Judge reduces file-sharing damages award by 90 percent.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@carm

Lets not call it stealing. Stealing involves an involuntary transfer of property from the owner of said property to the thief. Here we have the owner of a particular cd, or dvd, who has paid money for it, allowing other people to use his possession to make their own. Big big difference.
It’s copyright infringement. NOT stealing. No bands now have an empty back catalogue because their songs have been “stolen”. The warning at the start of dvds is right. Most people wouldn’t steal a car/handbag, but if their friend asks if they want a copy of a cd that they own, no law is going to make that seem unreasonable.

Well yeah! Let’s call it sharing instead of piracy so we feel better. I understand , “I paid for this CD so I can do what I want with it” in the human psyche. I also understand that’s a justification and most people, if they think about it, know better.

What’s happening is you are taking someone elses work and property {intellectual and creative} and their means of income and giving it away. You are removing potential customers which has a real world economic effect on real people. I’d say in principle it’s awfully awfully close to stealing rather than a big big difference.

And the artists do control how they want to market their product. Unfortunately, technology has advanced to the stage that once their product is sold, the person who bought it now has the means to produce infinite digital copies at no cost. And, since they have paid for their cd, they are free to do whatever they want with it, imo, long as they don’t profit from it.

Um no they aren’t. Profit or not it’s against the law, because they are damaging the profit potential of the person who owns the creative and intellectual rights, and , they know that when they do it. Ethically there is a difference between profiting from someone else’s work and just not caring much if they do, but it’s still ethically objectionable.
Honestly, I get the the mindset of ," these guys are already rich so the less affluent pleebs like us deserve a break" It’s just that once that justification seeps in and time passes it evolves into. “Don’t pay anything for music because you don’t have to” and affects non rich musicians as well.
Do you think there’s any ethical llimit on how many copies you should be able give away once you fork over your CD money?

Another thing - we don’t need to worry about the supply of bands drying up because of file-sharing; this simply won’t happen. Music is much more than a business, musicians play for the love of music, any money they make is a bonus. I’m not going to shed tears for someone who is “struggling to make ends meet” when their job involves playing gigs two nights a week, and sitting round the rest of the time. There are plenty of people who would do this for free, while working another job.

THat’s not the case much of the time. Sure people will still play and learn to accept the new deal in music. I’m certainly glad new technology has benifited independents so much and given them more ways to make quality tracks and get them out to the world. if I wasn’t so stubborn I might admit there’s a trade off witn some good and some bad and I sure can’t meadsure how much we got of each. Still in principle , piracy is ethically objectionable and there are ways to change the market honestly. It’s frustrating for me to have people to defend it as otherwise.

If they discoverd an affordable technology tomorrow to make CDs uncopyable people would be pissed but not because they thought the labels were doing something worng. If the price of CDs went up a dollar to cover the copy proof technology that means the honest folks are penalized because of the actions of the less than honest. It happens all the time in our society. Not whining, just saying.

[Una_Persson]

@acsenray

There are already penalties in the law for bringing baseless claims. Many states also have anti-slapp suit laws that allow fir quick fidmissal of abusive copyright claims. If you think there should be more then that may be worth a discussion, but it’s essentially irrelevant to the question of sherbet individuals should refrain from making unauthorized copies of protected works.

Such discussions are pretty commonly part of serious copyright law forums and they’re detailed and complicated. What you’re essentially doing us throwing up random reform proposals out of context of a thorough understanding of the state of the law and implying that anyone who doesn’t immediately sign on is intellectually dishonest.

Your mischaracterization of my post has been duly noted, for now at least.

[Lemur866]

@sleestak

:: post snipped:

Are you saying that if one person invents something, everyone has rights to that invention for free*?

Potentially, yes. If you don’t patent your invention, then anyone can copy that invention. And only certain things can be patented–you can’t patent an idea, for instance. Your invention must be novel, useful, not obvious, and so on, to be patentable. You must fully disclose your invention to get a patent, if you keep any part of it secret your patent is invalid.

And a patent only lasts for 20 years from when you filed the patent, and from then on your invention is in the public domain. Anyone can copy it after that. This is why there are “generic” versions of drugs. A drug can be patented, but 20 years after filing for the patent anyone can copy and manufacture and sell the drug. The purpose of patent law is to convince inventors to disclose their inventions to the public, in return for a limited monopoly on the production of the invention.

So how long should a copyright last? Forever? The life of the creator? 20 years? 1 year? The answer of course, is a matter of public policy, not a matter of “rights”. Copyright law was not handed down by YHWH from Mt. Sinai chiseled into stone tablets. It was created by human beings as a practical method of advancing the useful arts and sciences. Therefore, it sure seems to me that copyright law seems to exist to serve the creators, but it actually existed to serve the general public, to solve the tragedy of the commons problem I mentioned earlier.

Why would an author write a book unless they could potentially profit from that book? We the public don’t and shouldn’t care about whether creators can profit from their creations, except to the extent that we want to encourage new creative work. Copyright law is a human-created tool to encourage new creative work, not a natural law. We don’t allow inventions to be protected for the lifetime of the inventors plus 70 years, why do we allow copyright to be protected for that long, and now longer? It seems to me that once the creator is dead, we can’t motive them to produce more work, so extension of copyright past the life of the creator is wrongheaded.

Except the problem with this is that so many copyrighted works are not the property of the creator, but the property of an immortal corporation. And with the newly enacted copyright law, corporations can keep any work out of public domain forever–essentially no new works will ever enter public domain.

Those who argue that creators get to set the conditions for the use of their creations are begging the question. Of course under our current laws they do. But the question is, should they? Why should the creator get to set the conditions instead of the general public? What’s in it for us? Well, we want more works, so we agree to give them certain limited rights over their work. But that’s because it benefits the general public to do so, benefiting the creator is a side effect.

[Acsenray]

@Una Persson

Your mischaracterization of my post has been duly noted, for now at least.

Well, gosh. That almost sounds like a threat.

@Una Persson

Surely those in favor of protecting the copyrights of artists would want to prevent negligent or fraudulent copyright claims - right?

Surely you wouldn’t use sarcastic language to imply that anyone who didn’t immediately climb onto your straw-laden wagon was hypocritical, corrupt, or otherwise intellectually compromised - right?

[cosmosdan]

@Lemur866

So how long should a copyright last? Forever? The life of the creator? 20 years? 1 year? The answer of course, is a matter of public policy, not a matter of “rights”. Copyright law was not handed down by YHWH from Mt. Sinai chiseled into stone tablets. It was created by human beings as a practical method of advancing the useful arts and sciences. Therefore, it sure seems to me that copyright law seems to exist to serve the creators, but it actually existed to serve the general public, to solve the tragedy of the commons problem I mentioned earlier.

Could you explain this? In what way was copyright law designed to serve the public? I agree that it’s a matter of public policy but I think an author ought to be able to earn from his wrok while he is alive {rather than a limited number of years} and I think he should be able to leave the benifits of his work to his descendents if he or she chooses to do so. Now it’s lifetime plus 70 years right. So if I have a valuble piece of work my kids and possibly my grandkids or my favorite charity, will benefit.

Why would an author write a book unless they could potentially profit from that book? We the public don’t and shouldn’t care about whether creators can profit from their creations, except to the extent that we want to encourage new creative work. Copyright law is a human-created tool to encourage new creative work, not a natural law. We don’t allow inventions to be protected for the lifetime of the inventors plus 70 years, why do we allow copyright to be protected for that long, and now longer? It seems to me that once the creator is dead, we can’t motive them to produce more work, so extension of copyright past the life of the creator is wrongheaded.

I don’t agree and I’d like to see he reasoning behind the patent limitations.

Except the problem with this is that so many copyrighted works are not the property of the creator, but the property of an immortal corporation. And with the newly enacted copyright law, corporations can keep any work out of public domain forever–essentially no new works will ever enter public domain.

Now this I don’t agree with. Is it similar with a patent?

Those who argue that creators get to set the conditions for the use of their creations are begging the question. Of course under our current laws they do. But the question is, should they? Why should the creator get to set the conditions instead of the general public? What’s in it for us? Well, we want more works, so we agree to give them certain limited rights over their work. But that’s because it benefits the general public to do so, benefiting the creator is a side effect.

Interesting notion. I think piracy reveals the answer. If we leave it up to the general public they will take what they want without paying with too little regard for the creator. What’s in it for you? The work itself and ample choices of what work appeals to you most. You get control over the things you ought to control. What you want and how much you’re willing to pay for it. It’s that interaction that makes basic consumer economics work.
Some Art like music , books, paintings, is unique in that you can say it seves no practical pratical purpose {debateable, I know} and the attraction to it is subjective. Tha artist can only sell there work if someone wants it. Then there’s the matter of worth. It’s only worth what someone is willing to pay. You don’t get paid for lessons and hours of practice and all the trial and error and creations that didn’t turn out that well. You get paid if you’re one of the fortunate few who create something that someone else is willing to pay for.

Art has it’s unique properties but in many ways it is a product like any other and what it’s worth is an agreement based on supply and demand and circumstance. It’s a negotiation entered into by the the creator and the consumer. So yeah, I think the person who creates the art {product} deserves a lot of say in it’s marketing and then the consumer can make the decisions that are theirs to make about what they want and what they are willing to pay for it.
All this to say that I think your approach is kinda screwed up. There’s no reason or legitimate rational that benifiting the creator should be a side effect and benifiting society as a whole takes presedence over the artists basic rights as creator. How long a copyright should last is debateable, but certainly a big part of that debate is the weight given to the creator’s rights to his own creation.
to clarify, nobody argued the creator should control the creation forever and ever. That never came up and is a seperate issue.

[Lemur866]

But WHY does a creator have a right to control his creation?

What’s the reason? Just because he created it? So what?

If you answer, “They just do!” that’s an assertion, not an argument. I’m asking why you think they do, I don’t want you to just repeat that they do.

[Una_Persson]

@acsenray

Well, gosh. That almost sounds like a threat.

:rolleyes:

If you think that post was a threat, then you should report it to a Moderator immediately. Otherwise you risk making a spectacle of yourself.

Surely you wouldn’t use sarcastic language to imply that anyone who didn’t immediately climb onto your straw-laden wagon was hypocritical, corrupt, or otherwise intellectually compromised - right?

All you had to do was say you were opposed to the idea, or perhaps explain why. The point was that some folks really are not thinking through the whole concept of how powerful the “right” of copyright is - if it’s as powerful and all-encompassing as many artists assume that it is, then they should be the ones who also are most stridently opposed to the misuse of said right. This is little or no different than many other rights people claim to, or do actually, have.

The fact that you will not agree, or at least present a decent argument against it on any reasonable ground (namely, why the Right does not come with Responsibilities of equal measure), and instead have reverted to personal attacks, is actually very unfortunate.

And no, that’s not a “threat.” :rolleyes: Although I will threaten that I’m one post away from becoming bored.

[Una_Persson]

@Lemur866

But WHY does a creator have a right to control his creation?

What’s the reason? Just because he created it? So what?

If you answer, “They just do!” that’s an assertion, not an argument. I’m asking why you think they do, I don’t want you to just repeat that they do.

I’ll take a position: because without Society granting an exclusive Right of control and potential profit to an artist for at least some reasonable length of time, there is a fear that the progress of innovation overall will be stifled. In short, to paraphrase, “first you write the books, then you get the women, then you get the money.” Since Society believes that overall a capitalist copyright system will spur more innovation than it prevents, thus copyright is needed.

[Acsenray]

@Una_Persson

All you had to do was say you were opposed to the idea, or perhaps explain why.

I haven’t said that I’m opposed to it or for it. I’m objecting to the dishonest manner of your proposition.

(namely, why the Right does not come with Responsibilities of equal measure)

All people have the legal obligation not to abuse the legal system, regardless of whether they own copyrights. The owner of a copyright does not and should not have any greater or lesser responsibility to that extent than someone who does not own a copyright. Whatever penalties might be contemplated should be the same for any use of the legal system and not targeted specifically at copyright owners.

and instead have reverted to personal attacks, is actually very unfortunate.

That you interpret an attack on the integrity and intellectual rigor of your method of discourse as a personal attack is very interesting.

And no, that’s not a “threat.” :rolleyes: Although I will threaten that I’m one post away from becoming bored.

You’re the one making dramatic statements of a personal nature and punctuating them will rolleyes. Perhaps if the rest of us did more of that, you’d be in less danger of boredom. Let me get out a sheet of sheepskin vellum and start “duly noting” things with my quill pen.

[Otara]

“There’s no reason or legitimate rational that benifiting the creator should be a side effect and benifiting society as a whole takes presedence over the artists basic rights as creator.”

Exactly. Patent limits are about preventing monopolies but no such risk of ‘monopoly’ can really attach to a work of art in the same kind of way. Competing works of arts can be created readily, its simply wanting ‘that piece of work’ that is desirable rather than any chilling effect on art creation in general being a serious risk.

Otara

[Acsenray]

@brickbacon

When your work has zero marginal cost, and is basically bits and bytes, it will be treated the same way we treat most abstract things.

This is disproven by the fact that the most popular works are the ones that are subject to the most theft. If something is merely an abstract bit or byte then people wouldn’t be so eager to get the highest quality works.

[cosmosdan]

@Lemur866

But WHY does a creator have a right to control his creation?

What’s the reason? Just because he created it? So what?

If you answer, “They just do!” that’s an assertion, not an argument. I’m asking why you think they do, I don’t want you to just repeat that they do.

Maybe you didn’t notice but I did try to express it. I also asked you a couple of questions that you haven’t answered.

I’ll give it another crack.

How far back should I go? Life liberty and the pusuit of happiness? Further? The concept of a worker being paid for his efforts , or somebody who makes something, being paid for thier labor, is a pretty old one. Of course you’re correct that society as a whole can decide to change the rules any time they want/ Society approved of slavery at one point and the Nazi’s justified murdering millions of jews , so from a purely technical point of view, sure society as a group can decide and determine the rules. How relevent and productive is that to this conversation? What we’ve been talking about is certain shared sense of ethics and fairplay that we currently hold. It is generally accepted that someone has some right to be paid for thier labor and a merchant has a basic right to be paid for services. It’s part of our laws that arose from us trying to find what is just , reasonable and fair concerning labor and commerce. Can we start there?

IMO the efforts and labor of an artist is no different than the labor of any worker or anyone trying to build a business. You labor to create but also with the idea of earning a living from your efforts. Whatever it is you create or build you hope others will want enough to enable you to make a living. In this case we’re talking about the unique musical work. A song. Also a collection of songs, The CD. It’s a product like any merchant might offer. So who owns that unique work? Who has a commonly accepted right to try and get paid for thier efforts through selling the product they created? Just about everyone for any product. If you’re a baker and you make a loaf of bread you have the right to sell it and someone taking it for free is ethically unacceptable. Same with music. I have a hard time understanding why that isn’t so very obvious. It’s a basic principle and part of our society.

[Lemur866]

So if you’re a baker and make a loaf of bread, that bread belongs to you?

Actually, probably not. The loaf of bread doesn’t belong to the baker, it belongs to the bakery the baker works for. I produce things every day that I don’t own, rather my employer owns them.

And I produce all sorts of things–like posts here on the dope–that I can’t expect to be paid for.

If I play music on the streetcorner, do I have a right to be paid for creating that music? What obligation do passers-by have to drop money in my hat? In this case I produce music, and people can choose whether or not to pay me for it. But why can’t I just send a bill to everyone who walks past?

[cosmosdan]

@Lemur866

So if you’re a baker and make a loaf of bread, that bread belongs to you?

Actually, probably not. The loaf of bread doesn’t belong to the baker, it belongs to the bakery the baker works for. I produce things every day that I don’t own, rather my employer owns them.

And I produce all sorts of things–like posts here on the dope–that I can’t expect to be paid for.

If I play music on the streetcorner, do I have a right to be paid for creating that music? What obligation do passers-by have to drop money in my hat? In this case I produce music, and people can choose whether or not to pay me for it. But why can’t I just send a bill to everyone who walks past?

You and others keep bringing up these irrelvent tangents instead of addressing the actual points. Honest, I have a fairly good grasp of the obvious so I know that bakers might work for a bakery and that’s irrelevant. The baker enters an aggreement with the owner to get paid for their labor and the owner trys to sell **the product. ** The owner doesn’t want the consumer to decide , “Your prices are too high so I’m justified in taking it for free” If you think it’s too high or you just don’t fancy their product don’t buy it. If you want it you expect to pay for it right?
The street corner musician is another example that misses the point. The musician is making his own decision about how to market his product. He’s giving it away and letting the consumer decide if thay want to pay for it. That’s legit because both parties are willing participants and the arrangement is understood. That’s different than creating a product and then having others take it and give it away without your permission.

I’ve asked ou direct questions that you haven’t answered. Please respond and refrain from these type of arguments that have already been covered.

[mhendo]

@Lemur866

If I play music on the streetcorner, do I have a right to be paid for creating that music? What obligation do passers-by have to drop money in my hat? In this case I produce music, and people can choose whether or not to pay me for it. But why can’t I just send a bill to everyone who walks past?

No, you don’t have a right to get paid for it.

But, as the person producing the music, what you do have a right to do is set the conditions under which other people can listen to your music. In this particular instance, you have decided that you are willing to pay for free in the hope that some people will be willing to pay you for it.

Similarly, when Radiohead released their album In Rainbows in 2007, they offered it first online, and told downloaders that they could pay any amount they wanted for the album, including nothing. Again, like the streetcorner music player, they were willing to take the risk that enough people would pay for the music. One of the reasons that Radiohead chose this distribution method was as something of a “fuck you” to the recording labels and the traditional business model.

Just like someone can listen to a streetcorner musician for free, because the musician has chosen to offer the performance for free in the hope of getting paid, people could also download In Rainbows for free because Radiohead had given permission for this by offering it online themselves and allowing people to download it without paying.

But this is not the same as taking something over which the creator has legal control, and which the creator has not given permission for you to take. Your example either demonstrates that you don’t understand the principles involved here, or that you’re offering disingenuous comparisons in an attempt to shore up a bankrupt argument.

[cosmosdan]

@mhendo

No, you don’t have a right to get paid for it.

But, as the person producing the music, what you do have a right to do is set the conditions under which other people can listen to your music. In this particular instance, you have decided that you are willing to pay for free in the hope that some people will be willing to pay you for it.

Similarly, when Radiohead released their album In Rainbows in 2007, they offered it first online, and told downloaders that they could pay any amount they wanted for the album, including nothing. Again, like the streetcorner music player, they were willing to take the risk that enough people would pay for the music. One of the reasons that Radiohead chose this distribution method was as something of a “fuck you” to the recording labels and the traditional business model.

Just like someone can listen to a streetcorner musician for free, because the musician has chosen to offer the performance for free in the hope of getting paid, people could also download In Rainbows for free because Radiohead had given permission for this by offering it online themselves and allowing people to download it without paying.

But this is not the same as taking something over which the creator has legal control, and which the creator has not given permission for you to take. Your example either demonstrates that you don’t understand the principles involved here, or that you’re offering disingenuous comparisons in an attempt to shore up a bankrupt argument.

thank you, well expressed, and I hope it helps.