Allow me to provide a few cites to text that I believe support what I've said:
DMCA circa 1998
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that
prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying(2) of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain
circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.
This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing
a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use
doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of
circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.
2 "Copying" is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the exclusive
rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a technological
measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work would fall
in this second category
and later on in the same document
Savings clauses
Section 1201 contains two general savings clauses. First, section 1201(c)(1)
states that nothing in section 1201 affects rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use. Second, section 1201(c)(2) states that
nothing in section 1201 enlarges or diminishes vicarious or contributory copyright
infringement.
...and last but not least - the copyright law itself as it defines "fair use" just so we're clear:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
So to me it's fairly clear that the DMCA allows circumvention for cases of fair use. The catch is the interpretation of "fair use". The EFF (among others) consider a personal backup copy fair use. Of course, that's not always the case.
To add more confusion to the mess, the RIAA itself said in the MGM vs. Grokster case
Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year:
"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their websi
I think HD-DVD and Blu-Ray simply will not succeed because hard disk drives will get smaller (in size), larger (in capacity) and more resistant to shock - even to the point of being solid state (like a flash drive).
When this happens, optical media will be a thing of the past because it only holds a mere 250GiB. Tiny drives like the ones in digital cameras probably make for better storage (or will) of high definition video than optical discs do because they're more likely to grow in capacity with the video than the Blu-Ray is (unless they find another frequency of laser light to make even smaller pits and grooves to increase the capacity of a disc -- or mash even more layers in a disc I suppose).
Yes HDDs are more fragile...now. In 10 years I would be surprised if HDDs haven't replaced both of these HD formats for HD content (or another possibility is that you don't buy physical media anymore, you simply stream it to your TV/computer as video on demand).
The difference being that the (U.S.) law specifically protects the copyright holder from others selling his/her works without permission. It doesn't matter that the purchaser would not have purchased the movie for its full retail price -- the law states the "pirate" seller is in the wrong and legally liable.
At the same time, the law also states that anyone redistributing (even for free) The Work without the copyright holder's permission is in violation and subject to fines and other judgments.
However, cracking the encryption in order to copy the disc for backup purposes (or to transfer to a different medium) is protected by law (even the DMCA has a fair use clause) and in this case there's nothing illegal with cracking the DRM to get at the content you paid for (or otherwise obtained legally).
I agree that just because someone watches a movie doesn't mean they were ever willing to pay for it, but that doesn't really factor into law now does it? I mean, by that logic I could argue that I should get everything I want for free because I don't want to pay for any of it.
The real value of something is whether or not I determine it to be worth the asking price -- the same goes for everyone else. If a $400 sweater is worth the money for you to buy, then it's worth $400. If you can live without that sweater then it's clearly not worth that much, but you might be willing to pay $20 for it. If one could clone the $400 sweater and then sell it for $20 we'd be in the same legal situation as the guy selling DVD rips of movies for $5 on the street corner.
Just because my price point is lower than the legal selling point does not make it any more legal for an unauthorized agent to sell me the item at my price point because I was never going to buy it at the full selling point anyway.
ESR is a mouthpiece and a loud one at that. He has had some insightful things to say from time to time, but he is far from a leader.
Linus on the other hand is much more a leader, and he's been staying out of these sorts of rantings lately. Linus did originally give "World Domination 101" speeches back in 1997 or so, but I haven't seen anything from him lately. I would be interested to find out of Linus thinks Linux is ready to be the mainstream OS by 2008 if it means compromise on codecs and such,
Personally I feel that Linux will take over when it takes over on its own merits or because the other guys get so fat and bloated that they die from their successes (MS & Apple). While I believe Linux is ready for a good number of people, it is far from read for the masses because it requires a significant paradigm shift (excuse the buzzword). Unless the goal is to make Linux into Windows or Mac OS X people will need to learn how to use Linux which is different in many ways from Windows. Likewise, you cannot expect all Windows users to suddenly switch to Mac OS X and not be confused and annoyed that it doesn't behave like Windows.
My prediction is that 2008 will come and go without a revolution. Windows Vista will remain the most popular OS with Mac OS X trailing in second and Linux pulling up the rear. However, after Gates leaves Microsoft in 2008 and after Ballmer leaves (hopefully soon thereafter) we'll start to see a shift in Microsoft - a realization that they can't dominate every market and survive. At that point I see Linux taking over some of the smaller markets (cell phones, other hardware devices, even possibly things like the LeapFrog learning systems for children). Linux is already dominating the server market (aside from the remaining "big iron") and I think if it can get small enough, it can dominate the gadget market too (Linux on the PS3 has already occurred).
People (geeks) who want Linux on the desktop will keep using Linux on the desktop. They will keep trying to convince their friends and family to use it with varying success. They will continue to work to improve the desktop experience but will only be able to go as far as reverse-engineering allows not counting patents. On the other hand, if the legal problem that pre-installed Linux runs into can be circumvented by unofficial preinstallations by family members including those pesky illegal codecs, then perhaps Linux on the desktop could become a silent revolution for all by the die-hard OS fans (MS and Apple) and hard-core gamers who need the latest and greatest frag-fest game to satiate their appetite for high-density pixels and life-like gore.
At some point, even with a silent revolution, there comes a critical mass that vendors realize affords them previously untapped revenue and they will start producing games (and other commercial software) for Linux. That will be the tipping point at which Linux starts to become accepted as a desktop OS. That is, if it can overcome the legal hurdles such as the DMCA and software patents long enough to do so.
You're still missing the fundamental fact that ideas cannot be "owned". Hardware patents draw out this particular fact very well by requiring the patent holder to submit into the public domain the details of how to create the object. The concept and implementation are disseminated in exchange for a time-limited monopoly on the implementation and sale of said concept.
If you want to own an idea, you must never tell anyone about it or show an implementation of it to them. Once you do that, the idea is set free and cannot be stopped. You also cannot claim first rights to an idea if you never tell anyone about it and someone else comes up with the same idea but does tell someone about it, or gets a patent for it. Prior art only covers publicized ideas since there's no way to prove that you had the particular idea first -- anyone could claim they thought of something after the fact.
So this gets back to monetization of an idea. Since natural law provides no such protections against "stealing" ideas, human law has provided limited protections for the betterment of society. These protections are limited in nature for good cause because unlimited protections would quickly stifle innovations given that most innovation is built off of previous ideas. If you lock up all the ideas, then no one can afford to come up with new ideas without breaking the law or paying exorbitant amounts of money to license them.
Economics are coming into play when you consider the chilling effects of unlimited copyright and/or patent terms. As has been stated many times before, copyright and patents are time-limited monopolies granted by the law/government. It is not possible for the government to have on the one hand anti-trust laws that prevent unfair monopolies and on the other hand grant unlimited copyright and patent terms effectively granting the same. As others have stated as well, there have been attempts at no copyrights and very long term copyrights (as we have currently) and neither is a viable solution to balancing personal economics with national economics.
I could hold an entirely different discussion about why I personally don't feel that inheritances benefit the greater society either and so that aspect of your argument I'm not really considering, but I'll hold off on that for another day. Suffice it to say that most things, including copyrights, patents, alcohol, and other things, should be used in moderation to achieve the best overall benefit for the individual and the community.
The crux of this problem is that you're treating ideas and creativity as property -- intangible ethereal things as tangible physical things. Please try to ignore the fact that lawyers and the media are hung up on this terminology of "intellectual property". No one owns an idea - it's not possible, just as owning a thought isn't possible and I'll prove it to you:
I just had a thought about pink elephants dancing in a tutu. Whatever you do, if forbid you to think about pink elephants dancing in a tutu. It's my thought, my idea - you're not allowed to have it! But I'll bet the first image that popped into your head was of a pink elephant in a tutu. There's nothing I can do to keep you from thinking (short of killing you) and it would be impractical to try and do so. Such are ideas and creativity.
Getting back to the table, here we have a person who's spent a lot of time and energy in the process of transforming his/her idea of a grand table into something tangible - a real table. This person has put this effort into the table for primarily one of two reasons: 1. He/she hoped to sell it and make a profit on it, or 2. He/she did it for the sheer enjoyment of expression and is not expecting recompense for the effort. Your argument hinges on #1, so we'll stick with that.
There is nothing in law that says you have a right to make a profit in a business venture. If that were the case, then we'd never see an out of business sign. If I come along and see the table for sale and think it's an absolutely gorgeous table, but the creator is asking an outrageous price (in my opinion) for it, I can go home and make my own version of the table for the cost of materials and effort. If I have a photographic memory and am equally as skilled as the original artist, then I could reproduce exactly the same table. At this point, I've effectively copied his/her table. If I then try to sell my table, I could be getting into legal troubles assuming his/her table is copyrighted and someone actually notices both.
But the GP's point was that if I waited 50 years before I built my copy of the table and the original table creator hadn't sold his/hers yet, they're not going to - at least not at that price, but certainly it doesn't seem likely. Add to that the fact that they're probably not likely to sell it for enough money to cover the last 50 years of living expenses, and you've got yourself a failed business venture. Certainly after 50 years, my duplicate table would not be considered infringing by any rational person (the original artisan excepted).
Copyright is a limited grant by the government to a monopoly on your creative expression, not on the idea the spawned it. Copyright concerns itself with implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. Patents on the other hand used to be the same, but have since run amok and act like they cover broad ideas and generalities now, particularly in software and processes. However, patents cost a substantial amount of money to apply for and (though unlikely) have the potential of being turned down. Copyright is free, automatic, and getting to be perpetual (I think they still can run out, but I'm not sure after how long).
This is why your argument fails, and why copying is not stealing. Stealing implies the denial of something rightfully yours. Copying does not deny you anything you had a right to in the first place. You didn't have an exclusive right to the idea. You also didn't have a right to profit in your business venture. The only limited right you are granted under copyright is to prevent another from benefiting economically from your work without your permission. A copy for non-commercial personal use (especially if I performed extensive effort to duplicate your work without direct access to the original) is so gray in terms of the fair use clause that you'd probably never make it out of court with a smile on your face.
So for the benefit of society, please stop spreading the RIAA (and others')
I'll go along with this. If I entered into that agreement I may be a fool or I may be desperate but despite that there's nothing morally wrong with it.
I think you're missing the point though. Aside from some very important differences between patents and copyright (patents have a non-renewable short lifetime and are not transferable) my objection isn't so much to the transfer of ownership as it is to the indefinite revenue stream. There are two major reasons for this:
a Star Trek-like transporter is not part of our culture in the way music and other creative works are and as such you're not charging a fee to access culture
copyright and patents were designed to encourage innovation and creativity by granting a small monopoly to the creator for a very limited amount of time, not to create one thing that you could live off of the rest of your life through royalty payments.
I vehemently disagree with your #5 as I do with any sort of monetary inheritance. It provides no incentive for the heir receiving the inheritance to do anything productive with their life except to live off their relatives' work. This has zero benefit to society and should not be encouraged because then people will come to believe that it is their right to receive a large inheritance and not have to earn their own way.
But then again, that's the beauty of freedom, we can both have our opinions and provide for our own heirs as we see fit in the hopes that we've both produced productive members of society who value a work ethic. Some of the worst kings in history succeeded the best most likely because they grew up without having to learn much about the hardships of life and felt entitled to everything they had (and more).
Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well? Not at all, but I do find compensating record labels (not artists) in perpetuity for work they did not produce morally repugnant.
Creating a bill called "Anti-RIAA" is going to get shot down very quickly in Congress. I think you underestimate how many Senators are in the RIAA's pocket and with a title like that you'd certainly draw attention to it ensuring it's demise.
Likewise, we already have "anti-extortion" laws in place stemming from organized crime and monopolies, it would probably not pass because it's redundant.
The answer is very rarely "more laws" -- it's usually "fewer laws" but no one understands that enough and takes action along those lines.
Suddenly people accept it as fact that copyright infringement is stealing and start to think, "If his kids are stealing music, what are mine doing?"
Playing outside and using their imagination instead of listening to crappy music inside?
I know you're being rhetorical but if parents are gauging their kids on the actions of children of wealthy elites then they are clearly out of touch with their own children and should spend some time getting to know them better. It's called good parenting.
My analogy was meant to illustrate that celebrities always have and always will be treated differently in terms of crime and punishment and even in terms of routine events. These days a CEO is as much a celebrity as a Hollywood movie star -- especially the most (un)popular ones that are part of the Corporate Axis if you will, companies behaving badly.
A rock star has a birthday party and it's news. The child of a CEO downloads a song and it's news because they weren't sued. As myself and others have stated in other posts, downloading is not the real target of the RIAA and if they were sued, do you think the CEO would not settle for the same amount as others as quickly as possible? The RIAA is not going to go about smearing the leader of one of their own member labels - that's just flat-out stupid business!
We can argue about general business practices of the member labels separately - the focus of this conversation is the "download confession" and the appropriateness of the punishment. Sure it's unfair and I'd suggest to anyone who's getting sued that they use that as part of their defense strategy to avoid penalties, but I don't think it's worth having a coronary over. There's so many other more important abuses of power that need your energy why not let this public bit of favoritism slide because some amount of it is unavoidable?
If you've been sued and have paid the settlement then you're entitled to outrage. If you haven't then why the pulsing veins on your forehead? Layers upon layers of government around the world are doing much more atrocious things and here we are whining about how a child (or his/her parent) didn't get dragged through the mud because they're running the lawsuit show. Please try to keep a sense of perspective in this matter.
There's a difference between being apathetic and choosing your battles. Am I upset that the CEO is showing blatant favoritism? Of course. Am I outraged to protest? Nope.
Let's just say that shouting and pointing fingers at how someone in power is using that power in unfair ways to minor effect (namely, if his kids got sued, they'd get the same "deal" as everyone else and the RIAA would make an additional $3,000 or so) is fairly unproductive.
Now, if I were someone who was being sued for downloading music, then I would have my lawyer get me off the hook on the technicality of the CEO's kids. That would serve two purposes: I would be free to go and make the RIAA pay my legal fees, and the matter would get very public attention (more so than Slashdot alone can provide).
On the other hand, if I'm sued for uploading music, that's a different story. He never claimed his kids were uploading music and it's fairly well-known that the RIAA doesn't really care about downloads if they can stop the uploaders there will be nothing left for others to download.
So again, you have to pick your fights and this is a very small one indeed to get too ruffled about. I'm much more concerned about corporate and political misbehaving that results in massive harm or damage to people in the U.S. and around the world. Everyone can take the high horse and say if they were king, they'd never bend the rules to help their own family and friends but most people would be lying when placed a real situation.
Chances are any "investigation" would result in no substantial evidence of infringement. After all, it said they downloaded music not uploaded it, and as I recall it's the distribution that the RIAA is mostly concerned about even though they'll say they're concerned with both.
He's just trying to be the next Jack Thomson watching out for the innocents of the city at night with his cape and briefcase atop the roofs of skyscrapers.
*insert dramatic music*
I will concur that HDMI cables longer than 30 feet are unheard of, and that this is because of the specification. Every network standard has distance limitations. It's a trade-off between performance, convenience and cost. In defense of the standards team I can only say that most people tend to put their TV and tuner/dvd/etc on the same side of their house. Sort of like putting the oven in the kitchen with the fridge. But I'm kind of conservative that way.
I've got my HDTV on one side of the room and my A/V equipment one the far side because I don't care to have the bright LEDs shining in my eyes when I'm watching a movie in the dark. I usually get my long cables from Monoprice.com because they're cheap, high-quality, and they make really long lengths of pretty much anything you need.
All over IRC I see people typing w00tz! w00tz! And now I know they were really just referring to Damascus steel and carbon nanotubes. That makes a lot more...er...hmm...
I was actually very pleasantly surprised when I purchased the Rent Soundtrack (can't remember if it was the movie or Broadway musical) and found that not only were the CDA tracks on the disc, but MP3 and OGG versions of the tracks as well at a high bitrate.
Actually I was more than surprised, I was blown away that they even knew what OGG was!
Slashdot Mirror
Allow me to provide a few cites to text that I believe support what I've said:
DMCA circa 1998
and later on in the same document
...and last but not least - the copyright law itself as it defines "fair use" just so we're clear:
So to me it's fairly clear that the DMCA allows circumvention for cases of fair use. The catch is the interpretation of "fair use". The EFF (among others) consider a personal backup copy fair use. Of course, that's not always the case.
To add more confusion to the mess, the RIAA itself said in the MGM vs. Grokster case
I think HD-DVD and Blu-Ray simply will not succeed because hard disk drives will get smaller (in size), larger (in capacity) and more resistant to shock - even to the point of being solid state (like a flash drive).
When this happens, optical media will be a thing of the past because it only holds a mere 250GiB. Tiny drives like the ones in digital cameras probably make for better storage (or will) of high definition video than optical discs do because they're more likely to grow in capacity with the video than the Blu-Ray is (unless they find another frequency of laser light to make even smaller pits and grooves to increase the capacity of a disc -- or mash even more layers in a disc I suppose).
Yes HDDs are more fragile...now. In 10 years I would be surprised if HDDs haven't replaced both of these HD formats for HD content (or another possibility is that you don't buy physical media anymore, you simply stream it to your TV/computer as video on demand).
At the same time, the law also states that anyone redistributing (even for free) The Work without the copyright holder's permission is in violation and subject to fines and other judgments.
However, cracking the encryption in order to copy the disc for backup purposes (or to transfer to a different medium) is protected by law (even the DMCA has a fair use clause) and in this case there's nothing illegal with cracking the DRM to get at the content you paid for (or otherwise obtained legally).
I agree that just because someone watches a movie doesn't mean they were ever willing to pay for it, but that doesn't really factor into law now does it? I mean, by that logic I could argue that I should get everything I want for free because I don't want to pay for any of it.
The real value of something is whether or not I determine it to be worth the asking price -- the same goes for everyone else. If a $400 sweater is worth the money for you to buy, then it's worth $400. If you can live without that sweater then it's clearly not worth that much, but you might be willing to pay $20 for it. If one could clone the $400 sweater and then sell it for $20 we'd be in the same legal situation as the guy selling DVD rips of movies for $5 on the street corner.
Just because my price point is lower than the legal selling point does not make it any more legal for an unauthorized agent to sell me the item at my price point because I was never going to buy it at the full selling point anyway.
Linus on the other hand is much more a leader, and he's been staying out of these sorts of rantings lately. Linus did originally give "World Domination 101" speeches back in 1997 or so, but I haven't seen anything from him lately. I would be interested to find out of Linus thinks Linux is ready to be the mainstream OS by 2008 if it means compromise on codecs and such,
Personally I feel that Linux will take over when it takes over on its own merits or because the other guys get so fat and bloated that they die from their successes (MS & Apple). While I believe Linux is ready for a good number of people, it is far from read for the masses because it requires a significant paradigm shift (excuse the buzzword). Unless the goal is to make Linux into Windows or Mac OS X people will need to learn how to use Linux which is different in many ways from Windows. Likewise, you cannot expect all Windows users to suddenly switch to Mac OS X and not be confused and annoyed that it doesn't behave like Windows.
My prediction is that 2008 will come and go without a revolution. Windows Vista will remain the most popular OS with Mac OS X trailing in second and Linux pulling up the rear. However, after Gates leaves Microsoft in 2008 and after Ballmer leaves (hopefully soon thereafter) we'll start to see a shift in Microsoft - a realization that they can't dominate every market and survive. At that point I see Linux taking over some of the smaller markets (cell phones, other hardware devices, even possibly things like the LeapFrog learning systems for children). Linux is already dominating the server market (aside from the remaining "big iron") and I think if it can get small enough, it can dominate the gadget market too (Linux on the PS3 has already occurred).
People (geeks) who want Linux on the desktop will keep using Linux on the desktop. They will keep trying to convince their friends and family to use it with varying success. They will continue to work to improve the desktop experience but will only be able to go as far as reverse-engineering allows not counting patents. On the other hand, if the legal problem that pre-installed Linux runs into can be circumvented by unofficial preinstallations by family members including those pesky illegal codecs, then perhaps Linux on the desktop could become a silent revolution for all by the die-hard OS fans (MS and Apple) and hard-core gamers who need the latest and greatest frag-fest game to satiate their appetite for high-density pixels and life-like gore.
At some point, even with a silent revolution, there comes a critical mass that vendors realize affords them previously untapped revenue and they will start producing games (and other commercial software) for Linux. That will be the tipping point at which Linux starts to become accepted as a desktop OS. That is, if it can overcome the legal hurdles such as the DMCA and software patents long enough to do so.
Intellectual Property surveillance cameras -- cameras that keep an eye on you to make sure you don't download MP3s or rip DVDs.
Oh, good to know. My bad. :(
You're still missing the fundamental fact that ideas cannot be "owned". Hardware patents draw out this particular fact very well by requiring the patent holder to submit into the public domain the details of how to create the object. The concept and implementation are disseminated in exchange for a time-limited monopoly on the implementation and sale of said concept.
If you want to own an idea, you must never tell anyone about it or show an implementation of it to them. Once you do that, the idea is set free and cannot be stopped. You also cannot claim first rights to an idea if you never tell anyone about it and someone else comes up with the same idea but does tell someone about it, or gets a patent for it. Prior art only covers publicized ideas since there's no way to prove that you had the particular idea first -- anyone could claim they thought of something after the fact.
So this gets back to monetization of an idea. Since natural law provides no such protections against "stealing" ideas, human law has provided limited protections for the betterment of society. These protections are limited in nature for good cause because unlimited protections would quickly stifle innovations given that most innovation is built off of previous ideas. If you lock up all the ideas, then no one can afford to come up with new ideas without breaking the law or paying exorbitant amounts of money to license them.
Economics are coming into play when you consider the chilling effects of unlimited copyright and/or patent terms. As has been stated many times before, copyright and patents are time-limited monopolies granted by the law/government. It is not possible for the government to have on the one hand anti-trust laws that prevent unfair monopolies and on the other hand grant unlimited copyright and patent terms effectively granting the same. As others have stated as well, there have been attempts at no copyrights and very long term copyrights (as we have currently) and neither is a viable solution to balancing personal economics with national economics.
I could hold an entirely different discussion about why I personally don't feel that inheritances benefit the greater society either and so that aspect of your argument I'm not really considering, but I'll hold off on that for another day. Suffice it to say that most things, including copyrights, patents, alcohol, and other things, should be used in moderation to achieve the best overall benefit for the individual and the community.
The crux of this problem is that you're treating ideas and creativity as property -- intangible ethereal things as tangible physical things. Please try to ignore the fact that lawyers and the media are hung up on this terminology of "intellectual property". No one owns an idea - it's not possible, just as owning a thought isn't possible and I'll prove it to you:
I just had a thought about pink elephants dancing in a tutu. Whatever you do, if forbid you to think about pink elephants dancing in a tutu. It's my thought, my idea - you're not allowed to have it! But I'll bet the first image that popped into your head was of a pink elephant in a tutu. There's nothing I can do to keep you from thinking (short of killing you) and it would be impractical to try and do so. Such are ideas and creativity.
Getting back to the table, here we have a person who's spent a lot of time and energy in the process of transforming his/her idea of a grand table into something tangible - a real table. This person has put this effort into the table for primarily one of two reasons: 1. He/she hoped to sell it and make a profit on it, or 2. He/she did it for the sheer enjoyment of expression and is not expecting recompense for the effort. Your argument hinges on #1, so we'll stick with that.
There is nothing in law that says you have a right to make a profit in a business venture. If that were the case, then we'd never see an out of business sign. If I come along and see the table for sale and think it's an absolutely gorgeous table, but the creator is asking an outrageous price (in my opinion) for it, I can go home and make my own version of the table for the cost of materials and effort. If I have a photographic memory and am equally as skilled as the original artist, then I could reproduce exactly the same table. At this point, I've effectively copied his/her table. If I then try to sell my table, I could be getting into legal troubles assuming his/her table is copyrighted and someone actually notices both.
But the GP's point was that if I waited 50 years before I built my copy of the table and the original table creator hadn't sold his/hers yet, they're not going to - at least not at that price, but certainly it doesn't seem likely. Add to that the fact that they're probably not likely to sell it for enough money to cover the last 50 years of living expenses, and you've got yourself a failed business venture. Certainly after 50 years, my duplicate table would not be considered infringing by any rational person (the original artisan excepted).
Copyright is a limited grant by the government to a monopoly on your creative expression, not on the idea the spawned it. Copyright concerns itself with implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. Patents on the other hand used to be the same, but have since run amok and act like they cover broad ideas and generalities now, particularly in software and processes. However, patents cost a substantial amount of money to apply for and (though unlikely) have the potential of being turned down. Copyright is free, automatic, and getting to be perpetual (I think they still can run out, but I'm not sure after how long).
This is why your argument fails, and why copying is not stealing. Stealing implies the denial of something rightfully yours. Copying does not deny you anything you had a right to in the first place. You didn't have an exclusive right to the idea. You also didn't have a right to profit in your business venture. The only limited right you are granted under copyright is to prevent another from benefiting economically from your work without your permission. A copy for non-commercial personal use (especially if I performed extensive effort to duplicate your work without direct access to the original) is so gray in terms of the fair use clause that you'd probably never make it out of court with a smile on your face.
So for the benefit of society, please stop spreading the RIAA (and others')
Zoe (Gina Torres) was Dozer's wife in the Matrix, not Morpheus'.
I know, I know: "whoosh -- the sound of the joke flying over my head".
I'll go along with this. If I entered into that agreement I may be a fool or I may be desperate but despite that there's nothing morally wrong with it.
I think you're missing the point though. Aside from some very important differences between patents and copyright (patents have a non-renewable short lifetime and are not transferable) my objection isn't so much to the transfer of ownership as it is to the indefinite revenue stream. There are two major reasons for this:
I vehemently disagree with your #5 as I do with any sort of monetary inheritance. It provides no incentive for the heir receiving the inheritance to do anything productive with their life except to live off their relatives' work. This has zero benefit to society and should not be encouraged because then people will come to believe that it is their right to receive a large inheritance and not have to earn their own way.
But then again, that's the beauty of freedom, we can both have our opinions and provide for our own heirs as we see fit in the hopes that we've both produced productive members of society who value a work ethic. Some of the worst kings in history succeeded the best most likely because they grew up without having to learn much about the hardships of life and felt entitled to everything they had (and more).
Creating a bill called "Anti-RIAA" is going to get shot down very quickly in Congress. I think you underestimate how many Senators are in the RIAA's pocket and with a title like that you'd certainly draw attention to it ensuring it's demise.
Likewise, we already have "anti-extortion" laws in place stemming from organized crime and monopolies, it would probably not pass because it's redundant.
The answer is very rarely "more laws" -- it's usually "fewer laws" but no one understands that enough and takes action along those lines.
Playing outside and using their imagination instead of listening to crappy music inside?
I know you're being rhetorical but if parents are gauging their kids on the actions of children of wealthy elites then they are clearly out of touch with their own children and should spend some time getting to know them better. It's called good parenting.
My analogy was meant to illustrate that celebrities always have and always will be treated differently in terms of crime and punishment and even in terms of routine events. These days a CEO is as much a celebrity as a Hollywood movie star -- especially the most (un)popular ones that are part of the Corporate Axis if you will, companies behaving badly.
A rock star has a birthday party and it's news. The child of a CEO downloads a song and it's news because they weren't sued. As myself and others have stated in other posts, downloading is not the real target of the RIAA and if they were sued, do you think the CEO would not settle for the same amount as others as quickly as possible? The RIAA is not going to go about smearing the leader of one of their own member labels - that's just flat-out stupid business!
We can argue about general business practices of the member labels separately - the focus of this conversation is the "download confession" and the appropriateness of the punishment. Sure it's unfair and I'd suggest to anyone who's getting sued that they use that as part of their defense strategy to avoid penalties, but I don't think it's worth having a coronary over. There's so many other more important abuses of power that need your energy why not let this public bit of favoritism slide because some amount of it is unavoidable?
If you've been sued and have paid the settlement then you're entitled to outrage. If you haven't then why the pulsing veins on your forehead? Layers upon layers of government around the world are doing much more atrocious things and here we are whining about how a child (or his/her parent) didn't get dragged through the mud because they're running the lawsuit show. Please try to keep a sense of perspective in this matter.
There's a difference between being apathetic and choosing your battles. Am I upset that the CEO is showing blatant favoritism? Of course. Am I outraged to protest? Nope.
Let's just say that shouting and pointing fingers at how someone in power is using that power in unfair ways to minor effect (namely, if his kids got sued, they'd get the same "deal" as everyone else and the RIAA would make an additional $3,000 or so) is fairly unproductive.
Now, if I were someone who was being sued for downloading music, then I would have my lawyer get me off the hook on the technicality of the CEO's kids. That would serve two purposes: I would be free to go and make the RIAA pay my legal fees, and the matter would get very public attention (more so than Slashdot alone can provide).
On the other hand, if I'm sued for uploading music, that's a different story. He never claimed his kids were uploading music and it's fairly well-known that the RIAA doesn't really care about downloads if they can stop the uploaders there will be nothing left for others to download.
So again, you have to pick your fights and this is a very small one indeed to get too ruffled about. I'm much more concerned about corporate and political misbehaving that results in massive harm or damage to people in the U.S. and around the world. Everyone can take the high horse and say if they were king, they'd never bend the rules to help their own family and friends but most people would be lying when placed a real situation.
Chances are any "investigation" would result in no substantial evidence of infringement. After all, it said they downloaded music not uploaded it, and as I recall it's the distribution that the RIAA is mostly concerned about even though they'll say they're concerned with both.
Life's not fair. People with power use it to their advantage. How is this news?
Next you'll be telling me that the President's daughters got drunk underage but nothing came of it.
He's just trying to be the next Jack Thomson watching out for the innocents of the city at night with his cape and briefcase atop the roofs of skyscrapers.
*insert dramatic music*
I'd say if your coughing up a blood sample that you give your doctor a call....
Nah, this is still part of the "then they fight you" stage.
All over IRC I see people typing w00tz! w00tz! And now I know they were really just referring to Damascus steel and carbon nanotubes. That makes a lot more...er...hmm...
Don't you mean...
Successful votes: 46%
Unsuccessful votes: 2%
George Bush: 62%
I was actually very pleasantly surprised when I purchased the Rent Soundtrack (can't remember if it was the movie or Broadway musical) and found that not only were the CDA tracks on the disc, but MP3 and OGG versions of the tracks as well at a high bitrate.
Actually I was more than surprised, I was blown away that they even knew what OGG was!