Secret Copyright Law Reported

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

A digital copy is a thing, it is not music in the air or light from a movie or computer screen. If you have a copy of my IP without my permission, you are a thief. That's what I'm saying. You have deprived me of a sale, not a potential sale, an actual sale because you possess my property without my permission.

There is not a single thing in the above quote that even remotely approaches actual facts. A jaw-dropping, stunning level of utter unfactualness. A digital copy is a series of 1s and 0s stored as magnetic domains on a film deposited on a platter, or reflective and cloudy patches on an optical discs, or electrons in a block of Flash memory. It is not a "thing" that can be taken from you. It is not your "property." And it is not "depriving you of a sale." Anyone (and I'll be clear I'm not saying you personally here, don't want to make a personal attack) who believes that every download, or even beyond a low-single digits percentage of downloads represents a "lost sale" is a certifiable moron. Such morons would (and have, and do) make the same claim that everyone who reads a book from a library is a lost sale (and legal fights have been made to keep books out of libraries) or everyone who buys a used copy of a book is a lost sale (and legal fights have been made to keep people from reselling used books-- and used CDs, and used games, and used programs...)

Let's give a real world example-- at the very time I've been reading these messages, I've been downloading a set of books I've just found called The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Never heard of 'em before. Never will read them from cover to cover. But somehow, some day, I might need a factoid that I might find in one, so in my archives they go.

If I hadn't stumbled across those books on-line, would I have ever ever ever paid the $728.00 that a set of them costs on Amazon? Heck, no. That does not constitute a lost sale to anyone, anywhere, ever. And I would say that the same applies to (pulling a number from out of my rear) 99% of all downloads. If you are going to buy a copy, you are going to buy a copy. If you aren't gong to buy a copy-- and don't download it from the internet-- you are going to tape it from the radio, or from TV, or check it out from the library, or wait for a cheap used copy (all for the respective media to which they apply.) All of which still represent a null sale to the seller-- not a "lost sale," an absence of one.

A nice essay:

http://www.locusmag.com/Features/200...copyfight.html

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Saying "of course" has nothing to do with 'begging the question'

Products of my labors are inherently mine, it's my choice what to do with them.

Forget copyright law, I'm not talking about copyright law. The law is ephemeral and varies from place to place and time to time. It is now time for many of the outdated concepts in our current law to change in light of intellectual properties.

I'm talking about fundamental rights to my property and of other ethical moral beings doing what is right with regard to that.

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.

And the fundamental rights to "your" property end when you sell it. Then the only "rights" you may have thereafter are those granted by a law for a limited time, with other limitation built-in as part of that limited grant. And this grant was not created for your benefit, but for the long-term benefit of the society granting it. Your "moral" rights, as you phrase them end when you sell the property. Then they become the rights of the purchaser. Why? Because these are the fundamental rules of property since time immemorial.

[osnova]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Products of my labors are inherently mine, it's my choice what to do with them.

Yes, it's your choice what to do with them. But once you release these "products" (publish your novel, let people play or listen to your music, etc.), other people have it without depriving you of your product (this is unlike tangible objects). It's now their choice what to do with it.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Forget copyright law, I'm not talking about copyright law. The law is ephemeral and varies from place to place and time to time. It is now time for many of the outdated concepts in our current law to change in light of intellectual properties.

That's my point. Once the copyright law (a malum prohibitum restriction) is out of the picture, there is nothing morally wrong in my playing the music that I have heard, in drawing a picture that I've seen, in sharing a book's contents with a friend.

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.

We are back to where we've started. In our scenario, nobody takes anything from you that you have not willingly released to me or somebody else.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

There is not a single thing in the above quote that even remotely approaches actual facts. ...


Let's give a real world example-- at the very time I've been reading these messages, I've been downloading a set of books I've just found called The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Never heard of 'em before. Never will read them from cover to cover. But somehow, some day, I might need a factoid that I might find in one, so in my archives they go.

If I hadn't stumbled across those books on-line, would I have ever ever ever paid the $728.00 that a set of them costs on Amazon? Heck, no....

eXCUUUUUSE ME? No facts my ....

Okay so you are saying you are "legally" downloading a set of books - meaning that whomever's property it is has given permission for you to do that that. Let's assume that is the case (but certainly I don't know that for a fact, if you want to discuss facts).

I see by the second part of your conjecture that apparently this same set of books is available for purchase (regardless of price). That tends to make me think that perhaps you do not have permission to download the books for free, but never-the-less were going to assume that you do.

You are saying that you would never buy them for the offered price. That's fine, so no lost sale. Yet you are talking about needing/using information from the books so this leaves us with several possibilities.

If the permission to download the books for free was given then the author is not expecting a sale to you.

If permission was not given to download the books then you are a thief.

If permission were given to download the books for free yet you bought them for a large price then you are paying for your ignorance.

As far as borrowing books from the library and reading them. They get returned. The author and publisher was paid a fair price for the physical instantiation of the book. No issues there, no theft.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And the fundamental rights to "your" property end when you sell it. Then the only "rights" you may have thereafter are those granted by a law for a limited time, with other limitation built-in as part of that limited grant. And this grant was not created for your benefit, but for the long-term benefit of the society granting it. Your "moral" rights, as you phrase them end when you sell the property. Then they become the rights of the purchaser. Why? Because these are the fundamental rules of property since time immemorial.

Again Ralph, I agree completely, but as I said above what is confusing people is that instantiation of the IP that I sell. Because I sell you a single instantiation of my IP does not mean you get right to the IP itself. You only get right to that single physical instantiation. You can do whatever you want with the file, read it, back it up if you want, loan it to a friend, even sell it, but you can't ethically loan it and keep your own copy or sell it an keep your own copy -- those activities are not part of what you purchase when you purchase your copy of the IP from me.

This is the fundamental difference/misunderstanding that is causing all the contention.


If I had a Star Trek Replicator and I went out and bought a Zhu Zhu Hamster and started duplicating and selling them or giving them away, then you would say this is fine?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If I had a Star Trek Replicator and I went out and bought a Zhu Zhu Hamster and started duplicating and selling them or giving them away, then you would say this is fine?

Of course not! All those happy children!! It'd be evil!!!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by orwell2k

.....If customers feel they're getting screwed over by the current outrageous prices and ridiculously complex DRM schemes, one way of opposing is not buying. Another way is not buying and downloading via torrent. Ultimately, all revolutions begin with an illegal act, and the poor consumer has very little else he/she can do to fight the situation......

The civil rights movement in the USA is widely held to have started by black people choosing not to ride buses, not by any illegal act.

As you say, choosing not to buy DRM books would be one way of protesting and beginning a revolution against such schemes without committing any illegal act. Of course that would have the by product of the person choosing not to buy being without the book so it is little wonder that choice is rarely made.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

...

A nice essay:

http://www.locusmag.com/Features/200...copyfight.html

Yes, it is a nice essay. Doesn't say that much though as far as I see. I generally agree with what he is saying about culture being the reason copyright is needed. He throws in this concept or para-copyright which is just a fabrication. But then says:

"It's entirely possible that there's a detente to be reached between the copyists and the copyright holders: a set of rules that only try to encompass "culture" and not "industry." But the only way to bring copyists to the table is to stop insisting that all unauthorized copying is theft and a crime and wrong. People who know that copying is simple, good, and beneficial hear that and assume that you're either talking nonsense or that you're talking about someone else. "

which is just not totally true to me. (as you all well know by now, I consider copyright infringement theft). To this I say, there are many ways to get to Cincinnati. His approach is possibly one of them but he really gives no concrete ideas of how to reach that detente.

I think several thing have to happen. The primary one being that the laws need to recognize intellectual property as property, not something different, with all the privileges and rights as any other property. Understanding of what this property is, what it's products/instantiations are and modifications of the existing laws to accommodate it would be a good step.

The other big step is for both consumers and providers to understand this brave new world, to work with one-another and to respect one-another. Consumers must understand that an author (or any other intellectual property creator) lives only by getting paid for the fruits of his labors. Authors must understand that some consumers are thieves - they have always been there and will continue to be there. Prices and products must be set and produced in a way that the needs of all are accounted for otherwise (as Cory says) culture will lose. That is what is happening now.
If authors (and IP creators) cannot make a living by the fruits of their labors they will be forced to do it some other way and the result will be lost culture.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Of course not! All those happy children!! It'd be evil!!!

[osnova]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The civil rights movement in the USA is widely held to have started by black people choosing not to ride buses, not by any illegal act.

Not exactly correct. The 1955-56 Montgomery Bus Boycott started with an act of civil disobedience, an intentional violation of the then existing law. See the excerpt below:

"Thursday, December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was sitting in the front-most row for black people. When a Caucasian man boarded the bus, the bus driver, James F. Blake, told everyone in her row to move back to create a new row for the whites. While all of the other colored people in her row complied, Rosa refused, and was arrested for failing to obey the driver's seat assignments, as city ordinance did not explicitly mandate segregation, but did give the bus driver authority to assign seats.

When found guilty on December 5,[5] Parks was fined $10 plus a court cost of $4, but she appealed. The boycott was triggered by her arrest. As a result, Rosa Parks is considered one of the pioneers of the civil rights movement."

from Wikipedia

[kennyc]

BTW I just want to say I really appreciate all the civil discussion/contention. It definitely stimulates my thought on the matter.

Thanks All!

[osnova]

Originally Posted by kennyc

BTW I just want to say I really appreciate all the civil discussion/contention. It definitely stimulates my thought on the matter.
Thanks All!

I agree. This is great. In a democracy, we cannot allow the laws to be made by the few at the top and corporations without our participation and then mindlessly "comply" with the "laws" given to us by those in power.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by osnova

I agree. This is great. In a democracy, we cannot allow the laws to be made by the few at the top and corporations without our participation and then mindlessly "comply" with the "laws" given to us by those in power.

[vaughnmr]

So... Kennyc, I have a Kindle. There is a book I can buy, but I can't read it on the Kindle, because of the DRM. The only option I have available to me is to somehow remove the DRM, and now I can read the book. I paid for the rights to read the book, but now I'm a criminal. Can't you see the madness from all the DRM mess? Those people are more concerned with profit, and less concerned with the ability of end users to read the books they read.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

This is in a legal brief, both stealing and pirating are words that are used by a company that many around here claim are against copyright.

I don't believe anyone has ever said that Apple are against copyright.

I have stated that Apple are of the opinion that DRM can't work, and that Apple were opposed to adding DRM to music in the iTunes music store.