Do you consider it to be unethical...

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Everything published before 1923 is in the public domain in all countries.

Not true. It's public domain in the US. Depending on when the author (translator, illustrator) died, it will or will not be public domain in other countries. For instance, P.G. Wodehouse died in 1975, and he published some things before 1923, those are public domain only in the US, but they're under copyright pretty much everywhere else.

[Xenophon]

On the one hand, it's unlikely that discussions like this will convince anyone who already has a strong opinion. On the other hand, I've learned a bit this evening from the back-and-forth between two lawyers (self-described) on this thread -- even though the rhetoric was getting a bit overheated. Karma for both of them (for the content); grumps for the overheated-ness.

[Harmon]

[QUOTE=TGS;1094121]The thread will not "solve" anything - it's made up of comments from a tiny sub-group of a small group of self-selecting individuals, mostly with no qualifications, and certainly with no power, to change anything.

But that's not really the point - it's a discussion thread, where people discuss stuff regardless of their position or ability to change anything. QUOTE]

I agree - these discussion sharpen my understanding of the interaction between culture, technology & the law. Part of it comes from what other people have to say, and another part comes from my reducing my own thoughts to writing. And I simply enjoy improving my understanding of things that interest me, even if there's no practical reason for it. It's like following the Cubs, without the disappointment...

[Harmon]

A polemic by Gary Giddins at bookforum.com on the evils engendered by current copyright length.

http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/017_03/6322

He gets some factual things about the Kindle wrong, which taints the reliability of what else he writes, but he forcefully makes the case against the idea that copyright should extend beyond a generation, and more importantly, why.

[GA Russell]

Thanks for the Giddins link, Harmon.

I disagree with him, in that I feel that the copyright term should be short, i.e. life plus ten years.

But I applaud his putting the hammer down on the heirs. Here and elsewhere (a jazz site of which I am a regular) the heirs are portrayed as angels, with just as much moral claim to the proceeds as the artists themselves.

Actually, I don't mind the heirs getting paid some money. I object to their ability to control the work of art. Perhaps a law could be passed which would guarantee them a percentage of the take, while allowing the public to do with the art what it will.

[Piper_]

I've avoided comment in this thread because I don't want to get sucked in.

I just keep waiting for someone to show this. Unless I missed something (I did skim some long posts), it seems it would have saved some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...rison_to_theft


My personal answer to the poll question would be "it depends."

Then I seldom see so much black and white as gray; seems good people can respectfully disagree. Guess I have to +1 about the tone. Calumny and hyperbole do tend to backfire.

[Piper_]

Oh, I just saw the last post and it made me remember another comment from days ago that surprised me. Someone said only artists are asked to let go of intellectual property.

It made me think about all the great inventions people can only make money on for a short time. It's even worse for people who invent new *drugs.

So I think artists have it pretty good, considering.



*Edit: I understand drugs are needed more than art or other inventions, but after investing millions of dollars in them, the inventors can't even have sole rights to sell the generic version.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I'm afraid that I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who calls me a sophist, and falsely accuses me of using the argument from authority.

I didn't call you a sophist. I did, absolutely, call your argument that IP isn't "property" because it isn't tangible, and therefore, that copyright infringement cannot be "theft," sophistry. You're a lawyer; claiming that you're offended by that seems a bit over the top. If you didn't know it already, you learned sophistical arguing in your 1L year. It's a tool in the box, and I'm more than a little surprised to see you behaving as though I called you a pedophile.

Nor was my statement about the usage by you of your authority untrue in any sense of THAT word, either. You flatly stated, in your post, "I'm a lawyer." You then proceeded, in that post, to state, not two sentences later, that:

What everyone calls "intellectual property" is NOT actually property. As a legal matter, it cannot be stolen (unless, of course, there is some other law specifically establishing some form of intellectual property as "property" for purposes of the statutes against theft. I believe that there are some concerning trade secrets. But in the case of copyright, there are none that I am aware of.) (red emphasis added).

I fail to see how you can assert that my saying that you were arguing from a position of authority can remotely be construed as false. You advised everyone that you were a lawyer; and you then provided what is essentially a legal opinion (that IP isn't property, and hence cannot be stolen). How is that not arguing from the imprimatur of authority? It would be one thing to have that discussion among your fellow lawyers; but amongst laypeople? Of course it has the imprimatur of authority! If not--why else did you say it? People responded to that particular post, saying, IIRC, "good to have it from the horse's mouth," in other words, dispositive, because YOU were deemed to know the law and, therefore, your assertion(s) were beyond argument.

I am not interested in ad hominem attacks whatsoever. Apparently what I consider plain old logical debate some people consider vitriol. {shrug}. However, I certainly never "name-called," unlike MANY on this thread who've called me a number of things. Nor did I ever imply that you are NOT a lawyer; you certainly know that "assuming arguendo" means, "assuming for the sake of discussion." It means, contrary to your attempt to get people here to think that I insulted you, that I was taking your statement at face value; I was, in fact, NOT questioning your assertion that you were a lawyer.

I said I was done with this thread and I meant it--but you of all people know that saying your argument was sophistry means naught more than "it's misleading," which is hardly grounds for a duel with pistols at sunrise, and the term "assuming arguendo" is, equally, no intimation whatsoever that you are NOT an attorney. Really, sir; you doth protest too much.

You are going to lengths--more than once--to inflame people's opinions of what I've said, rather than to address the cases I cited or the precedents I named. I attacked your position vigorously; I attacked you not at all, and I know you are quite cognizant of the distinction.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Piper_

I've avoided comment in this thread because I don't want to get sucked in.

I just keep waiting for someone to show this. Unless I missed something (I did skim some long posts), it seems it would have saved some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...rison_to_theft


My personal answer to the poll question would be "it depends."

Then I seldom see so much black and white as gray; seems good people can respectfully disagree. Guess I have to +1 about the tone. Calumny and hyperbole do tend to backfire.

Again with the legal semantics argument. Sigh!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Again with the legal semantics argument. Sigh!

Semantics is what the law is about. "Theft" is a matter of semantics. (It's not called "theft" when airport security takes someone's laptop, even though it's "taking someone's property without permission." The details of the situation, defined through the filter of legal semantics, tell you whether or not it's "theft.")

If it's "theft" when someone gives a friend a copy of an ebook (note: nobody's property is *missing* in that interaction, and the author has no idea it's occurring at all), why isn't it "theft" to borrow a phyiscal book from the same friend? In both cases, the author is out the price of a book.

What makes the additional copy "theft" and the single copy "not theft?"

Most of us don't define "theft" as "there's more to go around." It's not theft if I set up a free coffee stand next to a Starbuck's and convince their customers not to pay for coffee.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Again with the legal semantics argument. Sigh!

Is it semantics? Yes.

Is it a distinction without a difference? No.

It's a distinction that was the subject of a US Supreme Court case. I don't think their findings should be discarded by anyone who claims that what the Poll proposes is equivalent to stealing a TV set.

The reason I posted the Wiki entry instead of the link to the case itself was to show how easy it is for anyone to find proof that no one deserves to have their motives and characters maligned for drawing the same important distinction the court did.

And it's not a new concept. It's also easy to find that Thomas Jefferson drew the same distinction.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Semantics is what the law is about. "Theft" is a matter of semantics. (It's not called "theft" when airport security takes someone's laptop, even though it's "taking someone's property without permission." The details of the situation, defined through the filter of legal semantics, tell you whether or not it's "theft.")

Apparently not. There seems to be a generalized mindset that because the Federal protections are so much broader than "merely" State statutes covering "mere" theft, that this means that copyright infringement doesn't equate to theft.

If it's "theft" when someone gives a friend a copy of an ebook (note: nobody's property is *missing* in that interaction, and the author has no idea it's occurring at all), why isn't it "theft" to borrow a phyiscal book from the same friend? In both cases, the author is out the price of a book.

Because, obviously, you can "give" a copy of an ebook to someone without depriving yourself of your own copy--you've made an illicit copy. When you lend a physical book to your friend, there's still only one copy. Both of you can't read or re-read the physical book at the same time; you're sharing it. You're not sharing the digital file, in the traditional sense of the word.

What makes the additional copy "theft" and the single copy "not theft?"

Nothing, if you're talking about a file that's been torrented both times. Not a THING.

Most of us don't define "theft" as "there's more to go around." It's not theft if I set up a free coffee stand next to a Starbuck's and convince their customers not to pay for coffee.

This discussion isn't getting anywhere sadly. It's like the introduction of the Dowling case as apodictic that infringement doesn't equate to theft. That's not what the Supreme Court said; if you read the actual decision--not the wikipedia summation, which omits a LOT--the Court said that they rendered their decision strictly (and narrowly) on the basis of whether or not the transgression could be prosecuted under interstate transportation of stolen goods statutes (Federal).

The whole point of Dowling, and what the Court said, is that the interstate laws were passed, originally, to give broader protections and prosecution capabilities in cases of theft, in light of the advent of the automobile, so that thieves couldn't take stolen property across state lines and escape punishment. HOWEVER, the Court went on to say that "... infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud...," and that the fact that Copyrights had Federal protection in the first place essentially meant that the additional prosecutorial powers granted for interstate transportation of stolen good were unnecessary.

The Court already stated that copyrights are, indeed, property; so that argument is rather out the window.

However, it's moot; those of you who infringe will continue to do so.