Is digital copyright incompatible with technology and / or democracy?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Or maybe people like the Chinese government? IIRC, one of the reasons things like TOR was invented was so political dissidents could transfer information and files without being murdered by their own governments.

And yes, while those things can be misused to destroy the livelihood of people who depend on a state-enforced temporary monopoly that's doesn't make them automatically evil.

Yes, just like a gun can be used in self defense or to rob a bank. Just because you support one use for a tool doesn't mean you sanction all uses. And Chinese dissidents have progressed to using free VPN services by now, just for your information.

There is no "state-enforced temporary monopoly". Unless you call the right to be paid for one's work such a monopoly. We shouldn't treat people's work as worthless just because it so happens it can be duplicated in digital form.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

There is no "state-enforced temporary monopoly".

Then how else would you define copyright?
Note that I said nothing about whether this was a good or bad thing, just what it is.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Unless you call the right to be paid for one's work such a monopoly.

If you do work that no one wants and no one asked for, should you be paid for it? (I'm aware that not what you meant but you did come across that way)

Originally Posted by HansTWN

We shouldn't treat people's work as worthless just because it so happens it can be duplicated in digital form.

Where did I even imply that?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

If you do work that no one wants and no one asked for, should you be paid for it? (I'm aware that not what you meant but you did come across that way)

No, of course not, but people who DO make use of the work must pay for it (or face legal sanctions if they don't). I don't expect anyone who hasn't used my software to pay for it, but I do find it... irksome ... to see it being offered for download on Torrent sites and Usenet newsgroups, and even sold on CD on eBay. And the current law makes it extremely difficult for me to do anything about it. Given that copyright infringement is a civil, not a criminal offence, it's beyond the financial reach of most small content creators to make use of the courts. Copyright infringement really needs to be made a criminal offence, so that the law will do something about such things.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Then how else would you define copyright?
Note that I said nothing about whether this was a good or bad thing, just what it is.
If you do work that no one wants and no one asked for, should you be paid for it? (I'm aware that not what you meant but you did come across that way)

Where did I even imply that?

I would call it "exclusive right to make copies". A monopoly would be to grant someone the exclusive right to publish SF novels, for example. A pet peeve of mine is people calling the right to publish a single book a monopoly. If we go by that logic, then almost every company would have a monopoly. For me a monopoly exists when the buyer has no alternative to buy something similar elsewhere. And any right must be state-enforced, unless other people respect it. When someone steals your car, don't you call the police?

As far as doing work that no one wants or asked for, well, that is the same for a physical item. If I painted a landscape nobody in his right mind would pay a cent for it. But it is my right to decide not to let people have it for free either. So I would be stuck with it, but it is my decision. And taking it from me would still be wrong, even though I would have lost nothing of value.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I would call it "exclusive right to make copies".

But who defines, grants and enforces that right?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

For me a monopoly exists when the buyer has no alternative to buy something similar elsewhere.

But that is indeed the situation we have. Books are not fungible and thus cannot be substituted for each other (mostly anyway).

It's not as though I could buy a Lois Bujold book from Terry Pratchett, right?

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And the current law makes it extremely difficult for me to do anything about it. Given that copyright infringement is a civil, not a criminal offence, it's beyond the financial reach of most small content creators to make use of the courts. Copyright infringement really needs to be made a criminal offence, so that the law will do something about such things.

The law needs to be made more accessible to normal people. I have worked with several lawyers who admitted that the law only works for the wealthy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

But who defines, grants and enforces that right?

It is indeed the state, but the state also "grants, defines, and enforces" every other right, so why make a distinction for this one?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I see. So it's basically like the old newsgroups. I read a case where in Britain some part of Usenet was effectively blocked, so I guess it is possible to block Usenet.

Pornographer Suze Randall succeeded in getting UK ISPs to remove the group alt.binaries.suze from their usenet feed, that's the only one I've heard of that was done for copyright reasons.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Both true and not true. True if the torrent user does nothing to disguise his or her tracks, untrue if they do and it's easy peasy to accomplish. If I had a granny left and she could use a PC, she could manage it.

I've no idea what Phogg is referring to specifically, but a number of new file sharing technologies are being developed at this time and at any time. Many, if not most, are being developed with an eye to create more secure transmissions from the file sharers' point of view and to thwart The Man.

What new technologies. You sound like you know what you are talking about, so do tell.

Re: redirecting services (vpn?), again, they can be blocked just like anything, right? If the service is allowed to exist, it is via a legal loophole that can be legally plugged. Ultimately the internet is eminently monitorable. It is the opposite of anonymous. The pirates will be forced to walk the plank.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Rizla

No need to be so mysterious. Spit it out. In any case, DRM is not the issue.

There is no mystery at all. Better and better OCR, Coupled with better and better cameras on electronic devices.. Yjouhh the automated book scanners we have been drooling over here avent made it to market, we will see laptops and tablets able to copy a work by use of the built in camera by the early 2020's.

At that point the only way to keep a work from being freely available will be to not release it in any form.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is indeed the state, but the state also "grants, defines, and enforces" every other right, so why make a distinction for this one?

On re-reading my post I realise I should have said something more like "creates this right". I still believe that copyright is a temporary monopoly created and granted by the state though.

BTW, not all rights are granted by state, you can consider physical possession to be granted by the laws of physics not the laws of a state

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright infringement really needs to be made a criminal offence, so that the law will do something about such things.

I agree in principle, but for different reasons to you. But who would pay for all the extra police hours to track down ebook downloaders and gather evidence against them? In the UK, and probably other places too, the police have had their budgets cut to save money. Even before that budget cut they couldn't afford to investigate every crime committed so they had to prioritise them by either severity of crime or wealth of victim. After the cuts that disparity in law enforcement will get wider, not narrower.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

But who defines, grants and enforces that right?

But that is indeed the situation we have. Books are not fungible and thus cannot be substituted for each other (mostly anyway).

It's not as though I could buy a Lois Bujold book from Terry Pratchett, right?

Yes, but who in their right mind would say that fiat have a monopoly because they are the only ones who sell the punto?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Rizla

What new technologies. You sound like you know what you are talking about, so do tell.

Actually I don't, I just read the odd tech zine. Nor am I avidly interested, so none of the details have stuck.

Re: redirecting services (vpn?)

Sure, that's one possibility. One among several.

Ultimately the internet is eminently monitorable.

If that was even remotely true, this discussion would be superfluous.

The pirates will be forced to walk the plank.

Meanwhile, in other news, the Abominable Snowman will be identified any day now, having been snapped by a Park Ranger in an unguarded moment while on a social visit with Big Foot, his second cousin once removed. Also Nessie will be revealed to be one of a school of Plesiosauridae which survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event only to find themselves trapped in Loch Ness.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

If that was even remotely true, this discussion would be superfluous.

Could you make your point with facts? This conversation is totally monitorable and your ip can be traced to you.

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Meanwhile, in other news, the Abominable Snowman will be identified any day now

Again, facts would be better. There is no current or in development (AFAIK) forms of mass pirating technology that cannot be stopped via a combination of legal and technical means.