RIAA wins court case for significant damages.

[pvicente]

Im sorry, and I dont want to be an ass but you are wrong. Most software titles at this point, for console games are designed on PC. They often DO have PC ports, often not.

Ask the developer why they dont spend more time on the PC game and they will tell you : because it is too easily stolen
If that's what is going on, then why are games being released for the PC without console ports?
Games like Civilization, the Total War series, Europa Universalis, Sam and Max, Galactic Civilizations, Supreme Commander ...
Why haven't those developers moved to the console world?
Even better, I know of a small, "indie" french studio that has managed to prosper selling their games on the web,by download, without any drm or copy protection besides a "please enter your cd-key" kind of check. How did they managed to do that, if piracy is such a great danger?

[pipelineaudio]

If that's what is going on, then why are games being released for the PC without console ports?
Games like Civilization, the Total War series, Europa Universalis, Sam and Max, Galactic Civilizations, Supreme Commander ...
Why haven't those developers moved to the console world?
Even better, I know of a small, "indie" french studio that has managed to prosper selling their games on the web,by download, without any drm or copy protection besides a "please enter your cd-key" kind of check. How did they managed to do that, if piracy is such a great danger?

Kind of a false dichotomy dont you think?

[pipelineaudio]

Maybe this analogy will help, again, from pounce's thread ( http://womb.mixerman.net/showthread.php?t=4683&page=6 )

"You buy a car.

It has a button on the dash that says "Do Not Press This Button. It will make a perfect copy of this car and therefore deprive the manufacturer, the sales and engineering staff of their income for their work, and you may be liable for prosecution."

Now give that car to a 17 year old or a grandmother or the guy who mows your lawn and see how many cars they own in a week.

They're thieves, but the technology was available so they used it and it was built in as a feature of the product.

Everybody would own 20 cars each and the oil companies would buy the car companies after they went out of business a week later and try and get that button removed.

But not until.

It's unethical, it's IP theft, it's illegal distribution and there's about a billion machines that have the f*ucking technology embedded in the O/S that makes it possible.

Make no mistake: Silicon Valley is taking over the music and film distribution by tacitly allowing the very technology that makes it impossible to sell as a hard product and they will not rest until media is something that happens on computers and nowhere else. All your base, folks.

Recorded songs are a product.

Films are a product.

The things that software does is a product.

Binary data isn't because it's very nature makes it copyable and distributable and the market calls that "littering."
"

[geni]

A rather salient post from a forum where many of the people know what they're talking about on this issue

"The idea of intellectual property rights has never been well understood by the public and does feed into this situation. In the past, when you bought a vinyl record, a cassette, a CD, a movie, or Windows Office, it seemed that you owned it. You could give it away, you could sell it to somebody else and (except for software) you could even copy it for your own use. That is a pretty complete rights package. However, if you owned a bar and wanted to play music for your patrons, you then had to pay additionally for it because you were using it commercially. Still very understandable.

However, the public only owned the plastic the product was duplicated on and only had limited USE rights to the actual product. Very few people understand this concept, especially evidenced by the continued defense of pirating on this and other forums.

Not a question of understanding just not something they considered. I mean I've got a Bob Dylan 45 here. What process would I have to go through with it to make another 45?. Not really possible. Copyright was just a notice it didn't really have any impact on what you could do.



So no, the Entitled Generation are not to blame for getting it wrong initially. What they and anybody at any age are wrong about and responsible for, is not ATTEMPTING to UNDERSTAND the situation when it is explained to them. The continued defense of the pirating of music, movies, games and software becomes a criminal action when you know better and continue the behavior.


Criminal? Copyright infringement is not criminal in all legal systems (remember there is a world outside the US) and so far the relevant criminal laws in the US have not been used. Everything has been done on a civil level.

Pedantic but important. It means even those looking to defend the current copyright system don't really understand it (well a few of the RIAA's lawyers maybe). And yet you expect people with at most a passing interest in copyright to understand it. You may not like CC but at least they tried to make copyright human readable (they failed btw but not to that great an extent).


Shoplifting has caused Wal Mart to respond with cameras and guards. No one would call shoplifting a "market change" even though it has dramatically affected how retail does it's business. Each and every one of you is considered a thief when entering a Wal Mart or Target. You are watched every minute by a staff who expect every one of you to steal something.

When the record companies treat their customers with the same caution, they are loudly criticized. That is where the hypocrisy is being committed.


Not really. Wal Mart owns the store. It's their turf their rules. The RIAA does not own the net. It does not own my computer. The equivalence doesn't hold.


Even though many probably did not read pounce's link and this may be an excercize in futility, here is where the post is from http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/0/19709/32/937/#msg_19709

I read it. Nothing particularly new and nothing of significance to free licenses.


What it does not consider is why people don’t like physical property theft. Good old fashioned self interest. Pretty much everyone owns physical property which they don’t want stolen. Thus it is in everybody’s interests to make sure theft is universally opposed. I won’t steal your stuff if you help make sure no one steals my stuff.

But what about IP? Where is the average person’s stake. Sure technically their is the family album (which depending on where you live may or may not be full of copyright infringements Freedom of panorama laws are not exactly consistent) but there is no reason for a person to think of that as a stake. Most people are unlikely to produce IP that they can sell so no way to get a stake that way. Free licenses however change that. It gets people to publish work under terms that require copyright law to be enforceable.

[geni]

Maybe this analogy will help, again, from pounce's thread ( http://womb.mixerman.net/showthread.php?t=4683&page=6 )

"You buy a car.

It has a button on the dash that says "Do Not Press This Button. It will make a perfect copy of this car and therefore deprive the manufacturer, the sales and engineering staff of their income for their work, and you may be liable for prosecution."

Now give that car to a 17 year old or a grandmother or the guy who mows your lawn and see how many cars they own in a week.

They're thieves, but the technology was available so they used it and it was built in as a feature of the product.

You can't meaningfuly copyright cars


Everybody would own 20 cars each and the oil companies would buy the car companies after they went out of business a week later and try and get that button removed.


Why would the oil companies buy something that had no value?


It's unethical, it's IP theft, it's illegal distribution and there's about a billion machines that have the f*ucking technology embedded in the O/S that makes it possible.

Very little of the tech is embedded. The courts tend to object when microsoft starts embedding too much stuff in it's OS. Microsoft worked quite hard to try and include some level of support for DRM in vista.


Make no mistake: Silicon Valley is taking over the music and film distribution by tacitly allowing the very technology that makes it impossible to sell as a hard product and they will not rest until media is something that happens on computers and nowhere else. All your base, folks.


What on earth makes you think they would stop there?

The complaint appears to be that computer companies won't support DRM. Not true. Apple love DRM. Intel and AMD quite rightly don't care one way or another. If someone wants to buy a system with built in DRM they will sell a system with built in DRM. Intel is quite happy to sell to apple. If someone wants a system with no built in DRM they will sell that. Just happens that most people want to buy PCs and PC architecture doesn't exactly support DRM that well.


Recorded songs are a product.

Films are a product.

The things that software does is a product.

Binary data isn't because it's very nature makes it copyable and distributable and the market calls that "littering."
"

Binary data is not intrinsically copyable and distributable. In fact at first glance the written word would appear to have the edge. Back when your binary was stored on punch cards it would have been less effort to copy a page of text than the punch card.

If the market called binary's ease of distribution and ease of copying ability anything it would probably be efficient.

[Soapy Sam]

So some record companies go bust.

Why should I care?

The shipbuilding industry went bust. Nobody bailed them out.
The coal mines went bust. Ditto.
Pretty well most manufacturing went bust.
Banks go bust.

OK, so the technology that created the music industry has turned on it and is about to eat it alive.

Tough.

[geni]

If that's what is going on, then why are games being released for the PC without console ports?
Games like Civilization, the Total War series, Europa Universalis, Sam and Max, Galactic Civilizations, Supreme Commander ...
Why haven't those developers moved to the console world?

Mostly issues with the controler. RTS games with consol controls are tricky.

[pipelineaudio]

Mostly issues with the controler. RTS games with consol controls are tricky.

or FPS. Watching a l33t stickman champion get pwnt by a noob with a mouse and keyboard in an FPS game is highly entertaining

[pipelineaudio]

So some record companies go bust.

Why should I care?

The shipbuilding industry went bust. Nobody bailed them out.
The coal mines went bust. Ditto.
Pretty well most manufacturing went bust.
Banks go bust.

OK, so the technology that created the music industry has turned on it and is about to eat it alive.

Tough.

So some pontificator hasnt read the thread

Why should I care?

though your post is erroneous in countless ways

[geni]

or FPS. Watching a l33t stickman champion get pwnt by a noob with a mouse and keyboard in an FPS game is highly entertaining

Battlefield and counterstrike pretty much cover that market. While stick controls are not as fine they generaly feel okey to play with for FPS. For RTS and the like there just isn't a way to put together an interface that doesn't suck.

[NeilC]

The record companies surely have to bite the bullet and just charge a lot less for their products. Admittedly how much they can get away with is, in part, related to the success of cases like these. If you have the choice of paying say $4 for an album (which you may or may not end up playing much) or potentially getting sued then you might well just go for the $4. But at the moment, in the UK, downloading an album in itunes costs more like $16 and risk of getting caught and sued is very small indeed.

This is why these russian MP3 sites are so popular. You pay a small amount for a wide choice of music, you have no chance of getting sued as far as I can tell. People are spending £millions through them but the artists are not getting paid.

[peteweaver]

How many people in the 80's & 90's used to copy tapes and pass them on to friends ?

And did the record industry do anything to stop sales of blank tapes ? or the means to copy music ?

NO.

[NeilC]

So? How could they?

Actually didn't they levy a small fee on blank tapes or something?

[Nick Bogaerts]

Nick and Geni, you see the little reaper icon as my avatar?

Yes, we are. Why is that?

You'll see my cooperation and participation with him and hopefully we can end any nonsense that I am against filesharing or dont understand the issues involved.

From the way this thread is going, I don't see that at all. As far as I can tell, you are ignoring everything I am saying. Now I'd love to have a proper discussion on the subject with you, but at this moment I don't see that happening. I'm willing to give it another try, if you are willing to stop claiming that the only reason I'm disagreeing with you is because I am 'not ATTEMPTING to UNDERSTAND the situation when it is explained to [me]'. I resent the implication, and if you continue that behaviour, I'll give up, because arguing with you would be an exercise in futility.

So what do you say?

[UserGoogol]

So no, the Entitled Generation are not to blame for getting it wrong initially. What they and anybody at any age are wrong about and responsible for, is not ATTEMPTING to UNDERSTAND the situation when it is explained to them. The continued defense of the pirating of music, movies, games and software becomes a criminal action when you know better and continue the behavior.

Entitled Generation? It ain't the copyright infringers who use the force of government to prevent others from being able to freely use and access their works so that they can make an income they feel they are entitled to.

[pipelineaudio]

The record companies surely have to bite the bullet and just charge a lot less for their products.

The who? Record companies are a very small part of who is affected by this

But go on rationalizing theft by using the big bad record companies if this helps you sleep better

[pipelineaudio]

How many people in the 80's & 90's used to copy tapes and pass them on to friends ?

And did the record industry do anything to stop sales of blank tapes ? or the means to copy music ?

NO.

The copied cassettes didnt null to -80dBFS against the vinyl though

[balrog666]

The copied cassettes didnt null to -80dBFS against the vinyl though

Oh, so quality is an issue?

[pipelineaudio]

From the way this thread is going, I don't see that at all. As far as I can tell, you are ignoring everything I am saying. Now I'd love to have a proper discussion on the subject with you, but at this moment I don't see that happening. I'm willing to give it another try, if you are willing to stop claiming that the only reason I'm disagreeing with you is because I am 'not ATTEMPTING to UNDERSTAND the situation when it is explained to [me]'. I resent the implication, and if you continue that behaviour, I'll give up, because arguing with you would be an exercise in futility.

So what do you say?

A large part of my main income comes from the guy who created gnutella. I defend his creation of gnutella (though thats not my job)

He makes, non expiring, uncrippled, donationware. he also puts out GPL stuff. If you did a little background checking, you would see just how favorable I see file sharing, its not like its very hard to find. You are assigning positions to me I simply do not hold.

File sharing has made a LOT of things better for a lot of people

But for those who CHOOSE not to partake, for very valid reasons of their own, its been a very nasty blow.


As much crap as I take here from those trying to rationalize stealing, I trake 1000 times more crap elsewhere for defending filesharing.

Its not fair to accuse me of positions I don't take, and 2 minutes of research would bear that out without me dragging up names which would make this discussion rather damaging to a lot of people who dont deserve any more trouble than theyre already having

[pipelineaudio]

Oh, so quality is an issue?

Not to derail massively, but there were some(read VERY VERY many) who thought mp3 codecs would never get very good, and a crappy sounding mp3 would help sell albums the way crappy cassette copies helped sell albums

However its not the only issue, as handcam films of movies at theatres are allegedly hurting video sales massively

[pipelineaudio]

Entitled Generation? It ain't the copyright infringers who use the force of government to prevent others from being able to freely use and access their works so that they can make an income they feel they are entitled to.

You are making an assumption that ALL the artists and software developers, and movie makers and ( watch the news for this in the next few days) audiobook makers want you to have their stuff for free when they have explicitly stated otherwise

[pvicente]

Kind of a false dichotomy dont you think?
No, I don't think so. We've got console developers that won't port their games to the PC, and PC developers that won't port to the consoles.
If piracy is so bad on the PC front and porting so easy as you say then why are developers still bothering with PC games? Why don't they move to the console world, or leave the games business?
What about the frenchies, why weren't their games "stolen" by everyone with a internet connection, leaving them without a dime?

[pipelineaudio]

No, I don't think so. We've got console developers that won't port their games to the PC, and PC developers that won't port to the consoles.
If piracy is so bad on the PC front and porting so easy as you say then why are developers still bothering with PC games? Why don't they move to the console world, or leave the games business?
What about the frenchies, why weren't their games "stolen" by everyone with a internet connection, leaving them without a dime?

If cars are so bad why does anyone drive them?

[geni]

A large part of my main income comes from the guy who created gnutella. I defend his creation of gnutella (though thats not my job)

He makes, non expiring, uncrippled, donationware. he also puts out GPL stuff. If you did a little background checking, you would see just how favorable I see file sharing, its not like its very hard to find. You are assigning positions to me I simply do not hold.

You think that the GPL is okey but object to CC?


File sharing has made a LOT of things better for a lot of people

But for those who CHOOSE not to partake, for very valid reasons of their own, its been a very nasty blow.

Yet you object to CC which is all about choice.


As much crap as I take here from those trying to rationalize stealing, I trake 1000 times more crap elsewhere for defending filesharing.

Its not fair to accuse me of positions I don't take, and 2 minutes of research would bear that out without me dragging up names which would make this discussion rather damaging to a lot of people who dont deserve any more trouble than theyre already having

Not your position on copyright that is getting you your latest lot of flack but your aparent position on free licenses.

[geni]

You are making an assumption that ALL the artists and software developers, and movie makers and ( watch the news for this in the next few days) audiobook makers want you to have their stuff for free when they have explicitly stated otherwise

No he is stating that all those content creators (a description that pisses of both artists and RMS fanboys) feel entitled to be able to learn their living in a certain way. At present the state agrees with them but that is all. They are not entitled to their government backed monopoly any more farmers are entitled their subsidies.

I would however argue that artists are entitled to due process. If people want the law changed they should elect people to do that rather than ignoreing it.

[pipelineaudio]

I don't object to CC or even EFF, I object to propose legislation which would FORCE it upon all of us. (another easily searchable claim - siderite project for instance )

I wouldn't worry about it at all, but the attitude of the public and many in this thread shows that even when the content creator states otherwise, people would like to force that upon them ALL

[geni]

I don't object to CC or even EFF, I object to propose legislation which would FORCE it upon all of us. (another easily searchable claim - siderite project for instance )


Typeing "siderite project" into google does not result in anything particularly relivant.

US has signed the Berne Convention. Any attempt to abolish copyright would be in breech of that.


I wouldn't worry about it at all, but the attitude of the public and many in this thread shows that even when the content creator states otherwise, people would like to force that upon them ALL

Force upon? No. Take away a goverment supported monopoly perhaps but that is takeing away a legal advantage rather than forceing anything on someone.

[UserGoogol]

You are making an assumption that ALL the artists and software developers, and movie makers and ( watch the news for this in the next few days) audiobook makers want you to have their stuff for free when they have explicitly stated otherwise

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Of course they don't want you to have it. Of course welfare recipients don't want you to be able to keep your untaxed paycheck. The whole definition of entitlement is when you feel there is some moral (or legal or whatever) imperative for others to let you get what you want. COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ARE THE ONES FORCING PEOPLE TO DO THINGS. (Although since I'm not a pacifist anarchist libertarian, I sure as hell admit that force is sometimes neccesary. But to flip things around like that is just wrong.)

Content creators are just people. They have no inherent entitlements to profit from their own works. All of society consists of the constant transmission and transformation of other people's ideas. Creative people are simply better at transforming their input ideas than other people.

[pipelineaudio]

Force upon? No. Take away a goverment supported monopoly perhaps but that is takeing away a legal advantage rather than forceing anything on someone.

Are you saying that every independant artist out there, every software developer, every filmmaker out there is part of some giant government supported monopoly?

[pipelineaudio]

Content creators are just people. They have no inherent entitlements to profit from their own works. All of society consists of the constant transmission and transformation of other people's ideas. Creative people are simply better at transforming their input ideas than other people.

WOW!!!

Ill tell you what this results in, people don't get paid for their work, they find another job

Exactly what IS happening BTW, slowing down technical advancement in a lot of areas

[geni]

Are you saying that every independant artist out there, every software developer, every filmmaker out there is part of some giant government supported monopoly?

Well yes that is what copyright is. A government backed temporary monopoly.

Patent is a stricter (it protects against independent invention) temporary government backed monopoly but it is also rather shorter.

Other areas of IP are more complex.

[pipelineaudio]

So you dont think it is ok "will of the law" that if you make something with the express intent of getting paid for it IF someone takes it someone should have to pay for it if they take it?

Because if not, you are telling them to stop making these things, if they expect to get paid for them.

Take a look in the areas where thats what's happening, not a pretty site

[geni]

WOW!!!

Ill tell you what this results in, people don't get paid for their work, they find another job

Exactly what IS happening BTW, slowing down technical advancement in a lot of areas

There is a lot of technical advancement that doesn't happen because there is no money in it (compare the amount of research into problem illnesses in the west compared to those that mostly hit Africa).

[geni]

So you dont think it is ok "will of the law" that if you make something with the express intent of getting paid for it IF someone takes it someone should have to pay for it if they take it?


I accept the law as is. I also accept there are mechanisms in place to change it.


Because if not, you are telling them to stop making these things, if they expect to get paid for them.

Take a look in the areas where thats what's happening, not a pretty site

Neither were the various areas of the UK where the economy was based on mining. However there is no requirement that everything governments do must be pretty. In the US congress has the legal power to create limited terms of copyright in so far as that does not conflict with the first amendment (ie they probably can't completely outlaw all forms of fair use without getting the constitution changed). Equally they have the power not to create any copyright law at all.

The UK parliament has the legal power to do whatever they like but the effect is much the same.

There is no fundamental reason why copyright has to exist in its current form or indeed any form at all. I tend to view this as the first step from which to build a rational argument for some system of copyright to exist.

[pipelineaudio]

OK, let me dumb this down severely, to the content creators's point of view...lets even go further and say this is only SOME content creators' point of view:

I am going to make a product. Here are my terms: If you want the product, buy it. Unlike ANY other time in recorded history, you can now, if you so chose, buy ONLY the songs you like, so I have made it extremely easy (and cheap) for you to do so.

If you DONT want to agree to my terms and you take my product anyway, you are a thief

If enough people steal, I will not be able to afford to do this, so please don't.

If you chose not to buy my product because you don't LIKE my product, then thank you, you have done me a favor by telling me which product you do and don't like.

If you chose to steal my productinstead of buying it, I then realize that my product is only as good as the Brittney Spears and Backstreet Boys that you also stole.

Thanks

[Corsair 115]

How does what the record company did wrong justify stealing from ME? From all the small software companies? From all the smaller label bands?

You are trying to rationalize the indefensible by pulling the old "magical faceless corporation" copoutNo, I'm wondering why apparently one kind of theft perpetrated by one group is of lesser concern to you than another kind of theft perpetrated by another group.

Shouldn't all theft, whatever its form, be equally criticized and equally opposed?

[pipelineaudio]

No, I'm wondering why apparently one kind of theft perpetrated by one group is of lesser concern to you than another kind of theft perpetrated by another group.

Shouldn't all theft, whatever its form, be equally criticized and equally opposed?

Not that I want to descend into the silliest of all tu quoques but:

Yes, stealing from those who are being stolen from isn't helping the situation

[UserGoogol]

WOW!!!

Ill tell you what this results in, people don't get paid for their work, they find another job

Exactly what IS happening BTW, slowing down technical advancement in a lot of areas

Uh yeah, I don't disagree with you at all. I have said already (was going to say in that post but I cut it out because I thought I was getting too rambly) that the point of copyright is to promote the development of creative works, and it does do that. (I think that ultimately a lot of specifically technological advancement comes from areas like academia, where "intellectual property" doesn't play too major a role, but it certainly helps.) But copyright gives with one hand and takes with the other, since copyright on the one hand promotes the creation of new works, but it prevents people from actually getting at these works by FORCING people to get the works the way the creator works.

My point was merely a sort of hamfisted way of saying that to suppose that people are just automatically entitled to "THEIR" ideas is silly, since society is nothing but people spraying their ideas every which way. Copyright exists so as to assure that people who spray out particularly good ideas can be encouraged. Of course these people need to be paid. The question is merely whether they should be paid by FORCING other people to go through them to get it. And, even if we do have copyright, should we use such extreme force as requiring copyright infringers to pay thousands of dollars for committing an action which only indirectly harms people? That's more than some people pay for vehicular manslaughter or other fairly serious crimes.

[pipelineaudio]

Of course people need to be paid. But should creators be paid by FORCING people to not copy it?

No, people should not EVER be forced to pay for content (and Im speaking of content as its whole form as in if a song is ONLY available on a CD, then that CD is "the content", not the individual songs, if they are not available for purchase seperately) that they dont want

Creator should not be paid if noone takes his stuff

Nor should the creator be paid by forcing people not to steal

I didnt make any argument that they should

Content creators should be paid if people take their stuff, that is their understanding on making the stuff available (in many cases)

[UserGoogol]

Nor should the creator be paid by forcing people not to steal

I didnt make any argument that they should

Content creators should be paid if people take their stuff, that is their understanding on making the stuff available (in many cases)

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, but that's how the whole idea of copyright works. The government makes it illegal for anyone except for the creator and licensees to make copyright except for fair use exceptions. Thus, if a person wants to get a creator's stuff, they are FORCED to get it either used or from the creator. This allows the creator to get money they would not otherwise get. Thus, they are getting money via force.

[pipelineaudio]

The government makes it illegal for anyone except for the creator and licensees to make copyright except for fair use exceptions.

And the problem with this is what? Sounds like the concept of ownership to me

Thus, if a person wants to get a creator's stuff, they are FORCED to get it either used or from the creator.

Like any other stuff that exists, yes.

This allows the creator to get money they would not otherwise get.

How? If noone wants their stuff, and noone takes their stuff, they wont get any money, unless we go with *some* of the proposed EFF/CC plans where money would be evenly distributed to all as in the British TV tax system

I sure as hell am not asking for that

Thus, they are getting money via force.

No they don't

[UserGoogol]

And the problem with this is what? Sounds like the concept of ownership to me


Like any other stuff that exists, yes.

To a point, but physical property is of a fundamentally different sort than "intellectual property." Physical property is for the most part rival. Only so many people can enjoy a particular thing at a time, so if one person gains access to it they deprive some other person of it. Thus, to take physical property is itself force, and fighting force with force is the basic foundation of government as a whole, so it's not so bad. To contrast, copyright infringement does not force anything on people. As I said before, the only person directly effected by downloading something off the Internet (other forms of copyright infringement can be more complicated, I admit) is the person doing the download. Everyone is blissfully unaware. Thus, copyright law to contrast with traditional property, is not merely about preventing harm, but about actively encouraging benefit, which is something else entitrely.

How? If noone wants their stuff, and noone takes their stuff, they wont get any money, unless we go with *some* of the proposed EFF/CC plans where money would be evenly distributed to all as in the British TV tax system

But if people do want their stuff, the government "forcefully encourages" people to take it in such a way that gives money to the original creator. Thus, the creator gets money. If the government decided to just repeal copyright law, then the creator would not get as much money. Thus, the creator is getting money only thanks to the government.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

So? How could they?

Actually didn't they levy a small fee on blank tapes or something?

Yeah. To rehash a post of mine from a similar thread on another forum I frequent (http://www.agonybooth.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7303&whichpage=1):

"The lawyers/RIAA did something back then, but I can't remember the specifics. I know there was a "blank tape tax" that was supposed to cover the losses caused by the methods you described, but I don't think that was the end of it. Frank Zappa touched on it in "The Real Frank Zappa Book."

[geni]

The question is merely whether they should be paid by FORCING other people to go through them to get it. And, even if we do have copyright, should we use such extreme force as requiring copyright infringers to pay thousands of dollars for committing an action which only indirectly harms people? That's more than some people pay for vehicular manslaughter or other fairly serious crimes.

vehicular manslaughter is covered under criminal law not copyright mostly falls under civil (there are a few exceptions although I don't think they have ever been used) so not a good comparison.

The large amounts are needed due the cost of tracking and prosecuting copyright infringements. There are also so very valuable bits of IP out there (various high end computer programs, various journal databases and the like).

[jsfisher]

But if people do want their stuff, the government "forcefully encourages" people to take it in such a way that gives money to the original creator. Thus, the creator gets money. If the government decided to just repeal copyright law, then the creator would not get as much money. Thus, the creator is getting money only thanks to the government.

I'm really not following your argument at all. Yes, intellectual property is a completely different animal from tangible property, but so what? It still has value associated with it.

The government has laws and law enforcement to protect tangible property, too, right? So, if someone makes baskets that I really like, am I forced to give move to the basket creator to get one? Is the basket creator getting money only thanks to the government?

[UserGoogol]

I'm really not following your argument at all. Yes, intellectual property is a completely different animal from tangible property, but so what? It still has value associated with it.

I'm not following your argument at all either. What the hell does "value" have to do with anything? All value means is that people derive happiness from it. Property is when the government gives some person the ability to exclude others from using some thing in certain ways. Why on earth should something having value mean that people should have the right to exclude others from using it? If anything, value is an argument against property, since by owning something valuable, you are preventing others from getting happy, whereas when you own something worthless, nobody is missing out on anything.

The government has laws and law enforcement to protect tangible property, too, right? So, if someone makes baskets that I really like, am I forced to give move to the basket creator to get one? Is the basket creator getting money only thanks to the government?

Well yes, technically. The government is forcing you to not steal, so you are forced to either go without a basket or exchange some money for the basket. Thus, if a person decides to buy a basket rather than just sneak into the store at night, they are getting money they would not otherwise get. But again, the force is more justifiable in this case.

[geni]

Yeah. To rehash a post of mine from a similar thread on another forum I frequent (http://www.agonybooth.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7303&whichpage=1):

"The lawyers/RIAA did something back then, but I can't remember the specifics. I know there was a "blank tape tax" that was supposed to cover the losses caused by the methods you described, but I don't think that was the end of it. Frank Zappa touched on it in "The Real Frank Zappa Book."

Private copying levy

Yes it exists in some juristictions but of course it has problems with decideing how to distribute the money and completely shreads any idea of a free market. Also there is the problem of people who buy recording media for other reasons (the CD one person rips music to is the same product as I use to back up my images).
There is also the problem of ammount of storage I can buy a 500 gig hard drive for less than £80. Think of the amount of music that could be coppied to such a disc. To tax that as a reasonable rate you could be looking at a couple of £100.

While it may mitigate the problem of unlawful copying to an extent it doesn't solve it.

[jsfisher]

I'm not following your argument at all either. What the hell does "value" have to do with anything?

Value is rather basic economics concept, isn't it? You have something I'd like, so it is of value to me; I offer you something of value to you in exchange. Money as the basis for the valuation is a convenience....

All value means is that people derive happiness from it.

Huh?

Property is when the government gives some person the ability to exclude others from using some thing in certain ways. Why on earth should something having value mean that people should have the right to exclude others from using it?

"Property is when..." makes no sense. Did you mean, "Ownership is when...?" And if I own something, shouldn't I have the right, protected by law, to do with it pretty much as I please, even if that means excluding others from using it?

If anything, value is an argument against property, since by owning something valuable, you are preventing others from getting happy, whereas when you own something worthless, nobody is missing out on anything.

I'm not buying this whole value = happiness thing, but even so, where does this entitlement to others for happiness from my stuff come from?

Well yes, technically. The government is forcing you to not steal, so you are forced to either go without a basket or exchange some money for the basket. Thus, if a person decides to buy a basket rather than just sneak into the store at night, they are getting money they would not otherwise get. But again, the force is more justifiable in this case.

Your use of the word, "force", I find fascinating. Still, I don't understand why you think the force is more justifiable for tangible property.

[UserGoogol]

I'm really not following your argument at all.

Perhaps I could try to summarize my stance all at once, since arguing point-by-point might be misconstruing my property.

Property in the conventional sense is a basically good idea, although you need taxation and welfare programs for optimal results in my opinion. Since so many things in life (TVs, land, stock, bits of cheese) are rival it seems logical for the government to step and officially set some person as the "owner" rather than just having it be a free-for-all of people grabbing whatever they can get their hands on. Then property can be transferred either through trade or through a tax or fee determined through due proccess.

"Intellectual property," (which I feel obliged to point out has a quite distinct legal history from the regular kind of property) is completely different in this regard, and that argument does not apply. Intellectual property is inherently non-rival. In principle, there is no reason why everyone can't share any particular work. Furthermore, when copying is restricted, not only are people prevented from being able to enjoy themselves to their fullest, but they are prevented from communicating to the fullest. In order to be able to freely express your ideas, sometimes you need to use other people's works to do so. Thus, to restrict people's ability to copy runs into problems that traditional property does not have to face.

And yet there are arguments for copyright (and patents and whatever) and they are not totally invalid in my opinion. Even though people will fairly often create works for free, it is also fairly often the case that they won't, either because they don't want to or because the works are inherently capital-intensive or because they don't have enough free time, or whatever. Thus, in order to promote creativity, some mechanism of getting money to those people needs to be devised. Copyright indeed does this relatively well, by allowing the market to decide how much money people are going to get. But it's a mixed blessing, for the reasons stated in the second paragraph. Ideally, a replacement could be found, and I do have some ideas. (Assurance contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts) or subsidizing gifts to artists, or whatever.) But realistically I admit that, copyright is probably the most feasible option we have. But that doesn't mean that copyright should exist as it currently does, and cases like this seem quite a bit over the top.

There is a tradeoff for copyright law. On the one hand, encouraging innovation is good, but on the other hand, preventing people from being able enjoy whatever they want to enjoy is bad. The optimum (at least as long as we limit ourselves to copyright-like systems) is somewhere in the middle. The current system, as I see it, is nowhere near the middle. Although it is fighting people which want to go the other extreme so it might be understandable, copyright law as it currently stands seems to me to be acting very strongly on the side of cracking down on pirates. It is even, in my opinion, going to the point where the crackdown on pirates is hurting innovation itself, (although this is slightly tangential to Kazaa) since all great art is done on the shoulders of giants, so if people have it harder to access works, it will be harder for them to create works as well.

Honestly, I haven't the foggiest idea where exactly the optimum lies for loosening the copyright laws. But I do think that the optimum is in the direction of loosening.

[NeilC]

The who? Record companies are a very small part of who is affected by this

But go on rationalizing theft by using the big bad record companies if this helps you sleep better

I'm not rationalising it I'm merely stating an opinion of how I see the economics working out.

Re: record companies - I was given to understand that the music I buy on itunes is distrubuted by and the price partially set by record companies?

[pipelineaudio]

I'm not rationalising it I'm merely stating an opinion of how I see the economics working out.

Re: record companies - I was given to understand that the music I buy on itunes is distrubuted by and the price partially set by record companies?

The price of gas is partially set by the government, so is taxes. Im not sure if iTuens prices are set by "the record companies", and it doesnt matter

Are you going to say songs on itunes cost too much?

You do know bands have the same access to itunes as record companies right?

BTW if you do want to see some nasty behaviour of the type people like to fantasize record companies doing, look at apple

Bands use things like CD Baby, if they want to avoid nasty record companies and nasty apple

[pvicente]

WOW!!!

Ill tell you what this results in, people don't get paid for their work, they find another job

Exactly what IS happening BTW, slowing down technical advancement in a lot of areas
What areas? Can you give us some examples, or is this just another feeling of yours?

[jsfisher]

Perhaps I could try to summarize my stance all at once, since arguing point-by-point might be misconstruing my property....


Ok, I can agree in part and disagree in part with what you said.

First, though, just a reminder for anyone that forgot, intellectual property includes more than just copyright (e.g. trademarks and patents) and copyright covers more than just music recordings and other works of art. That said, I will accept your comments in context, UserGoogol, and not try to twist them in ways you may not have meant.

My point of disagreement is with your notion that people are entitled to enjoy (your word) the intellectual property (presumably art of some form) created by someone else. If you desire access to a particular work, the owner/creator/whatever is somehow obligated to fulfill your wish on terms you find acceptable. I just don't see it that way. If an artist, say, wants to throw his latest creation into the fire, that's his right even though someone else may now be denied the opportunity to view the painting.

On the other hand, I completely agree that the current US Copyright Law is out of whack. On the plus side, I like the "safe harbors" the DMCA added for Internet Service Providers -- those make sense for the most part -- but much of the rest of the DMCA additions were not so good. Digital management technology provisions, for example, are awful in how that trample fair use. And don't get me started on the Mickey Mouse act (meant to extend the protection for the early Disney cartoon characters).

[pipelineaudio]

What areas? Can you give us some examples, or is this just another feeling of yours?

Physical modelling

Convolution

DSP

Engine management