Don't fight for copyright

[Verbal Mike]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Requia ☣]

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

[Requia ☣]

Having read part of that thing now, its far worse than I thought.

[Verbal Mike]

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.

[Golden Applesauce]

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.)

[Requia ☣]

Read the authors/editors, its the judges that apparently believe this shit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Cain]

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.

[Requia ☣]

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.

[AFK]

Another is Radiohead's "pay as much as you want" gimmick which was a fucking monumental success (and quite possibly a one-time gimmick).

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. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[Requia ☣]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?