As for copyright infringement, making the stolen files available is part of that infringement. The damages are going to be much higher if you share the thing you illegally copied because the financial harm is now greater. If you download the song, the company loses maybe $1. If you share the song on p2p and 50 people download it, the music company has lost $50, PLUS whatever they lose from THOSE people sharing it. Apply this to 20 songs, and suddenly you are not in petty theft territory anymore.
You cannot place the same value on a downloaded song as on an uploaded song, much less the knock-on effects of someone re-uploading what you uploaded to them. When you're downloading a song, it's an almost direct impact - unless you wouldn't have bought the song anyway, you've denied them that dollar. When you're uploading a song, you're now one of many people uploading. With torrents, for example, it's done with a many:many ratio of uploaders to downloaders. Even if you weren't uploading, those who wanted to download the song would just get it elsewhere. The responsibility for the download is primarily theirs, so you can't say that all of that $1 is your fault. You could say that some proportion is, but you can't count the downloader's $1 twice for both the downloader and the uploader. You split the responsibility. The same applies once more if the person to whom you upload also uploads to someone else - that knock-on is even less your responsibility.
The damages are going to be much higher if you share the thing you illegally copied because the financial harm is now greater. If you download the song, the company loses maybe $1. If you share the song on p2p and 50 people download it, the music company has lost $50, PLUS whatever they lose from THOSE people sharing it. Apply this to 20 songs, and suddenly you are not in petty theft territory anymore.
This tactic does, however, beg the question regarding whether any of these downloads equate in any way to lost sales. I'm starting to believe more and more that there is little correlation.
Not enough emphasis placed upon this sentence fragment.
Fixed.
The damages are going to be much higher if you share the thing you illegally copied because the financial harm is now greater. If you download the song, the company loses maybe $1. If you share the song on p2p and 50 people download it, the music company has lost $50, PLUS whatever they lose from THOSE people sharing it. Apply this to 20 songs, and suddenly you are not in petty theft territory anymore.
This tactic does, however, beg the question regarding whether any of these downloads equate in any way to lost sales. I'm starting to believe more and more that there is little correlation.
Some proportion do, but it's certainly not 1 lost sale for every download.
Two professors at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, Joel Waldfogel and Rafael Rob, measured the downloading and CD-buying behavior of students at the University of Pennsylvania, Hunter College in New York and City College of New York. In a working paper published recently by the National Bureau of Economic Research, they concluded that students each spent $126 on the best-selling CD's without downloading and $101 with downloading. While conceding that their research did not cover a representative sample, they concluded that every 10 downloads of music resulted in 1 to 2 lost sales.
That was back in 2004. It's difficult to say how much that has changed now, but I don't think that it would've changed too much. The base economic principle is the same - the correlation stems from comparing the value people place on a song to the price they're being sold at.
This tactic does, however, beg the question regarding whether any of these downloads equate in any way to lost sales. I'm starting to believe more and more that there is little correlation.
I personally tend to buy music I want because if I want it enough to put it on my computer, I want to support the mechanisms that made it available to me. Some people are constantly asking me, "Why'd you buy that song? I would have let you copy it for free!" That always kinda bugs me...if I hadn't been able to afford the $3 for those 3 songs I wanted, maybe I would have copied them.
In that case, as many have said, the companies are not losing my money because I didn't have it in the first place. Maybe they are not directly losing money immediately, but it will definitely affect their industry. There is good and there is bad. I think it's a good thing that music now pretty much has to be good to sell (no more paying $15 for a shitty CD with only 2 good songs). However, a lot of kids are growing up with a sense of entitlement that leads to them thinking they have a RIGHT to things they don't. The fact is that you don't have a right to collect any music you want on your hard drive just because you are alive. You might have the ability, but that doesn't make it a right. I have the ability to punch my neighbors in the face, stab their kids, and steal all their shit, but that doesn't make it right, give me the legal right to, or mean I am going to do it. People who are too poor to afford luxuries don't have the right to take those luxuries for free just because they couldn't afford them anyway. Remember when people used to save up to buy something they wanted? When the cost of a song is between $.15 and $1.50, it's pretty hard to argue that someone couldn't afford it. If they wanted it bad enough, they could have bought it. If they didn't want it bad enough to pay that piddly amount of money for it, then it's obviously not an urgent need, so why did they need to steal it? The answer is "because they could," and that is what the court case is trying to fight. "Because I can" is not an appropriate rationale for stealing a luxury item. This is not how luxury items are supposed to work. We have taxes that help provide for necessities, but you are supposed to be on your own for luxuries.
If someone started making prints of my art and giving them away for free to people, it wouldn't matter to me whether those people were otherwise going to buy my art. If they aren't going to pay for it, then it's my right as the owner of the work to say they don't get to have it. Otherwise you say people who can't afford something get it for free, but people who can afford it have to pay if they want it. Then there is no incentive for people to work to earn the money to buy those things because they can just get them for free, and the people who create those things stop getting paid. After that, people no longer have financial incentive to create those things or put them out into the marketplace. In fact they have a disincentive because anyone that wants to can simply take their work. THAT is the fundamental issue that copyright law is in place for. It is intended to be an incentive for artists to produce work without fear of their work being taken away from them. I'm hearing this argument that "they wouldn't have made any money from those people anyway" over and over again, but have you guys considered that that isn't the only criterion? Let's say I only sell my prints in America. Just because I'm not losing sales when some guys in Europe make unauthorized prints of my poster and sell it to Europeans doesn't mean they have the right to take my art and use it however they wish. The issue at hand is protecting the rights of the artist so that artists will continue to create works and make them publicly available.
Oh god, when Rym or Scott see the number of false assumptions and fallacious statements in that, there are going to be blue boxes everywhere. Edit: A lackofcheese is fine too.
May I just ask, if you could multiply something you made and give it to anyone who wanted one, knowing that you would be reimbursed by those who had the money to support you, why on earth wouldn't you want to do so?
No worries, Omnutia. I think I did an even better job than even Rym or Scott would have.
Nuri, I take your wall of text, and raise you more text.
The problem is that you're using copyright-centric logic to justify copyright. I'm not just arguing against the ludicrous copyright fines, I'm arguing against copyrightyour assumptions. I think that Intellectual Property law, while historically effective, is rapidly becoming outdated in the modern world. For a proper discussion, we'll need start from base principles.
More specifically, it's true that copyright exists as an incentive for artists to produce works. However, the fact that it does some good doesn't necessarily justify its presence. Copyright isn't the only possible way of making sure creators get money for creating. At its core, copyright law grants a limited monopoly to the copyright owners to profit from their work. It is an impediment to the free market. Economically speaking, data has no value - it can be copied indefinitely at nearly zero cost. The attempt to package data into a "good" that can be possessed, bought and sold is itself a concept that defies the reality of the situation.
The mountain of law associated with copyright (fair use, etc.) exists to mediate between two areas of public benefit - the public benefit from having works in the public domain, and the benefit from creators being reimbursed for their works. That's why it's extremely critical that copyright lasts for a limited time, and that fact is set in stone in the U.S. constitution. In fact, I would argue that keeping works outside of the public domain is an impediment to free speech. Sure, copyright law has a whole bunch of provisions for freedom of speech, but I think that's precisely because in itself it poses an obstacle to free speech.
Now I can get to the finer points of your arguments.
Your first argument is essentially saying this: Intellectual property is property, and both are legal rights, therefore copyright violation is the same as stealing. Legally speaking, both are crimes, but not all crimes are equal. Despite your linking both of these to assault, I'm sure you know this. The problem with equating property to intellectual property is that there is a fundamental difference between the two. In the case of tangible property, in order to attain something someone else must lose it. This is simply not the case for intellectual property.
Let me continue by rebutting your conclusion.
THAT is the fundamental issue that copyright law is in place for.It is intended to be an incentive for artists to produce work without fear of their work being taken away from them. I'm hearing this argument that "they wouldn't have made any money from those people anyway" over and over again, but have you guys considered that that isn't the only criterion? Let's say I only sell my prints in America. Just because I'm not losing sales when some guys in Europe make unauthorized prints of my poster and sell it to Europeans doesn't mean they have the right to take my art and use it however they wish. The issue at hand is protecting the rights of the artist so that artists will continue to create works and make them publicly available.
The only sense in which you can "take" someone's music away is if you plagiarize and pretend it's your own. It is only the moral rights of an author that are truly an integral part of society.
Moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.
For comparison, look at Creative Commons licenses. Attribution is a core component of all current CC licenses because it is a core moral right of an author. Share-alike promotes freedom, which is backed up by copyright law, but you have to realise that if only the moral rights of an author were protected, then the situation would be the same. Other options such as no derivatives and non-commercial are no longer free, though, and indeed require copyright law to function. Does society really need them, though?
Ultimately, I cannot see how the right to restrict the copying of a work in order to have a monopoly over it as an economic good is somehow a fundamental right. It quite plainly isn't. It's merely an issue of balancing one public good (having works in the public domain) against another (authors being reimbursed for their works). It seems to me that copyright isn't really working anymore - technology is preventing it from doing so. What society needs to do is find better ways of reimbursing authors for their works; ways that allow all works to enter into the public domain, and aren't so hung up on the idea of an "economic good."
In summary, the only valid reason I see for copyright is "To promote the Progress of (Science and) useful Arts," as stated in the U.S. Constitution. I don't see it as a fundamental human right in any way. As long as copyright does indeed promote progress, and is the best way of doing so, I can agree with keeping it under law, though it obviously has to be for a limited time. However, as soon as someone finds a better system for reimbursing authors for their works, ideally one where all works will be public domain, the institution of copyright should be dismantled completely.In addition, if copyright cannot be upheld without ludicrous measures such as this, I'd say that it ultimately isn't serving the public good.(Unnecessary, since I'm just refuting Nuri's main points)
Copyright isn't the only possible way of making sure creators get money for creating.
O'rly? Please explain. I am quite certain that copyright is actually the only way to guarantee that the artist gets money (assuming there is demand). All other means (concerts, book signings, lectures, etc) require additional assumptions, or payment up front a la commissions or patronage.
Economically speaking, data has no value - it can be copied indefinitely at nearly zero cost. The attempt to package data into a "good" that can be possessed, bought and sold is itself a concept that defies the reality of the situation.
Data can be packaged and sold as a good, this has been done for as long as there have been consulting firms. What you are actually trying to say is that it is impractical for someone to do it with music in a way that would ensure the non-proliferation of said music.
The problem with equating property to intellectual property is that there is a fundamental difference between the two. In the case of tangible property, in order to attain something someone else must lose it. This is simply not the case for intellectual property.
This is a false analogy wherein the only value of property is to wholly and exclusively own it. There are innumerable ways of attributing value to property depending on the form of ownership, usage, intrinsic value etc. Intellectual property is just slightly easier to replicate.
Ultimately, I cannot see how the right to restrict the copying of a work in order to have a monopoly over it as an economic good is somehow a fundamental right. It quite plainly isn't. It's merely an issue of balancing one public good (having works in the public domain) against another (authors being reimbursed for their works).
I agree, there are definitely more important, even fundamental, rights than copyright. Authors being reimbursed is not a public good though, people being incentivized to become artists, authors and musicians is.
If your entire argument against copyright boils down to 1)It can't be enforced and 2)The artist ain't missing the song I copied, then it is a poor argument indeed. A much more realistic and constructive criticism would be going after why it has to extend 90(or however many) years beyond the authors death, what ways technology can help cut out the middle man between artist and consumer, how to appropriately scale damages in a time when infringement is perpetrated by individuals and not only corporations, how to implement provisions for "abandoned" works etc.
May I just ask, if you could multiply something you made and give it to anyone who wanted one, knowing that you would be reimbursed by those who had the money to support you, why on earth wouldn't you want to do so?
Because I don't want to? Because they don't give me enough money? Because it is a gift to my wife? Because I don't like what I made?
Not enough emphasis placed upon this sentence fragment.
This is silly. It's like saying: "I took the code from your GPL project and used it in my closed source project, but really its okay because I wasn't going to make commits to your source tree anyways."
No, really, it bothers me how important copyright and licensing becomes to the tech community as a whole when FOSS is involved, yet somehow none of the importance of copyright and licensing (namely: ownership and the ability to limit or control distribution of your work) matters once something becomes, well, not open source software.
Ultimately, I cannot see how the right to restrict the copying of a work in order to have a monopoly over it as an economic good is somehow a fundamental right.
I'm absolutely positive that you don't really understand what the word monopoly means, and if you do, you don't properly know how to apply it. A monopoly situation would exist in this case if only one person or company could create and distribute all music, not just one particular track. This is clearly not the present situation. Yes, it is possible that the music you would prefer to listen to requires you to pay a nominal fee ($10/Album on iTunes), yet you have several alternatives in the forms of independent artists who distribute their music legally and without a fee in a public space.
Everyone here is making good arguments for both sides, and all I can say is that I am super confused about this whole thing. This may sound stupid (ok it IS stupid), but I think it is "wrong" to download music... only because it is illegal. But if it wasn't illegal, I would totally do it, and wouldn't think its wrong. So I guess what I'm saying is that fundamentally I don't think its fair to punish people for it (over-punish, I might add), but I don't do it because I don't want to get caught. If I don't want to spend the money, I just listen to it on YouTube or copy it the old fashioned way - from a friend's CD. I guess its like speeding on a road with a speed limit that is way too low. I know logically that I can go much faster and be safe, but I might get caught. So yes, their terrible money-making punishment scheme works in the end (apparently only on people like me, though).
Related to the intellectual property thing: I am afraid to put any of my good works on the internet. I wouldn't want to make money off of them or anything, I would just want people to watch them and be like "Wow, this is cool. Lyddi is awesome." Yet I know if people ended up really liking it, someone will end up copying it, and it would get passed around and eventually people would not reference me at all and even claim it as their own. All I would want is for people to know I had made it in the first place.
Related to what Nuri said about artwork: I have noticed people put their artwork online and let you download it, but they make you buy prints (usually really expensive). I just download it and go to the print store at school and do it myself for cheap. I kinda feel bad about it, but at the same time I know I am only printing it for myself to admire, as an homage to the artist or whatnot. This confusing feeling is kind of how I feel about music. I think its wrong but I do it anyway.
Everyone here is making good arguments for both sides, and all I can say is that I am super confused about this whole thing. This may sound stupid (ok it IS stupid), but I think it is "wrong" to download music... only because it is illegal. But if it wasn't illegal, I would totally do it, and wouldn't think its wrong. So I guess what I'm saying is that fundamentally I don't think its fair to punish people for it (over-punish, I might add), but I don't do it because I don't want to get caught.
So, if murder were legal, it wouldn't be "wrong"? Are you basing your moral guidelines only on fear of punishment?
This is silly. It's like saying: "I took the code from your GPL project and used it in my closed source project, but really its okay because I wasn't going to make commits to your source tree anyways."
No, really, it bothers me how important copyright and licensing becomes to the tech community as a whole when FOSS is involved, yet somehow none of the importance of copyright and licensing (namely: ownership and the ability to limit or control distribution of your work) matters once something becomes, well, not open source software.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't think those are analogous.
Sharing music would be akin to sharing source code, which the GPL is all about. Integrating GPL code into a closed source project would be analogous to plagiarizing someone's song.
That's a good point but it circles back to Lackofcheese's initial point about copyright versus creative commons.
This has given me great cause for thought, I think it comes down to the idea that copyright, or more specifically: copyright, all rights reserved, is about restricting the movement of a work whereas the GPL and creative commons is about insuring that the distribution of a work is continued. Specifically, that, while you impose restrictions, you aren't imposing restrictions on the movement of the work, just the changing of the work as it moves.
Sharing music would be akin to sharing source code, which the GPL is all about. Integrating GPL code into a closed source project would be analogous to plagiarizing someone's song.
You are wrong. If sharing source code == sharing music then closed source == not sharing the music.
I think you were trying to equate the sharing of programs with either closed and open source, but that wouldn't work very well as an analogy either.
Everyone here is making good arguments for both sides, and all I can say is that I am super confused about this whole thing. This may sound stupid (ok it IS stupid), but I think it is "wrong" to download music... only because it is illegal. But if it wasn't illegal, I would totally do it, and wouldn't think its wrong. So I guess what I'm saying is that fundamentally I don't think its fair to punish people for it (over-punish, I might add), but I don't do it because I don't want to get caught.
So, if murder were legal, it wouldn't be "wrong"? Are you basing your moral guidelines only on fear of punishment?
Haha I knew someone would say something like that. Of course I don't think murder is right. The law doesn't stop me there, myself does. I just used bad wording. I was trying to say, "I think its wrong to do something that is illegal, even if fundamentally I don't think the action itself is wrong." Like downloading music, or smoking pot. There are many stupid laws though, I'm sure, so my argument doesn't make any sense.
I guess the only thing I'm sure of in the end is that $80,000 per song is over-punishment, and I don't care if the people in charge says its not.
The issue at hand is protecting the rights of the artist so that artists will continue to create works and make them publicly available.
That's the fundamental issue. The stated intent of copyright is to promote the creation of new works.
Regardless of moral considerations, I strongly feel that the majority of media pirates do not value the media they copy. They consume it only because the cost is effectively zero. Any measure, be it litigation or technological limitation, that prevents them from acquiring this media at no cost, will simply remove said media from their consideration altogether. They pirate DS games because they're bored, and the pirated DS games are free. If the pirated DS games were no longer free, they would simply play flash games instead. If the flash games were no longer free, they would stop playing games and move on to something else.
That being said, this presents two concerns regarding this sort of litigation.
1. Extreme punitive damages will serve only to (nominally) prevent the piracy: they will not increase the demand for the media, nor will they provide additional revenue to the artist. 2. These damages are far out of line with the relative harm to society or individual. It could easily be cheaper for me to kill a man through negligence than to pirate a handful of songs.
I see no indication that litigation such as this will in any way address the root issue.
Frankly, the real root issue is that there is more worthwhile media already in existence than any human could possibly consume in a lifetime, even if his life were dedicated solely to the consumption of media. For someone who isn't picky, and thus amenable to orders of magnitude more media beyond even that, and who is simply looking for some sort of distraction, this person will have no reason to ever seek out any media for which there is even the smallest barrier to consumption. What do we do about that?
Correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't think those are analogous.
They most certainly are. The licensing restrictions for two pieces of IP were broken:
a company used GPL code and did not release theirs. Cue rage-filled threads on Slashdot. Interdiction is possible by the EFF.
music a with limited distribution license was downloaded without properly obtaining a license, possibly with interdiction by the RIAA.
The common denominator is that both cases clearly represent IP in terms of ownership and the ability to control the distribution and use. Sorry this is brief, I've gotta go to work.
If sharing source code == sharing music then closed source == not sharing the music.
Erm, how did you come up with that? As far as I can reckon, the the GPL is equatable to open source and closed source would equate to copyright, all rights reserved.
One min, I'm just going to repost an edit I made earlier:
This has given me great cause for thought, I think it comes down to the idea that copyright, or more specifically: copyright, all rights reserved, is about restricting the movement of a work whereas the GPL and creative commons are about insuring that the distribution of a work is continued. Specifically, that, while you impose restrictions, you aren't imposing restrictions on the movement of the work, just the changing of the work as it moves.
Example: If someone takes a binary or the source code then passed them on to someone without changing the work and attribution, under the GPL and CC, you would be all good, under CARR you would be breaking the law. If you took a work and changed it without providing the original, you would be breaking either.
I see no indication that litigation such as this will in any way address the root issue.
But this sort of litigation is not intended to address to root issue, it is intended to curb the symptoms.
Take the case of the woman who is fined 2 million dollars. She is completely judgment proof against this verdict. It will put a crimp in her lifestyle and rob her of any lottery winnings (at least the first one), but the media companies will likely never get their money. What they did get is HungryJoes wife running into the room going "Ha! I told you that you can get in trouble for downloading songs from the internets!", and that is all they want.
Also, let's bring back the Constitution argument, for old times sake.
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution grants congress the power
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
It is painfully obvious that in the present time, intellectual property laws pertaining to patents and copyright are not helping to promote the progress of science and useful arts. They are, in fact, holding back the progress of science and useful arts. The fact that very important scientific journals are very expensive to access, and not easily available online is a tremendous detriment to scientific progress. The fact that it is technically illegal to make an anime music video, or other sorts of mash-ups, is a detriment to the progress of useful arts.
Copyright needs to be changed such that the term is much smaller, perhaps a year or two. Also, it should only apply to a monopoly on commercial uses of your work. All non-commercial uses should be fair uses. However, attribution should be enforced for all eternity.
So integrating one work into another is not the same as distributing a work without change, which was the problem with Conrad's initial point equating GPL outrage to piracy outrage.
Copyright needs to be changed such that the term is much smaller, perhaps a year or two. Also, it should only apply to a monopoly on commercial uses of your work. All non-commercial uses should be fair uses. However, attribution should be enforced for all eternity.
Copyright needs to be changed such that the term is much smaller, perhaps a year or two. Also, it should only apply to a monopoly on commercial uses of your work. All non-commercial uses should be fair uses. However, attribution should be enforced for all eternity.
Seconded!
Write your congressman/woman.
Isn't that just creative commons? Correction: A time limited version of the creative commons?
Creative Commons is a voluntary license. What we need to do is change copyright law itself such that all media are subject to the limited monopoly followed by the statutory relaxation of creator's rights.
Dude, I have no idea what that second sentence is supposed to say. However, plagiarism is concerned with attribution. It is the wrong word to use in this situation.
Copyright needs to be changed such that the term is much smaller, perhaps a year or two. Also, it should only apply to a monopoly on commercial uses of your work. All non-commercial uses should be fair uses. However, attribution should be enforced for all eternity.
I absolutely agree with the sentiment, but it breaks down in practice. For example, many books, movies and software have taken longer than two years to produce. Should the copyright holder be limited to two years of guaranteed monitization after having worked for what could be several more?
Also, the idea of commercial and non-commercial is a bit of a gray area at this point. So an AMV is created and placed on a website which drives 1,000,000 hits in its first month. The creator has placed ads on the page to "help defer hosting costs", but still walks away with around $500 after the bills are paid. Is it now a commercial endeavor? Should they now be made to reimburse the copyright holder?
The system we have now is simple: creators have the ability to determine how their work is distributed and for what cost. The creator can decide to make it commercial or creative commons. It is a production-centric law, yes, but I think it is fair that the entity that produced the work should determine how it is distributed, and not the entity the consumes it.
Addendum 75-95 years on copyright duration is awful, though. I agree it should probably be more like 10-15.
Comments
When you're downloading a song, it's an almost direct impact - unless you wouldn't have bought the song anyway, you've denied them that dollar.
When you're uploading a song, you're now one of many people uploading. With torrents, for example, it's done with a many:many ratio of uploaders to downloaders. Even if you weren't uploading, those who wanted to download the song would just get it elsewhere. The responsibility for the download is primarily theirs, so you can't say that all of that $1 is your fault. You could say that some proportion is, but you can't count the downloader's $1 twice for both the downloader and the uploader. You split the responsibility.
The same applies once more if the person to whom you upload also uploads to someone else - that knock-on is even less your responsibility.
In that case, as many have said, the companies are not losing my money because I didn't have it in the first place. Maybe they are not directly losing money immediately, but it will definitely affect their industry. There is good and there is bad. I think it's a good thing that music now pretty much has to be good to sell (no more paying $15 for a shitty CD with only 2 good songs). However, a lot of kids are growing up with a sense of entitlement that leads to them thinking they have a RIGHT to things they don't. The fact is that you don't have a right to collect any music you want on your hard drive just because you are alive. You might have the ability, but that doesn't make it a right. I have the ability to punch my neighbors in the face, stab their kids, and steal all their shit, but that doesn't make it right, give me the legal right to, or mean I am going to do it. People who are too poor to afford luxuries don't have the right to take those luxuries for free just because they couldn't afford them anyway. Remember when people used to save up to buy something they wanted? When the cost of a song is between $.15 and $1.50, it's pretty hard to argue that someone couldn't afford it. If they wanted it bad enough, they could have bought it. If they didn't want it bad enough to pay that piddly amount of money for it, then it's obviously not an urgent need, so why did they need to steal it? The answer is "because they could," and that is what the court case is trying to fight. "Because I can" is not an appropriate rationale for stealing a luxury item. This is not how luxury items are supposed to work. We have taxes that help provide for necessities, but you are supposed to be on your own for luxuries.
If someone started making prints of my art and giving them away for free to people, it wouldn't matter to me whether those people were otherwise going to buy my art. If they aren't going to pay for it, then it's my right as the owner of the work to say they don't get to have it. Otherwise you say people who can't afford something get it for free, but people who can afford it have to pay if they want it. Then there is no incentive for people to work to earn the money to buy those things because they can just get them for free, and the people who create those things stop getting paid. After that, people no longer have financial incentive to create those things or put them out into the marketplace. In fact they have a disincentive because anyone that wants to can simply take their work.
THAT is the fundamental issue that copyright law is in place for. It is intended to be an incentive for artists to produce work without fear of their work being taken away from them. I'm hearing this argument that "they wouldn't have made any money from those people anyway" over and over again, but have you guys considered that that isn't the only criterion? Let's say I only sell my prints in America. Just because I'm not losing sales when some guys in Europe make unauthorized prints of my poster and sell it to Europeans doesn't mean they have the right to take my art and use it however they wish. The issue at hand is protecting the rights of the artist so that artists will continue to create works and make them publicly available.
Edit: A lackofcheese is fine too.
May I just ask, if you could multiply something you made and give it to anyone who wanted one, knowing that you would be reimbursed by those who had the money to support you, why on earth wouldn't you want to do so?
Nuri, I take your wall of text, and raise you more text.
The problem is that you're using copyright-centric logic to justify copyright. I'm not just arguing against the ludicrous copyright fines, I'm arguing against copyright your assumptions. I think that Intellectual Property law, while historically effective, is rapidly becoming outdated in the modern world. For a proper discussion, we'll need start from base principles.
More specifically, it's true that copyright exists as an incentive for artists to produce works. However, the fact that it does some good doesn't necessarily justify its presence. Copyright isn't the only possible way of making sure creators get money for creating. At its core, copyright law grants a limited monopoly to the copyright owners to profit from their work. It is an impediment to the free market. Economically speaking, data has no value - it can be copied indefinitely at nearly zero cost. The attempt to package data into a "good" that can be possessed, bought and sold is itself a concept that defies the reality of the situation.
The mountain of law associated with copyright (fair use, etc.) exists to mediate between two areas of public benefit - the public benefit from having works in the public domain, and the benefit from creators being reimbursed for their works. That's why it's extremely critical that copyright lasts for a limited time, and that fact is set in stone in the U.S. constitution. In fact, I would argue that keeping works outside of the public domain is an impediment to free speech. Sure, copyright law has a whole bunch of provisions for freedom of speech, but I think that's precisely because in itself it poses an obstacle to free speech.
Now I can get to the finer points of your arguments.
Your first argument is essentially saying this: Intellectual property is property, and both are legal rights, therefore copyright violation is the same as stealing. Legally speaking, both are crimes, but not all crimes are equal. Despite your linking both of these to assault, I'm sure you know this. The problem with equating property to intellectual property is that there is a fundamental difference between the two. In the case of tangible property, in order to attain something someone else must lose it. This is simply not the case for intellectual property.
Let me continue by rebutting your conclusion.The only sense in which you can "take" someone's music away is if you plagiarize and pretend it's your own. It is only the moral rights of an author that are truly an integral part of society. For comparison, look at Creative Commons licenses. Attribution is a core component of all current CC licenses because it is a core moral right of an author. Share-alike promotes freedom, which is backed up by copyright law, but you have to realise that if only the moral rights of an author were protected, then the situation would be the same. Other options such as no derivatives and non-commercial are no longer free, though, and indeed require copyright law to function. Does society really need them, though?
Ultimately, I cannot see how the right to restrict the copying of a work in order to have a monopoly over it as an economic good is somehow a fundamental right. It quite plainly isn't. It's merely an issue of balancing one public good (having works in the public domain) against another (authors being reimbursed for their works). It seems to me that copyright isn't really working anymore - technology is preventing it from doing so. What society needs to do is find better ways of reimbursing authors for their works; ways that allow all works to enter into the public domain, and aren't so hung up on the idea of an "economic good."
In summary, the only valid reason I see for copyright is "To promote the Progress of (Science and) useful Arts," as stated in the U.S. Constitution. I don't see it as a fundamental human right in any way. As long as copyright does indeed promote progress, and is the best way of doing so, I can agree with keeping it under law, though it obviously has to be for a limited time. However, as soon as someone finds a better system for reimbursing authors for their works, ideally one where all works will be public domain, the institution of copyright should be dismantled completely.In addition, if copyright cannot be upheld without ludicrous measures such as this, I'd say that it ultimately isn't serving the public good. (Unnecessary, since I'm just refuting Nuri's main points)
If your entire argument against copyright boils down to 1)It can't be enforced and 2)The artist ain't missing the song I copied, then it is a poor argument indeed. A much more realistic and constructive criticism would be going after why it has to extend 90(or however many) years beyond the authors death, what ways technology can help cut out the middle man between artist and consumer, how to appropriately scale damages in a time when infringement is perpetrated by individuals and not only corporations, how to implement provisions for "abandoned" works etc.
Dammit, Andrew!
Seriously, I could go on for quite a while...
No, really, it bothers me how important copyright and licensing becomes to the tech community as a whole when FOSS is involved, yet somehow none of the importance of copyright and licensing (namely: ownership and the ability to limit or control distribution of your work) matters once something becomes, well, not open source software. I'm absolutely positive that you don't really understand what the word monopoly means, and if you do, you don't properly know how to apply it. A monopoly situation would exist in this case if only one person or company could create and distribute all music, not just one particular track. This is clearly not the present situation. Yes, it is possible that the music you would prefer to listen to requires you to pay a nominal fee ($10/Album on iTunes), yet you have several alternatives in the forms of independent artists who distribute their music legally and without a fee in a public space.
Related to the intellectual property thing: I am afraid to put any of my good works on the internet. I wouldn't want to make money off of them or anything, I would just want people to watch them and be like "Wow, this is cool. Lyddi is awesome." Yet I know if people ended up really liking it, someone will end up copying it, and it would get passed around and eventually people would not reference me at all and even claim it as their own. All I would want is for people to know I had made it in the first place.
Related to what Nuri said about artwork: I have noticed people put their artwork online and let you download it, but they make you buy prints (usually really expensive). I just download it and go to the print store at school and do it myself for cheap. I kinda feel bad about it, but at the same time I know I am only printing it for myself to admire, as an homage to the artist or whatnot. This confusing feeling is kind of how I feel about music. I think its wrong but I do it anyway.
Sharing music would be akin to sharing source code, which the GPL is all about.
Integrating GPL code into a closed source project would be analogous to plagiarizing someone's song.
That's a good point but it circles back to Lackofcheese's initial point about copyright versus creative commons.
This has given me great cause for thought, I think it comes down to the idea that copyright, or more specifically: copyright, all rights reserved, is about restricting the movement of a work whereas the GPL and creative commons is about insuring that the distribution of a work is continued. Specifically, that, while you impose restrictions, you aren't imposing restrictions on the movement of the work, just the changing of the work as it moves.
I think you were trying to equate the sharing of programs with either closed and open source, but that wouldn't work very well as an analogy either.
I guess the only thing I'm sure of in the end is that $80,000 per song is over-punishment, and I don't care if the people in charge says its not.
Regardless of moral considerations, I strongly feel that the majority of media pirates do not value the media they copy. They consume it only because the cost is effectively zero. Any measure, be it litigation or technological limitation, that prevents them from acquiring this media at no cost, will simply remove said media from their consideration altogether. They pirate DS games because they're bored, and the pirated DS games are free. If the pirated DS games were no longer free, they would simply play flash games instead. If the flash games were no longer free, they would stop playing games and move on to something else.
That being said, this presents two concerns regarding this sort of litigation.
1. Extreme punitive damages will serve only to (nominally) prevent the piracy: they will not increase the demand for the media, nor will they provide additional revenue to the artist.
2. These damages are far out of line with the relative harm to society or individual. It could easily be cheaper for me to kill a man through negligence than to pirate a handful of songs.
I see no indication that litigation such as this will in any way address the root issue.
Frankly, the real root issue is that there is more worthwhile media already in existence than any human could possibly consume in a lifetime, even if his life were dedicated solely to the consumption of media. For someone who isn't picky, and thus amenable to orders of magnitude more media beyond even that, and who is simply looking for some sort of distraction, this person will have no reason to ever seek out any media for which there is even the smallest barrier to consumption. What do we do about that?
- a company used GPL code and did not release theirs. Cue rage-filled threads on Slashdot. Interdiction is possible by the EFF.
- music a with limited distribution license was downloaded without properly obtaining a license, possibly with interdiction by the RIAA.
The common denominator is that both cases clearly represent IP in terms of ownership and the ability to control the distribution and use. Sorry this is brief, I've gotta go to work.One min, I'm just going to repost an edit I made earlier:
This has given me great cause for thought, I think it comes down to the idea that copyright, or more specifically: copyright, all rights reserved, is about restricting the movement of a work whereas the GPL and creative commons are about insuring that the distribution of a work is continued. Specifically, that, while you impose restrictions, you aren't imposing restrictions on the movement of the work, just the changing of the work as it moves.
Example:
If someone takes a binary or the source code then passed them on to someone without changing the work and attribution, under the GPL and CC, you would be all good, under CARR you would be breaking the law.
If you took a work and changed it without providing the original, you would be breaking either.
Take the case of the woman who is fined 2 million dollars. She is completely judgment proof against this verdict. It will put a crimp in her lifestyle and rob her of any lottery winnings (at least the first one), but the media companies will likely never get their money. What they did get is HungryJoes wife running into the room going "Ha! I told you that you can get in trouble for downloading songs from the internets!", and that is all they want.
Also, let's bring back the Constitution argument, for old times sake.
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution grants congress the power It is painfully obvious that in the present time, intellectual property laws pertaining to patents and copyright are not helping to promote the progress of science and useful arts. They are, in fact, holding back the progress of science and useful arts. The fact that very important scientific journals are very expensive to access, and not easily available online is a tremendous detriment to scientific progress. The fact that it is technically illegal to make an anime music video, or other sorts of mash-ups, is a detriment to the progress of useful arts.
Copyright needs to be changed such that the term is much smaller, perhaps a year or two. Also, it should only apply to a monopoly on commercial uses of your work. All non-commercial uses should be fair uses. However, attribution should be enforced for all eternity.
Integrating GPL code into a closed source project would be analogous to plagiarizing someone's song.
So integrating one work into another is not the same as distributing a work without change, which was the problem with Conrad's initial point equating GPL outrage to piracy outrage.
Write your congressman/woman.
Also, the idea of commercial and non-commercial is a bit of a gray area at this point. So an AMV is created and placed on a website which drives 1,000,000 hits in its first month. The creator has placed ads on the page to "help defer hosting costs", but still walks away with around $500 after the bills are paid. Is it now a commercial endeavor? Should they now be made to reimburse the copyright holder?
The system we have now is simple: creators have the ability to determine how their work is distributed and for what cost. The creator can decide to make it commercial or creative commons. It is a production-centric law, yes, but I think it is fair that the entity that produced the work should determine how it is distributed, and not the entity the consumes it.
Addendum 75-95 years on copyright duration is awful, though. I agree it should probably be more like 10-15.