|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2006 : 15:55:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I see your point, Matt. But then, since international law recognizes intellectual property, I'd have to disagree that copyright infringement is not "theft of property or services" (though it would not be "theft of physical property...").
I would argue that 'intellectual property' is a completly seperate concept from simple 'property'. And that the word 'property' in "theft of property or services" does not refer to 'intellectual property'.
You could refer to 'theft of intellectual property' but as with muder being 'theft of life', I think it would be misleading to refer to it simply as 'theft'.
quote:
And given that some people consider artists to be providing services more than they supply products, I'd also have to disagree that copyright infringement is not "theft of property or services."
Artists do provide services of course. If you go to a concert you are receiving a service. They also provide products. If you get a CD at the record store you are receiving a product. In either of these cases not paying would qualify as theft. But copyright doesn't protect products or services from theft it restricts copying. It protects the artist's right to market their own products as they see fit. At least it's supposed to.
quote:
Of course, the political party Bunga brought to our notice is attempting to eliminate the very notion of "intellectual property," thus making the current theft not theft, but because I don't buy the "spread the culture" rationalization, and current copyright laws include exemptions for education and criticism (thus eliminating the concern that copyrights impede the spread of "knowledge"), the only reason I can see for getting rid of the notion that intellectual property is partially legally equivalent to physical property is so that consumers of intellectual properties can access them more cheaply.
Granted that is a separate argument and I'm certainly not in favor of the total elimination of copyrights. I do think that an honest debate about their value and role in a changing world is worthwhile though. |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 16:42:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt...
Originally posted by me...
sed -e s/theft/theft by piracy/g
There, that ought to keep everyone happy.
Sorry I don't know what you're trying to prove with this. Is it a definition?
Sorry. It's a sort of shorthand, a *nix computer command. It means everywhere I've used the term "theft", substitute the phrase "theft by piracy". For the sake of precision.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 18:41:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Sorry. It's a sort of shorthand, a *nix computer command. It means everywhere I've used the term "theft", substitute the phrase "theft by piracy". For the sake of precision.
Oh ok. Fair enough. I appreciate your clarification.
I'm still a bit concerned that the term 'theft' is unduly prejudicial in a debate about whether copyrights should be done away with or not. Bunga is advocating changing the law rather than breaking the law, so he is not actually supporting crime of any type.
I realize that you have issues with the moral aspects of scrapping copyright law. I do as well. But I'd hope Bunga would be allowed to make his case without being marginalized from the start. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 20:01:46 [Permalink]
|
I wonder if a set of fines for various types of copyright infringement would be workable for the net. Instead of having to take a copyright case to court, with all the expense and hassle that would entail, you would submit your case to the (hypothetical) International Internet Copyright Enforcment Agency with all the relevant info, including proof that the offending party has been informed of the infringement and continues to flaunt the (also hypothetical) International Internet Copyright Act, and a $100 fee.
An expert at the IICEA would briefly examine the evidence and come to a determination. If they ruled in your favor then the fee would be refunded and the offending party would be fined. If they ruled against you then you would lose your fee. Might this kind of system provide affordable protection to smaller players who can't afford a team of lawyers? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 21:07:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
If they ruled in your favor then the fee would be refunded and the offending party would be fined. If they ruled against you then you would lose your fee. Might this kind of system provide affordable protection to smaller players who can't afford a team of lawyers?
How would they enforce a fine? A judge here can not only levy fines against a found-guilty copyright infringer, but also have the guilty party thrown in jail for contempt if they don't abide by the judge's ruling. People will quickly realize that with this non-governmental body you're suggesting, the way to get out of paying the fines is simply to not pay the fines. And to make matters even less time-consuming, whether they were actually the infringing party or not, they should just confess immediately after being accused (and then not pay the fines). No fuss, no muss, and if they start getting to much bad publicity as "CopyDisks, Inc," they'll simply rebrand themselves as "DVDs4All, Ltd," just like they do now.
Plus, most of the infringement is going to be done by anonymous people identified only by IP addresses long vanished in the depths of web logs by the time the infringement comes to light.
On another note, Marketplace aired a story tonight about what the Chinese 20-somethings today think about capitalism and communism, etc. At one point, the journalist asks a woman about the song playing on her cellphone. She told him that it was "stolen off a web site" and followed that with a giggle and the explanation that she knows it's wrong, but "everyone here does it." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 21:30:03 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer wrote: Yes, I am assuming a capatalistic model. It is what most of the world's governments are based on. One that society is ingrained to follow. Why make velcro when laces work just as well?
Ahem, I have stated twice already in this discussion that while post-industrial nations have a capitalistic base, they ALL incorporate all kinds of socialistic modifications. Obviously laces didn't work just as well all by themselves.
Having enforced copyright laws does have drawbacks as well as benefits. No one can deny that.
Subjectmatter wrote: I apologize for the rambling nature of this post... I hope I got my arguments across.
I thought you made your points pretty well.
GeeMack wrote: Of course for this to be even remotely reasonable, the problem of compensation would have to be worked out first, then get rid of the copyright laws. And ultimately it would still be a copyright law, only the right to copy would become unlimited after the original compensation was provided and the creation released.
Oops, I seem to have not made myself clear. I didn't necessarily mean that the solution is for the artist to get one lump of socialistically doled-out compensation for a specific work, that is subsequently distributed for free. I didn't get the order wrong either. I think modes of compensation should slowly evolve as copyright laws are phased out, like any other cultural shift that occurs because of technology.
Take journalism. Newspapers have been having lower and lower profit margins for years. As a result, shareholders of many high quality papers have demanded that the paper is sold, and then when it is, good journalists are laid off and a quality paper becomes a rag. The community suffers from lack of good journalism as much as the journalists suffer from unemployment. And why is this happening? Because more and more people are reading news on the Internet or TV for free instead of buying newspapers. This is only going to get worse (probably much worse) before it gets better. But eventually, most the traditional venues that pay journalists to do journalism will be gone, and then there will be a noticeable shortage of good journalism everywhere. And that's when some new institution will evolve that will pay journalists to do journalism.
GeeMack also wrote: Or the social system, the government, realizes we have the ability to create and therefore demands we produce and hand over the results of our work for what they deem fair, or not (communism? slavery?).
Wow. Ten points for totally twisting what I said. I am not a slave and I do not live in a communist nation. However, ALL of my income is from social programs, and that is likely to be the case for most of my career as a fine artist. Currently I teach through a publicly-funded anti-truancy program. Formally I taught through a publicly funded program for artistically gifted but economically disadvantaged high school students. In the future I will apply for many grants and residencies that are publicly funded, and I will also enter my work into exhibitions at publicly funded institutions like libraries and university galleries. So obviously the government can help provide a decent and modest living for artists without making us into slaves. Sheesh!
Many people here keep using artists as examples, which I find pretty funny. Very few artists make money off their art. The ones that do makes money either off originals or high quality limited edition prints. They are in no danger if copyright laws are gone because they own the objects before they sell the objects. The rest of us make our money teaching, curating, doing restoration, or getting grants and residencies. Copyright laws do not help fine artists.
Copyright laws do help commercial artists. I would favor keeping copyright laws against – I forget the legal term – using the same or so similar a design of a successful company tha |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 21:38:55 [Permalink]
|
| I'm still interested in hearing the socialist solution, marfknox, as you actually mean it. For all creators of literary and artistic works. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 22:05:52 [Permalink]
|
I just caught up on the last few pages of this thread this evening- still same topics, so respond to a few pages back (excuse "lateness")...
JohnOAS
Thanks for the insightful comments... you make some excellent points, and it may very well be that adequate Internet security will evolve as you describe. I wasn't specific enough about what I meant in some ways (by "soon" I meant maybe 10 years plus-or-minus 5, the scope involved, and a few other details, but no matter.)
RE the "data mining" etc. you mentioned, that point could be worrisome. I don't especially care whether responsible authorities look over my internet activities (as is probably the case with many adults) yet I could easily envision how a "suspicious-looking" if not "incriminating-appearing" case could be built by overzealous, and maybe less-than-objective authorities who set out with a goal in mind to do just that as opposed to investigating without bias if given enough freely and innocuously chosen website "hits" by an innocent citizen. An atmosphere where everyone has to scrutinize every move they make on the Internet would be no good at all.
woolytod
RE Hopeless, now that I thought about it- you're right (well, "almost completely" right in a practical sense, anyway) and this presents a real ethical dilemma given human nature. The only possible exception is computer software (as in instruction code)... the theft of which could probably be very significantly curtailed- maybe never completely prevented, but made awful damn hard. This would be another advantage (which didn't occur to me earlier) to having the "Secure Internet" as I described it in a prior post. I'm going to diatribe this since I really like the idea.
Why I Think A Secure Internet Could Alleviate Software Piracy)
1. (Why Is This Possible For Software When It's Not For Music Or Pictures?)
Pictures, music, and instruction code are all just information we "experience". The first 2 are so simple they can be expressed as vectors or matrices, the third is slightly different but only in a practical sense (Turing's Theorem proves that actually, instruction code can be similarly expressed, too, but that's not being "practical" so I'll disregard it.) Protecting music and pictures is "hopeless" only in that the environment required to experience them is so minimal. Whereas paintings require only a light source, maybe your glasses, and a few feet to change reference angles... and music requires just a sound system... software including instruction code requires a suitable computing environment. Invoking different sequences of instruction code is analogous to maybe changing lighting and walking about a painting to experience different effects induced upon the light cones in the eyes, or toying with the equalizer controls of a stereo while playing music. We're simply experiencing information in all three cases. But the minor difference is crucial.
2. (How?)
Considering the direction Windows has evolved (and continues to evolve) towards keeping end user's hands off the "nuts and bolts" (and they're doing a pretty good job of it!)... with instruction code, once the internet and our hardware are fast and secure enough, decryption upon installation or in real-time upon memory loading- validated, authorized, and then enabled from over the internet each time a program is run by a registered user (whether by authorized by developer's servers or that of a centralized body)- could make pirating instruction code "maybe not impossible"... but far beyond the capabilities of most doing it now. One or two of several necessary decryption keys could be constructed upon user verification during handshaking based on unique hardware ID (embedded right into the chips upon manufacture), u |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 01/17/2006 23:22:51 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 22:25:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
How would they enforce a fine? A judge here can not only levy fines against a found-guilty copyright infringer, but also have the guilty party thrown in jail for contempt if they don't abide by the judge's ruling. People will quickly realize that with this non-governmental body you're suggesting, the way to get out of paying the fines is simply to not pay the fines. And to make matters even less time-consuming, whether they were actually the infringing party or not, they should just confess immediately after being accused (and then not pay the fines). No fuss, no muss, and if they start getting to much bad publicity as "CopyDisks, Inc," they'll simply rebrand themselves as "DVDs4All, Ltd," just like they do now.
Plus, most of the infringement is going to be done by anonymous people identified only by IP addresses long vanished in the depths of web logs by the time the infringement comes to light.
Perhaps there could be some sort of heirarchy of responsibility. If Joe Pirate posts copyrighted stuff on the Pirate forums then it would be pretty hard to hold Joe Pirate accountable so Pirate Forums would be held liable. If the Pirate Forums refused to pay then Pirate Web Hosting Co. would be held accountable and so on up the line all the way to some Fedral Government Internet Standards Agency.
The plaintif would need to show that she had notified or made a reasonable attempt to notify all the relevant parties of the claimed copyright infringment. If one level failed to address the complaint the responsibility would fall on the level above.
The idea is that the flurry of butt covering would make it difficult for pirates to operate successfully. Dunno though, maybe the cure would be worse than the disease.
quote:
On another note, Marketplace aired a story tonight about what the Chinese 20-somethings today think about capitalism and communism, etc. At one point, the journalist asks a woman about the song playing on her cellphone. She told him that it was "stolen off a web site" and followed that with a giggle and the explanation that she knows it's wrong, but "everyone here does it."
Yeah, the general attitude towards piracy is pretty laid back. The thing is that so many instances of copyright infringement are so trivial that they just aren't worth going after. Part of the problem is that the resouces needed to protect a copyright in the courts are so prohibitive. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 22:28:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
Wow. Ten points for totally twisting what I said.
Sorry, marfknox, if I wasn't clear. I had mentioned a socialist approach and a capitalist approach in the previous paragraph. My comment, "Or the social system, the government, realizes we have the ability to create and therefore demands we produce and hand over the results of our work for what they deem fair, or not (communism? slavery?)," was included along with Bungaism (theft by piracy) as a couple of options that I considered quite unreasonable. By "the social system" in that comment I meant "i.e the government", not socialist. I think you and I aren't as far away from the same place as it might seem.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 07:42:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Perhaps there could be some sort of heirarchy of responsibility. If Joe Pirate posts copyrighted stuff on the Pirate forums then it would be pretty hard to hold Joe Pirate accountable so Pirate Forums would be held liable. If the Pirate Forums refused to pay then Pirate Web Hosting Co. would be held accountable and so on up the line all the way to some Fedral Government Internet Standards Agency.
Might work, especially with last summer's court loss for Grokster, which claimed they're responsible for copyright infringement because their software is designed to help infringe copyrights.quote:
The plaintif would need to show that she had notified or made a reasonable attempt to notify all the relevant parties of the claimed copyright infringment. If one level failed to address the complaint the responsibility would fall on the level above.
That's sorta like the DMCA right now.quote:
quote:
On another note, Marketplace aired a story tonight about what the Chinese 20-somethings today think about capitalism and communism, etc. At one point, the journalist asks a woman about the song playing on her cellphone. She told him that it was "stolen off a web site" and followed that with a giggle and the explanation that she knows it's wrong, but "everyone here does it."
Yeah, the general attitude towards piracy is pretty laid back.
Well, actually, the thing I was trying to point out is that even a 20-something woman in China admits to stealing music. She didn't stumble over it or sound like she was trying to find a less-self-vilifying alternative word before saying it. No, the song playing on her cellphone was simply "stolen off a web site."quote:
The thing is that so many instances of copyright infringement are so trivial that they just aren't worth going after. Part of the problem is that the resouces needed to protect a copyright in the courts are so prohibitive.
Well, to start, you need to be able to tell a judge how much the infringement has cost you, at least to a first-order estimate. A single Chinese woman would cost a songwriter what, less than a nickel? A judge would, justifiably, laugh you out of court. That's why it's "big players" which are targeted for suits, of course, and millions of individuals get away with copyright infringement.
But, that's been the case for many years. Again, it's not the fact of piracy which is new, it's the scale at which it's being done. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 10:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's sorta like the DMCA right now.
I hadn't thought of that. Maybe the DMCA could serve as a starting point.
quote:
Well, actually, the thing I was trying to point out is that even a 20-something woman in China admits to stealing music. She didn't stumble over it or sound like she was trying to find a less-self-vilifying alternative word before saying it. No, the song playing on her cellphone was simply "stolen off a web site."
Oh, right, of course. I misunderstood. The important thing to me is not really the specific word used but the blurring the line between theft and piracy that occurs apparently for the purpose of drawing a moral equivalece between the two. Since she said "stolen off a web site" and since the item in question is a 'ring tone', it's clear from the context that she is referring to piracy and not a typical theft.
The fact is that words can be used in more than one sense, and can be modified by other words to mean something else. Do you think that this same woman would be just as likely to steal a physical CD (assuming she had a opportunity to do so and get away with it)? Further if she did steal a CD do you think she would be as ready to offhandedly confess? To me this indicates that there is a moral difference between 'stealing off the web' and 'common stealing' in the mind of this woman.
quote:
Well, to start, you need to be able to tell a judge how much the infringement has cost you, at least to a first-order estimate. A single Chinese woman would cost a songwriter what, less than a nickel? A judge would, justifiably, laugh you out of court. That's why it's "big players" which are targeted for suits, of course, and millions of individuals get away with copyright infringement.
True, even a system of fines would not be cost effective in addressing extremely minor infringements. There is a middle ground between between small change and millions of dollars though. A system of fines would attempt to address this "middle ground".
quote:
But, that's been the case for many years. Again, it's not the fact of piracy which is new, it's the scale at which it's being done.
I agree that the problem in itself is not new. I think that the scale of the problem, in itself, makes it a fundamentally different problem from what we've dealt with in the past. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 10:49:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Why I Think A Secure Internet Could Alleviate Software Piracy)
I read your bit on this and I agree that techinically it should work. I'm not sure though that I want a secure internet if it's going to be secured by Microsoft (or any private company).
What mechanisms could be put in place to prevent the host of abuses and unfair business practices that might arise from this?
For example, Microsoft might make it impossible to run software on Windows that has not been submitted for encryption according to their own privately held specifications with the justification of preventing piracy, but in reality they could just as easily use this to snuff their competition. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 23:50:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I read your bit on this and I agree that techinically it should work. I'm not sure though that I want a secure internet if it's going to be secured by Microsoft (or any private company)....
You know Matt, your point about Microsoft's degree of control is valid... even right now to a lesser extent. But (unfortunately?) it looks like we're stuck with them. RE last night's rant, I meant that maybe a governing body would set the standards as determined by research groups, and thereafter Microsoft, Intel, etc. would incorporate them into their products- so Microsoft wouldn't have control over that aspect. But they could engage in the kind of tactic you describe (among other things) even now, without having such an encryption-based security system in place, given their position of market domination. I thought more about it today, and although doable in some variation with standards determined best and thereafter established by IEEE, maybe, I think it would take at least 5 years from design to readiness even if research immediately commenced, a few years for Microsoft to integrate the software, possibly up to 12 before all internet hardware was "up to the task" in a practical consumer sense, and as JohnOAS suggested, security might naturally evolve in that direction driven by market demands given time anyway. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2006 : 08:01:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
The problem is one of making distinctions between crimes of different types. All crimes can be classified as 'theft' in the sense you are using the term.
Which is irrelevant,
It's relevant to our ability to communicate. The word 'theft' without a qualifier does not mean murder or arson or kidnapping it means 'theft of property or service'. You might call a murderer a 'thief of life' but you would never call him a 'thief' without specifing 'of life' and it would be misleading if you did.quote:
...since what Bunga has proposed is that taking someone's work without compensation is not theft of any sort.
That's merely because language is flexible. If I were to say that speeding is not theft of any sort would you feel that I was being misleading? Would you respond that speeding is theft of society's right to be free of speeders?
That would be endangerment. Not theft. If you said that speeding wasn't theft of any sort would be accurate. It is still illegal as unnecessary endangerment.
quote:
quote:
So yes, arson is "theft by fire"; murder is "theft of life"; extortion is "theft by coercion" and public urination is "theft of public cleanliness." It doesn't matter that we have multiple words for different kinds of theft when the issue at hand is whether or not "copyright infringement" is ethically defensible as not theft in any way.
Well if we're going to use theft to describe all crimes then we better start being very careful not to merely say 'theft' when what we mean is 'theft of property or services', otherwise we're gonna have a hard time understanding each other. So to rephrase what Bunga said, taking someone's work without compensation is not theft of property or services. It would however constitute theft of rights granted under copyright law.
In this case theft of intellectual property for profit. Intellectual property (art) is commonly thought of as the product of the sweat of one's brow. Art is, therefore, the product of a service. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
