The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias of "intellectual property" suits them.
Your 8 year old daughter places a copy of the downloaded file in a public location and then Sony can track you down and sue your rear-end off.
But, even if the files are stamped or watermarked, since the sale is based on a physical card with a number (which you can pay cash for), there is no easy way to track where it came from. They could track it to which retail store sold the card, but that's about it.
If they really wanted to be able track who uploaded their music, they would be doing on-line sales like everybody else.
I see no reason why rupping a CD to MP3 is any different than recording an LP to yape, and neither does anyone else who doesn't work for an RIAA label, or is stupid enough to believe their utter bullshit.
You could be right in a sense. Still, everyone knows that rupping to yape has been illegal for years...
You're forgetting the fact that the majority of Americans are so musically ignorant, that they wouldn't know a good song if it jumped up and humped their face. They buy 3-chord songs because they can't wrap their heads around anything more complicated.
Hmmm... may want to include yourself, there. There is nothing about "complicated" music that makes it any more or less intrinsically inspiring or moving than simple songs. Musical exploration that transcends the mechanical into true art is often based on simple chords and melodies, but a talented musician can play with numerous variations and interpretations. This is what makes it "art" - not how complicated the structure of the song is, but how the artist can express emotion within the structure.
I offer as an example "Dark Star", by the Grateful Dead. Mainly it's only 2 chords (arguably 3 if you can sus variants as separate chords), very simple melody. Yet the band (and other artists I have heard) can take that song into incredibly explorations of musical space. In this case, the song itself is little more than a canvas that the band can use for their "painting".
Of course being able to improvise around a simple chord progression is not the only form of musical artistry. Composers often spend years working on symphonic pieces that are treasured for years. But it also takes a lot of talent (and true dedication to the art) to write a simple song that can truly be appreciated. Simple doesn't mean it's crap.
Constant exponential increase in standard living, constrained to the surface of the Earth, is impossible.
No, it's not. You're engaging in wild speculation with absolutely no basis in fact. And I'm totally against your idea of killing off 90% of the population. I'm not completely opposed to leaving the Earth, given a desirable destination and a reasonably comfortable journey. But it's going to take a significant amount of research and technological growth before we can contemplate such a thing. We'll never make it if we just give up and decide we need to huddle here in fear, hoping that whatever we touch isn't going cause a change in the status-quo.
You have completely ignored Option 3: Figure out how to keep going. That is, push for the right kind of growth. If population growth needs to be kept in check while we're all still Earth-bound, it's usually a function of education and lifestyle. The more comfortable a people are, the less kids they tend to have. So keep pushing for advances in agriculture to squeeze more food out of an acre (and maybe a little fuel, too), develop the technology and infrastructure to get plenty of fresh water where it's needed, and keep looking for better, environmentally-friendlier, and plentiful energy sources. As well as more efficient ways of using energy.
I would even go so far as to say Option 3 is the only viable one. Frankly, I'd rather see the entire human race wiped out trying to build a better future for everyone, than see it revert to a bunch of hunter-gatherers because we were so afraid we just can't keep living so well!
Well, I won't argue the point with you about what budget authority the president has. You are correct: he can "suggest", then sign or veto any bill presented.
Suggestions can be ignored, of course, and often are. In fact, there have been many cases of congress increasing funding beyond the president's suggested budget. Until very recently, every one of them passed. They could have easily done the same thing in this case... He can call it "pork" all he wants (not that congress doesn't pass him plenty of pork-laden bills as it is).
Well, first off, the President can't fund anything. At all. Ever. He has absolutely 0 funding authority and must ask congress for everything.
He does, however, have decision making authority for things like troop deployments and NASA priorities. So, basically, this is a spite bill. President wants funding for Mars, so congress adds a spite rider that says "none of this funding shall be used for anything to do with [the President's priorities] sending humans to Mars".
Similar to the war funding bills they have passed with riders like "and the troop levels in Iraq must drop significantly by X date". It's great that congress wants to put some checks on a president that has made so many awful strategic and tactical decisions - they should. But opposing everything just because the President is for it is just spiteful and hurts the country, not just the President. They could just as easily split the funding for NASA into a few buckets, with some of it dedicated to non-Mars projects only.
Back in those days there was a widespread belief (correct or not) that the internet could not be use for commercial purposes (the main argument being the US government's funding of the backbone). Sure, there was a "COM" TLD, but that was really just a basket for outfits that didn't fall into one of the main TLDs: GOV (government agencies), NET (infrastructure providers), EDU (colleges), ORG (non-profits), and MIL (military). If a commercial entity wanted on the net, they were welcome, but the assumption among most netizens at the time was that they were doing it to participate in the net's non-commercial activities.
Yep. The first time I connected to the Internet (through Delphi - anybody else old enough to remember that one?) I had to sign a usage agreement. It basically stated that commercial activity was strictly prohibited. The only allowed activity was education, research, government, and "incidental personal use".
At the time, the entire thing was government funded.
This was way before HTML and NCSA Mosaic. The "cool" browsing application was gopher. Direct connections! Links from one site to another! Wow!
Any other case it would be called a "seizure" (similar to seizures of money that take place on a regular basis in the "war on drugs", permanently and without trial) but several high-and-mighty pedants would explode with fury should one suggest that.
No, no. Asset forfeiture is not a "seizure" of property at all. It's merely an arrest of inanimate objects suspected of involvement in a crime. So it has nothing to do with property rights at all, which is how it passes muster with the SCOTUS. No habeas corpus issues, either, because you can put up a bond for the arrested items to get a hearing demonstrating that the property (err... I mean assets) are innocent of any wrong-doing.
So, yea, interpretation is the key. But if you use the right words - or interpret the words in the right way - you can get it to mean anything you want. SCOTUS has liberally interpreted the Constitution so much over so many years, it's impossible now to enforce its provisions as they were intended. Too bad, really. The only solution I can see now is to call for a new constitutional convention.
Well, you are wrong that intellectual property is recognized by law. There are patents, copyrights, and trademarks, but those are limited entitlements, not property, and they are not recognized as property and hopefully never will be.
I can just imagine it. One day a entrepreneurial young man thinks to himself "Hey, what if I create company made to brainwash people into believing terrible music is good! Wow, that'd be fun! All those saps who base their businesses on giving consumers what they want are about to become a thing of the past! My idea is so much cooler, because it has brainwashing and aliens and stuff..." I know. Seems fantastic, doesn't it?
Y'know what, fine. Your "insight" is really only pre-packaged predictable crap that's been recycled in some form or another over, and over, and over again. Corporation = evil, consumer = dumb, popular = sheeple, me = smart. Give me a break. Wow. Not sure what I said to offend you, here, but you are really stretching to paint what I said into a box like that. I never said that incentive for artists was *bad*. In fact I said it was good. What I said (or meant) was that the system was currently corrupt, and that we shouldn't be worrying about a dearth of artwork if we decide to reform the system - that won't happen. The system needs reform and exploits the artists unfairly. Some other system is needed, and if some corporations go bankrupt, that's less of a bad consequence than the draconian measures that are currently being implemented to prop up a failing business model.
Keep reading. No, sorry, but I'm done with that. You obviously are going to continue to demonstrate the slow, fossilized brain of the very old, and continually assert that your own viewpoint is the correct one, because you cannot see any other. You think your context is the only one that matters, and the rest of us simply cannot see why your fantasies must be real.
I'll give this to you one more time - then I'll let you have the last word. "Intellectual property" does not exist. It is not real (in the epistemological sense), while physical (go ahead and deconstruct that if you want) property is. You are improperly conflating property with a collection of federal rules that govern (re)production of intangible concepts. They are not the same, will never be the same, and should not be treated the same.
Ah, I would have replied sooner, but I've been so busy with people with less absurd views. I'm ashamed to say I just dismissed you as so incredibly elitist about such a subjective subject as art, that I thought you weren't worth replying to. Now mods have made you 5 Insightful, and I once again overestimate the intelligence of the masses. Oh well, everyone has left the thread, and if you can't see why telling people what's art and what isn't based on what you and you alone like, and based on the number of people who disagree with you, is so utterly repugnant, then you'll never learn.
I *never* told anyone what's art and what's not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And there is plenty of much varied art out there for everyone to choose from. People are easily mislead, though. And if all they offer at the bar is 2-day-old corn mash, well, you can come to like 2-day-old corn mash. In fact you could convince lots of people that 2-day-old corn mash was the finest liquor around. But when offered a *choice* between 14-year-old scotch and 2-day-old corn mash, I think I know what most people would choose. If that's "elitist" in your view, so be it.
What I was trying to point out is that there are people that *care* about their art work, and want to produce something that they like. They are artists, and will do it regardless of how much they may or may not get paid. There are other people that only care about the money they can make from what they produce. Most people can tell the difference, when they are not force-fed by multi-billion-dollar marketing blitzes.
There is no such thing as "tangible" property. Property in a legal context is a set of legal rights, nothing more or less. Personalty deals with tangible objects but it is just one kind of property, and not the most legally significant, most complex or eventful, or most litigated kind. I call bullshit. Look it up. Tangible. Here, I'll help you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible. Legally? What do you mean? Do you mean that the basis of American law, the Constitution, defines bullshit like monopoly rights like copyright, patent rights, and other - yes - intangibles to be property when they crafted the first amendment making it clear that the "right to life, liberty, and property" are basic inalienable rights? If that's your claim, it's complete bullshit. What are you, a fucking lawyer? Are you one of the bastards that have helped rape our Constitution by inventing new meanings for words. You don't seem to know what the fuck "intangible" means (check the definition, ass).
Here's a test. If you invade my property, can I blow your fucking head off with impunity? Yes - and double yes if I live in Texas. Try that with your fucking intangible intellectual so-called property.
Again, had you bothered to read, this would not be an element of confusion for you. I read it, you asshat. Try learning how to write.
Read the original assertion in the post I was replying to in order to get the correct context.
Well your original assertion was specious anyway, because you were referring to ownership of some ephemeral work with monopoly rights attached to it as if it were tangible property.
The true owner of an intellectual work is its creator.
No. Most musical performers with record contracts produce records under a "work for hire" arrangement. The corporation is the owner, even though the creator is really the song writer(s) and performer(s)
Look, let me break it down. Many artists just want to be paid as much as they can for creating their work. Creating unlimited copies discourages people from paying the artist. Lack of payment discourages the artist from creating art. Lack of art is not good. If everyone copies artists' works instead of paying for them, then sooner or later, the pool of available artists will dry up, and there will be nothing new to copy.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, here, but it's not art. Maybe it's widgets. Widgets are not art - they are products designed to sell to some perceived or existing market.
Artists don't have to be paid to produce art, they produce it because the want to. Indeed, often because they have to. They have done it since the first cave man chiseled a bear on a cave wall, and they will continue to do it forever.
There have for a long time been people that valued art enough to ensure that the artist were paid for their work, and thus had more time for art instead of having to also perform other work to make a living. This is a good thing. Recently there have been whole corporations that hired artists to produce art works, then made money selling copies. Often huge amounts of money. Many artists got very rich.
Unfortunately, that kind of system also attracts the widget makers. Teams of widget makers often get together and produce something they call "art" (it's not) and make huge sums of money selling copies.
And what's the point in making them? Pretty much no point at all if you want money for them.
Good. If all you're doing it for is money, it's probably not very good anyway. Without all those widgety things crowding the ether, the truly insightful and inspiring art will flourish, enriching us and encouraging other would-be artists.
One supports our culture, the other drains it.
I'd say it's more like "one supports our culture, the other corrupts it."
How exactly doesn't intellectual property resemble "real" property?
"He who receives ideas from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me"
No, no. The EFF is the ACLU of the Internet, the FSF is the NAACP of the software developer, and the Richard Stallman is the William Wallace of the software world, and Linus Torvalds is the Thomas Edison of the software revolution.
How do you figure that the entertainment industry is receiving revenue they haven't earned? I don't have the numbers to prove it one way or the other, but the principle behind the levy is to provide them with revenue that they would otherwise have received if not for content piracy.
Because they're revenue comes from the sales of tickets and dvds and broadcast distributors, etc. That is what they earn. The levy provides them some additional revenue based on the sale figures for a loosely related commodity - money they didn't earn. To me, the availability of blank media often *increases* the amount of revenue they can make from the channels that actually pay for that content - that is, it increases demand for their product. So the levy paid to them is money that they did not earn, because it has nothing to do with the market forces that set prices for their product.
Slashdot Mirror
"Intellectual property" is a fraud and a ruse.
The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias of "intellectual property" suits them.
How about "IMP" (Imposed Monopoly Privileges)
But, even if the files are stamped or watermarked, since the sale is based on a physical card with a number (which you can pay cash for), there is no easy way to track where it came from. They could track it to which retail store sold the card, but that's about it.
If they really wanted to be able track who uploaded their music, they would be doing on-line sales like everybody else.
You could be right in a sense. Still, everyone knows that rupping to yape has been illegal for years...
I call BS. Please give one example involving ISO standards. Just 1. And Microsoft "embraced and extended" implementations don't count.
Hmmm... may want to include yourself, there. There is nothing about "complicated" music that makes it any more or less intrinsically inspiring or moving than simple songs. Musical exploration that transcends the mechanical into true art is often based on simple chords and melodies, but a talented musician can play with numerous variations and interpretations. This is what makes it "art" - not how complicated the structure of the song is, but how the artist can express emotion within the structure.
I offer as an example "Dark Star", by the Grateful Dead. Mainly it's only 2 chords (arguably 3 if you can sus variants as separate chords), very simple melody. Yet the band (and other artists I have heard) can take that song into incredibly explorations of musical space. In this case, the song itself is little more than a canvas that the band can use for their "painting".
Of course being able to improvise around a simple chord progression is not the only form of musical artistry. Composers often spend years working on symphonic pieces that are treasured for years. But it also takes a lot of talent (and true dedication to the art) to write a simple song that can truly be appreciated. Simple doesn't mean it's crap.
I'm a Justin Timberlake fan, you insensitive clod!
In a word: Yes.
No, it's not. You're engaging in wild speculation with absolutely no basis in fact. And I'm totally against your idea of killing off 90% of the population. I'm not completely opposed to leaving the Earth, given a desirable destination and a reasonably comfortable journey. But it's going to take a significant amount of research and technological growth before we can contemplate such a thing. We'll never make it if we just give up and decide we need to huddle here in fear, hoping that whatever we touch isn't going cause a change in the status-quo.
You have completely ignored Option 3: Figure out how to keep going. That is, push for the right kind of growth. If population growth needs to be kept in check while we're all still Earth-bound, it's usually a function of education and lifestyle. The more comfortable a people are, the less kids they tend to have. So keep pushing for advances in agriculture to squeeze more food out of an acre (and maybe a little fuel, too), develop the technology and infrastructure to get plenty of fresh water where it's needed, and keep looking for better, environmentally-friendlier, and plentiful energy sources. As well as more efficient ways of using energy.
I would even go so far as to say Option 3 is the only viable one. Frankly, I'd rather see the entire human race wiped out trying to build a better future for everyone, than see it revert to a bunch of hunter-gatherers because we were so afraid we just can't keep living so well!
Suggestions can be ignored, of course, and often are. In fact, there have been many cases of congress increasing funding beyond the president's suggested budget. Until very recently, every one of them passed. They could have easily done the same thing in this case... He can call it "pork" all he wants (not that congress doesn't pass him plenty of pork-laden bills as it is).
He does, however, have decision making authority for things like troop deployments and NASA priorities. So, basically, this is a spite bill. President wants funding for Mars, so congress adds a spite rider that says "none of this funding shall be used for anything to do with [the President's priorities] sending humans to Mars".
Similar to the war funding bills they have passed with riders like "and the troop levels in Iraq must drop significantly by X date". It's great that congress wants to put some checks on a president that has made so many awful strategic and tactical decisions - they should. But opposing everything just because the President is for it is just spiteful and hurts the country, not just the President. They could just as easily split the funding for NASA into a few buckets, with some of it dedicated to non-Mars projects only.
Oh, I don't know. They could just say it's covered under the Interstate Commerce clause.
Yep. The first time I connected to the Internet (through Delphi - anybody else old enough to remember that one?) I had to sign a usage agreement. It basically stated that commercial activity was strictly prohibited. The only allowed activity was education, research, government, and "incidental personal use".
At the time, the entire thing was government funded.
This was way before HTML and NCSA Mosaic. The "cool" browsing application was gopher. Direct connections! Links from one site to another! Wow!
No, no. Asset forfeiture is not a "seizure" of property at all. It's merely an arrest of inanimate objects suspected of involvement in a crime. So it has nothing to do with property rights at all, which is how it passes muster with the SCOTUS. No habeas corpus issues, either, because you can put up a bond for the arrested items to get a hearing demonstrating that the property (err... I mean assets) are innocent of any wrong-doing.
So, yea, interpretation is the key. But if you use the right words - or interpret the words in the right way - you can get it to mean anything you want. SCOTUS has liberally interpreted the Constitution so much over so many years, it's impossible now to enforce its provisions as they were intended. Too bad, really. The only solution I can see now is to call for a new constitutional convention.
asshat
I'll give this to you one more time - then I'll let you have the last word. "Intellectual property" does not exist. It is not real (in the epistemological sense), while physical (go ahead and deconstruct that if you want) property is. You are improperly conflating property with a collection of federal rules that govern (re)production of intangible concepts. They are not the same, will never be the same, and should not be treated the same.
Go.
I *never* told anyone what's art and what's not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And there is plenty of much varied art out there for everyone to choose from. People are easily mislead, though. And if all they offer at the bar is 2-day-old corn mash, well, you can come to like 2-day-old corn mash. In fact you could convince lots of people that 2-day-old corn mash was the finest liquor around. But when offered a *choice* between 14-year-old scotch and 2-day-old corn mash, I think I know what most people would choose. If that's "elitist" in your view, so be it.
What I was trying to point out is that there are people that *care* about their art work, and want to produce something that they like. They are artists, and will do it regardless of how much they may or may not get paid. There are other people that only care about the money they can make from what they produce. Most people can tell the difference, when they are not force-fed by multi-billion-dollar marketing blitzes.
I call bullshit. Look it up. Tangible. Here, I'll help you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangible. Legally? What do you mean? Do you mean that the basis of American law, the Constitution, defines bullshit like monopoly rights like copyright, patent rights, and other - yes - intangibles to be property when they crafted the first amendment making it clear that the "right to life, liberty, and property" are basic inalienable rights? If that's your claim, it's complete bullshit. What are you, a fucking lawyer? Are you one of the bastards that have helped rape our Constitution by inventing new meanings for words. You don't seem to know what the fuck "intangible" means (check the definition, ass).
Here's a test. If you invade my property, can I blow your fucking head off with impunity? Yes - and double yes if I live in Texas. Try that with your fucking intangible intellectual so-called property.
Again, had you bothered to read, this would not be an element of confusion for you. I read it, you asshat. Try learning how to write.I hope that's clear enough for you.
asshat.
Well your original assertion was specious anyway, because you were referring to ownership of some ephemeral work with monopoly rights attached to it as if it were tangible property.
No. Most musical performers with record contracts produce records under a "work for hire" arrangement. The corporation is the owner, even though the creator is really the song writer(s) and performer(s)
I'm not sure what you are talking about, here, but it's not art. Maybe it's widgets. Widgets are not art - they are products designed to sell to some perceived or existing market.
Artists don't have to be paid to produce art, they produce it because the want to. Indeed, often because they have to. They have done it since the first cave man chiseled a bear on a cave wall, and they will continue to do it forever.
There have for a long time been people that valued art enough to ensure that the artist were paid for their work, and thus had more time for art instead of having to also perform other work to make a living. This is a good thing. Recently there have been whole corporations that hired artists to produce art works, then made money selling copies. Often huge amounts of money. Many artists got very rich.
Unfortunately, that kind of system also attracts the widget makers. Teams of widget makers often get together and produce something they call "art" (it's not) and make huge sums of money selling copies.
Good. If all you're doing it for is money, it's probably not very good anyway. Without all those widgety things crowding the ether, the truly insightful and inspiring art will flourish, enriching us and encouraging other would-be artists. I'd say it's more like "one supports our culture, the other corrupts it.""He who receives ideas from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me"
--- Thomas Jefferson
No, no. The EFF is the ACLU of the Internet, the FSF is the NAACP of the software developer, and the Richard Stallman is the William Wallace of the software world, and Linus Torvalds is the Thomas Edison of the software revolution.
How about we give your karma a boost and go find a lawyer to beat all to hell instead.
Because they're revenue comes from the sales of tickets and dvds and broadcast distributors, etc. That is what they earn. The levy provides them some additional revenue based on the sale figures for a loosely related commodity - money they didn't earn. To me, the availability of blank media often *increases* the amount of revenue they can make from the channels that actually pay for that content - that is, it increases demand for their product. So the levy paid to them is money that they did not earn, because it has nothing to do with the market forces that set prices for their product.