IP Freely? There's a call for I.P. Freely?

[Requia ☣]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Kai]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Requia ☣]

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.

[Triple Zero]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[fomenter]

 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 ( ) 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.

[Requia ☣]

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).

[P3nT4gR4m]

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 

[Triple Zero]

link to torrent pls?

[Cain]

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.

[Triple Zero]

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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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 

Stop hating America™, you goddamn terrorist-kisser!   

[Cramulus]

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 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... 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?

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.