I have been following the state of copyright/piracy (in the past two years primarily via BoingBoing and Techdirt - way to get both sides of the story, I know!) for a while and find it very interesting. I am slowly becoming very much anti-copyright, in the sense that I think the law should not be used to protect business models made obsolete by new technology.
But it just occurred to me why this might actually be important for the state of our liberty in the long run.
You see, lots of people seem to confuse corporate interests with public interests, when it comes to copyrights and piracy. I see lots of people treating piracy as a societal problem. For instance, one user on Gamer.co.il (Israel's biggest gaming site, where I am on staff) opened a thread titled "how do we stop the piracy phenomenon?" which has received hundreds of replies, none of which I have read (just noticed the thread, that's all).
But it seems to me that it's not everyone's problem if the people producing content aren't making money the same way they used to. After all, this IS about money, and it's not a problem for society at large if some individuals or groups aren't making money the way they want to - that's their own problem.
But if this is a confusion of state and corporate interests, that's pretty fucking scary. The merging of state and corporate interests is a prime symptom of fascism (I read this somewhere, no idea where, and it makes a lot of sense when you think about it.) If that's what this signals, this issue may be more important than I thought.
So whether you like piracy or not, separating the interests involved here is pretty important. The RIAA is not protecting anyone's rights - it's merely leveraging the legal system to extract inordinate sums of money from those who do not conform to its business model (the RIAA normally tried to get at least $750 per song, often more!). This is totally unacceptable to me. The music industry (and all other industries affected by digital piracy) should be figuring out ways to get money from people by giving them what they want.
iTunes is a great example of how this should work. Another is Tool selling cool physical, uncopyable things along with an album. Another is Radiohead's "pay as much as you want" gimmick which was a fucking monumental success (and quite possibly a one-time gimmick).
These industries should be thinking about ways to succeed without relying on the court system. And the public should not stand for its legal and political systems being hijacked by corporations. That is all.
Just to clarify, the reference you are probably thinking of is "fascism is the merger of corporate and state power", a phrase often attributed to Mussolini, but never actually verified. Thats not to say it wasn't true (all those Wall Street Bankers invested in Nazi Germany for a reason), just that as a pithy quote, it is not real.
Like you say, the scary aspects of anti-piracy activism are how far private groups can apparently go in pursuit of a peverted version of justice. No matter where you stand on piracy, it is ultimately unfair for people to be economically ruined for downloading an album - an event which has happened more than once thanks to the RIAA. The punishments are all out of proportion to the crime committed.
I noted with interest in Italy (hah! their own slide into fascism of recent makes the above comments curiously coincidental), where the ISPs banned access to The Pirate Bay this month, and set up a redirect not to the Italian legal authorities, as is usual with most online criminal activities, but to the Italian copyright violations group, set up by the music industry.
To a degree, any government not operating on laissez-faire principles (ie any government) is going to interfere in the market place. That cannot be helped. However, there is a difference between intervening to promote competition, or protect the interests of consumers, and intervening purely to side with vindictive corporate entities who want to cause as much legal damage as possible to a person, for a crime that is relatively minor.
You're both going to jail for not hating piracy, it says so in here. It was even written by judges.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/propogandacomic.pdf
Having read part of that thing now, its far worse than I thought.
I just read the whole thing (aside from the introduction and bullshit info at the end.) This is fucking terrifying, and exactly the kind of thing I am referring to. This comic doesn't even hint at the fact that there is a huge legal difference between violating copyright and stealing physical property. It also doesn't once refer to the private, corporate elements involved. The way the comic would have it, the great and just government of the United States (or just the State) apprehended a criminal and brought down fair justice.
If people buy this shit, it's very bad news.
If it makes you feel any better, while the pro-crazy-copyright-people have a comic aimed at children, content pirates have tens of thousands of free comics (plus music, games, movies, OSes, etc.)
Read the authors/editors, its the judges that apparently believe this shit.
Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
If it was good enough for Madison and Jefferson, it's good enough for me.
They totally ignored it, though. America was infamous for copyright violations throughout the 18th century, and if they had followed it, the USA would probably look more like a giant Amish farm right now. I also note it doesnt define the limited time period, often the main concern of serious copyright revision activists.
Oh fuck, I don't want to be drawn into this debate again. My point is fining someone in the region of $1000 per illegally downloaded song is exactly the same mentality as giving a kid 10 years in jail for smoking a spliff. My comments about finding a better business model can found in Think For Yourself.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 08:06:25 AM
Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
If it was good enough for Madison and Jefferson, it's good enough for me.
There is a difference between promoting science and the arts, and stifling them.
Quote from: VERB` on August 23, 2008, 09:12:02 PM
Another is Radiohead's "pay as much as you want" gimmick which was a fucking monumental success (and quite possibly a one-time gimmick).
:cn:
I've heard it was hardly a "monumental success" and indeed, Thom Yorke has been quoted as saying they will not be doing it again.
As for the OP, I've gone round and round with you spags about the piracy thing and I really don't feel like doing it again.
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2008, 10:33:35 AM
They totally ignored it, though. America was infamous for copyright violations throughout the 18th century, and if they had followed it, the USA would probably look more like a giant Amish farm right now. I also note it doesnt define the limited time period, often the main concern of serious copyright revision activists.
The time, apparently, was to be defined by federal law. And so it has been.
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2008, 10:33:35 AM
Oh fuck, I don't want to be drawn into this debate again. My point is fining someone in the region of $1000 per illegally downloaded song is exactly the same mentality as giving a kid 10 years in jail for smoking a spliff. My comments about finding a better business model can found in Think For Yourself.
Well, that's a matter of divorcing congressmen from special interests (such as the RIAA). My recommended approach for doing this is tarring and feathering.
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 05:13:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 08:06:25 AM
Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
If it was good enough for Madison and Jefferson, it's good enough for me.
There is a difference between promoting science and the arts, and stifling them.
Allowing people to steal the work of others stifles further work.
Nice try.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 06:10:59 PM
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 05:13:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 08:06:25 AM
Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
If it was good enough for Madison and Jefferson, it's good enough for me.
There is a difference between promoting science and the arts, and stifling them.
Allowing people to steal the work of others stifles further work.
Nice try.
So does copyright terms that are longer than the human lifespan, coupled with the ability to remove any derivative works that come about. Many of the movies Disney is famous for, Little Mermaid, Snow white etc, would never be creatable under the current copyright scheme, unless the studio in question already has millions to get the IP holders to go away. It's already common practice for mashup and music video creators to get sued, with no hope of living long enough to release their work after the original rights expire. That doesn't even begin to address the problem of newspapers and magazines decaying long before historians are allowed to copy them for preservation.
And that copyright term is *never* going to expire, the politicians extended it twice now to keep pre world war 2 works from going into public domain. And now that the courts have ruled that they can keep doing it indefinitely, they will.
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 06:28:58 PM
So does copyright terms that are longer than the human lifespan,
Wait. Ripping off Rudyard Kipling, then, is now "creating new work"?
Am I reading you right?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 06:10:02 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2008, 10:33:35 AM
They totally ignored it, though. America was infamous for copyright violations throughout the 18th century, and if they had followed it, the USA would probably look more like a giant Amish farm right now. I also note it doesnt define the limited time period, often the main concern of serious copyright revision activists.
The time, apparently, was to be defined by federal law. And so it has been.
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2008, 10:33:35 AM
Oh fuck, I don't want to be drawn into this debate again. My point is fining someone in the region of $1000 per illegally downloaded song is exactly the same mentality as giving a kid 10 years in jail for smoking a spliff. My comments about finding a better business model can found in Think For Yourself.
Well, that's a matter of divorcing congressmen from special interests (such as the RIAA). My recommended approach for doing this is tarring and feathering.
1. Then I see no problem with people agitiating for a change. Most people worried about excessive copyright protection want to see people get paid, but they do want to deal with people who abuse the system - like Monsanto, or the pharmaceuticals, who either patent things they never owned or else use them to create monopolies for certain cures, which invariably cost more than many can afford.
2. And therein lies the problem.
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2008, 07:08:36 PM
1. Then I see no problem with people agitiating for a change.
Well, I don't see a PROBLEM with people yammering to have their property rights taken away, but I DO think it's FUNNY.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2008, 07:08:36 PM
1. Then I see no problem with people agitiating for a change.
Well, I don't see a PROBLEM with people yammering to have their property rights taken away, but I DO think it's FUNNY.
I never said they should be taken away, only reduced in certain circumstances.
But if you're going to start playing that game with me...
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2008, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2008, 07:08:36 PM
1. Then I see no problem with people agitiating for a change.
Well, I don't see a PROBLEM with people yammering to have their property rights taken away, but I DO think it's FUNNY.
I never said they should be taken away, only reduced in certain circumstances.
But if you're going to start playing that game with me...
Sorry, reflex from trolling DP. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 06:28:58 PM
So does copyright terms that are longer than the human lifespan,
Wait. Ripping off Rudyard Kipling, then, is now "creating new work"?
Am I reading you right?
I'd say the Jungle Book movie was sufficiently bastardized to make it a semi original work.
DP?
Oh, wait. I forgot that place still existed. Hang on.
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 07:23:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 06:28:58 PM
So does copyright terms that are longer than the human lifespan,
Wait. Ripping off Rudyard Kipling, then, is now "creating new work"?
Am I reading you right?
I'd say the Jungle Book movie was sufficiently bastardized to make it a semi original work.
So.
Let's encourage unoriginal thinking.
Yay.
derivative =/= unoriginal.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on August 24, 2008, 08:36:23 PM
derivative =/= unoriginal.
Yes, that's how we got 8,000,000 college party movies that are all totally different from each other, for example.
And yet, most of those movies wouldn't be considered derivative, just crap.
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 09:17:43 PM
And yet, most of those movies wouldn't be considered derivative, just crap.
They are all derivative of
Animal House. Every last one of them.
But, hey, why have copyright laws? Then they could call them ALL
Animal House, and the original would get lost amongst the drek.
Why insist on originality for success? Why not just allow people to rehash the same old shit, over and over again, and force feed it to the masses? Fuck, why the hell not? They'll buy ANYTHING.
Oh, wait? Did I say "buy"? I actually meant "download for free".
Because this is what this is all about, isn't it? Nobody wants to pay for their music. And they'll trash the constitution, the rule of law, and turn their nation into fucking BULGARIA to do it.
Fuck yeah.
Nobody but you is making this about getting things for free (well, I am making this about getting Wizard of Oz for free, but nothing made in the last 50 years).
Besides, its easier to get free shit from the library than pirate it.
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 09:34:14 PM
Nobody but you is making this about getting things for free (well, I am making this about getting Wizard of Oz for free, but nothing made in the last 50 years).
Besides, its easier to get free shit from the library than pirate it.
So what's the problem? You want to read Edgar Allan Poe, you go to the library.
You want to write a book of your own? Come up with a new idea, instead of "deriving" (read: copying)
The Tell-Tale Heart.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 09:23:16 PM
Quote from: Requiem on August 24, 2008, 09:17:43 PM
And yet, most of those movies wouldn't be considered derivative, just crap.
They are all derivative of Animal House. Every last one of them.
But, hey, why have copyright laws? Then they could call them ALL Animal House, and the original would get lost amongst the drek.
Why insist on originality for success? Why not just allow people to rehash the same old shit, over and over again, and force feed it to the masses? Fuck, why the hell not? They'll buy ANYTHING.
Oh, wait? Did I say "buy"? I actually meant "download for free".
Because this is what this is all about, isn't it? Nobody wants to pay for their music. And they'll trash the constitution, the rule of law, and turn their nation into fucking BULGARIA to do it.
Fuck yeah.
Mrs Fme "from Bulgaria" tells me the pirated copies from Bulgaria are better quality than the originals which one of the reasons Bulgarian piracy is so common(she supports copy right law by the way)
Quote from: fnord mote eris on August 24, 2008, 09:37:28 PM
Mrs Fme "from Bulgaria" tells me the pirated copies from Bulgaria are better quality than the originals which one of the reasons Bulgarian piracy is so common(she supports copy right law by the way)
No, Bulgarian piracy is so common because they have basically no intellectual property laws. Ask her how their programming industry is coming along, would you? :lol: Oh, yeah, never mind. Their economy might be totally crashed for the same reason, but at least they make high quality pirate copies.
That has to count for
something.
Right, because open source code is such an utter failure and no respectable company would ever design an astoundingly good OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X) around code that you don't have to buy.
Quote from: VERB` on August 24, 2008, 09:53:46 PM
Right, because open source code is such an utter failure and no respectable company would ever design an astoundingly good OS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X) around code that you don't have to buy.
That had WHAT to do with what I was saying, exactly? :lol:
Please show me where I said people should be FORCED to copyright their work. Thanks.
Okay, fair enough. :D
(Deja vu? :lulz:)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 08:06:25 AM
Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
If it was good enough for Madison and Jefferson, it's good enough for me.
This is good.
This is in no way reflective of the current state of things, however.
For the most part, the Authors and Inventors have very little to do with their work, due to the institutionalized way publishing companies and the recording industry are set up.
I'm starting to turn the corner on this issue. I agree that an artist should be able to control theft of their work, and be given the opportunity to make a living from it.
I just don't think our current model provides for either.
LMNO
-looking for a new model.
Quote from: LMNO on August 25, 2008, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2008, 08:06:25 AM
Article I, sec 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
If it was good enough for Madison and Jefferson, it's good enough for me.
This is good.
This is in no way reflective of the current state of things, however.
For the most part, the Authors and Inventors have very little to do with their work, due to the institutionalized way publishing companies and the recording industry are set up.
I'm starting to turn the corner on this issue. I agree that an artist should be able to control theft of their work, and be given the opportunity to make a living from it.
I just don't think our current model provides for either.
LMNO
-looking for a new model.
Seconded. I've detested the RIAA and the corporate bias towards current copyright laws - the owner of the copyright has ALL power, and most of the time that's NOT the person that created the item being copyrighted. It's the record company, the publishing company, the movie studio. The current system favors hording copyrights as an investment totally separate from any artistic or intellectual statement/intent, and most likely will not benefit the artist/creator in any way unless they were smart enough to secure all that crap long before its creation/dissemination.
The internet is a double-edged sword for artists/inventors/creators. On the one hand, the power is shifting noticeably back towards the artist at the expense of the publishing/recording industries. Since it's so much easier to distribute a work via the internet, the need for the record/publishing companies is reduced significantly. On the other hand, the ease of distribution via the internet is eroding the legal weight of the copyright itself, for whoever owns it, due to the fact that copyrights focus as much on controlling distribution as they do controlling use.
Where will a balance point emerge? It's incredibly difficult to tell, in no small part since we're still at the dawn 0f the computer age. The technology is STILL advancing faster than society can keep up and shows no signs of slowing any time soon. Quantum computers, holographic storage, and a ton of other things that aren't even on the horizon today but will easily be around in 30 years will drastically change the rules every time the technology makes another leap.
We can try to adapt to the current state of things, only to have to abandon those adaptations in the near future at the next leap, or we can try to anticipate those advances and plan accordingly. However, with the history of government regulation what it is, we'll be stuck continually trying to administrate the state of the prior jump rather than the current one. Technology in general is advancing faster than the pace of government's ability to regulate those advances and that shows no signs of changing.
What's the solution? I have no idea - but neither does anyone else, really. All we can do is try to keep up, both with the law and with the technology.
It seems to me that much of what this debate hinges on is corporate involvement:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
But, that's not really how it works these days. RIAA, Big Music Production Company X and Disney own the Writings and Discoveries, and they maintain control over them long after the author has moved into a 3'x6' apartment. To me, the argument that personal rights as defined in the Constitution should be applied to corporations seems asinine. This goes for 'Freedom of Speech' which corporations have used as a 'Right' to be less than honest with consumers ("We do not use sweat shops"... "But you do, you lied"... "NO IT WAS FREE SPEECH!!!"), it also goes for political contributions and definately, in my mind, to copyright. Allowing a corporation to hold patents, copyright etc. seems to completely change the intent of the original aspects of Copyright law. At this point, Corporations copyright ANYTHING that they can to create a portfolio of patents/copyrighted material. They do this primarily, to defend themselves if they're sued for Copyright or patent infringement. If someone sues us for copyright infringement, our first move is to go through our portfolio and see if they might be infringing on something we have, or barring that, if they might be interested in getting access to something we have. Copyright and Patents weren't implemented to be trading cards among the Big Boys and brickbats to be used on the little guys.
Since corporations were created to protect individuals from most responsibility involving the corporation... I see no reason why the corporation should have ANY rights of the individual. IF the individual wants full rights, they should also take full responsibility. If they don't want the risk associated with being personally liable, then they should understand that such a position limits their personal freedom/expression/rights regarding the corporation.
IMO..
Also, tar and feathering... I'm with TGRR.
Quote from: LMNO on August 25, 2008, 02:31:47 PMFor the most part, the Authors and Inventors have very little to do with their work, due to the institutionalized way publishing companies and the recording industry are set up.
I'm starting to turn the corner on this issue. I agree that an artist should be able to control theft of their work, and be given the opportunity to make a living from it.
I just don't think our current model provides for either.
LMNO
-looking for a new model.
we might meet on that corner some day, LMNO. if the copyright model would actually, you know,
work to protect the rights of the artist, i might actually be able to start respecting copyright.
but in order for it to work, apart from tarring and feathering some people, it also needs to take into account the modern ease of copying information, otherwise it'll never work because the economy of freely copying information can only grow one way: stronger. for the new model to work it needs to work with that, if it goes against it it will fail, sooner or later.
please to note i'm saying it
will fail, not that it
could fail. there's simply no stopping this force. fight the windmills if you wish, but you will lose. better play along and make sure the playing field is fair to the artists, given these new rules.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 25, 2008, 04:13:08 PM
Since corporations were created to protect individuals from most responsibility involving the corporation... I see no reason why the corporation should have ANY rights of the individual. IF the individual wants full rights, they should also take full responsibility. If they don't want the risk associated with being personally liable, then they should understand that such a position limits their personal freedom/expression/rights regarding the corporation.
:mittens:Thank you.
I'm especially vindicated these days by people who go around calling big corporations "capitalist". What the eff does
private ownership of production means (the ownership of the tools, ideas, recipes and land by
actual people like you and me) have to do with those big hulking bureaucracies of elected representatives of shareholders (and elected representatives of employees, as is legally mandatory in my own country) sitting around in councils, comittees and other forms of Soviets, coopting their relatives and club friends into layers of collectively irresponsible slices of limited dictatorship to lord over employees who don't own and don't even lease themselves the tools they're supposed to run to do their work, down to the point where they will tell them how to dress and what they can or cannot have in their pockets ?
(coopting the enemy's symbology can work in more than one way)
No matter how it's justified stealing is just stealing at the end of the day.
As far as the punishment fitting the crime argument; Rob a bank and get 50 years, kill a person and get 20 years. It's ALWAYS been about the money.
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on September 03, 2008, 12:28:33 PM
No matter how it's justified stealing is just stealing at the end of the day.
Well except for the fact we are trying to figure out a model which allows the artist to get paid, GREAT POINT!
Try
reading the thread before you come in with a fit of righteous indignation.
Quote from: Cain on September 03, 2008, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on September 03, 2008, 12:28:33 PM
No matter how it's justified stealing is just stealing at the end of the day.
Well except for the fact we are trying to figure out a model which allows the artist to get paid, GREAT POINT!
Try reading the thread before you come in with a fit of righteous indignation.
See your thread in TFYS for further insight please.