Stallman: Ending the War on Sharing

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

For example, let's say I invent a trivially easy way to make a human clone. This invention does not suddenly generate a new right to make human clones; the assignment of that right will ultimately be determined by a legislative process.

The government doesn't assign rights, it restricts them. Everything is a right by default. What the government does is tell you things that you can't do. If some new right is created/invented/etc, then by default you have that right unless they make a law against it.

You do not rely on the government to tell you what you have the right to do. The fact that you believe it to be the case is a little disturbing.

Or, let's say I invent a new weapon that rapidly kills dozens of human targets with the greatest of ease, is highly portable, and is easy to manufacture. This "technical advancement" does not create a "new freedom" to murder at will which is only barely restricted by a thin veneer of law.

Your "right" to murder has already been removed by the government. Creating a new weapon doesn't change that.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

So, feel free to refute Stallman's position, I don't mind. Just keep in mind that if you disagree with the above quoted statement, then you disagree with Stallman (and probably bill_mchale) on the fundamental reason for ignoring copyright restrictions with digital formats -- hence they are not necessarily your "allies."

You were assuming that my position was the same as theirs (or at least trying to portray it that way), when I never stated that was the case. I never claimed anyone as an ally, nor am I interested in refuting what stallman or bill_mchale says. Their opinion is their business. If you wish to engage in a discussion with them, then go ahead. I was merely responding to things that you said and stating my disagreement with specific points.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Very true, but I see no indication that copyright law will receive the same treatment. Do you?

The internet is young yet. Give it time. After all, it took 90 years for the courts to realize that "seperate but equal" was a fiction.

Think about it from this perspective, enforcing copyright law in the 21st century essentially involves a massive loss of personal privacy. In order to enforce copyright laws, media corporations need to get information about your internet usage from ISPs. Even if you have never shared an illegal file, corporations might be scrutinizing your internet usage.

OK, but that's not what we're discussing. Sharing out a digital file to 100 million of your bestest Internet buddies does not qualify for that exemption.

No it doesn't... but lets put it this way, if a third of the population of the USA is downloading files illegally, then I suspect that copyright as we know it in the United States would be forced to change.

The origin of rights is a complicated philosophical issue that extends beyond the scope of a typical ebook forum. However, even if we accept your characterization, both prior to and after the invention of an easy sharing / copying mechanism (e.g. magnetic tape players), you did not and still do not have the (legal) right to duplicate or distribute a given work of art, other than the existing exemptions (e.g. fair use, public domain). Inventing a tape recorder may extend human abilities but that does not necessarily, in and of itself, generate a "new right."

On the contrary, the issue of whether rights are something granted by the state or whether they are inherent in the human condition is a very basic issue in regards to ebooks and the internet in general. Your opinion seems to be that a right does not exist until the state recognizes it; mine is that a right exists until the state specifically limits it.

Furthermore, new technology does in fact often create new rights. Prior to the invention of the VCR and the cassette recorder, no one recognized that a right for time shifting existed.

Fair use is a necessarily cloudy subject that has continually expanded as additional uses of information has become available.

Yes, but the point of the analogy is to illustrate that creating a new device does not necessarily override the existing rights and laws.

It doesn't override existing rights, no but as I have pointed out, copyright is really not a right at all, it is a license granted by the state. As for laws? Perhaps not, but it can make the laws antiquated. There are still laws on the books in some states that restricts the usage of automobiles around horses... not that anyone enforces them anymore.

To put it another way, it seems to me that Stallman's position that "we invented it, therefore it is permissible" fundamentally does not work.

I agree with that... I am more of the mind that the public will ultimately decide what it wants to be permissable. In practice, the media company might be winning the war of words, but seems to continue to be unable to persuade people to stop downloading. I know some teenagers who have thousands of songs on their computers.... somehow I don't think they bought them at $0.99 a tune on itunes.

Keep in mind that I am not defending severe copyright enforcement -- merely pointing out that the "ease of infringement" argument could easily be used to justify a variety of modifications to the methods of enforcement, including ones you do not support.

Now if the methods of enforcement used are illegal or unjust, you can critique them on that basis. But this does not necessarily indicate that the law itself is unjust and ought to be abolished.

Frankly it is difficult to see how enforcement can be effective without us essentially agreeing to give up our right to privacy on the internet.

E.g. if it is trivially easy to smoke marijuana, and difficult to enforce that law, this in and of itself does not mean that "we should make toking up legal." You need to determine other issues, such as "is marijuana harmful or harmless," or "are the risks of marijuana use within acceptable limits," and so forth as the basis for the legality of the substance.

Again you ultimately have missed the point here. Its not just about it being difficult to enforce (without draconian measures) its about the fact that it is very likely that the generation that is growing up right now will tend to file share so freely that ultimately more people in this country than not will be file sharing. In effect the law will be meaningless because it will be all but universally ignored.

I'll buy that for a dollar. I also prefer non-DRM content, but to me DRM is more an annoyance than a massive injustice.

I wonder how many people will feel that way if Amazon were to decide to drop the Kindle tomorrow (I know, very unlikely, but this is a thought experiment). In fact, there have been a number of times when companies have shut off their DRM servers where they faced a serious backlash from consumers. Remember, the same copyright law you are defending makes it illegal to strip DRM, even if you are not planning on sharing the file with anyone.

*sigh*

As I obviously attempted to clarify in my previous post: My earlier statement ("Logically, it does not make sense that an individual should be allowed to violate copyright laws solely because it is now technically possible and/or easy") is a characterization of the crux of Stallman's position -- you know, the guy whose article started this entire thread and who we've been discussing the whole time? It's not a "strawman" fallacy when you accurately describe and then critique an opponent's position.

So, feel free to refute Stallman's position, I don't mind. Just keep in mind that if you disagree with the above quoted statement, then you disagree with Stallman (and probably bill_mchale) on the fundamental reason for ignoring copyright restrictions with digital formats -- hence they are not necessarily your "allies."

Its now been a couple of days since I read the article, but I think Stallman's position is that now that technology has made it easy, people are going to do it anyway. So why waste resources fighting it, and try to find a way to make sure artists are still rewarded for their work.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

On the contrary, the issue of whether rights are something granted by the state or whether they are inherent in the human condition is a very basic issue in regards to ebooks and the internet in general. Your opinion seems to be that a right does not exist until the state recognizes it; mine is that a right exists until the state specifically limits it.

Exactly. The "philosophical issue" isn't relevant. From a legal perspective you are right. The government does not (and never has) grant rights. They only restrict them via laws. Everything is automatically a right unless the government says othewise. That's a fundamental premise in the way laws work. Unfortunately, there are people out there who believe otherwise and think that the government is in the business of telling them what they are allowed to do.

[bill_mchale]

Yeah it seems to me that some people wouldn't mind "Everything that isn't specifically forbidden is manditory and Everything that isn't specifically allowed is forbidden".

--
Bill