Secret Copyright Law Reported

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

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.

And copying the idea is what patent law is about. Thus the rest of my posting.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And copying the idea is what patent law is about. Thus the reset of my posting.

I get confused about whether the debate is revolving around law or morals. I can't keep up.

[sony_fox]

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.

"aimed" Yeah right. There is no legal basis for "aimed" or "intent" once the powers are granted they get used for anything. Cf for example UK (legal) marches - suddenly the police are using anti-terror legislation: stopping searching and detaining without charge, ditto for journalists taking photos.

It's the precise details of the wording that matters.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I get confused about whether the debate is revolving around law or morals. I can't keep up.

It's a crazy world out there. Quite complicated, have to keep your head screwed on straight.

The point is that initially you described a chess thingy which was a bit confusing ... but in the same way the world is. What is it that IP actually is? What is computer code? What is a file? What is a book? These things are all at the heart of the discussion and there are current (ephemeral as I like to say) laws that attempt to protect various aspects of IP. There are patents, copyright, trade secret and other less definitive laws that are in place with the concept of allowing a creator of IP to benefit(financially or otherwise) from said IP in order to foster creativity. That is the core of all these laws. That is the concept the laws are based on and are intended to implement: To allow the person who creates the IP to benefit (financially) from the product of their creativity.

Seems some people here don't agree with that concept because activities that circumvent the concept negate it. (e.g. copying and distributing IP that belongs to someone else)

The law is an attempt to the concept and unfortunately for most here it seems that the law is the sum total of what is right or wrong. It's not. It's the concept that is import. All I am saying is give peace a chance ... no wait ... is based on the concept of fostering creativity, of allowing those who create IP to benefit from it. In many ways large and small the digital age gives us the ability to negatively impact this concept of fostering creativity by circumventing an IP creators ability to benefit from it. This ability makes it ever more important that we take our ethics and morality to a higher level, that we change and implement new laws to better implement the concept, to do the right thing.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It's a crazy world out there. Quite complicated, have to keep your head screwed on straight.
... is based on the concept of fostering creativity, of allowing those who create IP to benefit from it. In many ways large and small the digital age gives us the ability to negatively impact this concept of fostering creativity by circumventing an IP creators ability to benefit from it. This ability makes it ever more important that we take our ethics and morality to a higher level, that we change and implement new laws to better implement the concept, to do the right thing.

Whoa, that debate is heading off into all sorts of scary areas I don't understand - the origins and nature of 'property', utilitiarianism, even taxation - good luck sorting all that out on an MR thread!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Whoa, that debate is heading off into all sorts of scary areas I don't understand - the origins and nature of 'property', utilitiarianism, even taxation - good luck sorting all that out on an MR thread!

I know, I'm pretty much done with this in any case. Good discussion though. I just hope the "Secret Agreement" is worked out properly. Maybe we can roll it into the "New Patriot Health Care Economic Act"

[Krystian Galaj]

I'd say that it's morally right to share all ideas you come upon with the rest of the human race, because that's how ideas live on. Depriving everyone of some product of imagination, like a book, possibly until the last copy of that book is gone, just because there's some law in place, made so that Mickey Mouse belongs to Disney forever is morally wrong.

But to each his own morals, I suppose.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Of course it's MINE if it is something I created. Inherently mine. A creation just as would be a painting or statue I might create. There is no "begging of the question" at all. It is perfectly self-evident.

Taken to a logical extent, there are serious issues with that. If you plant a seed on public land, for example, and it grows into a tree, is that tree yours, did you create it? What if you send me a file, and I print it out, is the resulting book mine, or yours? You created the file, I created the print-out.

What if I have a character in my book named kennyc, did I "take" your name? Am I a thief?

By your definition, every time we write words we are "taking" something, because our ancestors created the letters, and the language. But we all create things together, as common cultural property. Copyright is an artificial right, and artificial monopoly created by law to allow creators to be remunerated. But it isn't an inherent right.

Another thing that don't seem to be able to get around is the difference between "taking" and "depriving of use". If I take your car, you have no car. If I take your nic, you can still use the nic.

EDIT: This is from a few pages back, my apologies if the discussion has moved on...

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Of course it's MINE if it is something I created. Inherently mine. A creation just as would be a painting or statue I might create. There is no "begging of the question" at all. It is perfectly self-evident.

I see. And what about the person who (inadvertently?) gave you an idea that you then worked out? Or what about the person who told you your first draft was crap, forcing you to rewrite it, possibly incorporating some of the critiques? Is your book (or whatever) still "wholly yours"?
Any author "responding to the times" (a la Dickens) will be writing in a certain context, that forced or inspired him to write in a certain way, preferring to give some critiques (of capitalism, anomie and life in the big city) but not others (christian values?), while that might seem hopelessly outdated 50 years later. Or people like Joseph Conrad, who critique colonialism (Heart of Darkness), but still implicitly representing the natives as stupid (even if he uses this to show how bad the westerners were, he's still typecasting them at the same time). Yes, some authors (or books) suffer from time-boundness more than others, but there is no writing outside the social context. As such, the author is only original insofar as he gives you his take on it, but that might just be a compilation of arguments he's read about in the newspapers, etc.
And today we have experiments with crowdsourcing book-writing, or ghost-writing autobiographies. The notion of an author as a creative genius is pretty hard to maintain. Sure, he does something, but everything? Please.
Yet you don't seem to think those "others" deserve any credit whatever..

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I've stated my position and what I believe. It is not wrong.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

[tompe]

Originally Posted by llreader

Taken to a logical extent, there are serious issues with that. If you plant a seed on public land, for example, and it grows into a tree, is that tree yours, did you create it? What if you send me a file, and I print it out, is the resulting book mine, or yours? You created the file, I created the print-out.

I agree with this.

But the real problem is with the phrase "inherently mine" and "of course". I do not see how people knowing about different philosophical opinions about this issue can use phrases as "of course" and pretend that other opinions do not exist. Personally I think that right based ethical systems are absurd and do not accept that something can be "inherently mine". But that is just a personal opinion.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I'd say that it's morally right to share all ideas you come upon with the rest of the human race, because that's how ideas live on.

Exactly. Having "thought crime" so that one person can say "I thought of this first, therefore you have no right to think it or derive anything from it without my permission, you THEIF" is the polar opposite of fostering creativity. It is strangling creativity.

Some of us seem to have complete opposites in philosophies of life. For some, producing non-physical "stuff" (be it sounds, patterns of light, words) is a means to an ends of making money. But for others, the production and sharing of ideas and "art" is the ends itself. Those kinds of people produce things because they are passionate about it, and because they want to "give back" to society for all the great "stuff" that they enjoy.

I'm perfectly fine with seeing the end of the first group if we keep the second.

And in the spirit of giving-- if you like any of my photos, you can do anything you want with them for free. Or if you insist on spending money, send the 25 bucks to kennyc and I'm sure he'll be willing to make the $4 prints of them just like he is with his photos. (How's that business going for 'ya, kennyc?)

http://s313.photobucket.com/albums/l...ure/?start=all

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

You forgot "warrantless wiretaps" there....

Hm, without debating the merits of The Patriot Act, you really do not see a difference between:

(a) someone downloading a "pirated" mp3, and

(b) someone specifically believed to be affiliated with a terrorist group, who is receiving communication from a foreign country, where such communication is considered a threat to national security?

Originally Posted by sony_fox

"aimed" Yeah right. There is no legal basis for "aimed" or "intent" once the powers are granted they get used for anything. Cf for example UK (legal) marches - suddenly the police are using anti-terror legislation: stopping searching and detaining without charge, ditto for journalists taking photos....

Kind of a broad brush there.... Generally, courts in the US do not take the view, that "once the powers are granted they get used for anything." And parts of The Patriot Act, such as the use of NSLs, are a prime example of this.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Exactly. Having "thought crime" so that one person can say "I thought of this first, therefore you have no right to think it or derive anything from it without my permission, you THEIF" is the polar opposite of fostering creativity. It is strangling creativity.

Some of us seem to have complete opposites in philosophies of life. For some, producing non-physical "stuff" (be it sounds, patterns of light, words) is a means to an ends of making money. But for others, the production and sharing of ideas and "art" is the ends itself. Those kinds of people produce things because they are passionate about it, and because they want to "give back" to society for all the great "stuff" that they enjoy.

I'm perfectly fine with seeing the end of the first group if we keep the second.

And in the spirit of giving-- if you like any of my photos, you can do anything you want with them for free. Or if you insist on spending money, send the 25 bucks to kennyc and I'm sure he'll be willing to make the $4 prints of them just like he is with his photos. (How's that business going for 'ya, kennyc?)

http://s313.photobucket.com/albums/l...ure/?start=all

I find creating things to be hard work. It's possible that some people enjoy working hard for some reason-for me, the only reason I work hard is for the reward. Take that away & you've strangled *my* creativity. (And I do have it, it's just something that takes hard work-for me, at least.)

The real question is, how many people are like me & how many enjoy working hard for no reward? You need a certain number/percentage of people working hard to support civilization. Do you think there's enough of the latter type to do that? I don't.