Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
Well, I could quote Proudhon and say that private property is theft. Which is representative of a current of thought that still has come purchase, even in liberal states who formulate redistributive inheritance laws or similar policies.
Which brings us full circle to the beginning of the copyright thread where we argued about copyright being a property right (which it isn't) or a social contract (which it is).
-
Well, I could quote Proudhon and say that private property is theft. Which is representative of a current of thought that still has come purchase, even in liberal states who formulate redistributive inheritance laws or similar policies.
Which brings us full circle to the beginning of the copyright thread where we argued about copyright being a property right (which it isn't) or a social contract (which it is).
-
sorry, mouse slipped
-
Well, I don't subscribe to that invitation, and frankly, I don't understand why you're getting upset by my comments.
Not by yours, by Mark's. You have every right to think and argue that copyright infringment is not theft, just as I do of thinking that to the extent that we might (note the subjuntive)be robbing somebody of a honest pay for honest work, that perhaps we should consider the idea of theft a little more broadly than the taking of physical things away.
-
Very well, then. Since society developed copyright law, let's devise a way of enforcing it that deals with the digital domain and be done with it.
As I explained earlier, we do do that -- and until the politics came down on the copyright amendment bill, we were doing it in a pretty good way. Copyright isn't an absolute property right -- it is subject to the public good.
There are even occasions when real, physical property is subject to the same obligations. Most of us thought it was a good thing for Telecom to be forced to surrender some control of its own network as part of telecommunications reform. Rodney Hide said it was theft. It kind of was.
I'll join the RIAA presently.
They're a bunch of pussies these days.
-
You can discuss the nature of theft if it rocks your socks. What I object to is the equating of copyright infringement with theft.
Yes, well done on arguing that point 15 times, that no one else particularly cares about.
I'll repeat, I don't think most people care if you call it theft, stealing, infringement, liberating or 'bagel'. Doesn't change what it is.
If you're going to get into big arguments about the language that people use, when its their language and they've stated their happy with it, you're not going to impress many people. Which surely is part of the point if you're trying to get laws changed.
And this is our forum as much as yours Mark, so no not 'tough'. Take a chill pill.
-
Which brings us full circle to the beginning of the copyright thread
Yes, I should have been more conscious of that. I'm jumping in on things that have been well and truly dicussed already - we'll maintain our philosophical differences on a couple of key points, but there's no great value in going another 25 rounds I guess.
-
Yes, well done on arguing that point 15 times, that no one else particularly cares about.
Er, I do. The distinction, and what it says about the origin of copyright, is actually central to the debate.
And this is our forum as much as yours Mark, so no not 'tough'. Take a chill pill.
Yes. I've pulled up Mark on this upthread.
But, really, what a bunch of geeks: coming near to blows over copyright!
-
But, really, what a bunch of geeks: coming near to blows over copyright
Fastest way to get ripped to shreds on the Internet: go on a science fiction newsgroup and state that the addition of the unicorn dream in Blade Runner's director's cut proves conclusively that Deckard is a replicant.
(The day it stops happening, it will mean Usenet is truly and finally dead.)
-
3410,
I'll repeat, I don't think most people care if you call it theft, stealing, infringement, liberating or 'bagel'. Doesn't change what it is.
I think it does matter. If you start producing and selling "Kyle's Lager", and I go around putting up billboards saying that "Kyle's Lager is a fatal poison", will you be happy in the knowledge that my comments on your product "[d]oesn't change what it is"?
The distinction is important because calling it "theft" necessarily implies that copyright infringment is a criminal act, and that copyright infringers are criminals, which is just factually untrue.
[The moral question (ie whether or not it's wrong) is entirely different, and one that I've not yet offered an opinion on (because that's a much harder one).]
-
3410,
But, really, what a bunch of geeks: coming near to blows over copyright!
Nearly coming to blows over the meaning of words , is what it is. You can't just decide that a word means what you want it to mean.
-
3410,
Fastest way to get ripped to shreds on the Internet: go on a science fiction newsgroup and state that the addition of the unicorn dream in Blade Runner's director's cut proves conclusively that Deckard is a replicant.
I can imagine. Luckily, that's one problem I'll never have. ;)
-
I doubt that RIAA and others have been promoting the word "theft" accidentally.
-
coming near to blows over copyright!
Like I say, pistols at dawn.. :)
-
Nearly coming to blows over the meaning of words, is what it is. You can't just decide that a word means what you want it to mean.
The quotation from Proudhon I offered above is a well formed English sentence, isn't it? And it's a statement of political philosophy you can agree with or otherwise. It's not wrong simply because it's not enshrined in our current legislation (although, as I say, to a certain extent I believe that it is). And insisting that we should understand theft exclusively according to the current legalistic definition is, well, just not going to work. Not just because you say so. If you're interested in reforming copyright you might want to accept a broader range of opinions that yours alone, and saying this or that is not up for discussion ain't going to cut it.
-
the addition of the unicorn dream in Blade Runner's director's cut proves conclusively that Deckard is a replicant
I may regret this, but... how is there any doubt?
-
I may regret this, but... how is there any doubt?
Heh! That's almost word for word what I wrote.
Like a pack of hungry wolves they descended upon me. It was horrible.
-
I doubt that RIAA and others have been promoting the word "theft" accidentally.
Precisely. By framing the argument in 'emotional' terms, they've managed to obscure the substance of the debate, which is about the nature of copyright in a world of non-scarcity.
The use of the term "intellectual property" seems to date from the 60's and the Chicago School of Economics, in which everything can be reduced to stuff that can be bought and sold. Nothing else has value, under this philosophy.
I'll be interested to see any use of the term "intellectual property" predating 1960, and the earliest common use appears to be around the establishment of WIPO in 1965. My view is that it's always been a deliberate attempt to obscure the nature of copyright in favour of large corporates.
-
any moral authority on this.
absolutely not.
I'm on record as saying I watch dexter before it screens.
Its commonplace and accepted as normal, I'm just questioning this aspect of it, in myself as well.
I know you understand the business model, and my intention wasn't to teach you it, but to attempt some degree of clarity with it.There is no other way of seeing them.
possibly, I can't really comment in general terms like that, some of them are available on dvd. some not.
dexter, but not season 3I don't have any moral high ground over you and I used the term we to make that clear and make this about society, not you or me. It is society that is accepting it more and more, me along with it. I do have issues of conscience over it and in a way enforcing the law removes the need to balance that.
perhaps if piracy was stemmed then media providers would pull finger to supply legitimately in the ways people want.
there have been some really good suggestions on how that might be implemented and I still love the idea of meeting the desire to share music in mixtape fashion with a license that allows that in a fair and not too costly way.
that those channels have not been implemented doesn't make it legal though.
-
I'll be interested to see any use of the term "intellectual property" predating 1960
Wow, this took almost an entire five seconds:
The earliest use of the term intellectual property appears to be in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." (1 Woodb. & M. 53, 3 West.L.J. 151, 7 F.Cas. 197, No. 3662, 2 Robb.Pat.Cas. 303, Merw.Pat.Inv. 414). The statement that "discoveries are...property" goes back earlier. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years."[6] In Europe, French author A. Nion mentioned propriété intellectuelle in his Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs, published in 1846.
The concept's origins can potentially be traced back further. Jewish law includes several considerations whose effects are similar to those of modern intellectual property laws, though the notion of intellectual creations as property does not seem to exist – notably the principle of Hasagat Ge'vul (unfair encroachment) was used to justify limited-term publisher (but not author) copyright in the 16th century.[7] The Talmud contains the prohibitions against certain mental crimes (further elaborated in the Shulchan Aruch), notably Geneivat da'at (גניבת דעת, literally "mind theft"), which some have interpreted[8] as prohibiting theft of ideas, though the doctrine is principally concerned with fraud and deception, not property.
From Wikipedia. I know, how do I do it? :-)
-
Dammit, I'd forgotton that one. Fair enough. But how often?
-
Oh for crying out loud...
-
3410,
Proudhon's use of the word is quite legitimate. The idea that "all property is theft" (whether you believe it or not) is specifically about the fact that an item being "property" denies others the use of said property, which is what theft does. Copyright infringement does not have this effect.
I think I'll leave it there. Please excuse my vehemence. It merely stems from my inabilty to understand why such fine and learned fellows as yourselves seem unable to see the points I'm making. ;)
-
I see the point you're making, to all intents and purposes I agree with it - I'm not about to suggest that we start persecuting downloaders as criminals. i just found the arguments about "victimless crime" and "nothing is being taken away" to be obfuscating some economical realities and not very helpful.
-
Er, I do. The distinction, and what it says about the origin of copyright, is actually central to the debate.
Well, I meant the three or four people he was arguing with.
I think it does matter. If you start producing and selling "Kyle's Lager", and I go around putting up billboards saying that "Kyle's Lager is a fatal poison", will you be happy in the knowledge that my comments on your product "[d]oesn't change what it is"?
I think your wee tale is sufficiently different (wildly) from theft/copyright infringement to not be very useful. Obviously there are instances where the label attached to something is important. I just don't think this is one of those cases.
I find the arguments about it (theft vs copyright infringement) turn me off getting involved in the debate, I'd much rather the debate was about the substance. I thought the original opinion piece in the Herald was pretty good overall, but not perfect, Mark ripped into it and called the author an idiot. If that's how you treat people that are arguing on your side, imperfectly as it may be, then I'd hate to see how you'd treat your enemies.
The distinction is important because calling it "theft" necessarily implies that copyright infringment is a criminal act, and that copyright infringers are criminals, which is just factually untrue.
OK. And I think that the millions of people around the world that do it in its various forms are all aware of what they're doing, and most don't care whether the people who put the messages at the beginning of DVDs call it theft.
(I think I've been around this circle about 3 times before so I won't bother again).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.