Principia Discordia

Uh, is I.P. Freely here? Hey, everybody, I.P. Freely!
Wait a minute...  Listen to me you lousy bum. When I get a hold of you, you're dead. I swear I'm gonna slice your heart in half!
                                  /
(http://www.gedegutten.dk/hosted/gol-sor/thomas/simpsons/tavern.gif)

Today's topic is Intellectual Property. I've been reading Ourspace by Christine Harold, and she makes some very good points about IP which I'd like to share.

Here's the basic problem: Current Copyright law is putting a serious cramp in public culture.
Here's the underlying problem: Ideas being treated like property
Here's the compromise: the creative commons and collaborative works like Intermittens

We are in a period of artistic expression characterized by re-appropriation. We live in the Empire of Signs and Signals, a culture permeated by branding and logos. Even mundane objects have identity wrapped up in them. (As I write this, I am sipping coffee out of a ceramic mug which advertises "a greener future" - choosing ceramic over paper cups isn't just a choice about the environment, it's a choice about your identity) Hip-hop relies on samples. Film and literature is made richer by referencing other cultural works. Culture Jammers are vandalizing billboards in the name of self-expression, stealing the power of the corporate imagery to strike at its own source. Hell most of the films opening this summer are reconceputalizations of old ideas. Expression and reappropriation go hand in hand these days.

And that's something that's supposed to be protected by free speech. We private citizens have the right to comment on and satirize anything we want. It's inherent to the system. This type of expression is necessary for our freedom. An artist named Dwyer, commenting on consumer culture, created this piece of art:

(http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/junk/consumer-whore-logo.gif)

this is a reappropriation of the starbucks logo... This is an obvious piece of political commentary which is protected under "Fair Use" - which explicitly protects "criticism" and "comment". These are the tools through which we, as a public, are able to exert some control over the public sphere. Starbucks felt otherwise. They sued his ass sued for trademark and copyright infringement, unfair competition (??), and trademark dilution via tarnishment. This last one stuck, and will appear again, so keep your eyes peeled for it in the coming years. This is a relatively new regulation, put in place to keep corporations from having their brands watered down by other similar brands. You can't produce a line of shoes with a backwards nike swoosh, you know? But Dwyer wasn't releasing a competing brand, he was commenting on the consumer culture that starbucks propagates. But Starbucks won the case, and had Dwyer's artistic expressions pulled from the public.

This, if you ask me, is criminal. It's unconstitutional.

It's also kind of ironic, because Branding strategies inherently surrender a level of control to the public. Marketers create brands and symbols, then disseminate them freely, hoping that people integrate them into their lives. Think about that nike swoosh - the phrase "Just Do It" is a great slogan because it could mean anything to anyone. It's interpretation is personal. Likewise the "Got Milk" campaign has had great success because people can reappropriate it for anything. Marketers know that their output is going to be discussed, dissected, reassembled, talked about on the news, re contextualized by the public. In fact, they count on it. But when someone makes a comment that the corporation doesn't like, it should be protected too. Corporations shouldn't be able to just silence legitimate parody or dissent. But they have better lawyers than the artists and private citizens they're suing.

Pirates and re appropriation artists challenge the hoarding of information by recommunicating it to the public. They do not feel that the rights to certain forms of expression should be kept prisoner by private corporations. They're acting as a kind of intellectual robin hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the public.

Here's a great example of what's wrong right now: The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extention Act was the eleventh time copyright has been extended since 1960. Disney's lawyers want exclusive control of Mickey Mouse, an image which is so ingrained in our culture that he's run for president.  :p All of us grew up with Mickey Mouse. Many of us have childhood memories of shaking his hand at Disney World, our families posing for a cheesy portrait wearing those stupid mouse ears. But unlike other elements of your childhood, you can't put Mickey in art. You can't write a book or movie about going to Disney World. You can't paint a portrait of Mickey Mouse. Not without Disney's permission.
It didn't always use to be like this.

Originally, Copyright was intended to inspire creativity by insuring the livelihood of artists and writers. The founding fathers of the US protected works of art under copyright for 14 years. The intent (argued by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard IP professor who participated in the above Dwyer case) was to block off that particular expression so that other artists wouldn't just keep releasing the same works over and over again. The original phrasing was that copyright should secure "for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." All the current discourse is niggling about that word "limited". We've gone from 14 years to 70 years beyond the life of the author, 95 years in the case of a corporation as copyright holder.

Siva Vaidhyanathan of NYU says, "Copyright law rewards works already created and limits works yet to be created, which is precisely what copyright was supposed to avoid. Copyright rewards the established at the expense of the emerging."

Lessig (who is the father of Creative Commons, btw) insists that "always and everywhere, free resources have been crucial to innovation and creativity; ...without them, creativity is crippled." Here, he's talking about the Commons, the body of cultural material we can draw on to express ourselves. He summarizes the case against our copyright culture here:

Quote1. Creativity and innovation always build on the past.
2. the past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it
3. Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past
4. Ours is less and less a free society

In Ourspace, Harold argues that the pirates, who seek to liberate information from those who would control it, ultimately reinforce the real problem, which is the notion of ideas as property.

She thinks that the real avenue for change, the real answer to this problem, is not piracy, but the exploration of collaborative works. The Creative Commons, Open Source Software, Intermittens Magazine -- these are examples of expressions by groups of people. None of them are territorially controlling their ideas and prohibiting them from being used by others. Collaboration under the creative commons (ie copyleft) creates cultural works which others can enjoy freely - not just in the ways Disney wants you to.

Nicely written, and I agree with most of the points youre making.

Is this a partial summary of Ourspace, or is this an idea/viewpoint of yours that you illustrate by referencing Ourspace? I haven't read it, so I also like reading a but of a summary about what's discussed in the book.

Is it my viewpoint or Harold's viewpoint? A very interesting question concerning the nature of the topic!  :lulz:

I have reappropriated many of Christine Harold's points and citations. This post covers two or three chapters worth of really dense text, so I may not be doing it justice. I agree with much of it. I would say it's partially mine, partially hers?

We've discussed this in IRC before, Cram.

I like the notion of IP, but I think it's gone out of control.

The biggest problem with Creative Commons is you can't live off of it. You can sell it, but who will buy? It's a great idea, to be sure, but not all of us can use it.

I think, personally, something between trademark and patent law for copyright would be good. Say, a short period of copyright "inactivity" where nothing new is being done with the copyrighted work leads to public domaining it, but it can only be extended to (imo) 15-20 years, maximum. How does that sound?

Quote from: Erin Gardien on June 16, 2009, 04:06:32 PM
The biggest problem with Creative Commons is you can't live off of it. You can sell it, but who will buy? It's a great idea, to be sure, but not all of us can use it.

:? all of us can use it

many of us participate in this Intermittens thing. Who will buy it? that's unrelated to the value of the expression.

your comment is more about the inaccessability of the mass market - we as civillians don't have access to the marketing tools that corporations do. This isn't a problem with the creative commons itself.

QuoteI think, personally, something between trademark and patent law for copyright would be good. Say, a short period of copyright "inactivity" where nothing new is being done with the copyrighted work leads to public domaining it, but it can only be extended to (imo) 15-20 years, maximum. How does that sound?

I have to wonder what it'd be like if we went back to the original 14-year copyright. I tend to think we'd be hearing a lot more remixes on the radio, retelling of old stories, etc etc. People would be re-selling the Beatles albums left and right.  The emerging problem is just what you described - people with access to professional marketing and sales will make mad profit by reselling existing works. We private citizens won't become rich by repackaging Abbey Road.

But I think this is again underscoring the basic problematic premise of

       expression = geting paaaaaid




that's the nature of the beast though, I guess

I like the idea of getting paid to express myself. It's one of the big reasons I want to devote myself full-time to game development: because I can LIVE off of that. It won't just be something I shove to the side in favor of a house and some food.

I like the idea of ENJOYING what I get paid for, or better yet, getting paid to do something not just enjoyable, but -fulfilling-. That's why I chose game development, why I like architecture and film (and want to learn/do both at some point), why I'm writing a story for a freeware game studio. I want to do stuff that makes me, as a person, feel like I did something fulfilling... without forcing me to give up basic necessities. That's why I don't think of art -> payment as a problem.

Don't get me wrong - getting paid for your artistic endeavors is great! Profit is one of the primary reasons people create art. I just don't think profit should be the primary factor in copyright law. It is, but only because the people who are pursuing copyright litigation are doing so for their company's bottom line.

put briefly: Creative expression is protected under the constitution, and our rights to express ourselves are being whittled away because of the strong relationship between ideas and profit.

Okay, I prefer it put that way.

Very very nice Cram, and very informative.

I think I'm gonna start operating under the 14 year copyright myself. My previous problem with violating copyright has been moral obligation to those who create works I enjoy. Now that I start to think of it in more the context of your above article, I don't feel poorly about it. People shouldn't be penalized for creativity. On the other side of the coin, people who are creative (and almost everyone has some sort of artistic creativity) shouldn't be allowed to become mired in their past works, thus stunting their creativity. This is for their benefit, and everyone's.

I still very much believe in attribution aspects of copyright though, yet another moral obligation on my part.

Also: May I have permission to share this elsewhere?

The current copyright in not 95 years, it is forever, they already retroactively expanded it twice, its just a gimmick to avoid getting smacked down by the courts.

Quote from: Erin Garden on June 16, 2009, 04:06:32 PM
I think, personally, something between trademark and patent law for copyright would be good. Say, a short period of copyright "inactivity" where nothing new is being done with the copyrighted work leads to public domaining it, but it can only be extended to (imo) 15-20 years, maximum. How does that sound?

This is pretty close to the pre-Mickey Mouse law.  It used to be that you got 26 years as long as you declared copyright (something I wish we could go back to, though now that its changed to everything is copyright the logistics of reversing it would be insane), if you wanted, after 28 years was up you could extend it for another 28.

86% of all works in the library of congress were never extended, which is  a measure of just how much culture we've lost in order to protect the mouse and a handful of other still profitable works.

I actually use viral licenses on my stuff :P. It's about as assholish as what Disney is doing, but in the opposite direction. There are enough viral licenses out there (between the GPL/LGPL for code, the creative commons BY/SA for other things, etc) that you can probably apply a viral license to any creative work. On the one hand, it means that advancement is somewhat limited because for-profit companies will be afraid of the changes to the way they determine profits and do business if they fund derivative works of something like this (and likewise, how much the media can actually propogate into their other IP and contaminate it) -- this is already one of the biggest reasons that a lot of for-profit businesses avoid open source software or make absurdly complex special licenses that serve as a buffer (Microsoft and SUN both have their own open source licenses, which although ostensibly compatible with the GPL will legally serve as a buffer such that the GPL cannot infect their code). On the flipside, it means that if a work like that *does* become popular (a minor example, I suppose, is Cory Doctorow's various novels, and a better though less familiar example is the open source community, which has more or less culturally bifurcated from the entire rest of the computing industry) the virally licensed work can spread much faster, spreading the license with it.

Take for example the novella a friend and I are working on. It happens to be licensed under the Creative Commons ShareAlike/Attribution license. If and when we release it, we may or may not end up having an audience of fans. Let's say, optimistically, that it becomes a cult classic: all the fans are legally allowed to make derivative works without asking us, as long as they license it the same way. This means that fanfictions, comic adaptations, etc are all fair game. Crossovers may pop up, and as such leak the licensing potentially into other franchises (at least in the fan community, where all fanwork is already technically illegal the same way that jaywalking and making mix tapes are). Studios by and large will avoid making a film version, because if one is made all the footage, trailers, etc. cannot be controlled for optimal bottomline status -- in fact, they couldn't even have that FBI warning on the DVD, and they would be legally barred from preventing people from recording camrips in the theatre. They could not regulate filesharing, nor could they even prevent other studios from making an adaptation of the same film or prevent people from reselling the DVDs. This doesn't mean they won't make any money at all, it just means that their normal business model would fail to work.

At the point at which there is a saturation of this kind of product around, with viral licensing, the industry would have had to change itself totally to deal with the very different situation. That is my goal.

hmmmmm awesome idea. I will attach SA to my CC licenses from now on.

I still don't understand how "protecting property rights" = "cramping culture".

After all, it's not like being able to rip off Kipling is going to add to our cultural achievements.

I think the point is that if/when copyright law becomes more than a basic agreement between the government and its citizens that creative work has value and that the creator has the right to protect and pursue that value, we run into bullshit like the Dwyer vs. Starbucks case. Or something like that. I know I'd be pretty upset if I got sued for making a mockery of some company's logo.

Quote from: Cainad on September 11, 2009, 07:02:09 PM
I think the point is that if/when copyright law becomes more than a basic agreement between the government and its citizens that creative work has value and that the creator has the right to protect and pursue that value, we run into bullshit like the Dwyer vs. Starbucks case. Or something like that. I know I'd be pretty upset if I got sued for making a mockery of some company's logo.

The law already provides for mockery and parody.  The judge that allowed that to go to trial should have been shoved off his bench.

If you wish to see the glorious economy that you get with no copyright and/or patent law, just take a good, long look at Bulgaria.

The point is that its *not* property.  Its a contract wherein the government grants you special rights in exchange for you creating more of something (new inventions, new books, whatever).  The result of copyright being treated as property is that 99% of the works of the 20th century are completely inaccessible to anyone without academic credentials (or a great deal of money).  Only the original copies exist because the profit motive is gone, (its a fading tail, usually you make the most money right after release, and revenue drops as time goes on).

It used to be copyright was short, 14 years, and another 14 if you wanted it.  This is enough for most people because most works aren't worth anything 28 years later, (back when it was still 28+28, 86% of registered works were not considered valuable enough to pay a 25 dollar renewal fee after 28 years) but a corporation has a *lot* of works, and some small number are worth big money forever.  So corporations introduced  the idea of copyright and patents as property, damaging the entire system for the sake of the 1% thats still profitable to print.

The early disco and hip-hop scenes were almost built entirely on ignoring IP legislation and extensive use of sampling and remixes.  Depending on your opinions of those two genres, I realise that may not be exactly an argument in favour of if it.

Outside of the arts, I think there is more solid ground though.  Pharmaceuticals in particular.  I know that isn't what you were asking about, but copyright laws there mean you have third world nations paying through the nose for, say, AIDS treatments, despite the fact they can make their own generics for a fraction of the cost.  Doctors have broken the law in the past in order to get past these restrictions, but it would be a lot more humane if GlaxoSmithKline and the rest were done for profiteering off human misery, and the laws in those areas repealed.

Quote from: Cain on September 11, 2009, 10:37:58 PM
The early disco and hip-hop scenes were almost built entirely on ignoring IP legislation and extensive use of sampling and remixes.  Depending on your opinions of those two genres, I realise that may not be exactly an argument in favour of if it.

Outside of the arts, I think there is more solid ground though.  Pharmaceuticals in particular.  I know that isn't what you were asking about, but copyright laws there mean you have third world nations paying through the nose for, say, AIDS treatments, despite the fact they can make their own generics for a fraction of the cost.  Doctors have broken the law in the past in order to get past these restrictions, but it would be a lot more humane if GlaxoSmithKline and the rest were done for profiteering off human misery, and the laws in those areas repealed.

Interesting.  Would you then support the notion of the government taking someone's house, if that house could benefit other people more?

Leading question.  Sorry, not willing to play a rigged game.

Quote from: Cain on September 11, 2009, 10:55:09 PM
Leading question.  Sorry, not willing to play a rigged game.

It wasn't intended that way.  To me, property is a matter of principle.  If I develop something using company resources, on the clock, my invention belongs to the company, as that is what I am paid to do.

If, however, I create something using my resources, on my own time, then that belongs to ME.  It matters not if that is a house, an invention, or a piece of writing.  The form of the property is irrelevant.

And how is that any different from libertarianism?  Property is not an absolute.  Patents create monopolies which distort markets.  If that monopoly is abused, then the government has the right to step in and rectify that.  People dying because of monopoly pricing on drugs that can be produced more cheaply, and where there is a real need, is an abuse, in my book.

Quote from: Cain on September 11, 2009, 11:03:14 PM
And how is that any different from libertarianism?  Property is not an absolute.  Patents create monopolies which distort markets.  If that monopoly is abused, then the government has the right to step in and rectify that.  People dying because of monopoly pricing on drugs that can be produced more cheaply, and where there is a real need, is an abuse, in my book.

Yeah, I realize this kinda sounds like the LP tards, but consider:  If there is no profit motive in research of drugs, if another source is permitted to then manufacture that drug without the capital investment of the research.  Given that, why engage in new research?

I am not fundamentally opposed to reform of patent laws...for example, drugs should go generic in X years, where X is a function of the cost of research as described on the companies quarterly profit and loss statements (the only way they can game that is by undervaluing their stock, which gets the CEO and board fired).  Exactly what that function is, is up for debate.

However, simply stating that intellectual property is automatically up for grabs is both morally and fiscally unsound (Bulgaria comes to mind). 

Yes, I can see that.  I don't think it should be a free for all.  There have been arguments for restructuring the relationship between the companies, patenting offices and distributors where there will still be a net benefit to those companies...but maybe not quite as much.  I'd need my notes to check the exact nature of those proposals, but they are plausible, and do away with the problems of generics while ensuring incentives and funds for further research.  Equally, there have been moves, through the UN and WTO, for countries to be exempted from patents for certain drugs, for certain diseases, where they are a pandemic...but the costs in proving this and being processed are so prohibitively high, and so easily failed on technicalities, that few countries ever get accepted for them.

I think the patent regime should be weakened and adjusted, not done away with.  Exemptions and loopholes should be put in place for circumstances such as this.  If we accept that healthcare, is basically, not a market good, then it makes little sense to subject it to the visscitudes of the market at its most manipulative and brutal.  I don't want a free for all, but I do want something that is essentially fair, in that the outcomes are not thousands of dead Indians and Africans, because they couldn't stump up enough cash to make Roche's shares go up an extra 0.1%.

Most serious intellectual property activists tend to agree with this view, in whatever respective field interests them most (music, drugs, software etc).  Only a very vocal, idiotic minority want the entire thing done away with, and to create a free for all.  Unfortunately, because they are a vocal minority, with a simple message, they get much more exposure than, say, Lawrence Lessig or Matt Mason, who get positively wonkish and legalistic in their more moderate approach.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 11, 2009, 10:44:55 PM

Quote from: Cain on September 11, 2009, 10:37:58 PM
The early disco and hip-hop scenes were almost built entirely on ignoring IP legislation and extensive use of sampling and remixes.  Depending on your opinions of those two genres, I realise that may not be exactly an argument in favour of if it.

Outside of the arts, I think there is more solid ground though.  Pharmaceuticals in particular.  I know that isn't what you were asking about, but copyright laws there mean you have third world nations paying through the nose for, say, AIDS treatments, despite the fact they can make their own generics for a fraction of the cost.  Doctors have broken the law in the past in order to get past these restrictions, but it would be a lot more humane if GlaxoSmithKline and the rest were done for profiteering off human misery, and the laws in those areas repealed.

Interesting.  Would you then support the notion of the government taking someone's house, if that house could benefit other people more?

By quoting TGRR and Cain, I have broken the law. This is the problem with treating intellectual property as property.

However, like most other things, if it isn't enforced it doesn't matter. You are probably not going to sue me for quoting you. The courts would probably throw it out if you tried. You, likewise, probably wouldn't sue a friend if they showed up at your doorstep unannounced and asked if they could crash at your place for a few nights. The distinction becomes more clear, however, when you compare somebody photocopying a passage from a book with somebody showing up and living in your house while you are on vacation.

And this is where some spag will mention fair use. But, fair use is like having the case thrown out of court for suing the friend who wants to crash at your place for a few nights. It factors out the most frivilous of suits AS LONG AS THE LAWERS AREN"T GOOD. Also, as long as there aren't bribes being thrown around.

It makes the most sense (to me) to view IP in most forms as a license to sue. Take whatever the inverse is of the terms of the license (and in the case of something without a license, such as something that is patented or something without a license agreement attached -- this includes a lot of books and a lot of music -- this can be whatever the hell you feel like saying it is, within reason) and if the people using it do that, you get to sue them and (unless the terms are COMPLETELY ass-tarded) win.

Quote from: Cain on September 11, 2009, 11:20:26 PM
Yes, I can see that.  I don't think it should be a free for all.  There have been arguments for restructuring the relationship between the companies, patenting offices and distributors where there will still be a net benefit to those companies...but maybe not quite as much.  I'd need my notes to check the exact nature of those proposals, but they are plausible, and do away with the problems of generics while ensuring incentives and funds for further research.  Equally, there have been moves, through the UN and WTO, for countries to be exempted from patents for certain drugs, for certain diseases, where they are a pandemic...but the costs in proving this and being processed are so prohibitively high, and so easily failed on technicalities, that few countries ever get accepted for them.

I think the patent regime should be weakened and adjusted, not done away with.  Exemptions and loopholes should be put in place for circumstances such as this.  If we accept that healthcare, is basically, not a market good, then it makes little sense to subject it to the visscitudes of the market at its most manipulative and brutal.  I don't want a free for all, but I do want something that is essentially fair, in that the outcomes are not thousands of dead Indians and Africans, because they couldn't stump up enough cash to make Roche's shares go up an extra 0.1%.

Most serious intellectual property activists tend to agree with this view, in whatever respective field interests them most (music, drugs, software etc).  Only a very vocal, idiotic minority want the entire thing done away with, and to create a free for all.  Unfortunately, because they are a vocal minority, with a simple message, they get much more exposure than, say, Lawrence Lessig or Matt Mason, who get positively wonkish and legalistic in their more moderate approach.

One exception for me is copyright.  If you make your living writing or publishing, for example, there is no "greater good" argument that applies, and thus property should be invoilate, for as long as you renew the copyright.

Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 11, 2009, 11:21:32 PM
By quoting TGRR and Cain, I have broken the law. This is the problem with treating intellectual property as property.

No, you haven't.  You have not caused measurable loss, nor profited from, the quotation, and a debate is not copyrighted.  Now, if you were to take Cain's rants and publish them without his permission, you would be in violation of copyright.

ETA:  Scratch that.  The act of responding to you has constipated me.  You will hear from my lawyers.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 11, 2009, 11:23:46 PMOne exception for me is copyright.  If you make your living writing or publishing, for example, there is no "greater good" argument that applies, and thus property should be invoilate, for as long as you renew the copyright.

I'm a lot less worried about artistic copyright than I am about pharmaceuticals.  While I think there are some dodgy things going on in the music industry (namely conflating artistic copyright with attempts to control distribution methods) and some of the punishments dealed out are punitive, they quite frankly pale into comparison with the sort of patents I am worried about. 

Fortunately, I think the internet is dealing with a lot of the problems in the music and publishing industry, too.  Whereas before, if you wanted to retain exclusive rights to your work, your options were highly limited (vanity presses, home recording of your music etc) now there are effectively free distribution models in the internet, which can be used for artists to make a living if they choose to do so.  As a musician, I could see the value in uploading my album for free on the Pirate Bay, pimping the hell out of it, and getting the money in through merchandise and gigs.  Equally, more than a few writers have gotten paid gigs through putting out free work online, be it for books or punditry.  So I think there are alternatives there which are helping mitigate the problems that do exist.

You don't actually *need* to cause a loss, at least if the work is registered (any infringement of a registered work is 750 dollars, minimum, under federal statute, even if you gave the 'victim' a profit in the process).  An implementation problem with the current law (which was written back when 'piracy' meant selling bootleg movies at half price).

I'd actually be willing to support an indefinite copyright with renewal as a compromise reform (outside of constitutional issues), since that still lets almost all works that are no longer profitable fall into the public domain.

As for the idea that pharma needs profit to encourage R&D, the federal government spent 27 billion in 2003 on biomed research.  In 2005 pharma spent 18 billion on R&D.  So the research is hardly all profit motive.  (though we wouldn't have viagra with just public research  :fap:)

Apparently I have a really American centric view of copyright, the Berne model (copyright as property) is from 19th century France.

Amendment to what I said earlier.  I apparently have a very American centric view of copyright history.  Copyright as property starts in the early 19th century in France, the rest of Europe adopted the French model in 1880.  It's only the US that kept the old model till the mid 20th.

Quote from: Cain on September 12, 2009, 12:17:52 AM
I'm a lot less worried about artistic copyright than I am about pharmaceuticals. 

Well, yes.  I can agree with that.  Although I see the point the libertariantards make, I am not so foolish as to be an absolutist about it.

That does tend to be their failing, a foolish consistency and all that.

In fact, there is probably a good argument that this is the problem with a lot of people and ideologies.  Apparently, according to some articles I was reading, the human need for consistency is so powerful that it can override critical thinking skills, memory and even, in some cases, self-preservation.

I have nothing against copyright, I just wish the period was shorter. Nearly 50 years of published works out there that are completely inaccessable due to Disney. Internet archive is working to save the earlier stuff.

There are times when I need a journal article from the 1930s, it hasn't been sold since then, its barely been accessed since then, and I just can't find it anywhere, not even online due to copyright.

Kinda wanting to go "rational anarchist" and move myself back to a 14+14 year copyright model. As it is, I can copy anything for research purposes, so that wouldn't even need to be invoked.

Quote from: Cain on September 12, 2009, 01:12:08 PM
That does tend to be their failing, a foolish consistency and all that.

In fact, there is probably a good argument that this is the problem with a lot of people and ideologies.  Apparently, according to some articles I was reading, the human need for consistency is so powerful that it can override critical thinking skills, memory and even, in some cases, self-preservation.

It's my firm belief that this is the principle problem with ALL ideologies, these days.  Americans (can't speak for the Euros) are conditioned to "stay on the plantation", that is, to accept and defend each and every position and member of the party or church that's "on their side".

And I don't doubt that last point of yours at all.  In fact, it gibes with everything I've ever observed.

Quote from: Cain on September 12, 2009, 01:12:08 PM
That does tend to be their failing, a foolish consistency and all that.

In fact, there is probably a good argument that this is the problem with a lot of people and ideologies.  Apparently, according to some articles I was reading, the human need for consistency is so powerful that it can override critical thinking skills, memory and even, in some cases, self-preservation.

You remember the articles?  I could use some sources on that.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 11, 2009, 06:44:27 PM
I still don't understand how "protecting property rights" = "cramping culture".

After all, it's not like being able to rip off Kipling is going to add to our cultural achievements.

I had to look up Kipling, apparently he made Junglebook. Which has been ripped off extensively (and not only by Disney) how did that not add to our cultural achievements?

(where "our" is kind of an odd notion, since you are American, Kipling was British and I'm Dutch)

In addition to that, does anyone know what's the status of copyrights with samples used by Public Enemy? They sampled a lot of stuff (from old funk records, IIRC). Did they pay copyright fees? Did they need to? Or did they pick obscure enough bands to sample from that they didnt get into trouble?

What about James Brown's "Funky Drummer" or the Winstons "Amen, Brother"? The Winstons never saw any money for their "Amen Break", yet it is one of the most sampled beats ever. Its cultural achievement is demonstrated by the fact that it's impossible to imagine Drumnbass without it.

Or Cain's disco example.

Quote from: TGRRIf you wish to see the glorious economy that you get with no copyright and/or patent law, just take a good, long look at Bulgaria.

Bulgaria is a relatively poor East-European country, and yes they are rather lax on copyright enforcement. But if there's any causal relation, the first caused the second and not the other way around.

Unless you know something I don't?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 12, 2009, 04:43:07 PM

Quote from: Cain on September 12, 2009, 01:12:08 PMThat does tend to be their failing, a foolish consistency and all that.

In fact, there is probably a good argument that this is the problem with a lot of people and ideologies.  Apparently, according to some articles I was reading, the human need for consistency is so powerful that it can override critical thinking skills, memory and even, in some cases, self-preservation.

It's my firm belief that this is the principle problem with ALL ideologies, these days.  Americans (can't speak for the Euros) are conditioned to "stay on the plantation", that is, to accept and defend each and every position and member of the party or church that's "on their side".

And I don't doubt that last point of yours at all.  In fact, it gibes with everything I've ever observed.

I'm pretty sure Euros are just as bad.

And that "need for consistency" thing Cain said is very interesting, indeed I even observe it in myself.

 Kipling's books and Disney movies based on them are not in the same class of cultural achievement and i get a weird angry nausea ( :horrormirth:) even seeing them in mentioned the same sentence.. (debating the type and value of cultural achievement Disney represents is a hole other topic)


my views on copyright are very inconsistent right now,
i have no problem with that...
i saw it as being a result of the times (things are changing),
Cains  point made me notice the built in expectation that some day my views would become consistent as copyright issues sorted themselves out ....
maybe they wont???
we may have gone past a point where change comes along to fast for consistence to catch up and be developed.

Quote from: Triple Zero on September 12, 2009, 06:24:28 PM
In addition to that, does anyone know what's the status of copyrights with samples used by Public Enemy? They sampled a lot of stuff (from old funk records, IIRC). Did they pay copyright fees? Did they need to? Or did they pick obscure enough bands to sample from that they didnt get into trouble?

At least one of them got sued, SCOTUS eventually ruled remixing songs into entirely new works qualifies as fair use.  A more interesting question is if the lower courts are obeying SCOTUS's ruling (they frequently don't in patent law).

IP & Copyright isn't a problem, it's a symptom. It's a symptom if the complete and utter fucking selfish retardedness that is the capitalist ethos in it's entirety.

Just like the charade we have that masquerades as "democracy" and "freedom", just like the hypocracy of what we refer to as "civilisation" Just because we haven't come up with a better solution doesn't make it any less fucking idiotic. The whole concept that an artist should have to copyright his art in order to make money to buy food is indicative of the pinnacle of human stupidity. I steal copyright material whenever I goddamn well feel like it. Not because of some overwhelming sense of truth, justice or the american way but simply because I can and if that means some talking monkey somewhere suffers then all the better - that's how our planet works dont'cha know!

But instead of looking at the herd of fucking elephants in the cupboard, as usual the debate centers on the colour of the cupboard doors. So either it's IP and copyright that are the problem, are the solution or need changed in some way. Meanwhile the end of the world trundles on and you can bet your ass I'll be downloading the fucker on bit-torrent  :lulz:

link to torrent pls?

Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 12, 2009, 05:23:40 PM

Quote from: Cain on September 12, 2009, 01:12:08 PM
That does tend to be their failing, a foolish consistency and all that.

In fact, there is probably a good argument that this is the problem with a lot of people and ideologies.  Apparently, according to some articles I was reading, the human need for consistency is so powerful that it can override critical thinking skills, memory and even, in some cases, self-preservation.

You remember the articles?  I could use some sources on that.

No, sorry.  It was a while ago, so I couldn't give names or journals.  But I suspect if you went poking around on JSTOR, you'd find something soon enough.

do you remember if the articles mentioned anything on combating this behaviour in one self? cause I could use that ... :-)

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 14, 2009, 11:35:25 AM
IP & Copyright isn't a problem, it's a symptom. It's a symptom if the complete and utter fucking selfish retardedness that is the capitalist ethos in it's entirety.

Just like the charade we have that masquerades as "democracy" and "freedom", just like the hypocracy of what we refer to as "civilisation" Just because we haven't come up with a better solution doesn't make it any less fucking idiotic. The whole concept that an artist should have to copyright his art in order to make money to buy food is indicative of the pinnacle of human stupidity. I steal copyright material whenever I goddamn well feel like it. Not because of some overwhelming sense of truth, justice or the american way but simply because I can and if that means some talking monkey somewhere suffers then all the better - that's how our planet works dont'cha know!

But instead of looking at the herd of fucking elephants in the cupboard, as usual the debate centers on the colour of the cupboard doors. So either it's IP and copyright that are the problem, are the solution or need changed in some way. Meanwhile the end of the world trundles on and you can bet your ass I'll be downloading the fucker on bit-torrent  :lulz:

Stop hating America™, you goddamn terrorist-kisser!   :argh!:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 11, 2009, 06:44:27 PM
I still don't understand how "protecting property rights" = "cramping culture".

After all, it's not like being able to rip off Kipling is going to add to our cultural achievements.

There are some good arguments ITT, but I'll add my two cents to the pile --

It's that corporations have (recently) gained a disproportionate amount of control over the public domain and the free transmission of ideas. The notion of ideas as property is very useful for the marketplace in which those ideas exist. But as individuals within a society, our freedom of expression is compromised by this hoarding.

I find it confusing that I can paint a portrait of Andy Warhol but I can't paint a portrait of Mickey Mouse. [Hell, Disney has sued public schools for having Mickey Mouse on the wall in the classroom.] Mickey Mouse is a character within our culture, how come we can't retransmit him? Why does it need to be so tightly controlled? It's not to protect the animators of Steamboat Willie.

"But Disney owns Mickey Mouse!"

Well, they own part of him. In my opinion --- really, he belongs to everybody. When an idea becomes widespread enough, I find it troubling that it can be "privately owned" for so long.

Retransmission is also the way by which companies spread their brands. The California Milk Processor Board owns the phrase "Got Milk?", and would have a great case to sue anybody that uses a variation on it to pimp their product. But they don't, because they realize that they created a snowclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowclone) and that every time somebody says "Got X?", it is also an ad for milk. Retransmission is good for companies - even dissent and opposition is a form of advertising for them. But when companies control certain forms of retransmission, the effect is larger than their bottom line.

They say that if the Beastie Boys were making their first album today, it would never be released due to the sample royalty cost. Doesn't it kind of suck that there are entire types of music which cannot exist under our legal system? Look at how much music utilizes the amen break (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac)... Our culture is truly richer because The Winstons aren't pursuing the right to sue everybody that sampled them.

I do think that there should be property rights, and that "ideas as property" is a necessary evil which protects artists. But the question is -- how MUCH protection do ideas need? Our freedom of expression goes hand in hand with the freedom to transmit and retransmit ideas.


The notion of ideas as property is also a slippery slope that leads to stuff like the patenting of genetic code, and corporations crushing grassroots opposition by clogging channels of dissent though legal means.


As for the Rudyard Kipling point - I couldn't disagree more. What would the world be like if the works of shakespeare were privately owned? And isn't there a new Alice in Wonderland movie coming out soon? There's a great example of new art being made from an old public domain work. Alice is for everybody. Shakespeare is for everybody. Why not Mickey?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 11, 2009, 07:03:45 PM
The law already provides for mockery and parody.  The judge that allowed that to go to trial should have been shoved off his bench.

yes, but as you might say ---

Either the law supports the abuses of IP law which shut up legitimate commentary and dissent, or it is powerless to stop them...in either case, it is not fit to exist.

Problem:  If we decide that we don't want corporations to have the same patent rights as individuals, then we need to completely restructure our economy.  We as a nation are not capable of doing this, for reasons which should be obvious.

Also, the case in question will be struck down.  WOULD be struck down, I should say, because what's really going to happen is that Starbucks is going to lawyer the guy to death.  I think the judge that allowed the case to go forward should have his finances investigated.

It won't happen, but it probably should.  I know a lot of economists are arguing right now for the big banks to be broken up, which I am sure will be entirely ignored.  Cases could be made for certain corporations, too. 

Machiavelli wouldn't put up with this shit, he'd advocate crushing the lot of them, because they've proven they can't be trusted and are too powerful.  Its an assesment I find appealing.

Quote from: Cain on September 14, 2009, 05:57:49 PM
It won't happen, but it probably should.  I know a lot of economists are arguing right now for the big banks to be broken up, which I am sure will be entirely ignored.  Cases could be made for certain corporations, too. 

Machiavelli wouldn't put up with this shit, he'd advocate crushing the lot of them, because they've proven they can't be trusted and are too powerful.  Its an assesment I find appealing.

Absolutely.  Problem is, who owns the congressmen that are charged with this sort of responsibility?

Oh yeah.  I'm under no illusion as to the unlikeliness of action being taken, especially by the shower of piss that is currently in charge.

But more on that later.

Quote from: Cain on September 14, 2009, 06:04:18 PM
Oh yeah.  I'm under no illusion as to the unlikeliness of action being taken, especially by the shower of piss that is currently in charge.

But more on that later.

And it's not like they're going to face a revolt, given the high quality of television that they program us with.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 14, 2009, 05:22:06 PM
Problem:  If we decide that we don't want corporations to have the same patent rights as individuals, then we need to completely restructure our economy.  We as a nation are not capable of doing this, for reasons which should be obvious.

I know, it has a snowball's chance in hell. But it's something I feel really strongly about.

According to Kalle Lasn (and this is probably the strongest point he makes in Culture Jam), the root of the whole problem is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the lawsuit in which "the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person."^{1 (http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html)} Apparently a lot of judges and lawyers think this ruling was absurd, unprecedented, and needs to be tipped over.

The basic problem is this: corporations have the same rights as people, but far, far greater resources. This makes them more powerful than people in almost every way, putting human beings on the losing side of any conflict with this corporate fiction we have created.

QuoteAlso, the case in question will be struck down.  WOULD be struck down, I should say, because what's really going to happen is that Starbucks is going to lawyer the guy to death.  I think the judge that allowed the case to go forward should have his finances investigated.

Now that precedent's been set, we'll see a lot more of these "Trademark Dilution" cases where companies get all territorial about the words they think they own. Getting away from the satire, here's another example of how this law is applied:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilutionFor example, in the 1998 case of Panavision International v. Toeppen, defendant Toeppen registered the domain name www.panavision.com, and posted aerial views of the city of Pana, Illinois on the site. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that trademark dilution occurred when potential customers of Panavision could not find its web site at panavision.com, and instead were forced to search through other (less obvious) domain names.

Interesting, right?

Corporations also have less responsibility than an actual person.

They can't be drafted, for example.

They should not have the rights of a person.

Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2009, 07:02:36 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 14, 2009, 05:22:06 PM
Problem:  If we decide that we don't want corporations to have the same patent rights as individuals, then we need to completely restructure our economy.  We as a nation are not capable of doing this, for reasons which should be obvious.

I know, it has a snowball's chance in hell. But it's something I feel really strongly about.

According to Kalle Lasn (and this is probably the strongest point he makes in Culture Jam), the root of the whole problem is Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the lawsuit in which "the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person."^{1 (http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html)} Apparently a lot of judges and lawyers think this ruling was absurd, unprecedented, and needs to be tipped over.

The basic problem is this: corporations have the same rights as people, but far, far greater resources. This makes them more powerful than people in almost every way, putting human beings on the losing side of any conflict with this corporate fiction we have created.

QuoteAlso, the case in question will be struck down.  WOULD be struck down, I should say, because what's really going to happen is that Starbucks is going to lawyer the guy to death.  I think the judge that allowed the case to go forward should have his finances investigated.

Now that precedent's been set, we'll see a lot more of these "Trademark Dilution" cases where companies get all territorial about the words they think they own. Getting away from the satire, here's another example of how this law is applied:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilutionFor example, in the 1998 case of Panavision International v. Toeppen, defendant Toeppen registered the domain name www.panavision.com, and posted aerial views of the city of Pana, Illinois on the site. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that trademark dilution occurred when potential customers of Panavision could not find its web site at panavision.com, and instead were forced to search through other (less obvious) domain names.

Interesting, right?

I'm familiar with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, Cram. And it turns out that the wording conferring rights to corporations is actually no where in the case record itself. The only place you're likely to find it is in the "Summary", written by a Court Reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, who at one point was the president of the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 14, 2009, 08:29:57 PM
Corporations also have less responsibility than an actual person.

They can't be drafted, for example.

They should not have the rights of a person.

Damn, I'd like to see these arguments actually come up in a court.

I would like to see corporations drafted, personally. I mean, they would make far more effective cannon fodder than individuals.

Quote from: Telarus on September 15, 2009, 05:58:01 AM
I'm familiar with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, Cram. And it turns out that the wording conferring rights to corporations is actually no where in the case record itself. The only place you're likely to find it is in the "Summary", written by a Court Reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, who at one point was the president of the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person

learn something new every day!

(http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w274/willzweigart/the_more_you_know.jpg)

I wonder why Kalle Lasn doesn't know this?

Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on September 15, 2009, 02:02:56 PM
I would like to see corporations drafted, personally. I mean, they would make far more effective cannon fodder than individuals.

seconded.
no clue how it would work, but it could be very interesting.
'none of the corporations will show up in person, making them all draftdodgers.
what is the punishment for draftdodging in wartime?

More scary: Imagine if the Catholic Church Westboro Church had copyrighted the figure of Jesus Christ.

Copyrighting religious and philosophical works in general confuses the hell out of me.  Basically, it's a way of getting legal muscle to force people to not apply your philosophies in different ways than you intended, amirite?  CoS copyrighting their stuff in order to control information about them and stop people from parodying them and all that.

it looks like Colbert's reading the forum again!

Colbert Report
September 15, 2009

The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
Corporations do everything people do except breathe, die and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs in the Hudson River.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249055/september-15-2009/the-word---let-freedom-ka-ching

He talks about corporate personhood, then follows up with an interview with Jefferey Toobin to explain how the Santa Clara County ruling slipped in.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249057/september-15-2009/citizens-united-v--federal-election-commission---jeffrey-toobin


good "chaos" quote later in the episode:
go to http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249059/september-15-2009/christiane-amanpour at 4:20

Colbert: Do you ever wish Chaos would break out in a spa?
Amanpour: I do, I think that'd be really nice. It'd give me a chance to sit back, report on the chaos, and get a massage at the same time.
Colbert: Call me, I'll join you!



:cramstipated:

Ooh, good, I recorded that epi last night and will watch it today.

A flying hrosie picture too. Colbert is obviously a fan of the PD memes.

If by synchronicity, you mean both inspired by the same court case....

I dunno, I don't see any evidence that Stephen Colbert is reading our minds.

It's quite possible that he or his staff are lurking on the forum. After all, Colbertgasm was a success. Continuously referencing popular threads on his show may be a method of trying to keep contact without posting -- since Colbert himself posting may bring the whole Nation upon us.

Stephen, if you can hear us, please include the following code phrase on a future show: "Klaatu barada nikto is overrated"

he did that in Colbertgasm how many times does it take?
maybe its more fun to get thinly veiled references to our hot topics and inside jokes...

This is the most populous and active Discordian forum.

Discordianism has been heavily influencing counterculture for decades.

We would be foolish and naive to think that media figures that pander to a counterculture audience aren't aware of and tuned in to us. We would also be foolish and naive to imagine that they would overtly recognize or join us, for the simple reason that JOKE ROOINT.

Quote from: Nigel on September 17, 2009, 03:35:08 AM
This is the most populous and active Discordian forum.

Discordianism has been heavily influencing counterculture for decades.

We would be foolish and naive to think that media figures that pander to a counterculture audience aren't aware of and tuned in to us. We would also be foolish and naive to imagine that they would overtly recognize or join us, for the simple reason that JOKE ROOINT.

Frankly, I think we're farting in a tent, if you catch my drift.

And if I ever find out I'm wrong, I'm gonna troll the voyeuristic bastards into a mudhole.

so if there was some AI that traced your ideas from IP in order to formulate a paint by numbers outline of your worth, would you buy it?

wtf?

if there was a sentence that didn't make sense, would you understand it?

painting by numbers is a rigged game.  like how at camp they have you weave key-chains out of plastic, instead of cellulose, say...

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 11, 2009, 06:44:27 PM
I still don't understand how "protecting property rights" = "cramping culture".

After all, it's not like being able to rip off Kipling is going to add to our cultural achievements.

I disagree.

Pride Prejudice and Zombies is a great example of what becomes possible when copyright expires.

It also hampers the ability of works to spread.  It's a Wonderful Life is a part of American culture to the point that even if you've never seen it you've probably heard of the plot (it's a frequent sitcom parody, or was when I was a kid), but if it's copyright had not expired networks would not have picked it up as a cheap late night christmas movie to show, and we wouldn't have that part of our culture.

There are also longevity of media issues.  At a rough estimate, about 15% of media stays in print after 28 years (based on the figures for renewal of copyrights back when we had that).  A while back a bunch of us went and hunted down a pirated copy of an old early 80s rock album, it was only ever published once on CD, without piracy it would be effectively gone (the few copies that remain cost hundreds of dollars, with no benefit to the publisher or artists).  Were its copyright allowed to expire in 2 years, or revert to the artist (contracts sometimes allowed this if the publisher chose not to renew) then that part of our culture could have been preserved legally.

I think 2 years is a bit quick.  14 years sounds fair to me.

I mean two years from today, 28 years from the original publication in 1984.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 24, 2010, 03:16:47 AM
I mean two years from today, 28 years from the original publication in 1984.

Ahh gotcha.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 24, 2010, 02:42:48 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 11, 2009, 06:44:27 PM
I still don't understand how "protecting property rights" = "cramping culture".

After all, it's not like being able to rip off Kipling is going to add to our cultural achievements.

I disagree.

Pride Prejudice and Zombies is a great example of what becomes possible when copyright expires.

Everything is better when you add zombies. AMIRITE??

Still need to finish that book.

BUMP

In answer to the question - how does copyright cramp creativity and expression?

Our buddy Lawrence Lessig has a great TED talk about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs


a tip of the hat to Enki for finding it

I am changing my moniker to "Sir Not Appearing in this Thread".

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 01, 2010, 05:12:02 PM
I am changing my moniker to "Sir Not Appearing in this Thread".

you'll have to delete the last six pages of it then  :lol:

Quote from: Cramulus on October 01, 2010, 05:13:45 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 01, 2010, 05:12:02 PM
I am changing my moniker to "Sir Not Appearing in this Thread".

you'll have to delete the last six pages of it then  :lol:

That was some dead guy.