I just found the statement amusing, especially coming from you.
**
Wow, you must be completely fucking braindead.
The scale is the difference. The scale is the problem!
A few years ago, of friend of mine was working in a recording studio. The Wu-tang Clan was recording at the time, and actually managed to leave the final master of their new album on the coffee table or something. Now in the old days, he could have made a few copies for people, and perhaps those people would make a few copies. Not a big problem since the sound would have degraded with each copy generation, and the people would have to physically interact with their friends to give them copies, Wu-Tang shouldn’t worry. Today, he could have uploaded the tracks and identical first generation recordings would have virally worked their way world-wide in a matter of of hours. Luckily my friend didn’t copy anything and tracked them back down in a few days, but all too often some little studio shit will leak an album on the net weeks before it is to be released.
To recap.
Copy a tape in 20 minutes that will yield a shitty copy if copied, and distribute it to a small circle of people who know each other? Why should a label care?
Instantaneously distribute identical recordings globally to MILLIONS of people? The label should care.
Now you can get into ethics and split hairs as much as you want, that’s fine, but if you can’t recognize why a company would possibly be worried, you are beyond hope.
Your spin is amazing. “Just as easy to enforce!” La-de-dah. Just fling that shit to the wall and hope it sticks.
The way copyright laws are now, people always know when they “share” someone’s else’s content (especially online) that it is very likely illegal.
What you propose is that everything be legal to share (non-commercially). If something is shared “illegally,” it’ll be on the victim to prove that it was illegally obtained. Which will be usually be virtually impossible, unless they had everyone sign contracts promising not to share the work, and they had the work locked up in a safe whenever they were not around.
There’s a huge difference, but of course I understand that you are highly motivated to pretend you don’t understand that.
Princhester is so right about you. On all points.
Deliberately missing the point. Princhester is so right about you.
Again, even though I know you’ll bob and weave and try to avoid the question I asked last time. (But this time I’ll put it in bold so maybe it’ll be a little less easy to “pretend” to ignore: )
HOW DO YOU PROVE WHO STOLE THE CONTENT?!?! HOW DO YOU PROVE THE CONTENT WAS EVEN “ILLEGALLY OBTAINED”?
Even if the photo lab was completely sloppy about documenting the stuff that came into the lab, does that prove that anyone in that lab stole the content and uploaded it? Especially if this content theft happens several years after the fact?
The photo lab can merely say that since this theft happened several years ago, and since the negatives were not locked in a safety deposit box all that time, that a great number of people could have feasably had access to the photos during that time.
So, once again, how do you PROVE who stole the content and put it online? And if it’s been online for a few years (or even a few months) and has been copied by thousands of people who then put it up on their own web pages or “share” it in some other way, what then? Sue each and every one of them for distributing “illegally obtained content” that they didn’t know was illegally obtained? That they were under every impression was legal to distribute?
Pathetic, just pathetic.
Anyone who copies them without your permission (and they should show proof of permission) can be sued. Because, by default, they violated copyright if they didn’t get permission. The way you want it, the burden will be on the copyright owner and victim to prove that they didn’t give permission. Oh hell, who is even talking about “permission” here. We don’t even need “permission” by your standards. (And by your definition, this would mean a convulted scheme involving signed contracts and never letting the work leave your sight, being carefully guarded, etc. etc…)
And you “prove” the documents are yours the way anyone does. Show negatives, show older versions, whatever.
Such creative spin. Seriously, you are a master at this. Too bad it won’t fly, though.
Specifically I asked, who else will support the idea that copy shops and framing shops should be legally entitled to copy and distribute anything (any negative, any painting) that comes through their shop? Or, that anyone can copy and distribute anything that they stumble upon, just as long as they don’t steal it or tresspass to get to it?
Do you think that maybe I should go to GD and pose this question to the Teeming Millions and see what they think? It’s a tempting thought.
Except that everyone who shares files today knows that they are breaking the law and knows that they could be sued. And no doubt, many are not into breaking the law.
By what I described above.
People know they are breaking the law. When confronted, a lot of them usually back off pretty quickly. And the burden of “proof” of theft is usually pretty cut-and-dried. They didn’t have proof that they were allowed to copy it: copyright violation.
What you propose means every person proving that they kept the artwork under lock and key and therefore no one had access to “copy” it. Without that “proof,” there’s no way to determine that it was “illegally obtained” at all.
Hilarious? Yes. Pathetic? Indeed yes. Does it make it any less true? Absolutely not. Your attitude directly points to you having some sort of axe to grind against the artistic-type copyright owners. Or something.
And as for your “artistic feelings”—well, other programmers may and in many cases probably do have “artistic” sentiments, but you have never, never demonstrated the remotest hint that you know what it feels like.
So no. You are not one of the “artistic” types, and you apparently hold some contempt for them, or something.
Going in circles, I see. Why should I be surprised?
Princhester, you are so right. You have got Mr2001’s number, totally.
This is pathetic.
How many times do I patiently have to answer the same question, repeat the same concept, just so you can pretend you don’t get it and ignore it?
Princhester ain’t buying your tactics, and neither am I.
Why would the government have to “protect” the copyright of someone’s work that no one wants, and no one will even piss on? It only will need to “protect” it if someone wants to use it. And if it’s so useless, no one will want it.
Now is that not the most deluded, bizarre, twisted and absurd comment on—what? That’s the best you can do?
I don’t know. Whatever, dude.
And once again, Princhester is so right about you.
Well, lucky for my “hope”, I do recognize why companies are worried. They don’t like anything that diminishes their control over their IP, or anything that could conceivably put a dent in their profits.
It just doesn’t worry me. What’s good for Sony and EMI isn’t necessarily good for me, or anyone else who likes listening to music or making derivative works.
And they’d know the same thing this way. If you see a song on Kazaa that hasn’t been released on CD yet, it was probably leaked illegally.
It’s already the copyright holder’s burden to prove that a work was obtained illegally. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? You can’t just point to a copy of a song, demand proof that it was obtained legally, and get someone arrested if they can’t prove themselves innocent.
Please, go ahead and explain my supposed motivation. I just couldn’t be arguing this because I sincerely feel that our copyright laws are unjust, now could I? Come on, tell us all about my sinister agenda. This should be good.
You can prove it was illegally obtained by showing your agreements with everyone who processed the film. If the photo lab agreed not to leak it, and Aunt Edna agreed not to leak it, yet your photos are all over the internet, then one of them must have been negligent.
Finding out which one of them was negligent is the hard part, and I don’t have a solution for you. But of course, you’ll still be able to prevent it from being distributed once you prove it was illegally obtained, just like you can under today’s copyright laws.
Sure, just like you do now. If your picture is on a bunch of web sites and you want it taken off, you go after every single person hosting it; you can’t just track down the first person who uploaded it and cut it off at the “source”.
Correct. They get the benefit of copyright; they can do the legwork. Why should the people with legitimate copies have to prove themselves innocent?
Well, it seems to me that at least one person in that thread doesn’t believe in copyright at all - that’s more radical than my own position. One can assume that without any notion of copyright, anyone would be “entitled” to copy and distribute anything.
Ah yes, guilty until proven innocent. I think the founding fathers would have something to say about that. If I were to sink to using your tactics, I might accuse you of hating the principles America stands for, just as you’ve accused me of hating artists - but I’m better than that.
That’s right, keep repeating that soothing, reassuring copyright porn.
Here, let me help you get off: I eat artists’ babies and vomit out cruel, devastating parodies of their work! I sop up used motor oil with Picasso and wipe my ass with Michelangelo. I traveled back through time and drove Van Gogh mad. Saddam Hussein pays me $10,000 for each song I share on Kazaa! There’s a vast libertarian conspiracy to stamp out all creativity under the guise of “free expression” (bwahahaha!), and I am its spokesman.
Now don’t get too excited, babe. Let me fetch you a towel.
Mr2001, I’ve wasted enough time on this. I don’t believe that you seriously think anyone is going to back you up on this—even the most anti-copyright advocates. If they do—hey—bring 'em on. I’d love to hear what they have to say and how they will spin this whole scheme of yours to make it fly. Should be entertaining.
What you basically want is that anything that anyone writes or composes or scribbles or scratches is to be “open season” unless they take heroic measures to protect it from peeping eyes and potential “content leakers.” Any person can poke around their friends’ or relatives’ computers and upload stuff, and it’s all legal. Anyone who has a painting up on display on their wall is subject to having a copy of that painting “shared” with the world. Anyone can rifle through someone else’s sketchbook and publish the sketches online, and it’s perfectly OK. All legal.
And you think that the only way to protect one’s family photos or personal papers or anything else is to keep these things under lock and key, always document where they were at all times, and insist that anyone who sees the work sign contracts. And even these measures will be basically useless because if anything is leaked, it’ll be difficult to prove who did it.
Your “solution” to those who do not want their journals or sketchbooks or the paintings on their walls from being legally shared with the world is an unenforcable law. And virtually no one who steals content “illegally” will ever be caught under this law. (And I see how you’ve deftly avoided defining where the line is drawn in “illegally obtained.”)
And you want everyone else out there to just know that unless they are told otherwise, what they are “sharing” is very legal to share. Because hey—if some schlub was stupid enough to have that painting on his wall, he should have known that everyone should be allowed to see it. Or if he was stupid enough to keep a manuscript lying about, he was “asking” for it to be published online. So it’s all good—all if it. Take it all. That’s what it’s there for. That’s the message people will be getting—that it’s all legal unless someone can go to heroic, almost impossible measures to prove that it isn’t.
This is bullshit but you don’t want to admit it. You offer half-baked solutions and unenforcable laws and you slide around the questions you don’t want to answer, hoping we won’t notice.
And the real doozie is that you think that the victims of all this, the ones who had the audacity to show somebody their vacation pictures, or had the audacity to keep a journal in their drawer, (or have a painting on their wall), well these victims should just suck it up, because what was done to them was “legal” and no one can stop it, or should stop it. Because they shouldn’t have had their work “out there” for anyone to see. So it’s all their fault. They were “asking for it.”
This is what you want. This is what you are standing behind. This has got to be a new low for you, I must say.
And Princhester is right. So is World Eater. They’ve got your number, Big Time. They see through the bullshit. The constant slippery avoidance, the spin, the pretending you don’t get the question—yeah, they’ve got your number.
Yes, is there something wrong with that? Can you name a single company that likes “diminished IP control” & “things that could dent their profits”???
Just one please.
**
And it’s all about you? These companies are not here to provide some service to society, they are here to make money. It is their legal right to sell their product or if they so desire, to give it away. The choice is theirs and only theirs to make. Too bad you’re too stupid to own/run a business, otherwise you might wake the hell up from this bizarro alternaworld you dwell in and realize what makes the world go around… Keep giving away that software, let’s see how far it puts your kids through college.
**
So as you suggested before, we should make that illegal. Of course that won’t do shit, because people don’t realize what they are doing is WRONG. People like you I might add. Assholes like you I should actually say. Why don’t you check into the “HALF LIFE 2 source code released” thread? So fuck the company eh? 5 years down the crapper, because they should have kept the stuff in a cast iron box?
How is the copy obtained that is put online? If I buy a cd and put it online, I’ve bought one copy. If the library buys a copy, they’ve bought one copy.
Back to the question of explicit licenses for libraries: I often donate books to libraries. These are books I paid (usually) less-than-retail for. The library then starts to loan them out. Are we complicit in copyright violation? Should we be?
I’ve also donated review copies to the library. So, I’m giving them books I didn’t even pay for (at least directly). Am I guilty of something?
When the library buys a copy, the intent is known, and the license reflects that. Go lose a videotape you rented from Blockbuster. You will notice that the replacement cost will be upwards of $70 or $80, where as you could purchase the same one for $20 yourself.
As far as “how is the copy online obtained” that’s pretty obvious. A person bought it and made it available online. I would doubt that every person that is offering the file owns the album, and this also shoots the argument of sampling before you buy to hell.
**
Well it’s most likely impossible to work out every contingency, but there should be some procedures in place. Do I know the answer to your question? No. I think it would be counter productive for libraries to refuse donated books, but I think we need to look at this differently. Like almost everything, except illegal file trading, libraries benefit from “natural copy protection”. Essentially all the rules that make music trading simple don’t apply to library books. First off the book is physically unavailable for weeks at a time, in the sole possession of a single person. At the end of that time, the person no longer has access to it (sure they could renew it, but you know what I mean). In terms of copying it, who xeroxes a fucking book? Who types it word for word into a computer? OCR? You spend more time correcting OCR then typing it yourself in the first place.
Now of course a few people do the above, but not on the scale of mp3s, and that is the difference. Say I get some online book that some no girlfriend having loser spent 2 months typing up, what am I going to do, print the whole thing out? Put it on my PDA? You ever try and read an entire book on a PDA? Read it on my computer? If I’m at home and have a few hours, I’m watching Paradise Island, not staring at a computer for a few more hours, especially after I stared at one for 11 hours at work. I think most people would do the same.
I think it’s a bit silly and unrealistic to compare any other type of distribution model to something like Kazaa and it’s ilk. Nothing on the planet makes distibuting the maximum amount of music to the maximum amount of unknown people in the shortest amount of time any easier. A library sure as hell doesn’t.
**
I guess I have to be consistent in my stance, so technically that isn’t right. However, the book was paid for once (unless a ‘review’ copy is like a free promo), and really don’t think the scale is one that could do any damage.
I’m trying to recall whether somebody here mentioned how much the artist gets for each CD they sell. (I was under the impression that it was $0.00 but maybe not). Anyway, I’m sure it’s less than the $15+/CD that the stores charge or the $1/song that the pay-per-download services charge.
So here’s an idea: people who want to download music, could make it legal by offering to pay the artist and songwriter so many cents per song. It would of course need to be more than the artist and songwriter make from sales through the record labels. Then we’d be cutting out the middleman, and mainstream music would not have any advantage over indie music.
Now tell me this, if a plan like that were put into action of course it would take sales away from the record companies. It would put the screws to the RIAA. But, the people who actually put legitimate time and effort into creating the music would be compensated. Now is that moral?
Well, I’m assuming Estilicon is reading books online that someone has typed in, though perhaps there are other ways of getting an electronic copy of a book? I haven’t the faintest idea.
Review copies are books that are given away to people who either will or might write reviews of the book. I’m assuming the music industry also gives review copies, though I could be very wrong.
Well I know at Tower Records (I worked there for years) they added about $5 or $6 to what they paid for them. So a $13.99 CD was bought from the record company for a $8.99 or so.
**
That would be fine. Keep in mind though that many of today’s artists would be nowhere without a record label to develop them and lend them money. I’m all for the DIY artist, but unfortunately it’s advantageous to get some marketing and financial muscle behind you, and that’s where a label comes in. Of course it would be nice if they aren’t an evil soul sucking company.
What is this, a bar fight? Do I need a posse to “back me up”?
And yet you think “even the most anti-copyright advocates” disagree with that. What exactly do you think it means not to have copyrights?
It’s about as enforcable as copyright law is today. Sorry, but it just isn’t easy to enforce laws against activities that take place between two consenting individuals, far away from any “victim”.
I thought it was clear from context. Making copies in violation of a contract would be one case, breaking into someone’s home or office to steal his work would be another.
My number, eh? That explains those heavy breathing messages on my voice mail.
Let me guess… I really just want to stamp out art, and all the lofty talk about principles is just a facade? I carefully craft my Clintonesque responses to avoid ever answering a question that might cause my facade to crumble like a house of cards? What a pathetic angle - you can’t back your position up with reason, only with emotional appeals, so you question my honesty. You’re only making yourself look worse.
I never said there were any. Once again you’ve pulled a quote out of context and made it into a strawman.
I understand their motivation. It is, of course, the motivation of every company. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it! A chemical company might make more profit if they’re allowed to pollute; apparently you think profit is the only motivation that counts, so I guess we should all give up our clean air to help their bottom line.
And if we were talking about whether noncommercial copying were legal, your drivel might have some relevance. That would be a single-page GQ thread.
Don’t worry about me, I have what’s known as a “job”. I get paid for actually working, not for handing out copies of information; my employer’s business model doesn’t depend on my software remaining private.
Such amazing logic: “It’s WRONG!” It’s wrong because you typed in ALL CAPS and used profanity, right? What a waste - not that I expect anything more coherent from you at this point.
Quake’s source code was released (illegally at first, then legally later) and that sure didn’t hurt iD Software. This won’t hurt Valve.
That’s because they get the movies earlier than you can buy them at Wal-Mart, not because they pay for special rental rights. Tapes are typically “priced for rental” for the first few months of release, in order to get the maximum profit from video stores, then the price drops later to target consumers. The video store doesn’t get any extra rights, they just get the tape sooner. If you have a cite to the contrary, I’d love to see it.
Mr2001, I weary of this. I admit it, I cannot say that I expected you to ever be this extreme. Are you just slinging shit to the wall and seeing if it will stick, or are you really this deluded?
No—don’t answer. I know what you’ll say. You are totally sincere. You really think this is for the best. :rolleyes:
I can expect (though not agree) that there will be people who want to limit copyright and who don’t understand why it’s wrong to copy published work without permission and distribute it.
That I can grasp. Not agree with, definitely get irritated by, but at least grasp.
But this—this whacked-out idea you are presenting, it’s beyond bizarre. As World Eater (I think it was) said, it’s a “bizarro alternaworld” that you are living in. And I see you’ve got someone else taking residence in this “bizarro alternaworld” as well. Just peachy.
There is this notion people have, that can enjoy some expectation that if they don’t, oh, I dunno, let their private files leave their damned house, that maybe they can expect that it’ll stay private and won’t be published for the whole world to see. But apparently you’re against such a thing.
Classic. No one could possibly disagree with you on a point so close to your heart, could they? They just don’t understand why you’re right. If only you vented and insulted just a little more, maybe they’d see the light. :rolleyes:
How do you suppose someone’s private files that never left his house would be published, without the creator giving them away, and without someone obtaining them from him through force or fraud?
It certainly does, and I think you’ll find I’ve never claimed otherwise. The only disdain I expressed is for people who think charging for access to their work is a good way to make money, and who would have the government restrict others’ freedom to prop up their shoddy business model.
I don’t work any harder than a programmer who charges for his software; I just have a better way of making money from my work.
Not in every case. But in your case, when someone is clearly living in some sort of a clueless bizarro alternaworld…
Of course! Of course! What else would I expect from you? More clueless astonished innocence as to what I could possibly mean? So typical for you.
I described scenarios where people (meaning anyone who lived in the house or got into the house) could have “access” to files, documents, artwork, paintings on walls. These have just as much “access” to these files as a person processing negatives in a photo lab. And you think that the person in the photo lab should legally be able to distribute the files, so I see no difference whether it’s in a photo lab or in someone’s home. If they have “access,” but didn’t break in and didn’t sign a contract promising to not copy, well, copy away!
You didn’t specifically object to these scenarios when I brought them up before; you barely addressed them at all. But I suppose that you’ll spin and spin and pretend that you “didn’t mean it that way,” or “didn’t understand.” Bullshit.
And of course I know what will happen next—more spin, more from the alternaworld zone. :rolleyes:
Of course that would be moral. Bring it on. Good luck, I hope such a scheme succeeds, sounds great to me.
But whether this scheme would work or be moral has fuck all to do with whether leaching copyright from copyright owners who do not want to be leached from is moral.
Mr2001, I think I’m probably wasting my time, but just for the sport of it lets see if I can stop you from nitpicking and corner you on your physical/intellectual property dichotomy bullshit with my hardware analogy.
I want a lawnmower. If I can’t sneak one, I will be forced to buy one, which I would do from my local hardware store. I sneak in and take one, marked price $200. I don’t break or damage anything getting in or out. I have an extensive knowledge of the hardware business. I leave $122 on the counter. Next morning at 7 am two hours before the shop opens, the store clerk comes in and notices the mower missing (scratches his head cos he thought there was one the night before) and orders one, urgently. This takes him five minutes. The delivery truck arrives at 8.55 and drops off another mower, and the store clerk spends another 5 minutes humping the mower into the right place and doing all necessary paperwork. This puts him back a little on his other paperwork and he ends up having to do ten minutes overtime at the end of the day which costs the store owner $12. The cost price on the mower was $100 (delivered) and the other $10 I left on the counter is consumed by miscellanous expenses caused by my ripoff (such as a couple of minutes of extra work by the accountant who notices the missing profit at the end of the year).
The store owner loses no time. He does not lose any “use” of the mower since it was only off the shelf for a few hours while the shop was not open. All of the additional work created by my act is covered by employees and the amount I left covers the marginal difference in wage costs.
The store owner just loses the $78 profit he would have made out of the sale to me that would have occurred if I hadn’t managed to sneak in.
Many other customers do the same thing. The store owner as a result stops making a profit and goes broke.