Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[kennyc]

As I said above.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by kennyc

As I said above.

Exactly! When the Copyright Consortium calls for a Constitutional Convention, I'll be sure to organize a neighborhood voting drive.

Until then...

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

Of course, when we look at this in a modern context, it seems obvious that copyrights should now be extended to recognize the many specializations of Science and other useful arts. So, maps & charts, non-fiction books, technical drawings/illustrations, documentaries, software, and architectural designs should be included, [/b]while paintings, sculptures, most fiction books, most movies, most music, most dances, most plays, etc. should be excluded.[/b]

Only if you deem these Arts to be of no use.

I would argue many, if not most, people would disagree with your de facto assertion that these Arts have no use.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[schex86]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Only if you deem these Arts to be of no use.

I would argue many, if not most, people would disagree with your de facto assertion that these Arts have no use.

Cheers,
PKFFW

It was not I who deemed the arts you infer to as of the "non-useful" variety, but the founding fathers, both in the Constitution, and in their denial of copyright protection to those arts in 1790.

It might help to think of a useful art as something being done for a specific purpose other than artistic expression, since that appears to be where the founding fathers made the distinction. They also apparently understood that people tended to express themselves artistically of their own accord, and would not stop doing so at some point in the future unless an artificial scarcity bubble was established to "protect" them from the evils of the free market.

[Dumas]

Actually, the copyright consortium doesn't need a constitutional convention.

Policy laundering is a method whereby trade organizations negotiate terms in international treaties formulated in secret that would otherwise be too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies.

But never you mind. The law is after all, the will of the people as we have repeatedly heard.

[DawnFalcon]

And it's clear who's calling the shots, right.
Certainly the entire fuss about transparency in international treaties lately was instructive.
There's not much you can do though - my MP and MEP agree, but are not on the "right" committees.
Ah well, they'll learn when they collapse their own market.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And it's clear who's calling the shots, right.
Certainly the entire fuss about transparency in international treaties lately was instructive.
There's not much you can do though - my MP and MEP agree, but are not on the "right" committees.
Ah well, they'll learn when they collapse their own market.

But, is it possible that they are now TOO BIG to fail??

[DawnFalcon]

"Big" music doesn't add up to much compared to other industries. Their lobbying expenses will catch up with them as revenue falls.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

It was not I who deemed the arts you infer to as of the "non-useful" variety, but the founding fathers, both in the Constitution, and in their denial of copyright protection to those arts in 1790.

As you pointed out yourself, the law and the Constitution are two entirely different things.

No where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that useful Arts are confined to "maps & charts, non-fiction books, technical drawings/illustrations, documentaries, software, and architectural designs" or any other such definition that you have deemed worthy of the title.

Hence why the courts have deemed works of fiction, paintings, movies et al, can be and indeed are, covered by copyright.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[schex86]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

As you pointed out yourself, the law and the Constitution are two entirely different things.

No where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that useful Arts are confined to "maps & charts, non-fiction books, technical drawings/illustrations, documentaries, software, and architectural designs" or any other such definition that you have deemed worthy of the title.

Hence why the courts have deemed works of fiction, paintings, movies et al, can be and indeed are, covered by copyright.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I believe I've already answered these questions, both how the Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790 were related, what "useful" actually meant to the aforementioned commonality, and my feelings towards the relevance of legal decisions later made at the behest of special interest to grossly expand the copyright soap bubble.



You should be aware, I'm not arguing legality here, but establishing the relationship between the will of the people as reflected in their ratification of the Constitution and the desires of the publishers as reflected in their convoluted copyright schema designed exclusively to avoid being subject to the will of said people.

[Harmon]

[QUOTE=WT Sharpe;734843] I knew it! You're secretly one of those l-i-b-e-r-a-l socialists who believes in redistribution of wealth! Hey Harmon, had lunch with Olbermann lately?

Nah, I'm too lazy to be a secret anything - I like to follow Mark Twain's advice* except, perhaps, when certain parties ask questions like "does this make me look fat?"

But, assuming I were a liberal, why would I have lunch with Olbermann?? Putting aside that as a liberal, I would accept a free lunch...but if he were also a liberal, who would pay? Oh, yeah - the waiter.

* "Always tell the truth. This will please some people and astonish the rest."

[lene1949]

I am so annoyed with geo restrictions I would happily pirate ebooks, if I knew where to get them. Even books by Australian authors are restricted to the US..

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Piracy is stealing. It is unethical, immoral, and illegal. A crook’s a crook, and a low-life’s a low-life. Theiving, criminally-minded scum are the reason the rest of us are forced to contend with the evils of DRM.

Idiot corporations with no capacity for history are the reason the rest of us are forced to contend with DRM. The ebook industry could have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble if they'd just studied the music industry's gaffes before walking down the same destructive path.

Can you think of a single DRM scheme that has prevented piracy? I certainly can't. So while thieves and criminals--who don't mind violating the DMCA at all--get past the DRM in moments, paying, law-abiding customers have their libraries held hostage, at the whims of companies who may well abandon servers and formats and software and hardware; or simply fail to support superior systems as they come about. DRM hurts consumers, it never hurts criminals.

It continues to exist because outlets want you to use their readers and their stores, and make it as hard as possible for you to switch. If your entire library was bought from amazon, and you fall in love with a new ereader from someone else, you have to ask yourself, do I love this new tech enough to repurchase/lose hundreds of dollars worth of books? The bigger the barrier there is to you switching, the less likely they are to lose a customer to someone. It's anti-competitive in a big way, but it doesn't help authors or artists.

In the meantime, I keep waiting to hear about how the switch to free and clear mp3s has destroyed the music industry. I suspect the freedom and lack of confusion about what devices people were allowed to use to listen to their music has probably had a positive effect on sales, while funds that would go to ever more draconian protection schemes can instead be used to actually punish and prevent piracy (law suits didn't stop piracy, but there was plenty of evidence it had a chilling effect reducing online sharing dramatically).

DRM is more to blame for piracy than open source culture. If you punish paying customers enough, they're not going to want to be your customer anymore. DRM-free, open formats are the best thing that could happen for authors and the companies who promote them and distribute their work. The only downside is for B&N, Sony, and Amazon, who have to actually do something useful to earn your business instead of holding your content hostage.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

I believe I've already answered these questions,

They were not questions. They were statements of fact.

Originally Posted by schex86

both how the Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790 were related, what "useful" actually meant to the aforementioned commonality,

All law is related to the Constitution so that is beside the point.

Nowhere in the Constitution is a definition of "Useful Arts" given, as far as I am aware. Therefore, it is up to the government to decide what that definition is by enacting legislation which deals with the issue. Obviously you believe only the original legislation is valid in any way. I fail to see why you would seemingly make that assertion.

You seem to have no problem believing the government made a mistake in letting Un-useful Arts be covered by Coypright. You seem to have no problem believing the government made a mistake in increasing the length of copyright.

So why is it that you can not believe the government may have made a mistake when they drew up the Copyright Act of 1790 and decided to only cover maps and charts and such? And even if they did not make any mistake, why do you believe the "will of the people" is the same today as it was 200 years ago? Why should legislation not change over time? Why do you seemingly suggest that only the original legislation is valid?

And your credentials as an expert on the meaning of the Constitution and its commanality with law created 200 years ago consists of what?

Some of the greatest minds in your country argue over what is meant by sections of your constitution. On what basis should we accept your opinion as being the correct one?

Originally Posted by schex86

and my feelings towards the relevance of legal decisions later made at the behest of special interest to grossly expand the copyright soap bubble.

And you are of course allowed your feelings towards the law. I took no issue with any of your feelings, only your assertions about what was meant and intended by passages of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by schex86

You should be aware, I'm not arguing legality here, but establishing the relationship between the will of the people as reflected in their ratification of the Constitution

Again I would ask what your credentials are for categorically stating what the will of the people was over 200 years ago?

By the sounds of it, nothing more than your personal opinion of what was meant by two words in the Constitution. The words "useful Art".

Cheers,
PKFFW

[schex86]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

All law is related to the Constitution so that is beside the point.

Some laws relate more to the Constitution than others. Many people in my country now believe that the lawmakers are pandering to special interest and are actively circumventing the will of the people in many respects.

And since in my country the Constitution and its Amendments most directly reflects the will of the people, being that it was ratified by the people and by the states, then that is why I have turned to this document. Regardless, of its age, I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it the most perfect written representation of the will of the people. I cannot, unfortunately, say the same for today's lawmakers and the laws they have produced.

In the case of the Copyright Act of 1790, as you seem to have ignored, I already mentioned the fact that it was drafted by some of the same men who wrote the Constitution. Now, I know this is a stretch, but if I needed to further qualify what the founders meant by "Useful Arts" in the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, then wouldn't it be beneficial to look at that clause put into practice by the same people who wrote it?? And this just a few years after the Constitution itself was written??

So no, it is not besides the point, it is the point, and you apparently keep missing it.

And your credentials as an expert on the meaning of the Constitution and its commanality with law created 200 years ago consists of what?

Some of the greatest minds in your country argue over what is meant by sections of your constitution. On what basis should we accept your opinion as being the correct one?

My credentials How about this, you show me yours, and I'll show you mine?

Credentials is what got us into this mess in the first place. Its time we, as Citizens, as Individuals, took a step back and took a long hard look at the core underlying principles of our Constitution, sans the many layers of obfuscation foisted onto it over the years by the "greatest" minds of my country. On what basis, should you accept this? That's up to you.

Mine always has been: Seek the Truth.