Wednesday, 1 July 2009
e = mc hammer
Mmm recent update. Just wanted to share something about intellectual property and copyrights.
You guys probably heard about the recent selling out of The Pirate Bay. Wasn’t really unexpected; all the hypocrites moaning about it are living in lala land – if YOU get sued by Big Media, wouldn’t you jump when someone offers to bail you out? Let’s face us, many of us were just freeloaders along for the ride. I don’t get all the self-righteous bullshit. Sure it was nice having someone large (relatively) sticking it to The Man, but if you didn’t think a smackdown wasn’t in the pipes then you’re incredibly naive.
Here are some of the more interesting quotes from arstechnica which I got down. You’ll probably notice a trend here but why not just read for yourself and find out?
(1)
“And why is taking and giving IP that isn’t yours not “stealing”, but only infringement; when you are removing the owners chances of monetizing their work?”
Because, you, like the rest of the uneducated don’t understand that copyright isn’t a product. It protects the right for you to be able to own and distribute a product. There is no stealing in infringement because there is nothing to steal. In order to steal a copyright I would have to have that copyright redone in my name. That is where you and all the other ass hats can’t get. When I download a song, I do not steal the song. I infringe on someones rights to distribute that song. You assume that anyone that has a copyright would charge for the product. This isn’t necessarily true. In cases where someone is charging for a product the rights holder can use civil proceedings to receive damages for what they have lost through someone else assuming control of their protected product and also for the jury to charge punitively to punish for deterrence.
The RIAA and others want to equate downloading to stealing because then it is view by all as a crime and treated as such. The true “crime” is rights infringement. Which is not defined as a crime by the judicial system.
That is what makes the Thomas-Rasett case so interesting. Did she infringe, hell yeah. But no one has been able to accurately quantify how much she infringed. Her damages do not equate to what the rights holder actually lost. It is also so high because the jurors seem to have wanted to punish her.
The laws that were written are based on large scale commercial infringement, not individual non-profit infringement. It’s like being charged as a corporation that dumps toxic waste when all you did was throw a wrapper out your car window.
What really scares me about the ACTA is that so many people are not bothered by the fact the government wants to create laws that govern you, and are completely binding, with punishments allowing no legal recourse, simply catering to business, with no public scrutiny or input, in total secrecy. It amazes me that more people aren’t pissed or downright scared about this. Read what little is known about ACTA and comment then, not from the ignorant standpoint in your current post. Earl Grey you are a tool. You are the type of sheep the recording industry is banking on.
Idiocracy, America’s future. We are getting dumber as a country every day.
- – - – -
(2)
Secondly, no people “gave” me my rights. The right to profit from and control that I did is not a grant by the people or the government. It is fundamental to life.
Uh, I’m glad you feel that way, but out here in the real world (or the vast majority of First World nations, anyway) that simply isn’t true. Copyright is an artificial construct that isn’t at all fundamental. The reason for this should be self-evident: in the vast majority of circumstances, when you sell an object, you lose any rights at all to that object. We the people chose to change the rules when it came to intellectual property (inasmuch as we’ve agreed that ideas can even be property), in order to convince the creators of such material to create more of it. Should we come to the conclusion that this was a bad deal, then we the people can take away this artificial construct we’ve made for you.
This right here is an important distinction. Its not just “how” but also “if” you wish to distribute. While I do feel sympathy for the Australians and those in Mexico who cannot get Battlestar Galactica, at the same time it is the choice of the rights holders to not distribute to those markets, regardless of whether there is someone there who wants the media. There can be many reasons for withhold distribution, from corporate branding to declining to do the marketing and support for a market they do not feel will recoup the expense. Regardless, it is their right and that does not grant others the right to simply steal the content.
This highlights a change that I really think we need to see in copyright law: the concept of abandonment, somewhat similar to how it exists in trademark law, and on a regional level. Offer to the public the product we’ve allowed you to copyright, or lose the copyright. If you can’t be bothered to reasonably offer a piece of intellectual property in a given country, you should have no recourse to complain when the people in that country choose to make copies (which cost you nothing) from available sources. After all, what reason does that country have to uphold your copyright? You’re not enriching it, which is the primary purpose of copyright.
- – - – -
(3)
If I cannot pay for the product in any way then me getting it for free has no monetary implications for them. If it has caused no monetary loss then it is not unethical. Nor can you stretch the truth and claim it is stealing if it has caused NO loss of product or money.
- – - – -
(4)
Secondly, no people “gave” me my rights. The right to profit from and control that I did is not a grant by the people or the government. It is fundamental to life.
hahaha, this is funny, you wouldn’t be able to protect your imaginary property (some people call it intellectual property) without people signing on the legislation.
Copyright is not a fundamental, God given, immutable way of life.
Also, what you said exactly was “Copyright exists to protect creative works and the people who create them”. Which is false, it exists, as stated in the US Constitution, to promote Arts and Sciences, period. Context is King, copyright is not here so that artist can make money, it is here to serve the public.
- – - – -
(5)
Copyright answers the following question:
How are we, as a people, suppose to promote the progress of Science and Arts?
The answer: Lets give an exclusive limited monopoly to authors and inventors.
For someone that prides himself for being “in the biz” you have no fucking clue how the rights the people gave you work, or even why the people decided to give them to you.
Greater and smarter men then you or I have also opposed copyright to an extent
Thomas Jefferson said:
“Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”
Louis Brandeis said:
“The general rule of law is, that noblest of human productions-knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions and ideas — become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use.”
- – - – -
(6)
Second, no, there isn’t any ethical difference. You don’t have a right to it. If you can’t get it, that sucks, I’m sorry you can’t enjoy whatever entertainment you like, but that doesn’t give you a right to take it anyway.
What right do the media corporations have to lock up content that should have been in the public domain years ago? Copyrights were supposed to be for a limited time, not life plus 70-90 years. Through their lobbying, they have stolen the public’s right to have access to older works. In many cases, they don’t even do anything with those works, they just sit in the corporate vaults rotting away because the company doesn’t see any value in releasing them.
How is that in any way ethical?
- – - – -
(7)
First, I was refering to the “I don’t want to wait three months or import it from somewhere else” argument, so I am not lying and it is possible to aquire the product.
Import it from somewhere else? Maybe for music, but how is that practical for video, when every DVD and Blu-Ray disc is hobbled with a region code to make sure that even if you buy a 100% legal copy from another country, you can’t play it? And don’t bother bringing up region-free players, because the average person wouldn’t know where to buy one. Hell, most average people don’t even know what a region code is, let alone how to bypass it.
Is it ethical behavior on the part of these companies to prevent people from doing something that is 100% legal, just because they want the luxury of deciding what products should be available to what countries and when?
- – - – -
Heh.
One thing I’d like to point out about copyright hardliners, they always turn the blame on YOU when you want to acquire something but it isn’t available in your area. “You’re not entitled to it,” they say. So when you live in usa you’re magically “entitled” to buy stuff, even if the guy who doesn’t live there is equally willing to pay for it? This isn’t a question of entitlement, you fuckwits. Big Media can handle simultaneous worldwide releases… so what the fuck is the holdup everywhere else?
I’ll leave you with one last item.
(8)
Gandhi once said something that has become a famous quote:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
I interpret the current situation as a definite shift to phase three. That mainstream existing MPs for the largest party in government pick up and fight for our ideas is a huge legitimizer. Our ideas are not out on the fringe, we were just a little bit ahead of time.
What was remarkable was that this was the point where the enemy – forces that want to lock down culture and knowledge at the cost of total surveillance – realized they were under a serious attack, and mounted every piece of defense they could muster. For the first time, we saw everything they could bring to the battle.
And it was… nothing. Not even a fizzle. All they can say is “thief, we have our rights, we want our rights, nothing must change, we want more money, thief, thief, thief”. And shove some poor artists in front of them to deliver the message. Whereas we are talking about scarcity vs. abundance, monopolies, the nature of property, 500-year historical perspectives on culture and knowledge, incentive structures, economic theory, disruptive technologies, etc. The difference in intellectual levels between the sides is astounding.
So now we know what the enemy has, and that they have absolutely nothing in terms of intellectual capital to bring to the battle. They do, however, have their bedside connections with the current establishment. That’s the major threat to us at this point.
