13
   

Oatmealing and the new practice of ethical bittorenting

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:31 am
@DrewDad,
Copyright Length And The Life Of Mickey Mouse

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2602/3810282105_3f3b299252.jpg

Quote:
for much of the timeframe shown in the chart content creators (1) had to register to get the copyright and (2) had to regularly renew the copyright to keep it. When you look at the real length of time that works were covered by copyright, it was significantly less than the maximum, because only a small percentage of people even bothered to register copyrights in the first place, and of those that did, only a tiny fraction renewed them. Compare that to today when you get a copyright the second you create something new, and it lasts until 70 years past your death. We've gone from the true median length of copyright being zero to well over 100 years in an incredibly short period of time.

...

But, really, the bigger point was made by Boyle, via Twitter, where he noted that we are "the first generation to deny our own culture to ourselves and to drive the point home, he notes that no work created during your lifetime will, without conscious action by its creator, become available for you to build upon. For people who don't recognize the importance of the public domain and the nature of creativity, perhaps this seems like no big deal. But if you look back through history, you realize what an incredibly big deal it is -- and how immensely stifling this is on our culture. And then you realize this is all done under a law whose sole purpose is to "promote the progress" and you begin to wonder how this happened. It goes back beyond Mickey Mouse, certainly, but Mickey and Disney have been huge drivers of this attempt to stifle new culture, all in the name of limiting competition for itself. What a shame.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:32 am
@Setanta,
Always happy to disappoint Smile
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:37 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
There is a difference between want and need.

I need food, but I pay for it.

I need shelter, but I pay for it.

The issue is not need the issue is scarcity. Once something is not scarce, it loses its monetary value.

The reality is that digital copies are eliminating scarcity when it comes to various forms of media. Records, CDs, books, etc. all used to be scarce because they took time and energy to produce.

The entertainment industry is fighting this tooth and nail, because they are increasingly becoming obsolete.

(Note, that I say entertainment industry; I do not say artists. There are many artists who are finding a way to succeed without artificial scarcities. A good musician can give away their music, and then make money through other means.)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:37 am
@Thomas,
One can certainly not fault you for that service . . .
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:38 am
@Thomas,
So you're saying that they recognized that copyright would promote science and art?

That's what I'm saying too.

boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:41 am
@DrewDad,
It's not really true that they don't have rights to their designs. That's why counterfeiters are prosecuted.

My neighbor is a patent attorney. One of his clients is a major sportswear manufacturer. The company spends millions of dollars on research and development and then neighbor patents their molecules.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:42 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
(Note, that I say entertainment industry; I do not say artists. There are many artists who are finding a way to succeed without artificial scarcities. A good musician can give away their music, and then make money through other means.)

It seems to become quite common. Bands give away their recordings and videos on YouTube; because it works as a loss leader for their concerts. Programmers give away software to advertise their skills to employers. So even today, creative people have plenty of incentives other than charging by the copy.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:48 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
So you're saying that they recognized that copyright would promote science and art?

That's what I'm saying too.

They recognized that it would do that up to a point. They also recognized that it would create harmful monopolies if pushed beyond that point. That's why Congress can grant the monopoly, but doesn't have to. And that's why the monopoly is supposed to last only "for a limited time". On this issue of overreach, the Founding Fathers stood head and shoulders above both today's lawmakers and today's Supreme Court.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:50 am
@boomerang,
Clothing designers do have trademark protections, but those are not nearly as strong as copyright.

There's nothing to keep another designer from copying an existing design.



And patenting a new material is fine with me. It's overly-broad patents (purchasing something online! purchasing something from within an app!) that I think are stifling innovation.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:50 am
Like I said earlier, if people don't want to protect their work with copyright that's fine with me. They can do it all day long.

If they choose to copyright their work then making a copy of it is theft.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:53 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
If they choose to copyright their work then making a copy of it is theft.

Like I said earlier, no it's not.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:54 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
If they choose to copyright their work then making a copy of it is theft.

No, it is not. No matter how many times you repeat it, it will still not be the case.

Copying is not theft. It is copyright infringement.

A zebra is not a horse; a lion is not a house cat. Superficial similarities can blind you to important distinctions.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 10:58 am
Whether or not it is theft, it is a crime. It can be prosecuted and punitive measures imposed.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:05 am
@Setanta,
Regardless if the practice of bittorenting is theft or not, if a person or group is asking for a legal alternative to that outlawed outlet AND that person or group is willing to ACTUALLY PAY for the product and the seller refuses to sell it to them because they're fetishizing an out dated business model then bittorenting and oatmealing can be seen as an act of civil disobedience.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:05 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
Quote:
violate the rights of the masses


Oh really? How exactly are your rights violated by another's copyright?

Copyright is supposed to benefit me. And you. And Thomas. And the artist.

Everyone.

Locking something up where no one can obtain it does not succeed in that goal.

There a many orphaned works, where nobody can determine who controls the copyright. Due to the legal liability, nobody is willing to touch those works. Since most of it is on deteriorating media, it will never be recovered. I absolutely view that as a failure of the copyright process to protect the rights of the public.

From that Economist article:

Quote:
And overlong copyrights often limit, rather than encourage, a work’s dissemination, impact and influence. It can be difficult to locate copyright holders to obtain the rights to reuse old material. As a result, much content ends up in legal limbo (and in the case of old movies and sound recordings, is left to deteriorate—copying them in order to preserve them may constitute an act of infringement). The penalties even for inadvertent infringement are so punishing that creators routinely have to self-censor their work. Nor does the advent of digital technology strengthen the case for extending the period of protection. Copyright protection is needed partly to cover the costs of creating and distributing works in physical form. Digital technology slashes such costs, and thus reduces the argument for protection.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:08 am
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
Ted Bundy thought murder was fun, so have a lot of other people. That doesn't mean it wasn't murder.

Wow. Way to build a fallacy.

Maybe I'll just compare copyright supporters to fascists, and we can really get this discussion rolling.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:08 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Whether or not it is theft, it is a crime. It can be prosecuted and punitive measures imposed.

On that, I think we all agree. But the Tsar's original question was about the ethics of it, not the legalities of it. If Stepan copies DVDs now and promises to pay later, this is no doubt illegal. But is it any more reprehensible than Susan B Anthony illegally voting in the 1872 election, Rosa Parks illegally sitting in the wrong seat of that segregated bus, or the White Mr. Loving illegally marrying the Black Mrs. Loving? That was the question for this thread as I understood tsarstepan.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:10 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Whether or not it is theft, it is a crime. It can be prosecuted and punitive measures imposed.

There are some criminal statutes around copyright, but they are generally limited to cases where someone is trying to profit off of the infringement.

A simple case of an individual downloading a copy of A Game of Thrones is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:12 am
@tsarstepan,
By that "logic" the assassination of government oficials implementing policies of which one disapproves on moral grounds would not be murder. Copyrights are granted to protect an individual's ability to profit from their ingenuity and effort. Once again, by that "logic" customs agents should not attempt to seize Armani or Rolex knockoffs just because the Chinese have become so adroit at counterfeiting them. If you are apprehended shoplifting, and have the money to pay for the goods, you are nevertheless guilty of a crime. A man once complained to a judge that he thought it was rather hard that he would be hanged for stealing a horse from a commons. The judge responded that he was also being hanged so that others would not steal horses from commons. You can sneer about "outmoded" models, but it won't alter that you're basically saying that people have no right to protect their intellectual property just because it has become so easy to take it without paying for it. Your argument does not serve to make the infringement of a copyright ethical or legal.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 11:13 am
@Thomas,
I've addressed his feeble claim about ethics in my latest response to him.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 01:29:17