Secret Copyright Law Reported

[osnova]

Since we started talking about word definitions...
Theft: The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I understand the law, copyrights, patents and IP rights.

Not based on your posts.

There is no misunderstanding on my part at all, but there is in the understanding of many who are claiming that copying a file without permission is not theft.

Only if you use your own personal definition of "theft". Arguing over whether something is or isn't true when you are making up your own definitions is pointless.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Not based on your posts.



Only if you use your own personal definition of "theft". Arguing over whether something is or isn't true when you are making up your own definitions is pointless.

Nor are accusations. I am using the common shared definitions. I'm sorry if you have an issue with but that, but it doesn't change anything. What I've said stands and is true. If you actually want to discuss this we can but you are not being at all helpful. I've stated my position and what I believe. It is not wrong.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by kennyc

... I am using the common shared definitions....

Well, maybe in the local bar, while discussing this and the meaning of life with the guy on the next stool, chugging down the fifth pint....

But, yours is certainly not a legal definition. And even as colloquialism, it's wrong as to IP.

Anyway, without the beer, it's a pointless argument.

I certainly hope this story grows legs and makes the sheep nervous. Because it really should.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Yes! Finally, you agree! "Theft" only applies when you are discussing physical objects that exist uniquely!

Hey, if I assume an exact copy of your things exist in a parallel universe can I take your car? You can always take that other one.

And if I take your car out for a ride without your permission while you are at work and return it after filling up just enough gas to cover what I have used up -- you will be fine with that?? You haven't lost anything.

You say you want "all human knowledge to be instantly available to everyone, at no cost". Sounds like a really noble goal, though I do suspect you just want to cheapen out on giving someone his/her just reward for work well done. But assume you real mean it, why shouldn't a plumber's work be free? If his toilet leaks, why shouldn't a writer have the right to get a free house call, if the plumber can obtain a free copy of his book? Why shouldn't the writer just be able to take any car off the local dealer's lot? What you are dreaming of is the communist ideal (I have no problem with that, even though I think real communism can never work). Everything is free and everyone just takes whatever he or she wants. Which reminds me, tell us how much of your income did you donate to those whose works you are downloading? Or do you believe they should all work like slaves for your pleasure?

It makes no sense for a society to value the work of creative people so little that they cannot make a living off it while a busboy (no offense intended here) can. If your vision ever becomes reality, then very few works of value will ever see the light of day again.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sonist

...

But, yours is certainly not a legal definition. And even as colloquialism, it's wrong as to IP.

....

How many times do I (or others) have to say I'm not talking about the law or legal definitions. That's not the point the point is doing what is right.

Some people seem to that that just because the law does not prohibit something or defines it in a particular way then they are free to cheat, steal, lie, whatever. I'm sorry but you are just wrong. I'm talking about doing what is right about ethics and morals.

It is NOT WRONG for IP it can't be. You are only looking at it through the eyes of the existing laws and system and I'm talking outside of that. Forget that and think about what is right and wrong, what should be, not what is.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If your vision ever becomes reality, then very few works of value will ever see the light of day again.

Bull. Garbage. Tripe. Most of the great literature ever written has been written before modern copyright laws, by people who simply can't not write. So we lose all of our future Stephen Kings and John Grishams and Dan Browns and Mary Higgins Clarks. No big loss there. I'd take one Emily Dickinson-- who saw almost no recognition in her lifetime-- over the whole lot of them. The end of commercial, mass-production pulp writers? Bring it on.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Bull. Garbage. Tripe. Most of the great literature ever written has been written before modern copyright laws, by people who simply can't not write. So we lose all of our future Stephen Kings and John Grishams and Dan Browns and Mary Higgins Clarks. No big loss there. I'd take one Emily Dickinson-- who saw almost no recognition in her lifetime-- over the whole lot of them. The end of commercial, mass-production pulp writers? Bring it on.

No, a lot of the great literature and most other arts was produced by people who were kept by royalty as pets and given projects to work on. And, of course, there were writers who were dirt poor and still wrote. Were they happy to be so poor? Didn't they deserve better? What I don't see is why you think it is so wrong to reward writers for their work. So you take pleasure from a great book but you don't think the author deserves to eat???

Yes, commercialism is a somewhat unfortunate by-product. But the Dan Browns are exactly the only ones that would survive in your world. They would still get filthy rich by doing paid appearances, selling movie and video game rights, etc.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

What I don't see is why you think it is so wrong to reward writers for their work.

I don't think it is "wrong" to reward writers for their work. I always have and still do buy lots of books. I simply also don't buy lots of books. (And, really, if the only way I had to access books was to buy them, no big deal. It is being cut off from my Asian movies and TV shows that never have and never will show up in official subbed US releases that would "hurt" me.)

So you take pleasure from a great book but you don't think the author deserves to eat???

The bulk of authors I read are full-time career scientists who write fiction or non-fiction "on the side" because they want to. They have "day jobs."

[BuddyBoy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

How many times do I (or others) have to say I'm not talking about the law or legal definitions. That's not the point the point is doing what is right. ... I'm talking about doing what is right about ethics and morals.

This is a fascinating conversation, but I'm struck by how often you refer to ethics and morals, as opposed to law.

Surely you realize that "morals" are very subjective - rules put in place and observed (or not) in order to protect a given "society." What is moral in one society (for example, sleeping with your mother-in-law on your wedding night, as dictated by certain African tribes), is immoral in others (doing same in Sandusky, Ohio.)

Morals are not absolute, nor are they necessarily widely agreed on. The shift based on society and time.

Ethics can be even slipperier - though I tend to equate them as rules for the protection of humanity, rather than a society, though for some they are rules to protect a professional and their clients. I can't see IP theft being a global ethical issue, though I can see it being a professional conduct issue, which is, again, a subjective and non-absolute opinion.

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something of mine without my permission, you're a thief.

Ken, I noticed that you published a great many fine pictures on your website. Do you have model releases for all those fine dragon boaters? Of course you do, otherwise that would be theft, right? Morally and ethically you have stolen their image and published it for your own aggrandizement and profit - so surely you have model release from every one of them, RIGHT?

Edited to add: I just noticed you sell your website prints too - $25 unframed for an 8x10!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

The bulk of authors I read are full-time career scientists who write fiction or non-fiction "on the side" because they want to. They have "day jobs."

Yes, that is how it is for many authors. And that is what limits the time and effort they can put into their writing. Many works will never get written. And I am sure they would all be very happy if besides the joy of writing they could derive a sizable additional income from it. Anyway, all I am saying that writers deserve to be treated like everyone else. Not to be beggers but to have readers who think their work is worth something. Just like a German writer put it (a very loose translation by me, I just remember the idea behind it, not the exact wording): "I would rather have the confirmation that someone is willing to pay for my work than to live on my readers' or the government's handouts. Give me dignity not your pity." You afford more dignity to the person who clears the empty dishes off your table at a restaurant than to creative people. No matter what someone does, even if the product of his or her work is in digital form, everybody's work deserves the same respect. You want to read it buy it, you think it is not worth the price, just leave it alone.

As far as your Asian movies are concerned, if they are Chinese you won't have to wait too long before a clampdown there. Because in China nobody pays for anything (hey, maybe you should go there -- your dream is already a reality) and it is seriously affecting the development of some major industries and the competitiveness compared to Western and Indian companies who can actually pull in some revenue. China Mobile and others want to start pushing ebooks, so that happy free-for-all may well be about to end. Except for music, of course.

[Sonist]

Methinks the issue at hand is somewhat greater, than some kid downloading a PDF version of Harry Potter.

Moral crusading apparently causes some to miss the forest for the trees.

P.S.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not true. The Patriot Act and all the Authorization Bush gave the FBI etc. etc. etc. They can virtually do anything they want at the moment.

I was too lazy to call anyone on this before, but the above statement is either grossly misinformed, or intended to grossly misinform.

I am not at all sure what exactly is "They can virtually do anything they want" referring to, but if it is to National Security Letters, or roving wiretaps, or sneak & peak warrants, they all required either the specific authorization of a high level official, or a judicial order.

None of the numerous safeguards in The Patriot Act, nor its sunset provisions, appear to be contemplated in the treaty being negotiated.

And let's not forget, that The Patriot Act is aimed primarily at foreign agents, or terrorists, while this treaty's targets are primarily pimply teenagers, downloading a handcam copy of Terminator XXII.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is still a kind of theft in a way but it is also different in that we are talking about duplicating a sequence of muscle movements or sequence of chess moves rather than taking a physical object like a book or computer file.

I don't think so, it is copying the idea (the moves themselves mean nothing without understanding them).
Copying a book freehand is just a sequence of muscle movements.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Sonist

I am not at all sure what exactly is "They can virtually do anything they want" referring to, but if it is to National Security Letters, or roving wiretaps, or sneak & peak warrants, they all required either the specific authorization of a high level official, or a judicial order.

You forgot "warrantless wiretaps" there.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, that is how it is for many authors. And that is what limits the time and effort they can put into their writing. Many works will never get written. And I am sure they would all be very happy if besides the joy of writing they could derive a sizable additional income from it.

Have you considered that there are also people who enjoy being both (a scientist) and a writer, who would never want to be just a writer? Lord knows I'd grow bored.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

As far as your Asian movies are concerned, if they are Chinese you won't have to wait too long before a clampdown there. Because in China nobody pays for anything (hey, maybe you should go there -- your dream is already a reality) and it is seriously affecting the development of some major industries and the competitiveness compared to Western and Indian companies who can actually pull in some revenue. China Mobile and others want to start pushing ebooks, so that happy free-for-all may well be about to end. Except for music, of course.

There is a certain amount of smugness emanating from this post. It's really quite unpleasant.

Anyway, in this (CC-licensed) book, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, which I'm currently reading for a course, I read this quite coherent statement of why copyright law is oddly slanted:

The Supreme Court recently heard a constitutional challenge to the law which expanded the term of copyrights by twenty years to reach this remarkable length. (Full disclosure: I helped prepare an amicus brief in that case.) This law, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also extended existing copyrights over works which had already been created. As I observed earlier, this is particularly remarkable if the idea is to give an incentive to create. Obviously the authors of existing works were given sufficient incentive to create; we know that because they did. Why do we need to give the people who now hold their copyrights another twenty years of monopoly? This is all cost and no benefit. Macaulay would have been furious.

There are a lot of things to be found in this book about the history of copyright put in its context, as well as current developments (though he does not mention ACTA).. feel free to download it; that's what the PDF is meant for.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by BuddyBoy

.. Do you have model releases for all those fine dragon boaters? Of course you do, otherwise that would be theft, right? Morally and ethically you have stolen their image and published it for your own aggrandizement and profit - so surely you have model release from every one of them, RIGHT?

Yes. When required by law.