Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

we can have them ? any time ? brilliant ! so nobody will mind then if then next big parody mash-up to be published is "steve jordan's science fiction story, now with smurfs" ? how about if someone wants to turn that into a movie ? to a soundtrack of music by the Beatles ? and with a cameo of Mickey Mouse ?

or maybe someone would like to publish, say, i don't know, a lexicon about the harry potter books. that would be all right, then ?

or how about some film students would like to do a remake of Gone with the Wind set in 2050 New York. no worries, right ? Margaret Mitchell's estate shouldn't have anything to say about that ?

all that stuff (and a lot more which is less ridiculous) is what abusively-long, bloated copyrights deprive SOCIETY of.

Personally, I don't feel in the least bit deprived for NOT getting those examples above . But my point is, yes, you can do those things. You just have to pay for the rights. What the hey... it's just money. Don't want to pay? Do something else. Hopefully something better.

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

and given that every single one of the works i cited above is derivative of / inspired by works that came before it, i really have a hard time seeing how anyone can find it legitimate to refuse to return the favour and let the next generation build on their work, just like they built on the previous generations'.

You know, just because copyright law says you have to come to me and ask to use Verdant Skies to put Smurfs on board... doesn't mean I have to charge you to do it. I could say, "Sure, go ahead... and please put in a text that Verdant Skies is used with permission by Steve Jordan."

But if I did charge for it... how does that ruin society? And if you didn't create your derivative work... how does that ruin society?

And why doesn't ignoring my personal rights as a creator ruin society? Aren't I a legitimate part of your society? Or am I just an artistic stooge, for society to force creations out of with a crack of the whip, then back to the stables until they want something else out of me?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Not in france
I think in term of : Does it harm someone ?
Does it harm someone if I download content without paying for it -> Yes
Does it harm someone if I de-drm the book to share it -> Yes.

Who is harmed?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

"Extenuating circumstances?"

We're not talking about food for the starving, jobs for the poor or medicine for the sick. We're talking about ebooks, mostly for entertainment. They are not vital to anyone's survival... which means that no one has a right to obtain them. ."

If we have no right to read books, why bother teaching children how to read?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

you are causing society to lose the potential creations by people who, seeing how little protection themselves and their work would receive, didn't create them and decided to go work for the supermarket instead.

I doubt many writers start out as full time writers. Unless they are independently wealthy they will have to work at least part time until they can make enough from writing to live on. If financial gain is their main motivation for writing it probably won't be any great loss if they don't bother, and let someone else fill that gap.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This obsession with getting things for free needs to be excised from the collective consciousness.

How are you planning to do that, and how long is it likely to take? How much money could you have made during that time if you had just given up your impossible quest and adapted to the changes that have happened?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Do you really think people would be creating less if their exclusivity rights expired, say, 10 years after their death? Or even with their death? Heck, what about 25-30 years after creation? The current situation only serves big corporations, perhaps the heirs of creative people, but rarely the artists themselves. Discuss.

Agreed. Extending copyright was intended to benefit heirs... but was created when heirs often had no other income to fall back on. Today, the income possibilities of family members and dependents are much better, so the extension law best serves those dependents that cannot support themselves... minors, for instance, or the significantly disabled. If the government supports them, the govt should either get the royalties, or decide to make the creation free.

I'd agree, for instance, in an extension beyond death that provided income to my son or daughter... but only up to the point that they reach legal adulthood, and would therefore be expected to provide for themselves. If I have no son or daughter, the extension ends with my death (or sooner, if that was the law).

I don't challenge that copyright law needs to be reviewed and revised to keep up with the times. And I would not oppose shorter copyright limits, even as low as 20 years max, or extended to cover dependents up to legal adulthood if the creator dies before end of the 20 year period. (So, better hope I don't adopt any kids in year 19, then kick the bucket!)

[Dusty Bottoms]

This whole argument smacks of the same 'Devil's Music' accusations that came about when Rock n' Roll started, or the same 'Death of Music' arguments that surrounded punk. The cool kids, the 'Fonz' in all of this is Piracy. And the anti-piracy, pro-DRM, pro-copyright types are 'Richie Cunningham' (visual aid below). Go to any place where the demographic is under-20, like Reddit or Digg, instead of the +20 we have here and the attitudes are entirely one-sided in favour of piracy (what we call 'sharing'). so if you're pro-corporation, pro-copyright, pro-DRM, anti-sharing your views are pretty much redundant when it comes to the longview. And that's why this argument is so silly. You anti-sharing people will lose, you have lost already. Everything else is just the dying whimpers of dinosaurs who can't, and refuse to understand the comets hurtling through the sky.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

... piracy (what we call 'sharing').

Thank you for that. I am so sick of hearing the word "piracy" when speaking of sharing.

Karma for you...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Easy to say... yet history is replete with examples of industries that found ways to secure their products and property... or they stopped producing, went out of business, and nobody got anything. The views of the young are the typically-short-sighted views of those who don't really know their history, don't really know society, and have no conception of the Long View.

Where's the Fonz today?

The actor who played the character has parlayed his popularity into producing, and making money hand over fist from TV and movie residuals. That's the Long View.

[mr ploppy]

I don't think the length of copyright would make any difference to piracy. Price, ease of use, and worldwide availability are the key points.

[rogue_librarian]

Ah, piracy... Actually, I'm a little sick of that, too (piracy is a violent crime committed on the high seas, m'k?) but that ship has sailed.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Easy to say... yet history is replete with examples of industries that found ways to secure their products and property... or they stopped producing, went out of business, and nobody got anything. The views of the young are the typically-short-sighted views of those who don't really know their history, don't really know society, and have no conception of the Long View.

Where's the Fonz today?

The actor who played the character has parlayed his popularity into producing, and making money hand over fist from TV and movie residuals. That's the Long View.

The Fonz is nowhere today, he was a character in a TV show (Although he's still cool in my book). Henry Winkler on the other hand, as you pointed out, is a successful comedy actor, producer and director, and quite a distinct character from any of his Fonz appearances (Arrested Development.)

Still doesn't blunt my point. Filesharing is cool. It's growing in popularity and has 'legs' beyond what you or anyone else would want. No argument will stop that and no amount of gnashing of teeth and wishing things were different will change the inexorable push toward 'free'.

Adapt or die. Simple.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

Still doesn't blunt my point. Filesharing is cool. It's growing in popularity and has 'legs' beyond what you or anyone else would want. No argument will stop that and no amount of gnashing of teeth and wishing things were different will change the inexorable push toward 'free'.

Adapt or die. Simple.

And knowing it will not benefit them in the slightest, why should creators create? And what will you share when creators stop creating?

Steamboat Willy cartoons?

Filesharing will only result in a steady loss of new things to share, because no one will see the point in creating something that will get them nothing. The only things left will be old content and absolute junk. You're welcome to it.

To rephrase a quote attached to the identity of one of the biggest contributors to e-book content here:

“Of this argument there is no end.”

There really are irreconcilable views here that I think can be summed up, LOL, by two opposite definitions of the term “copyright.”

One the one hand you have those that feel that they have the right to a copy of every authors work. If the cost to purchase the book, set by the author and his publisher, does not exceed the amount they wish to pay then they will purchase a legitimate copy. If the price exceeds his or her individual wish for what it should cost they feel justified in going to a 'pirate' site.

On the other hand you have those that feel that the author has the right to control the sale and distribution of his or her work, including the cost to purchase a copy. Don't like the price don't buy the book and read something else.

The issue of copyright duration is an interesting topic. To me it should extend over authors lifetime and not beyond. It seems a no brainer to me that while an author is alive her should retain control of the distribution and use of his work. Longer then that does nothing to encourage creativity.

Yes, every book is to some extent derivative of previous literature just as every painting is derivative of the images on the cave walls of Lascaux, every invention is derivative of the first piece of stone flaked into a cutting tool, etc. Copyright promotes new ideas and creativity.

To the person who compared Rosa Parks risking arrest and other consequences by refusing to sit at the back of the bus to downloading from a pirate site because the cost of legitimate copy is more than you want to pay; am I spelling this correctly? Chutzpah.

Finally regarding the article that started all this. When this issue gets into a court of law of course the second definition of copyright given above will apply; that is the law.

[CyGuy]

I think a copyright should last the same length as a patent does, or perhaps a bit less...