Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by perversity

From an artistic standpoint, copyrighting has very little to do with monetary gain. It's more about protecting what I created. If I write a love song dedicated to my wife, and someone in marketing hears it and likes it, they should not be allowed to use that same song as the background music in a commercial for herpes treatment, or any other type of commercial unless I give my consent as an artist. If it does take some sort of financial gain to give my consent, that is my perogative as the creator of the song, my RIGHT as a copyright holder.
The life of the creator seems like a good lifespan for copyrights. Any longer or shorter is not fair and does not benefit society( IMO)

That's so wrong

I guess I'll have to make a long post to say why.

In the beginning of every civilisation there is a group of people that have something common with each other, share information, share ideas, share inventions, share culture. Each of them, through childhood years receives gigantic amount of data from others, learns about the world, customs of sicety, dangers, ideas, songs, stories. Then at some point creates something new, a small variation on one of the old themes, a set of old symbols put together like nothing was put before, and if people like it enough, it becomes part of the culture, otherwise it dies.

Homer's Illiad and Odyssey were most probably created by a long succession of people over a period of four hundred years, and evolved into what they are today by people sharing ideas, lines, scenes from each other, new performers taking what they liked and cutting away what they didn't like from their performance.

Around 17th century in some countries people grew concerned that too few new things are created, as not many people were educated these days, and troubles of everyday life didn't leave much time for creation, and those who were supported by some wealthy person didn't feel free to create whatever they liked, so an idea was born - to grant each creator a temporary monopoly for copying of his work, so people whould pay him to make copies. That's called copyright now.

Later - I'm not sure exactly at which time - an idea was born, that author is not just a small part of community, taking from culture, and giving back to the society, but someone existing in opposition to the society, who should obstruct the flow of culture, deny others futher improvement of his addition, lock it under copyright laws, their terms extended out of proportion. The idea of derivative works showed up, to grab and lock more of a culture from the same creation. Terms like "intellectual property" or "creative control" were coined, to insinuate that the author is the owner of this collage of elements he took from other people, and that he should be in control of something more than the fact of his being the creator.

Nowadays Odyssey and Illiad could only be written if everyone participating in their creation put special effort into releasing their addtions from the clutch of copyright laws. This form of creation - by sharing, and cooperating in creation - is dying out, and barely anyone is mourning it. People seem to be of mind that creating is just another way of making money, though it has so little to do with all other ways of making money, and that the whole of their creation is somehow their property - as if they all gained the insight which let them create by themselves. A few centuries ago it was obvious that the newly created work becomes part of the culture, property of everyone, immediately, and copyright law exists to encourage creativity by letting author gain money to have more time to create and has nothing to do with property - who still understands that now?

It makes me sick.

There are a few people here who call copyright infringement theft. What I call theft is blocking anyone from improving on existing state of culture for years and centuries by locking new works under copyright law. It's a theft of what might have been, so it's not as easy to spot, but people who are mourning lost sales should be able to, with some effort. Culture is still evolving and improving through fair use, through people not insisting on acting on their copyright, but who can say how stifled it is?. It's evolving much faster than it had before Internet, and so the lockdowns on good books and movies hurt its growth more. If "Rozenkrantz and Guildenstern" were created not long after "Hamlet", and Shakespeare chose to act on his copyright, would it be good for the world? How many such works are not created today for fear of paying legal fees? The loss is immeasurable

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by afa

Any researcher worth his salt will tell you that survey results are debatable. And specially when it comes to surveys paid for by a party or group with a vested interest in one particular outcome... well.

.

What about the US government, do they have a vested interest as well?

<http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars>

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

. If "Rozenkrantz and Guildenstern" were created not long after "Hamlet", and Shakespeare chose to act on his copyright, would it be good for the world? How many such works are not created today for fear of paying legal fees? The loss is immeasurable

He didn't have a copyright, the statute of Anne wasn't till 1709, a good thing too since Shakespeare freely borrowed form past works and his contemporaries like Christopher Marlowe. Modern copyright laws would have pretty much stopped him dead the same way they would have stopped Disney.

The problem here is people who've decided copyright existis for them to have money and control. They call anyone who believes different greedy a thief a freeloader. They care about money, and hey money is good. I like money I wish I had more of it but do you know what else I like? Seeing Shakespeare in the park, Going to the art museum and since those old masters aren't covered by copyright I like that I can find a photo of them if i can't afford to go where they are. I like that I could paint my own version that i can change the colors and could make the Mona Lisa a black woman, that I could write a story about the painting and I can format the text to resemble the painting and that's the part that really matters, I can draw anything i want from that iconic symbol and use it to make something new and then the next person can add to my changes and build make expand to the limits of human imagination.

Now some people here on mobileread will give you the speech from Wall Street about greed being good, about having a right to be paid, about what's being taken from them, but never about what they're taking, to use their word, what they are stealing. They don't pay a fee to maintain their copyrights, there's no property tax for it, no estate tax. This bunch of freeloaders just expect the world to hand it to them and we obliged them, we said you starving artists don't worry about it up front. We'll ofer you a bit of a carrot go make something, have fun maybe get lucky make a few dollars and in a few years let go so someone else can have a turn. You took a penny now leave a penny.

To all of you I say you do not own culture you will never own it. The world has paid for everything you used to make what you make and YOU OWE THEM, not the other way around.

[Kajti]

I agree that copyright is worse than religion for generating pointless arguments where neither side convinces the other, and both tend to get inflamed. The site would really be served by making a sticky post with a précis of the arguments both sides tend to trot out, and with moderators who would ruthlessly stamp out discussion of copyright in other threads.

But alas, that won't happen, so I'll just make one of my occasional posts. File-sharers buy more product? Maybe on average, but I'll freely admit that I buy nothing. Every ebook I read, every audiobook I listen to, and most every TV show or movie I view, I downloaded without paying for. Some were free samples or no-cost for other reason, but most weren't. They're just stuff I grabbed via torrents or fileshare sites or usenet.

Copyright had a three-century run: not too shabby. But it's fundamentally broken when it comes to anything that can be made into a file on the internet, and pretending it can go on in anything like the shape it had for physical products is ingenuous.

As for figuring out how popular particular books are, mr ploppy, there are lots of sites and modes for getting stuff. Most every day I download a "today's new ebooks" pack, which has 50-150 works in it (granted, the same book may show up in epub/html/mobi/lit formats and be counted four times), and about twice a month it will have something I want to read in it. On another site, one that specializes in audiobooks and ebooks, the two biggest current downloads are the audiobooks The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson (1120 downloads) and First to Die by James Patterson (822 downloads). I have to go down to around 40 to find ebooks, with an 11-book pack of the Temperance Brennan books by Kathy Reichs (412 downloads), then around 90 for a 16-book pack of Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake books (339 downloads). No single-volume ebook shows up in the Top 100. (Parenthetically, the ebook matches for the top two audiobooks come in at 124 and 103 downloads.) Of course longevity figures into things, so comparisons can't be pure.

[perversity]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

To all of you I say you do not own culture you will never own it. The world has paid for everything you used to make what you make and YOU OWE THEM, not the other way around.

Wow, creative people owe the world, that is a very unique idea. I'm glad the supreme court doesn't agree.
Using an idea as inspiration is not breaking copyright, and that's not what I'm arguing. Building upon an idea is legal and ok as long as you cite that original idea, otherwise we couldn't do research papers in school. Maybe you should try to understand the laws that you think are so unjust before you engage in this type of discussion

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by perversity

Wow, creative people owe the world, that is a very unique idea. I'm glad the supreme court doesn't agree.
Using an idea as inspiration is not breaking copyright, and that's not what I'm arguing. Building upon an idea is legal and ok as long as you cite that original idea, otherwise we couldn't do research papers in school. Maybe you should try to understand the laws that you think are so unjust before you engage in this type of discussion

So your argument is that copyright comes free of charge? That all the people of the world just give control of parts of culture for fun? They do owe the world as the cost of copyright. Limited time is what you pay to get any protection at all or what's the point? Maybe you should try to understand the law, start with the 1709 statute of Anne and then move on to the letters between Jefferson and Madison

I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additons would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose.

Thomas Jefferson August 28, 1789

you may read more at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=1999&post=1999-02-11$2 and at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...20252302.shtml

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Kajti

I agree that copyright is worse than religion for generating pointless arguments where neither side convinces the other, and both tend to get inflamed.....

I disagree.

With respect to copyright, you can actually have different, yet perfectly reasonable, points of view.

Not so with respect to religion.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

So your argument is that copyright comes free of charge?

The copyright is for having created something (or for having procured the rights from the creator), that is the charge. Why is society better off when books are totally free? We have libraries for those who cannot afford to buy them and they can get cheap second hand copies. Is it not good for society when people like you and me shell out a few bucks per book to support the authors we like? Would you prefer handouts to authors by some government agency that distributes out of a tax fund according to political preferences? Or to have only ad supported books?

When someone owns a great painting it is certainly a valuable part of human culture but it still belongs to the owners. They may donate it to a museum, they may put it on display somewhere -- but it is the owners' decision.

Your arguments only make sense if you don't believe in the concept of private property. And why do you constantly evoke the length of copyright here? I am with you on that, but that should be a separate discussion.

[kennyc]

Well, all the players are here now.....let's rumble!

[HansTWN]

deleted

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

We won. Adapt or die.

If you ever "win" then what will happen is that books will not really be free, but ad supported. That means Google, Apple, and Amazon will rule; not the current publishers.

Now you tell me if that is the brave new world you want. Ads on every second page, embedded videos that can't be stopped, your reading habits tracked, etc.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well, all the players are here now.....let's rumble!

The lunatic fringe is back!

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If you ever "win" then what will happen is that books will not really be free, but ad supported. That means Google, Apple, and Amazon will rule; not the current publishers.

Now you tell me if that is the brave new world you want. Ads on every second page, embedded videos that can't be stopped, your reading habits tracked, etc.

No, they won't, just as they weren't before capitalism existed as a driving force. They won't because money isn't everything and the bottom line isn't everything to creation - you ever see kids worrying about what units they're shifting when they're sat with a crayon and a freshly painted wall in front of them? No, because creativity is innate in every single human being. It is not a gift, it is not driven by God or any other magical creature, it's essential and it must take place for us to continue, for us to evolve. Some create more than others, but it's not just a binary existence of creator and consumer, we are all one and the same in this.

In any case, you're arguing with the wrong person. I can just about respond to you without laughing because I can understand the frustration of transitioning from the analog world to the digital, but people under 21? None of what you're saying would float with anyone of that generation. They weren't and aren't growing up in a system where everything costs, where you have to wait (I was, and you were also I'm guessing). They're existing in a system where information is within their reach twenty-four hours a day, where everything is on-demand whether the content-providers want it to be or not.

Do you honestly believe that DRM and forcing people to pay, or even expecting them to pay for digital 'goods' is actually going to work? Divorce all the emotion, all the what-you-think-is-right and what-you-think-should-happen, and just look around you. Can you, hand on heart, say that piracy is going away, that we can go on treating the digital like the analog and actually make that work?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

No, they won't, just as they weren't before capitalism existed as a driving force. They won't because money isn't everything and the bottom line isn't everything to creation - you ever see kids worrying about what units they're shifting when they're sat with a crayon and a freshly painted wall in front of them? No, because creativity is innate in every single human being. It is not a gift, it is not driven by God or any other magical creature, it's essential and it must take place for us to continue, for us to evolve. Some create more than others, but it's not just a binary existence of creator and consumer, we are all one and the same in this.

In any case, you're arguing with the wrong person. I can just about respond to you without laughing because I can understand the frustration of transitioning from the analog world to the digital, but people under 21? None of what you're saying would float with anyone of that generation. They weren't and aren't growing up in a system where everything costs, where you have to wait (I was, and you were also I'm guessing). They're existing in a system where information is within their reach twenty-four hours a day, where everything is on-demand whether the content-providers want it to be or not.

Do you honestly believe that DRM and forcing people to pay, or even expecting them to pay for digital 'goods' is actually going to work? Divorce all the emotion, all the what-you-think-is-right and what-you-think-should-happen, and just look around you. Can you, hand on heart, say that piracy is going away, that we can go on treating the digital like the analog and actually make that work?

Well, we don't want to get into a discussion about capitalism here.

With regard to the other questions, yes, expecting people to pay for digital goods works right now. Plenty of people pay for music and film, and video downloads.

And in Europe you already pay through surcharges on all storage media. Besides, I see the steady march of Google and Apple, and that is what will be difficult to stop.

You are making my point -- the world the younger generation knows is NOT free, it is ad supported. They are not actively shelling out money, they are under a constant bombardment of ads, but have a much lower sensitivity to ads and intrusions of privacy. Google knows more about most people then they know themselves --- because people use their free services. The world is changing, alright. But not as you are envisioning it.

And no -- I have no connection to the publishing world. And no, I am not frustrated

[Dusty Bottoms]

Actually I don't believe modern publishing will survive the next ten years, ad-supported or not (weird de ja vu over all this). I think all these forms of entertainment will collapse in on themselves and leave us building something new and fresh out of the ashes.

EDIT: And the world the younger generation lives within, although AD supported, is a world where IP and copyright mean nothing. They are less than zero when it comes to the concerns of the youth now. When I was a teenager I would have to save up and wait months for the latest VHS video releases, or an album and forget being able to get hold of an out of print book. That meant travelling and phone calls and knowing the right people. All this is gone now. The same value propositions we had with physical objects don't work in the digital realm, they're just not perceived the same, no matter how much you'd like them to have an equal value to their real-world counterparts.

Capitalism is crumbling now, the open-market never was open as we're learning, all that you thought was real is gone in the face of the digital.