Abolish Copyright

without some kind of copyright or licensing protection, how do you imagine that artists will get a fair market price for their work?
 

along with designers, engineers, and scientists.

in order to be inventive and innovative, a 3rd/2nd party needs money to get it to the masses. this is where corporate support is needed. if there was no copyright, anyone with money could steal ideas. ultimately we would all have to work for corporations.
 

# We respect real property rights, but understand that information is not property.

I couldn't agree more, in principal. However I still support keeping copyright, although with generous fair use provisions, a strict 25 years + 25 years (if you specifically renew it) time limit and legal reforms to make sure that things like pure data (eg. phone book records) collections are not copyrightable - only true creative works like software, books, movies, musical performances etc.

Really I don't think you're going to get a whole lot of support for a throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater 'abolish copyright' campaign.

Also keep in mind that the whole open source software world is just as reliant on current copyright laws as Microsoft etc. There would be no GPL or anything like that if everything (software included) was in the public domain.

The GPL is one of the main reasons that people feel motivated to contribute code they've written under an open source licence- because they know that no one can just take their work and create a closed source work out of it. Ie. all the improvements to your code will be available openly for you and others to use.

The GPL, and all the other open source licences, also serve to protect the author against warranty and liability claims and ensure that the author receives recognition for their work by having their name on it.

Without copyright warranty and liability claims would make it too risky to release open source software for most individuals and small organisations and the lack of recognition for your work (often a major help on resumes and general professional standing in the IT industry) would discourage many people from contributing.
 

Anonymous #1:
he price will be set through basic supply and demand. As long as people want music, they will pay artist to make it. See Street Performer Protocol.

retort:
I think this complaint is more an issue of patent law. While I do not support patent law, I don't want to spend too much time arguing about it here. I will say that many inventions would be invented independent of the original inventor. They are based on basic principles that would eventualy be discovered. Thing are often invented independently, indeed, the original inventor is sometimes not the one that gets the patent, and so is barred from his own invention.

Anonymous #2:
I am pleased to see someone agree. Too many people think that copyright is a 'right'.
I would support any move to bring copyright terms bake into sane levels. In fact I view this as a necessary step toward ending copyright. Repealing copyright law outright would cause far too much economic upheval.
Though there is danger for my cause here. When copyright was being extended, it was predicted that doing so would lead some people to conclude that copyright should be done away with entirely. It is quite possible that I would not have the view I have now if copyright were not so far beyond what it was intended to be.
On the other hand, once people get a taste of contemporary works in the public domain.(early rock and roll, many early movies) they may not want to grant monopolies on content at all.
In all honesty, I would have trouble making a pragmatic case against 7 year copyright terms.

I don't think that open source would be slowed down. It's true that people would be able to make closed source versions of software, but then they would need to start doing the devlopment on their own, as the open source advancements might not easily integrate. Doesn't the BSD license already allow for making proprietary derivatives? It's not as popular as Linux, but it's not dead.
Also, anyone would be free to decompile and reverse engineer the closed source binary.
Open Source contributors would still know that their work would be free for anyone.
I believe you could still have warranty and liability disclaimers without copyright law.
 

You might like to visit infoanarchy.org. Lately it has suffered from a very persistant troll, and the owner has gone AWOL, but at its heart it has the potential to be a great site. I now doubt it will ever reach that potential, but still...

Here are a couple of links worth visiting:
http://www.infoanarchy.org/special/mission
http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Feel free to visit, and if you post good stories they will float past all the trolls in the submit queue and be posted to the front page.
 

Thanks anon, I'll look at it
 

Information certainly is property. Your saying otherwise doesn't make it so. What is the reasoning on which you base your claim?
 

First of all, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You are the one who (I presume) wants to jail and fine people, you must demonstrate that that is justified.

Information, I will qualify this by saying published information, is not property for two reasons.

First, we have a basic human right to copy information. Repitition is simply what we do. Further, because we have real property rights, we are free to do as we wish with the property we own, such as computers and CD's.

Second, the ability to be copied is inherent in the nature of information. This is very important. You want to sell me an apple without selling me the seeds, telling me I can't plant my own tree.
With information, the apple IS the seeds. This leaves you in the position of selling seeds which may not be planted. What are you selling?

Any model which treats information as property will lead to absurdities, because the concept of property was never designed to work with copiable things, let alone the retention of 'ownership' after sale.

In short it is not property because my recieving it takes nothing from you. I could copy your words a trillion times and it would do you no harm at all.
Real property must be protected because this is not the case for it. If a million people cut
accross my lawn, then I no longer have a lawn. The damage by any one individual is small, but real. The damage from copying is zero.
 

First of all, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You are the one who (I presume) wants to jail and fine people, you must demonstrate that that is justified.

You presumed wrong. Answer my question. I express myself in a painting, or compose a photograph, or write a poem or book. Why is that not my property?

Information, I will qualify this by saying published information

Define "published."

First, we have a basic human right to copy information.

Who says? Please don't say the first amendment. Copying is not expressing.

Repitition is simply what we do.

Perhaps for you. I understand that you think pressing a button on a photocopier is a creative expression. I create original work.

It is also human nature to shit. You don't have an inalienable right to shit on my lawn.

the concept of property was never designed to work with copiable things

So things like bricks, an idea for an improved microprocessor, a photograph -- these things are not property?

In short it is not property because my recieving it takes nothing from you. I could copy your words a trillion times and it would do you no harm at all.

So you have no problem with ISPs and phone companies and financial companies to sell or give away information about you and your activities, since information wants to be freeeee and it isn't your property anyway, and you aren't actually losing the information. Cool.

If a million people cut
accross my lawn, then I no longer have a lawn. The damage by any one individual is small, but real. The damage from copying is zero.

Nonsense. If a million people copy my book, I don't make any money for my labor. Why write a book?
 

You presumed wrong.
You don't want to faine and jail people for violating other people's property? odd...

I did answer your question. Now you pose a new one and I will answer it, but again the burden of proof is on you, and you offer no proof.

Your composition, before it is published, remains entirely yours.

After it is published, you have no right to restrict it's redistribution, for the first and second reasons listed above.

By published I mean when an artist or other legitimate holder of private information (such as a novel) willfully makes it available it to the public, without requiring some contract establishing privacy. (Radio, bookstore, CD/DVD distribution.)

The first amendment does address this, and makes no judgement of creativity. Beyond that, the constitution isn't the final arbiter here, it does not grant rights, they are self-evident. Where do you think rights come from?

Are you saying you never repeat information? Not likely. Your very arguments here are based on concepts invented by other people. Do you think humans don't gossip?
As I said, it is what we do.
If I tell you a story, it is obvious and natural that you then know the story, and might re-tell it. Barring 'secrets', any demand for me to refrain defies human nature.

You accuse me of being uncreative, why?

Your lawn is property. My shitting on it damages your ability to use it. This is obviously untrue of information.

You are predictable. You are making arguments I have countered a dozen times.

You can own a birck, you can own a processor, you can own a piece of paper with a picture on it. (If it's a private photo, I'll even say you own the image.)

You cannot own "brick" or the concept of slapping mud into a rectangular box. You certainly cannot own an 'idea'.
Most importanly, you cannot own an image that is inside the brains of 100,000 people you don't know.
(yes, we're cutting into patents here. No you don't 'own' inventions, but I am focusing on copyrights. Of course, we're not really focusing on the law here at all, since neither copyright nor patent law treats information as property.)

I think ISP and phone privacy should be handled contractually, or through specifi laws. As I'm sure you're aware, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Also, please don't put words into my mouth.

Nonsense. If a million people copy my book, I don't make any money for my labor. Why write a book?
This argument is absurd on two counts.
1) It is circular logic.
You deserve royalties because you own the information, because unpaid copies damage you because you deserve royalties?
Try harder, I've never debunked the argument before, probably because it is so bad.

2) It disregards basic economics.
You present a fantasy world in which people have money and want new art, yet artists are starving and don't produce anything. Have you heard of supply and demand?

If people want art, or new knowledge, they will pay people to produce it. Period.

Copyright is not needed and in fact interferes with a true free market of information.

I'm sure you already know about the Street Performer Protocol, and that is only one of an infinite number of ways the market can funnel money to artists.

Fundamentally, creating information should be viewed as a service, this requires no special laws or special conepts of property, and it leaves the consumer free to do as they wish with the information they have.


Beyond that, by your logic I do as much harm to an artist whether I download a copy, or simply don't buy it. If a million people just don't buy my CD, have they harmed me? no. Should it be illegal to not buy CD's? The harm to the artist is exactly the same. (zero)
 

I did answer your question. Now you pose a new one and I will answer it, but again the burden of proof is on you, and you offer no proof.

The proof is that I created something and own it. I created a painting, or a mobile, or a poem, or a book. The fact that I created it is self-evident, and the rights to call it my creation are inherent.

Now you're making a claim to something I made. The burden is on you to justify the claim to my creation.

Your composition, before it is published, remains entirely yours.

After it is published, you have no right to restrict it's redistribution, for the first and second reasons listed above.

Your reasons are nonsensical. You're comparing apples and god-knows-what. I'm not selling apples.

By your reasoning, as soon as Lord of the Rings has its premiere and the images are projected on a screen, you have an absolute right to sit there in the audience with a digital camera, make a copy, and do anything you damn please with that information.

Really?

The first amendment does address this, and makes no judgement of creativity.

No, but copyright law does. This isn't a free speech issue, it's a copyright issue. Nobody is inhibiting your right to speak or create anything you want.

Are you saying you never repeat information? Not likely. Your very arguments here are based on concepts invented by other people. Do you think humans don't gossip?

Copyrights cover works that are recorded in a medium. Spoken elevator scuttlebutt isn't copyrighed. It isn't duplicated and redistributed. It's an absolutely silly and pointless analogy.

If I tell you a story, it is obvious and natural that you then know the story, and might re-tell it.

See above. Nothing prevents you from telling somebody a story or a joke. But this isn't what the issue is about. The crux of the biscuit is wholesale duplication and distribution. It's an entirely different situation.

You accuse me of being uncreative, why?

I did not accuse you of being uncreative. I said that pressing a button on a photocopier is not a creative expression. You aren't creating a new thought, a new idea. That's just duplicating somebody else's thoughts and ideas.

Your lawn is property. My shitting on it damages your ability to use it. This is obviously untrue of information.

So you say. I say that copying my work damages my ability to use it. Whether you recognize that or not is immaterial. I don't see the obvious untruth there. Dogs shit on my lawn all the time, and we still use it.

You can own a birck, you can own a processor, you can own a piece of paper with a picture on it. (If it's a private photo, I'll even say you own the image.)

You're delibertely switching terms, just as you do when you claim you have the right to do whatever you want with your computer or CD. Sure, you can do whatever you want with your computer -- paint it purple, sell it, smash it. Whatever, it's yours. The issue is about the information contained therein.

There is a difference between renting a car and owning it. You think because you rent a car for a day you have the right to do anything you want with it -- paint it, sell it, etc?

I said an *idea* for a better microprocessor. A patent. A design for a particular brick. I didn't say all bricks, so don't muddle the issue.

Most importanly, you cannot own an image that is inside the brains of 100,000 people you don't know.

I don't care what goes inside people's brains. The problem arises when it comes back out again and they want to duplicate it, distribute it, share it. The issue is not reading or consumption. It's about taking something that doesn't belong to you.

we're not really focusing on the law here at all, since neither copyright nor patent law treats information as property.

Of course they do. That's what intellectual property rights are all about.

I think ISP and phone privacy should be handled contractually, or through specifi laws. As I'm sure you're aware, this has nothing to do with copyright law. Also, please don't put words into my mouth.

Then put your own words in your mouth. What do you care what other people do with the information? Information isn't property, right? And it certainly isn't your property. We're not talking about what should be, or what might be. We're talking about what is right now. By your own reasoning, you have no claim or right to that information. It's just data on a server somewhere, right? Ones and zeroes. Information wants to be freeeeeeeee.

A case can be made under copyright because by making phone calls or visiting web sites I created the information -- and the record of that information -- that the company or ISP is distributing without my permission.

If making a photocopy is a creative expression, why can't making a phone call or visiting a web site be a creative expression?

Nonsense. If a million people copy my book, I don't make any money for my labor. Why write a book?
This argument is absurd on two counts.
1) It is circular logic.
You deserve royalties because you own the information, because unpaid copies damage you because you deserve royalties?

I deserve royalties because I did the damned work.

You present a fantasy world in which people have money and want new art, yet artists are starving and don't produce anything. Have you heard of supply and demand?

If people want art, or new knowledge, they will pay people to produce it. Period.

Your point is completely lost on me. Why will people pay for art or knowledge if they can get it for free?

If there's no financial incentive to produce and publish that knowledge, I can't invest my time and energy to do it.

I understand you believe writing is a public service. Do me a favor and tell that to the cashier at the supermarket so I can feed my kids.

Copyright is not needed and in fact interferes with a true free market of information.

It only interferes with you getting what you want for free. Like your friend up there who thought LOTR rawks and worth buying but Saw II sucked so he won't. Despite the effort to cloak the issue in human rights and economic theory, it seems to boil down to the fact that people want the fruits of other people's work for free, and because they can, neener neener. Or something like that. That's what I'm hearing.

I'm sure you already know about the Street Performer Protocol, and that is only one of an infinite number of ways the market can funnel money to artists.

Thanks, but I've been a successful author and writer for more than 25 years and I don't need some clown telling me how money can be funneled to me.

Fundamentally, creating information should be viewed as a service,

Ha ha ha ha ha. I've written six books. Reference books, mainly. Useful books. One book takes hours and hours and hours and hours of...what's that stuff called? Oh yeah, work. It takes work. Hard work. Even under the best of circumstances, I'm earning peanuts. I'm not Disney, not a millionaire. I have kids to feed and utility bills to pay and a computer to buy and the need to buy clothes and silly stuff like that. By your reasoning, I'm not entitled to another dime once the book is "made available to the public" because you can come right along and creatively express yourself with a photocopier and run off unlimited copies and give them away to whomever the f*ck you feel like.

Riiiiight. That's an equitable system. Really makes me feel worthwhile to knock myself out to create a work that fills a narrow but important gap in a body of knowledge.

Beyond that, by your logic I do as much harm to an artist whether I download a copy, or simply don't buy it.

Um no. If you don't buy it you don't have it. If you download it, you have it. You don't see a difference there?
 

Why does ht efact you created something mean you own it, what is the underlying principle?

You certainly have a right to call it your creation, I do not deny you that.

I am not 'making a claim to something you made'. At most, I am 'making a claim' to something you put in my head, if anyone owns what's in my head, it is me.

Further, no 'claim' is needed I'm not pushing you off, or infringing on your rights in any way. I want you to leave me alone, but you are dictacting to me tihngs I can't do. The burden of proof is on you.


Let me explain the apples:
You are selling information, information is inherently copiable, in the same way that seeds are inherently plantable. You can use almost any apple to produce more apples.

Apples are property, and when you buy an apple, you can do what you want this it.

You want to treat information as property, by saying that when you sell information to me, I don't have the right to do what I want with it.
This defies the meaning of the word 'property', and tries to deny this basic nature of information.
Because of this paradox, Any theory of information as property inevitably leads to absurdities.

A theatre is property, and they may set rules of occupancy.
When I buy it on DVD, I can do as I please with it.
Most likely business model would change, as I will explain below.

This is a first amendment issue, The first ammendment says nothing of 'creative expression' it talks about freedom of speech, and of the press, which sounds to me like a photocopier.

If there's no financial incentive to produce and publish that knowledge, I can't invest my time and energy to do it.
Correct! Again, I am well aware of copyright law. You are arguing for information being property, and seem unaware that copyright law is not Information- as- Property.
By YOUR argument, when I create that story, I won that information, and I CAN control what the other guy in the elevator is allowed to do with it.
This is only the start of the madness you would impose.
If you want to argue the mreits of copyright fine, drop the property charade and we can discuss the prgamatic case.

I say that copying my work damages my ability to use it.
How so?
As I see it, I could copy your work a hundred billion trillion times, and have no impact on you at all. This seems to contradict physics, is it magic.
The only 'harm' to you is loss of royalties, which again is circular.

I am not switching your terms, I adressed 'idea' in the next paragraph, and specificly adress my view on patents. (they are not information property)

And if information were property, then someone would be the heir to the ownership of 'the brick' itself. More madness.

The problem arises when it comes back out again and they want to duplicate it, distribute it, share it.
And that is where you infringe on people's rights, because you claim you own parts of their brains.
You said on the first amendment that you're not stopping me from being creative, that is incorrect. Superman is in my head, but I can't publish any serious creative work based on him, because what is in my head is 'owned'. That is wrong.

Of course they do. That's what intellectual property rights are all about.

Wrong. You show your ignorance and arrogance. If information is property under the law, why do copyrights and patents expire? Property rights do not expire. Why are they authorized in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution as a power of congress, instead of in the bill of rights, as a right of the people? Why do patents require submission to the patent office, making the idea freely available to everyone?

Information property is absurd, copyright is wrong, but not absurd, yet.

A case can be made under copyright because by making phone calls or visiting web sites I created the information

Perhaps, but the the ISP would still have the right to release choice snippets of your log under the fair use provisions of copyright.
I Argue that people have a right to privacy, that this can outweight the rights of others to distribute private information, and that the exact scope of this should be defined by law.

I deserve royalties because I did the damned work.

You deserve to be paid for the work you did. A fair market price for the value of the art.
Artists should be paid for art, not for copies made. Copying is the work of a publisher, not an artist.

Also, in the orignal,I argued that information is not property becuas eno damage is done to you when I copy, you argued that damage was done to you, because you did not get royalties, and that this justified treating information as property. That argument is circular.

It only interferes with you getting what you want for free.
I am not my friend. Given your occupation, I don't think you should question the philosophical purity of other's motives.
Adress my arguments, not the motives of someone who's probably not even here anymore.

it seems to boil down to the fact that people want the fruits of other people's work for free, and because they can, ... That's what I'm hearing.
I want to be left alone. I'm hearing that you want to come into my house and tell me what I can do with my stuff. You are unlcear on what the penalties should be for noncompliance.



Your point is completely lost on me. Why will people pay for art or knowledge if they can get it for free?

Get what for free? do you think that people will forever be happy with the art that is currently available? Do you think new art has no value?

People will pay artists to create new work, in the same way we now pay musicians to make music, as a service.

Copyright is not required to have a financial incentive for writing, creating art is a service, the market will find a way to pay artists, because the market wants art created.

I understand you believe writing is a public service.
I take care to say what I mean, and I did not say that. The service market is entirely about people paying other people to do things.


By your reasoning, I'm not entitled to another dime once the book is "made available to the public"
Actually, I would support a rather lengthy transition out of copyright, precisely because of cases like yours. You release a work in good faith under the assumption of a certain system, and you do deserve to derive benefit from that.
One possible transition:
All current copyrights and new copyrights are set to expire in 20 years. After 5 years, no new copyrights are issued.

This would give you at least 20 years worth of royalties on anything you had already published, 5 years to finish anything you are working on now. I would even accept a 50 year transition. That should give you plenty of time to switch to a new business model.

Um no. If you don't buy it you don't have it. If you download it, you have it. You don't see a difference there?
Not to the artist, no. I could check it out from the library. Should that be illegal? Shouldn't an owner be able to dictate whether their property is loaned out or not?

I could get it from the library, or not, I could hear it on the radio, or not, I could download it, or not. whether I derive a benefit or not has absolutely no impact on the creator. The radio example especially, is %100 passive, It could be difficult to even tell it was going on.
I could concievably be on an entirely different planet, with no possible way to impact the life of the creator, yet you would liken a few bits on a disc to having someone shit on your lawn?
 

Why does ht efact you created something mean you own it, what is the underlying principle?

The principle is that I created it. Say I take a paintbrush and make a painting. That is my painting. I created it, I own it. That painting is my property.

Follow me so far? Any disagreement?

I hang it up on my wall. As I understand your reasoning, at that point you believe you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want with my painting -- duplicate it, give copies away to your friends, claim that you're the real artist, whatever. I don't understand that leap there. The act of putting the painting on a wall changes its ownership somehow. I don't think so.

You certainly have a right to call it your creation, I do not deny you that.
I am not 'making a claim to something you made'.

You are claiming that you have the right to duplicate and distribute my work.

At most, I am 'making a claim' to something you put in my head, if anyone owns what's in my head, it is me.

And I have said, the issue is not what is in your head. You're insisting that you have the right to duplicate and distribute. That is no longer in your head. Nobody is stopping you from humming a song. The issue is duplicating and distributing work that does not belong to you.

Further, no 'claim' is needed I'm not pushing you off, or infringing on your rights in any way.

But you are. You're infringing on my right to make money from my work and to determine its disposition.

Let me explain the apples:
You are selling information, information is inherently copiable, in the same way that seeds are inherently plantable. You can use almost any apple to produce more apples.

I'm not selling apples. The analogy doesn't work, by your own reasoning, because we can't both own the same apple. The apple is consumed, and while you can grow more apples (write more songs, write more books, whatever), you can't make more of *that* apple. Stupid.

When I buy it on DVD, I can do as I please with it.

No, not anything. You may watch it, make a back-up copy, sell it, smash it. But you don't own the content. Just because you bought Lord of the Rings DVD doesn't mean that you can claim authorship, or broadcast it or duplicate it. The content is licensed, and you agreed to those conditions when you bought it. If you can't live with those conditions, don't buy it.

This is a first amendment issue, The first ammendment says nothing of 'creative expression' it talks about freedom of speech, and of the press, which sounds to me like a photocopier.

Um no. I'm not interfering with your right to speak. Not a first amendment issue. It's a copyright issue. And if you check the copyright office (www.copyright.gov) you'll read this:

"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works."

Note "original works of authorship." Making a copy on a photocopier is not an original work of authorship. You're not creating anything, you're just duplicating.

By YOUR argument, when I create that story, I won that information, and I CAN control what the other guy in the elevator is allowed to do with it.

No, you referred to spoken gossip. Duplication and distribution is not the same as one-on-one chit-chat in an elevator. Another stupid argument.

I say that copying my work damages my ability to use it.
How so?
As I see it, I could copy your work a hundred billion trillion times, and have no impact on you at all. This seems to contradict physics, is it magic.
The only 'harm' to you is loss of royalties

Dude, since 100% of my income is from writing, the money aspect is quite important to me. And drop the whole royalties business. Few people earn royalties. This is simply a matter of getting paid for one's work. It may not matter to you, but it does to me. No copyright, no money. And it isn't up to you -- the person taking what doesn't belong to you -- to determine the value of what you're taking. Your dog may be a mangy mutt, but that's your dog and you value the little bitch. It isn't my place to tell you that your dog is worthless.

And if information were property, then someone would be the heir to the ownership of 'the brick' itself. More madness.

Patents expire after 17 years. I believe bricks were invented longer than that, so you don't have to worry. The issue was about a particular *design* of brick.

Superman is in my head, but I can't publish any serious creative work based on him, because what is in my head is 'owned'.

You can do whatever you want in your head, including imagine Superman fetish stories starring yourself. But yes, if you copied Superman films or stories and distributed them, you dilute the value of the guys who actually create, write and own the Superman franchise. Too bad you didn't think of Superman first. Oh well, at least you can operate a photocopier. That should be creative expression enough for you.

If information is property under the law, why do copyrights and patents expire?

To balance the rights of creators and the greater good - for literary uses and so forth.

Property rights do not expire. Why are they authorized in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution as a power of congress, instead of in the bill of rights, as a right of the people?

Some property rights do expire, among them intellectual property.

Funny you should mention the Constitution. There's nothing in the whole document mentioning land ownership rights.

Why do patents require submission to the patent office, making the idea freely available to everyone?

To give people an opportunity to file an objection, for one thing. It puts it in the public record. Just because information is freely available doesn't mean you own it and can do whatever you damned please with it.

Perhaps, but the the ISP would still have the right to release choice snippets of your log under the fair use provisions of copyright.
I Argue that people have a right to privacy, that this can outweight the rights of others to distribute private information, and that the exact scope of this should be defined by law.

I deserve royalties because I did the damned work.

You deserve to be paid for the work you did. A fair market price for the value of the art.

I have the right to demand whatever I want to be paid for my work. It's my work. If people don't want to pay, they won't pay. Who in the hell are you to determine what is a fair market price of my work? Screw you.

Copying is the work of a publisher, not an artist.

Tell that to Andy Warhol. Or a photographer. I know plenty of photogs who make money from their stock catalog. Copies. Are they not artists? Screw you.

Given your occupation, I don't think you should question the philosophical purity of other's motives.

What is that supposed to mean?

I want to be left alone. I'm hearing that you want to come into my house and tell me what I can do with my stuff.

I'm not in your home or your head. The issue is duplication and distribution. Once you start making copies and sharing them, that is no longer in your home or your head. It's public. It's in competition with me. You have no right.

I could check it out from the library. Should that be illegal? Shouldn't an owner be able to dictate whether their property is loaned out or not?

No. That's use of a single copy. Nobody is stopping you from reading it, borrowing it, making a copy for your own personal use.

I'll say this slowly so you'll understand: THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU UNFETTERED RIGHT TO MAKE COPIES AND DISTRIBUTE THEM.

yet you would liken a few bits on a disc to having someone shit on your lawn?

You brought up the lawn analogy, people cutting across your own. It's only a few footsteps, but ultimately it causes damage. You see the only harm in that I might lose a little money. But if everybody does that, my property -- my work -- is damaged.

You have not answered my questions:

1) Is it okay for the phone company to give or sell information about you? It's just information, and it isn't really your property, and information wants to be freeeeee. Yes or no, is it okay?

2) Do you have the right to record Lord of the Rings during the premiere and make copies for your friends?
 

First, we have a basic human right to copy information.

Who says there is a fundamental right to copy information? What is the basis of this?

Repitition is simply what we do.

It's human nature to eat. Food is meant to be eaten. Eating is a fundamental human right. Ooo! I see you made an apple pie. Thanks for the work! I'll just take some for me and my friends. You'll still have pie left, and you can always make more. Making pie is a service. Ciao!

Further, because we have real property rights, we are free to do as we wish with the property we own, such as computers and CD's.

This is an illogical strawman argument. Nobody is preventing you from doing whatever you want with your property. And your statement isn't true anyway; there certainly are limits to what you can do with your property. Dropping the computer off an interstate overpass, for example, would be frowned upon. Converting your front yard into a junkyard might run afoul of codes and ordinances. You need permits and inspections to renovate or build additions. You do not have an unfettered right to do as you please.

Second, the ability to be copied is inherent in the nature of information

Information does not have any abilities. Information cannot copy itself. This is nonsensical.

And secondly, so what? It's like saying that photosynthesis is an inherent ability of plants. So? Are you arguing that because you *can* do something, you have the right to?
 

I hang it up on my wall. As I understand your reasoning, at that point you believe you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want with my painting --
I'm not sure how you got that from what I've been saying. Again, please do not put words in my mouth.

You are claiming that you have the right to duplicate and distribute my work.
I argue that that right exists naturally for everyone, assuming your work is published. There is no need to 'make a claim'. I ask nothing from you but to leave me alone.


The issue IS about what's in my head, freedom is not freedom to merely hum a song, freedom is the freedom to create and publish derivative works.

But you are. You're infringing on my right to make money from my work and to determine its disposition.
This is the circular reasoning again. Since you don't seem to understand why harm is important, I'll explain again.
Your lawn is property because what I do to it affect your ability to use it, even if I'm only walking accross it, there is some wear involved.
If I have some information that you created, my copying and distributing it in no way affects your ability to use it. This is just common sense, my gain takes nothing from you.
You then say that harm IS done, because payment is owed, because property was used, therefore it is property.
You assume what you are trying to prove. You cal me stupid, but your arguments are fallacious.
If you are going to show that harm is done, you have to do it without resorting to IP or copyright, you have to show real harm.

The analogy doesn't work, by your own reasoning, because we can't both own the same apple.
But we can both 'own' the same information? interesting!

The grown apples in my analogy do not represent derivative works, they are near perfect copies of the original apple.
I notice you focus on the apples, but ignore the point about information, It is inherently copiable. what you are selling is something by by its very nature, can be used to produce copies of itself.
Trying to deny that nature is like selling an apple, but prohiting use of the seeds.

The content is licensed, and you agreed to those conditions when you bought it.
Wrong again. This is a desperate and ignorant attempt to say that copyright law is something other than it is. Copyright law is not a contract or agreement, copyright law is not a property right. I do not have to agree to anything To buy a DVD, I just lay down my cash. The transaction is exactly the same as if I were buying an apple, or a rubber ball. It is at best, an implied contract of sale, but this would include nothing about redistibution of rubber balls. I won't even get into borrowed copies.
This, Sir, is a rationalization. I'm ripping up your property argument and you want to jump to something else. Your arguments seem based on the assumption that you are right, I submit that it is time for you to consider that you are wrong.


It IS a first amendment issue. You ARE interfering with my freedom of the press. The first amendment has NO requirement of creativity. Copyright is a GRANTED power of government that authorizes that infringment.

Note "original works of authorship." Making a copy on a photocopier is not an original work of authorship.
So? what's your point? that just means I can get a copyright on the copies I make. Now you're just not making sense. I never asserted that copying was creative, those are words you repeatedly try to put in my mouth.
I'd accuse you of using copyright to prove copyright, but I can't even figure out your point.

No, you referred to spoken gossip. Yes, I did. And you spoke of information as property. You asid if I create information I own, and I can decide how it is distributed. You can't then back up and use the more moderate example of copyright law. You put no limit on the nature or size of information that can be owned, and if you are going to be consistent with the notion of property, you can't.
If you're not allowed to steal a nickel from me, then you can't tell the story I created either.
Information property is absurd, the stupidity isn't mine.

If you took my dog, I would lose the dog. The harm from copying is not low, it is zero.
I am not taking ANYTHING from you. It is not up to you to arbitrarilty determine that you have been wronged.

Patents expire after 17 years. I believe bricks were invented longer than that, so you don't have to worry. The issue was about a particular *design* of brick.
Again, you can't have it both ways. You are talking about information as property. I am well aware that patents expire, because they are a special grant from the government, not property. I would LOVE to hear about these other forms of property that expire with time.

You can do whatever you want in your head
you ignore what I said, I am not free to make and publish my own serious creative works featuring superman.
This is very important, even above the infringement on my personal freedoms. This is an example of how copyright slows down cultural and scientific development by hindering the free flow of information. Superman is a part of our culture, He has a deep psychological resonance in millions of people, but we are very limited in how we can express our selves about him. (most notably, we cannot publish comics or cartoons containing him.)

Seriously, the photocopier cracks are getting old, grow up.

To balance the rights of creators and the greater good - for literary uses and so forth.
What does any of that have to do with property rights? Again, you let copyright law leech in. I think you're also assuming what you're trying to prove, again.


Funny you should mention the Constitution. There's nothing in the whole document mentioning land ownership rights.
Amendment 3 speak of owners of houses, 4 speaks of "houses, papers, and effects", and 5 of property. None of these imply that information can be property.
And you failed to answer my question. The constitution portrays copyright as a granted 'right', but you think that it is property under the law, why?

To give people an opportunity to file an objection, for one thing.
What does that have to do with property? You say that information is property, and that this applies to both creative works and inventions, but they are treated very differently, and for patents, there a lot of hoops you go through to get you 'property rights', for a limited time.

I have the right to demand whatever I want to be paid for my work. It's my work. If people don't want to pay, they won't pay. Who in the hell are you to determine what is a fair market price of my work?

I don't decide, you're putting words in my mouth again, I just said the fair market price is what you should get.
You decide the price, the market decides if it will pay it.

I know plenty of photogs who make money from their stock catalog. Copies. Are they not artists?
That's exactly my point! They ARE artists when they are taking photographs, but selling copies is not the work of a photographer. Copyright gives them incentive to turn from doing art, to doing publishing. It's not an incentive to go out an take more photos as much as it is to sell more copies of the photos you have.
If somebody hasn't produced new work in 30 years, what is copyright encouraging?

What is that supposed to mean?
I mean you accuse me of just wanting things for free, but you are obviously emotionally and financially bound to the current system. You are rationalizing what you have to believe.

Once you start making copies and sharing them, that is no longer in your home or your head. It's public. It's in competition with me. You have no right.
You are right that distribution is public, but you are still coming to me and telling me what I can do with my property.
I have every right to compete with you as a publisher. If you want paid for doing creative things, then charge for doing creative things. As you have said yourself, making copies is not creative.
Pay artists for creating art, and pay publishers for copies. Why is that so difficult to accept? I'm sure you're not against paying artists for art.

No. That's use of a single copy. Nobody is stopping you from reading it, borrowing it, making a copy for your own personal use.

Again you try to get away from the effects of information being property. If I own the information, then I dictat what is done with it, as much as if it were my car.
Again you show ignoracne of even copyright law. (copyright law does not allow you to make copies of copyrighted library books)

You see the only harm in that I might lose a little money.

You are putting words in my mouth, again. please stop. Read what I write. I have been quite clear on numerous occasions that the harm from copying is nothing, zero. You do NOT lose money. No more than you lose money as a result of all the peple who never read your work. It is not harm, it upset you because don't gain as the result of infringing on the rights of others.

But if everybody does that, my property -- my work -- is damaged.
What part of 'circular logic' don't you understand?

Are you even trying?

You have not answered my questions:

1) I answered this. We have a right to privacy, it should be protected by law, or at least by contract. Whether a particular disclosure is valid would depend on those laws.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? Oh yeah, it's because you don't have real arguments.
2)Most likely the theater would prohibit recording devices, and especially at a premiere, reqqire contracts forbidding recording or distribution. If someone managed to record it anyway, that would then fit my definition of private information, and they would have cause to persue action against anyone distributing it.

On the other hand, if copyright didn't exist, it would be entirely possible that the movie was already paid for at it's premiere, and was free to copy anyway.
 

I hang it up on my wall. As I understand your reasoning, at that point you believe you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want with my painting --
I'm not sure how you got that from what I've been saying. Again, please do not put words in my mouth.

Then use your own words. You said that my rights end when somegthing is published or put on public view.

I make a painting. You seem to agree that that is my property. It is my property until I allow the public to see it. Then my rights end. Do my rights end if I hang the painting in my bedroom? Does it make a difference if I hang it in the livingroom where anybody who comes to the door sees it? What if I put the painting in a restaurant? At what point does it no longer become my property?
 

The issue IS about what's in my head, freedom is not freedom to merely hum a song, freedom is the freedom to create and publish derivative works.

Making a copy is not creative. And no, you do not have the right to make derivative works. Those rights belong to the copyright owner.
 

Who says there is a fundamental right to copy information? What is the basis of this?

It is implicit the right freedom of speech, for one. I can say anything I want, including things you said before. Likewise it is implicit in my use of my posessions. I can use a pen and paper, and I can write whatever I want. The few exceptions to these communication rights (libel, slander, yelling 'fire') are based on protecting the rights of others. To infringe on this right, you need to show proof of justification.

. Thanks for the work! I'll just take some for me and my friends. You'll still have pie left, and you can always make more. Making pie is a service. Ciao!
Again you forget that my copying takes nothing from you, you don't lose any of your 'pie'. If you trot out any circular pie arguments, I'm gonna scream.

Moreover, copying information is about as basic as eating. It is integral to thought and communication. This is why the superman thing is important.


Nobody is preventing you from doing whatever you want with your property.
I want to copy, and sell the copies.

Again, most limitations to what we can do with our property stem from protecting the rights of others. Permits are usually safety issues.

Look up 'ability'.

So? Are you arguing that because you *can* do something, you have the right to?

No, absolutely not.
We have the right to because we are human.

The reason this copiablity is important is that it makes information unfit to be treated as property.
You can't legislate it out, it is inherent.

You want to sell me information.
Well what does that mean?
It's not at like selling a rubber ball.
For one, you still have the information, right from the start it's different, whether copyright exists or not.
Why would I want information in the first place?
Maybe it's entertaining information, maybe it's a program, or maybe it's educational somehow.
So I buy it and I have it, so that I can make use of it.
If it's entertainment, I just play it or read, and it impacts me.
If it's a program, I put it in my computer and I do stuff with it.
If it's eductaional, I learn from it and put that knowledge to use.
All these uses depend fundamentally on information being copiable.
It's meaningless to talk anbout having information without being able to convey that information.

Let's say it's a how-to book.
You have the information, and I buy it from you.
I read the book and learn how to build greenhouses.
I read it again, and again, untill I know everything about building greenhouses. (It's a good book)
So I build greenhouses, I put the information to use.
Inevitably, some of the information from the book, will be directly encoded into my greenhouses.
Putting information to use means copying it, to some degree.
If I know everything there is to know about building greenhouses, people will ask me about it and I'll tell them. Some of it will be experience from my own greenhouses, but some of it will be information from the book.
Sooner or later, I'll write my own book on greenhouses, and i willl likely contain all the information that yours did.
Having information is inseperable from being able to copy it.

Treating information as property means trying to defy this. It means trying to give people information, but then denying them the ability to copy it.
This is why Treating information as property always leads to absurdities.

If people can't freely process and copy their information, then it means they can't really make full use of it. IP means that the consumer is _really_ getting the information that they are paying for. It tries to pretend that they are getting some kind of 'play' information.
You can't _really_ use it because you don't _really_ have the information.
Sadly, it perverts the primary transaction itself.
That is why information property and copyright will always hurt the market.
 

But you are. You're infringing on my right to make money from my work and to determine its disposition.

This is the circular reasoning again. Since you don't seem to understand why harm is important, I'll explain again.

Your lawn is property because what I do to it affect your ability to use it, even if I'm only walking accross it, there is some wear involved.

If I have some information that you created, my copying and distributing it in no way affects your ability to use it.

Of course it does. It dilutes its value. You've already admitted that.

And it isn't just about money, but authoriship. The right to determine its disposition.

True example: A financial advisor took an article of mine and put it at his web site to market his services to clients. I told him that I did not want my work used for commercial purposes, because among other things it makes me look like a flack. And I was paid as a journalist, not earning the higher fee that is entitled for commercial work. I told him it was copyrighted work, my work, and he may not duplicate or distribute it. Since it had already been put online and read and duplicated by god knows how many people, he had the option of retriving and destroying all the unauthorized copies, or we could negotiate a fee. I got the fee.

His theft certainly *did* affect how I used -- or not used if I so choose -- my work.

Second example. Many years ago, in the late 80s, I wrote a piece for USA Today based on stuff I gleaned about electronic bulletin boards and some of the malicious things people were doing. As it happens, it was the first time computer viruses and worms were mentioned in USA Today. Perhaps one of the first times mentioned in a national publication. In any event, there is a group of very weird people who think of themselves as Internet historians, and my article is included in what they consider a 'net archive. They have hundreds of articles and screen shots and ASCII art and stuff like that. They compile and mirror these files, copy them all over the place. I contacted them and asked them to remove my article. They were like, "but dude, it's internet history, and information wants to be freeeeeee." I said that it's nice that they value my work, but no. I don't want it in that collection.

USA Today, meanwhile, has all my articles in a database that they vend, charging a few bucks for reprints.

Know how much I've made from all this copying and duplication? Not one dime. USA Today is ripping me off, and these geeks want to give it away. Everybody has their fingers on it but me, and I'm the one who recognized the trend, convinced the editor that it deserves ink, found the sources, conducted the interviews, and did the writing. I did the work. I should have some say in it, and if anybody is making money off of it I'm entitled to my share.

You then say that harm IS done, because payment is owed, because property was used, therefore it is property.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. We both agree that at some point a painting or photograph is my property. You claim that at some point it is no longer my property. What that property means to me, its value to me or anybody else, is immaterial. You say you have the right to determine what you do with your property. So do I. What I don't understand is why you believe my work is my property one moment and not the next.

If you are going to show that harm is done, you have to do it without resorting to IP or copyright, you have to show real harm.

That's why copyright law includes statutory damages. In the absence of copyright protection, you have to prove actual damages, which is impossible. You cannot calculate how much is lost by an infringement.

Your silly demand is like asking me to spell my name without using the letters of an alphabet.
 

I would say that your living room is private, a resturant, generally, is not.

And no, you do not have the right to make derivative works. Those rights belong to the copyright owner.

If that's the case you want to make, fine, but don't then pretend you're not elbow-deep into my brain telling me what I can't do with my story ideas.
 

The content is licensed, and you agreed to those conditions when you bought it.

Wrong again...I do not have to agree to anything To buy a DVD, I just lay down my cash

Nope. You consented when you opened the package. Read the fine print of the software you bought. Assuming that you bought it. There is an agreement.

2)Most likely the theater would prohibit recording devices, and especially at a premiere, reqqire contracts forbidding recording or distribution. If someone managed to record it anyway, that would then fit my definition of private information, and they would have cause to persue action against anyone distributing it.

What?????? What about your god-given right to copy? You said that when something is published or put on display it belongs to everybody. How dare they infringe on your freedom of speech.

Coward.
 

but selling copies is not the work of a photographer.

I believe you know little about the work of a professional photographer or writer. When you make your living as a writer or photographer or artist, then you can speak with knowledge and experience.

Writing is more than putting words on paper. Anybody can do that. To make a living at it, to have the luxury of writing useful, interesting, original work, I have to be legal counsel, accountant, secretary,

Money doesn't just pour in. It actually costs money to do this. There is equipment, supplies, car and fuel. Most writers and photographers don't make a lot of money. The money earned from stock photos *allows* a person to continue to take more photos.

It's not an incentive to go out an take more photos as much as it is to sell more copies of the photos you have.

So, what's wrong with that? If people are willing to pay for it, why not sell it?

If somebody hasn't produced new work in 30 years, what is copyright encouraging?

I take a little satisfaction knowing that a couple of little old ladies actually wrote the song "Happy Birthday to You," and that they have the balls to stand up to huge corporations, and restaurant chains, and movie studios, and say that they don't want their song used for commercial purposes. That song is part of America.

I leaf through a collection of Pulitzer-winning photos, these iconic images -- men pointing on the balcony of the Lorraine motel when King was shot, the naked burned girl running down the road in Vietnam, the monk who set himself ablaze. Powerful, emotional images. And when I look at those pictures, one of the things I *don't* wonder is why the sonovabitch hasn't taken another photo like that. On the other hand, if in his old age people are still moved by his image that they want to reprint it, and it provides a small residual income, I think that's fair reward for having the skill, presence of mind and whatever else it took to make that image.
 

Nobody is preventing you from doing whatever you want with your property.

I want to copy, and sell the copies.

I want to fuck Lindsey Lohan, but that's not going to happen legally either.
 

Nope. You consented when you opened the package. Read the fine print of the software you bought. Assuming that you bought it. There is an agreement.

Try again. First, we were talking about DVD's. I mean, you say 'Nope' but nothing you say contradicts what you quoted, and even what you say about shrinkwrap licenses doesn't at all contradict what I said about copyright law not being based on contract.

Don't you find it a bit odd that you can go to a store and buy something, but that doesn't even give you the right to freely open the packaging? What does property mean at all anymore?

What about your god-given right to copy?
As I have said, it is sometimes proper to infring on some rights, in order to protect the rights of others.
Privacy is very important to people, and restricting private information is a relatively minor restriction of the right to copy.
I said published. I even defined it, if you remember. You're going to great lengths to find corner cases, but in the real world, there is a prety big gap between private information and published information. I could accept a relativly wide swath for protecting private data, so long as it didn't cut into things that are obviously published.
 

Nobody is preventing you from doing whatever you want with your property.

I want to copy, and sell the copies.

I want to fuck Lindsey Lohan, but that's not going to happen legally either.

Well, which is it then? are you prventing me from doing what I want with my property or not? If you are, what is your justification?
 

You want to sell me information.
Well what does that mean?
It's not at like selling a rubber ball.

Actually, it is. You're not buying information. You're buying a book or a DVD or a CD or a newspaper or a movie ticket. You're buying a tangible object. In order to be copyrighted, it must be in a fixed medium. It's that medium that is copyrighted.

When you buy that product, you implicitly agree to certain things by contract, and certain things are covered by law. You are allowed to view or sell that product. You can make a copy for your personal use.

You don't own the contents, the information. Just because you bought a paperback book doesn't mean you can key in the contents and reprint it with your name on the cover.

It's like saying that you own the internet because you can copy it to your hard drive.

I think it's ironic that you use the proprietary Blogger, with its license agreement, using networks and computers employing patented technology, using copyrighted software, insisting that none of those property rights exist. Were that the case, you wouldn't be using a computer now.
 

I would say that your living room is private, a resturant, generally, is not.

But what if the mailman and anybody else who comes to the door sees it in the living room? Isn't that a public display, and therefore puts it in the public domain?

What if I host a party and a bunch of people see it? Is it a public display then?

What if I allow a charitable group, people I really don't know, to meet in my home and they see the painting. Is that a public display?

At what point do I lose rights to my property?
 

It really doesn't seem fair that you get to have Superman fetish photocopying parties at your house, but I have to take all the paintings down every time somebody knocks at the door.
 

but selling copies is not the work of a photographer.
I said this, you address it, but you list a lot of costs and activities that seem to me to be more integral to the art itself. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.
I understand writing and photgraphy take money an time, I understand that copyrights currently provide needed income.
What you ignore is that if your work has value, the market will pay you what it costs to get it done.

Today selling copies of photos is the work of a photographer BECAUSE of copyright, but it shouldn't be. They should be getting paid for the work, the art, and the value of what they are doing.

So, what's wrong with that? If people are willing to pay for it, why not sell it?

Fair enough, but realize you're not primarily being paid for your art, you're being paid for your publishing.

I think that's fair reward for having the skill, presence of mind and whatever else it took to make that image.

Do you think 'whatever else' includes being motivated by future copyright income? Neither do I.


You're not buying information.

Congratulations! You just summed up one of the bigest problems of copyright, and why it has to die soon.
Copyright makes it nearly impossible to buy information.
In an information economy, that's bad.

It also means you're never buying art (music, books) directly, but always through a publiher, and that's bad for the artists.

When you buy that product, you implicitly agree to certain things by contract,
No, no more so than a rubber ball. Copyright law is copyright law, not a contract.

You don't own the contents, the information.

So you say.

You say your underlying principle is that by creating information, you own it. (have exclusive right to copy it.)

How does that work? Why is that principle true?

I've laid out a pretty solid right to copy, based on our right to communicate freely. If you're going to infringe on that right, you need a solid justification.
I've even explained the necessity of real property, based on harm.

Were that the case, you wouldn't be using a computer now.
Neither copyrights nor patents are required for innovation. In fact, it's not hard to see that patents stifle innovation quite a bit. By design, they limit the adoption of new technology.
This is especially true in the computer industry, where information is everything.

You paint another silly picture in which people want advancements, but don't pay starving engineers to develop them.

At what point do I lose rights to my property?
When it ceases to be private, which would be defined by law.
 

but selling copies is not the work of a photographer.

I said this...I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me.

You want people out of your head? How about you stay out of other people's heads. Who are you to tell a photographer or a writer or an artist what work business is. A publisher isn't just a company that makes copies. You have a simplistic view. It's none of your fucking business whether my work involves writing or rewriting or taking a picture or editing or running a photocopier or sending out bills or fixing a computer. Who are you to say, "You, photographer, you don't make copies. You, artist, you create new stuff. You, publisher, you make copies."? None. Of. Your. Business. Stay out of my head.

What you ignore is that if your work has value, the market will pay you what it costs to get it done.

Dude, shut up about things you know nothing about. Don't you think I have a better grasp of how and what my market pays me than you do? Who the hell are you to tell me and my clients how we should do things? Stay out of my head.

They should be getting paid for the work, the art, and the value of what they are doing.

That's exactly right. People should be fairly compensated for their work.

Fair enough, but realize you're not primarily being paid for your art, you're being paid for your publishing.

See above. What business is it of yours what I'm getting paid for? Does it matter whether you get paid for running the cash register or cleaning the peep show booths at your workplace? My work, what I get paid for, how I get paid, and what I get paid -- none of your fucking business. Get out of my head.

Do you think 'whatever else' includes being motivated by future copyright income? Neither do I.

I have no idea what was going through Eddie Adams' mind when his lens focused on the execution of a vietcong prisoner in 1968, capturing the moment the bullet tore through the prisoner's head. His motivation is none of my business and none of your business. Get out of his head.

When you buy that product, you implicitly agree to certain things by contract

Copyright law is copyright law, not a contract.

Slow down, cowpoke. I said that when you buy a product it may be covered by copyright law, but also you may implicitly agree to certain by contract. Software you buy has a license agreement. You agreed to certain terms when you signed up with Blogger. Just like you know you wouldn't tape the permiere of Lord of the Rings, you agree to certain conduct when you buy the movie ticket.

You don't own the contents, the information.

So you say.

When you buy the Lord of the Rings DVD, you're not buying the screenplay itself. You don't own that script. If you DID own that script, you'd be perfectly within your rights to put your name as author and sell it. Could you?

When you buy a ticket for an art gallery, do you re-arrange the object more to your liking and take a Matisse home for over your sofa? Do you?

Do you own that stuff?

You say your underlying principle is that by creating information, you own it. (have exclusive right to copy it.)

How does that work? Why is that principle true?

You said yourself way up there that if I take a photo, at least for a while that is my property. We both agree that at some point it is owned property.

Books and photos and screenplays and music don't materialize out of thin air. Somebody makes them.

YOU say that at some point that work is no longer property, can no longer be exclusively owned.

So the default position is owned property. I don't have to explain anything to you. YOU have to explain why property is being away from me.

At what point do I lose rights to my property?

When it ceases to be private, which would be defined by law.

When does my property cease to be private?
 

...if your work has value, the market will pay you what it costs to get it done.

Dude, shut up about things you know nothing about.

Dude, this is basic economics. You're handwaving, trying to say I'm just ignorant, rather than refute my arguments.

See above. What business is it of yours what I'm getting paid for?

That's why I said 'fair enough' dumbass. You can run your business however you want. I'm not the one arguing for fines and jail time, I'm the arguing that we should both leave each other alone. You say 'stay out of my head' as if my model would have people imposing on you somehow.
You try to turn the tables on me with my own slogan, despite the fact that you have still been unable to show any harm from copying.
No, my model leaves you, the artist, free to do anything to want.
But if You, Mr. artist- publisher- businessman, pervert the laws to impose your economic model on ME, under the guise of 'promoting the arts', then I will point out that those laws, do not encourage new art, only new copies.

Slow down, cowpoke.
No, you're talking like an ignorant idiot.
The presenece of a contract associated with some presentations of some copyrighted works has nothing to do with copyright restrictions in general.
You did not say "it may be covered" you said it was implicit. This is doubly wrong, since as you've already stated, such agreements come with the item and are agreed to when the packaging is opened, this makes these terms explicit.
You are trying to convince either me, the audience, your yourself that copyright is based on spome implicit agreement whcih would mean I have agreed to it and am then bound by my word.
This is an ignorant and desperate attempt to rationalize an opinion you can no longer defend rationally.
When I borrow a book from a friend, I agree only to return it in a week. No contract binds what I do wit the information in the meantime. The ONLY thing
restricting my freedom is copyright law.
I've already stated I would have no problem with people restricting redistibution by contract. Contract law is not what I'm arguing about, I slightly uncomfortable with shrinkwrap licenses being considered valid, but again that is tangential.

If you DID own that script, you'd be perfectly within your rights to put your name as author and sell it. Could you?
It befits your character that you would trot out plagiarism sooner or later, this is another ignorant rationalization.
I think plagiarism pretty neatly falls under both fraud and trademark law, and should be controlled as such.

Do you own that stuff?
I don't own the stuff in the gallery, I didn't buy the stuff in the gallery. But I did buy the ticket.

Do I own that?

YOU have to explain why property is being away from me.
You own the photo initially as a result of your right to privacy. I am fully commited to not going into your brain, your camera, your darkroom, or your living room.
When you publish a photo, it is clearly not private anymore, and you can't claim ownership on that basis.

So again, YOU have to explain why your underlying principle is true.

When does my property cease to be private?
As I said, that would be defined by law. (and by contract, to the extent allowed by law.)


I'm not going to nit pick exactly where something crosses the line, becasue it's not important to my case. I have already defined 'published'(see below), and it is obvious that when something has been published it is no longer private.

[[[[By published I mean when an artist or other legitimate holder of private information (such as a novel) willfully makes it available it to the public, without requiring some contract establishing privacy.]]]

If you write a diary, it is private, if you sell copies of it in a bookstore, it is no longer private. Simple enough?
 

This was recently posted as a false comment under my name. It has been deleted.

I never thought of it that way. I realize now the hypocrisy of claiming to support artists while advocating taking away their rights and limiting their ability to make a living.

I guess I really am a mooch who exploits the work of others.

You're right, I'm wrong. I take back every word. I need to get these cobwebs out of my head and start thinking about moving out of my mother's basement.

I'll get moving on that after having some quality time with a tub of Crisco and my Superman action figures.

Your level of maturity astounds me.
 

What gives you the right to modify or delete the comment from our blog?

Blogger.
Get your own blog!
 

Get your own blog!

This is as much my blog as yours. You don't own it. You don't own the words, and therefore you have no right to alter or delete them.

My goodness, how quickly you switch from somebody who claims to cherish free speech and expression to censor. You censored me!

OMFG, too funny! When it's your information you exert the rights of property ownership.

This can't be the same person who said "We have a basic human right to copy information. Published information can not be owned."

What a hypocrite.

Get your own blog! This is my blog! WAHHHHHHHH!
 

You are not even making logical arguments.
I had a feeling you would miss the obvious.

Google owns the servers blogger runs on, these servers are real property, and google may do as they wish with them. Denying someone the use of their servers to publish information is in no way and infringment on that person rights. This should be fundamentally obvious based on even the most basic concept of property.
Google, in it's infinite wisdom, has chosen to allow me to have ultimate auhtority over what is and is not posted to this litle section of the blogger/blogspot namespace.
My authority comes from Blogger, which in turn has authority based on real property rights.

I don't have to own the words, I can do with them as I please, so long as I respect the true rights of others.

I did not censor you at all. First, I do not stop you from posting anything you want, on your own. I have no obligation to let you use my forum, and refusing you such access is not censorship.
Second, Your words are in fact still available here, but I will not let you get away with outright deceit.


When it's your information you exert the rights of property ownership.

I'm not exerting any rights to ownership of information. I would ask you to show otherwise, but you seem incapable of making a case for anything.

What is 'mine' in this context is not the information, but the blogger-granted authority to make blog posts and manage comments.

We DO have a basic human right to copy information, but this little charade didn't involve copying my words or 'stealing' my information, did it? It was about impersonating me immaturely mocking me, and baselessly casting me as a hypocrite.
This is a childish and idiotic attempt to rationalize your disagreement with me. You've obviously given up arguing based on ideas and facts, and now have a psychological need to cast me as evil and stupid and therefore wrong.
You make it personal because you have to. Welcome to the world of cognitive dissonance, the birthplace of rationalizations.

You have tried to mae a few rational arguments, but as I have shown them to be circular or otherwise invalid, you have resorted to lamely trying to poke holes in my model. When I show that my model stand up to scrutiny, you resort to emotional arguments, and then personal attacks and childish antics.
Seriously, look at your tactics, who are you trying to convince?

The burden of proof is still on you. You STILL have not posed a single valid argument about how or why information is property.
I have four aces here, quit bluffing and show your cards.
 

...if your work has value, the market will pay you what it costs to get it done.

Dude, this is basic economics. You're handwaving, trying to say I'm just ignorant, rather than refute my arguments.

You’ve posed no argument, only expressed envy that other people make money from their creative expression. I’m already being paid for the value of my work. You have proposed nothing.

I'm not the one arguing for fines and jail time,

Once again, you are erroneously attributing things to me. I never argued any such thing.

I'm the arguing that we should both leave each other alone.

Your nose gets out of joint when somebody dares suggest what you do with your precious computer, DVD, and other property, but you stand there like a little martinet telling other people what their jobs are, what their work is, what their relationships with other people should be, how their work should be valued, and how they should get paid. None of those things are any of your business.

you have still been unable to show any harm from copying.

In fact I have. I have shown that copying results in a loss of value, loss of the right to authorship, the loss of the right to the disposition of the work.

Your response? “Nah-nah-nah-nah I have my fingers in my ears, I can’t hear you.”

I will point out that those laws, do not encourage new art, only new copies.

You’re so concerned about what other people do and the money they make. You want the photographer’s job to be taking new pictures. You want a musician’s job to be making new music. You want an artist’s job to be making new art. And what’s your job?

I want to copy, and sell the copies.

Oh yeah, that’s right. Your job will be to make copies of other people’s work. So it’s really all about your economics, and your rights.

If you DID own that script, you'd be perfectly within your rights to put your name as author and sell it. Could you?

It befits your character that you would trot out plagiarism sooner or later, this is another ignorant rationalization._I think plagiarism pretty neatly falls under both fraud and trademark law, and should be controlled as such.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. Trademark law covers words, phrases, and symbols used as a brand name. Fraud involves gaining something of value by false pretenses. Neither apply in this case.

You ignored the question: If you rent or buy the Lord of the Rings DVD, do you own that script?

I didn’t bring up plagiarism, but since you did, explain this: By your reasoning, your speech includes all of mine, as well as the works of Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen Jay Gould, and the Encyclopedia Britannica. If copying is a form of creative expression, you could take a complete term paper you find on the web and creatively express it by copying it or typing it in, just as you creatively express yourself by burning a DVD, and so therefore the paper you turn in is your own work. Yes or no?

I didn't buy the stuff in the gallery. But I did buy the ticket.

That’s right, giving you the right to view the works. Just like buying a DVD or CD gives you the right to view the work.

When does my property cease to be private?

As I said, that would be defined by law. (and by contract, to the extent allowed by law.) I'm not going to nit pick exactly where something crosses the line, becasue it's not important to my case.

WOULD BE? To be determined, that’s the best you can do? You said:

I can fully defend these points and more. It is not a rationalization, it is a very solid philosophical argument.

Perhaps it isn’t important to you, but it’s important to property owners. You wouldn’t buy a house if you didn’t know where the property line is. The distinction is the difference between trespassing and just hanging around.

Your whole model is predicated on this one thing, and you can’t answer that fundamental question? I think your model needs some glue.

I have already defined 'published' (see below), and it is obvious that when something has been published it is no longer private…By published I mean when an artist or other legitimate holder of private information (such as a novel) willfully makes it available it to the public…If you write a diary, it is private, if you sell copies of it in a bookstore, it is no longer private. Simple enough?

No, not simple at all.

If I take a photograph or paint a picture, it is my property. We both agree on that.

If I show the image to my wife, is that published?

If my son shows it to his friend with my permission, is that published?

If I include the image in a geneological chart that is duplicated for members of my immediate family, is that published?

If I do a painting in front of a class, is it published?

If, instead of developing the film myself I send it to the one-hour developing place, is it published?

If I hang the image in my living room where it can be seen by delivery people or anybody else who comes to the door can see it, is it published?

If I allow a group of people that I don’t know to have a meeting in my home, is the image published?

If I put the image on a web page but don’t tell anybody the URL, is it published?

If I have video images of a crime and it is subpoenaed as part of the investigation and put into the public record in a criminal court proceeding, is it published?

My authority comes from Blogger, which in turn has authority based on real property rights.

Ha ha ha ha. What real property rights? It’s all software, dude. It’s just information. Secondly, did Blogger really transfer authority to you? Prove it.

Blogger did not delete, modify, and suppress the information. You did.

I don't have to own the words, I can do with them as I please, so long as I respect the true rights of others.

What happened to the basic human right to free speech?

And I'm sure you would agree that the freedom of speech includes the right to tell a story, repeat gossip you heard whether or not it's true, even the right to tell a lie. What makes you the judge of what is true and worthy of respecting rights? Would you like somebody modifying your speech because they thought some of it is not true or worthy of respect?

The most powerful test of the First Amendment is to respect the right to express speech that is offensive or disagreeable. You failed that test.

I did not censor you at all.

Well, it wasn’t me you were censoring. But clearly, you did censor. You removed and suppressed some of the information. Yet you also say:

I oppose copyright law as unjust because there is no true right to control information

That makes you a hypocrite.

a psychological need to cast me as evil

Think about what you’re saying. You’ve accused me of demanding money from you. You accused me of advocating for fines and jailing. None of which I’ve ever said. You’ve impugned my motives and my work – which you know nothing about. Is this sticking to the issues?

You have tried to mae a few rational arguments, but as I have shown them to be circular or otherwise invalid

Talk about circular reasoning, how about this: We can copy because we have the right. We have the right to copy because we can.
 

Nice to see you come around to the right way of thinking:

Heh heh

Your information could be copied a hundred million billion times on forums and blogs and sites all over the web and not harm you one little bit! You still have your identity. It's just another identity!

I love it!
 

My argument in that context is that supply and demand will ensure that artists are paid for work, without copyright. This argument was clearly made, when I say I have not posed one, you lie.

You argue in favor of copyright law, copyright law includes civil and criminal penalties.

None of those things are any of your business.
Ahh, but I only want to philosophize about them, I do not wish to legislate how artist conduct their lives, I only insist that they not legislate how I conduct mine. Face it, you are not advocating leaving me (as a pirate) alone.

I have shown that copying results in a loss of value, loss of the right to authorship, the loss of the right to the disposition of the work.

Your loss of value argument is circular as it depends on IP or copyright in the first place. I don't think you've argued loss of authorship very well, but again it is better covered by fraud.
The right to the disposition of the work ceases to exist once the work is published.

And again, you haven't really argued these rights, you have merely asserted they exist. I have shown that my proposed rights are implicit in other recognized rights. Your proposed rights have no basis.

I want to copy, and sell the copies.

Oh yeah, that’s right. Your job will be to make copies of other people’s work.

No, my comment was in response to your false assertion that nobody was preventing me from using my property. Another lie.

I actually have little desire to be a publisher professionally, but I do want to be able to give copies away.

Fraud involves gaining something of value by false pretenses. Neither apply in this case.

This case fall more under fraud. selling sometihng by asserting authorship is false pretenses. I would support laws against misrepresenting the authorship of a work, or your business relationship to the true author. (which is where trademark comes in.)

You ignored the question: If you rent or buy the Lord of the Rings DVD, do you own that script?
Well, is the script published?
How did I get a copy?

By your reasoning, your speech includes all of mine, as well as the works of Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen Jay Gould, and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
When did I reason that?

If copying is a form of creative expression
I never said or implied that, and have asked you repeatedly not to put words in my mouth.
You are lying again.

I didn't buy the stuff in the gallery. But I did buy the ticket.

That’s right, giving you the right to view the works. Just like buying a DVD or CD gives you the right to view the work.

And in either case I may do as I wish with the information I recieve.

Perhaps it isn’t important to you, but it’s important to property owners. You wouldn’t buy a house if you didn’t know where the property line is. The distinction is the difference between trespassing and just hanging around.

It's not important to my case. My case is about restricting the copying of published works. The sense of 'ownership' I propose is based entirely on privacy, so obviously it would be lost by the if a work is published.
I may not know exactly where your property line is, but Ikow your property does not include my house.
I think that the exact lines of privvacy will need to be adjusted with time and culture, and that this can be done via the existing lawmaking process.

Unless you are arguing that published works are still 'private' then there's really no reason to discuss this. And if you ARE, well, good luck with that.

What real property rights? It’s all software, dude.
Damn, you really ARE an idiot.
I got a new vocabulary word for you: computer: metal box. buy in store. you plug in. it make software go. real property.

What happened to the basic human right to free speech?

It is intact, I have not stopped anyone from speaking, I have not punished anyone for speaking. though the false comment might have constituted libel, it is obviously not worth persuing.

I have fully respected first amendment rights here. I would defend to the death your right to express yourself, or to copy, but that doesn't mean I have to give you the soapbox, or the press, or the server.

In fact, I am being entirely consistent. I refuse to let anyone dictate to me what information I may or may not or must copy.

Well, it wasn’t me...
I doubt that.

You’ve accused me of demanding money from you. You accused me of advocating for fines and jailing.
'You' demanding money was within the context of a hypothetical in which you were an artist whose work I was copying.
The latter charge has been explained above.

I don't think I've said anything about your books.
I speculated on your motives only after you implied I was only concerned with getting things for free, and after you asked me to. I don't consider your motivation a part of my case at all, I can make the case just as well to a non-artist.
I DO consider your psychology whenrebutting your awful arguments.

Talk about circular reasoning, how about this: We can copy because we have the right. We have the right to copy because we can.
I never made this argument. You seem to have muddle two seperate arguments together. I can only assume you have very poor concrete thikning skills, because they were clearly labeled as my first and second arguments in my very first response to you.
Begin argument 1:
(premises:We are humans. Humans have rights. Free speech and use of property is included in these. This means we have the right to say or do anything that does not infringe on the rights of another.)
(conclusion: We have a right to copy information.)
::End Argument 1

This doesn say anything about whether information is property, it does not use it's conclusion as a premise, and doesn't rely on any conclusion from argument 2.

Begin Argument 2:
(premises:Information is inherently copiable. Concepts of property are designed to deal with physical objects. Any model that treats information as property leads to absurdities.)
(Conclusion:Information cannot be property.)

This does not say anything about human rights, and would be true even if we were talking about machine-run corporations. It does not use it's conclusion as a premise, and does not rely on any conclusion of argument 1.

I oppose copyright law as unjust because there is no true right to control information

I generally take great care to say exactly what I mean. I think you're taking the statement out of context but I also am not very happy with my wording, it is not as precise as it should be. I have already explained why this is not censorship, and I could make the argument that I am not even 'controlling' the information, only the servers.

I've also thought of rewriting it to clarify, to make it more precise, but we both know what I was actually saying, and we both know you can't dispute it rationally or civilly, so I'm not even going to explain it.


Four Aces, what'cha got?
 

You argue in favor of copyright law, copyright law includes civil and criminal penalties.

That isn't what you said. You said

You are the one who (I presume) wants to jail and fine people

I'm not the one arguing for fines and jail time

Look back over my comments. I never once said anything about fines and jail time. You also said

I'm hearing that you want to come into my house and tell me what I can do with my stuff. You are unlcear on what the penalties should be for noncompliance.

So which is it, are you unclear of the penalties or not? Are you ignorant or just a liar?
 

By your reasoning, your speech includes all of mine, as well as the works of Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen Jay Gould, and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

When did I reason that?

When you said, "I can say anything I want, including things you said before."

Your freedom of speech includes all of my speech. And all of everybody else's speech too.
 

If copying is a form of creative expression

I never said or implied that, and have asked you repeatedly not to put words in my mouth.

Lord knows I woudn't put anything of mine in your mouth. There's no telling what else has been in there.

Nonetheless, you did say: "The first ammendment says nothing of 'creative expression' it talks about freedom of speech, and of the press, which sounds to me like a photocopier."
 

t's not important to my case.

But you also said, "in the real world, there is a prety big gap between private information and published information."

Okay, so what is that gap? Now all of a sudden it isn't so crystal clear to you.
 

Your information could be copied a hundred million billion times on forums and blogs and sites all over the web and not harm you one little bit! You still have your identity. It's just another identity!

Yes and no.
I don't have the right to be the only person in the world named indrax. I certainly don't have the right for no one else to use the name on a no-authentication web discussion. If a billion people started using the name, then yes, I would still be unharmed. It might get confusing, and I would probably switch names, but as long as I could accurately distinguish myself for business, my life would be unchanged. If the name had any real importance, then I would protect it with trademark law.

I do have a right not to be lied about. This isn't just about somebody taking the name indrax and having opinions that are different than mine. This person isn't even making an example that is relevant to copyright. As I said in the linked-to thread, 'identity theft' is really about fraud.
If somebody else wants to use the name indrax, fine, but if they imply that they are the same indrax that runs this blog and made te posts that I made, then they are lying.
If they then make false statments about my oopinions, then tey are lying about me.

That does some harm even if only one person does it.

This whole impersonation episode is childish showboating, nothing more.
 

I have not stopped anyone from speaking,

Yes you did. You deleted information. You stopped somebody from speaking freely. YOU chose what information you would allow and not allow.
 

Talk about circular reasoning, how about this: We can copy because we have the right. We have the right to copy because we can.

I never made this argument.

"we have a basic human right to copy information. Repitition is simply what we do."
 

Is it true when I say, “The only reason why you write is because of money?”

No. I write to contribute to a body of knowledge. The fact that I get paid for it just makes it nice and allows me to do it full-time. Next question.
 

I’m sorry citizen x , I was more making a comment than asking a question. But let me ask this question. Why is it wrong for me to read your manual, where you say to “Put tab A into slot B.”, Go and perform that function, explain what I did and have them pay me for it?

I'm not sure what you're asking. You're going to explain to somebody the entire contents of my (hypothetical) manual, word for word?

What is it you're getting paid for, reading somebody the entire manual or assembling their stuff for them?

I believe I know what you're getting at. What's the harm if you repeat the information you read in my book? On an individual basis, very little. As a practical matter, I have no control if somebody photocopies an article of mine at the library to take home. That's fair use. A lot of people post things on their office door or pass along to colleagues. Still fair use. Pirates and bootleggers hook onto this and say that if the harm is minimal if it's done once, told to one person, then there's no harm if it's told to a million people. And that's where the analogy falls apart. If you're duplicating something in quantity, sharing it with thousands of people all over the world, then it's no longer person-to-person communication. That's duplication and distribution.

Now, there are grey areas. There are grey areas to fair use too. You can quote a portion of a copyrighted work for certain purposes -- commentary, educational, etc. The courts have never definitively resolved exactly how much or how little is fair use. But everybody agrees that an entire work is not a portion. So copying a work in its entirety -- a whole book, a whole movie, a whole song -- is never fair use.

So, if you're reading a book to your child or explaining to a neighbor the instructions on how to assemble things, that's all well and fine. But this isn't what people like indrax is talking about. He says

I want to copy, and sell the copies.

That is an entirely different situation.

And that "published" stuff, that was just rhetorical too? What were you trying to suggest?
 

I never once said anything about fines and jail time.
You support copyright law.
Do you not?

So which is it, are you unclear of the penalties or not?
At the time, I was taking you on your word that you did not support fines and jail. I thought perhaps you would promote some alternative enforcement system. Since you offered none and persist in calling information property, I have to take the implications of the arguments you are making, and assume you were lying.
So which is it, what do you support?


Ahh, yes, my freedom of speech includes the right to say the works of any author.

The first ammendment says nothing of 'creative expression' it talks about freedom of speech, and of the press, which sounds to me like a photocopier.

This is one english sentence, I thought you could understand it. This does NOT imply that using a photocopier is creative expression, in fact it implies the opposite.
This states that creative expression is not at all a requirement for first amendment protection.
As an example of this, the first amendment specificly refers to the press, which is a thing that can make a lot of copies of a printed work, a lot like a photocopier, creativity not required.
Even if you misread this sentence the first time, my statements to the contrary should have tipped you of that you were mistaken.

Okay, so what is that gap?
Like I said, it's pretty big.

You're trying to narrow me down into contrived cases when the majority of copies peple are making are for things that are available from amazon.com. I'm talking about my right to make copies of those things. That is the case I'm making.

But what the hell, I'll outline my thoughts with the caveat that this is just a tentative suggest for what the law could be.

I support relatively strong privacy rights. (relative to now) I think it should be next to impossible to accidently publish a work. in fact 'willfully' is included in my definition of publish, but I've given up on you learning to read.
This will make it easy for artists to work with people without worry. you could show someone a draft or a photoset and it would be considered private.
Hmmm. This would make it easier for artists to effectively market 'first publication' rights. My pragmatic case just got better! :-)
Your painting in the livingroom would probably be fine.


It's not my computer, as I said, it's blogger's computer.
For the same reason you can kick me out of your house, google can edit the contents of it's servers, and it can delegate that right to me.
hence blogger gave me the right to delete comments here.

This 'gagging' business is bullshit and you know it.

You stopped somebody from speaking freely. No, that person is still free to speak. in fact they are still free to use blogger's servers to do it, but on my blog, it is subject to my deletion.

Again, I dictate what information I copy, you decide the information you copy. You can't dictate that I disseminate information for you.

"we have a basic human right to copy information. Repitition is simply what we do."

There is not a 'because' in there, and 'can' and 'simply what we do' are very different.

Fraud indeed! You are accusing me of a crime.
No, I wasn't accusing you of identity theft. Just lying. (If you are the same Indrax who impersonated me before.)

I challenge you to a duel with colostomy bags at ten paces.

Agreed, empty or full?



That's fair use.

Why is it fair use? What does fair use mean in the context of property? Do I get fair use of your house too?
 

Well, it wasn’t me...

I doubt that.

I don't care what you think. You better be 100% certain of your facts before you start making accusations, bub.

God knows who is yanking your chain. Could be any number of people you've pissed off with these arguments you like to stir up in forums. You're easy to Google. I've let a few of my colleagues know what's going on too.
 

I never once said anything about fines and jail time.

You support copyright law.
Do you not?

Sorry, I'm not playing that game. The fact is that you lied, and you attributed statements that I never made.

Next!
 

The fact is that you lied, and you attributed statements that I never made.

I did not attribute any sttement to you, I said what you are arguing for.

Do you support copyright law, or not? Is that not what you are 'arguing for'?
 

I never once said anything about fines and jail time.

You support copyright law.

This is a fallacious argument, much like

You support America
America engages in warfare
Therefore you are a warmonger

or

Tom is German
Germans perpetrated the Holocaust
Therefore Tom is an antisemite.

I read this thread out of idle curiosity, and I've never heard such idiotic drivel in my life. Indrax (the first one, indrax1, I guess), your reasoning is riddled with false predicates, fallacies of ambiguity, false dichotomies, subjective validation, and just plain irrational thinking. You attack people rather than address the point of discussion, avoid answering direct questions, and quibble and split hairs on trivial points. You can hardly call yourself logical, and I teach logic at MIT.

Abraham Lincoln reportedly said, "Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

You leave no doubt.
 

It's not my computer, as I said, it's blogger's computer.

For the same reason you can kick me out of your house, google can edit the contents of it's servers, and it can delegate that right to me. hence blogger gave me the right to delete comments here.

You're such a weasel, I don't know why I bother. Blogger didn't do anything, you did.

You said that published information cannot be owned. If it is not owned, it is in the public domain. If it is in the public domain, all people have the same rights. If everybody has the same rights, you can't have MORE rights than somebody else. If you can have rights to something than other members of the public do not, what exactly are those rights?

Either information is privately owned, or publicly owned. Now you're postulating some vague area between the two.

Aw heck, we both know you're just saying "This is my blog."

Get your own blog! WAHHHHHHH!

Secondly, if this Blogger computer magically gave you rights that are not given to other members of the public, why does not MY computer give me rights not given to others?

You want it both ways. You're special, the final arbiter of all that is fair and reasonable. Everybody else in the world is wrong. What a nutcase.

This 'gagging' business is bullshit and you know it.

Something was there that you didn't want people to see. If there wasn't, you wouldn't have done what you did. Some information was withheld. Respecting another's freedom of speech means you can't determine what somebody else wanted to say, meant to say, had a complete thought. The fact that you filtered somebody else's speech through your own judgment and sensibilities means that it was censored.

You gagged somebody. You're a hypocrite. Deal with it.

I did not attribute any sttement to you, I said what you are arguing for.

Do you support copyright law, or not?

You certainly did attribute those things to me. It's right up there in the record, you dolt.

I said I'm not playing that game. I'm not the issue here, you are:

Copying isn't stealing, copyright law is itself immoral. We have a basic human right to copy information. Published information can not be owned.

I can fully defend these points and more. It is not a rationalization, it is a very solid philosophical argument.

So far, you aren't doing a very good job of it.
 

You leave no doubt.

LOL. Watch out, beastman. indrax has been deputized by Blogger. He has special powers.

Deputy Dawg!
 

This is a fallacious argument, much like

You support America
America engages in warfare
Therefore you are a warmonger

No.
You are equivocating the word 'support'.
Copyright law is not some semi-autonomous entity that may do things you disaprove of.
It is, in this context, a set of statements about what is proper. Citizen X gave every indication through is arguments that he supported these statements. (indeed, becasue he considers information property, I would think even stronger penalties are warranted, but I digress)
While it was reasonable for me to presume (as I qualified it at the time) that he supported the penalties laid out by copyright law, I am open to the possibility that he support only some of copyright law. (i.e. I am not putting forth a false dichotomy.)
When he denied arguing for fines and jail time, I asked him for a clarification of his position. I have since asked him twice more, to no avail.
If he advocates copyright law with no penalties for infringement, then I would have no objection, as violation of rights is essential to my case.
If he promotes the use of any force to enforce copyright, then my argument remains essentially unchanged.
In either case, if I was wrong, I shall apologize.

your reasoning is riddled with false predicates, fallacies of ambiguity, false dichotomies, subjective validation, and just plain irrational thinking.

Please point out these errors, I wish to improve my arguments.

You attack people rather than address the point of discussion,

Citizen X was insulting since the beginning, I tried to hold off, but gave up about when he started posting outright misinformation.
The other Indraxes generally do not make points, and I make no apology for calling them childish.
But you are right, I should try harder.

That said, my personal jabs do not detract from the validity of my arguments, nor do any faults in my case overcome the fact that Citizen X has not made his.

avoid answering direct questions,

I'm sorry, what questions have I not answered?

and quibble and split hairs on trivial points.

Well, the way I see it, a smart person will generally only believe a wrong thing as the result of a very subtle logcal fallacy, or an equally subtle false premise. So a relatively high degree of nitpicking will be needed to find the truth whenever 'reasonable people can disagree'.
I agree that we have spent way to much time on trivialities, but I'm not sure we are talking about the same things.

You can hardly call yourself logical, and I teach logic at MIT.
Great, then you can confirm for me that that was an appeal to authority!
 

Blogger didn't do anything, you did.

Blogger gave me the right, and that is all I have asserted it did.

If you can have rights to something than other members of the public do not, what exactly are those rights?

I don't have any more rights to that information. Everyone is equaly free to not post it on their blog, or to do so.

I have particular rights to control of the servers, which are property.

Either information is privately owned, or publicly owned. Now you're postulating some vague area between the two.
Published information is published. As a publisher I am free to cease or modify my publication of any information.
If someone else has that information, they may publish it themselves.

Get your own blog! WAHHHHHHH!
In light of what beastman said, I ask that we keep this civil.

Secondly, if this Blogger computer magically gave you rights that are not given to other members of the public, why does not MY computer give me rights not given to others?

The computer did not give me rights, Blogger did. Your computer cannot give you rights, you have rights over it, by reason of your ownership of it. For example I have no right to host things on your computer without your consent.

Everybody else in the world is wrong.
No, many agree with me, to varying degrees, and many have no opinion.

Some information was withheld.
What information was withheld?
Given what's there, and what we've both been posting to each other, what would I have found 'too objectionable'?
What would it gain me to merely censor something? It could just be reposted repeatedly, or posted to the computer world blog post, or on any other blog. In fact I just enabled backlinks for this blog, so if anybody wants to say anything and doesn't trust my restraint with deletion, just link here in a blog post, and google should find it.
I'll admit my initial reaction was to simply delete it and move on, but then I thought of the censorship aspect, plus I'm a packrat so I wanted an accurate record of the discussion. I actually had to click on the back button afew times to get back to the deletion confirmation page, so that I could grab the text.


You certainly did attribute those things to me.

'things' and 'statements' are very different. I said what (I presumed) you were arguing for. You still have given me no evidence to the contrary, so I must still presume. If you correct me I will apologize.

What penalties would you propose for IP violations?

a)The relevant fact is that copyright law uses fines and jail time.

b)It does this to enforce a government-granted exclusivity that is not a true right, and is not necessary.

c)By doing so, it violates the natural right of free speech, and the right to real property.

My argument is that these means(a) for these ends(b), to this effect(c), are unjust.

I have more than adequately defended my case. I seem to have lost track of yours in the 64 comment spread, could you please restate it?
What is the basis of information property rights?

Copying isn't stealing.
Obvious, it takes nothing.
The only refutation has been on assuming information property, and even then it was muddled.

copyright law is itself immoral.
It violates rights for no good reason, has shown just above.
(b) has been refuted by asserting an information property right, but this has been left baseless.

We have a basic human right to copy information. Published information can not be owned.
Presented (again) as 'argument 1' and 'Argument 2' a few posts back. Not refuted that I can find.

Hey look, four well made arguments. (I swear this number is a coincidence)

LOL. Watch out, beastman. indrax has been deputized by Blogger. He has special powers.

Again, I don't delete for disagreement, swearing or insults. I have already stated my reasons for the deletion. I don't expect it to be needed again on that basis because anyone reading this should be ready for false indraxes.
I might delete a comment outright if it is filled with profanity or meaninglessness, but it would have to be pretty bad.
 

If I want to hear some music that an artist created, why do I have to pay the distributor who placed his song on medium?

I don't know. That's between the artist and whomever he or she decides to do business with. Why do you have to pay K-Mart for Martha Stewart linens and kitchenware? Because she signed a contract with K-Mart. Don't want to pay K-Mart? No Martha Stewart linens and kitchenware for you. Try garage sales maybe, or a factory clearance warehouse somewhere. Why do I have to buy Farrar Strauss books to read John McPhee? Because they publish his books. Why do I have to listen to public radio to hear Prarie Home Companion? Because that's where it airs.

Or are you asking, what does the distributor do to earn their money? Creating any commercial media is a collaboraive effort. Sure, there are people with a digital camera who get a viral video on the web, but I'm talking about ongoing commercial enterprises -- magazines, newspapers, radio, television. There are a lot of people with jobs that are essential (and believe me, tightfisted publishers would eliminate them if they could): editors, managing editors, copyeditors and proofreaders; designers to make the text more accessible, more readable, have more impact. If it's television there's a whole stream of technical people -- camera operators, directors, technicians, etc. Same with radio. If it's a print publication there are prepress people to fiddle with the images, people who transfer bluelines into plates, press operators, bundlers, and so on. What does the distributor do? They distribute to a network of places where they have maintained relationships, operate trucks and pay for the fuel to haul goods around the country, and pay wages and health benefits for all these people.

One thing that all the people involved in the creation of a new work have in common is that they have assumed risk. They have invested money, hours of labor, experience, expertise, resources, all sorts of things. That's why they are entitled to a piece of the pie, and how they decide to divvy it up is none of my concern, none of your concern, none of indrax's concern.

What does the IP pirate have invested -- the cost of a blank disk?

Why does the owner of the studio make more money than the artist?

What do you mean exactly? What owner of what studio? Do you mean why does the label earn more than the artist? For one thing, the label has expenses -- the aforementioned staff salaries, benefits, utilities, equipment, etc etc. Somebody has to build and maintain a studio. Do you have the bucks for it? Then you could be your own label.

I don't see where you or I should butt into the affairs between the artist and whomever he or she chooses to do business with.

He just assigned a value for his work. He/she agreed that what he will get is fair compensation.

Each of us does that every day. Some people will work at Wal Mart for minimum wage. Not me. You do that whenever you go into a job interview, and the prospective employer asks what salary range you're looking for. You do that when you decide how much abuse and unpleasantness you'll accept in a job. I decided long ago that I would not take any job that required me to wear a shirt and tie. I decided that rather than be a cubicle-bound team player I would strike out on my own as a freelance and raise my infant son. He's in college now, and his little brother in high school. I worked my ass off and raised two kids. I know about the value of my work. My relationship with my publishers is none of your business, and none of indrax's business.

So begins the royalty aspect. That is the value that the artist agreed to for fair compensation for his effort/work.

That's not true. Royalties are actually used fairly infrequently. Books and music sometimes, sometimes not. There is a lot of music, for example, used for jingles or as background in a movie or as a "bumper" transition in radio or television that is work-for-hire and owned outright by the client. It's still all covered by copyright and rights are transferred by contract.

Things are not as black-and-white as you think.

They used the copyright laws to their advantage

Of course we do. What good is a law if you don't use it to your advantage? Look bub, who do you think is looking out for my interests? The publisher? Ha. The reader? Please. I'm the only thing I got, and copyright law is the ONLY remedy at my disposal.

I keep hearing about money, money, money. You think artists are making too much money? Stop giving them so much. Frankly, almost all of the music made to day sucks donkey balls, and I won't buy it. Occasionally I'll hear a tune I like, and as it happens there are affordable ways of getting just that song now. There are emerging models of doing this, and I think this is a common ground that should be supported and encouraged. If one really supported artists and wanted them to earn fair value, this is the way to do it. Simply taking it because you can is indefensible.

As I have illustrated above, it isn't just about the money. It's about authorship and controlling the disposition of the work.

Amusing true story: Several years ago I discovered something remarkable in the medical literature, a phenomenon noted in an obscure journal. I stayed up all night three times in order to call the researcher in Belfast (paying big bucks for long distance) and wrote a nice little article for American Health magazine. Phil Donahue, when he had his daytime show, based *an entire program* on my article and this controversial medical phenomenon. He flew in my source from Belfast, held up American Health magazine, and read MY ENTIRE STORY on the air. And never mentioned my name. I was pissed -- not because he stole the story from me, but because it would have nice to be recognized as the person who discovered and reported the story. That would be worth much more than any per-word rate. All I wanted was the right to authorship. I wrote Donahue a letter suggesting that he do a program on talk show hosts who rip off struggling freelance writers. He never responded.

Another enlightening example. Abraham Zapruder is known for only one work, a film he made in Dallas' Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963. Zapruder, his legs held steady on the pergola by his secretary, captured the only film of Kennedy's assasination. He made the film available to the FBI and the Warren Commission, and to help the public understand and deal with their grief allowed selected still images to be published in Life magazine. It was his intent that the images would never see the light of day again. He was so shocked and disturbed that he wanted to prevent the public from ever seeing the president's head explode. He was afraid that it would upset people, or that people would exploit it for shock value. Except for a very small number of very limited uses, the Zapruder film was kept from the public for 30 years. After Zapruder's death the family licensed the film and now you can see it in Oliver Stone's JFK and by itself at Blockbuster.

Now, people can argue whether Zapruder's motivation was right or wrong until the cows come home, but the important fact is that that was his choice. His film, his decisions.

My protectiveness of my work varies. There's more than 1,000 articles. Some articles are more valuable than others, in that I may not be done with the subject or in some cases can "remarket" by rewriting and pitching to a different publication. So articles floating around can devalue my work by scooping my exclusive. I realize -- more than you -- the risks of publication, and tipping your hand to competitors. I have a plan for a lot of things, and that plan (or my motivation) is none of your business. Of course I want to maximize my income. It's all I have. I'd be derelict to my duty to provide for my family if I didn't. That's why I have to be protective of my work, because it's all I have.

Like I said, my primary goal is contributing to a body of knowledge. Any writer worth his salt wants to make something new and original. I like discovering stories that aren't already written. In some cases I'd research a subject, looking for an answer and not find one. That tells me that there's probably something interesting there. I end up filling a very, very small gap in the massive universe of knowledge. It's in the library and in databases, so when the next person comes along and asks the same questions I did they'll find my little contribution in their path for learning. I like that. I like that high school and college kids will be referring to my stuff, and probably plagiarizing some, for generations to come.

I like doing that kind of article, but they are few and far between. I have to do a lot of drudgery in order to support that body of knowledge habit.

I have done several articles about health conditions that people find useful, and have posted them at my web site so people can find them via Google and have access to them for free. They get quite a few hits. I also have an article there about a common household situation that causes tragic fires, and have posted that to help save lives and show people how to avoid the problem. I've done numerous articles about chemistry that are often "stolen" by elementary schools for classroom use, and I always allow that. But I don't like my material used on commercial web sites, or sold without giving me a percentage.

If somebody comes along and wants to overthrow the whole body of intellectual property law -- everything from patents to music to web to the whole range of creative expression -- then I think one has an obligation to address gaping holes, such as whether or not something falls within the model itself.

I will leave you with these thoughts about situations posed by this if-you-create-it-they-will-come model.

For one thing, it raises the barrier to entry. Freelance writing is a very, very tough business as it is. Difficult to break in, and even more difficult to make a living. I know of a lot of newbie writers who through pluck or vision manage to hit a triple or even a homer first time at bat. Like Vanessa Leggett, a writer in Texas with little experience who started snooping into a murder and ended up getting a confession from the killer. She was held in contempt by a federal judge for refusing to give her notes to prosecutors, and ended up spending nearly a year and a half in jail. Leggett has never done a book before, and now she has something sensational. You tell Leggett to go ahead and write the book, and maybe we'll pay if we like it. And if we don't, we can copy it anyway. Leggett has no name, no reputation. How can she possibly get value for her efforts? It makes the bar impossibly high for people to bootstrap themselves so they can support what they're doing. There will be fewer voices.

If I have to spend a year writing a book, who pays for food and clothing and the kid's dentist in the meantime? This pay-you-later system just isn't viable, and fewer people will be able to assume the risk.

A lot of what I -- and thousands of other writers -- do is news or at least time sensitive. If something is happening now, there simply isn't time to do all the work and see if people nibble, hope that things work out in the end. You just can't do news that way.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but the only print reporter on the ground during the siege of Baghdad was a freelancer. Here you have a person (with brass balls) who leaves their family and loved ones; assumes the cost of flying halfway around the world; buys body armor; risks dysentery, sand fleas and typhus, risks rocket propelled grenades and bullets.

You tell that person to do their work and, and you'll determine its value and pay for it if you like it enough.

And once it's published you have every right to do whatever you want with their work. Because you're entitled to it. Yep, I can see writers and artists lining up for that opportunity.

I'm not in it for the money. Freelancers will cut each other's throats for twenty-five cents a word. Mark Twain made twenty-five cents a word. Freelancers haven't gotten a raise in 100 years. Jesus fucking christ writing or the arts or music are not fields to go into for the money.

We do it to contribute to a body of knowledge, to bring you the world, to document the human experience, to express ideas.

I'm not demanding anything. I only ask that the work be respected. Hands off my stuff, and we'll get along fine. It doesn't belong to you.
 

I am going to be brutally violating everyone's God-given right to host information on blogger's computers. Violators will be castrated.

More to the point: We've got 68 comments here, and many of them are huge. I set up the Principles Discussion Continue so that we can, um, continue the discussion. The blogger comment page for it is here

I'll leave this post open for comments for a while in case someone is composing, but if you see this, move on over.

Sincerely,

Your Dictator.
 

Now why should it be divvied-up? Why can’t I pay the creator?

Who created Lord of the Rings? Peter Jackson? The screenplay writer? The director? Many, many works are collaborative efforts. That works all the way down the line. Somebody has to choose and find costumes. Somebody has to do makeup. Somebody has to feed these people while they're working. Somebody has to do special effects. Somebody has to make background scenery, somebody has to design the poster, and somebody has to compose the type on the poster.

Whether it's an album, movie, book, magazine, or any other creative product, many people are involved in the process.

It *can* be done otherwise. Some writers are self-publishing, selling books directly to the public. Good for them. In my opinion writing is improved greatly by editing, copyediting, proofreading and design, which these products often lack because they cost money. They look like self-published books, and there's nothing wrong with that. But that's a far cry from saying that *all* books should be done that way.

The people who created the work made their own arrangements for how they get paid, whether on salary or per-project, perhaps royalties or a percentage or whatever. That's the arrangement that they made that works for them, and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise.

As a consumer, your role is to spend (or not spend) your money and make your choice. I don't tell you how your income should be shared and allocated in your household. Don't butt into the business of other people.
 

Not so fast, buckaroo.

I've taken the whole thread.

It isn't yours anymore. You explicitly waived all copyrights, so I'm taking it.

And selling it.

If you move the thread, delete it or modify anything -- including this comment -- there will be a mirror for everybody to see for themselves.

Actually, if you delete the thread, you'll just make my copy more valuable.

How you like dem apples?
 

Moved