MyDD :: Copyright Chaos

Copyright Chaos

by Matt Stoller, Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:25:41 PM EST

I don't have a good strategy on copyright reform, but it's pretty clear that there's an alignment between the progressive netroots and the copyright reformers. Progressive Democrats don't like unfair and illegal strangeholds on free speech under the guise of copyright. This Larry Lessig Op-Ed on Viacom suing youtube is worth reading. Viacom's stranglehold on the political and legal process has made it impossible to get clear rules on copyright.

And this is just the way the big content companies want it - for instance, traditional content companies regularly break the law on takedown notices, which is an obvious suppression of free speech. Meanwhile, digital rights management causes 75% of tech support calls for one large online music retailer, pirates themselves are losing out because of file-sharing, and artists continue to go uncompensated by large conglomerates and new unfair touring arrangements.

Liberals love our free speech. The current arbitrary and punitive copyright system, which tilts in favor of large content companies at the expense of most artists, creators, and citizens, stands in our way. It should be dramatically reformed, and Democrats should lead. My guess is that parts of the media industry are going to have to come around first, and so a lot more conversation and organizing work is going to be required.

Tags: copyright (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

Matt,
thanks so much to you and Nancy Scola for taking the lead and bringing the issue to the progressive blogosphere.

Nothing is more critical to political debate than free speech. The corporate control and misuse of copyright to suppress dissent and control information is a potential chokehold on any effort at institutional reform.

Keep on Rocking in the Free World,

Nate

by Texas Nate on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:40:02 PM EST

I think it's a sea change brought on by the 'net (none / 0)

Before the internet was widespread, this just wasn't even an issue (except in music). There was just no way to distribute something for purely non-commercial purposes. So, if you were going violate copyright, you were either going to do it simply with your friends, or be a major commercial pirate.

I think people intrinsically understand why it's wrong to profit off other people's work without compensation, but there isn't that intrinsic moral sense when it comes to just downloading something without paying, or appropriating some copyrighted work to make new artwork, and distributing it for free.

So what we end up with are laws that go against people's basic, intrinsic view of "right and wrong." So, what the large IP companies want to do is get rid of the internet as it exists today, and put copyright protection technology at every step of the way. A bill called the SSSCA which was later renamed CBDTPA would have actually pretty much done that, but it gives you an idea of what they had in mind. The bill was submitted by Fritz Hollings (D-SC). The DBDTPA would have made it illegal to own any kind of computer capable of recording, storing, or displaying digital media Illegal, if it didn't implement DRM.

A view of copyright law in line with normal human moral sentiment is what's needed, not Legally enforced DRM, or having software and hardware in our computers that keeps us from doing what we want, while not being legally allowed to disable those "features" (which is what the DMCA gives us)

by delmoi on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:44:04 PM EST

Windows Vista. (none / 0)

Only it may be the worlds biggest Trojan horse where Microsoft captures Holloywood.

DRM in Windows Vista

Windows Vista includes an array of "features" that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry.

And you don't get to refuse them.

The details are pretty geeky, but basically Microsoft has reworked a lot of the core operating system to add copy protection technology for new media formats like HD DVD and Blu-ray disks. Certain high-quality output paths -- audio and video -- are reserved for protected peripheral devices. Sometimes output quality is artificially degraded; sometimes output is prevented entirely. And Vista continuously spends CPU time monitoring itself, trying to figure out if you're doing something that it thinks you shouldn't. If it does, it limits functionality and in extreme cases restarts just the video subsystem. We still don't know the exact details of all this, and how far-reaching it is, but it doesn't look good.

Microsoft put all those functionality-crippling features into Vista because it wants to own the entertainment industry. This isn't how Microsoft spins it, of course. It maintains that it has no choice, that it's Hollywood that is demanding DRM in Windows in order to allow "premium content"--meaning, new movies that are still earning revenue--onto your computer. If Microsoft didn't play along, it'd be relegated to second-class status as Hollywood pulled its support for the platform.

Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue

by wegerje on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, that's easy... (none / 0)

Grassroots + Politics = MyDD

Grassroots + Operating System - DRM = Linux

by ProgressiveChristian on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:48:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, that's easy... (none / 0)

Also, one can get WinXP as the OS on a new PC between now and next January 31, IIRC. (The first anniversary of Vista's rollout.)

So if you're thinking of buying a new PC and aren't into Linux, do it between now and January, and tell 'em at the store that you want XP, not Vista, as the OS.

by RT on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tales from the Public Domain (none / 0)

Duke Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain published a great graphic novel called "Bound by Law" that explains all the various copyright restrictions and fair use in great detail in a fun format. Check it out.

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers

by joejoejoe on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 12:57:30 PM EST

Re: Copyright Chaos (3.00 / 1)

Thanks for focusing on this issue. I introduced a copyright resolution at my local Democratic club in an attempt to bring this issue to the California State Democratic convention this April. It failed overwhelmingly. It isn't perfect, but it is a starting point.

A Resolution in Support of Limited Copyright

WHEREAS the public interest is served by creative work in the public domain, and

WHEREAS a period of copyright protection is necessary to protect the rights of the original owners of copyright material, and

WHEREAS the current period of copyright protection is excessive and fails to serve the public interest,

Therefore, be it resolved that [insert your the name of your club or central committee here] supports creation of federal legislation to rollback the maximum time of copyright protection to no more than seven years, after which such work will be deemed in the public domain.

Please feel free to take this wording for use in your club or central committee to help push this issue.

I also introduced resolutions on Internet Neutrality and the Free Flow of Information, both of which passed. I will post them if anyone would like.

by Airpower on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:04:49 PM EST

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

One caveat on the linking of interests between content creators and content consumers is that I have heard a lot of (mostly younger) content consumers excuse their theft of copyrighted material by saying that the content creators are being ripped off by the corporations so -- in essence -- stealing doesn't count.

Tell that to the greatest percentage of content creators who are struggling as it is to make a living off their art. Lack of copyright income is going to hit the small fish hardest, and no one except a superstar is going to be able to make a living being a creator. Problem is -- how do superstars get created if you have no midlist, and no one can make a survival living to become someone that might be able to create art that would lift up our world?

Respect for other people's intellectual property can't be something that is assumed and discarded at whim (depending on whether we crave that song or video or article but don't want to have to pay to listen, see, or read it). We have to decide as a society where we stand. We can't have our cake and eat it, too.

Just as MyDD has stood up for the importance of Dem activists being able to make a reasonable living doing work that makes the world better, those who expect good content had damn well better be willing to support creators who are trying to make a living. If content consumers keep expecting their content to come free, then the only music that will be economically viable will be music jingles, the only video will be supersized commercials, and the only books will be written by the same 3 bestsellers.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

by katerina on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:48:21 PM EST

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

I see that you start off by calling it "stealing". The problem is, most people (particularly the younger people you mention) just don't consider it stealing.

They look at what makes up a theft. Maybe they've been robbed before, someone stole their car stereo, and they think back and consider the fundamental wrongness of that act. They were furious when it happened, but was that because the thief got a car stereo without paying for it? No, it was because they now have to drive in silence because their stereo is gone.

That aspect is entirely missing from copyright infringement. What makes stealing wrong--indeed, what makes it stealing at all--is the fact that the rightful owner is deprived of the stolen item. Take out that element, and what you have is a simple case of getting something for nothing: we all get stuff for free every day, and anyone who's watched Star Trek knows that a world full of replicators is a goal to be strived for, not avoided.

Shortening copyright terms is a good starting point, but what we should really be looking for is alternative models to copyright.

For example, we know that candidates can raise millions of dollars through small contributions. Why not fund an album the same way? Instead of selling copies for $10 after it's been recorded, get a bunch of people to pay you $10 each to record it in the first place (and don't start working on it until you've gotten an amount you deem fair). You collect the same amount of money, but you get a few advantages:

* You know ahead of time whether the album will be profitable. If you need $10,000 to make it but you only collect $5000, you can either decide to work for half price, or you can give back the money and stick to your day job. (Under the current system, you might make an album only to find yourself in debt to your label when it doesn't sell as well as you hoped.)

* You don't have to worry about what your listeners do in their own time. That is, it doesn't matter whether people make and distribute their own copies, because you've already been paid an amount that you decided was fair for the work you put into it. That means no expensive copy protection systems, no lawsuits, etc. - you just worry about doing your actual job.

* You ease the tension and resentment against copyright holders. A lot of people perceive copyrights as granting special treatment to certain workers, allowing them to work for (say) one year and then milk that work for years to come, while everyone else has to keep working to keep making money. A barber doesn't expect to live all year off of the one big haircut he did back in January, for example; if he wants to keep getting paid, he has to keep cutting hair.

by taradinoc on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

I must say, between the barber comparison, the Star Trek reference, and the nonsensical proposal on how one would go about making and getting paid for a record--I'm astonished. But--I'll take that $10,000 now if you don't mind> :)

by Nick Stump on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

1. You can substitute the barber for anything you like. Accountants, basketball players, bus drivers... everyone else lives by the principle that you get paid this year for the work you do this year, and if you want to get paid again next year, you have to do some more work next year.

Everyone, that is, except copyright holders, who think they should be exempt - that the work they did last year should keep bringing in money as long as people keep benefitting from it. If only the rest of us could get such a cushy deal!

2. Star Trek is, of course, fiction, but it's an easily recognized scenario in which there is no scarcity (at least for many types of object). When you want a cup of tea, you ask the machine for it, and everyone can have his own cup of tea for free without taking it away from anybody else.

Bear with me for a moment. Imagine this technology were real, and we could all have all the food, medicine, fuel, and luxury items we needed, at no cost. Wouldn't that be an undeniably good thing? In such a world, wouldn't you have to be some sort of evil monster to suggest that people should be deprived of those things just because they can't pay for them? Why should anyone have to pay for items which have no underlying cost?

Now back to the real world. Physical property doesn't work that way, and never will, but information does. Although being deprived of information is rather less dangerous than being deprived of food or medicine, I contend that in a world where it can be reproduced for free, the suggestion that people should have to go without it if they don't pay is, at its heart, an evil one.

The very basis of a payment transaction is that if I'm working, I need compensation for my time (which I could be spending on something else), and if I'm selling something, I need compensation for losing it (since I can't use it or sell it again if I don't have it anymore). If those don't apply, it isn't compensation, it's extortion.

3. I'm sorry you didn't understand the proposal, but it does in fact make sense, and something similar has been put into practice by bands acting on their own (as well as through sites like sellaband.com). Really, it's very simple: find someone--or a bunch of someones--to pay you for the act of recording, or writing, or whatever it is you do.

The principle is sound. If your favorite band sent out a newsletter saying, "We need to raise money for our next album or it won't get made, so please send $10", why wouldn't you do it? After all, you'd happily spend $10 if they had just released a CD - and this way you're getting more for your money, because when the album is released, you can do whatever you want with it. People spend far more than that on political contributions, which have no guarantee of returning anything: it's not like you get the money back if your candidate loses.

4. What are you planning to do with the money? And why are you asking one person for all $10k instead of collecting small contributions from hundreds or thousands of people? If you thought that's what I was proposing, it's no wonder you didn't understand how it could work.

by taradinoc on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:38:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

Most people who create content spend a great deal of time and get very little pay/hour for that creation. That you resent that they get even that, but apparently don't have a problem with a basketball player getting paid more for playing one game than most content creators get for work that's taken perhaps years of their lives to create says a lot about what you think of the creative process and exactly how much value you ascribe to it.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

by katerina on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 01:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

You seem to have misunderstood me. I have no problem whatsoever with creative people getting paid for what they do.

My complaint is with the complicated, intrusive system of copyright laws they've chosen to extract that payment. It isn't necessary, it restricts speech and innovation, and it provides special treatment that no other workers get.

by taradinoc on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (3.00 / 0)

those who expect good content had damn well better be willing to support creators who are trying to make a living. If content consumers keep expecting their content to come free, then the only music that will be economically viable will be music jingles, the only video will be supersized commercials, and the only books will be written by the same 3 bestsellers.

I don't expect my content to come free, but OTOH no one has a Constitutional right to expect to make a living off of intellectual property.

The purpose of copyright and patent is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and ISTM that we ought to gradually reduce the term of copyright until we reach the point where the supply and quality "useful Arts" has a modest drop-off, then increase the term by a few years, and leave it there.

There was plenty of music being created even before there were "people out there turning music into gold." There will still be plenty if we cut the term of copyright to ten years.

by RT on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 05:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

OTOH no one has a Constitutional right to expect to make a living off of intellectual property

Well, for that matter, no one has a Constitutional right to make a living off any sort of work, do they? However, the notion of copyright stems in part from the recognition that creating something in your head may have as much value as creating something with your hands. Obviously, in a world where people can buy a $2 t-shirt from Wal-Mart, creating something with your hands isn't held in very high esteem these days. Guess creating something with your head isn't either.

The big trend toward Wal-Mart was the notion that people needed cheaper and cheaper stuff to fill their houses. I suspect that some of the trend toward anti-intellectual property among the young is a similar impulse toward needing cheaper and cheaper (read free) stuff to fill their ipod, computer, cel phone, etc. However, just as the dinosaurs who resisted the calls for globalization may have turned out to have good instincts that the effects of globalization are not a universal good. So those dinosaurs like myself who happen to think intellectual rights actually mean something may have a inkling that the effects of digitization on our society may not be universally good either.

While changes to copyright are inevitable; respect for intellectual property is not a passe notion. Similarly, challenging the whole notion of intellectual property is not some magic badge of honor that shows one is either progressive or more dedicated to freedom of information.

Just look at China.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

by katerina on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

Similarly, challenging the whole notion of intellectual property is not some magic badge of honor that shows one is either progressive or more dedicated to freedom of information.

Er, it isn't? I don't see how anyone can be "dedicated to freedom of information" without challenging the notion that copyright holders should be able to "own" pieces of information and restrict their spread.

by taradinoc on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CopyNight (none / 0)

People interested in copyright and related issues might want to check out CopyNight, which has local gatherings similar to Drinking Liberally (one of the DL founders helped start it). I haven't been to the local gathering since shortly after it started, but I may drop by next time.

DC Drinking Liberally • DC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:54:39 PM EST

I wish I wasn't so tired right now (none / 0)

There is a really great example - I think it was sony. they did a drm inside a player, can't remember the name right now.

at any rate, every time you played , say, an mp3 or something, you end up with a transfer to some website "mother ship" where all of your info is collected.

I remember sony had to pay for this. I can't remember the details but they didn't last long. they were basically running spyware.

i guess thats my point in this weak post. I am trying to say that digital rights management as it is done by the current media giants, realy amounts to installing spyware.

.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven

by heyAnita on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:25:55 PM EST

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

The cultural and political, free-speech aspects of crap like these copyright runarounds, the egregious rate schedules being levied against Internet radio, the attempts to strangle satellite radio, etc. are all pretty well covered.

There's another common thread that ought to hook progressives in, though, and that's the economic strategy it all represents. It's another case of using every lever of government power for the benefit of the current monopolies and cartels; there shall be no economic activity that doesn't pay back to them, certainly nothing that could create new markets and new, uncontrolled actors. They already made that mistake once with the Internets.

I think, as usual, Ian has it right:

Millenials are trending Dem, but locking them in is smart, and showing that Democrats understand the new world, and are on the side of the future, not the past, is how you do it. [...] The politician who does this will reap great rewards - and so will the party.

by tatere on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:32:47 PM EST

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

I suppose I have a dog in this fight. I'm a small-time musician and songwriter. When I say small-time, I mean I was a road musician for 25 years, writing songs for my own CD's and LP's. I worked with a couple of small labels and also had my own. I've had my music picked up by a label in Europe had a couple of songs in movies, or picked up more successful artists than me. All told, I've had a good career for a musician. I've certainly eaten my share of soupbeans and cornbread, but I've been able to educate my children and keep the wolves from the door.

I think people at my level can really be hurt by copying. A lot of small-time musicians depend on CD sales to pay for gas and hotels. We sell our work at shows, and many of us play up to 300 nights a year to keep food on the table. We work hard our whole careers, maybe have some small success, but when it's time to hang up the guitar, we look to our catalogue to provide part of our income. Maybe we have one hit or a half-dozen songwriting cuts on bigger labels. Our work is no less professional or worthy than that of those who make millions, but usually if you're a blues musician or some other genre musician, you're not going to be on MTV and you depend on every bit of revenue you can find. Song royalties are a crucial part of this income, and most of us consider them part of our retirement fund.

I had a song on a Grammy nominated bluegrass album recorded by a popular bluegrass artist. The first time I went on Napster, I saw my song had a ton of hits, and all I could think of was all those nickels I could be missing out on. Small songwriters are already squeezed to death by the publishing companies who force you to sign bad contracts to get your music on a popular album--squeezed by ASCAP who tilts the royalty share toward the big names. We usually can't afford
good entertainment lawyers. Who's gonna take on a German record label over a couple of thousand dollars?

Our songs are intellectual property, but more than that, they're really our investment in ourselves. As our property, they are often what we have to leave our children. Songs don't have a shelf life.
How many time do we see an old song made new? Blues Stay Away from me, written by Alton Delmore has been recorded twenty or more times. As I know the heirs of the Delmore family, I know how important that one song has been to them. It was a gift of their father to them, and like an old house that gains value over the years, this song has value also and just because the song is the output of a mind, makes it no less real than real estate.

If I'm lucky, I might get a couple of more cuts on one or more of my songs, and have a little extra income I'll need when I'm unable to work. For every superstar songwriter out there, there's a 1000 people like me, just getting by, trying to scrape a living out of a business that's already tilted toward whatever top twenty artists are out there getting rich.

There's always been this attitude that copying music is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but for guys like me, it stealing plain and simple, and like all theft, somewhere along the line, somebody pays for it.

I know some might tell me how the Internet is going to make me even more money once I get a proper online profile; how having a song pirated is really publicity for my work, etc--all the usually talking points. Having your work available for free may help some young indie band, but this old blues singer has never figured out how to make a palatable meal out of publicity.

by Nick Stump on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:04:50 PM EST

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

We work hard our whole careers, maybe have some small success, but when it's time to hang up the guitar, we look to our catalogue to provide part of our income.

Sorry, but I don't think that's a reasonable thing to expect. As I mentioned above, no one in any other industry gets that kind of special treatment. A retired bus driver doesn't get to keep extracting money from the rides he gave back in the 60's; a retired mayor doesn't get to collect royalties from everyone he helped during his time in office.

The rest of us have two options: (1) keep working, or (2) invest in our retirement while we're young, whether by paying into an account or by finding a job with a good pension. We don't get to keep reselling the work we did back in our youth.

You, as a copyright advocate, are asking the rest of us to restrict our communications so that you can have additional retirement options. What's in it for us?

by taradinoc on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 09:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

He's not asking you to restrict your communications. He's asking you not to steal his stuff. No one says you owe him a living by buying his stuff. But similarly, if you want to listen to his music, don't you think he deserves some payment for it? People who would never dream of stealing money out of street musician's guitar case seem to have no problem with doing so in the virtual world by uploading a song so the artist doesn't get royalties.

It's a matter of whether you respect that song as the artist's property or not. Many people do; you obviously do not.

If you had a house you were renting out, would you think it fair that after ten years anyone who wanted to could move in without paying any rent and you'd have no say in the matter?

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

by katerina on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 01:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

He's not asking you to restrict your communications.

I'm afraid he is. That's exactly what copyright is: a restriction on communication. Copyright says that there are certain pieces of information--numbers, sequences of bits--that I am not allowed to speak or write to someone else unless I have permission from the copyright holder.

He's asking you not to steal his stuff.

There's that word again. Look, if someone could "steal" my car without depriving me of it, I would have to conclude that car theft isn't all that bad. All you're doing by using that term is diminishing real theft.

But similarly, if you want to listen to his music, don't you think he deserves some payment for it?

Sure. But that doesn't have to involve copyrights, royalties, asking permission for every copy I want to make, and being forbidden to write certain software or sell certain hardware. Everyone else manages to get paid for their work without any of that.

He deserves to get paid for the time he put into writing and recording the music - that's a unique talent that most people don't have. OTOH, he doesn't deserve to get paid for putting copies onto a CD and distributing them; I can do that myself for less.

It's a matter of whether you respect that song as the artist's property or not. Many people do; you obviously do not.

You're absolutely right, I don't respect information as property. You can't own a number.

If you had a house you were renting out, would you think it fair that after ten years anyone who wanted to could move in without paying any rent and you'd have no say in the matter?

Depends. Is it a magical house that, like a piece of information, can be used simultaneously by thousands of different people without any of them interfering with each other? If so, then it's fair: someone new moving in doesn't deprive me or anyone else of the use of the house.

If not, then it's not a very good analogy, is it?

by taradinoc on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

That's exactly what copyright is: a restriction on communication. Copyright says that there are certain pieces of information--numbers, sequences of bits--that I am not allowed to speak or write to someone else unless I have permission from the copyright holder.

This is fallacious. Information is factual. Facts are not copyrightable. What is copyrightable are facts, ideas, or artwort produced in a particular form that is the creative output of one or more people. There is nothing in copyright law stopping you from creating YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE INFORMATION, IDEA, OR PIECE OF ART and transmitting that. The problem with this, however, is that this might actual require some effort on your part and might not be as popular with those you transmit it to as the original creative piece.

Example: Jon Stewart riffing on Bush's latest idiocy is funny. You riffing on the same might well not be.

You're the one willfully missing the point. If you download a singer's song, that person doesn't get paid a royalty for your use of the song. It's not a matter of them not "having" the song anymore. What they don't have anymore is their pay for the work they created. How would you like it if your employer could choose to just withhold some of your paycheck, and then when you accused him of stealing from you, he turned around and said that he hadn't stolen anything, because you still had done the same amount of work. That argument makes as much sense as your argument above.

He deserves to get paid for the time he put into writing and recording the music - that's a unique talent that most people don't have. OTOH, he doesn't deserve to get paid for putting copies onto a CD and distributing them; I can do that myself for less.

And if you distribute a million copies and he only sells one, how do you expect him to get paid? How many indie groups make the sort of living that commercial artists do? How many programmers do you know who make a profitable living off of shareware?

I don't respect information as property. You can't own a number.

This says it all about where you're coming from. If you can write that sentence, then you obviously don't have any respect for the creative process or for art or for the fact that a person's ideas have as any intrinsic value. Next time you download a song, why don't you just scramble the bits and see if it sounds as good. Or better yet, why don't you write a program (that's assuming you can write code) that creates a better song.

Is it a magical house that, like a piece of information, can be used simultaneously by thousands of different people without any of them interfering with each other? If so, then it's fair: someone new moving in doesn't deprive me or anyone else of the use of the house. If not, then it's not a very good analogy, is it?

Actually, it's a good analogy. You just refuse to see the point. By your reasoning, I can't own a house to rent, because any house is identical to any other house, so ownership is impossible. What's in my head is not identical to what's in your head which is different from what is the head of every other person. To treat ideas and art as interchangeable as two pieces of wood is to be in such a different place conceptually that I don't really know how to continue the discussion.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

by katerina on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 03:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

This is fallacious. Information is factual. Facts are not copyrightable. What is copyrightable are facts, ideas, or artwort produced in a particular form that is the creative output of one or more people. There is nothing in copyright law stopping you from creating YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE INFORMATION, IDEA, OR PIECE OF ART and transmitting that.

My apologies - as an IT professional, I use the term "information" to mean "data". A song is data.

Even if you want to limit it to mean "facts", the material we're talking about still consists of facts. For example, it is a fact that the first four words of the Gettysburg Address are "four score and seven". It is also a fact that the next six words are "years ago, our fathers brought forth". Go on like that for long enough, and you've communicated the entire Address simply by stating undeniable facts. (Of course, the Gettysburg Address isn't copyrighted, but you get the point.)

Copyright necessarily restricts the communication of facts. If I have a song, I can deduce certain facts about it: for example, the first byte of its MP3 encoded form is 0x01, the second byte is 0xD5, and so on - I could print the file out on paper and read it to someone over the phone, byte by byte. Those are undeniable, unchanging facts I'd be reading, and yet copyright forbids me from telling them to someone else without permission.

If you download a singer's song, that person doesn't get paid a royalty for your use of the song. It's not a matter of them not "having" the song anymore.

Exactly, which is why it isn't stealing.

It's true that the singer doesn't get a royalty when I don't buy the song. But that's true no matter why I'm not buying it - maybe I read a bad review, or maybe I heard the song on the radio and didn't like it, or maybe I bought a used CD from someone else, etc. He's not getting my money either way; the only difference is that in one situation, I get to listen to the song (win-lose) but in the other, I don't (lose-lose). The only way that could be wrong is if there's something inherently wrong with listening to a song you haven't paid for.

What they don't have anymore is their pay for the work they created.

"Anymore" suggests that they had it in the first place. They didn't. They haven't "lost" that money in any real sense, only a metaphorical sense, like how Disney World "loses" my money when I decide to go to Six Flags instead.

How would you like it if your employer could choose to just withhold some of your paycheck, and then when you accused him of stealing from you, he turned around and said that he hadn't stolen anything, because you still had done the same amount of work.

Thanks for helping me make my point. My employer and I have a mutual agreement that I will get paid X dollars for Y hours of work. I found someone to pay me before I started working, and all the work I did was contingent on that promise.

Now why is that so hard for people whose jobs involve music or writing? There's clearly a demand for that sort of work.

If you can write that sentence, then you obviously don't have any respect for the creative process or for art or for the fact that a person's ideas have as any intrinsic value. Next time you download a song, why don't you just scramble the bits and see if it sounds as good.

What a load of BS! I have enormous respect for the effort and talent that goes into creating this material. The reason a well-made song sounds better than scrambled bits is because of that effort and talent. That's what I'm willing to pay for - the work that goes into making the bits. Not for the bits themselves, which anyone can copy for free.

By your reasoning, I can't own a house to rent, because any house is identical to any other house, so ownership is impossible.

No, you don't get it. It has nothing to do with whether the house is identical to another house, but rather with the limited, scarce nature of physical property.

Even on a hillside of identical boxes made of ticky-tacky, there are only a finite number of houses, each one can only hold a finite number of people, and one person's use of a particular house necessarily interferes with someone else's use. That is, if I paint the kitchen blue, you can't also paint it red. If I want to throw a loud party in the living room, you can't have a quiet night of Scrabble there at the same time: my party deprives you of the use of the living room.

Information, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. There is no finite limit on the number of people who can listen to a certain song, or make copies of it, or remix it, etc. What I do with a song has absolutely no impact on what you or anyone else can do with it: it's impossible for me to deprive anyone else of the use of that song.

To treat ideas and art as interchangeable as two pieces of wood is to be in such a different place conceptually that I don't really know how to continue the discussion.

Well, you can start by responding to what I actually wrote, instead of making up strawmen like "treat[ing] ideas and art as interchangeable". I never said anything like that.

by taradinoc on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 04:46:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Copyright Chaos (none / 0)

5455-pied
5454-photo
5453-photo
5451-photo
5447-photo
5446-petite
5445-penis
5444-partitions
5443-partition
5441-paroles-gratuit
5439-parole-gratuit
5438-pantie
5437-outdoor
5434-oriental
5424-orgy
5422-orgie
5420-orgasme
5419-oral
5417-nudiste
5416-nudist
5415-nude
5413-nu
5412-noire
5411-nero-gratuit
5409-nero
5407-naughty
5406-nature
5404-natural
5402-naked
5401-musiques-gratuites
5400-musique-gratuite
5399-music-gratuite
5398-mure
5396-msn-gratuit
5395-msn
5394-msn
5392-mp3-gratuit
5391-movie
5390-morpheus
5389-mom
5388-models
5386-model
5385-mmf
0881-sexy
0870-sexuelle
0861-sex-gratuit
0852-sexe-gratuit
0843-sexe-gratuit
0834-sexe
0826-sexe
0817-sexe
0807-sex
0797-sex
0792-schoolgirl
0787-salope
0779-safari
0770-sado
0763-rousse
0756-rimjob
0749-redhead
0741-recettes
0733-recettes
0724-recette
0715-recette
0706-real-player
0699-rasee
0693-pussy
0687-puffy
0656-programme
0647-private
0640-pregnant
0633-pps-ppt
0624-pornstar
0617-porno-gratuit
0610-porno-gratuit
0605-pornographie
0598-porno
0587-porno
0576-porno
0569-porn-gratuit
0562-porn
0553-poitrine
0546-plumper
0539-pissing
0532-pipe
0525-pink
1504-telechargement-messenger
1493-telechargement-logiciels
1484-telechargement-logiciel
1477-telechargement-kazaa
1470-telechargement-gratuit
1461-telechargement-film
1453-telechargement-emule
1439-telechargement-divx
1430-telechargement-chansons
1420-telechargement-chanson
1411-telechargement-antivirus
1404-telechargement
1393-telechargement
1386-tele
1377-teen
1369-tease
1360-tatouages
1351-tatouage
1343-tarot
1334-swinger
1327-suceuse
1318-suce
1310-student
1302-strip
1295-strapon
1286-stories
1279-squirting
1270-spybot
1262-sportive
1253-sport
1243-spectacle
1235-spanking
1228-solution-jeu
1220-soluce
1211-softcore
1203-sodomie
1195-smoking
1187-skype
1180-shower-bath
1172-shemale
1163-shaving
1156-shareaza
1148-sexy
2105-television
2096-telecharger-xxx
2088-telecharger-x
2079-telecharger-sexe
2070-telecharger-sex
2061-telecharger-porno
2050-telecharger-porn
2043-telecharger-paroles
2036-telecharger-parole
2028-telecharger-nero
2020-telecharger-musique
2011-telecharger-music
2004-telecharger-msn
1994-telecharger-mp3
1987-telecharger-movie
1979-telecharger-messenger
1972-telecharger-logiciels
1965-telecharger-logiciel
1957-telecharger-kazaa
1949-telecharger-gratuit
1938-telecharger-film
1930-telecharger-emule
1922-telecharger-divx
1914-telecharger-chansons
1906-telecharger-chanson
1898-telecharger-antivirus
1890-telecharger2
1880-telecharger2
1871-telecharger
1861-telechargement-xxx
1854-telechargement-x
1847-telechargement-sexe
1839-telechargement-sex
1832-telechargement-porno
1824-telechargement-porn
1814-telechargement-paroles
1806-telechargement-parole
1798-telechargement-nero
1790-telechargement-musique
1780-telechargement-music
1773-telechargement-msn
1765-telechargement-mp3
1755-telechargement-movie
2836-yoga
2834-xxx-gratuit
2826-xxx
2818-x-gratuit
2810-x
2800-x
2794-winzip
2789-winrar
2782-winmx
2777-winamp
2768-wet-shirt
2760-weird
2753-webcam
2743-webcam
2735-wallpaper
2727-voyeur
2720-voyager
2714-voyage
2702-voiture
2694-voiture
2685-vlc
2678-virgin
2671-videos-comiques
2662-videos
2654-videos
2646-videos
2638-videos
2631-video-comique
2624-video
2613-video
2602-video
2593-video
2585-vacances
2576-ugly
2567-tv
2559-tuning
2546-truc
2536-transsexuelle
2529-tranny
2519-toy
2512-touristique
2503-tourisme
2496-toon
2490-toes
2482-tits
2474-tit
2467-threesome
2460-thong
2452-tennis

sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe
sexe

sexe porno xxx34
sexe porno xxx38
sexe porno xxx33
sexe porno xxx37
sexe porno xxx36
sexe porno xxx35
sexe porno xxx41
sexe porno xxx40
sexe porno xxx39
sexe porno xxx19
sexe porno xxx26
sexe porno xxx18
sexe porno xxx32
sexe porno xxx25
sexe porno xxx31
sexe porno xxx24
sexe porno xxx17
sexe porno xxx30
sexe porno xxx23
sexe porno xxx16
sexe porno xxx29
sexe porno xxx22
sexe porno xxx43
sexe porno xxx28
sexe porno xxx21
sexe porno xxx27
sexe porno xxx15
sexe porno xxx20
sexe porno xxx14
sexe porno xxx77
sexe porno xxx81
sexe porno xxx80
sexe porno xxx79
sexe porno xxx56
sexe porno xxx78
sexe porno xxx55
sexe porno xxx73
sexe porno xxx66
sexe porno xxx72
sexe porno xxx65
sexe porno xxx71
sexe porno xxx64
sexe porno xxx76
sexe porno xxx63
sexe porno xxx70
sexe porno xxx69
sexe porno xxx75
sexe porno xxx68
sexe porno xxx74
sexe porno xxx67
sexe porno xxx53
sexe porno xxx59
sexe porno xxx58
sexe porno xxx52
sexe porno xxx57
sexe porno xxx51
sexe porno xxx49
sexe porno xxx83
sexe porno xxx60
sexe porno xxx54
sexe porno xxx61
sexe porno xxx
sexe porno xxx
sexe porno xxx

sexe porno xxx27
sexe porno xxx28
sexe porno xxx29
sexe porno xxx30
sexe porno xxx30
sexe porno xxx31
sexe porno xxx32
sexe porno xxx33
sexe porno xxx34
sexe porno xxx35
sexe porno xxx36
sexe porno xxx37
sexe porno xxx38
sexe porno xxx39
sexe porno xxx40
sexe porno xxx41
sexe porno xxx42
sexe porno xxx43
sexe porno xxx44
sexe porno xxx45
sexe porno xxx46
sexe porno xxx47
sexe porno xxx48
sexe porno xxx49
sexe porno xxx50
sexe porno xxx51
sexe porno xxx52
sexe porno xxx53
sexe porno xxx54
sexe porno xxx55
sexe porno xxx56
sexe porno xxx57
sexe porno xxx67
sexe porno xxx68
sexe porno xxx69
sexe porno xxx70
sexe porno xxx71
sexe porno xxx72
sexe porno xxx73
sexe porno xxx74
sexe porno xxx75
sexe porno xxx76
sexe porno xxx77
sexe porno xxx78
sexe porno xxx79
sexe porno xxx80
sexe porno xxx81
sexe porno xxx82
sexe porno xxx83
sexe porno xxx84
sexe porno xxx85
sexe porno xxx86
sexe porno xxx87
sexe porno xxx88
sexe porno xxx89
sexe porno xxx90
sexe porno xxx91
sexe porno xxx92
sexe porno xxx93
sexe porno xxx94
sexe porno xxx95
sexe porno xxx96
sexe porno xxx97
sexe porno xxx17
sexe porno xxx18
sexe porno xxx19
sexe porno xxx20
sexe porno xxx21
sexe porno xxx22
sexe porno xxx23
sexe porno xxx24
sexe porno xxx25
sexe porno xxx26
sexe porno xxx27
sexe porno xxx28
sexe porno xxx29
sexe porno xxx30
sexe porno xxx31
sexe porno xxx32
sexe porno xxx33
sexe porno xxx34
sexe porno xxx35
davidlagato on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:36:57 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.