I never said that kind of thing happens under the current system.
Backpedal… backpedal… backpedal…
Data piracy seems to help the industry
The argument I seem to be getting is if we allow The Pirate bay to stay open, like it has for the last 10 years, content creators will not get paid for their work, and will stop working. Really ?
Then why is the movie industry booming? Music industry profits are up, on the back of online sales. E book sales are surging, to the applause of trees and poor students everywhere. Microsoft just had a record year. Why ? How long will it take for free data sharing to destroy these industries ? Just curious. It certainly appears 10 years is not nearly long enough. What will fundamentally change about file copying in the next 10 years ?
Could it perhaps be that "SOPA now ! stealing must be stopped now ! has a more politically based motivation? This is our first election after a decade of free data sharing, after unlimited Corp donations to super PACS became the law. Expect moral outrage in Congress over file sharing to grow more vocal as Nov approaches. Then die down for a couple years.
Yes. Much work needed in that department. Listen to the replys to see what people are missing.
I think you just killed your own thread. And wasted a lot of peoples’ time along the way! Are you thinking things like a big record company, that continues to scrounge profits from old works, even after the original artist’s contract has run its full and legal course? I kind of agree with that idea, though that should be more a matter for lawyers to fight over whether it was a fair deal in the first place, etc.
Are you thinking things like large movie studios, aka Disney, still scrounging profits off movies from 70 years ago? Hey, if people still want to see Pinocchio, it still has value. and it is still the property of Disney.
Why am I still typing?
I wasn’t getting that at all. This thread seems to be an argument between “information should be free” and "intellectual property is the property of its creators/owners/distributors, and it’s up to them to price it. Illegal copying has been around for more than ten years, so its effects are somewhat understood at this point.
Short answer: it will keep getting easier. And faster. Think about how much that’s changed since 2002!
Inevitably. Laws are drafted, argued, and voted by politicians so it’s hard to avoid political pressures. But I think this one’s mostly about money. Content creators are a special interest group. But even though it’s big ones, like the MPAA behind this, their interests are essentially the same as the little guys; photographers, musicians and film makers who want to distribute their content, but not give it away willy-nilly.
Plus the key interest of crushing the little guys, since they’re in direct competition and whatnot.
Allright, I’m going to rephrase. I believe that:
-
Just about anything can be represented as digital data.
-
Music and movies recently (within the last decade or so) became very easy for the general public to convert to digital data. Software, obviously, has always been this way. Physical objects are going to follow. (simple things are already available, but it may be a while before the general public has access to the CAD data for a ford F-150).
-
Once I purchase something, it is mine to do what I want with, provided I am not infringing on any one else’s rights in the process. (ie: If I buy a printer, I can take it apart to find out how it works. I can not buy a bat and use it to smash your windows).
-
To “share” means to freely give away, with no direct commercial purposes (ie: you can’t “share” something by using it in an advertisement), and no direct profit (ie: you can’t “share” something, and then charge me a dollar for it).
-
It has been and always should be legal to share any information I possess with anyone else I choose. This excludes information that I have obtained through signing an NDA, or other similar legally enforceable contract.
-
If I purchase a book, I should be legally allowed to make a hand written copy of it, and share it with my friend. He should be the be legally allowed to make a hand written copy of that, and share it with his friend.
-
The logic of point 6) applies to anything.
Here’s where your argument falls to pieces.
This “mine to do what I want with” is a misunderstanding of what you’re acutally buying in many cases. You aren’t buying the rights to a piece of IP, you’re merely buying a license to read / view / use that IP for your own private, personal purpose.
By copying that IP, you’re breaking the terms of the license. You’re infringing on the right of the producer / author to control the distribution of his product.
So STOP F*CKING DOING IT!
You sound like a greedy spoiled brat, or a Corp.
Copyrights used to be only good for 7 years, then expired . Then (rather recently) , the idea that paying Congressmen to extend the patent time duration, took hold. Music rights owned largely by Sony, BMI, Disney , etc. are now of a duration of 90 years. Fuck those rich brats and all their lawyers. Put them all out of a job. They can’t sing, write a song, or do anything but muck up the true artists while they try to lock down the system for themselves. All they have invented is corruption of the true purpose of the law. Which was originally to spur innovation by giving an inventor a 7 year exclusive period to profit selling their invention. After 7 years it was then in Public Domain. The traditional thought used to be that this free sharing of knowledge would improve education, the rate of innovation, advance civilization for the greater good.
In 1998 the length of a copyright in the United States was increased by 20 years under the The Copyright Term Extension Act. This legislation was strongly promoted by corporations which had valuable copyrights which otherwise would have expired, and has been the subject of substantial criticism on this point.
So Maestro , how long do you think patents should last before they expire ?
The fact that you’ve lost touch with reality decades ago takes the sting out of this barb. But thanks for the thought.
John Foss makes some good arguments (as always) but I think it comes down to the fact that no matter WHAT happens, IP will be stolen/copied and distributed through both legal and illegal channels. As the properties of legal distribution evolve, the properties of illegal distribution will also evolve accordingly. It is not entirely up to the creators of the IP to decide what is going to happen to that property, because once someone else is in possession of that property they are going to do what they want with it (whether it’s illegal or legal). I think that it how things are and will continue to be as long as our ideas of both IP and piracy remain the same. In other words; The Proverbial Song Remains the Same.
This isn’t the case with physical property. If you’re found with stolen goods, they can be seized by the police without re-compensation… even if you bought them through a legal channel.
Why should IP be treated differently? Because it’s easier to steal?
Well, crap, guns make killing pretty easy… how about we legalize that too?
You misunderstand maestro. I’m not justifying the stealing of IP, especially not because it’s ‘easier to steal’. I’m saying that once it is purchased or obtained it is no longer in the hands of the creator. Just like if someone buys ping pong and then someone under 21 uses them for beer pong. If someone is found with stolen IP and it is proven that it was stolen then let them be fined according to the law. I am simply saying that no matter what is done to stop stealing, it will continue. Just as no matter in what way IP or even physical property is stolen there will always be laws to stop it that are being updated according to new stealing ‘techniques’ (if you will). Both the law and the criminals violating that law are and will continue to evolve.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t think that printing “all rights reserved” on my album case makes a legally binding contract that I won’t share my property with my friends.
PS: Your last line really convinced me!
Disagreeing with well established and tested law isn’t half a good way to make yourself look stupid.
Well, at least here in Germany he’s right. No matter what they print on it, you’re still allowed to lend it to a friend or make him a copy. At least with music. Software is a different matter.
-
The law isn’t well established or tested. There are currently court cases contesting it, so it certainly has not been fully tested. And because this is such a new phenomenon we can hardly call this realm of the law well established.
-
Disagreeing with well established and tested laws is a good way to get them changed. I believe I will be proven right within a decade.
-
Furthermore, there are many historical examples of people “disagreeing with well established and tested law” that make your statement look cowardly and shameful. Some laws need to be changed.
Given that much of well established law has its historical roots as being produced by a ruler to control the people they rule over, blindly accepting a law is what makes one look stupid. Copyrights have their roots as being used by rulers to censor dissent.
On January 18th, the same day as the blackouts in protest of the SOPA/PIPA bills, the supreme court in a copyright ruling said:
“Concerning the First Amendment, we recognized that some restriction on expression is the inherent and in-tended effect of every grant of copyright.”
They can’t stop you by printing words. But I don’t think that’s the intent of that statement. Basically they are saying that the rights granted by the copyright (or licensing? of the contained work) are in effect.
I agree with you that there will likely be changes. However I am willing to make a bet with you that it won’t be as you described at the top of this thread. Copyrights and similar rules on IP won’t disappear that fast.
I think that sounds essentially correct, though the devil, as always, is in the details…
Go on then - give me an example of a current case which contests the right to make a copy of something and give it to your mates. Meanwhile I think you’ll find that IP protection like this has been going on rather longer than you seem to imagine - I’m certainly aware of such things from before you were born.
That’s as maybe. Doesn’t make you look any less stupid if your disagreement is in the form of an assertion that a current law doesn’t exist.
respect for public domain IP
I find it interesting that no one on the pro copyright side of this debate will answer my simple question. How long should copyrights last before they expire ?
When congressman are bought, and then vote to extend terms of copyrights, how is this not stealing from the people ?
When I copy a file I wasn’t going to buy anyway, the owner still has it, and I have not denied them income. Movie, music, software companies are all doing well. No one seems to contest this fact.
If the net is locked down and I am forced to buy something that should have been in public domain, $ goes from my pocket into someone elses. This costs me in a real way. It may be legal , but I will get mad anyway, convinced the law is corrupt.
Supposedly, copyright was to encourage creativity. But that goal was completely perverted long ago. For instance, Micheal Jackson bought the rights to the Beadles music in the 90’s. After he died his estate sold them to BMI. The laws have been so perverted that these rights mean BMI can collect royalties on this music until 90 years after the last Beadle dies. Until then, it’s 15 $ an album to BMI . Except of course, when the rights are set to expire, they just buy congress to expend it further.
So my question, to anyone who is anti pirate, what to you would be a fair duration for a copyright ? I see this splitting sharply on political lines. One side will say corporate taxes should be 0, capital gains tax should be 0, and copyrights should last forever. On the other side is the pirates, and the 99 % that don’t have a personal interest in locking up the fruits of the ever growing tree of knowledge.
This scares politicians. Money can’t fix real hate, and politicians who take the rap for locking down the net will be hated by a broad swath of voters. If a fair compromise can’t be reached on respect for public domain IP, I predict public anger will lead to the abolishing of copyrights as we have known it. Freedom of knowledge and access to learning are fundamental to society, so this is an international movement.