Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is Indiana law, but it's based on the Model Penal Code.

You emphasized:

(1) without the other person's consent;

When downloading a torrent file you have the other person's consent.

(8) by transferring or reproducing:
(A) recorded sounds; or
(B) a live performance;
without consent of the owner of the master recording or the live performance, with intent to distribute the reproductions for a profit.

This only applies if there is a profit made from the copies.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Profit may a factor in determining the punishment for copyright infringement, but it doesn't determine someone's guilt or otherwise in committing the infringing act.

Considering your previous posts (emphasis mine), I find you new position on the subject a little odd:

Originally Posted by HarryT

A copy of a book is a book; a photograph of a Dalek is not a Dalek. The BBC certainly have the right to license who can build Daleks, but they don't have the right to say to someone who perfectly legally owns a Dalek, "you can't take a photograph of it and use the photograph for non-commercial purposes."

Originally Posted by HarryT

Until or unless you can point me to a legal ruling which states that using a photograph of a mass-produced object for non-commercial purposes is a breach of copyright, this is what I will continue to believe.

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may be right, Greg, although I find it exceedingly odd that the law can prevent someone from using a photograph of their own property for a non-commercial purpose, but until the BBC request me to stop using the picture I shall assume that I am right and continue to use it.

[Sil_liS]

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Considering your previous posts (emphasis mine), I find you new position on the subject a little odd:

I don't have a "new position" You must have misunderstood me if you think that I do.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Even if it acts as advertising?

If that is the creator's intent (to give property away as an advertising vehicle), the loss is granted (with the hope that more money will be made later). Obviously you would consider that an acceptable or intended loss.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That's why I don't see any good metaphor for discussing copyright. It's about maintaining control in a world where technology has rendered control unenforceable. With no answer to that, there's no way to create a metaphor...

I disagree that control is "unenforceable." I believe a reasonably reliable security and enforcement system can be created and implemented across the board, with today's technology.

And I contend that, if we don't do that, all of this discussion is pointless.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I believe a reasonably reliable security and enforcement system can be created and implemented across the board, with today's technology.

I'd probably rather not live in a society that implements such a system.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Soldim

I'd probably rather not live in a society that implements such a system.

You already live in a society that implements such a system... in everything else you do and own. Why is this a big deal?

[MrsJoseph]

I think no one wants to live in a society that uses body parts as the primary means of identification....I am attached to my body parts and would be very upset if someone wants to remove said body parts to usurp my identity.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I think no one wants to live in a society that uses body parts as the primary means of identification....I am attached to my body parts and would be very upset if someone wants to remove said body parts to usurp my identity.

Not that anyone's mentioned body parts in this thread... but do you really believe a mass epidemic of finger-severing in order to steal ebooks is likely?

I'd ask what you would rather use, but that is taking us off-topic.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I disagree that control is "unenforceable." I believe a reasonably reliable security and enforcement system can be created and implemented across the board, with today's technology.

And I contend that, if we don't do that, all of this discussion is pointless.

Well it's pointless anyway, because none of us have the sort of money it would take to bribe governments to pass such laws, and the people who do have the money won't take any notice of people on an internet forum because they will only be concerned with their own needs.

The way I see it, we already have the power to have files (or search results) removed from the internet. All of the corporations who profit from unauthorised downloads or people searching for them remove content on request, you don't even need a court order. You could probably automate it if you were reasonably technical, or you can pay other companies to do it for you if you don't have the time.

Seems more logical than punishing the people who do want their stuff on pirate sites, or don't care either way.

[stonetools]

Wow, this thread is still going on, and still rational, even.

While I do think that the search for better mataphors is kind of a mug's game, pursued by people who want to get away from the theft label, I'll offer one: dilution.

Piracy dilutes the value of a content creator's intellectual property right in their creation , making it of less value than it would have been without piracy ( or unauthorised copying, if you want to use that euphemism.) The more copies of an artrist's creation that are made and distributed without the author's permission, the less valuable the the original work becomes. ,
You can compare it to gold, or a rich dye, or paper money, or a drug, or maybe watering down liquor. Its not exactly like any of those things, but the principle is the same.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Not that anyone's mentioned body parts in this thread... but do you really believe a mass epidemic of finger-severing in order to steal ebooks is likely?

I'd ask what you would rather use, but that is taking us off-topic.

Well, lets see...I think I said I primary means of identification. That means that I think that if biometrics became so standard that we use it for BOOKS then it will have become a primary means of identification. Which then causes all types of problems...cause while I don't feel that someone will sever my finger for a book or two - money and other goods will change the game.

I'd rather not use anything, if you really wanted to know. Sorry.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Piracy dilutes the value of a content creator's intellectual property right in their creation , making it of less value than it would have been without piracy ( or unauthorised copying, if you want to use that euphemism.) The more copies of an artrist's creation that are made and distributed without the author's permission, the less valuable the the original work becomes. ,
You can compare it to gold, or a rich dye, or paper money, or a drug, or maybe watering down liquor. Its not exactly like any of those things, but the principle is the same.

Doesn't it work in exactly tho opposite way for books: the more copies there are, the more valuable it is?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I'd rather not use anything, if you really wanted to know. Sorry.

So, when are you turning in your drivers' license, car keys, home keys, credit cards, bank accounts, cable TV accounts, courtesy cards, store member cards, cellphone accounts, web access accounts, social security number, all account and PIN passwords?

Anyway, let's move off of this and get back on point.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

So, when are you turning in your drivers' license, car keys, home keys, credit cards, bank accounts, cable TV accounts, courtesy cards, store member cards, cellphone accounts, web access accounts, social security number, all account and PIN passwords?

Anyway, let's move off of this and get back on point.

I know you think you have all the answers, Steve, but it takes all types. I think we were on point - a point that you brought up.