By the way, this was one of the most disgusting posts I have ever seen on slashdot. It is "big pharma"'s greed that saved the life of everyone who got AIDS and didn't die from it within a short period that the disease kills an untreated person. Pharmaceutical companies are the reason that cancer survival rates went from under 5% in 1960 to over 60% today. Pharmaceutical companies are the reason AIDS is not an automatic death sentence anymore. Pharmaceutical companies find a way to provide employment for the brightest of scientists to produce cures or treatments for disease and conditions that shills like you cannot even name. To use a slur when referring to the best of people is to equate yourself to the worst of people. You, sir, have done just that.
C'mon. Litigation is a costly process. This kind of "is it really a copy" decisions are precisely what, in the US, is decided by juries. Juries decide on facts, judges decide on the law.
But if we are talking in philosophical terms, courtroom and legal system is meant for fairly clear cut cases. It's not for two school mates to sue each other over which one of them is responsible for the song the two of them banged out of boredom while riding the school bus. It's there to make sure that a movie doesn't take the score of a known band's song and incorporate it into their movie without paying them. Or even that a movie theater doesn't play bootlegged copy of a reel. Of course, when you make a digital copy of a song or movie, there is no question that it's a copy and not just some derivative work.
Besides, here's the thing: when you own something, you have a right to deny its use. Its your right. You don't have to exercise it. You can leave your lawn open for trespassers. You can leave a fence down for the passers-by to admire your flowers.
And if a song you sang in the shower happens to be recorded, you can just let it get copied without asserting your copyright to prevent others from listening to it. So if someone is sharing it on Pirate Bay and it doesn't bother you, well, it's your right.
You think spreading misinformation doesn't cause doubt?
:) It might. But, in this particular case it isn't FUD. FUD refers to a carefully structured campaign meant to produce an effect. RIAA, if anything, is showing a mix of exasperation and confusion. Their campaign is not smooth enough to rise to the task of producing fear. And, if anything, their arguments only produce doubt in their own positions. FUD is supposed to take an issue that is clear and make it murky. Copyrights are already murky. And all RIAA actions do is create further doubt in their justification or effectiveness.
One could argue that until one expresses an idea in a coherent manner, one doesn't really have it. Once it's been expressed, it becomes clear you've had the idea (or that someone else had it). But, c'mon. We are not talking about simply one-thought ideas here. People don't copyright one-sentence expressions (although they do trademark them, but that's not a form of intellectual property). They copyright much more composite works. I doubt you think that two people think of the same song or the same painting at the same time without having heard it or seen it before. And laws are laws of men. They don't deal with situations which are abstractly possible, but practically so improbable as to not be worth consideration.
Well, I guess we got down to it. It is actually your motif to create a society where altruism is a virtue and sharing is a requirement. I've lived in such a society. I would only wish it on my worst enemies.
Here's the problem though. It's not illegal for the operator to touch the reel. It's not illegal for the operator to own copying equipment. It might be against a contract (but still not illegal) for the operator to copy the reel. It's not illegal for the operator to sell the copy of the reel. It's not illegal for the buyer of the copy to make further copies and to play them in their theaters. In this whole chain of events the only impropriety is that the operator made a copy in violation of the contract. He'd get sued, dispose of judgment through bankruptcy and no one would be breaking the law. Of course, in anticipation of this, he'd insist that the payment be made to a third trusted party (his niece, his son, whatever) who cannot even be sued because they wouldn't be party to any contract.
Blah, blah, blah. The point is some companies saw a way for a profit where others (i.e. me) didn't.
You are still comparing apples to oranges.
I already gave examples of how such a profit could be made.
I've already shown that the model in that example doesn't work.
"So without copyrights, artists would only have the ability to negotiate pay for future work."
I can basically agree on that point. So what?
...
I can *say* I own your soul, and certainly if you believe me I could use that as a negotiation tool.
Well, deciding on whether or not artists owning their work is morally equivalent to you claiming ownership of my soul is, actually, a choice of value system. I have to confess, I don't think these two claims are of equal merit in my value system. I don't think they are in your, either.
As to the larger "so what" question, you always get a better (on average) product if you get to negotiate purchase of something after it's been made. But, this again, is beginning to but into volition vs coercion. To avoid philosophical entangling, I'll just say that empirical evidence shows that art produced with intent to sell to those who have a choice of not buying it tends to be of better quality than art that was commissioned. For example, I would assert that break-out bands are better than label-crafted bands.
The monopoly for the copyright holder to exploit an aesthetic work commercially should be limited to five years after publication. Today's copyright terms are simply absurd. Nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead.
hear, hear
Nice straw man. They don't advocate abolishing copyright, rather they want about reform.
"Straw man"? Umm, I am very tempted to be insulting because this criticism is much harsher than deserved. But I'll constrain myself. And explain politely. The name of the party is the pirate party. It's not, for example, "movement for copyright reform". Nor is it "party of fair use rights of intellectual property". Nor is it any one of many other names that could have indicated that the party sees copyright reform as its goal. The name clearly suggests that they advocate copyright abolition. So, no, this was not a straw man argument. This was an argument addressing what was being said. Just because they mean something else when they say what they say (by their name), it doesn't mean that those who disagree with what they say are wrong because they are not addressing what they mean to say.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Copyright is not insistence that one must be the one to pay for the utility of information. It is instance on that one may not have the right to copy it. The search engines offered their services for free because they found someone else to pay for it. But they didn't offer something that would stay the same (or even increase) in value if it were copied. It was largely one-time-use information.
Unless, of course, your argument is with my saying "I don't know" as if it were an argument. Well, I probably should have been more careful. I am certain that without a group of people having a vested interest in popularizing them, they would not have risen to the same level of popularity. You may suggest that I cannot be certain of that because it is purely hypothetical. Well, this argument is very quickly descending to the level of volition vs coercion. And I'd rather not have other in that context other than pointing out that without copyrights, one cannot prevent use. And without ability to prevent use, one cannot restrict use of already-produced art. So without copyrights, artists would only have the ability to negotiate pay for future work.
I realize that my arguments sound a little to close to RIAA. But my position is still that the today's copyright laws are draconian. Perhaps, the knee-jerk reaction people get when I have to say what I have to say is due to the fact that RIAA arguments are largely disingenuous. No one seriously believes that they have artistic freedom in mind when they make these arguments. But I have no vested interest in these corporations. To me the argument is about the abstract notion of ownership as a tool for negotiation. Without it, I think we'll quickly descend into tyranny. Perhaps a tyranny of good intentions, but still a tyranny. Bleh... this is digression. Like I said, I don't want to get into volition vs coercion in this context. But, of course, I am sure someone is gonna put some reply talking about the the RIAA law suits as a form of coercion (hint: if you do that, you missed the point of the topic that this particular thread is addressing).
But without copyright any film operator could have secretly made a copy and sell it to a competing studio. The competing "brand" could then play the same movie without any recourse left for the original producer of the movie.
You can do whatever you want with your copy except copy it. They sold you your copy. They didn't sell you part of their copyright. And copyright is what gives the right to copy.
Let me clarify why economic incentive arguments completely miss the point. Because those who argue that their actions are more profitable for musicians substitute their choice for that of the musicians in deciding what is best for the musicians. They are acting as a collective big brother towards the musicians. We can adapt the same attitude towards tangible property. As a matter of fact, eminent domain does just that. It's a concept that the government can take away your land and compensate you for it if it can make better use of the land. Well, it takes ownership rights away and substitutes it for the right to profit off of the land. Just as you claim that the musician has no right to own his music but only has the right to profit off of it.
Because they were produced by for-profit corporations whose business models relied on copyrights. I am not saying that other artistic forms would not have existed. Just these particular ones -- the ones that were distributed by for-profit corporations. There is plenty of good indie bands out there. Beatles were before cassette tapes. I simply don't see how they could have risen to the same level of popularity (through what mechanism) other than a mass-distribution chain that studios provided. I am not saying other methods of sponsoring arts don't exist (they do, in fact... through direct sponsorship, for one... as was the case with most classical musicians). I am simply saying that this is one of them. And this is only one that gives artists ownership of their art. I think this is just an outgrowth of general dislike for the excessive power of corporations. Well, that's a different issue and shouldn't be mixed with basic ideas of what it means to "own" something.
Because it's as stupid as saying you own a thought.
Native American's who "sold" Manhattan to Europeans had the same idea about land. How can one "own" land?
"Ownership" is the right to deny use. Everything else is semantics. And just we have a legal procedure of establishing ownership of land (through deeds), we have a legal procedure for establishing ownership of certain types of ideas (through copyrights and patents).
I think what you are trying to get at is that ideas can be shared without incurring physical cost (something that isn't true with tangible property). Which is precisely why intellectual property rights must exist for a short period of time.
That's why the rest of your arguments are wrong. They are based on this faulty base of **AA FUD.
Well, I once again, don't think you fully thought through what it meant to "own" something. As for calling it "fud"... They spread a lot of misinformation. It hardly rises to the level of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
How about considering that by sharing a song with my friend (btw you're not even allowed to share a headphone since you didn't pay for public broadcasting)
That's odd. Because sharing a headphone is not broadcasting. It's point-to-point transmission. Broadcasting has to spread like light from a bulb, not like light from a laser. I think whoever convinced the courts that this was a form of broadcasting pulled a short one.
Or exposed them to a larger audience, which in turn breeds hte selling of concert tickets and merchandise sales.
You see you are arguing that they have financial benefit there. But as I said that's not the only consideration. Certainly, if someone took your car keys without your knowledge and started renting out your car and giving you most of the money, you'd have financial benefit beyond that of you just keeping your car to yourself. But you'd still think that the person stole your car. It's about controlling what's yours.
Or my fucking right to not be put in jail for 8 years like I'd murdered someone when I share a song with a friend?
To own something is to have the right to restrict its use to others. I can lend a car to my friend. He can lend to someone else. But because it is my car, I can take back from that someone else and the fact that my friend said "it was ok" will change nothing. As long as copyrights give ownership of intellectual property, you don't have the permission to give it away anymore than you can sell someone else house without their knowledge.
Should copyrights exist? Absolutely! But for much shorter periods of time than they do now. Essentially, the only role the government should have in estimating the appropriate length of the copyright period is "how long does it take for the material to become part of general culture". Certainly, phrases from Casablanca are part of the standard English idiom today. Yet, Casablanca is still copyrighted. The same goes for Elvis, Beatles, etc. But without copyrights, there would never had been either Casablanca nor the Beatles.
If you land your friend a song and you keep a copy for yourself, you are taking from the song's author's his right to copy. It's not even all about the money. You are violating his right to his creation.
Wow! Just wow! The whole discussion attempted to establish this premise. If it were based on it, it would be easily dismissed outright. I disagreed with that conclusion of the discussion by attempting to offer an alternative view point. You showed that if 10% of what I had to say were true, disaster would ensue. I pointed out that it sometimes helps to look at the whole 100% (it being all 4 sentences and all). And your counter argument is that I contradicted the original discussion? Well, duh!
So if the media will publish nothing but conspiracy theories, it will perfectly perform it function
I don't believe the gp was so long that you had to reply to the first sentence and completely ignore the rest. Did you miss the whole part about the media's responsibility to be accurate?
Umm... Give us free cookies or you are a monopoly. That's rich coming from a country in which most top government officials hold positions in the monopoly energy concern of the said country. The cynicism of this move is just unbelievable. Ever since they managed to confuse the world enough to think that Georgia attacked them, they must think that the whole he-said-she-said they manufacture is enough to get their way in anything they want.
Ownership has nothing to do with profit. To own something is to have the right to reject others its use. And my ideas are mine to own. If you don't agree before hand that you won't steal them, you won't even get a peak at them. You get to be limited by the ideas in which people are not personally invested -- the ideas that they share out of something akin to charity. The best of our minds you will never see. You don't own my ideas any more than you own my body. And your "right" to steal gives me every right to not tell that there is something to be stolen. Enjoy.
The conclusion of the article is that every argument must inevitably come down to ad hominems:
The message is not (to coin a phrase) "we report, you decide" but "we report on why you're not actually competent to decide, unless you're prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time, energy, and thought to it.
This type of inflammatory nonsense pervades through all kdawson posts. I suspect slashdot keeps him around for the very reason that he is able to rose people up (more commenting=more ad revenue).
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, this was one of the most disgusting posts I have ever seen on slashdot. It is "big pharma"'s greed that saved the life of everyone who got AIDS and didn't die from it within a short period that the disease kills an untreated person. Pharmaceutical companies are the reason that cancer survival rates went from under 5% in 1960 to over 60% today. Pharmaceutical companies are the reason AIDS is not an automatic death sentence anymore. Pharmaceutical companies find a way to provide employment for the brightest of scientists to produce cures or treatments for disease and conditions that shills like you cannot even name. To use a slur when referring to the best of people is to equate yourself to the worst of people. You, sir, have done just that.
C'mon. Litigation is a costly process. This kind of "is it really a copy" decisions are precisely what, in the US, is decided by juries. Juries decide on facts, judges decide on the law.
But if we are talking in philosophical terms, courtroom and legal system is meant for fairly clear cut cases. It's not for two school mates to sue each other over which one of them is responsible for the song the two of them banged out of boredom while riding the school bus. It's there to make sure that a movie doesn't take the score of a known band's song and incorporate it into their movie without paying them. Or even that a movie theater doesn't play bootlegged copy of a reel. Of course, when you make a digital copy of a song or movie, there is no question that it's a copy and not just some derivative work.
Besides, here's the thing: when you own something, you have a right to deny its use. Its your right. You don't have to exercise it. You can leave your lawn open for trespassers. You can leave a fence down for the passers-by to admire your flowers.
And if a song you sang in the shower happens to be recorded, you can just let it get copied without asserting your copyright to prevent others from listening to it. So if someone is sharing it on Pirate Bay and it doesn't bother you, well, it's your right.
No one is preventing you from sharing. If you are taking an issue with lack of sharing, then you are taking an issue with other people not sharing.
You think spreading misinformation doesn't cause doubt?
:) It might. But, in this particular case it isn't FUD. FUD refers to a carefully structured campaign meant to produce an effect. RIAA, if anything, is showing a mix of exasperation and confusion. Their campaign is not smooth enough to rise to the task of producing fear. And, if anything, their arguments only produce doubt in their own positions. FUD is supposed to take an issue that is clear and make it murky. Copyrights are already murky. And all RIAA actions do is create further doubt in their justification or effectiveness.
One could argue that until one expresses an idea in a coherent manner, one doesn't really have it. Once it's been expressed, it becomes clear you've had the idea (or that someone else had it). But, c'mon. We are not talking about simply one-thought ideas here. People don't copyright one-sentence expressions (although they do trademark them, but that's not a form of intellectual property). They copyright much more composite works. I doubt you think that two people think of the same song or the same painting at the same time without having heard it or seen it before. And laws are laws of men. They don't deal with situations which are abstractly possible, but practically so improbable as to not be worth consideration.
..blah... i meant motive
Well, I guess we got down to it. It is actually your motif to create a society where altruism is a virtue and sharing is a requirement. I've lived in such a society. I would only wish it on my worst enemies.
Here's the problem though. It's not illegal for the operator to touch the reel. It's not illegal for the operator to own copying equipment. It might be against a contract (but still not illegal) for the operator to copy the reel. It's not illegal for the operator to sell the copy of the reel. It's not illegal for the buyer of the copy to make further copies and to play them in their theaters. In this whole chain of events the only impropriety is that the operator made a copy in violation of the contract. He'd get sued, dispose of judgment through bankruptcy and no one would be breaking the law. Of course, in anticipation of this, he'd insist that the payment be made to a third trusted party (his niece, his son, whatever) who cannot even be sued because they wouldn't be party to any contract.
Blah, blah, blah. The point is some companies saw a way for a profit where others (i.e. me) didn't.
You are still comparing apples to oranges.
I already gave examples of how such a profit could be made.
I've already shown that the model in that example doesn't work.
"So without copyrights, artists would only have the ability to negotiate pay for future work."
I can basically agree on that point. So what?
...
I can *say* I own your soul, and certainly if you believe me I could use that as a negotiation tool.
Well, deciding on whether or not artists owning their work is morally equivalent to you claiming ownership of my soul is, actually, a choice of value system. I have to confess, I don't think these two claims are of equal merit in my value system. I don't think they are in your, either.
As to the larger "so what" question, you always get a better (on average) product if you get to negotiate purchase of something after it's been made. But, this again, is beginning to but into volition vs coercion. To avoid philosophical entangling, I'll just say that empirical evidence shows that art produced with intent to sell to those who have a choice of not buying it tends to be of better quality than art that was commissioned. For example, I would assert that break-out bands are better than label-crafted bands.
But it wouldn't be illegal without copyrights. He wouldn't sell the actual physical property, but only its copy.
The monopoly for the copyright holder to exploit an aesthetic work commercially should be limited to five years after publication. Today's copyright terms are simply absurd. Nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead.
hear, hear
Nice straw man. They don't advocate abolishing copyright, rather they want about reform.
"Straw man"? Umm, I am very tempted to be insulting because this criticism is much harsher than deserved. But I'll constrain myself. And explain politely. The name of the party is the pirate party. It's not, for example, "movement for copyright reform". Nor is it "party of fair use rights of intellectual property". Nor is it any one of many other names that could have indicated that the party sees copyright reform as its goal. The name clearly suggests that they advocate copyright abolition. So, no, this was not a straw man argument. This was an argument addressing what was being said. Just because they mean something else when they say what they say (by their name), it doesn't mean that those who disagree with what they say are wrong because they are not addressing what they mean to say.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Copyright is not insistence that one must be the one to pay for the utility of information. It is instance on that one may not have the right to copy it. The search engines offered their services for free because they found someone else to pay for it. But they didn't offer something that would stay the same (or even increase) in value if it were copied. It was largely one-time-use information.
Unless, of course, your argument is with my saying "I don't know" as if it were an argument. Well, I probably should have been more careful. I am certain that without a group of people having a vested interest in popularizing them, they would not have risen to the same level of popularity. You may suggest that I cannot be certain of that because it is purely hypothetical. Well, this argument is very quickly descending to the level of volition vs coercion. And I'd rather not have other in that context other than pointing out that without copyrights, one cannot prevent use. And without ability to prevent use, one cannot restrict use of already-produced art. So without copyrights, artists would only have the ability to negotiate pay for future work.
I realize that my arguments sound a little to close to RIAA. But my position is still that the today's copyright laws are draconian. Perhaps, the knee-jerk reaction people get when I have to say what I have to say is due to the fact that RIAA arguments are largely disingenuous. No one seriously believes that they have artistic freedom in mind when they make these arguments. But I have no vested interest in these corporations. To me the argument is about the abstract notion of ownership as a tool for negotiation. Without it, I think we'll quickly descend into tyranny. Perhaps a tyranny of good intentions, but still a tyranny. Bleh... this is digression. Like I said, I don't want to get into volition vs coercion in this context. But, of course, I am sure someone is gonna put some reply talking about the the RIAA law suits as a form of coercion (hint: if you do that, you missed the point of the topic that this particular thread is addressing).
But without copyright any film operator could have secretly made a copy and sell it to a competing studio. The competing "brand" could then play the same movie without any recourse left for the original producer of the movie.
You can do whatever you want with your copy except copy it. They sold you your copy. They didn't sell you part of their copyright. And copyright is what gives the right to copy.
Let me clarify why economic incentive arguments completely miss the point. Because those who argue that their actions are more profitable for musicians substitute their choice for that of the musicians in deciding what is best for the musicians. They are acting as a collective big brother towards the musicians. We can adapt the same attitude towards tangible property. As a matter of fact, eminent domain does just that. It's a concept that the government can take away your land and compensate you for it if it can make better use of the land. Well, it takes ownership rights away and substitutes it for the right to profit off of the land. Just as you claim that the musician has no right to own his music but only has the right to profit off of it.
And that you know... exactly how?
Because they were produced by for-profit corporations whose business models relied on copyrights. I am not saying that other artistic forms would not have existed. Just these particular ones -- the ones that were distributed by for-profit corporations. There is plenty of good indie bands out there. Beatles were before cassette tapes. I simply don't see how they could have risen to the same level of popularity (through what mechanism) other than a mass-distribution chain that studios provided. I am not saying other methods of sponsoring arts don't exist (they do, in fact... through direct sponsorship, for one... as was the case with most classical musicians). I am simply saying that this is one of them. And this is only one that gives artists ownership of their art. I think this is just an outgrowth of general dislike for the excessive power of corporations. Well, that's a different issue and shouldn't be mixed with basic ideas of what it means to "own" something.
Because it's as stupid as saying you own a thought.
Native American's who "sold" Manhattan to Europeans had the same idea about land. How can one "own" land?
"Ownership" is the right to deny use. Everything else is semantics. And just we have a legal procedure of establishing ownership of land (through deeds), we have a legal procedure for establishing ownership of certain types of ideas (through copyrights and patents).
I think what you are trying to get at is that ideas can be shared without incurring physical cost (something that isn't true with tangible property). Which is precisely why intellectual property rights must exist for a short period of time.
That's why the rest of your arguments are wrong. They are based on this faulty base of **AA FUD.
Well, I once again, don't think you fully thought through what it meant to "own" something. As for calling it "fud"... They spread a lot of misinformation. It hardly rises to the level of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
How about considering that by sharing a song with my friend (btw you're not even allowed to share a headphone since you didn't pay for public broadcasting)
That's odd. Because sharing a headphone is not broadcasting. It's point-to-point transmission. Broadcasting has to spread like light from a bulb, not like light from a laser. I think whoever convinced the courts that this was a form of broadcasting pulled a short one.
Or exposed them to a larger audience, which in turn breeds hte selling of concert tickets and merchandise sales.
You see you are arguing that they have financial benefit there. But as I said that's not the only consideration. Certainly, if someone took your car keys without your knowledge and started renting out your car and giving you most of the money, you'd have financial benefit beyond that of you just keeping your car to yourself. But you'd still think that the person stole your car. It's about controlling what's yours.
Or my fucking right to not be put in jail for 8 years like I'd murdered someone when I share a song with a friend?
To own something is to have the right to restrict its use to others. I can lend a car to my friend. He can lend to someone else. But because it is my car, I can take back from that someone else and the fact that my friend said "it was ok" will change nothing. As long as copyrights give ownership of intellectual property, you don't have the permission to give it away anymore than you can sell someone else house without their knowledge.
Should copyrights exist? Absolutely! But for much shorter periods of time than they do now. Essentially, the only role the government should have in estimating the appropriate length of the copyright period is "how long does it take for the material to become part of general culture". Certainly, phrases from Casablanca are part of the standard English idiom today. Yet, Casablanca is still copyrighted. The same goes for Elvis, Beatles, etc. But without copyrights, there would never had been either Casablanca nor the Beatles.
If you land your friend a song and you keep a copy for yourself, you are taking from the song's author's his right to copy. It's not even all about the money. You are violating his right to his creation.
Wow! Just wow! The whole discussion attempted to establish this premise. If it were based on it, it would be easily dismissed outright. I disagreed with that conclusion of the discussion by attempting to offer an alternative view point. You showed that if 10% of what I had to say were true, disaster would ensue. I pointed out that it sometimes helps to look at the whole 100% (it being all 4 sentences and all). And your counter argument is that I contradicted the original discussion? Well, duh!
mod parent up. that's definitely the most accurate translation.
So if the media will publish nothing but conspiracy theories, it will perfectly perform it function
I don't believe the gp was so long that you had to reply to the first sentence and completely ignore the rest. Did you miss the whole part about the media's responsibility to be accurate?
Umm... Give us free cookies or you are a monopoly. That's rich coming from a country in which most top government officials hold positions in the monopoly energy concern of the said country. The cynicism of this move is just unbelievable. Ever since they managed to confuse the world enough to think that Georgia attacked them, they must think that the whole he-said-she-said they manufacture is enough to get their way in anything they want.
Ownership has nothing to do with profit. To own something is to have the right to reject others its use. And my ideas are mine to own. If you don't agree before hand that you won't steal them, you won't even get a peak at them. You get to be limited by the ideas in which people are not personally invested -- the ideas that they share out of something akin to charity. The best of our minds you will never see. You don't own my ideas any more than you own my body. And your "right" to steal gives me every right to not tell that there is something to be stolen. Enjoy.
The message is not (to coin a phrase) "we report, you decide" but "we report on why you're not actually competent to decide, unless you're prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time, energy, and thought to it.
This type of inflammatory nonsense pervades through all kdawson posts. I suspect slashdot keeps him around for the very reason that he is able to rose people up (more commenting=more ad revenue).