No, there's a difference between being harmed and not receiving a benefit. If you think there isn't, then I guess you're harming me by not giving me the keys to your house and car, right?
It's a matter of entitlement. If you own a bank that has my money, it's not a matter of "not receiving benefit". The money is mine. You are not, however, entitled to my house and car. Now, in just about everything else in life, we are entitled to (a majority of) the sweat of our brow. There is good economic and moral rational behind this which I will gladly go into should you require it. I have, to date, seen no compelling counter-argument that trumps that rational when it comes to art, and I have heard a lot of these counter-arguments against copyright. Still, if you wish to press the point, I will listen.
The difference is quite meaningful, and I've already explained it several times.
OK, this discussion has been a little messy, so allow me to clear it up (for my sake). We agree upon:
a) We have a right to, or at least no legal/moral problem with, sharing information b) The first statement not withstanding, there are common sense limitations on that "right", including identities and other private information that, for one reason or another, is shared with others c) Certain pieces of information must be associated with certain people, like identities
We disagree upon:
d) Whether that association can be considered a form of ownership e) Private information can't be shared, but public information (like artworks) can
Agreed? Well, I've addressed d) at length. I'm not going to explain it again. If you don't agree with me, so be it. e) is a fine point (probably the best in your argument), but I'm failing to see a reason why we should treat copyright like public information. We make the law how we like it, and arbitrary rules like "public information can be shared" can become inflexible very quickly. There are counter arguments to sharing copyrighted works that are, IMHO, very convincing. It's cases like these that should define the law, not the law defining these cases.
Certainly, just like I'd be better off if you stopped doing your own web searches for free and instead paid me $5 each time to do them for you. So what? I don't get to insert myself into the information-distribution process just because it would put money in my pocket.
OK. Tell the artists they are not necessary by not consuming their goods. Just like it would be a useless service that no-one will pay for if I do web searches for you, prove to artists that they are an unnecessary component of the artistic work distribution system. Don't buy, don't copy, and don't download anything from an artist. If everyone did that, then artists' work would not be considered to be worth anything, and they would have no right to copyright. Copyright is designed to give artists a sporting chance in the demand-driven free market, but it certainly guarantees them nothing, and useless work will provide them with no reward.
It's because physical objects can only be in one place at a time: one person's use can interfere with another person's use, so we need some way to decide which use will prevail. That's where the owner comes in, to make that decision.
You know what also resolves that dispute? Communism. We could have the state allocate to us when we may use what. We don't do that because there's actually a second reason we have property: to reward hard work. Why work, when everything can be provided for you through someone else's? That's exactly the reason why we want copyright: to be an incentive.
I think you dodged my question.
I hope not.
I'm not talking about the word that is your mother's name, I'm talking about the fact that you're claiming to own. If the artist who "owns" a song can use that
But the artists aren't harmed by its spread. Quite the opposite! If they wanted to keep their works secret, they wouldn't exhibit those works in public or sell copies of them.
But many artists need the money from those works. If they spread without payment, then it is most certainly is harming them. Just like people have the right to control the distribution of their identity and other private data, so too does the artist in order to help them survive. If they truly aren't harmed by free distribution, then they are under no obligation to keep all, or even any of their copyrights.
Privacy is about stopping the spread of private information. Copyright is about stopping the spread of public information, and that makes it completely different.
(I'll ignore your bullshit analogy)
I can't help but feel that you're being blinded by different words again. In this case, public information refers to information given to a small subset of "other people", and private information (often) refers to information given to a tiny subset of "other people". Copyrighted works aren't "public information" in the sense that every member of the public is allowed to access it, only as the often small group who actually pay for it. It's not like there's some meaningful difference here. In fact, it seems, by these definitions, a poorly selling album would be "private information". Feel free to tell me your definitions, if you disagree.
The sharing of public information isn't harmful -- that's why it's intentionally made available to anonymous members of the public -- so the reasoning that supports privacy law falls apart if you try to apply it to copyright.
OK, so public information is made available to anonymous members of the public, correct? That still doesn't prove that sharing public information is not harmful. It is possible that an artist could be (and often is) far better off distributing himself, rather than leaving distribution to the anonymous masses. In fact, it seems to me that you think "sharing of public information isn't harmful" simply because of the word "public" in there, but I could be wrong.
You have the same right to copy (or speak) my credit card number as you do any other 16-digit number, and if you spread it all over town, the legal recourse I'll have has nothing to do with "owning" that sequence of digits. Does that mean I have no privacy?
Let's take this slowly, since I've gone over this many times. Fraud requires some "association" of data to a person (or group). You can't get around that. If there was no association, then we would have no clue who was the victim. It would be like any other piece of information wafting on the proverbial breeze. Luckily, we do "associate" identities with people, and we have a convenient and logical way of doing so, because the information, by definition, refers to someone, so we "associate" the data with them. If we didn't, then it would be dissociated from anyone, and anyone could do with it what they wanted, and yes, that does include making purchases that "someone else" is responsible for paying for. How would we know who is responsible for paying, if the information wasn't "associated" with someone? We couldn't. Somewhere along the line, someone has to be "associated" with identity information.
Now, it is my contention that this "association" is similar to "ownership", so much so that we can extend the definition of ownership to information. Of course, this has already happened, so this is more of a remedial lesson. When we own a physical object, we can expect the (legally sanctioned) right to decide who the object is used by, how it's used, and when it's used (should we choose to decide that at all). From that, we can derive that stealing, or "borrowing", should be illegal, since it constitutes an unauthorised usage of the owned object. That one statement pretty much defines prop
I want to relegate this to a single thread, if possible, but I just want to say one thing:
I agree, the right to copy isn't absolute, but neither is any other right. One cannot excuse every abridgment simply by pointing out that the rights aren't absolute; we should presume that the rights apply in every situation by default, unless someone can show that it's necessary to abridge them in some circumstances.
I agree with you completely. That's the basis behind my argument. Some people seem to be arguing that we should allow copying for copying's sake, but other's don't seem to realise the ramifications of that. I'm hoping that, as a result of this argument, I can count on you realising those ramifications as well (even if you don't support copyright).
It's perfectly OK to say "anyone who shares bank account details without the account holder's permission is guilty of a felony" without treating those details as a form of property.
And it's equally valid to define it as a form of property. Anything more to say? See the main thread.
We don't have to grant "ownership" of that information to anyone in order to recognize that they'll be harmed by its spread.
OK then. Let's apply this to copyright. We won't call it the dreaded "O" word (ownership) or the dreaded "P" word (property), but we will "recognize that they'll [the artists] be harmed by its spread." Clear? It doesn't matter what you call it, but looking at privacy the same way that you look at copyright, you'll find, terminology aside, the two concepts are extremely similar. I know it's hard to compare two concepts that have such a different standing in your mind, but it's true: they are rather similar.
For example, consider the classified details of a planned military operation: an obvious example of private information, right?
Sure. It's not a bad example.
If those plans become known to the wrong people, the success of the mission is in jeopardy, and lives may be lost. But who "owns" them?
Whoever it is who is legally sanctioned to decide how the information is spread. In this case, it's the military.
The soldiers whose lives may be lost? The generals who drew up the plans? The executive who ordered the plans to be drawn up? The taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill? No, no one owns them.
Who owns the streets? Me? The guy who lives next door? The government? The taxpayers? No, no one owns them. Or perhaps, ownership can apply to groups of individuals as well as just individuals.
Copying is analogous to speaking. Freedom of speech means there's no limit on what you can say, or even on who you can say it to: only on where and how you can say it. Saying "give me all your money or I'll kill you" is one thing if you're an actor in the play, but if you pull one of the audience members into an alley afterward and say the same words to him, it's something else entirely, because your meaning is different, and courts aren't stupid.
Freedom to copy, likewise, means there's no limit on what you can copy or who you can give the copies to (privacy laws notwithstanding). But that doesn't imply that you can do anything you want as long as a copy is somehow involved in the act.
That's a completely arbitrary comparison. You broke it instantly with the privacy laws thing (which can't exactly be brushed over, since it's the centre of our discussion), and it relies on there being no copyright. We could make copying like speech, but it'd rely on us redacting our rights to privacy. That last statement pretty much summed up my entire argument, really.
The freedom to share a scan of that page doesn't imply the freedom to lie about its origin, just like the freedom to share a credit card number (again, privacy laws notwithstanding) doesn't imply the freedom to make purchases on the account.
It depends. If you look at the stronger principle of freedom of information, then both are implied if taken to its unreasonable extreme. If you want to just make copying sacred, and not information as a whole, then sure, it doesn't necessarily follow, even though it could easily be argued that fraud is just another form of intangible copying and would therefore be sanctioned by law. But essentially, what you are suggesting is that information is not free, that it can be "tied to" (if not "owned by") a person (like your identity), but that anyone may copy that information, so long as they don't use it. It seems like a pretty broken way of guaranteeing privacy, and it offers no protection against the drunk doctor announcing you are HIV positive, but hey, you are entitled to your opinion. Good luck convincing others though.
"Your identity" is the identity associated with you. It doesn't mean you own your name or the facts about your history, creditworthiness, etc.
Again, you're missing the distinction between property and privacy. We don't have to grant "ownership" of information in order to recognize that some information is private and shouldn't be shared.
It doesn't make sense to say that a patient "owns" the fact that he has HIV, for example, or that an account holder "owns" his PIN.
The first is odd, because it's something you naturally wouldn't share. If your doctor had to know, and he felt that you had no claim to that information, and he decides, one day at the pub, to announce it to the female (or male) population in that pub, then you'd feel pretty pissed off. You'd feel that he had shared something that he had no right to share. The same goes for your pin. While you may laugh at the statement "owns his pin", you wouldn't laugh so much if your bank decided to share it.
It would be entirely possible and reasonable for the law to distinguish between private information like my bank account details, and public information like the contents of those DVDs.
Naturally, and I never claimed otherwise. Again (for the upteenth time), this argument is designed not to prove the necessity of copyright, but to prove the necessity to abridge the right to copy.
I'll ignore the conflation of property with privacy here, since I just posted about it above.
Private information must belong to someone. Otherwise it wouldn't be private. I mean, what is privacy, if not an ownership of information? Certainly, if you apply much of the anti-copyright rhetoric that's flying about, saying things like copyright is an unnatural law, that it tries to prevent something that's natural behaviour, etc, you'll find that privacy fails to hold up to it. Calling that a conflation is highly misleading.
The other problem with your line of argument, though, is that you're confusing the freedom to reproduce information with the freedom to perform every conceivable action that involves the reproduction of information.
Ha! That's exactly right! That's my point! We have the freedom to copy, not copy every single thing we could copy. Some would hesitate to call it a freedom, and maybe it isn't, but few would contest its importance when they actually consider the reasons behind them. As to whether the line should be drawn before or after copyright is a different matter, but arguing that any law that restricts our natural urge to share is unnatural is clearly wrong, or missing the point.
Likewise, in the absence of any privacy laws, the freedom to reproduce information would allow you to share credit card details with other people, but using those credit card details to make a fraudulent purchase would still be fraud. By typing that number on the checkout page and clicking Submit, you're saying "this is my account and I'm authorized to make this purchase", which is a lie no matter how you say it.
Just to point out, punishing fraud is punishing others from using your identity. If all information belonged as much to me as to the next person, then I would have no say in how other people used my name or my identity. Hence, fraud would not be crime.
You protect your data by not letting other people see it.
Someone will have to see your data sooner or later. An institution that you would normally trust not to steal from you would be under no obligation to do so. If you have a bank account, someone (or something), somewhere has to know your personal details, even if only fleetingly. What if they took that data, and told everyone? By your argument, that data isn't yours. If you wanted any guarantee that your money would stay yours, you would have to keep it in cash form all the time, in your house. Sure it could work for some people, but others prefer not to be so paralysed with justifiable fear for their savings. Essentially, we would be putting a reasonable doctrine (freedom of information) to its completely unreasonable extreme for no adequately explored reason, at the expense of our well being.
Now, if they USE your credit to make purchases they've committed credit card fraud.
Which, of course, they'd be allowed to do, because information doesn't belong to them, and those credit card details are just a sequence of digits and letters. If they're allowed to type 16 digits and a name into a text box, then why not some credit card info? It's not like the person who gave them the information "owns" that information.
Or, I guess, they would be allowed to share that information with others (for a price, even). After all, copying bits is so easy, and so trivial. Copying happens all the time, and so therefore we should allow it all the time.
No, that doesn't follow. Just like free speech doesn't entitle you to speak in my living room, freedom to reproduce information doesn't entitle you to break into my hard drive to obtain it, or to use it to withdraw from my bank account once you've got it.
I don't have to break in. All I have to do is own a bank, or even just a restaurant, anything where I can get your bank/credit card details.
And frankly, this argument that you can't have privacy without copyright is off-base to begin with.
That's actually not the argument. It's a counter argument to this notion that copying is trivial, and that preventing it is stupid. Naturally this doesn't necessarily lead straight to copyright, but like I said, it opens the door to applying property. You must admit: there is value in our bits. We are prepared to torrent them, some of us are even prepared to brave the risk of criminal charges in order to alter/reproduce them. From deriving that bits have value, it's not unreasonable (but of course, not strictly necessary) to consider extending a version of property to them, especially when those bits come from the hard work of someone, whether they be an artist, or they be an average joe who has worked much of his lifetime in order to accumulate that value represented by those 32 bits. If you want arguments against copyright, I suggest you look at figuring out why we would be better off without applying property to intangible bits that represent art and entertainment, while apply property to intangible bits that represents private information. Trivialising information in the information age is futile. People know better.
It's there theater and there movie. He was violating their agreement in all senses. File sharing infinitely copyable bits is one thing. This is outright blatant theft.
Well, the movie is just electromagnetic radiation and variations of pressure in the air, right? Why aren't we allowed to reproduce them, huh?
The correct answer is that the whole thing is stupid. We look at copyrighted media as just the media, and not what's on it. Imagine if we did that with private data? I'm allowed to copy bits, so I can copy your bits off your hard drive, or off your bank account, or wherever your credit card details are stored. Oh, they are stored physically? Well, since I'm allowed to capture light in my camera, I'll just photograph your documents/credit card.
Thankfully, for all of us, the courts aren't so stupid. They realise that the value of media is more than the physical components. Unfortunately for some, the realisation that arrangement of mundane materials can have value in itself opens the door to applying the concept of property. I guess you have to take the good with the bad. You have to pay for your media, but then again, you get to keep the rest of your life savings.
What about you? I see little science in your claim that environmentalists "depend" on emotional appeal over science, or that they do it to further "their own agenda" (whatever that means). However, your post does depend on inflammatory comments in order to further your agenda of making yourself feel big (yes, it really is that obvious). I call hypocrite.
Let's face it: those comments were designed to be offensive and provoke strong reactions. Reacting on provocation with a similar kind of comment is no excuse. The moderators were (for once) moderating within the guidelines.
In theory, if you fine them enough, and consumers are savvy enough, a fine will result in (genuinely) higher prices, which drives everyone to competitors, thus damaging the bottom line.
The free market works perfectly with perfect information.
I respectfully disagree. In a totally free market with perfectly free information, in certain markets, all it will guarantee is that people will know exactly how much they are being screwed by companies. Certain industries have high barriers of entry, or are highly susceptible to sabotage. Once companies occupy those markets, they can fix prices to their hearts' content.
What would actually work with perfect information would be a an over-regulated market. Companies wouldn't be able to put a toe over the line!
I'm not convinced that boiling the frog even works. Can anyone point to any evidence that it does (or doesn't) work? If it does work, how long does it take? Hours? Days?
Unlike a driving license, you won't have to take a driving proficiency exam in order to obtain one, nor will it be taken away from you if drive recklessly.
The government is not out to get you! The reason why these measures were being pushed through, is because a lot of people have an overblown fear of terrorists. The reason why they're pulling them back, is because a lot of other people have an overblown fear of authority. It's not some dramatic coup on democracy.
I felt a mixture of nausea, crushing fear, despair, and helplessness as I watched evangelist children being brainwashed into thinking the devil was controlling the evil government (until Bush, that is), that the government was trying to take Jesus away from them by taking him out of schools, and that their "time" would come.
These days I get the same feeling from reading Slashdot posts on the RIAA.
If so, why would you care if corporate interests control 80% of it?
Basically, corporate interests will drive movies into two separate groups: the ones funded by corporations, and the ones funded by the people. The ones funded by the corporations will be utterly choked with product placement, and probably have full-scale ads in interludes, much like TV has today, but it'll be easy entertainment, and, best of all, you don't have to seek out the artist and pay him for something that may never come into fruition. It'll be made for you, and all you have to do is show up on the day to see it. Who knows, perhaps you could even read a few reviews before you pay to see it. The People-funded movies will require people to seek out artists, decide whether or not they would like the sound of what the artist is pitching, decide whether or not other people would like the sound of what the artist is pitching (if it's not popular, then you are throwing your money away), and finally risk their money, for something that probably won't be out for another few years. You can see why I think corporate interests would quickly dominate our movie culture. They're the quick fix for the hole that the destruction of the copyright business model left behind.
So your argument hinges on government regulations always being 100% effective? Wow.
No, just somewhat effective. Enough to make illegal business risky. What's with the false dichotomy? Running out of counter-arguments?
You're burning a straw man.
Did you read the OP's post? If so, read it again. He did characterise excessive government control as less competition.
See? They EXIST. That's the ENTIRE point. That's it. Nothing more. You just 100% agreed with me.
They do exist. However, there are far more instances when government regulation has the opposite effect. Antitrust is built into the law, all designed to increase, or maximise the effectiveness of competition. Of course, we have occasional case-by-case exceptions, but they are exactly that: exceptions, and are designed to do a better job than competition could have done in the same situation. That's why I say it's misleading.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a matter of entitlement. If you own a bank that has my money, it's not a matter of "not receiving benefit". The money is mine. You are not, however, entitled to my house and car. Now, in just about everything else in life, we are entitled to (a majority of) the sweat of our brow. There is good economic and moral rational behind this which I will gladly go into should you require it. I have, to date, seen no compelling counter-argument that trumps that rational when it comes to art, and I have heard a lot of these counter-arguments against copyright. Still, if you wish to press the point, I will listen.
OK, this discussion has been a little messy, so allow me to clear it up (for my sake). We agree upon:
a) We have a right to, or at least no legal/moral problem with, sharing information
b) The first statement not withstanding, there are common sense limitations on that "right", including identities and other private information that, for one reason or another, is shared with others
c) Certain pieces of information must be associated with certain people, like identities
We disagree upon:
d) Whether that association can be considered a form of ownership
e) Private information can't be shared, but public information (like artworks) can
Agreed? Well, I've addressed d) at length. I'm not going to explain it again. If you don't agree with me, so be it. e) is a fine point (probably the best in your argument), but I'm failing to see a reason why we should treat copyright like public information. We make the law how we like it, and arbitrary rules like "public information can be shared" can become inflexible very quickly. There are counter arguments to sharing copyrighted works that are, IMHO, very convincing. It's cases like these that should define the law, not the law defining these cases.
OK. Tell the artists they are not necessary by not consuming their goods. Just like it would be a useless service that no-one will pay for if I do web searches for you, prove to artists that they are an unnecessary component of the artistic work distribution system. Don't buy, don't copy, and don't download anything from an artist. If everyone did that, then artists' work would not be considered to be worth anything, and they would have no right to copyright. Copyright is designed to give artists a sporting chance in the demand-driven free market, but it certainly guarantees them nothing, and useless work will provide them with no reward.
You know what also resolves that dispute? Communism. We could have the state allocate to us when we may use what. We don't do that because there's actually a second reason we have property: to reward hard work. Why work, when everything can be provided for you through someone else's? That's exactly the reason why we want copyright: to be an incentive.
I hope not.
But many artists need the money from those works. If they spread without payment, then it is most certainly is harming them. Just like people have the right to control the distribution of their identity and other private data, so too does the artist in order to help them survive. If they truly aren't harmed by free distribution, then they are under no obligation to keep all, or even any of their copyrights.
(I'll ignore your bullshit analogy)
I can't help but feel that you're being blinded by different words again. In this case, public information refers to information given to a small subset of "other people", and private information (often) refers to information given to a tiny subset of "other people". Copyrighted works aren't "public information" in the sense that every member of the public is allowed to access it, only as the often small group who actually pay for it. It's not like there's some meaningful difference here. In fact, it seems, by these definitions, a poorly selling album would be "private information". Feel free to tell me your definitions, if you disagree.
OK, so public information is made available to anonymous members of the public, correct? That still doesn't prove that sharing public information is not harmful. It is possible that an artist could be (and often is) far better off distributing himself, rather than leaving distribution to the anonymous masses. In fact, it seems to me that you think "sharing of public information isn't harmful" simply because of the word "public" in there, but I could be wrong.
Let's take this slowly, since I've gone over this many times. Fraud requires some "association" of data to a person (or group). You can't get around that. If there was no association, then we would have no clue who was the victim. It would be like any other piece of information wafting on the proverbial breeze. Luckily, we do "associate" identities with people, and we have a convenient and logical way of doing so, because the information, by definition, refers to someone, so we "associate" the data with them. If we didn't, then it would be dissociated from anyone, and anyone could do with it what they wanted, and yes, that does include making purchases that "someone else" is responsible for paying for. How would we know who is responsible for paying, if the information wasn't "associated" with someone? We couldn't. Somewhere along the line, someone has to be "associated" with identity information.
Now, it is my contention that this "association" is similar to "ownership", so much so that we can extend the definition of ownership to information. Of course, this has already happened, so this is more of a remedial lesson. When we own a physical object, we can expect the (legally sanctioned) right to decide who the object is used by, how it's used, and when it's used (should we choose to decide that at all). From that, we can derive that stealing, or "borrowing", should be illegal, since it constitutes an unauthorised usage of the owned object. That one statement pretty much defines prop
I want to relegate this to a single thread, if possible, but I just want to say one thing:
I agree with you completely. That's the basis behind my argument. Some people seem to be arguing that we should allow copying for copying's sake, but other's don't seem to realise the ramifications of that. I'm hoping that, as a result of this argument, I can count on you realising those ramifications as well (even if you don't support copyright).
And it's equally valid to define it as a form of property. Anything more to say? See the main thread.
OK then. Let's apply this to copyright. We won't call it the dreaded "O" word (ownership) or the dreaded "P" word (property), but we will "recognize that they'll [the artists] be harmed by its spread." Clear? It doesn't matter what you call it, but looking at privacy the same way that you look at copyright, you'll find, terminology aside, the two concepts are extremely similar. I know it's hard to compare two concepts that have such a different standing in your mind, but it's true: they are rather similar.
Sure. It's not a bad example.
Whoever it is who is legally sanctioned to decide how the information is spread. In this case, it's the military.
Who owns the streets? Me? The guy who lives next door? The government? The taxpayers? No, no one owns them. Or perhaps, ownership can apply to groups of individuals as well as just individuals.
That's a completely arbitrary comparison. You broke it instantly with the privacy laws thing (which can't exactly be brushed over, since it's the centre of our discussion), and it relies on there being no copyright. We could make copying like speech, but it'd rely on us redacting our rights to privacy. That last statement pretty much summed up my entire argument, really.
It depends. If you look at the stronger principle of freedom of information, then both are implied if taken to its unreasonable extreme. If you want to just make copying sacred, and not information as a whole, then sure, it doesn't necessarily follow, even though it could easily be argued that fraud is just another form of intangible copying and would therefore be sanctioned by law. But essentially, what you are suggesting is that information is not free, that it can be "tied to" (if not "owned by") a person (like your identity), but that anyone may copy that information, so long as they don't use it. It seems like a pretty broken way of guaranteeing privacy, and it offers no protection against the drunk doctor announcing you are HIV positive, but hey, you are entitled to your opinion. Good luck convincing others though.
You say "associated with"
Read this comment.
The first is odd, because it's something you naturally wouldn't share. If your doctor had to know, and he felt that you had no claim to that information, and he decides, one day at the pub, to announce it to the female (or male) population in that pub, then you'd feel pretty pissed off. You'd feel that he had shared something that he had no right to share. The same goes for your pin. While you may laugh at the statement "owns his pin", you wouldn't laugh so much if your bank decided to share it.
Naturally, and I never claimed otherwise. Again (for the upteenth time), this argument is designed not to prove the necessity of copyright, but to prove the necessity to abridge the right to copy.
Private information must belong to someone. Otherwise it wouldn't be private. I mean, what is privacy, if not an ownership of information? Certainly, if you apply much of the anti-copyright rhetoric that's flying about, saying things like copyright is an unnatural law, that it tries to prevent something that's natural behaviour, etc, you'll find that privacy fails to hold up to it. Calling that a conflation is highly misleading.
Ha! That's exactly right! That's my point! We have the freedom to copy, not copy every single thing we could copy. Some would hesitate to call it a freedom, and maybe it isn't, but few would contest its importance when they actually consider the reasons behind them. As to whether the line should be drawn before or after copyright is a different matter, but arguing that any law that restricts our natural urge to share is unnatural is clearly wrong, or missing the point.
Just to point out, punishing fraud is punishing others from using your identity. If all information belonged as much to me as to the next person, then I would have no say in how other people used my name or my identity. Hence, fraud would not be crime.
Someone will have to see your data sooner or later. An institution that you would normally trust not to steal from you would be under no obligation to do so. If you have a bank account, someone (or something), somewhere has to know your personal details, even if only fleetingly. What if they took that data, and told everyone? By your argument, that data isn't yours. If you wanted any guarantee that your money would stay yours, you would have to keep it in cash form all the time, in your house. Sure it could work for some people, but others prefer not to be so paralysed with justifiable fear for their savings. Essentially, we would be putting a reasonable doctrine (freedom of information) to its completely unreasonable extreme for no adequately explored reason, at the expense of our well being.
Which, of course, they'd be allowed to do, because information doesn't belong to them, and those credit card details are just a sequence of digits and letters. If they're allowed to type 16 digits and a name into a text box, then why not some credit card info? It's not like the person who gave them the information "owns" that information.
Or, I guess, they would be allowed to share that information with others (for a price, even). After all, copying bits is so easy, and so trivial. Copying happens all the time, and so therefore we should allow it all the time.
I don't have to break in. All I have to do is own a bank, or even just a restaurant, anything where I can get your bank/credit card details.
That's actually not the argument. It's a counter argument to this notion that copying is trivial, and that preventing it is stupid. Naturally this doesn't necessarily lead straight to copyright, but like I said, it opens the door to applying property. You must admit: there is value in our bits. We are prepared to torrent them, some of us are even prepared to brave the risk of criminal charges in order to alter/reproduce them. From deriving that bits have value, it's not unreasonable (but of course, not strictly necessary) to consider extending a version of property to them, especially when those bits come from the hard work of someone, whether they be an artist, or they be an average joe who has worked much of his lifetime in order to accumulate that value represented by those 32 bits. If you want arguments against copyright, I suggest you look at figuring out why we would be better off without applying property to intangible bits that represent art and entertainment, while apply property to intangible bits that represents private information. Trivialising information in the information age is futile. People know better.
Well, the movie is just electromagnetic radiation and variations of pressure in the air, right? Why aren't we allowed to reproduce them, huh?
The correct answer is that the whole thing is stupid. We look at copyrighted media as just the media, and not what's on it. Imagine if we did that with private data? I'm allowed to copy bits, so I can copy your bits off your hard drive, or off your bank account, or wherever your credit card details are stored. Oh, they are stored physically? Well, since I'm allowed to capture light in my camera, I'll just photograph your documents/credit card.
Thankfully, for all of us, the courts aren't so stupid. They realise that the value of media is more than the physical components. Unfortunately for some, the realisation that arrangement of mundane materials can have value in itself opens the door to applying the concept of property. I guess you have to take the good with the bad. You have to pay for your media, but then again, you get to keep the rest of your life savings.
What about you? I see little science in your claim that environmentalists "depend" on emotional appeal over science, or that they do it to further "their own agenda" (whatever that means). However, your post does depend on inflammatory comments in order to further your agenda of making yourself feel big (yes, it really is that obvious). I call hypocrite.
Let's face it: those comments were designed to be offensive and provoke strong reactions. Reacting on provocation with a similar kind of comment is no excuse. The moderators were (for once) moderating within the guidelines.
In theory, if you fine them enough, and consumers are savvy enough, a fine will result in (genuinely) higher prices, which drives everyone to competitors, thus damaging the bottom line.
I respectfully disagree. In a totally free market with perfectly free information, in certain markets, all it will guarantee is that people will know exactly how much they are being screwed by companies. Certain industries have high barriers of entry, or are highly susceptible to sabotage. Once companies occupy those markets, they can fix prices to their hearts' content.
What would actually work with perfect information would be a an over-regulated market. Companies wouldn't be able to put a toe over the line!
God helps those who help themselves.
(Apparently)
Well, that ends this thread. Good night everybody!
I'm not convinced that boiling the frog even works. Can anyone point to any evidence that it does (or doesn't) work? If it does work, how long does it take? Hours? Days?
Unlike a driving license, you won't have to take a driving proficiency exam in order to obtain one, nor will it be taken away from you if drive recklessly.
*FACEPALM*
The government is not out to get you! The reason why these measures were being pushed through, is because a lot of people have an overblown fear of terrorists. The reason why they're pulling them back, is because a lot of other people have an overblown fear of authority. It's not some dramatic coup on democracy.
You are work for very thick-headed.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/
I felt a mixture of nausea, crushing fear, despair, and helplessness as I watched evangelist children being brainwashed into thinking the devil was controlling the evil government (until Bush, that is), that the government was trying to take Jesus away from them by taking him out of schools, and that their "time" would come.
These days I get the same feeling from reading Slashdot posts on the RIAA.
I disagree. I think most monopolies happen in small towns, where the local store is the only game in town.
Basically, corporate interests will drive movies into two separate groups: the ones funded by corporations, and the ones funded by the people. The ones funded by the corporations will be utterly choked with product placement, and probably have full-scale ads in interludes, much like TV has today, but it'll be easy entertainment, and, best of all, you don't have to seek out the artist and pay him for something that may never come into fruition. It'll be made for you, and all you have to do is show up on the day to see it. Who knows, perhaps you could even read a few reviews before you pay to see it. The People-funded movies will require people to seek out artists, decide whether or not they would like the sound of what the artist is pitching, decide whether or not other people would like the sound of what the artist is pitching (if it's not popular, then you are throwing your money away), and finally risk their money, for something that probably won't be out for another few years. You can see why I think corporate interests would quickly dominate our movie culture. They're the quick fix for the hole that the destruction of the copyright business model left behind.
No, just somewhat effective. Enough to make illegal business risky. What's with the false dichotomy? Running out of counter-arguments?
Did you read the OP's post? If so, read it again. He did characterise excessive government control as less competition.
They do exist. However, there are far more instances when government regulation has the opposite effect. Antitrust is built into the law, all designed to increase, or maximise the effectiveness of competition. Of course, we have occasional case-by-case exceptions, but they are exactly that: exceptions, and are designed to do a better job than competition could have done in the same situation. That's why I say it's misleading.