You have stated that you believe that it’s possible to “separate the right to privacy from copyright.” But yet if a private journal isn’t private enough, and you’re “not convinced” that personal letters are private enough, then I guess your idea of “privacy” varies greatly from the common understanding of the term.
The thing is, we’re discussing something that overlaps, and when you make statements like nonprivate, I think it’s important to understand what that does and does not mean to you. Obviously “nonprivate” doesn’t necessarily mean something in someone’s home, that they never wish to be published. It may not mean Aangelica’s private journal; you’re not “convinced” it means personal letters. So I see no harm in clarifying things so we’re all on the same page with what “nonprivate” means to you, since I think it’s extraordinarily likely that your idea of “nonprivate” will not be universally understood without these extra tidbits of information.
Argh. It should be: “Obviously “private” doesn’t necessarily mean something in someone’s home, that they never wish to be published. It may not mean Aangelica’s private journal . . .”
No, no, you’re not following the script. In the Standard Model Copyright Debate, this particular piece of nonsense gets trashed on page one. By page four, we’ve moved beyond it.
If you want to raise this argument again, the appropriate wilful ignorance procedure (which comes with a genuine Lekatt brand Seal of Approval[sup]TM[/sup]) is to start a new Standard Model Copyright Debate thread so that you can more safely turn a blind eye to other threads on the same topic, in which this argument has previously been trashed.
And in the Standard Copyright Defender’s Dictionary, “trashed” means “someone claimed that the non-scarce nature of intellectual works is a bug instead of a feature, something to be crushed under the heel of law, and I happen to agree with them, so let’s hurry up and talk about something else.”
When you want to limit speech, you need a damn good reason. Preventing stampedes in theaters is a good reason; so is keeping military secrets out of enemy hands. Protecting someone’s business model or feelings is not. There’s no clear and present danger there.
Any law that limits speech in order to protect privacy should only apply to the most heinous, damaging, dangerous speech, not just anything embarrassing. If that means something you consider private isn’t protected, then so be it - you don’t get to just toss around the phrase “that’s private” to shut people up.
So why even pay lipservice to protecting privacy? You clearly don’t care that what you propose would definitely fall under a violation of what most would consider to be their privacy.
I think that most people would believe that being free of unsanctioned intrusion would apply to the stuff in your house, that they never sanctioned to have published.
I know there’s no further point of arguing this, because I firmly believe that it is blatantly obvious to most (non-sociopathic) personalities that private letters, private journals, stuff in your house, well, they’re private and that privacy should be respected.
Perhaps some bratty schoolchildren might think it’s okay to swipe someone’s journal and publish it, but most everyone else regards it as a really Creepy and Shitty Thing to Do.
You know, I’d really like to see a cite somewhere, view some discussion somewhere else that indicates that private letters, journals, etc. are something that many anti-copyright supporters want see be published. I have trouble believing that this is a wide-spread movement. Care to direct me to some articles, cites, anything that cries out about the injustice of not being allowed to publish everyone’s private papers against their wishes?
This isn’t really that complicated. Some intrusions of privacy are dangerous enough to justify limiting speech, but others aren’t.
Laws meant to protect privacy don’t have to protect everything that fits into that dictionary definition. Note that laws against fraud don’t ban every “act of deceiving or misrepresenting”, and while it might be considered fraudulent to tell your kid that the quarter under her pillow came from the Tooth Fairy, it isn’t and shouldn’t be illegal.
Again, not every “creepy and shitty thing to do” is, or should be, illegal.
Nope. You won’t even find me crying out about the “injustice” of not being able to do that - it’s an unfortunate side effect, not my goal. If you can come up with another way to prevent copyright holders from dictating who may or may not use their work and how, without infringing on whatever idea of privacy you think deserves legal protection, then I’d love to hear it.
Thank goodness that you are not going to be the one deciding what is or is not private enough. :shudder:
But laws currently do protect stuff in your home from being published against your will. It’s up to you to present a compelling case as to why that should be changed. So far you’ve failed miserably.
But this one is.
Why should I do your work for you? If you really cared about people’s feelings of privacy, and if you really cared that many (probably most) people would find it morally reprehensible to have their private journals and letters published against their will, you would have come up with some sort of compromise or alternative by now. But we’ve argued this for over a year now, and you haven’t budged. You obviously don’t think it’s that important of a detail, and you obviously would just as soon see people’s private works published as not. If you really cared that this would distress and horrify many people, you wouldn’t keep claiming that it’s something that should be acceptable to do.
You’ve already made it clear that nothing I propose is going to be compelling to you. Even if I presented a plan to gut copyright while still protecting everything you consider privacy, you wouldn’t be satisfied, because you’d still lose veto power over the use of your works and have a harder time profiting from them.
Any way you slice it, my plan involves taking power away from people who create copyrightable works, and while I’m happy to give that power up for everyone else’s benefit, you obviously aren’t. So forgive me if I don’t seem interested in convincing you.
You’re the one who wants legal protection for every last thing you have lying around your house. You’ve failed to convince me that protecting someone’s feelings from being hurt is a good reason to limit speech, so I remain satisfied with only banning the most dangerous breaches of privacy.
Any change is going to distress someone - name any law and you’ll be able to find someone who was distressed by its passage. While the fact that it might upset someone should certainly be taken into consideration, it isn’t the only thing to consider.
I’m curious why intellectual property should be considered to be any less real than other forms of property. All forms of ownership are social constructs. We allow the buying and selling of other sorts of intangibles like patents, trademarks, commodities futures, airspace and mineral rights, all of which require special sets of rules within the legal system. I fail to see how owning the exclusive right to make reproductions of a particular work of art is any less real than owning the exclusive right to make a particular type or machine or even owning the exclusive right to explore for oil on a particular piece of land.
Or, to take the argument to its logical extreme, if intellectual property is fiction, doesn’t that imply that counterfitting money be legal? After all, if ownership is only defined in the stricted terms possible (actual control of a particular physical object) then by what authority does the government limit the production of certain scraps of paper with a particular pattern of ink printed upon them … ?
Back in the real word, we humans create property rights as we need them. If it suits our purposes we allow people to buy and sell parts of the electromagnetic spectrum and credits for generating greenhouse gases. At the same time we refuse to recognize a right of ownership over certain physical objects: other human beings, for example.
Arguing the real-world pros and cons of copyrights is certainly reasonable. But pretending that intellectual property is a fiction is just as silly as pretending that money that’s not backed up by the gold standard is a fiction … .
You’re right about that, but perhaps you might convince some fence-sitters if you took away the “publishing private letters” business. You won’t do that; you haven’t made any attempt to do that in over a year. You cling to it as strongly as ever. From this I deduce that you would just as soon see these private works published as not.
Let’s just leave out convincing each other for a moment. Try to convince anyone else here that being able to publish anyone’s private letters and diaries against their will is okay and something that will ulimately make everything so much better. Care to give that a go?
I won’t hold my breath that you will—because I think that you don’t care enough about it either way. Like I said, you’d just as soon see private letters and diaries published as not. Never mind that people like Aangelica would be horrified by it (remember, she’s not me—maybe you can convince her of something). Never mind that probably the vast majority of the population would consider it a grievous violation of their privacy. Never mind that it would cause many people distress in many ways. You simply don’t seem to care that it would affect so many people negatively, or that many people would definitely feel that the sacrifice of their privacy would be too great.
Do you seriously believe you can convince anyone here of your position by acting so totally unconcerned about the negative consequences of what you propose? Do you honestly believe you will win over any converts by clinging to this position?
The rights themselves are as real as the laws that bring them into existence. But exclusive rights are only necessary to prevent chaos for things that are limited resources: physical objects, land, electromagnetic spectrum, etc.
Exclusive rights for something that isn’t inherently exclusive, such as the ability to make copies of a book, may be real if the laws make them real, but they’re still unnatural and nearly unenforceable without invasive laws.
And really, the rights provided by copyright, patent, and trademark law are sufficiently different from the ownership people have over tangible things that I think it’s misleading to talk about “owning” a story, picture, song, or whatever. After all, other people aren’t permitted to take your car out for a “fair use” joyride, and when you die and leave it to your heirs, it doesn’t stop belonging to them a few decades later.
Well, they could justify it with trademark law.
But seriously, providing for trustworthy currency is one of the most important things a government can do, and well worth the infringement on free press. The economy couldn’t function without it.
In any case, ownership doesn’t need to be involved. We don’t need to say the Bureau of Engraving “owns” the appearance of a dollar bill in order to justify laws against counterfeiting; it’s enough to say that we’d rather use paper money whose scarcity is enforced by law than carry around a pocketful of gold coins.
If they aren’t already convinced by the other arguments I’ve made against copyright, what’s the point? Like I said, I consider it an unfortunate side effect, a loophole, and I invite anyone who has ideas about closing it to bring them forward. But I don’t consider it a fatal flaw; it’s bad, but not bad enough to outweigh all the good.
That lack of concern is all in your imagination. You seem to think that the only way to show concern would be to throw out my plan. Even with this downside, I still think it’s better than what we have today.
I’m fine with trademarks… I see them as an extension of laws against fraud. Just as you can’t claim that your miracle pills will cure cancer, or that your Yugo will last a hundred years and get 80 miles per gallon, you can’t claim that the car is a Honda or the pills are made by Pfizer either, or make claims that (while technically true) might lead consumers to think you represent those companies.
In some cases, I think trademark enforcement goes a little too far. One big example is the Super Bowl: if your radio contest is giving away tickets to a football game, you ought to be able to say the name of the football game on the air, as long as it’s obvious that you’re not affiliated with the NFL yourself. You aren’t making a fraudulent claim, you’re just describing the prize. But abuses like this are rare, from what I’ve seen.
I’m on the fence about patents. They seem to be abused a lot more than trademarks, but honestly, I don’t know enough about the rights granted by patent law to have a firm opinion about it. An important difference between patents and copyright is that you have to apply for a patent, you have to renew it, and the term really is limited in relation to a human lifespan, not just in geological time. If you see a patented invention, you know that one day, you’ll be allowed to reproduce it.
Of course you don’t own the song. You own the exclusive right to make copies of it, which is quite a different thing. And only one person at a time can own that right. It’s a limited resource.
Ah, so you’re in favor of STRONGER copyright! No fair use, and no sunset clause … !
Different types of ownership have different restrictions. Perhaps you’d like to argue that property ownership is somehow “less natural” than copyright because cities don’t impose zoning restrictions on the buildings depicted in movies … .
Just as it’s sufficient for us to say that we think it’s useful for the creators of creative works to be rewarded after the fact for copyright to be a real and natural form of ownership.
So, really, despite all your arguments, you don’t actually have an absolute philosophical position in opposition to all forms of intellectual property. You just think that copyrights last too long and are too easy to get.
If copyrights worked more like patents, would you be okay with them? Say if when I write a book I had to submit it to a central registry where it was logged. And once I did that I was granted the exclusive right to reproduce it for seven years, after which it reverted to the public domain. Would that be acceptable to you?
I consider you a smart fellow. If you really cared about how horrendous people would find this, you’d come up with a plan yourself. But you don’t—you keep clinging to it.
You so far have fallen quite short of convincing anyone (that I can see, anyway) that the good will outweigh the bad. Perhaps because the bad is really bad?
The apathy and ridicule of people’s “feelings” is not, I believe, in my imagination.
You think, but so far I don’t see anyone else who thinks so. If you are one of only a handful (if that) who is convinced of the wonderfulness of your plan, which just so happens to include something that would be considered pretty hideous by most people, then your plan will never come to be. (Not that I think it will ever come to be regardless, but apparently you harbor some hope.) But you won’t back down from it. Either you seriously believe that you can convince enough people that having no expectation of privacy over their private belongings is in their best interest (good luck with that), or you simply don’t care—you want it anyway, and to hell with how reprehensible most people would find it.
Since I tend to believe that you are too smart to actually believe that you will convince the majority of people to relinquish their privacy in such a manner, I’m leaning more towards believing that you know how much people would hate what you propose, but you simply don’t care.
Indeed it is, although Mr2001 uses silly considerations to argue otherwise. Mr2001 says it is not a limited resource because once you have some useful information you can copy it endlessly for a pittance. This is of course irrelevant, because the debate is about or very largely about rights stemming from creation of useful information. The time, resources and imagination of creators of useful information is a limited resource, and so what they produce is a limited resource, in all meaningful ways, particularly as we as a society have a considerable desire to have ever new and better useful information.
The crux of this debate is Mr2001’s wilful blindness to what effect treating useful information like a valueless unlimited resource *once it’s been created * would have on whether potential creators choose to apply their limited resources to creating it in the first place.
Yup. A limited resource that doesn’t need to exist in the first place.
If we passed a law creating exclusive rights to, say, look at airplanes through a telescope, then only one person at a time would be able to hold those rights too, but that doesn’t mean there’s any inherent quality of airplanes or telescopes that makes those exclusive rights necessary. It only means we know the definition of “exclusive”.
Oh ho! So funny!
What it means is that someone who wants to compare copyright to real property has to either favor stronger copyright, or acknowledge that they aren’t really the same after all.
They’re not just a little bit different. If something stops belonging to you after a certain length of time, and if other people are allowed to use it without your permission, how can you claim to own it?
Indeed. And it’d be nice if more copyright advocates would just say that, instead of spouting off about how putting effort into making something gives you some moral right to tell people how they can use it.
I don’t think I said I did. Copyright, trademarks, and patents are very different. Patents don’t limit speech, for example; you can talk about patented processes all you want.
Nope. Shorter copyrights that you had to register and renew would still limit speech. In fact, if I could only make one change, I’d rather institute compulsory licensing (making it legal for anyone to copy anything, as long as they pay a reasonable price for it) than shorten the terms or require registration.
Hmm… not really. It’d be better than what exists today, but the “exclusive right” bit is still a sticking point. If you want to get paid when other people reproduce it, OK, we can probably find a compromise there. But having a veto over who may copy it or use it in derivative works… I can’t accept that.
Agreed.
Er, no. What they produce is not a limited resource. If you create a song, you’re never going to run out of raw materials to make more copies, and once you’ve made back your initial costs, every extra copy you sell is pure profit. It costs you no more to make 1000 copies than it does to make 10 - the hard part has already been done.
Interesting! If only there were some real-life example of people choosing to apply their limited resources to create useful information, then giving it away for free, we might be able to guess whether people would still be motivated to create things when they had no guarantee of payment.
Actually, I remember hearing about something like that 10 or 12 years ago. A computer program from Sweden or something, I think? Huh… haven’t heard much about it lately. I wonder what ever happened to it?
