Secret Copyright Law Reported

[Greg Anos]

Back to the original topic. The ATCA is being treated as a trade agreement in the US, as an actual treaty would have to be ratified by our Senate in open session. I don't think they could get it passed....

However, the trade agreement in the US does not have the force of a treaty, i.e. it can be tossed out by the court system. If implemented, I'm certain there would be a lot of test cases....

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Please go back and re-read those few posts that were involved in this sub-topic.

No need. I do not believe you got the point. I stated the simplest and most common objection to the golden rule as a basis for deciding how to act. I just wanted to point out that it is a very simplistic principle that can not be used without modifying it or interpreting it. And even than it is not trivially true that it is a good principle. Another symptom of oversimplification is the refusal to use good terms that enhance the discussion. Instead you choose to conflate different concepts which will lead to bad discussions.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

No need. I do not believe you got the point. I stated the simplest and most common objection to the golden rule as a basis for deciding how to act. I just wanted to point out that it is a very simplistic principle that can not be used without modifying it or interpreting it. And even than it is not trivially true that it is a good principle. Another symptom of oversimplification is the refusal to use good terms that enhance the discussion. Instead you choose to conflate different concepts which will lead to bad discussions.

And I responded exactly in line with everything I've said and you proceeded to claim I said something different.

I've also stated quite clearly multiple times my position in exactly the same say. I've used a variety of examples and responded to a variety of challenges in order to clarify.

I'll say it once more for your benefit.

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.

You can quote me.



Now here is the sequence of interaction again for your benefit

Originally Posted by tompe

Oh, good. I would like people to copy and distribute for free everything I write. So according to your reasoning it is morally OK for me to download illegally books. Just show how silly the non modified golden rule is.

I said

Originally Posted by kennyc

What??? Where in the world did that come from? If you CHOOSE to give permission for anyone to copy your IP and make it freely available then wonderful. I love it! But it has nothing to do with anything that has been said in this thread with regard to stealing other people's I.P.

You said:

Originally Posted by tompe

It follows logically from the golden rule as you stated it.

I plainly stated that you can do whatever you want, no problem.
After thinking through this again I think you are trying to say that just because you decide to give everything away, then that makes it morally right for you to steal other people's IP. Doesn't follow at all.

There are two possibilities. Either you are saying you can make up any rule you want that applies to you and that allows you to do the same thing to others (whether they agree with your rule or not)

or

you are giving everyone permission to come and take all your possessions.


If you really have any legitimate argument, please state it and drop the pretense.

[osnova]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Fact correction. The US did not join Berne until 1976, not 1989...*and then it did it only half way, to protect Hollywood....

Fact correction on fact correction

The U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 came into force on March 1, 1989 making the United States a party to the Berne Convention. The Copyright Act of 1976 while narrowing the differences between the U.S. law and the Berne Convention, did not make the U.S. a party to the Convention. See for example, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1411436

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Which is clearly bogus. I plainly stated that you can do whatever you want, no problem.
If you really have any legitimate argument, please state it and drop the pretense.

Aha, I see that I was unclear. I want or have to have copyright on my stuff (maybe a requirement from the work place) and I want people to take it and distribute it and in this act I want them to commit copyright infringement. I did not mean that I gave permission for them to download and distribute my stuff.

And this is not an unreasonable stance. Take software development at a company. If I do something really useful it would be very good if it is widely distributed but the company will probably force me to not allow this.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Aha, I see that I was unclear. I want or have to have copyright on my stuff (maybe a requirement from the work place) and I want people to take it and distribute it and in this act I want them to commit copyright infringement. I did not mean that I gave permission for them to download and distribute my stuff.

And this is not an unreasonable stance. Take software development at a company. If I do something really useful it would be very good if it is widely distributed but the company will probably force me to not allow this.

I'm still not understanding what you are saying then. You can't have it both ways.

You can release things under something like a creative commons certainly, or release public domain, but by so doing you DO give up at least some rights to it. You have given permission for others to copy it or do whatever they want with it.

If you do not want that, i.e. if you want to retain your rights to it, then you can but you can't do both.

And this is (as I said in the beginning) a whole different discussion than what I'm arguing which is that

If you take something of mine without my permission you are a thief.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by osnova

Fact correction on fact correction

The U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 came into force on March 1, 1989 making the United States a party to the Berne Convention. The Copyright Act of 1976 while narrowing the differences between the U.S. law and the Berne Convention, did not make the U.S. a party to the Convention. See for example, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1411436

But the US still doesn't follow the Berne convention, despite 1988 act. See teh granfathering in the 1976 act, the 1988, and the 1998 Sonny Bono Act (aka The Mickey Mouse Preservation Act)...

[osnova]

Two more articles that would contribute to our discussion:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment..._sprigman.html
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...20927_7367.htm

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by osnova

Two more articles that would contribute to our discussion:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment..._sprigman.html
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...20927_7367.htm

It seems to me this is further "proof" of business/corporations writing the laws they want without regard for the people. True here for copyright as well as in healthcare

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsawOwPgZZc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5p4s...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kohGt...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVVK5...eature=related

and virtually every aspect of U.S. Law.

How far can it go before the people wake up?

(now we're REALLY )

[osnova]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It seems to me this is further "proof" of business/corporations writing the laws they want without regard for the people. True here for copyright as well as in healthcare and virtually every aspect of U.S. Law.

We are in a complete agreement on this point.

Originally Posted by kennyc

How far can it go before the people wake up?

(now we're REALLY )

I believe that our discussion of the past abuses of the copyright laws by powerful lobbies with Congress's involvement and express or tacit approval by the courts is on topic. If we swallow this ATCA the way we swallowed the long list of copyright term extensions, then there is no stopping this train in the copyright area or any other area. The U.S. will no longer be governed for the people, by the people (even assuming it still is).

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Almost all treaties are negotiated behind closed doors. This is no different.

Nuts.

And iTunes might indeed be smaller if the RIAA hadn't sued people. We might well have other kinds of licensing feeding much more money to the actual music creators, however (And the RIAA can't have that).

pdurrant - And this would be why they use DRM on the iPhone to prevent non-authorised apps then? Give it up man, Apple are no knights in shining armour.

Ralph Sir Edward - The (incorrect) assurance was given that US domestic law would not need to change, that's why...

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.

As Thomas Jefferson stated it so many years ago, when the concept of copyright was young, and the idea of IP not yet existed,

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13, 1813

I agree with him that that the author loses any claim on "fugitive fermentation of his brain" at the moment he makes it public. Copyright is an artificial right granted to such author to encourage him to create - a neccessary evil. Copyright agreements are not global at the moment, so in countries where there's no copyright law it's not possible to take your ideas without permisson because they're never yours there. They're yours only because of the copyright law, and that just for a period of time.

Just clarifying.

I don't base my morality or ethics on legal articles, so it's hard for me to understand how you think.

[Barcey]

If you only trust Fox News for their "Fair and Balanced" reporting.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-result...-crackdown.htm

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Barcey

If you only trust Fox News for their "Fair and Balanced" reporting.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-result...-crackdown.htm

Thanks for that!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This isn't about morals or even law, it's about reality.


Reality: people download creative works and have no guilt at all about it.

Reality check -- some do yes, but a lot more people are getting used to doing the right thing and paying. See itunes, Amazon, B&N, and the many new online stores that have downloadable content.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Reality: this behaviour is on the rise and cannot be stopped.

Reality check -- same as above

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Reality: copyright is ineffectual and almost completely ignored.

Reality check --- Many laws are being ignored by some. I still believe that you are doing the same as the US "moral majority". You are part of a small minority and claim to represent nearly everyone.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Reality: DRM does not work and cannot work.

Reality check -- you are right on the money with this one.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Reality: artists will always create art, even without being paid.

Reality check -- some will, but they will have little time for their art if they have to take on full time jobs. And many will turn choose a different path because they see no future in the arts. Maybe you want to promote the joy of begging for a few cents at a street corner?

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Reality: sharing is easier, getting easier and is enjoyed almost as much as the creative work being shared.

Reality check -- apparently it will be getting easier to get caught in the future as this article seems to suggest?