I totally agree. They are building a videogame system with cell phone functionality, but is there anyone who really cares? If it had a revolutionary design, with seamless integration of cell/gaming features, and the price was say, under $100, it would do well.
As it is, this product is just an ungainly Frankendevice that instead of being marketable to the cell phone and gaming crowds, is priced so high and is so clumsily designed that it appeals to neither. They made a 'meh' product, and I was hardly suprised that, no matter what store I went to or where I went online, nobody's excited about this.
This thing is DOA, and I feel truly sorry for the parents that are convinced by one of the few children who succumb to Nokia's puerile "Be an adult, Play NGage!" ad campaign to drop, what, $400 on this? It was a reasonable try at something novel, but no rational person who is not a free-spending millionaire with a Nokia fetish is going to go within 100 feet of this system.
And the filthiest fact about this fiasco is that the RIAA was in such a position of power, I have very little doubt little Brianna's soundbitable quote about "not hurting the artists I love" was a term of the 'generously' reduced $2,000 settlement (which is of course probably all they could pay anyways).
Obviously they've tried to turn their own prosecution of a little girl into a morality story, where she learns the wrong of her actions, and the victorious and righteous RIAA benevolently show mercy to the poor wayward lamb by reducing billions in punitive damages (losses that they've already theoretically suffered!) to a scanty $2,000. Punishing her is bad enough, but the fact that they are punishing her and making her advocate their zealous position is the most disgusting fact of all.
"To the extent that making and enforcing laws is "social engineering," you're right. The whole concept of private property is social engineering (see Locke's Two Treatises of Government for a detailed explanation)."
I understand that you're primarily talking about deterrence, but come now, Locke wrote about property before 'intellectual property' even entered our vocabulary. Physical property is not governed by the same criteria as intellectual property (see this discussion of Copyright Law for a detailed explanation). You are in fact pointing out, albiet unknowingly, the big problem with intellectual property law: namely, that it treats IP like physical property.
"Uh... what? Care to back this claim up? The public doesn't own jack shit of what I create, in any form. Even what I release under the GPL."
Don't mean to be trite, but there are lessons in copyright law that dictionary.com can't teach.
To Wit:
-Copyright law exists in fact to further the interests of useful arts and sciences, NOT to create a system of property ownership.
-The Framers of the constitution knew very well that copyright law was antithetical to society's free exchange of ideas.
-Copyright law is a limited grant of license for the narrow purpose of encouraging innovation, not an inherent (moral) right.
-Every creative work owes to the generations and society before it, and thus to the public in general.
I realize that the RIAA/MPAA have more soundbites using the words "stealing" and "theft" than I have calling it "copyright infringement." But just because Britney Spears goes on TV and spuriously appeals to our moral duty not to 'steal,' that doesn't make her right (and don't be fooled by her excellent understanding of semiconductor physics.
C'mon...Don't make me pull out my Thomas Jefferson quote again...:)
"Google's simply complying with the request and blocking the URLs that were validly mentioned in the takedown notice."
The funny thing is, I noticed they demanded one additional site to be taken down, in addition to all the Kazaa Lite hosts: www.zeropaid.com.
I'm not sure what your definition of "valid" is, but I did a quick check over at the site, which is a file sharing news site, and there was no actual Kazaa Lite software onsite. Instead, the software download link pointed to one of the sites mentioned in the DMCA takedown demand. In other words, looks like they weren't just going after the biggest sites that had the software, but a site that even only linked to the software site. In otherwords Google had to remove a link to a link. I'd say that's going a bit far beyond what even the DMCA thinks is valid.
"Don't host it on a website.. in the US.
There are plenty of other countries that don't have such a crazy legal system."
That's not so much a 'solution' as a 'quick-fix.'
For how long will it work? Really, with the EU and the WIPO both following the disturbing trends in the US, its not very likely that safe havens from the current American copyright regime will exist for long.
On the contrary, when the issue is lost here, at least in the current international climate, the world has no choice but to listen--and the being complacent and hosting on outside servers instead of fighting it simply gives these absurd copyright laws more time to become 'written in stone' so to speak in US law. Remember Eldred v Ashcroft? During oral arguments, the soon-to-be majority opinion Justices kept bringing up the question, as though it were a justification, of "why haven't copyright extensions been challenged before?" The longer these laws stay on the books, the harder its going to be to find respite from them in any country.
Oddly enough, they say the melting will not add to the sea-level of the ocean (since the ice is already in the ocean) and that the extra water will help absorb more greenhouse gases. Maybe we need to start using more aerosols.
"...Johannessen works at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway.
'This will make it easier to explore for oil, it could open the Northern Sea Route (between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans)," he said of the report, dubbed the Arctic Ice Cover Simulation Experiment. '"
I dunno, its theoretically possible (though pretty improbable) that there's absolutely nothing to worry about when our polar ice caps melt completely, but I'm of the mind that when the article is more concerned about the new oil drilling prospects and trade routes than climate instability, cancer-causing UV rays, and so on, maybe its time to get a second opinion.
Well, the as far as the notice on my nearby Mobil station goes, that's the law in MN. I don't know what state you live in, but sounds rough--I naturally didn't mean that "all drive-off laws are reasonable," just that my own was. Thankfully.
The problem with this sort of report, aside from the fact that its committee is stacked to the eyeballs with all of the entertainment ghoulies, is that it really doesn't put much thought into the problem beyond what the letter of the law says.
The real problem is, of course, a resounding imbalance and unreasonable threats of punishment in the copyright laws themselves. It may sound like I'm preaching to the choir, but the copyright laws are pretty clearly well beyond reason. Clearly there must be some protection for copyright, but the fact is, when jailtime and a $150,000 fine are threatened for making a copy of a single song, it goes beyond threatening and becomes absurd. In contrast, I filled up my gas tank today and saw a notice warning drive-offs that if caught they will be fined the price of the gasoline, as well as up to $30 extra for the trouble they caused. That's reasonable law. $150,000 and jail time for an MP3 is just not reasonable law.
In this case, the law is in fact so unreasonable that I have little patience for those who try to enforce it to its maximum effect, such as the RIAA have been. And instead of asking "Why should the entertainment industries have such a big stick anyways," which I would hope the cream of the academic crop would ask, the colleges seem to be saying with this report, "AIIEEE!!! the entertainment companies have a big stick!"
But my point is that there's a pretty wide gap between copyright law and intuitive concepts of copyright. Its not a very evenhanded method to simply say "the laws are infallible, and the solution is to inculcate new respect for them." Instead, we should be asking where reasonable middle ground is, and the uncompromising attitude that the RIAA and the MPAA bring to every table that they force their way to is not helping solve things.
I think the article sounds pretty skeptical to me. Title is "Claim: RFID Will Stop Terrorists"--already they're distancing themselves from that assertion. In fact, I'd say the article is pretty cut & dry in saying "RFID companies are trying to speciously use the issue of terrorism to push privacy-eroding RFID into nationwide use."
"heh, I hope that was a joke, since they've sold over a million of them in the US alone, and topped the sales charts in Japan, the US, and the UK within a week of release."
No joke, but your facts are true. I was referring to an article I read where a Nintendo exec called Zelda's long term (not pre-)sales "disappointing," but since I can't find that article, I concede the point. However, if its of any worth, my own experience still holds--that magazines and fans seemed if not hostile, at least skeptical, which, though entirely unquantifiable, probably had an adverse effect and turned its ultimate success down a few notches.
Yeah, I hear that alot about Gamecube. But I can't really understand it. You see, I'm 22 and I own a console that was aimed at the 14-25 or so age group--the PS2. And, to be honest, I also only own about 3 games for it, because nearly all the games released for it are 'mainstream' (formulaic) crap. You're correct though that these are usually shooter/action/sports games--its just too bad that nobody seems interested in doing that style with enough originality to get me interested.
It reminds me of what everyone said about Zelda's ("Celda's") new cel shading style and Link being a kid. All the jaded 'adult' gamers got pissed off and wrote angry letters to the various gaming magazines, and the magazines were skeptical too--until it came out, got nearly perfect reviews, and anyone who played it realized it was just an incredible game. But the cynical kiddy outlook probably did its damage and stopped most from even giving it a chance, since I heard it hasn't sold well. So in that sense, yeah, the kiddy image sure hurts the Gamecube--but it looks like its the fault of gamers who are quick to judge so many games by little more than their genre and art style, and not Nintendo, who are making great games as they always have.
Heh--Professors don't make any money, so there's not much irony there. While acadamia demands 'credit' in the form of citation, they are, as a basic element of the viral nature of ideas, opposed to charging money for it. You absolutely positively want every last researcher on the planet to use and cite your ideas. That's acadamia for acadamia's sake.
Conversely, corporatization of ideas are the element that copyright law has a problem with, (often precisely because those ideas are now controlled by third parties and not the artist--i.e., recording artists almost never 'own' their works, corporate researchers sometimes have to fight for ownership of ideas they had during their contracts, etc...).
The idea of copyright isn't about 'credit' for ideas, just money for ideas.
"And as for your comment "If the government owns my right to say what I want, then do I have that right?" no, you don't. The government grants them, by virtue of their strength. If congress and the president wanted to revoke the bill of rights, they could do that exact thing tomorrow, the only thing stopping them is the constitution, but it's just a piece of paper."
I get the feeling you're playing devil's advocate, but I'll keep this going anyways-- Even if congress and the president revoked the Bill of Rights, your 'might is right' philosophy would backfire in light of the 270 million people who understand and wholeheartedly believe that they are allowed free speech (unless of course you believe people will simply take whatever is given to them--a tidy but historically specious philosophy). The 'might' is then the people and not the government. One need only to look through history and around the world now to see that the power to destroy someone is quite often inadequate to maintain control over them.
But the main issue is again what that word 'right' means. I contend you're still confusing the 'rights' meaning 'privileges of use', with the 'rights' meaning 'fundamental, inextricable human necessity.' The government grants privileges of use, and may codify those inextricable human rights through privileges-of-use-style legislation. But if the legislation were taken away, the fundamental human right still exists.
To take your Canada example--Canadian law dictates the privilege of use of a healthcare system ontop of the original basic human right to health care. This does not mean that they grant the basic human right. 'But!' you may say, 'If they were to remove the legislation from the books, those people would then no longer have guaranteed health care.' Naturally, you are correct. But this is a semantic difference. The basic human right exists still, but is simply being ignored or unfulfilled.
As a last point, the very reason why rights cannot be 'granted' by a powerful body is because they are ideas. And the reason why the Founders created the First Amendment is precisely because it is a fundamental human trait that ideas cannot be dictated, and any human society that is honest with itself knows it must acknowledge this.
I hadn't thought about it in quite these terms, but this ties in rather nicely with what I was saying in that parallel reply thread to the parent post. By conflating the idea of an innate 'right' within copyright, we're forgetting that copyright is indeed a very limited privilege, and at odds with the real fundamental right to free speech.
I can't think of a better way to put it than in terms of 'onus of justification.' Its exactly how it works in the court system, where limitations on free speech must pass the rather intensive test to show sufficient public good. Because copyright has been making this conceptual transition to a 'basic right,' and because we no longer see it as a negative limitation on speech, but rather as a positive defense of rights, the intensive test on speech limitations is suddenly framed out of the debate.
"The government grants you the PRIVELEDGE of free speech, the PRIVELEDGE of not being discriminated against. If free speech is actually a natural right, as you claim, then it couldn't be taken away by Stalinist or facist systems, it'd be impossible..."
Its an interesting argument...Most people are overvaluing copyright by bringing it up to the traditional value of 'rights', whereas your argument is about lowering the value of 'rights' to the level of copyright. But in response:
You'll pardon my bluntness: If you assume that basic human rights are granted to you by the government, then you've as much as given them up already. Basic rights can certainly be suppressed by a powerful government, but that a government does not suppress them is not the same as the government granting them. The former is simply justice being served, while the latter sets up exactly the power aristocracy the Founders tried to vigorously prevent.
To illustrate, given the logic that a government can grant basic human rights, you must logically assume that the government is also the proprietor of those human rights, for who can give what one does not first have? If the government owns my right to say what I want, then do I have that right?
"Unless there is a good reason why a copyright holder doesn't have to the right to limit copying of his work (hence copyright), then I might limit some of the more odious enforcement provisions, but I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to protect their rights."
The problem here is that you're furthering a common misconception. Copyright is not actually a right, as most 'rights' are understood. The right to free speech, the right to not be discriminated against based on race, etc, are all fundamental or basic--they are almost universally agreed upon in free society.
Copyright on the other hand is a privilege. It is a grant of monopoly on a particular creative work for a "limited" time. I feel like my last few posts have almost all been to this point, but I may as well hammer it home again: The Founders of this country were wary of ANY monopoly. As such, copyright was created in a very limited fashion, for the explicit purpose of encouraging creativity. But your conception of copyright as a right is by no means uncommon, and as you pointed out, logically the term 'copyright' taken in pieces seems to indicate a right of copy. But whereas the term copyright should theoretically apply to that very narrow definition that the Founders meant for it, it has been conflated with the idea of a basic right, a fundamental like free speech.
I say as emphatically as I can that copyright, taken as a personal fundamental right, is absolutely incommensurable with the idea of free expression. In England such a thing as you are suggesting is called Moral Right, and it is indeed perpetual. Do you want to write a Sherlock Holmes derivative that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's descendants disagree with? Well, you better be prepared to defend yourselves.
Again, I hate sounding like a broken record, but our culture is inextricably linked to mass-, privately owned media. The Founders didn't grant a basic right to copyright so that the nation wouldn't be deprived of a more valuable right which is dependant on the free access of ideas and expressions--the right to culture.
In some instances, piracy can actually be more damaging than traditional theft. Unlike traditional theft, where a person steals a specific number of tangible objects, one product in digital format can alone be used to generate hundreds of thousands of near-perfect digital copies within hours. In the case of software piracy, for example, the developer has not been deprived of his product in the traditional sense it has merely been copied. Yet, he faces the grim reality that his product is now available around the world, often for free, to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. In very real terms, even though he retains his property, the digital victim is in a much worse position than the victim of a more traditional theft. To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t be more real.
The lawyer here seems to be committing a logical mistake. Theft, as was pointed out, is the unauthorized assumption of something to the deprivation of the original owner. Copyright infringement does not meet the latter criteria, but the lawyer here seems to argue that infringement deprives the copyright holder of exclusive rights, which is essentially an injury comparible to a physical loss. This is exactly the kind of flawed logic that the original question was trying to spotlight.
The DoJ's answer did betray a bit more about their position though. By framing their debate as a defense of copyright holders ("To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t be more real" and so on), and not a defense of the concept of copyright (which includes those 'infringers' of the public who were supposed to benefit from the original Framers' conception of a copyright bargain), the DoJ looks more and more what they get flak so much for-- a big stick for big business.
Boy, if this wasn't flamebait, I don't know what is. But since I've got an itchy trigger finger tonight--
Step One: Read the post for mention of illegally downloading MP3s.
Unless the post contains a message advocating the illegal download of MP3s, JUST SAY NO.
Step Two: Repeat step one.
If you just can't reply to the content of the post, don't vector into unpopular or notorious self-serving viewpoints to merely provoke a reaction. If you refrain, you will be a fully functioning member of intellectual society, and the author's post will be better for it too. You expect attention for writing your viewpoints? Well, so does the author.
But hey--The best way to teach is through example: Most people would agree with you, Mr. Coward, that some economic system should be in place to compensate artists for their work. Kindly explain how potential jailtime and bankruptcy for a single illegal download accomplishes this.
I don't know what each of the EU member contries have for their own 'constitution,' but I think we all share the concept of fair punishment for legal infractions. By degree, this seems a lot more like Hammurabi's code than any civil and enlightened legislation.
"This is stealing. The theif [sic] has not infringed upon copyrights."
Pardon my bluntness, but have you swallowed ALL of the spin and legal intepretation to come out of the entertainment companies? You are simply, and completely, wrong. They are legally 'infringing on copyright,' not 'stealing.' Although I'm pretty convinced that you think they are stealing in a punishable legal way, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Yet you may say "But I know stealing is a moral judgement, and I'm actually leveling a stronger argument against file-sharers than our legal system allows."
Well, here's what I said in my last post, since its still relevant:
The legal concept of copyright has no moral right component in the US. To back up my claim, remember that we do not have a concept of 'moral right' protection on copyrighted works like they do in, say, England. In the US, the Copyright Clause was written to be a grant of temporary monopoly to further science and useful arts, not a defense against theft.
The fact is copyright and morality are diametrically opposed and must be balanced in the eyes of the authors of the Consitution. Here's an obligatory quote from Thomas Jefferson in 1813 if you like:
'If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property.'"
Ok, I'll bite. The simple answer is: The fact that you can share your files with all the anonymous cowards on the internet doesn't mean you shouldn't, either.
You first say that "the whole point in [sic] pirating/ copyright infringment is illegal," but then say that "the fact that you can share your files with all the anonymous cowards on the internet doesn't mean you should." Well, you're getting your legality/morality wires crossed here.
The legal concept of copyright is not a moral right in the US. To back up my claim, remember that we do not have a concept of 'moral right' protection on copyrighted works like they do in, say, England. In the US, the Copyright Clause was written to be a grant of temporary monopoly to further science and useful arts, not a defense against theft.
The fact is copyright and morality are diametrically opposed and must be balanced in the eyes of the authors of the Consitution. Here's an obligatory quote from Thomas Jefferson in 1813 if you like:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property."
"If you take the contract, you shouldn't complain about the conditions later. I don't mean just you, Xerithane, personally, but anyone in general, and him especially. If he really agreed to this kind of contract, he's given AOL the high road in this matter."
Not to sound trite, but I think this is maybe oversimplified. Contracts are compromises, and compromises always leave room for either side to get an advantage over the other. As with many corporations, the power dynamic is such that a contractee may in effect be forced to agree to less than fair provisions because they have become 'standard,' or the job market is tough, or the company is exerting monopoly power, etc. That agreement doesn't make draconian clauses or terms any less draconian, and the "free-market, free choice" ideal shouldn't be an absolute argument when there are such exceptions.
That said, I think it looks like Frankel more or less agrees with you, and that's why he's resigning instead of filing a frivolous lawsuit.
"Our review of the
record convinces us that these "violent" video games contain stories, imagery, "age-old
themes of literature," and messages, "even an 'ideology,' just as books and
movies do."... Indeed, we find it telling that
the County seeks to restrict access to these video games precisely because their
content purportedly affects the thought or behavior of those who play them."
"These people depend on Office and Mickey to provide them with a paycheck. These people then spend their money in Florida and Washington which creates jobs for other prople. MS and Disney hope these laws will boost their profit. That, in turn, will keep the economy in their areas firm."
Slashdot Mirror
As it is, this product is just an ungainly Frankendevice that instead of being marketable to the cell phone and gaming crowds, is priced so high and is so clumsily designed that it appeals to neither. They made a 'meh' product, and I was hardly suprised that, no matter what store I went to or where I went online, nobody's excited about this.
This thing is DOA, and I feel truly sorry for the parents that are convinced by one of the few children who succumb to Nokia's puerile "Be an adult, Play NGage!" ad campaign to drop, what, $400 on this? It was a reasonable try at something novel, but no rational person who is not a free-spending millionaire with a Nokia fetish is going to go within 100 feet of this system.
Obviously they've tried to turn their own prosecution of a little girl into a morality story, where she learns the wrong of her actions, and the victorious and righteous RIAA benevolently show mercy to the poor wayward lamb by reducing billions in punitive damages (losses that they've already theoretically suffered!) to a scanty $2,000. Punishing her is bad enough, but the fact that they are punishing her and making her advocate their zealous position is the most disgusting fact of all.
I understand that you're primarily talking about deterrence, but come now, Locke wrote about property before 'intellectual property' even entered our vocabulary. Physical property is not governed by the same criteria as intellectual property (see this discussion of Copyright Law for a detailed explanation). You are in fact pointing out, albiet unknowingly, the big problem with intellectual property law: namely, that it treats IP like physical property.
But then, this is the RIAA we're talking about, so I have no doubt they are going to respect Orwell's copyrighted vision.
Don't mean to be trite, but there are lessons in copyright law that dictionary.com can't teach.
To Wit:
-Copyright law exists in fact to further the interests of useful arts and sciences, NOT to create a system of property ownership.
-The Framers of the constitution knew very well that copyright law was antithetical to society's free exchange of ideas.
-Copyright law is a limited grant of license for the narrow purpose of encouraging innovation, not an inherent (moral) right.
-Every creative work owes to the generations and society before it, and thus to the public in general.
I realize that the RIAA/MPAA have more soundbites using the words "stealing" and "theft" than I have calling it "copyright infringement." But just because Britney Spears goes on TV and spuriously appeals to our moral duty not to 'steal,' that doesn't make her right (and don't be fooled by her excellent understanding of semiconductor physics.
C'mon...Don't make me pull out my Thomas Jefferson quote again... :)
The funny thing is, I noticed they demanded one additional site to be taken down, in addition to all the Kazaa Lite hosts: www.zeropaid.com.
I'm not sure what your definition of "valid" is, but I did a quick check over at the site, which is a file sharing news site, and there was no actual Kazaa Lite software onsite. Instead, the software download link pointed to one of the sites mentioned in the DMCA takedown demand. In other words, looks like they weren't just going after the biggest sites that had the software, but a site that even only linked to the software site. In otherwords Google had to remove a link to a link. I'd say that's going a bit far beyond what even the DMCA thinks is valid.
That's not so much a 'solution' as a 'quick-fix.'
For how long will it work? Really, with the EU and the WIPO both following the disturbing trends in the US, its not very likely that safe havens from the current American copyright regime will exist for long.
On the contrary, when the issue is lost here, at least in the current international climate, the world has no choice but to listen--and the being complacent and hosting on outside servers instead of fighting it simply gives these absurd copyright laws more time to become 'written in stone' so to speak in US law. Remember Eldred v Ashcroft? During oral arguments, the soon-to-be majority opinion Justices kept bringing up the question, as though it were a justification, of "why haven't copyright extensions been challenged before?" The longer these laws stay on the books, the harder its going to be to find respite from them in any country.
Boy howdy. Did you read the CNN Article?:
"...Johannessen works at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway. 'This will make it easier to explore for oil, it could open the Northern Sea Route (between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans)," he said of the report, dubbed the Arctic Ice Cover Simulation Experiment. '"
I dunno, its theoretically possible (though pretty improbable) that there's absolutely nothing to worry about when our polar ice caps melt completely, but I'm of the mind that when the article is more concerned about the new oil drilling prospects and trade routes than climate instability, cancer-causing UV rays, and so on, maybe its time to get a second opinion.
Well, the as far as the notice on my nearby Mobil station goes, that's the law in MN. I don't know what state you live in, but sounds rough--I naturally didn't mean that "all drive-off laws are reasonable," just that my own was. Thankfully.
The real problem is, of course, a resounding imbalance and unreasonable threats of punishment in the copyright laws themselves. It may sound like I'm preaching to the choir, but the copyright laws are pretty clearly well beyond reason. Clearly there must be some protection for copyright, but the fact is, when jailtime and a $150,000 fine are threatened for making a copy of a single song, it goes beyond threatening and becomes absurd. In contrast, I filled up my gas tank today and saw a notice warning drive-offs that if caught they will be fined the price of the gasoline, as well as up to $30 extra for the trouble they caused. That's reasonable law. $150,000 and jail time for an MP3 is just not reasonable law.
In this case, the law is in fact so unreasonable that I have little patience for those who try to enforce it to its maximum effect, such as the RIAA have been. And instead of asking "Why should the entertainment industries have such a big stick anyways," which I would hope the cream of the academic crop would ask, the colleges seem to be saying with this report, "AIIEEE!!! the entertainment companies have a big stick!"
But my point is that there's a pretty wide gap between copyright law and intuitive concepts of copyright. Its not a very evenhanded method to simply say "the laws are infallible, and the solution is to inculcate new respect for them." Instead, we should be asking where reasonable middle ground is, and the uncompromising attitude that the RIAA and the MPAA bring to every table that they force their way to is not helping solve things.
I think the article sounds pretty skeptical to me. Title is "Claim: RFID Will Stop Terrorists"--already they're distancing themselves from that assertion. In fact, I'd say the article is pretty cut & dry in saying "RFID companies are trying to speciously use the issue of terrorism to push privacy-eroding RFID into nationwide use."
No joke, but your facts are true. I was referring to an article I read where a Nintendo exec called Zelda's long term (not pre-)sales "disappointing," but since I can't find that article, I concede the point. However, if its of any worth, my own experience still holds--that magazines and fans seemed if not hostile, at least skeptical, which, though entirely unquantifiable, probably had an adverse effect and turned its ultimate success down a few notches.
It reminds me of what everyone said about Zelda's ("Celda's") new cel shading style and Link being a kid. All the jaded 'adult' gamers got pissed off and wrote angry letters to the various gaming magazines, and the magazines were skeptical too--until it came out, got nearly perfect reviews, and anyone who played it realized it was just an incredible game. But the cynical kiddy outlook probably did its damage and stopped most from even giving it a chance, since I heard it hasn't sold well. So in that sense, yeah, the kiddy image sure hurts the Gamecube--but it looks like its the fault of gamers who are quick to judge so many games by little more than their genre and art style, and not Nintendo, who are making great games as they always have.
Conversely, corporatization of ideas are the element that copyright law has a problem with, (often precisely because those ideas are now controlled by third parties and not the artist--i.e., recording artists almost never 'own' their works, corporate researchers sometimes have to fight for ownership of ideas they had during their contracts, etc...).
The idea of copyright isn't about 'credit' for ideas, just money for ideas.
I get the feeling you're playing devil's advocate, but I'll keep this going anyways-- Even if congress and the president revoked the Bill of Rights, your 'might is right' philosophy would backfire in light of the 270 million people who understand and wholeheartedly believe that they are allowed free speech (unless of course you believe people will simply take whatever is given to them--a tidy but historically specious philosophy). The 'might' is then the people and not the government. One need only to look through history and around the world now to see that the power to destroy someone is quite often inadequate to maintain control over them.
But the main issue is again what that word 'right' means. I contend you're still confusing the 'rights' meaning 'privileges of use', with the 'rights' meaning 'fundamental, inextricable human necessity.' The government grants privileges of use, and may codify those inextricable human rights through privileges-of-use-style legislation. But if the legislation were taken away, the fundamental human right still exists.
To take your Canada example--Canadian law dictates the privilege of use of a healthcare system ontop of the original basic human right to health care. This does not mean that they grant the basic human right. 'But!' you may say, 'If they were to remove the legislation from the books, those people would then no longer have guaranteed health care.' Naturally, you are correct. But this is a semantic difference. The basic human right exists still, but is simply being ignored or unfulfilled.
As a last point, the very reason why rights cannot be 'granted' by a powerful body is because they are ideas. And the reason why the Founders created the First Amendment is precisely because it is a fundamental human trait that ideas cannot be dictated, and any human society that is honest with itself knows it must acknowledge this.
I hadn't thought about it in quite these terms, but this ties in rather nicely with what I was saying in that parallel reply thread to the parent post. By conflating the idea of an innate 'right' within copyright, we're forgetting that copyright is indeed a very limited privilege, and at odds with the real fundamental right to free speech.
I can't think of a better way to put it than in terms of 'onus of justification.' Its exactly how it works in the court system, where limitations on free speech must pass the rather intensive test to show sufficient public good. Because copyright has been making this conceptual transition to a 'basic right,' and because we no longer see it as a negative limitation on speech, but rather as a positive defense of rights, the intensive test on speech limitations is suddenly framed out of the debate.
Its an interesting argument...Most people are overvaluing copyright by bringing it up to the traditional value of 'rights', whereas your argument is about lowering the value of 'rights' to the level of copyright. But in response:
You'll pardon my bluntness: If you assume that basic human rights are granted to you by the government, then you've as much as given them up already. Basic rights can certainly be suppressed by a powerful government, but that a government does not suppress them is not the same as the government granting them. The former is simply justice being served, while the latter sets up exactly the power aristocracy the Founders tried to vigorously prevent.
To illustrate, given the logic that a government can grant basic human rights, you must logically assume that the government is also the proprietor of those human rights, for who can give what one does not first have? If the government owns my right to say what I want, then do I have that right?
The problem here is that you're furthering a common misconception. Copyright is not actually a right, as most 'rights' are understood. The right to free speech, the right to not be discriminated against based on race, etc, are all fundamental or basic--they are almost universally agreed upon in free society.
Copyright on the other hand is a privilege. It is a grant of monopoly on a particular creative work for a "limited" time. I feel like my last few posts have almost all been to this point, but I may as well hammer it home again: The Founders of this country were wary of ANY monopoly. As such, copyright was created in a very limited fashion, for the explicit purpose of encouraging creativity. But your conception of copyright as a right is by no means uncommon, and as you pointed out, logically the term 'copyright' taken in pieces seems to indicate a right of copy. But whereas the term copyright should theoretically apply to that very narrow definition that the Founders meant for it, it has been conflated with the idea of a basic right, a fundamental like free speech.
I say as emphatically as I can that copyright, taken as a personal fundamental right, is absolutely incommensurable with the idea of free expression. In England such a thing as you are suggesting is called Moral Right, and it is indeed perpetual. Do you want to write a Sherlock Holmes derivative that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's descendants disagree with? Well, you better be prepared to defend yourselves.
Again, I hate sounding like a broken record, but our culture is inextricably linked to mass-, privately owned media. The Founders didn't grant a basic right to copyright so that the nation wouldn't be deprived of a more valuable right which is dependant on the free access of ideas and expressions--the right to culture.
The lawyer here seems to be committing a logical mistake. Theft, as was pointed out, is the unauthorized assumption of something to the deprivation of the original owner. Copyright infringement does not meet the latter criteria, but the lawyer here seems to argue that infringement deprives the copyright holder of exclusive rights, which is essentially an injury comparible to a physical loss. This is exactly the kind of flawed logic that the original question was trying to spotlight.
The DoJ's answer did betray a bit more about their position though. By framing their debate as a defense of copyright holders ("To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t be more real" and so on), and not a defense of the concept of copyright (which includes those 'infringers' of the public who were supposed to benefit from the original Framers' conception of a copyright bargain), the DoJ looks more and more what they get flak so much for-- a big stick for big business.
Step One: Read the post for mention of illegally downloading MP3s.
Unless the post contains a message advocating the illegal download of MP3s, JUST SAY NO.
Step Two: Repeat step one.
If you just can't reply to the content of the post, don't vector into unpopular or notorious self-serving viewpoints to merely provoke a reaction. If you refrain, you will be a fully functioning member of intellectual society, and the author's post will be better for it too. You expect attention for writing your viewpoints? Well, so does the author.
But hey--The best way to teach is through example: Most people would agree with you, Mr. Coward, that some economic system should be in place to compensate artists for their work. Kindly explain how potential jailtime and bankruptcy for a single illegal download accomplishes this.
I don't know what each of the EU member contries have for their own 'constitution,' but I think we all share the concept of fair punishment for legal infractions. By degree, this seems a lot more like Hammurabi's code than any civil and enlightened legislation.
Pardon my bluntness, but have you swallowed ALL of the spin and legal intepretation to come out of the entertainment companies? You are simply, and completely, wrong. They are legally 'infringing on copyright,' not 'stealing.' Although I'm pretty convinced that you think they are stealing in a punishable legal way, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Yet you may say "But I know stealing is a moral judgement, and I'm actually leveling a stronger argument against file-sharers than our legal system allows."
Well, here's what I said in my last post, since its still relevant:
The legal concept of copyright has no moral right component in the US. To back up my claim, remember that we do not have a concept of 'moral right' protection on copyrighted works like they do in, say, England. In the US, the Copyright Clause was written to be a grant of temporary monopoly to further science and useful arts, not a defense against theft.
The fact is copyright and morality are diametrically opposed and must be balanced in the eyes of the authors of the Consitution. Here's an obligatory quote from Thomas Jefferson in 1813 if you like:
'If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property.'"
You first say that "the whole point in [sic] pirating/ copyright infringment is illegal," but then say that "the fact that you can share your files with all the anonymous cowards on the internet doesn't mean you should." Well, you're getting your legality/morality wires crossed here.
The legal concept of copyright is not a moral right in the US. To back up my claim, remember that we do not have a concept of 'moral right' protection on copyrighted works like they do in, say, England. In the US, the Copyright Clause was written to be a grant of temporary monopoly to further science and useful arts, not a defense against theft.
The fact is copyright and morality are diametrically opposed and must be balanced in the eyes of the authors of the Consitution. Here's an obligatory quote from Thomas Jefferson in 1813 if you like:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property."
Not to sound trite, but I think this is maybe oversimplified. Contracts are compromises, and compromises always leave room for either side to get an advantage over the other. As with many corporations, the power dynamic is such that a contractee may in effect be forced to agree to less than fair provisions because they have become 'standard,' or the job market is tough, or the company is exerting monopoly power, etc. That agreement doesn't make draconian clauses or terms any less draconian, and the "free-market, free choice" ideal shouldn't be an absolute argument when there are such exceptions.
That said, I think it looks like Frankel more or less agrees with you, and that's why he's resigning instead of filing a frivolous lawsuit.
"Our review of the record convinces us that these "violent" video games contain stories, imagery, "age-old themes of literature," and messages, "even an 'ideology,' just as books and movies do." ... Indeed, we find it telling that
the County seeks to restrict access to these video games precisely because their
content purportedly affects the thought or behavior of those who play them."
Trickle-down intellectual property law?
Trickle-down freedom?
[cough]