You could easily copy on the scale that 99% of the people the MP/RIAA sue do, even in 2000 BC.
This is the statement to which I was responding. 'Copying' in itself has always existed and always will. Any 'industry' (or whatever we term it), though, would be more analogous to the RIAA members stamping out CDs than to file traders: the monks who spent their lives copying illuminated manuscripts were doing it on behalf of those who controlled the original text.
All of the people that the RIAA sues (100%, not 99%) are accused of copying/trading songs numbering into the thousands. I'm certainly not saying that they actually have, but those are the numbers that are thrown around in those lawsuits (and AFAIK, no one has tried to defend themselves by saying, "Sure I traded songs, just not that many").
If your statement had been "most people" instead of "99% of the people the MP/RIAA sue" it would be better, because nearly everyone makes a few copies. Even then, though, to say that making copies was 'easy' and has been easy for 4000 years is extravagant hyperbole at best.
Probably the most important point that hasn't been made yet is that a very tiny fraction of the people would ever see the original, or even a copy. Architecture and other art permanently located in one spot would only ever be seen by those living close, or those that traveled -- a minuscule number. Only society's elite (a very, very small percentage of the whole, even in ancient Greece) would ever see most paintings and sculptures, hear music compositions, and see or even be able to read books.
To remind us of where we started this discussion, in your original post you imply that copyright is bad since "The entire foundation of our culture was created without the existence of copyright." This may not be strictly false, but it is completely irrelevant: before copyright, there was no copying worth mentioning. Once copying became more practical and widespread, copyright came into being. I'm not arguing for or against copyright, I'm just trying to point out a flawed argument. If you intend to argue against copyright based on history, don't ignore historical context.
No. The Statute of Anne, the first real copyright law, was passed in 1709. Give me an example of a 'copying industry' that significantly predates that. The printing press was invented in 1450, only 250 years previous. Sound recording came much later. Works of art were reproduced by hand, in extremely small quantities.
As for the examples you mention, remembering a song and then singing it later isn't prohibited by copyright anyway - unless you're performing it in public. How many people, in a basically subsistence economy, have the time or ability to 'share' songs in that way? I don't know much about the history of art forgery, but based on what I do know I strongly doubt that it was a terribly wide-spread 'industry.'
Not sure what you think the entire foundation of our culture is, but the concept of copyright was meaningless before copying such works became practical. After that time, copyright came into existence. And so did a whole slew of other works (art, science, etc) that are a hell of a lot more relevant to our culture and its current incarnation than a 3,000-year-old pile of rocks in the desert.
In the US there is a federally-mandated minimum wage. There are probably people that would be willing to get even the tiny wage you are talking about, but that would be illegal.
And that's before you figure in income taxes, worker's compensation insurance, etc.
(I am assuming there is an employer in the picture, because how else is someone willing to work for such a pittance going to afford the computer, game and subscription fee?)
That should read "every one" in the second sentence, not "everyone" (although that would make sense as well I suppose, just isn't the point I was making).
How many grade schoolers will have day-to-day contact with neurosurgery or genetic research or soldiering? On the other hand, almost everyone probably has at least some contact with a computer every day.
And in any case, this isn't about "sticking programming down their throats" so much as it is about teaching problem solving and providing an outlet for creativity. It is about as close to real programming as a nature walk is to neurosurgery or genetic research.
Not at all; my last post was pointlessly antagonistic, and I apologize for that.
We are too far apart in our beliefs and our views on the nature of man. As an aside, your view is probably much more optimistic than mine, because the way I understand it functional anarchy requires individuals to respect one another's rights and independence. Based on what I believe to be human nature, I believe that any anarchistic society would either degenerate into Lord of the Flies savagery or else would evolve some form of governance and no longer be anarchistic. (By 'society' here I don't mean any sort of coherent group, just individuals living in unavoidable proximity to one another.)
What I am trying to get at is that arguing about copyrights would by pointless, because there is no common point of reference. I accused you earlier of avoiding the issue by defining society the way you did, but we would be talking at cross purposes unless we did define society . . . and laws, government, the nature of property, rights of man, etc. We could debate any of those issues* but it would probably be months before we could lay enough groundwork to rationally argue something like copyright which depends on so many other, more basic, premises. Without that background, I say copyrights are good and necessary even if not in their present form, you say copyrights aren't a valid concept (or something to that effect), and that's as far as we can get.
*And you probably would win if we debated. One of my undergrad degrees is in history, but in no particular specialty (ranging from pre-history to mid-20th century and covering America, Europe, the middle east, Japan, etc.) and whatever political and general philosophy I picked up was incidental or the result of reading on the side for curiosity. Meaning that you probably know far more about anarchy than I do about any counter-arguments.
Did I say software? It amazes me how people focus solely on software when arguing against copyright, although they don't restrict they're arguments just to software but want to eliminate all copyrights.
Software is a special case because, like Red Hat, you can sell service. What's the profit model for a novelist or singer? You spend months or years writing a book, then what? Publishing houses would be out of business or only sell books at cost, paying the author nothing because (1) they can just take what the author wrote, and (2) if they bothered paying, they'd be at a competitive disadvantage to the other publishing houses that can now take that work without having paid anything. That leaves putting it online and asking for donations. You know why we don't see anyone doing that already (except for low-quality, unpublishable material)? It's because doesn't work; my point was that there would be no such thing as professional artists, only hobbyists, because there would be no way to support yourself through your work and therefore you cannot devote all of your time to it.
You mean you weren't alive in the 1780s to help draft the Constitution? Silly me.
If you care to make a point based on something other than semantics (especially when you pull definitions out of your ass) I'd be happy to debate my post. In the meantime, maybe take a high school civics class (if they still have those) to learn what laws are and how it is that you have any 'rights.' If you're up to it, you might read some of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government for some background on 'society' and property rights. Some of his ideas are dated, of course, but if you can get through it you will probably be able to contribute something more intelligible than "Zomg!!111! Copyright is t3h SuXX0rs!!!11 I should be able to copy whatever I want because it's easy!!"
Lovely, except that we as a society have granted property rights in these 'resources' regardless of their scarcity in order to provide an incentive to create (they are no more or less scarce because they are digital - just easier to copy). Copyrights and patents are provided for in the US Constitution; just because the system is messed up today and allows abuse does not mean that giving property rights to intangibles is wrong. How many songs would there be for you to copy for free if the artists could get no money? How many books, movies, paintings, etc.? Some people would do it for the love of it, but no one would be able to do it for a living when anyone and everyone was free to copy as they liked.
I know it's not fashionable to RTFA, but come on. Just because the summaries contain the words "patent" and "Supreme Court," that does not automatically mean they are the same. These are completely different stories.
That is not democracy, that is anarchy. Explain, if you would be so kind, how this sort of behavior (I provided only a single example, but it is the rule, not the exception) is not mindless rioting, but rather simply having and expressing opinions that I don't agree with.
As I stated in the post you attack, I believe that protest is an important part of democracy. My previous post was just pointing out that the GP of that post -- which you attacked so adroitly by calling the poster a 'dough-head' -- when referring to French-style protests, the poster clearly meant the rioting by students, farmers, truckers, etc., when some subsidy or other government protection is threatened, rather than protest in general.
I think that, by "street protests," the parent meant the mindless rioting that occurs every time the French government thinks about removing some group of self-interested leeches from the public tit.
Although the rioters are certainly protesting, it is not democratic - it's simply tyranny by the minority, with the government held hostage to the desires of any small group willing to riot.
"Protest," as it occurs in the US and most other democracies -- where the purpose is actually to protest and raise awareness -- is definitely a normal and necessary part of the democratic process.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the statement to which I was responding. 'Copying' in itself has always existed and always will. Any 'industry' (or whatever we term it), though, would be more analogous to the RIAA members stamping out CDs than to file traders: the monks who spent their lives copying illuminated manuscripts were doing it on behalf of those who controlled the original text.
All of the people that the RIAA sues (100%, not 99%) are accused of copying/trading songs numbering into the thousands. I'm certainly not saying that they actually have, but those are the numbers that are thrown around in those lawsuits (and AFAIK, no one has tried to defend themselves by saying, "Sure I traded songs, just not that many").
If your statement had been "most people" instead of "99% of the people the MP/RIAA sue" it would be better, because nearly everyone makes a few copies. Even then, though, to say that making copies was 'easy' and has been easy for 4000 years is extravagant hyperbole at best.
Probably the most important point that hasn't been made yet is that a very tiny fraction of the people would ever see the original, or even a copy. Architecture and other art permanently located in one spot would only ever be seen by those living close, or those that traveled -- a minuscule number. Only society's elite (a very, very small percentage of the whole, even in ancient Greece) would ever see most paintings and sculptures, hear music compositions, and see or even be able to read books.
To remind us of where we started this discussion, in your original post you imply that copyright is bad since "The entire foundation of our culture was created without the existence of copyright." This may not be strictly false, but it is completely irrelevant: before copyright, there was no copying worth mentioning. Once copying became more practical and widespread, copyright came into being. I'm not arguing for or against copyright, I'm just trying to point out a flawed argument. If you intend to argue against copyright based on history, don't ignore historical context.
No. The Statute of Anne, the first real copyright law, was passed in 1709. Give me an example of a 'copying industry' that significantly predates that. The printing press was invented in 1450, only 250 years previous. Sound recording came much later. Works of art were reproduced by hand, in extremely small quantities.
As for the examples you mention, remembering a song and then singing it later isn't prohibited by copyright anyway - unless you're performing it in public. How many people, in a basically subsistence economy, have the time or ability to 'share' songs in that way? I don't know much about the history of art forgery, but based on what I do know I strongly doubt that it was a terribly wide-spread 'industry.'
I think someone needs to cut back on the caffeine. And brush up on their reading comprehension skills.
That, or you're replying to the wrong comment.
Not sure what you think the entire foundation of our culture is, but the concept of copyright was meaningless before copying such works became practical. After that time, copyright came into existence. And so did a whole slew of other works (art, science, etc) that are a hell of a lot more relevant to our culture and its current incarnation than a 3,000-year-old pile of rocks in the desert.
Here, just hold these wires while I flip this switch back and forth. This may take a while . . .
In the US there is a federally-mandated minimum wage. There are probably people that would be willing to get even the tiny wage you are talking about, but that would be illegal.
And that's before you figure in income taxes, worker's compensation insurance, etc.
(I am assuming there is an employer in the picture, because how else is someone willing to work for such a pittance going to afford the computer, game and subscription fee?)
Try reading the post he was responding to -- your post.
And maybe cut back on the caffeine a bit or something . . .
Amen brother. Sign me up for your newsletter.
If 0.16% is the utter stupidity ratio on your internet, it must be different from mine.
That should read "every one" in the second sentence, not "everyone" (although that would make sense as well I suppose, just isn't the point I was making).
How many grade schoolers will have day-to-day contact with neurosurgery or genetic research or soldiering? On the other hand, almost everyone probably has at least some contact with a computer every day.
And in any case, this isn't about "sticking programming down their throats" so much as it is about teaching problem solving and providing an outlet for creativity. It is about as close to real programming as a nature walk is to neurosurgery or genetic research.
Not at all; my last post was pointlessly antagonistic, and I apologize for that.
We are too far apart in our beliefs and our views on the nature of man. As an aside, your view is probably much more optimistic than mine, because the way I understand it functional anarchy requires individuals to respect one another's rights and independence. Based on what I believe to be human nature, I believe that any anarchistic society would either degenerate into Lord of the Flies savagery or else would evolve some form of governance and no longer be anarchistic. (By 'society' here I don't mean any sort of coherent group, just individuals living in unavoidable proximity to one another.)
What I am trying to get at is that arguing about copyrights would by pointless, because there is no common point of reference. I accused you earlier of avoiding the issue by defining society the way you did, but we would be talking at cross purposes unless we did define society . . . and laws, government, the nature of property, rights of man, etc. We could debate any of those issues* but it would probably be months before we could lay enough groundwork to rationally argue something like copyright which depends on so many other, more basic, premises. Without that background, I say copyrights are good and necessary even if not in their present form, you say copyrights aren't a valid concept (or something to that effect), and that's as far as we can get.
*And you probably would win if we debated. One of my undergrad degrees is in history, but in no particular specialty (ranging from pre-history to mid-20th century and covering America, Europe, the middle east, Japan, etc.) and whatever political and general philosophy I picked up was incidental or the result of reading on the side for curiosity. Meaning that you probably know far more about anarchy than I do about any counter-arguments.
I see. No point trying to argue with someone who believes anarchy is a workable philosophy. I wasted both of our time. HAND
Did I say software? It amazes me how people focus solely on software when arguing against copyright, although they don't restrict they're arguments just to software but want to eliminate all copyrights.
Software is a special case because, like Red Hat, you can sell service. What's the profit model for a novelist or singer? You spend months or years writing a book, then what? Publishing houses would be out of business or only sell books at cost, paying the author nothing because (1) they can just take what the author wrote, and (2) if they bothered paying, they'd be at a competitive disadvantage to the other publishing houses that can now take that work without having paid anything. That leaves putting it online and asking for donations. You know why we don't see anyone doing that already (except for low-quality, unpublishable material)? It's because doesn't work; my point was that there would be no such thing as professional artists, only hobbyists, because there would be no way to support yourself through your work and therefore you cannot devote all of your time to it.
You mean you weren't alive in the 1780s to help draft the Constitution? Silly me.
If you care to make a point based on something other than semantics (especially when you pull definitions out of your ass) I'd be happy to debate my post. In the meantime, maybe take a high school civics class (if they still have those) to learn what laws are and how it is that you have any 'rights.' If you're up to it, you might read some of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government for some background on 'society' and property rights. Some of his ideas are dated, of course, but if you can get through it you will probably be able to contribute something more intelligible than "Zomg!!111! Copyright is t3h SuXX0rs!!!11 I should be able to copy whatever I want because it's easy!!"
Lovely, except that we as a society have granted property rights in these 'resources' regardless of their scarcity in order to provide an incentive to create (they are no more or less scarce because they are digital - just easier to copy). Copyrights and patents are provided for in the US Constitution; just because the system is messed up today and allows abuse does not mean that giving property rights to intangibles is wrong. How many songs would there be for you to copy for free if the artists could get no money? How many books, movies, paintings, etc.? Some people would do it for the love of it, but no one would be able to do it for a living when anyone and everyone was free to copy as they liked.
Sounds like you're the one that will have to get ready for that roundhouse kick.
I know it's not fashionable to RTFA, but come on. Just because the summaries contain the words "patent" and "Supreme Court," that does not automatically mean they are the same. These are completely different stories.
By, say, becoming physically violent, burning the personal property of others (that have nothing to do with the 'protest'), attacking police, etc.?
That is not democracy, that is anarchy. Explain, if you would be so kind, how this sort of behavior (I provided only a single example, but it is the rule, not the exception) is not mindless rioting, but rather simply having and expressing opinions that I don't agree with.
As I stated in the post you attack, I believe that protest is an important part of democracy. My previous post was just pointing out that the GP of that post -- which you attacked so adroitly by calling the poster a 'dough-head' -- when referring to French-style protests, the poster clearly meant the rioting by students, farmers, truckers, etc., when some subsidy or other government protection is threatened, rather than protest in general.
I think that, by "street protests," the parent meant the mindless rioting that occurs every time the French government thinks about removing some group of self-interested leeches from the public tit.
Although the rioters are certainly protesting, it is not democratic - it's simply tyranny by the minority, with the government held hostage to the desires of any small group willing to riot.
"Protest," as it occurs in the US and most other democracies -- where the purpose is actually to protest and raise awareness -- is definitely a normal and necessary part of the democratic process.
Yes, yes, that second "you're" ought to be "your." Mea culpa grammar nazis.
So you're saying that you're 'right' to breathe is just like a business entity's right to make money from a patent?
<name of some famous sensationalist idiot> would be so proud of you.
a comment made more amusing by your username
And those US soldiers are the ones guarding Germany's national borders . . . oh wait, no they aren't.