14 total posts
A bit unforgiving and hardline... but in general I agree
The mantras that get repeated ad nauseum amongst the digerati is that old media and traditional content providers "just don't get it" (or the even more obnoxious "they just need to get a new business model".... as if its just a switch you turn on or off). It's all so sanctimonious and glib.
One day these new media types passing judgement now will have their business model uprooted and they will have snarky 24 year olds telling them they "just don't get it".
Better stop this...
People are going to start talking about our agreements, lol.
I'm not necessarily cool with egregious financial penalties that sometimes get handed down...like $25K for each song/movie, or whatever. The punishment has to fit the crime. But even then, most of the time we're not talking about criminal penalties. It's all civil judgments. If I snag a DVD out of a box store, I'm not going to get just a fine. I'm going to potentially get jail time. This notion that because its bits and not packaging and that somehow makes it OK is flat out wrong.
It just irks me when I hear this attitude that downloaders will be downloaders, and what are ya gonna do?
So, I'm simply agreeing that these producers have the right to seek recourse. I would expect that a judge would see fit to make sure that such recourse is commensurate with the offense.
When someone says "I'm not condoning piracy.... BUT"
I have a hard time taking the justifications that follow that "but" seriously.
Its similar to the way many Southerners will say nasty and mean things about another person and then remove themselves from responsibility by tacking on a "bless her heart" at the end of the attack.
Disagree with you!
You are confusing theft with copyright infridgement. These are entirely different things. You can't take about theft when this is a infinately copiable item, as many times as someone walks in your door and takes it, you still have your original copy and have lost no property. It can not be seen as a property rights issue but rather a law to subidise artistic creation and invention.
Anyway, I'd say the main argument on BOL, is trying to stop piracy is a futile effort, like trying to stop the rain, so it should be seen as competition. And in any event there is no evidence it is harming or reducing sales of movies. Profits are up. So where exactly is the problem? Artists are not in harmless shelters, they are being rewarded. The purpose of copyright law is only that and no more.
Excuse a few autocorrect typos, typed on iPhone
"You are confusing theft with copyright infridgement." [sic]
Oh come on. That's an argument only a lawyer could make with a straight face.
Fancy legal parsing still doesn't excuse the practice of illegal downloads. The average person on the street knows this. The downloaders know it too (otherwise they wouldn't bother coming up with an endless string of excuses to justify their behavior (music sucks nowadays anyway so its not worth paying for, I support artists by going to live concerts, I use P2P just to sample music, I want to stick it to the RIAA, if music was reasonably priced I would buy more of it, etc).
Even the godfather of the <i>copyright-is-broken-movement</i> (Lawrence Lessig) understands that the answer is not to toss the baby out with the bathwater. The current copyright system may have issues but the problem isn't the concept of copyright.... that a creator deserves a certain amount of control over his or her work as an incentive for him or her to continue to create work. The problems mostly revolve around fair use. And nobody in their right mind can argue that downloading movie or music off of torrent sites is "fair use".
I'm not against copyright law
But I'm saying it's a red herring to talk about theft. This is just a system of government subsidisation by forcing people to pay for infinitely copiable things, to ensure that artists and inventors are rewarded for their work. For the purporse of encouraging the creation of works.
How this relates to the topic of this thread, is that piracy is a way over stated threat to this system of subsidisation. The government is over-reacting in the extreme with the provisions in ACTA, content companies are making absurd claims not backed by any evidence.
Content is plenty profitable at the moment, and artists and inventors are getting enough subsidisation. There is for the moment at least, no need for a panic over piracy.
Just because something is infinitely copiable
does not make it acceptable to do so. Just because a crime is easy to commit does not make it any less a crime.
ACTA is a horrible as is the way companies are using the the DMCA as a club to squash any consumer use whatsoever (even the fair ones). But in spite of these things, the problem is still not the concept of copyright. Its a lack of clear guidelines on fair use.
Yeah, I've never understood that cop out of an excuse
It's like "but they made it so easy to steal!". Please... It's absurd. Again, all of this is just rationalizing theft, plain and simple.
Calling it "subsidization" is inflammatory and misleading.
Copyright law is no more "subsidizing" intellectual property than laws against theft are "subsidizing" the ownership of physical things. Using such politically charged language is an attempt to dismiss the value of IP as if the government is doing these artists a favor by throwing them a bone. The fact that something is "infinitely copiable" is inconsequential. The value of IP is not in the physical bits... or the vinyl, or the paper or the celluloid. Its in the idea contained within those mediums. That's why the "but its not REAL property so its not stealing" is specious.
It's being honest and calling a spade a spade. The fact is it's not at all like theft. Copying a recipe is not the same as taking food off your plate! This image succintly says it all.
I'd infact say efforts to call it theft are just political propaganda by the content industry.
Do you have any concept of private property whatsoever?
You keep rationalizing this as OK because someone could copy it. OK, let's run with that.
So let's say I actually invent something --some product or service-- that will certainly improve lives in any number of ways. What if it was an actual gadget that legitimately quadruples gas mileage in any vehicle. Surely it could be "copied", so would you say that I have no rights to this invention and that anyone and everyone should be able to use it?
Yeah, I know...we're talking patents vs. copyrights. But the concept is identical...both are the outgrowth of the toil and creativity of the originators. In your world, it seems like any result of personal creativity automatically belongs to everyone.
Should Apple be forced to allow anyone to "copy" its iPad designs and internal construction? After all, it could easily be done by an entity with the proper resources.
I'm not getting that.
If someone chooses to give their product/service/works away, that's their preogative. But short of that, this notion that because someone can copy something and that makes it free to use is rather odd, to use a conservative word.
Throwing a bone
Is a great description of how copyright law works and it's purpose. Outlaw something that's a pretty natural human activity, sharing information, to encourage and reward creators. It's subidisation through regulation and law. I do not see there being any valid natural rights argument when it comes to IP.