Attorney General Ashcroft vs. Internet Pirates

[King of the Americas]

Attorney General Ashcroft is WRONG about Internet theft, and the Democratic Party should stand up and say as much.

Where is my Internet of Tomorrow?

Why CAN'T I read ANY book, hear any song, view any magazine or newspaper from around the globe?

Copyrights as put forth in the Constitution are meant to be "limited", and NOT everlasting without end. At 'some' point media becomes or belong to the public's venue, and or becomes common knowledge. Once you have played or offered your media outside of a "private concert" (such as over the airways), then you have subjected your material to public knowledge. Given that individuals have the right to Freedom of the Press, people/individuals have EVERY right to report on your public display and distribute it as they see fit, in as much ‘detail’ as current technology will allow. Inventive or innovative means of media reproduction and distribution can not and should not be considered 'illegal'.

General Ashcroft's stance is one that hinders the free flow of information by stifling technology in the pursuit of limitless copyrights...

---

I wish Democrats would begin making stronger arguments in the defense of Freedom & Liberty.

[Jocko]

Why don't you just go back and resurrect one of your many, MANY "Copyright is wrong" threads? We've been through all this before.

Like this one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33152&highlight=copyright) or this one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32476&highlight=copyright) ?

The ones who don't understand copyright law are the ones with nothing worth stealing.

©2004 Jocko Productions, Inc.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Copyrights as put forth in the Constitution are meant to be "limited", and NOT everlasting without end.

You are correct, but there's a hitch, and it is a truly bipartisan hitch at that. The constitution reads...

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;


Well, it is limited. Congress has allowed copyrights to last a really long time but a really long time is not forever.

Would you like a new amendment?

Democrats write books too.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

I wish Democrats would begin making stronger arguments in the defense of Freedom & Liberty.

I wish Shakira & Beyonce were waiting for me when I got home, demanding that I make them my sex kittens.

But somehow I'm not going to hold my breath.

[King of the Americas]

..your research skills are seemingly endless.

But I would like to focus this debate more on the terms Attorney General Ashcroft used, specifically "theft".

Theft, Larceny, Stealing, or Taking without permission from someone "is to" leave them "without" a something that was taken. By making a 'perfect copy' of something you aren't "taking" anything, or leaving someone without something.

File Sharing isn't "Theft" by any legal defination I have yet seen.

If I record a song or a movie of the radio or television, what did the artist who created the work "lose"?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cleon
I wish Shakira & Beyonce were waiting for me when I got home, demanding that I make them my sex kittens.

But somehow I'm not going to hold my breath.

How to make a Sex Kitten

1 part vodka
1 part rum
2 parts crushed ice
2 parts apple juice
1/4 teaspoon cinnamon

Blend (electric blender required) until slightly 'fuzzy', about thirty seconds at very-high speed. Serve naked.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
If I record a song or a movie of the radio or television, what did the artist who created the work "lose"?

They lost their cut of the profits on the sale of that song or movie, assuming you would have bought it had you not been able to copy it.

I can see the copyrighter's point, but then again, what's with that assumption there? It's like fortune cookies at Chinese restaurants: we eat them because they're free, not because we like them that much. If they cost extra, would anyone buy them?

[Jocko]

Research? I took three seconds with the search function. Wasn't hard. And although your boogeyman of choice is different, it's all still predicated on your same, tired, endlessly defeated premise that copyright law is bad, bad, bad.

So let me sum up the problems with your entitlement mentality on this particular issue:

1. Without legal protection, there is no profit motive. Without profit motive, there is no creation. Without creation, full and free access is a moot point because there's nothing to access. Nothing worth having, anyway.

2. Stealing is stealing. Plain and simple.

3. Ashcroft (and law enforcement in general) is not out to hassle the individual file-sharer. They are out to nail the pirates who distribute and sell the fruits of file-sharing. Your kazaa files are not a problem, I assure you.

4. I pirate a mountain of stuff through various means online. I accept that it is wrong, it is theft, and I would have no legal basis for contesting that. I simply consider the chances of being caught as almost infinitely small, just as I do when I'm driving 5 miles over the limit. I'm not the guy the cops are looking for.

5. As Rob pointed out, there are limits on copyright. Just because you don't want to wait does not prove there is anything wrong with the system. If you ever produced anything marketable, you would see things very differently... but I'm not holding my breath.

[LW]

Originally posted by Jocko

2. Stealing is stealing. Plain and simple.


Well, you could get your argument stronger and still maintain all the accuracy by putting that into form.

2. Murder is murder. Plain and simple.

There is a reason why law books use different names for different crimes.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Jocko
5. As Rob pointed out, there are limits on copyright.


And as I tried to imply, unsuccessfully it seems, John Ashcroft has his responsibility (to uphold the law) and so does congress (to make the law). Blaming Ashcroft for this is beyond stupid. If there is blame to be had, it is had by the congress.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jocko
4. I pirate a mountain of stuff through various means online. I accept that it is wrong, it is theft, and I would have no legal basis for contesting that. I simply consider the chances of being caught as almost infinitely small, just as I do when I'm driving 5 miles over the limit. I'm not the guy the cops are looking for.

You pirate a mountain of stuff... 20 million people, like you, pirate a mountain of stuff around the world... who needs the middlemen?

Sorry, nowadays, you are the guy they're looking for.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Jocko
1. Without legal protection, there is no profit motive. Without profit motive, there is no creation. Without creation, full and free access is a moot point because there's nothing to access. Nothing worth having, anyway.

But does that apply to the profit motive of the original artist, or the profit motive of the publishing company?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by LW
Well, you could get your argument stronger and still maintain all the accuracy by putting that into form.

2. Murder is murder. Plain and simple.

There is a reason why law books use different names for different crimes.

You bet, but if I understand you correctly there are general concepts that still encompass each family... grouped by commandment, if you will.

Larceny=theft.
Robbery=theft.
Burglary=theft.
Conversion=theft (in civil law).
Etc. etc.

Murder is a stickier one, but it still holds up if you keep to the dictionary meaning of the word and not the sexy, dangerous hollywood version, i.e., the death of one human as a result of the actions of another human.

1st degree (malice aforethought) = murder.
2nd degree (crime of passion) = murder.
Manslaughter (accidental) =murder.

The only real difference is in how these crimes are sentenced.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But does that apply to the profit motive of the original artist, or the profit motive of the publishing company?

All of them. Each plays a part in the production of a salabe work. The artist creates it, the publisher distributes and markets it. But the rights normally stay with the artist, unless he gives them up in the context of a contract.

For instance, I write novels on the side. I've got two of them in front of publishers right now. Under KOA's benevolent free-for-all policy, I have no motive to write the books because anyone could xerox the thing and sell it for pennies on the dollar on the street corner. And I don't even get the pennies.

Of course, the question is moot because a publisher isn't going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to print and market the book in the first place, for exactly the same reason.

And while I'm on the subject, my agent won't get her 15%, so she won't even have a reason to be in business and introduce my book to the publishers.

Piracy happens. Laws keep it in check. If there's an egregious breach of copyright, I or the publisher can sue for damages. That right is the only thing that makes the process a paying proposition, and all three of us - me, the publisher and the agent - aren't doing this for the fun of it. We're doing it for the money.

Sure, this won't affect the shack-dwelling manifesto writers (cough*KOA*cough), but then they can't give their stuff away, let alone sell it. The death of copyright costs them nothing.

[King of the Americas]

They lost their cut of the profits on the sale of that song or movie, assuming you would have bought it had you not been able to copy it.

*How can you lose something you never had, and probably wouldn't get in the first place. When a sandwich offers a cheaper hot dog, and you see fewer customer through the door, he didn't "steal" your customers. YOU just failed to offer them a product they would consume for your offered price.

I can see the copyrighter's point, but then again, what's with that assumption there? It's like fortune cookies at Chinese restaurants: we eat them because they're free, not because we like them that much. If they cost extra, would anyone buy them?

*SURE! If they are int he 'mood' to pay the cost of a bland cookie with a meaningless phrase within.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Matabiri
You pirate a mountain of stuff... 20 million people, like you, pirate a mountain of stuff around the world... who needs the middlemen?

Sorry, nowadays, you are the guy they're looking for.

Not so. Apart from the occasional record industry lawsuit (and what kind of dolt uses kazaa these days anyway?), the busts have to do with illegally copied items being sold on the web or at flea markets and the like. I'll try to dig up something to support that, but I figure it's pretty generally well-known.

Without making a moral distinction between the two, downloading a movie or game for your own use is not half the problem of illegaly duplicated pirate versions.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jocko
For instance, I write novels on the side. I've got two of them in front of publishers right now. Under KOA's benevolent free-for-all policy, I have no motive to write the books because anyone could xerox the thing and sell it for pennies on the dollar on the street corner. And I don't even get the pennies.

Just as an aside, have you heard of Cory Doctorow? He both prints books, and gives them away for free, and it seems to work for him. His views are interesting, even though I disagree with some of them.

http://www.craphound.com/est/download.php

(Hope that doesn't hit the word filter...)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas


*How can you lose something you never had, and probably wouldn't get in the first place. When a sandwich offers a cheaper hot dog, and you see fewer customer through the door, he didn't "steal" your customers. YOU just failed to offer them a product they would consume for your offered price.



Rank rationalization. Might as well say, "Well, he ws going to die sometime anyway" at a murder trial.

Please, PLEASE review the other threads you've started and spare us the chore of explaining this idiocy all over again. PLEASE.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Jocko
All of them. Each plays a part in the production of a salabe work. The artist creates it, the publisher distributes and markets it. But the rights normally stay with the artist, unless he gives them up in the context of a contract.

I was thinking about authors who have been dead for centuries. Shakespeare still sells pretty well. I wouldn't deny him his cut in his lifetime, but what about afterwards? It's not artists holding copyrights these days--it's corporations. If Mozart's music had been released by Virgin Records back in his lifetime, would Virgin still have a valid claim to a cut of his work's profits four centuries later? Forty centuries later?

I think profit motive may be the impetus for the original creation, and thus the artist should be protected by copyright in his or her lifetime. But publishers publish what will sell, whether the original creation is copyright-protected or not. They're getting their cuts. Does a publishing company deserve to hold a monopoly on a particular piece of work long after the artist is dead? That's a different question, in my opinion.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Matabiri
Just as an aside, have you heard of Cory Doctorow? He both prints books, and gives them away for free, and it seems to work for him. His views are interesting, even though I disagree with some of them.

http://www.craphound.com/est/download.php

(Hope that doesn't hit the word filter...)

That's his prerogative. I don't want his largesse defining my rights, however. Of course, writing and printing your own books and giving them away makes me wonder how it "works for him."

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jocko
Not so. Apart from the occasional record industry lawsuit (and what kind of dolt uses kazaa these days anyway?), the busts have to do with illegally copied items being sold on the web or at flea markets and the like. I'll try to dig up something to support that, but I figure it's pretty generally well-known.

Without making a moral distinction between the two, downloading a movie or game for your own use is not half the problem of illegaly duplicated pirate versions.

It's not worth suing yer average punter, which is why they haven't really followed it up. More and more attempts are being made to prevent that sort of piracy, though (although I think this just encourages it...). I have a few CDs that won't play on my computer at all, for example.

I suppose my point was that illegally mass duplicated pirate version, of the type you're talking about, will probably cease to be a problem as connection speeds increase and storage becomes cheaper. Why even pay $5 for an illegal copy, if you can download it free?

Edit for spelling

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
It's like fortune cookies at Chinese restaurants: we eat them because they're free, not because we like them that much. If they cost extra, would anyone buy them?

I can't seem to resist this one.

$1.99 Per Minute Psychic Hotline...cheap.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jocko
That's his prerogative. I don't want his largesse defining my rights, however. Of course, writing and printing your own books and giving them away makes me wonder how it "works for him."

He does explain it (here (http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt), rather than the link I gave; sorry). Although, as I said, I don't agree with everything he says. On the other hand, the (new) link is an interesting alternative view.

[King of the Americas]

Research? I took three seconds with the search function. Wasn't hard. And although your boogeyman of choice is different, it's all still predicated on your same, tired, endlessly defeated premise that copyright law is bad, bad, bad.

*I didn't say it was "bad", just that it was intended to have sincere "limits".

So let me sum up the problems with your entitlement mentality on this particular issue:

1. Without legal protection, there is no profit motive. Without profit motive, there is no creation. Without creation, full and free access is a moot point because there's nothing to access. Nothing worth having, anyway.

*One could just as easily argue the opposite, that limitless copyrights stifle creative initiative, "Why do I need to write 2 books, when I have can endlessly draw wealth from the ONE I have written and have an endless copyright upon?"

2. Stealing is stealing. Plain and simple.

*Plain and simply, if I STEAL something from you, I have left you "without" something. I.E. I have "removed" without permission from your possession. If I make a 'perfect' replica of your thing, I haven't 'robbed' you of anything, because you still have possession of your property.

3. Ashcroft (and law enforcement in general) is not out to hassle the individual file-sharer. They are out to nail the pirates who distribute and sell the fruits of file-sharing. Your kazaa files are not a problem, I assure you.

*That's not what he said yesterday. He said ANYONE who takes part in a file sharing network, and as a part of their becoming a member they have to offer up THEIR files to be shared, then they are committing a crime, that they can and will be punished for. "Just because we can't catch everyone, or do everything, doesn't mean we are going to stand by and do nothing. These theives will be brought to justice."

4. I pirate a mountain of stuff through various means online. I accept that it is wrong, it is theft, and I would have no legal basis for contesting that. I simply consider the chances of being caught as almost infinitely small, just as I do when I'm driving 5 miles over the limit. I'm not the guy the cops are looking for.

*I am not sure I'd go around posting that in such a public, "researchable" site. I am not sure if you are aware, but the Internet isn't as anomious and untrackable as you think. Personally, I have never down or uploaded so much as a single song much less album. However, I have lobbied hard, and would defend anyone who worked toward the goal of a collection of works that have been offered in a public venue.

5. As Rob pointed out, there are limits on copyright. Just because you don't want to wait does not prove there is anything wrong with the system. If you ever produced anything marketable, you would see things very differently... but I'm not holding my breath.

*Look, I am NOT saying you-the artist, can't market your goods and services for profit. ONLY that they cease to be 'protected' once you have played them in a 'public' venue. Quite simply, we can not stop people from using whatever media recording devices current technology has to offer and make illegal the exchange of the knowledge recorded events. What an artist COULD do is hold 'private concerts', and search people for recording devices. Then if someone were to release that stuff, you could charge them criminally, not that the ticket was a contract to hold the information presented there in confidential form, until otherwise released to the public. Author and or musicians could hold private readings and or performances for top dollar, IF their talent caused such a demand.

Mine is an argument over individual rights, and where and what it means for something to be in the public domain. I believe in protecting people's Private Property, but I also believe in the Individual's Right to record Public Events.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*One could just as easily argue the opposite, that limitless copyrights stifle creative initiative, "Why do I need to write 2 books, when I have can endlessly draw wealth from the ONE I have written and have an endless copyright upon?"

You can't endlessly draw wealth from one book, as there is not an endless market for it. So you write another, and attempt to sell that as well.

Why grow many oranges, when you can draw endless wealth from ONE?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Mine is an argument over individual rights, and where and what it means for something to be in the public domain. I believe in protecting people's Private Property, but I also believe in the Individual's Right to record Public Events.

So, at the risk of being slightly silly, if I ran up to you in the street and hit you with a fish, and a friend of mine was videoing it, you'd have no problem with that being distributed over the internet and shown on TV?

[Rob Lister]

KOA,

Please...a request...please with a cherry on top please take a little more time in forming the text AND UBL in your replies. Make it clear to the reader who is saying what. I know it is tedious to do so but a little effort on your part would greatly reduce the effort on the part of others...probably by a factor of ten.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Matabiri
So, at the risk of being slightly silly, if I ran up to you in the street and hit you with a fish, and a friend of mine was videoing it, you'd have no problem with that being distributed over the internet and shown on TV?

You can't do that--it's a violation of my copyright on my short film "Random Fish Smackdown". It's up for an award at Cannes.

However, after my death, you may do as you like.

[Rob Lister]

A great debate, for both parties, lies in the Disney copyright of Mickey, et al.

Has congress extended the copyright law too far? Disney is the cathode.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
A great debate, for both parties, lies in the Disney copyright of Mickey, et al.

Has congress extended the copyright law too far? Disney is the cathode.

The poster child, perhaps. Disney is better known for ABUSING copyright law - or at least exploiting its loopholes - than for defending the idea of it.

But I wouldn't want KOA or anyone else telling me how to dispense my property (intellectual or otherwise) in my will. Does KOA have access to my car a few years after I die, just because I'm not using it anymore? No thanks.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
A great debate, for both parties, lies in the Disney copyright of Mickey, et al.

Has congress extended the copyright law too far? Disney is the cathode.

The Disney corporate empire is ridiculously protective of their stuff. I can easily see them attempting to get a billion-year copyright statute, on the chances that ninety-nine million years from now some nursery school in the Andromeda galaxy might paint Donald Duck on their fence without permission.

Personally, I haven't seen much Disney stuff that's even worth ripping off, but then, the kiddies seem to like it.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Blah, blah, blah...

Whatever, dude. I'm just glad loops like you don't write the laws. Point is I make money off my writing, you don't, and that's how it's going to stay. Not because of any social inequity in the laws, but because you're just not marketable. Deal with it.

I'll say it one more time: if you were ever able to produce something for a profit, your attitude would change instantly.

[King of the Americas]

Your comment has been taken and will receive due attention.

Thank you for your input, it is appreciated.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
KOA,

Please...a request...please with a cherry on top please take a little more time in forming the text AND UBL in your replies. Make it clear to the reader who is saying what. I know it is tedious to do so but a little effort on your part would greatly reduce the effort on the part of others...probably by a factor of ten.

That's how he feels "unique." Don't bother asking him for clarity, he won't provide it.

On a separate topic, KOA, why not recount the story of the time you threatened to sue me for buying a domain name you wanted, because it reperesented the initials of a pretend organization you "administered"? I think it would be quite insightful if you did.

And if you don't, I just might.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Matabiri
It's not worth suing yer average punter, which is why they haven't really followed it up. More and more attempts are being made to prevent that sort of piracy, though (although I think this just encourages it...). I have a few CDs that won't play on my computer at all, for example.

I suppose my point was that illegally mass duplicated pirate version, of the type you're talking about, will probably cease to be a problem as connection speeds increase and storage becomes cheaper. Why even pay $5 for an illegal copy, if you can download it free?

Edit for spelling

No argument here. It's not just the spread of technology, but the spread of the knowledge of how easy it is to do. I'm sure it won't be long before they're able to go after the little guy... but not today.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...*Plain and simply, if I STEAL something from you, I have left you "without" something. I.E. I have "removed" without permission from your possession. If I make a 'perfect' replica of your thing, I haven't 'robbed' you of anything, because you still have possession of your property.

That isn't the way any court I know of sees it...if the alleged thief causes a thing of value to end up in *their* possession, and they demonstrate the intent to keep the owner from having that copied 'thing of value' which the alleged thief now has, then larceny has been committed.

It really doesn't matter what the victim is left with, as long as the person doing the copying ends up with a thing of value without permission.

You might have a case if you could show that the copy was not in and of itself, a 'thing of value', but good luck with that.

Do you have cites to the contrary?

Edited to add:
Doctorow brings up another point in his article...there is another intangible 'thing of value' which the rightful owner is being deprived of, and that is the fee due to the original owner to compensate them for their permision to make copies...
Either way it satisfies the legal requirements that a crime has been committed.

[King of the Americas]

Originally posted by Jocko
Whatever, dude. I'm just glad loops like you don't write the laws. Point is I make money off my writing, you don't, and that's how it's going to stay. Not because of any social inequity in the laws, but because you're just not marketable. Deal with it.

I'll say it one more time: if you were ever able to produce something for a profit, your attitude would change instantly.

*Did you read this entire argument?

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

...if not, you should.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*Did you read this entire argument?

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

...if not, you should.

Did you read my response? That's his prerogative. One man's opinion and preference for how he wants HIS work handled is his decision, but I do not, will not, allow his generosity to determine the extent of my LEGAL RIGHTS. Just like you are free to hand out your little essays. Any right can be waived; but no right can be taken. That's what makes it a right.

BTW, congrats on the quote feature. Big improvement, even if it was just to spite me. ;)

[King of the Americas]

Originally posted by Jocko
Did you read my response? That's his prerogative. One man's opinion and preference for how he wants HIS work handled is his decision, but I do not, will not, allow his generosity to determine the extent of my LEGAL RIGHTS. Just like you are free to hand out your little essays. Any right can be waived; but no right can be taken. That's what makes it a right.

BTW, congrats on the quote feature. Big improvement, even if it was just to spite me. ;)

*So, that's a "No."

Click the link and read the guy's argument, rather than just judge his actions.

I think if you read all of it, you may change your mind.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas


*Plain and simply, if I STEAL something from you, I have left you "without" something. I.E. I have "removed" without permission from your possession. If I make a 'perfect' replica of your thing, I haven't 'robbed' you of anything, because you still have possession of your property.


It may help to go to the root of the word:

Theft:
This word is sometimes used as synonymous with larceny, (q. v.) but it is not so technical. Ayliffe's Pand. 581 2 Swift's Dig. 309. 2. In the Scotch law, this is a proper and technical word, and signifies the secret and felonious abstraction of the property of another for sake of lucre, without his consent.

Source: Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

In other words, theft is theft. It's not what they lose, it's what you unfairly take. You can redefine the term to your heart's content, but it won't change a thing.

Just to make it official, here's the link (http://www.legallawterms.com/Legal.asp-Definition-THEFT-BOTE.)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*So, that's a "No."

Click the link and read the guy's argument, rather than just judge his actions.

I think if you read all of it, you may change your mind.

I have.
And I didn't.
Deal with it.

I know this comes as a shocker to you, but deeds speak louder than words. My rights are not up for debate by you or anyone else. Copyright is a good law; you simply have bad ideas. But even those are protectected, even if you never need that protection.


EDITED TO ADD:

I wonder if YOU read it, KOA. Maybe you missed this critical conclusion (which I agree with):

...But anticirumvention lets rightsholders invent new and exciting
copyrights for themselves -- to write private laws without
accountability or deliberation -- that expropriate your interest
in your physical property to their favor.

Before you blow a gasket, remember there are no "private laws" and the term is meant to communicate a de facto restriction. It's just a figure of speech.

So in other words, your problem is not copyright, but proprietary protections put in place by distributors.

Which are private companies.
Which can do whatever the hell they please with their product.
Which doesn't really impact copyright law IN THE FIRST PLACE, because you're free to use or not use their product. It has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law, except as a basis for non-copyright (i.e., non-legally based) protections like encryption.

Yet another windmill tilted at by KOA. The score: Windmills 78, KOA Nil.

[King of the Americas]

Last I understood, "lucre" was for money or profit...

So if I copy one of your songs or books, and I DON'T try to sell it or make money off of it I have "thieved" anything...?

So long as you are assisting me in making my argument, could you please render me a rebuttle to the argument linked above?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Last I understood, "lucre" was for money or profit...

In America the term is enrichment. Same idea. It's not necessarily monetary. No one ever said it was.

So if I copy one of your songs or books, and I DON'T try to sell it or make money off of it I have "thieved" anything...?

If it's protected by copyright and you took it or copied it without my permission, YES.
I've been telling you this for years.
I've watched others tell you this for years.
I've watched you act as surprised as an alzheimer's patient at this news for years.
Please write it down this time.

So long as you are assisting me in making my argument, could you please render me a rebuttle to the argument linked above?

Which one, the irrelevant argument about DVD encryption (which has nothing to do with copyright law) or the irrelevant argument you should have the final say on how long someone may hold copyright or pass protected property to his heirs?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Last I understood, "lucre" was for money or profit...

So if I copy one of your songs or books, and I DON'T try to sell it or make money off of it I have "thieved" anything...?


It depends on whether you would have bought that song or book, thereby giving him his share of his rightful profits, if you hadn't been able to copy it.

The copyright holders don't really lose anything by copying; they fail to gain instead.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It depends on whether you would have bought that song or book, thereby giving him his share of his rightful profits, if you hadn't been able to copy it.

The copyright holders don't really lose anything by copying; they fail to gain instead.

While this is technically true on a common sense level, the mechanism of the law is gaining access without permission (payment is one kind of permission, see).

It's not my loss, but his enrichment that is illegal. My loss is purely speculative, as you pointed out, but his enrichment is a given.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Jocko
It's not my loss, but his enrichment that is illegal. My loss is purely speculative, as you pointed out, but his enrichment is a given.

And it burns you up inside! Lol. I'm not kidding, I agree. It's wrong to allow ripping off people's work. I'd hate to see some jerk get rewarded for my efforts.

I think copyrights are a good idea, but that they ought to expire at a set period and not be renewable. A hundred years sounds about right--that would let my hypothetical grandchildren, and possibly their children, still benefit from my work. But I don't see any need for the fifth generation down to get money from it, not like they ever visited or even met me, and certainly I couldn't care less what the publisher's profits are like a century after I'm dead.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And it burns you up inside! Lol. I'm not kidding, I agree. It's wrong to allow ripping off people's work. I'd hate to see some jerk get rewarded for my efforts.

I think copyrights are a good idea, but that they ought to expire at a set period and not be renewable. A hundred years sounds about right--that would let my hypothetical grandchildren, and possibly their children, still benefit from my work. But I don't see any need for the fifth generation down to get money from it, not like they ever visited or even met me, and certainly I couldn't care less what the publisher's profits are like a century after I'm dead.

And as I recall, that's more or less where the limits are drawn. It's property, just like your house or trust fund or anything else you may want to hand down to future generations. Like I said above, KOA doesn't get to use my car whenever he feels like it just because I'm no longer here to enjoy it myself.

But an aspect that has gone untouched here is the variety of exemptions available to you... fair usage is one. Such as the rules governing the way we post links and exceprts here. That's not much of an imposition, and it lets you use others' work in a fair and equitable way... as long as you cite it.

What I really can't make sense of is the way you can copyright a performance of public domain material, though. If the Chicago Symphony Orchestra performs "Carmen" and records it, then copyright is implied and the performance is protected, even if the sheet music isn't.

Also, you cannot copyright your own name. Don't know why, but you can't.

[crimresearch]

You cannot copyright a name, but one can protect their enjoyment of the reputation associated with that name or other trademarked item.

Try opening a restaurant called Emeril Lagasse's, or a coffeeshop called Starbuck's (even if that is your own name), and see.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by crimresearch
You cannot copyright a name, but one can protect their enjoyment of the reputation associated with that name or other trademarked item.

Try opening a restaurant called Emeril Lagasse's, or a coffeeshop called Starbuck's (even if that is your own name), and see.

Your register a trademark (name, logo, etc.), yes I know.

But you can only copyright a name (a character, a book title, etc.) as long as it's not your own. It's one of the mysteries of the literary world.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jocko
What I really can't make sense of is the way you can copyright a performance of public domain material, though. If the Chicago Symphony Orchestra performs "Carmen" and records it, then copyright is implied and the performance is protected, even if the sheet music isn't.

It's implied for that recording/performance only. There's nothing to stop you recording your own version.

It's to protect perfomance abilities - if someone's a particularly good singer, for example, why should they not get some protection for their use of their voice?

Music copyright is slightly odd, though. If you write a piece of music, you cannot stop someone from recording it - although they must pay you royalties for the privilege.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Music copyright is slightly odd, though. If you write a piece of music, you cannot stop someone from recording it - although they must pay you royalties for the privilege.

Now there's some legal code that deserves a little revision. I mean, come on... Rush releasing an album of cover tunes?!! If Moses had seen that, we'd have 11 commandments right now.

[Tmy]

Say KNABE,

If I have an illegal cable box, am I "stealing" cable?? Its it OK fpr me to have free HBO since I am not taking it away from anyone else.

(Viva le Cable Freedom Fighters!:p )

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
Say KNABE,

If I have an illegal cable box, am I "stealing" cable?? Its it OK fpr me to have free HBO since I am not taking it away from anyone else.

(Viva le Cable Freedom Fighters!:p )

Technically, since you're eating up the voltage allowance (or whatever it's called), you are taking it away from someone else (although you may need a multimeter to detect it).

And what do you mean, "IF" you have an illegal cable box? I know you too well to not see right through that one.

[crimresearch]

Puhleeeze!!
Tmy obviously meant that he had a 'friend' with an illegal cable box.

;)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jocko
Technically, since you're eating up the voltage allowance (or whatever it's called), you are taking it away from someone else (although you may need a multimeter to detect it).

And what do you mean, "IF" you have an illegal cable box? I know you too well to not see right through that one.

FIGHT THE POWER!!!!!

Hey I pay my electric bill! I aint takin nothing away. Ive "heard" of people who have illegal satillite boxes too. IF the company is beaming their program onto my.....errr Mr. X's property, shouldnt he be able to watch it. Is it stealing???

[Jocko]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Puhleeeze!!
Tmy obviously meant that he had a 'friend' with an illegal cable box.

;)

Timmy has a friend. Good one, Crim, you really had me going for a second there. :dl:

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
FIGHT THE POWER!!!!!

Hey I pay my electric bill! I aint takin nothing away. Ive "heard" of people who have illegal satillite boxes too. IF the company is beaming their program onto my.....errr Mr. X's property, shouldnt he be able to watch it. Is it stealing???

Sorry, Timmy, what I meant is the the cable company allocates power to its network based on subscriber info. If they allocate enough juice for 1,000 people on yout circuit, and there's 100 illegal boxes tapped in, there's not enough power and the quality of the signal degrades.

Or so I've heard- my frat house's attic looked like a spiderweb of coaxial cable, with one connections split out 30+ ways, and I never noticed any problems. But that's the line.

As to illegal satellite... well, there's no associated impact on your neighbors but it's still stealing. I should know, I have a ... er, friend with one of those.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tmy
Hey I pay my electric bill! I aint takin nothing away. Ive "heard" of people who have illegal satillite boxes too. IF the company is beaming their program onto my.....errr Mr. X's property, shouldnt he be able to watch it. Is it stealing???

The problem is that it doesn't raise revenue for the broadcaster. No-one cares about low-level piracy, as Jocko has said earlier - it costs too much to enforce, and the only reason to prosecute it occasionally is to scare people into not pirating. However, when that low-level piracy becomes too commonly acceptable, there's an incentive to wade in and take everyone's ball away, because it starts to seriously affect their revenue.

Piracy is parasitic, and too many parasites kill the host.

[Tmy]

I know its thievery. I was wondering if KNABEs theories transfer over to signal theft.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Tmy
I know its thievery. I was wondering if KNABEs theories transfer over to signal theft.

Timmy, were you there back in the day when I convinced him I'd bought www.wpi.com? He sh*t a brick and threatened to sue me. Of course it was all a goof, but his reaction was nothing short of violent. So much for free and open sharing, right?

As a result, I think I can sum his position up very succintly:

"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jocko
Timmy, were you there back in the day when I convinced him I'd bought www.wpi.com? He sh*t a brick and threatened to sue me. Of course it was all a goof, but his reaction was nothing short of violent. So much for free and open sharing, right?

As a result, I think I can sum his position up very succintly:

"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."

I always wanted to start a rock band and name it "Napster". THen sit back and wait for a rather ironic "cease and desist" order to come my way. That would be publicty gold for any garage band.:)

[King of the Americas]

To be honest, you tried and DID 'register' "www.worldpeaceinitiative.com" with some site I forget which. I only ever managed to get the company to disclose the information you provided them in order to secure the site.

"www.wpi.com" was already taken by like "World Plastics Insitute" or something like that...

---

I'd like to address your thinking "citing properly" a work is alright and fine, but that you want it to be limited...?

What's wrong with coping your whole book, so long as we include the title page???

At least you won't be taken out of context!

I thought the link on the other page offered a new and different understand of media and how we consume it, and how laws have changed throughout history and made different impacts upon people and the economy.

I think there were a dozen direct cause and affect arguments he makes, and you ignored every one.

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought I read that you were in favor of 'some' kind of limit on copyrights, like at 100 years? Well, I believe someone else has already made the Disney argument for me. How much longer will THAT copyright last?

The last real argument you made was one with definations we disagree upon.

'I' believe "theft" occurs when you have taken something from someone without permission, something they had inventory on, something they could hold and count. Making a "perfect replica" of something you've seen, heard, or had or purchased in a Public Market is NOT a crime. In fact, Freedom of the Press has been found on many occasions by the Supreme Court, to be and 'individual' right.

Therefore, I would put forward that my 1st Amendment right to print & distribute that which I see and hear, in a Public venue, supercedes your imagined limitless copyrights. If Disney held a parade, they couldn't sue a paper for not paying they for featuring "Mickey Mouse" on the cover of their front page.

So if an individual wanted to put up a webPAGE, and include on that page everything he has seen, heard, and read IN FULL for download, I see no reason why he could validly make an argument with the 1st Amendment.

Granted, that I don't beleive the same rights should occur toward "private information", and herein is where I would allocate 'limited' copyrights. We can only truly protect your information before it is out in the public market place.

[crimresearch]

The last real argument you made was one with definations we disagree upon. 'I' believe "theft" occurs when you have taken something from someone without permission, something they had inventory on, something they could hold and count. Making a "perfect replica" of something you've seen, heard, or had or purchased in a Public Market is NOT a crime. In fact, Freedom of the Press has been found on many occasions by the Supreme Court, to be and 'individual' right.

And I suppose we should continue to hold our breath waiting for you to provide the requested cites showing where a court agrees with *your* definitions and disagrees with standard and accepted definitions?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
To be honest, you tried and DID 'register' "www.worldpeaceinitiative.com" with some site I forget which. I only ever managed to get the company to disclose the information you provided them in order to secure the site.

I did no such thing. I merely convince you I did, to prove a point about your idiotic "everything belongs to everybody" attitude. You were so blinded by the outrage that someone had "taken" something from you (something you didn't even own, but so what, right)? ...you were so incensed you never even bothered to check.

I punked you, and you made it easy. Too bad you completely missed the lesson, and continue to revisit the same defeated ground over and over again in threads like these.

"www.wpi.com" was already taken by like "World Plastics Insitute" or something like that...

Which might have been your first hint I was BSing you, if you hadn't been so busy circling the wagons and threatening litigation. And again, the point escaped you.



I'd like to address your thinking "citing properly" a work is alright and fine, but that you want it to be limited...?

What's wrong with coping your whole book, so long as we include the title page???

Because you're essentially copying the whole thing. Technicalities like leaving off the dust jacket or table of contents don't matter; if you steal - note the word, please - the essence of copyrighted material, it's still theft even if you cite it.

Fer chrissakes, you YOURSELF have been upbraided here for posting an entire article,even when you cited. How many dots do I need to connect for you? Read a damned book! Order a pamphlet from Pueblo, Colorado! Do something to improve your mind and not worry so much about the sound of your own voice.



I thought the link on the other page offered a new and different understand of media and how we consume it, and how laws have changed throughout history and made different impacts upon people and the economy.

I think there were a dozen direct cause and affect arguments he makes, and you ignored every one.

No, you missed the fact that copyright law is bing used as the excuse for copy protection, not the cause. I pointed this out to you - with a cited quote explaining it in you - and again you missed it.

In fact, some elements of encryption VIOLATE copyright law in that they don't allow you to make a backup. So how in the hell do you see that as copyright laws taking over your life?

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought I read that you were in favor of 'some' kind of limit on copyrights, like at 100 years? Well, I believe someone else has already made the Disney argument for me. How much longer will THAT copyright last?

As long as they are allowed to exploit the loopholes. JUST LIKE I SAID TWO DOZEN POSTS AGO. Forget reading a book on the subject, just start by reading this thread, because you obviously haven't done so.

The last real argument you made was one with definations we disagree upon.

'I' believe "theft" occurs when you have taken something from someone without permission, something they had inventory on, something they could hold and count. Making a "perfect replica" of something you've seen, heard, or had or purchased in a Public Market is NOT a crime. In fact, Freedom of the Press has been found on many occasions by the Supreme Court, to be and 'individual' right.

Irrelevant. Your opinions are not law. Most of them aren't even sane. Again, I said it before up there - your cockeyed interpretation of a perfectly simple definition (which I provided you the legal freakin' dictionary entry for) doesn't change a single thing.

You have a long history of convenient redefinitions. You've been wrong every single time, including this one.

Therefore, I would put forward that my 1st Amendment right to print & distribute that which I see and hear, in a Public venue, supercedes your imagined limitless copyrights. If Disney held a parade, they couldn't sue a paper for not paying they for featuring "Mickey Mouse" on the cover of their front page.

You may "put" it anywhere you want, but the rightful owners of these proporties will "put" their litigous foot dead in your ass. It's long past time you learned to distinguish between your daydreams and reality, "King."

So if an individual wanted to put up a webPAGE, and include on that page everything he has seen, heard, and read IN FULL for download, I see no reason why he could validly make an argument with the 1st Amendment.

Granted, that I don't beleive the same rights should occur toward "private information", and herein is where I would allocate 'limited' copyrights. We can only truly protect your information before it is out in the public market place.

Oh, that's how you would handle it. Your subjects on planet doofus will be very glad to hear that.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by crimresearch


And I suppose we should continue to hold our breath waiting for you to provide the requested cites showing where a court agrees with *your* definitions and disagrees with standard and accepted definitions?

Kings don't have to listen to judges. KOA's name isn't some kind of wry joke, it's a symptom of some real personality problems.

[nightwind]

I've said it many times before. Ashcroft is one of the most dangerous people around when it comes to personal freedoms. While I might could survive Bush another 4 years if I have to, it is going to be difficult to stomach Ashcroft. This guy is an extremist of the worst kind.

In fact think that he alone is a reason not to vote Bush.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jocko
I did no such thing. I merely convince you I did, to prove a point about your idiotic "everything belongs to everybody" attitude. You were so blinded by the outrage that someone had "taken" something from you (something you didn't even own, but so what, right)? ...you were so incensed you never even bothered to check. I can die now. I thought it would take a roll in the hay with Faith Hill and Shania Twain but, no, my life is complete.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by RandFan
I can die now. I thought it would take a roll in the hay with Faith Hill and Shania Twain but, no, my life is complete.

Glad to accommodate. You should have seen the way he cried and moaned about the injustice of it all. Alas, it was on another message board some years ago.

BTW, I don't know about Faith Hill but Shania wasn't half of what I expected.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jocko
BTW, I don't know about Faith Hill but Shania wasn't half of what I expected. :D