? In that case then what's the loss if we eliminate copyright law and no one creates books any more?
Personally I don't think books will cease to be created just because copyright law is eliminated. But if they do, what's the problem?
If you don't prune the tree at all, then certainly I'd buy the hypothesis that it's exponential. But any good algorithm is going to prune.
For the most part, in the mid-game, I would think it would be exponential, because there's usually multiple moves with roughly equivalent scores. Although the whole concept of scores is kind of silly. In reality there are only three scores: you can force a win, you can force a draw, or you can't do either.
I'm also not sure that 2-5 extra levels is anything to sneeze at -- it may be the difference between a program that can play at the master level and one that can beat Kasparov.
Or more interestingly, one that never loses to Kasparov. In any case, I don't think it'll make that huge of a difference. Top computer opponents generally lose because they misinterpret the score at a certain level, not because they miss a trick by a few levels. The mistake doesn't become clear to the computer until many moves down the road.
Maybe there are algorithms that can do this much better, but are 10,000 times slower, so they'd only be practical with this computing model. Another thing is that openings and endgames require specialized treatment.
It pretty much doesn't make sense to know how to increase the accuracy of the scoring algorithm (without going down a level) and not put that into your software.
I'm basing what I say mainly on watching computers play chess (and watching the search trees in action). After a short period of time the scores of the possibilities generally stabilize, and except for a few rarities it doesn't matter if you wait for the computer to complete 2-5 more levels of depth. Either the scoring algorithm worked, or it didn't.
What about regular mail? Would you be outraged if government agents were waiting curbside when you came to check your mailbox, sorting through your letters from granny?
As long as they informed me beforehand that they would be doing it, and didn't destroy anything, I wouldn't.
Oh, also they would have to make it legal to send non-priority letters via competing companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you honestly believe what you are arguing? Do you honestly believe that it's possible that P2P networks cause people to buy more music?
Granted, I don't think it can be proven one way or another, but it logically makes sense to me that great numbers of people would listen to mp3s rather than buy the CD. It doesn't make logical sense that many people would buy more CDs because of P2P networks.
Let me ask you this: why have you bought more CDs when you could have just downloaded the mp3s? Is it a morality issue? I'm really curious, because to me it seems completely irrational to donate your money to the company who makes the plasticware when you don't want the plasticware to begin with.
But the artists aren't the ones that make the money off the CDs, the record companies are. So unless you're only pirating live music, you are costing someone money. Someone who probably doesn't deserve the money, but someone nonetheless.
We need at least two frequencies dedicated to public TCP/IP over wireless. One in the high bandwidth, medium-low distance NLOS range (such as 2.4 Ghz), and one in the low bandwidth, long distance NLOS range (such as 154.6 Mhz).
You were the one who flamed me, idiot. I was only defending myself. Figure out what you're talking about before you respond to others next time.
I think, quite frankly, it will actually help a lawsuit because a court can more readily understand "I put it in the public domain" than they can understand "I licensed it under the GPL, which is in this 20-page document here" or "I licensed it under a BSD license".
The key here is not so much the license, but whether or not the item is sold. The UCC states that any item sold is given an automatic warranty of merchantablity and fitness for a particular purpose unless that item is clearly marked "AS IS". Now while it could be argued that agreement to the GPL is a payment for the software, I don't see how a gift of public domain software with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever can be considered a sale.
This ain't legal advice.
Not in my backyard.
We've effectively made charity potentially illegal, since doing something out of compassion or to "scratch an itch" can lead to liability down the road.
Back up that statement with an actual law or court case. If you aren't selling the product, and you aren't acting maliciously, you're not responsible.
you're obviously getting your news only from /., which hasn't mentioned it yet.
Wrong.
Big sharers on the Gnutella and Kazaa networks are getting RIAA and MPAA DMCA notices..
They shouldn't be getting DMCA notices unless they registered with the federal government as an ISP. Otherwise they should be getting notices to appear in federal court.
Sharing your files on gnutella, unless you are registered as an ISP, has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA.
Write your own client. Keep track of the IP addresses distributing your music. File lawsuits (while simultaneously notifying the FBI).
RIAA and all just want something to whine about. They're not serious about stopping P2P.
Did Blacksnow buy any product directly from Mythic? I could see a justification for a contract being accepted at that time. Also because Mythic offers an ongoing service, this is a different case from a normal EULA. Blacksnow cannot use the service without permission, so it's perfectly possible that they can be forced to agree to a contract in order to get permission to use that service.
Without seeing the ruling, I think it's premature to say that EULAs are enforcible.
"Maybe you're cheating on your girlfriend and you don't want her to know you're in somebody else's dorm room."
Yeah, but alternatively you could set it up to alert you to stop fooling around and start pretending to study when your SO gets within a certain radius of that dorm room.
If we buy that, then the converse is that those who are against copyright don't value creativity.
Yes but the converse is not logically equivalent to the original statement. The contrapositive (those who value copyright value creativity) is.
There are several examples of tours that have barely broken even, or lost money.
And yet the artists made money? From what?
I'm not going to dig them up now, because this issue has already been beaten to death on slashdot.
Fair enough, but then I'm not going to bother believing you.
Better to treat them as any other freeloader-- slap a fine on them. This is what they typically do to people who ride trains without paying, for example. The punishment fits the crime much better.
That would be an excellent start. I for one would immediately start a pirating business out of my home.
Your analogy is not analogous, because the government are mandating a minimum price.
You're arguing feasibility, not morality.
If I start a golf club, am I not allowed to charge fees, and exclude freeloaders?
I accept private property as necessary to a functional society. I don't accept intellectual property as necessary to a functional society. Using someone else's golf course directly hurts that other person. Using someone else's words doesn't.
If I indeed have the causality arrow backwards, it follows that copyright is inevitable in a society that values creativity.
First off, that's not true. Look up the terms "converse", "inverse", and "contrapositive". Secondly, correlation does not imply any causation. If I eat a sandwich and the Lakers win the NBA championship, that doesn't mean that either caused the other. The two can be completely unrelated.
The fact is that the market do not support freeloader-friendly models, because people who have the decency to pay for the ride have no interest in subsidising freeloaders.
If there's a demand, and there's someone to supply that demand, the market will likely find a way to meet that demand. The government shouldn't get involved unless absolutely necessary, and I don't think it has been shown that it is absolutely necessary in this case.
There are some fairly severe secondary effects, the main one being that those countries tend not to have a "brain-oriented" economy, because they don't value creativity.
I see no reason to believe that the value on creativity is an effect of lack of copyright law. If anything, it is a cause.
It's simply not true that musicians make most of their money through concerts.
You may indeed be right, I was only going on what I've heard through the grapevine, but I have done a little research. "The vast majority of musicians make little or no money on CD sales." I'd like to see some quotes which back up your point.
I agree that small live acts would probably still stay, however, the recorded music industry would suffer greatly.
Recordings of concerts would almost certainly thrive. Studio recordings would almost certainly drop, but I think the mega pop-star would still survive. Either way music would survive. I don't think the U.S. would lose any culture from it. If anything I think it'd gain culture from increased variety.
The consumer software market would be hurt pretty badly.
What consumer software market? Games? Operating Systems? I don't know a single person who has bought a single consumer software item which wasn't a game, except from Microsoft.
You'd also see a lack of competition, because large bundling deals would become the primary means by which consumer software was marketted.
Again, what competition? Piracy has already destroyed the consumer software market. Short of throwing millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens in jail (probably after illegally searching their homes), you're not going to do anything to stop it.
No-one is forcing you to use the software.
No one is forcing me to type on my keyboard either, but that doesn't mean it's dishonest for me to type on my keyboard without paying royalties to the keyboard manufacturer. If congress made a law saying that anyone who buys a keyboard must pay $0.01 to the keyboard manufacturer every time s/he types a key, would you consider it dishonest and immoral to use the keyboard without paying? I wouldn't.
Copyright is a way for authors to get paid.
You're again begging the question as to whether or not authors should get paid.
It's a means by which authors can set up an exclusive club of people who are allowed to use their software.
The government does not have the right to allow authors to set up such a club.
Take a look at the countries that have weak IP laws, and ask yourself how they are doing in terms of technology.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Depends on how much you value creativity, doesn't it ? If you consider flipping burgers to be more useful to society than writing software, then perhaps you should indeed reward the burger flipper, but not the software author.
I don't believe it's up to me or you to decide. I believe it's up to the market to decide. Personally I'd probably tend to lean toward eating being more important than playing Doom, though. Actually, I certainly do, since I've spent much more money on flipped burgers than I have on software. I currently have exactly two pieces of payware on my system. One is Windows 2000, and the other is Borland Delphi.
The only thing that is not clear is that the fact that societies that don't value creativity don't value copyright, so the absence of copyright is confunded as a variable with a lack of respect for creativity.
Actually the other problem is that these societies can continue to freeload off the works of other countries, so it really isn't a problem that they aren't creating themselves. I don't think it's clear that very much science and useful arts would go uncreated without copyright law. Popular music might die, but local bands would continue, and would probably flourish. Probably even popular music would continue since the musician makes most of his/her money through concerts, though the quality of the recordings would likely decrease, as would much of the commercial promotion. Actually music is a great example when you consider that the Audio Home Recording Act already makes non-commercial home copying legal. The film industry might stop making such huge blockbusters, but low budget films would likely continue to be produced, as would network television. News would likely continue unaffected, as would plays. Business software development would continue through consulting and/or non-disclosure agreements. Consumer software is largely already not paid for, but a few companies such as Microsoft would likely continue through bundling with hardware, through offering services, or through protection mechanisms such as dongles. Non-fiction works would likely continue through sponsorships by schools and public institutions.
The only real problem I see is with fiction novels. Maybe schools and public institutions would take up the slack, they'd certainly take up some of it. Maybe foundations could be created where the members pay a monthly fee to support the type of books they want to read. Maybe all that's needed is a non-profit organization (or government) printing operation which agrees to print books for a low price. I really don't know.
The only substantial difference is that you're seizing an intangible asset -- the right to distribution of the book. By doing this, you devalue that right
I argue that that right does not exist in the first place. That is actually the whole basis of my argument. Everyone has an equal right to distribute any book.
It's analogous to someone deliberately breaching a contract, and trying to say they're not a cheat.
If that contract was made under duress, perhaps, since I have no choice whether or not to agree to the copyright contract.
One of them is that if someone anonymously leaked the "information", it would be difficult to prevent its distribution
Depends on the specifics. Some would be easy to control, others could be controlled through watermarks, others would not be a good candidate for relying on non-disclosure agreements.
In any case, I don't think it's good enough to get rid of the primary means of compensation for authors of creative works, and then worry about trying to compensate them after they all starve
Look, I can go around feeding the hungry and healing the sick, and if I don't arrange for a way to get paid, I'm not going to get paid. No one is forcing the authors to create their works, and I don't advocate eliminating copyright on already existing works.
and the high tech economy collapses.
Personally I blame copyright law for our current technology recession. Its elimination would certainly cause a boom in computer and internet usage.
how should authors of creative works be compensated?
That begs the question as to whether authors of creative works should necessarily be compensated in the first place.
I have a right to backup anything I purchase
First of all, that is not true. You only have a right to backup software, not music. Secondly, even if that were true, what in the world does that have to do with P2P filesharing networks?
Not if you're downloading an MP3 version of a song you own, rather than ripping it yourself.
Just because you own the CD doesn't mean you can legally download the MP3. See RIAA vs. mp3.com.
If the hashes aren't signed, the labels can forge the hashes.
At the least your client can then be smart enough to start the download all over again if the hash doesn't match. A better solution (which someone else mentioned) would be to break the file up into smaller chunks, and then you could check the hashes one chunk at a time. It would also facilitate downloading from multiple sources simultaneously.
Really, this would be a nice feature. Instead of going through 10 different copies of each song to make an album, you could just leave your computer on overnight to automatically put together the album for you (finding the best quality mp3s for each song). Assuming you've received permission from the artist and his/her record label, of course.
Oh, also too lazy to listen to the music you download?
So I've heard (I never participate in these illegal activities myself), when you want to find songs from a particular artist, you generally just select all and click download. So you wind up with 500 downloaded songs when you really only wanted 5 or 6.
You don't appear to be following the thread. The specific issue we're discussing here is the proposal that taxpayer money should be used as the primary means of funding for creative works.
Then I should withdraw my participation in the thread, since I don't have an opinion as to whether or not taxpayer money should be used to fund creative works. I think copyright should be eliminated first, because it is immoral, and any problems as to supply of creative works should then be solved after seeing the actual problem in action, not by guessing as to what it might be.
Of course everyone benefits in the short term by a simple asset seizure, but in the long term, nobody wants to produce, because anything that is produced will be "grabbed".
That presumes that the resource is expendable. By copying a book, I am not expending the resource at all. In fact, I am benefitting society by helping to educate it. Writing books is a service which benefits society. This is much more analogous to the service of fighting forest fires than it is to an expendable resource such as a field.
The less honest people are, the more we're going to see things like dongles and other annoying technical solutions.
I don't think that copyright infringement has anything to do with dishonesty. Just because the powers that be decide to place unjust restrictions upon me does not mean that I am dishonest for disobeying those restrictions.
If you have a large amount [sic] of people who are wiling to cheat such contracts, the obvious response is more forceful measures.
If the majority of people believe a law is unjust, perhaps a more reasonable response is to change the law.
The measures don't have to be infallible, they merely need to be effective enough that most people won't bother to subvert them.
And in 10 years I don't think that will be possible. That is, unless bandwidth is artificially restricted, or anonymous peer-to-peer communications are outlawed. I don't think the mere propaganda that intellectual property exists and that violating copyright is immoral is going to cut it.
Do you consider the DMCA to be an immoral law?
That's a difficult question to answer. I think the DMCA is an excellent law, in that it exposes the hypocrisy of most people who call copyright infringers thieves but get all up in arms when you take away their napster. On the other hand, in isolation, I don't think the DMCA is appropriate. In any case, I find the DMCA much less horrible than copyright law itself. At least non-commercial infringement not for the purpose of private financial gain is not a criminal offense. But in any case, what I meant is that the basis of copyright law is not that it is immoral to use someone else's information for yourself. Throwing people in jail, or taking their money, for no good reason, is immoral. Well, actually the money thing doesn't really bother me all that much. I mean, you play the money game, you have to play by the rules of the money game. But throwing people in jail who don't deserve to be thrown in jail. That's immoral.
What alternative funding models for the producers of creative works do you propose?
Depends on the type of creative work. Also, I'd really like to see what the actual problems are with eliminating copyright law before deciding. For the most part I think voluntary non-disclosure contracts can fill the gap.
I'd imagine that the alternative would be a tragedy of commons scenario
Tragedy of the commons is not the proper term. That assumes a resource which is depleted by use. Information is not depleted by use. This is much closer to free-rider problems such as national defense, for instance.
Billy: We've done it. We've done it. We're rich. Wyatt. (Laughs) Yeah, man. (Laughs) Yeah. Clearly, we did it, man we did it. We did it. Huh. We're rich, man. We're retired in Florida, now, mister. (Chuckles) Whew.
Captain America: You know Billy, we blew it.
Billy: What? Huh? Wha-wha-wha- That's what it's all about, man. I mean, like you know - I mean, you go for the big money, man, and then you're free. You dig? (Laughs)
Wyatt: We blew it. Good night, man.
Just in case you're not trolling... Dijkstra gives a complete solution to the shortest path algorithm in O(n^2) time (actually I believe there are O(n log n) implementations). This has nothing whatsoever to do with the travelling salesman algorithm. They are two completely different problems.
Food is also something which clearly benefits society, as are most goods, but they aren't primarily funded by tax dollars.
But food only benefits the person eating it. Writing a book benefits everyone who reads it. Copying a book and giving it to a friend doesn't hurt society, it helps society.
There are advantages and disadvantages to central planning.
I find it hard to see how you can cite disadvantages to a solution of a problem when the specific problem hasn't even been defined, let alone the specific solution.
I think a lot of the technology that you enjoy today exists largely because of IP law, and because you live in a country that places a high economic value on creativity.
I think we'd enjoy a lot more technology by eliminating IP law. A lot more people are able to afford generic drugs than name brand drugs, and derivitive drugs would be available much more quickly. Plus society as a whole would benefit from lower health care costs and a more healthy society.
I'm not necessarily advocating taxpayer funded arts and sciences as the solution to the problem that information is an economic good. I think you have to wait and see the specifics of the problem before you can propose a solution. But I do think that IP law, especially copyright law, is fundamentally broken now that nearly instant, nearly free, nearly anonymous communication is in our hands.
I think that once it becomes clear to most of the public that copyright law is not about morality, but about practicality (and the "just because we can't stop a murderer doesn't mean we shouldn't try" argument goes away), there will be a major reworking of copyright law at the least, and the elimination of it at the most.
It would be possible to use taxes to fund creative works, but I don't think it would be a terribly popular idea in most countries
Why not? Do people not deem science and the useful arts as something which benefits society? In that case then what's the loss if we eliminate copyright law and no one creates books any more?
Personally I don't think books will cease to be created just because copyright law is eliminated. But if they do, what's the problem?
If you don't prune the tree at all, then certainly I'd buy the hypothesis that it's exponential. But any good algorithm is going to prune.
For the most part, in the mid-game, I would think it would be exponential, because there's usually multiple moves with roughly equivalent scores. Although the whole concept of scores is kind of silly. In reality there are only three scores: you can force a win, you can force a draw, or you can't do either.
I'm also not sure that 2-5 extra levels is anything to sneeze at -- it may be the difference between a program that can play at the master level and one that can beat Kasparov.
Or more interestingly, one that never loses to Kasparov. In any case, I don't think it'll make that huge of a difference. Top computer opponents generally lose because they misinterpret the score at a certain level, not because they miss a trick by a few levels. The mistake doesn't become clear to the computer until many moves down the road.
Maybe there are algorithms that can do this much better, but are 10,000 times slower, so they'd only be practical with this computing model. Another thing is that openings and endgames require specialized treatment.
It pretty much doesn't make sense to know how to increase the accuracy of the scoring algorithm (without going down a level) and not put that into your software.
I'm basing what I say mainly on watching computers play chess (and watching the search trees in action). After a short period of time the scores of the possibilities generally stabilize, and except for a few rarities it doesn't matter if you wait for the computer to complete 2-5 more levels of depth. Either the scoring algorithm worked, or it didn't.
What about regular mail? Would you be outraged if government agents were waiting curbside when you came to check your mailbox, sorting through your letters from granny?
As long as they informed me beforehand that they would be doing it, and didn't destroy anything, I wouldn't.
Oh, also they would have to make it legal to send non-priority letters via competing companies.