# The end of a copyright experiment. RIAA shows its true colors. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 29, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050 "2012-08-29T17:11:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/101 "2012-08-31T17:59:29Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Seriously, how in the world can people believe this tripe? Because it’s the truth. > [@BigT](#): > > The law is 100% about morality. We decide something is immoral, so we made it against the law so that the minority who don’t think it immoral will be forced to do the moral thing anyways. > > The entire concept of self-governance is that the law changes when the morality of the society changes. Right now, the younger generation, the one that is not going to die off like the defenders here, doesn’t believe there is anything wrong with it. The law is currently working to force the morality of a minority on a majority. And that is anti-democratic. The law is not about morality. The fact that things like anti-sodomy laws are overturned is not that sodomy has become moral but that we’ve come to the realization that moral judgments have no place in law. Abortion did not become legal because the courts decided it was a moral pursuit. It was determined that despite any moral reservations, a fetus at a certain stage of development was not a person and therefor a woman’s choice to terminate the pregnancy was not in violation of the rights of another individual. No one is trying to force their morality on you. You are trying to violate the rights of the persons in control of the works you want. It is that violation of rights that make you position untenable. > [@BigT](#): > > You can argue until you are blue in the face that piracy is stealing. The fact remains that, unlike stealing physical property, it does not remove the ability of the owner to still sell their work. This fact makes it different than stealing, and thus, if you keep on saying they are the same, you have admitted that your opinion contradicts fact, and thus can be discounted. > > That’s not mental gymnastics, that’s critical thinking. No it’s not critical thinking since your conclusion does not follow from your premise; it’s an excuse to steal nothing more. Under your logic I should be able to take your car whenever I want as long as I fill it back up with gas and leave a few bucks on the dashboard to pay part of the upkeep regardless of whether you’ve agree to it or not because you’re still free to use it when you need it. The fact that I’m not depriving you of its utility does not change the fact that it’s stealing. > [@BigT](#): > > As I’ve said before, if someone needs money, I give them money if I have it. If I buy something, the money does not go to them, so I am not helping them. I’m helping individuals who are trying to hold on to an old system at best, and exploiters at worse. Distributors and publishers no longer produce value because I can get the same thing for free. It is thus not ethical to pay them for a service you don’t use. This is the mental gymnastics I refer to. The distributor and creator came to some kind of arrangement. It’s not up to you to interfere with that agreement. To say you somehow have the moral high ground is without basis and in fact incorrect because you jeopardize the ability of the content creator to make such agreements in the future if they prove to be unenforceable be the distributor. You are in fact jeopardizing the lively hood of the content creators. No matter how you try to spin it, it’s stealing and there is no practical or moral argument that makes it valid. The only argument that holds any water is to admit you want it and you’re willing to steal to get it ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/102 "2012-08-31T18:24:00Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > With music, the melody and words **are** the expression. Perhaps that unique combination, I might grant you, but there are only so many chord progressions, so many melodic arrangements available that please the ear. There are many in music scene, (myself included) who are fighting against that sort of broad copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/103 "2012-08-31T18:27:13Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Perhaps that unique combination, I might grant you, but there are only so many chord progressions, so many melodic arrangements available that please the ear. There are many in music scene, (myself included) who are fighting against that sort of broad copyright. And, significantly, simple chord progressions aren’t likely to be protected either. That’s very different from sampling from a recording. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/104 "2012-08-31T18:33:41Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Plus, if you only create in order to get a paycheck, then I don’t give a fuck if you no longer create. There is absolutely no shortage of creative content produced for free or for the right price. Then I challenge you to not consume anything that is copyrighted for one year. Even stuff given away for free, since alot of that is just free samples that the artist is using to build a following to get paid later (or else he/she wouldnt’ copyright it). And of course no pirated material. Only public domain or creative commons stuff. Even if you’ve already bought it legally. I dare you. > [@](#): > > The only argument that piracy is wrong is that it deprives the owners of revenue. That’s how it’s like stealing. And a company like UKNova which was not depriving people of revenue thus was not stealing. It might be doing something that the owners don’t want you to do, but that is not inherently unethical. Just like I’m sure Ed wishes this place were less hostile, based on the rules he made in the pit. Doesn’t make it wrong to be hostile. Taking something that isn’t yours without permission is stealing. Grow up. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/105 "2012-08-31T18:41:10Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Perhaps that unique combination, I might grant you, but there are only so many chord progressions, so many melodic arrangements available that please the ear. There are many in music scene, (myself included) who are fighting against that sort of broad copyright. > [@Acsenray](#): > > And, significantly, simple chord progressions aren’t likely to be protected either. That’s very different from sampling from a recording. Even with a one octave pentatonic scale and quarter notes only there are 3,125 possible melodies for one measure. Two measures squares that, three cubes it and so on. Throw in different rhythms, different numbers of notes per measure, open up the whole chromatic scale, and you’re not going to run out of possibilities any time soon. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/106 "2012-08-31T20:20:49Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > They shouldn’t unless you’ve _already_ released it to the public in some format. That is part of the argument that many of us make against certain aspects of copyright law in the digital age. “Copies” of things are basically impossible to control any longer. The only sure-fire method is to _not_ release something in the first place. Once it’s out, there really is no going back, and our law should reflect that practicality and not an abstract notion that suits our ethical senses. It is like making a law against the color green, or the bad old sodomy laws. It might feel nice to have them on the books, It might have been voted on and is all nice and legal,but there isn’t any way to enforce them fairly, if at all. Thant makes it bad law, and we waste time and resources enforcing it. > > So instead of pounding our chests and crying until the pirates simply overwhelm us _Again_, why not have a realistic discussion? > > So how do you deal with people making copies of work? For starters we take a hard look at how the content or intellectual property plays into the pay model. Is the consumer paying directly for content like a film or book? Is it promotional material like a television show? Is it visual art which needs to be protected against unauthorized reproduction for profit; or other material like music which can be complicated and cross many categories. Then we start to develop a policy which will provide protection to the creators while acknowledging the simple reality of the world. > > So for content like visual art and music, we could start with a definition that any _derivative_ work must be substantially and immediately recognizable as different, separate, and the individual work of a separate artist. No more drawing moustaches on someone elses’ photos and calling it your own work. Keep samples limited to a certain length etc… I would also suggest a sliding scale of time in this area. Privately held copyright by the artist should hold the longest, held by their estate after death much shorter, and one held by a record company not long at all. If we truly are interested in protecting _artists_ then this is logical. > > Film should remain basically where it is, though I would shorten the copyright time to 25 years. That is more than enough time for the studio to recoup it’s costs and provide a legitimate outlet to consumers to purchase a copy of their product. In the digital age there is no excuse for failing to provide this option as there is little to no cost in offering a digital file. No real overhead, manufacturing or shipping etc. I would also issue an order that any non-released material older than 35 years in age be provided for digital download. Hollywood had it’s chance for a good long time, and has failed miserably to deal with issue of piracy. Since piracy IS inevitable, providing a legitimate, paid, source of content is both ethically preferable and more economically feasible than clogging the courts up with absurd lawsuits for someone trying to find a lost film. This ought to free up resources to chase the real pirates down. > > Authors should hold rights to their work for the length of their life. Their estate should be able to hold it a further 25 years, allowing that they, or their representatives provide a legitimate source, and then all rights are terminated. Post the death of an author \*derivative \*rights should fall into the public domain. > > Promotional content like television shows and sporting events that air freely should have no protections other than the right against unauthorized reproduction _for profit_. They should have to show that the pirates are charging for copies. Outside of that, the content was distributed freely to the world and thus is part of our shared culture, regardless of how obscure or banal. If they want to protect their content then they should move to pay for content model like film. …wow. You sure wrote a lot of words yet didn’t even begin to answer my question. Are you really saying everyone have the should have the right to access work I’ve created because they can? You think laws shouldn’t reflect our ethics? You think[stuff like this](http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Patrick+Cariou+wins+copyright+case+against+Richard+Prince+and+Gagosian/23387) shouldn’t be a copyright violation? I take a photo. Why do you think you have any right to it at all? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/107 "2012-08-31T22:22:41Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I could have sworn you were talking about stuff like [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242975). I’d forgotten about that. Probably informs my opinion, for sure. But mainly I’m thinking about music sampling here. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/108 "2012-08-31T22:28:08Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > What an idiotic slogan. > > Information doesn’t want things. It’s not human. > > People want to be paid for the information they create. If they don’t get paid for it, many will stop creating it. > > Enough of this nonsense. You can’t steal stuff. Grow up. Do you know anything about the history of this particular expression? [Edumacate yerself, O semi-wise person.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free) ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/109 "2012-09-01T15:21:30Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Do you know anything about the history of this particular expression? [Edumacate yerself, O semi-wise person.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free) I stand by my statement. If you have something to say about it, say it. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/110 "2012-09-01T19:20:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Do you know anything about the history of this particular expression? [Edumacate yerself, O semi-wise person.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free) Wow. Pirates used to just say “Yo ho ho” and such. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/111 "2012-09-01T21:58:36Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > First , it is an ethical principle to ask someone’s permission for using his property. “I borrowed you car; thought you wouldn’t mind.” > > If a record company took someone’s recordings and made them available without asking permission, is that OK? If it’s wrong for Sony to do this, why is is right for a small startup to do this? The law applies equally to both, doesn’t it? > > Second, copyright isn’t failing; people are just violating it. Copyright is failing in the same way that laws against murder are failing: people keep killing others, so that law must be failing, too. This doesn’t properly address the point made by the poster you were responding to. First, regardless of the propaganda used, copyright infringement isn’t theft. As it’s often pointed out, if I take your car, you don"t have a car anymore. You can’t drive it, you can’t sell it. If I copy your book, you still own it. You can read it, you can sell it. Copyright infringement is a very peculiar crime. It’s an non obvious legal construct created specifically, as the poster was stating, so as to encourage creation of new works by making sure that the author (and not any random parasite) will be able to make money. The situation is the same with patent laws. If, for whatever reason, copyright laws don’t serve this purpose or even are counter-productive from this point of view, they definitely have failed. They have never been created so that you can sit down on existing work and prevent it from being distributed. To give various examples of such failures : -The author of a book has a change of heart and doesn’t want this early work to be distributed anymore (honestly, a rather rare occurrence, but conceivable). He prevents its publication : failure, since the created work isn’t available. You might think that its legitimate, but we generally don’t make much room for “change of heart”. If I allowed someone to take a picture of me nude and drunk that is now plastered all over the internet for all to see, in many jurisdictions, there’s nothing I can do about it. Time to think about it was when I allowed the picture to be taken. Similarly, the book author should have thought about it when he first published his book. The law isn’t there to protect authors’ reputation, but to make sure authors will publish stuff. -Nobody knows who the copyright holder is, and as a result the work isn’t distributed. That has been very common with computer games since a lot of game companies have been bought, catalogues sold, companies rebought, companies went bankrupt and so on. Again, it’s a failure of the copyright laws, since the work isn’t produced and available. The pirates, at this point, are the ones serving the purpose society is interested in by making the creation available. -The copyright holder isn’t interested in distributing the work because the expected profit isn’t worth the cost. Again very common with computer games that tend to have a short shelf life, and I guess common too for TV shows and obscure movies. For instance, I recently bought all the “X-COM” games series, dating back from the 90s for some small price. The only reason why I was aware of their existence and interested in them was because for many years a devoted fan base kept offering pirated copies of the game (and I used to have myself a pirated copy of the first game of the series). Again in this case, the purpose of the copyright laws has been served by the pirates, not the copyright holder, until the latter recently realized that there was actually a buck to be made and began selling again a downloadable version. -The work is protected for a way too long time by copyright laws. This issue is handled much better by patent laws (that again, are similar in nature and purpose to copyright laws). If I find the miracle cure for the cancer of the left foot toes, I get a monopoly on its sale for a relatively short duration. I have an incentive to try to figure out the cure _and produce it as quickly as possible_. After say, 20 years, everybody will be allowed to produce a generic drug, or to expand on my discovery, and if I want the money to keep coming I’ll have to find the cure for the cancer of the right foot toes. Copyright laws, on the other hand, are protecting the copyright holder for an absurd length of time nowadays. To take the common example of Disney, Mickey Mouse is still protected 80+ years after its creation. Not only Disney is better off devoting resources on making money with this famous old character than on creating new ones that might or might not become popular, but also creative individuals can’t reuse this famous figure or expand on it. Again, a failure of copyright laws. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/112 "2012-09-01T23:24:52Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Creators have no dearth of basis for their works now. The main barrier to creation now is the prospect that piracy will take away control from the creator, not that there isn’t enough material available from which to create. > > . That’s not true. The author of a novel isn’t afraid of losing control of his creation, he’s afraid of not finding a publisher. He’s not afraid of having too many people read his novel, he’s afraid of those people not paying for it. Scenarios were the author wants to limit access to his book are the exception, not the norm. The fact that he can prevent the distribution of his work is a bug, not a feature. If he wants to keep total control over his work, the best way to do so is to never publish it in the first place. The fact that he can prevent publication for some reason that might be understandable is nice for him but that’s not the point of copyright laws or patent laws. The goal is to have people create stuff and invent stuff since they know they’ll be able to make a buck out of it because it’s in the general interest of society to be able to read new stuff, to listen to new stuff, to put new stuff into new machines or new drugs, to be inspired by new stuff to create even newer stuff, to expand on new stuff and so on. If the patent is unused, the book unread, etc… the whole point of copyright or patent laws is defeated. In some peculiar instances, the ability to completely prevent the use of the patent or the publishing of the book can benefit the author or inventor, which is nice for him but generally counter-productive for society. We can let it go as long as it isn’t _too_ counter-productive, but at some point we’re better off putting an end to this option. The reason why, as already mentioned, large parts of cultural production can’t be acceded isn’t that a poor author would rather wait 6 more months until a more prestigious publisher will make him an offer and he will be able to eat something else than ramen. It’s because a large corporation has a catalog of movies or music dating back from 50 years ago with so few potential customers that it isn’t interested in releasing them and at the same time has _zero_ reason to allow anybody else to release it, either, since its business plan isn’t to promote cultural access but to make money. To give an example for me : Some years ago, I’ve been watching many Twilight Zone episodes on Youtube. Do you think it’s because I was too much of a cheapskate to pay to avoid having to search for them, to watch them in poor resolution and without French subtitles? Nope. Do you think it’s because Rod Sterling is concerned about keeping control of his work? Nope, he’s long dead and probably never had any control of it anyway. It’s because some unknown corporation owned a license for the French market for this old TV serie and wasn’t interested for whatever reason in releasing it. Sorry for not feeling bad when I watched an episode on Youtube for depriving a company from his right to refuse access to 50 year old cultural material. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/113 "2012-09-02T00:01:35Z")
> [@Doug\_K](#): > > Doesn’t matter what the reason is. It’s the owner’s decision to make and not yours or mine. If the owner is just a mean, heartless jerk who wants to sit on it and yell “It’s MINE MINE MINE and you can’t have it! HAHAHAHAHAHA!”, well, we might not like it, but the owner has every legal and moral right to be that way. But if we end up in this situation, it means that our copyright laws are a failure and need changing. He’s only the “owner” because we have invented an artificial concept (copyright) that allows him to make a buck in exchange for his work. Copying his work isn’t “stealing”. He still has it after the copy is made. It’s “copyright infrigement”. If he acts as you describe, he’s breaking his part of the deal which is “We won’t copy your work without paying to do so, and in exchange, we’ll be able to listen to it”. If it’s a lone crazy author, it doesn’t matter much and we aren’t going to change the laws for this reason. We’ll either forget him or wait a couple decades. But the issue is that nowadays, most of the cultural production from the past century can’t be read, listened to, watched, because copyright holders are large corporations that are acting exactly as your hypothetical crazy author. They’re are sitting on piles of extremely old material shouting “IT’S MINE!! And you can’t have it!”, not because “HAHAHAHA!” but because " It’s more cost-efficient to spend money on a new copy of the latest hit, and why should we care about this old stuff being listened to or not?" while a typical author would _want_ his music to be listened to. So, again, it’s not an isolated human “owner” refusing to give up or lend his property. It’s many copyright-holding entities that are doing everything they can to not keep up with their end of the deal (allowing access to cultural production), for instance by making sure that copyright is extended for absurdly long periods. If patent laws were similar, the “Wright Corporation” would still be the only one allowed to produce aircrafts, and those would still be biplanes. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/114 "2012-09-02T00:37:33Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …why should everyone have the right to access work I’ve created? Because you’ve been granted an arbitrary right to benefit from every copy of your work. The only reason why this right has been granted was to promote the creation _and_ circulation of art, ideas, etc.. If you don’t want people to have access to your creation, then keep it for yourself. The implied idea in copyright law is “we’d rather want you to keep creating _and_ to have access to it, so we promise we’ll pay you for every copy of it even though copies are someone’s else work and don’t deprive you of anything. Deal?” Again, why can’t I invent a faster-than-light spaceship, refuse to produce it, and prevent forever everybody else from producing one? That’s the same issue. To quote you again “why should everyone have the right to access work I’ve created?” Because, besides giving me a right without me having to give anything in exchange, it would hinder progress. That’s why. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/115 "2012-09-02T00:39:35Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > But if we end up in this situation, it means that our copyright laws are a failure and need changing. He’s only the “owner” because we have invented an artificial concept (copyright) that allows him to make a buck in exchange for his work. Copying his work isn’t “stealing”. He still has it after the copy is made. It’s “copyright infrigement”. But that’s true for all property rights. You only own your car because the law protects your ownership. If it didn’t, I could take it and it wouldn’t be stealing either. > [@](#): > > But the issue is that nowadays, most of the cultural production from the past century can’t be read, listened to, watched, because copyright holders are large corporations that are acting exactly as your hypothetical crazy author. They’re are sitting on piles of extremely old material shouting “IT’S MINE!! And you can’t have it!”, not because “HAHAHAHA!” but because " It’s more cost-efficient to spend money on a new copy of the latest hit, and why should we care about this old stuff being listened to or not?" while a typical author would _want_ his music to be listened to. What if an old millionaire bought up a bunch of paintings and didn’t let anyone see them? Would you insist that the laws of property be changed so the public has the right to take the paintings? Or force him to open his home to the public? > [@](#): > > So, again, it’s not an isolated human “owner” refusing to give up or lend his property. It’s many copyright-holding entities that are doing everything they can to not keep up with their end of the deal (allowing access to cultural production), for instance by making sure that copyright is extended for absurdly long periods. If patent laws were similar, the “Wright Corporation” would still be the only one allowed to produce aircrafts, and those would still be biplanes. So all you’re proposing is a shorter copyright term? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/116 "2012-09-02T02:33:53Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But that’s true for all property rights. You only own your car because the law protects your ownership. If it didn’t, I could take it and it wouldn’t be stealing either. > > What if an old millionaire bought up a bunch of paintings and didn’t let anyone see them? Would you insist that the laws of property be changed so the public has the right to take the paintings? Or force him to open his home to the public? Of course, every single law is arbitrary. But property law is a quite straightforward concept that comes easily even to a two years old “That’s mine!!!”. But said 2 yo won’t care the slightest bit if you make a copy of his toy and hand it to somebody else. You’re not deprived of anything tangible when someone sings your song while taking a shower, nor when he sings it in front of a crowd, nor when he listens to a record of it 100 times in a row, nor when he sells 100 copies of it that will be listened to once each, etc… Some of the things I listed are illegal, others aren’t despite being similar You _might_ be deprived of a _possible_ future income or possible future fame. But maybe the guy who made just some changes to your lyrics and to your melody is much better than you at it and though he became famous, you wouldn’t have because your original version wasn’t good enough. Maybe the guy who pirated your movie would never have paid a cent to watch it. In both of those cases, you aren’t in fact deprived of anything, neither fame nor money, but both are still illegal. Ideas aren’t protected…but at some point they are. The line is more than blurry. If you copy the Mona Lisa and paint a mustache on her, this is probably an original work of art. If I copy your painting just adding a title “This isn’t the Mona Lisa with a mustache” maybe you can successfully sue me. Maybe Magritte’s heirs can successfully sue me. Maybe neither. Maybe both. If I steal the Mona Lisa, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” or your painting, on the other hand, the case is clear-cut. The worst case I heard is the heirs of John Cage successfully suing a British band for the silent track of their record, considered as a copyright infringement on “4 minutes 33 seconds of silence”. What I mean is that everything in copyright law is the result of an intellectual exercise and pretty arbitrary. The concept itself is, the rules determining what is infringement and what isn’t are, the actual enforcing of these rules is. There’s nothing that makes you objectively the “owner” of the song I just sang, the painting I just painfully made, the specific details I included in my story, the content of the DVD I just bought or of the MP3 I just pirated. > [@](#): > > So all you’re proposing is a shorter copyright term? No. I certainly do support shorter copyright terms. But it’s not enough. As many have stated, copyright laws (at least for some items. If I want a copy of, say, a stainted glass, it’s going to be hard work) are totally unenforceable. And an unenforceable law is a bad law. So, the entertainment industry or individual artists have to come up with a proposal that is actually enforceable. Also, obviously, even if you want to be 100% honest, it’s a major pain in the ass. As I wrote previously, there is ton of content that is just unavailable if you want to buy it. And it’s not because some creator has chosen to make it unavailable. Another well known example are computer games that, if you want to be honest, you will buy before downloading the pirated version because the latter will work smoothly and won’t mess up with your computer while the legal copy won’t and will. A third example with photographs : I once bought all photographs I was using on an online game site (as a player). You would need to spend a couple hours searching for a photograph that was _quite_ like what you wanted on sites with poor indexing and then use your card praying that the site is legit. About 1 minute googling for images would get you a free picture that was exactly what you wanted. And of course, the risk of “getting caught” is zero. So, you have to put probably more work into buying the picture than the photographer did into making it, all that for the privilege of paying him maybe 50 cents. And you’re not even satisfied with what you got (obviously, I’m talking about illustrative photographs, here. Buying a photograph as a piece of art is another issue entirely). Content providers got better at actually providing what you wanted over the years, but fact is that generally speaking, they’re still offering for a price, in a more inconvenient way, a more limited list of worst products than what you can get for free. As long as they don’t address this issue, telling people that they shouldn’t pirate content is a bad joke. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/117 "2012-09-02T03:18:02Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Of course, every single law is arbitrary. But property law is a quite straightforward concept that comes easily even to a two years old “That’s mine!!!”. But said 2 yo won’t care the slightest bit if you make a copy of his toy and hand it to somebody else. That’s why laws aren’t written by 2 year olds. > [@](#): > > You’re not deprived of anything tangible when someone sings your song while taking a shower, nor when he sings it in front of a crowd, nor when he listens to a record of it 100 times in a row, nor when he sells 100 copies of it that will be listened to once each, etc… Some of the things I listed are illegal, others aren’t despite being similar > > You _might_ be deprived of a _possible_ future income or possible future fame. But maybe the guy who made just some changes to your lyrics and to your melody is much better than you at it and though he became famous, you wouldn’t have because your original version wasn’t good enough. Maybe the guy who pirated your movie would never have paid a cent to watch it. In both of those cases, you aren’t in fact deprived of anything, neither fame nor money, but both are still illegal. That’s up to me to decide. Get your hands off my legal property. > [@](#): > > What I mean is that everything in copyright law is the result of an intellectual exercise and pretty arbitrary. The concept itself is, the rules determining what is infringement and what isn’t are, the actual enforcing of these rules is. There’s nothing that makes you objectively the “owner” of the song I just sang, the painting I just painfully made, the specific details I included in my story, the content of the DVD I just bought or of the MP3 I just pirated. And that’s true, like I said, of all property laws. Back to square one. > [@](#): > > No. I certainly do support shorter copyright terms. But it’s not enough. As many have stated, copyright laws (at least for some items. If I want a copy of, say, a stainted glass, it’s going to be hard work) are totally unenforceable. They are enforced all the time. > [@](#): > > Also, obviously, even if you want to be 100% honest, it’s a major pain in the ass. As I wrote previously, there is ton of content that is just unavailable if you want to buy it. And it’s not because some creator has chosen to make it unavailable. Another well known example are computer games that, if you want to be honest, you will buy before downloading the pirated version because the latter will work smoothly and won’t mess up with your computer while the legal copy won’t and will. A third example with photographs : I once bought all photographs I was using on an online game site (as a player). You would need to spend a couple hours searching for a photograph that was _quite_ like what you wanted on sites with poor indexing and then use your card praying that the site is legit. About 1 minute googling for images would get you a free picture that was exactly what you wanted. And of course, the risk of “getting caught” is zero. So, you have to put probably more work into buying the picture than the photographer did into making it, all that for the privilege of paying him maybe 50 cents. And you’re not even satisfied with what you got (obviously, I’m talking about illustrative photographs, here. Buying a photograph as a piece of art is another issue entirely). So? You don’t get everything you want. Keep your hands off other people’s property unless they give you permission to touch it. Even a 2 year old understand that. > [@](#): > > Content providers got better at actually providing what you wanted over the years, but fact is that generally speaking, they’re still offering for a price, in a more inconvenient way, a more limited list of worst products than what you can get for free. As long as they don’t address this issue, telling people that they shouldn’t pirate content is a bad joke. Grow up, son. You’re just rationalizing theivery. Nothing new. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/118 "2012-09-02T05:05:26Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Because you’ve been granted an arbitrary right to benefit from every copy of your work. …yeah, but the question was why do you have the arbitrary right to access it. > [@](#): > > The only reason why this right has been granted was to promote the creation _and_ circulation of art, ideas, etc.. No it isn’t. > [@](#): > > If you don’t want people to have access to your creation, then keep it for yourself. Why? > [@](#): > > The implied idea in copyright law is “we’d rather want you to keep creating _and_ to have access to it, so we promise we’ll pay you for every copy of it even though copies are someone’s else work and don’t deprive you of anything. Deal?” What a load of nonsense. [Here are the New Zealand copyright laws:](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345638.html?search=ts_act_copyright+act_resel) where is this idea implied? > [@](#): > > Again, why can’t I invent a faster-than-light spaceship, refuse to produce it, and prevent forever everybody else from producing one? That’s the same issue. To quote you again “why should everyone have the right to access work I’ve created?” I wasn’t asking about faster than light spaceship: I was asking about a photograph I’ve taken. Why do you have a right to access it? > [@](#): > > Because, besides giving me a right without me having to give anything in exchange, it would hinder progress. That’s why. Nonsense. Why do you think you have a right to access and/or use my work? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/119 "2012-09-05T15:11:26Z")
Just jumping back in to applaud clairobscur. Spot on. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050/120 "2012-09-05T15:42:07Z")
Just jumping back in to applaud Banquet Bear. Spot on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-a-copyright-experiment-riaa-shows-its-true-colors/633050.md?page=7)