Stallman: Ending the War on Sharing

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Which is not that much different than here in the States. You just get a lot more for it there.

Well, a more specific example; here I get about 60% of my monthly pay put into my bank account. That is after a pension payment of roughly 10% has been deducted, as well as various taxes. Then I pay a VAT of 25% on everything, and various other taxes and fees, for example on energy and water, or luxury taxes, for example on alcohol. It all adds up, but you get money back, too, for example, if I have a low income and live in a rented room or house, I might get some financial support, if I have children, I can get aid. Almost all education is free. Health care is free. I don't have to - in general - worry overmuch, because the social safety net is fine-masked, and the likelyhood of slipping through is very small. Not that I would want to end up in "the System", but it's there if I should ever need it. Hopefully

[kaan]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Which is not that much different than here in the States. You just get a lot more for it there.

I pay about 40% of my income in taxes. When I spend what is left, I also have to pay 25% VAT.

The reason that it is enough to cover the, not inexpensive, Danish welfare model, is that we don't have to spend much on military compared to USA.

The reason is of course, that as members of NATO we don't have to.

On a related note, I would like to thank the US taxpayers for their generosity

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly my opinion also.

And it is not 50% that gets deducted. It is more like 30%.

I pay minimal "taxes" in the US, because I'm supporting a family of four with my job... but over 30% of my gross income goes towards medical insurance. And it's a flat amount, not a percentage; when our hours were cut because of the recession, my medical insurance payments don't go down.

I'd happily swap our tax system for one where I didn't have to seriously consider quitting my job & working part-time at lower pay, in order to get away from paying for insurance I can no longer afford. More taxes would be okay, as long as they went down if my income went down.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Current copyright law does recognize the financial interests of the artists (e.g. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf, § 801) and it's very clear that recent changes in US law, at least, intend to protect an artists' commercial interests.

According to the constitution, it is supposed to be about encouraging artists. I will agree that the current laws have been expanded (aka abused) to make their primary objective be the protection of commercial interests. Originally, that is not what copyright was supposed to be used for (and was not until congress sold out to those commercial interests).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

That being said, if copyright law ignores its primary purpose -- to get works into the public domain

What do you mean, "if". I think we're well past that point.

The primary purpose of current copyright law is control/profit, nothing more. Increasing the public domain isn't even an afterthought.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What do you mean, "if". I think we're well past that point.

The primary purpose of current copyright law is control/profit, nothing more. Increasing the public domain isn't even an afterthought.

Well, being that we really don't know what went on in the minds of congress when they passed the latest set of extensions, I think it is possible that men of good will might still reasonably differ over what the purpose of the current copyright law is.

That being said, I personally tend to agree with you. The problem is that there is no effective lobbying orginization for the public domain.

--
Bill

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

According to the constitution, it is supposed to be about encouraging artists.....

Yes yes, but that does not necessarily invalidate the subsequent expansion of copyright to include its commercial aspects. Nor does it have any impact whatsoever on our friends who are not in the US.

Separately, one could easily argue that protecting the current "pay a pre-set price for the original of / a copy of / licensed access to this work of art" does, in fact, "encourage artists." It apparently did just fine for a few hundred years, and I don't see why it gets chucked out the window with the introduction of digital distribution. Logically, it does not make sense that an individual should be allowed to violate copyright laws solely because it is now technically possible and/or easy.

And why do I have my doubts that the people who cite this aspect are not actually originalists or strict constructionists when it comes to other aspects of constitutional law?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Logically, it does not make sense that an individual should be allowed to violate copyright laws solely because it is now technically possible and/or easy.

Nor does it make sense that loan or resale of digital property should not be allowed, because it would be difficult to verify that it was a true transfer and not an illegal copy.

If copyright owners want digital property to be addressed under the same laws as physical ones, they can stop trying to claim that ebooks are licensed, not sold.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Well, being that we really don't know what went on in the minds of congress when they passed the latest set of extensions, I think it is possible that men of good will might still reasonably differ over what the purpose of the current copyright law is.

I think you can look at what states the congressmen who wrote those extensions came from, and what commercial interests pay them hefty "contributions", and figure it out pretty easily.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yes yes, but that does not necessarily invalidate the subsequent expansion of copyright to include its commercial aspects.

It does when those expansions are a 180 degree departure from what the constitution says.

It apparently did just fine for a few hundred years, and I don't see why it gets chucked out the window with the introduction of digital distribution.

Most of the expansions that have changed copyright's primary purpose have happened in the last 30 years or so. If you want to move copyright law back to what it was a few hundred years ago, I'd be all for it.

Logically, it does not make sense that an individual should be allowed to violate copyright laws solely because it is now technically possible and/or easy.

Of course not, and I never said anything of the kind.

[bill_mchale]

Lets remember the point of the federal goverment of the USA is spelled out pretty clearly in the preamble of the Constitution. If an act of the President or Congress does not somehow serve the goals of the Constitution, I think it is fair to say that the law would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yes yes, but that does not necessarily invalidate the subsequent expansion of copyright to include its commercial aspects. Nor does it have any impact whatsoever on our friends who are not in the US.

To my mind, the key point is this. An expansion of copyright is necessarily a limitation on the freedoms of the citizens of the United States. Such a restriction is allowable under the Constitution when it provides an incentive to artists and authors to create new works. When such an extenstion occurs without any real increase in the incentive to authors (incentive here being defined as something that will actually induce them to create, not simply an increase in compensation except when such increase achieves the first goal) it unfairly restricts the citizens from their rights to make use of the material as they see fit (i.e., the public domain).

The latest revisions to copyright retroactively extended copyright to existing works (how does that increase the incentive to create? Further, I don't think many, if any, authors find life plus 70 years to be a greater incentive than life plus 50 years (and I am sure few enough found life plus 50 years to be a significantly greater incentive than the previous 28 year + 28 year provision).

Separately, one could easily argue that protecting the current "pay a pre-set price for the original of / a copy of / licensed access to this work of art" does, in fact, "encourage artists." It apparently did just fine for a few hundred years, and I don't see why it gets chucked out the window with the introduction of digital distribution. Logically, it does not make sense that an individual should be allowed to violate copyright laws solely because it is now technically possible and/or easy.

Now this is where it gets interesting. I agree that paying to purchase a copy of a work does provide a reasonable incentive under the terms of copyright. However, as Stallman rightly points out, up until relatively recently, making copys of books (or music) was somthing that was rather difficult for the private individual. Copyright law was targeted specifically at those who made money from violating copyright (No one was going to prosecute someone who decided to type out the entire text of a novel for typing practice). New technology essentially makes copying works very easy. Further it also makes sharing very easy.

Prior to cassettes becoming popular for recording music and VCRs, copyright law had very little impact on the average American unless said American was somehow involved in media production and or pulbication. For the vast majority of Americans, it hindered our freedoms very little, but provided a great benefit. Starting in the 70s technology has opened up new freedoms that copyright law is now limiting in a rather significant way.

To put it in simple terms, prior to present day, our freedom of action was limited by technology. We couldn't copy and share because the technology to do so cheaply and easily did not exist. Now the technology exists and the law is what is curtailing our action. People, as a general rule are far more willing to accept what they can't do than what they are are not allowed to do.

Laws must be seen to clearly benefit to common good if we wish the public to obey them. There are genreally numerous laws on the books that are essentially unenforcable because they are not seen as just and often end up being over turned if they someone does try to enforce them. Other laws are routinely ignored by the public (How many people obey a 55 mph speed limit on a long straight divided highway?)

For copyright law to be effective in the 21st century, it must carefully consider how easy it is to share and copy data and also the fact that many people are going to want to do so despite what the publishers want.

And why do I have my doubts that the people who cite this aspect are not actually originalists or strict constructionists when it comes to other aspects of constitutional law?

Keep in mind that there are few places where the Constitution is so clear about its intent as it is regarding patents and copyright.

--
Bill

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

If an act of the President or Congress does not somehow serve the goals of the Constitution, I think it is fair to say that the law would be unconstitutional.

Correct, but to suggest that current copyright law is unconstitutional is, as far as I can tell, patently absurd and has no basis in actual case law or fact. E.g. Eldred vs Ashcroft (2003) established that the extension of a copyright term to Life + 70 was acceptable.

And again, most nations have Life + 50 or longer as their copyright terms. The US Constitution does not apply to them at all.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Prior to cassettes becoming popular for recording music and VCRs, copyright law had very little impact on the average American unless said American was somehow involved in media production and or pulbication. For the vast majority of Americans, it hindered our freedoms very little, but provided a great benefit. Starting in the 70s technology has opened up new freedoms that copyright law is now limiting in a rather significant way.

I'm sorry to say that this is an absurd position.

The new-found ability to copy an artwork quickly and easily does not necessarily create a "new freedom," especially when the relevant actions are a violation of existing laws. If you did not have the right to duplicate a work of art prior to the invention of magnetic tape recorders, nothing about that invention suddenly grants you that right.

For example, let's say I invent a trivially easy way to make a human clone. This invention does not suddenly generate a new right to make human clones; the assignment of that right will ultimately be determined by a legislative process. Or, let's say I invent a new weapon that rapidly kills dozens of human targets with the greatest of ease, is highly portable, and is easy to manufacture. This "technical advancement" does not create a "new freedom" to murder at will which is only barely restricted by a thin veneer of law.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Other laws are routinely ignored by the public (How many people obey a 55 mph speed limit on a long straight divided highway?) [etc]

To put it mildly, "Law X is hard to enforce" is a poor, if not completely invalid, justification to overturn or abandon a law. Either a certain behavior is just or unjust; or, it advances or hinders the public interest.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

For copyright law to be effective in the 21st century, it must carefully consider how easy it is to share and copy data and also the fact that many people are going to want to do so despite what the publishers want.

True, but these exact same words and observation(s) can be used to justify a draconian attitude towards copyright enforcement.



By the way, Shaggy, it's Stallman (and bill_mchale, apparently) who are suggesting that the new technical ability to share digital content justifies widespread copyright infringement. You may want to exercise care when choosing your allies....

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Correct, but to suggest that current copyright law is unconstitutional is, as far as I can tell, patently absurd and has no basis in actual case law or fact. E.g. Eldred vs Ashcroft (2003) established that the extension of a copyright term to Life + 70 was acceptable.

And again, most nations have Life + 50 or longer as their copyright terms. The US Constitution does not apply to them at all.

I agree that in this context we are only talking about US copyright... but I think it is rather relevant here since the USA produces a rather large percentage of media in the world.

Mind you, Eldred v. Ashcroft does currently establish the Constitutionality of the law, but you should remember that in the past the Court held Segregation was Constitutional only to overturn itself after nearly a century of segregation.

I'm sorry to say that this is an absurd position.

The new-found ability to copy an artwork quickly and easily does not necessarily create a "new freedom," especially when the relevant actions are a violation of existing laws. If you did not have the right to duplicate a work of art prior to the invention of magnetic tape recorders, nothing about that invention suddenly grants you that right.

Actually, the Court said you do in fact have a right to duplicate a work of art provided you own a legal copy and the purpose of the copy is format or time shifting or to make an archival copy.

Remember the US Constitution is based on the concept that human are absolutely free and that our rights should be constrained only when necessary to protect other more important rights. In practice our freedom is also constrained by what we are able to do; in practice we were free to fly before 1903, but we couldn't exercise this freedom. No one would have complained about laws against flying before they were able to fly.

For example, let's say I invent a trivially easy way to make a human clone. This invention does not suddenly generate a new right to make human clones; the assignment of that right will ultimately be determined by a legislative process. Or, let's say I invent a new weapon that rapidly kills dozens of human targets with the greatest of ease, is highly portable, and is easy to manufacture. This "technical advancement" does not create a "new freedom" to murder at will which is only barely restricted by a thin veneer of law.

Neither the congress nor any body can legislate a new right; it might constrain the exercise of a right to protect other rights or it might codify a right but that codification does not mean that right did not exist prior to its codification. Copyright is actually a misnomer in the sense that it is not really a right, its a license by the state to artists to profit from their creations.

Lets look at your analogies. In fact, I think you will find that if someone does develop a way to make clones, that they do have a right to make such clones until such time as Congress was to constrain such action.

As for the weapon analogy, its a rather flawed position. In practice the right of a human to live is the most basic right and the most basic constraint in any society is to limit the ability of people in that society to kill other members of that society.

To put it mildly, "Law X is hard to enforce" is a poor, if not completely invalid, justification to overturn or abandon a law. Either a certain behavior is just or unjust; or, it advances or hinders the public interest.

Its not just a question of a law being hard to enforce, its also that the law is routinely ignored that is the point. If we all were committing murder, murder statutes would be hard to enforce as well. The point here is that people can often effectively vote with their actions.

What is worse, by establishing laws that are routinely ignored, the State effectively undermines its own authority. As people get into the habit of disregarding one law, it makes it easier for them to disregard other, more important laws.

True, but these exact same words and observation(s) can be used to justify a draconian attitude towards copyright enforcement.

And how long do you suppose the Public will put up with Draconian enforcement when they all wish to do the activity involved? Draconian enforcement of drug laws is only tolerated because most of us do not use them. However, when the state tried Prohibition, it ended up being repealed within 15 years after being widely flaunted.

By the way, Shaggy, it's Stallman (and bill_mchale, apparently) who are suggesting that the new technical ability to share digital content justifies widespread copyright infringement. You may want to exercise care when choosing your allies....

I am not suggesting that violating copyright law is currently justified. However, if the Congress continues to listen only to the unbounded interests of media companies, it might ultimately be responsible for a major backlash against the media companies.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And again, most nations have Life + 50 or longer as their copyright terms. The US Constitution does not apply to them at all.

Nobody said it did.

You may want to exercise care when choosing your allies....

You're the one choosing my allies, apparently.


I guess most of your allies are strawmen?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Mind you, Eldred v. Ashcroft does currently establish the Constitutionality of the law, but you should remember that in the past the Court held Segregation was Constitutional only to overturn itself after nearly a century of segregation.

Very true, but I see no indication that copyright law will receive the same treatment. Do you?

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Actually, the Court said you do in fact have a right to duplicate a work of art provided you own a legal copy and the purpose of the copy is format or time shifting or to make an archival copy.

OK, but that's not what we're discussing. Sharing out a digital file to 100 million of your bestest Internet buddies does not qualify for that exemption.

And yes, it does seem to me that's the kind of "sharing" that Stallman is including in his range of "acceptable use." I didn't see any exemptions for eMusic or Amazon's or iTunes+ (i.e. commercial DRM-free music sales) in his article.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Neither the congress nor any body can legislate a new right; it might constrain the exercise of a right to protect other rights or it might codify a right but that codification does not mean that right did not exist prior to its codification.

The origin of rights is a complicated philosophical issue that extends beyond the scope of a typical ebook forum. However, even if we accept your characterization, both prior to and after the invention of an easy sharing / copying mechanism (e.g. magnetic tape players), you did not and still do not have the (legal) right to duplicate or distribute a given work of art, other than the existing exemptions (e.g. fair use, public domain). Inventing a tape recorder may extend human abilities but that does not necessarily, in and of itself, generate a "new right."

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

As for the weapon analogy, its a rather flawed position. In practice the right of a human to live is the most basic right....

Yes, but the point of the analogy is to illustrate that creating a new device does not necessarily override the existing rights and laws.

To put it another way, it seems to me that Stallman's position that "we invented it, therefore it is permissible" fundamentally does not work.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

And how long do you suppose the Public will put up with Draconian enforcement when they all wish to do the activity involved?

Keep in mind that I am not defending severe copyright enforcement -- merely pointing out that the "ease of infringement" argument could easily be used to justify a variety of modifications to the methods of enforcement, including ones you do not support.

Now if the methods of enforcement used are illegal or unjust, you can critique them on that basis. But this does not necessarily indicate that the law itself is unjust and ought to be abolished.

E.g. if it is trivially easy to smoke marijuana, and difficult to enforce that law, this in and of itself does not mean that "we should make toking up legal." You need to determine other issues, such as "is marijuana harmful or harmless," or "are the risks of marijuana use within acceptable limits," and so forth as the basis for the legality of the substance.

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I am not suggesting that violating copyright law is currently justified. However, if the Congress continues to listen only to the unbounded interests of media companies, it might ultimately be responsible for a major backlash against the media companies.

I'll buy that for a dollar. I also prefer non-DRM content, but to me DRM is more an annoyance than a massive injustice.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You're the one choosing my allies, apparently. I guess most of your allies are strawmen?

*sigh*

As I obviously attempted to clarify in my previous post: My earlier statement ("Logically, it does not make sense that an individual should be allowed to violate copyright laws solely because it is now technically possible and/or easy") is a characterization of the crux of Stallman's position -- you know, the guy whose article started this entire thread and who we've been discussing the whole time? It's not a "strawman" fallacy when you accurately describe and then critique an opponent's position.

So, feel free to refute Stallman's position, I don't mind. Just keep in mind that if you disagree with the above quoted statement, then you disagree with Stallman (and probably bill_mchale) on the fundamental reason for ignoring copyright restrictions with digital formats -- hence they are not necessarily your "allies."