Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[HansTWN]

Copyright is there to protect the individual, not the public. The creator and or/his assigned agent have the right to copy. They give up certain rights (parody, personal backup, etc) in return for protection. It is a sort of property right for ideas.

Growing the public domain is something that happens after the copyright expires --- the length of which, as I have repeatedly mentioned, is the subject of a completely different discussion. First those rights have to be protected, then we can argue how long would be reasonable.

[Iphinome]

I disagree, first I think the name copyright is misleading its more of a distribution right, as that's something that can be enforced while there's no reason or ability to completely restrict the actual copying. You can't stop me from printing 10000 copies of your award winning poem and keeping them in my closet nor is there any reason to even try as long as they stay in my closet but that's a but of a nitpick.

But it is not there for the individual, there's no reason for it. From the standpoint of society if everything is created without copyright there's a big win, the price when there is one comes from the lowest bidder and there's no restrictions at all on creating more things. Can you argue form a consumer perspective that that isn't ideal? No the only justification for not using that model is that the people get a better deal on the back end, they give up that perfect market and freedom to do as they like with what's out there in exchange for an increased pool to draw from in the longer run.

Your viewpoint only works if you want to discourage creation by locking up the resources creators have access to draw from, if you want to restrict the free exchange and expansion of ideas. Our founders in the US compromised on copyright as a necessary evil not as an ideal situation.

I tend to agree with them. If someone can write a book and make money that's great, great for them and when copyright expires great for everyone who comes after them. But every day that book stays in copyright is a day someone misses the chance to expand on it and that's bad. The only good solution in a bad situation is to give copyright protection for as long as it takes to make creation worth the effort and not one day longer.

[Avarwen]

I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner. I wondered why you could get free songs from Lime Wire.

[kennyc]

Aaaah! Back on topic! Thank you!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I disagree, first I think the name copyright is misleading its more of a distribution right, as that's something that can be enforced while there's no reason or ability to completely restrict the actual copying. You can't stop me from printing 10000 copies of your award winning poem and keeping them in my closet nor is there any reason to even try as long as they stay in my closet but that's a but of a nitpick.

But it is not there for the individual, there's no reason for it. From the standpoint of society if everything is created without copyright there's a big win, the price when there is one comes from the lowest bidder and there's no restrictions at all on creating more things. Can you argue form a consumer perspective that that isn't ideal? No the only justification for not using that model is that the people get a better deal on the back end, they give up that perfect market and freedom to do as they like with what's out there in exchange for an increased pool to draw from in the longer run.

Your viewpoint only works if you want to discourage creation by locking up the resources creators have access to draw from, if you want to restrict the free exchange and expansion of ideas. Our founders in the US compromised on copyright as a necessary evil not as an ideal situation.

I tend to agree with them. If someone can write a book and make money that's great, great for them and when copyright expires great for everyone who comes after them. But every day that book stays in copyright is a day someone misses the chance to expand on it and that's bad. The only good solution in a bad situation is to give copyright protection for as long as it takes to make creation worth the effort and not one day longer.

Society is not some mystical being. It exists because individuals think they are better off in a group than alone. And what you describe would be blatant exploitation of a helpless minority. Was society better off in the US before slavery was abolished because of all that free labor? All your arguments would also work to support some minority not being paid wages so that the majority can enjoy the fruits of their efforts for free.

[Iphinome]

Again you cry about money. I'm not talking about suppressing a minority and slavery along with being an offense against human dignity is not economical. It is also absurd to refer to slave labor as free, if they were free they would not be slaves. The free north... You seem to have a problem understanding the word free, it's libre, liberty as opposed to free as in gratis. I keep pointing this out and you people keep ignoring it... the free north was far more prosperous overall than the south. A short copyright is not exploitation, it is a contract offered by the people as a whole to allow a person to do something they would not otherwise be able to do, have a monopoly over something. The monopoly is temporary and allows both sides to get something, in this case the author during the copyright term, everyone else afterward. Life+70 years isn't really temporary, it certainly isn't to anyone alive at the time something is copyrighted, they will never see the benefits of the deal. That may not mean much to you for someone who's 80 right now but the babies born today are being screwed out of the chance to build on the culture that spawned them to say nothing of the people who want to build on the culture that surrounds them right now. Long copyrights screw everyone but the copyright holder including the artists who's only shortcoming was not getting there first.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Again you cry about money. I'm not talking about suppressing a minority and slavery along with being an offense against human dignity is not economical. It is also absurd to refer to slave labor as free, if they were free they would not be slaves. The free north... You seem to have a problem understanding the word free, it's libre, liberty as opposed to free as in gratis. I keep pointing this out and you people keep ignoring it... the free north was far more prosperous overall than the south. A short copyright is not exploitation, it is a contract offered by the people as a whole to allow a person to do something they would not otherwise be able to do, have a monopoly over something. The monopoly is temporary and allows both sides to get something, in this case the author during the copyright term, everyone else afterward. Life+70 years isn't really temporary, it certainly isn't to anyone alive at the time something is copyrighted, they will never see the benefits of the deal. That may not mean much to you for someone who's 80 right now but the babies born today are being screwed out of the chance to build on the culture that spawned them to say nothing of the people who want to build on the culture that surrounds them right now. Long copyrights screw everyone but the copyright holder including the artists who's only shortcoming was not getting there first.

Here you go again -- a babe in the woods crying about copyright lengths. You are barking up the wrong tree. I am neither 80 years old nor do I think life +70 is reasonable. Why are you shadowboxing?

[kennyc]

And again you cry about your right to steal property from others. I'm pretty sick of your whining Iphinome. I just took a tally of your posts here at MR and only perhaps 5-10 of them are not on the same old dead horse you keep beating. I'm tired of it and I suspect most others are too. Please note that this topic is about a court ruling against a law-breaking operation and to that I cheer! We need more of this and yes we need the laws changed, to protect the creators, not the thieves.

The pirate ship is sailing, shouldn't you be on it???

[Iphinome]

Kenny, I have an interest in the topic of copyright, I don't steal and I do see beyond my own sociopathic self interest. What do you do other than call other people criminals for disagreeing with you? Go troll someone else.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Here you go again -- a babe in the woods crying about copyright lengths. You are barking up the wrong tree. I am neither 80 years old nor do I think life +70 is reasonable. Why are you shadowboxing?

Then why aren't you on my side arguing that copyrights need to be shorter if they expect anyone to respect them? Say it with me, copyright length is unreasonable and needs to be brought down to the point where the public domain doesn't suffer. Copyright in the US as it stands is unjust.

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Here you go again -- a babe in the woods crying about copyright lengths. You are barking up the wrong tree. I am neither 80 years old nor do I think life +70 is reasonable. Why are you shadowboxing?

I'm curious, because I really don't know. What IS the copyright time length in the US now (I understand it keeps changing)? Also, what "fair use" rights do we have? If I buy an ebook, can I use it on any reader I have? Can I make a backup copy? What if the agency cartel pulls support of Amazon, do I still have a right to that book I bought?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

I'm curious, because I really don't know. What IS the copyright time length in the US now (I understand it keeps changing)? Also, what "fair use" rights do we have? If I buy an ebook, can I use it on any reader I have? Can I make a backup copy? What if the agency cartel pulls support of Amazon, do I still have a right to that book I bought?

Life of the author + 70 years, registration not required, the clock starts when the work is placed in a fixed medium.

Fair use is whatever the courts decide, fair use is considered a defense in an infringement lawsuit but doesn't prevent the lawsuit. Generally it means you can distribute for educational use, news reporting (this tends to mean quotes and film clips), parody, critique. Backups and format shifting are generally considered okay unless you're in some for of publishing buisness in which case it makes you a thief in their eyes, ditto for selling your only copy of something, that part is called the first sale doctrine and came about because book publishers considered people selling at a discount or used to be pirates. You may do none of these things legally however if any sort of copy protection is used because breaking copy protection in the us is a criinal act even if the result is something you could have legally done without the copy protection

Only if it doesn't have any form of drm as cracking that is illegal, see above.

Same answer.

Probably but you may not be able to redownload it if the copy you have is lost. At least not legally.

Citations available on request.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Life of the author + 70 years, registration not required, the clock starts when the work is placed in a fixed medium.

Why would there be any need for clocks to start? Everything that's created is protected for life anyway, plus (usually) 70 years. That's the case in most juridisdictions, and yes, it's way too long. It offers no additional incentive to the author (the only reason there can be for copyright in the first place) and only benefits heirs and corporations.

Fair use is whatever the courts decide

There are some well established uses, some countries go as far as to list them explicitly in their laws

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Why would there be any need for clocks to start? Everything that's created is protected for life anyway, plus (usually) 70 years. That's the case in most juridisdictions, and yes, it's way too long. It offers no additional incentive to the author (the only reason there can be for copyright in the first place) and only benefits heirs and corporations.



There are some well established uses, some countries go as far as to list them explicitly in their laws

Forgive me I left out the part about corporate copyright 95 years from publication or 120 years whichever is shorter. That's where the clock comes in. I wasn't thinking forgive me please.

[Jaime_Astorga]

*dons a fire-proof suit* Wow, things are getting ugly around here.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Stop chasing windmills (and rant about permanent copyrights, nobody here is arguing in favor of that), why should a writer work for free when you don't?

Even if it became completely impossible to make a living from writing, writers would not have to work for free. They would still perfectly entitled to not write. It would just mean that, due to the market, their preferred profession is no longer lucrative. I read once that having one's profession become unprofitable is an unavoidable risk of being alive, and I agree with that.

However, even rampant piracy by every single person in the country would not make authors unable to earn income; I list several ways authors can earn money from their work later in my post.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The way to advance society is not by ensuring that you get a free lunch.

Once could also argue that the way the to advance society is not by restricting access and use of information and in doing so severely hamper people's ability to improve on existing work.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Maybe I am assigning those things.

It's just to me, the argument of "creators will always create", especially when coupled with the argument "the author needs to find ways to add value to their book" seems to indicate that the person making those arguments does not place any inherent value on the creation of the book itself.

I don't understand what is meant by "value" here. I mean, I get that it takes time, effort, and talent to produce a good book. What I don't get is why that means I don't get to make a copy and read it without paying the author, when the infrastructure allows me to do it with a few clicks.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Others have suggested authors have no right to make a living from their creative endeavours. That writing is a priviledge and they should be happy to be creative in their spare time around their "real job".

While I would agree that authors have no right to make a living from their works, that is because I think nobody has the right to make a living doing anything (I DO think people have a right to life, though, but I digress). Authors certainly have the right to try to make a living from their works as they see fit; however, that right ends when they need to use laws restraining other people's actions in order for their business models to work. If they can't make a living without those restrictions, that's just a market reality; nobody can make a living selling buggy whips anymore, either, no matter how much they love making them.

However, the philosophical justification aside, it should be made clear that there are ways for authors to earn money (advertisements, selling signed books, commissioned works, donations, speaking tours, etc...) without restricting other people's ability to read and copy their works. Are they likely to be at least as lucrative as royalties and advances? Probably not. Will a bigger percentage of authors be unable to depend solely on their works for income and need to take a second job which their writing merely supplements, if it isn't abandoned altogether? Perhaps. Still, a lot of other people have activities they enjoy but which they can nevertheless not depend on for part of, much less the entirety of, their income.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Here is another idea that might come to Europe at some time in the near future (since they already have to pay a surcharge on all storage media that is then distributed to the media companies -- you have to pay even when you just buy a DVD to store business/personal files!). A huge surcharge on all internet connections. And then everybody will be legally free to just download whatever they want. And society pays. Someone always does. At the moment it is those of us who pay for content.

Yes, that might be possible. I hope it doesn't happen, however. My biggest problems with the idea being practical concerns about gaming the distribution system and the burden on the poor such a charge might cause (considering that an internet connection is essential to functioning in today's society).

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Copyright is there to protect the individual, not the public. The creator and or/his assigned agent have the right to copy. They give up certain rights (parody, personal backup, etc) in return for protection. It is a sort of property right for ideas.

Growing the public domain is something that happens after the copyright expires --- the length of which, as I have repeatedly mentioned, is the subject of a completely different discussion. First those rights have to be protected, then we can argue how long would be reasonable.

I disagree. I don't think people should have an inherent right to control the information they create. The rightful place of every work is in the public domain, available for everyone to not only read, but derive from and improve upon. Copyright should, under the best of circumstances, be a practical measure enacted to further the public domain by providing an incentive for people to create by granting them time-limited monopolies which can be exploited for profit, with the people and businesses temporarily giving up their inherent right to access and use said information in exchange for promoting information creation. However, even ignoring the issue of infinite extensions, I am rather skeptical of the value of non-commercial copyright to the modern world.

...

Now, as to the OP... Limewire? Haha, I remember that. These days pirates have mostly moved onto torrents, though. I guess by the time the courts get around to legislating THAT, something else will have cropped up.

You know, I bitch and moan a lot about how the law is slow to adapt to new technology, but this is one of the times when I am glad for that fact of life.