are they selectively enforcing copy write law
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2012, 09:42 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-12-2012 11:08 PM)nach_in Wrote:  Several things:
The duration of the right: Here in Argentina the duration is for the life of the creator and 70 years after, that means that the protection on the work is for around 150 years (based on the life expectation here). And that's not an exception, the duration worldwide ranges between 50 and 75 years.

The right can be inherited: This is the only case in which people inherit their parents work, not the wealth produced by the work, but the work itself. That is like I get a pay check every month because my dad used to worked when he was alive, it's absurd.
Of course they should inherit anything that was bought with the money the song, book or whatever produced, but not the idea itself.

The extent of protection: As I said before, copyrighted goods are immaterial, and that makes a huge difference in the way it should be protected, but the protection is based on the idea of material property, and it doesn't translate quite well. Thus making the right holders push more restrictive laws so they can pursue any violation no matter how small it is. Here you can get up to 6 years of prison for downloading one song, and that's absurd.

It doesn't really promotes creation: Unlike patents, copyright protects works of art and alike, those things are not industrially exploitable and thus the regular economic laws don't apply.
Artistic creation usually is based on a remix of previous ideas and preventing new creators from taking other people's work and making something new is counterproductive, specially if you take into account that the time for things to become publicly available is a century and a half.


Those are my main complaints against current copyright law, there're some other small stuff but they are mainly corollaries of what I said.

I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't be rewarded for their work, I'm just saying that the current system for doing so is ineffective and costly for society. We should come up with something new.
I like the idea of creative commons and initiatives like that, they aren't perfect though and I think that's the main reason why they aren't as popular, but is a start.
That is a jumble of things at different levels. Forget the bad laws, durations, and so on, and start simple.

I create something, maybe a book, a photograph, some software. I have a right to sell that and you don't.
Agreed?
I won't forget about laws because otherwise I'd throw years of university away Tongue

But I'll follow you.
I don't think you're right about what you're saying. I'll agree that if you make a book (lets stay with the book example) you have the right to make a profit, but that doesn't necessarily means that you have the right to SELL it or the right to prevent other to profit from your work in some way.
I know it sounds like an inconsequential semantic babble but it's not, to sell something implies a specific type of contract with specific rules and requirements, one of those requirements is for you to have the property of something and that property implies a whole other set of rights (using, benefiting, destroying the thing, or prevent others from doing so, etc.).
I don't think that those specific rules can be applied directly to the book (the book-idea, not the book-object) and that's where I believe things should change, we should make a set of rules specific for this kind of immaterial "things".

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 09:48 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 09:42 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is a jumble of things at different levels. Forget the bad laws, durations, and so on, and start simple.

I create something, maybe a book, a photograph, some software. I have a right to sell that and you don't.
Agreed?
I won't forget about laws because otherwise I'd throw years of university away Tongue

But I'll follow you.
I don't think you're right about what you're saying. I'll agree that if you make a book (lets stay with the book example) you have the right to make a profit, but that doesn't necessarily means that you have the right to SELL it or the right to prevent other to profit from your work in some way.
I know it sounds like an inconsequential semantic babble but it's not, to sell something implies a specific type of contract with specific rules and requirements, one of those requirements is for you to have the property of something and that property implies a whole other set of rights (using, benefiting, destroying the thing, or prevent others from doing so, etc.).
I don't think that those specific rules can be applied directly to the book (the book-idea, not the book-object) and that's where I believe things should change, we should make a set of rules specific for this kind of immaterial "things".
Are you saying that you can print the content of my book and sell those copies without payment to me? Or reproduce my photograph and sell it without payment to me?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 09:54 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 09:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 09:42 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I won't forget about laws because otherwise I'd throw years of university away Tongue

But I'll follow you.
I don't think you're right about what you're saying. I'll agree that if you make a book (lets stay with the book example) you have the right to make a profit, but that doesn't necessarily means that you have the right to SELL it or the right to prevent other to profit from your work in some way.
I know it sounds like an inconsequential semantic babble but it's not, to sell something implies a specific type of contract with specific rules and requirements, one of those requirements is for you to have the property of something and that property implies a whole other set of rights (using, benefiting, destroying the thing, or prevent others from doing so, etc.).
I don't think that those specific rules can be applied directly to the book (the book-idea, not the book-object) and that's where I believe things should change, we should make a set of rules specific for this kind of immaterial "things".
Are you saying that you can print the content of my book and sell those copies without payment to me? Or reproduce my photograph and sell it without payment to me?
Again with the selling, but ok... Are you getting some form of profit without me directly paying you? if yes, then I may have the right to do it. If no, then there could be some way of you making me pay you without stopping me from selling the books.

I said before, I don't know how a perfect system would be, I don't even know if such system can exist. I just find a lot of problems in the current system and I think we should think outside the box to find a solution, because the box we're trained to think in is designed for material goods.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 10:07 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 09:54 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 09:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you saying that you can print the content of my book and sell those copies without payment to me? Or reproduce my photograph and sell it without payment to me?
Again with the selling, but ok... Are you getting some form of profit without me directly paying you? if yes, then I may have the right to do it. If no, then there could be some way of you making me pay you without stopping me from selling the books.

I said before, I don't know how a perfect system would be, I don't even know if such system can exist. I just find a lot of problems in the current system and I think we should think outside the box to find a solution, because the box we're trained to think in is designed for material goods.
No, the copyright laws are specifically about intellectual property.

Don't confuse this with patent law.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2012 10:49 AM by nach_in.)
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 10:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 09:54 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Again with the selling, but ok... Are you getting some form of profit without me directly paying you? if yes, then I may have the right to do it. If no, then there could be some way of you making me pay you without stopping me from selling the books.

I said before, I don't know how a perfect system would be, I don't even know if such system can exist. I just find a lot of problems in the current system and I think we should think outside the box to find a solution, because the box we're trained to think in is designed for material goods.
No, the copyright laws are specifically about intellectual property.

Don't confuse this with patent law.
I don't confuse them, there are differences of course, but essentially the laws are based on the same principle. The only fundamental difference is temporality, intellectual property (that includes, copyright, patents, trademarks and other related rights) is restricted to a timeframe, other forms of property are perpetual. Other than that the differences are superficial.

Now for patents and trademarks the laws and the reasons behind them are valid. But not for copyright, because they things that are regulated by copyright laws work different, they're from and for human intellect and therefore they don't have the limitations of material stuff beyond the stuff that contains the idea (paper, DVDs or whatever).

That's why I said that the internet and other technologies changed everything, before the laws were reasonable because things were easier to control, it was hard to pirate a book, so things worked very similar to how material things work, but that has changed, and the old laws lead to really bad things.

For example, the BSA published this year its study on software piracy for 2011, in Argentina the 69% of software copies are illegal, that means that for software alone 69& of the population should be in jail and paying a lot of money in damages. That is WRONG, no law can be called fair if it criminalizes 69% of the population.

And it's not a matter of more enforcement, because enforcing such law costs a lot of money, you need special police forces, specialised jurisdictions and more prisons, all that costs money. It also has social costs, in order to find and prosecute people you need to have access to a whole lot of information, private information, that affects other rights, you also need to monitor people and that makes people distrust the government and the justice system, which undermines the institutions and the confidence in democracy.

I know everything sounds exaggerated, but even if you take all that with a grain of salt, still is really bad. And all that could be fixed by just making the law fit our societies needs instead of just the right-holders needs. Because, don't fool yourself, artists usually don't gain that much money, yes there're a handful of millionaires around, but the vast majority of artists can't live on the income their work produce.


BTW: I'm going to law school and specialising on intellectual property, so don't take my comments like I'm an angry 4chan troll who wants everything for free from the pirate bay. Of course I have a strong opinion on the topic, but it's based on what I study and not (only) on what I wish things to be.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 11:14 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 10:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, the copyright laws are specifically about intellectual property.

Don't confuse this with patent law.
I don't confuse them, there are differences of course, but essentially the laws are based on the same principle. The only fundamental difference is temporality, intellectual property (that includes, copyright, patents, trademarks and other related rights) is restricted to a timeframe, other forms of property are perpetual. Other than that the differences are superficial.

Patents are even more time-limited than copyright. Trademarks are virtally forever.

Quote:Now for patents and trademarks the laws and the reasons behind them are valid. But not for copyright, because they things that are regulated by copyright laws work different, they're from and for human intellect and therefore they don't have the limitations of material stuff beyond the stuff that contains the idea (paper, DVDs or whatever).

This is a completely daft idea false distinction. Patents and copyrights are both protecting intellectual property.
I have developed software that is patented. I have photographs that are copyrighted. Both are my property. You may use them, but you will pay me because I created them and own them.

Quote:That's why I said that the internet and other technologies changed everything, before the laws were reasonable because things were easier to control, it was hard to pirate a book, so things worked very similar to how material things work, but that has changed, and the old laws lead to really bad things.

What the internet changed was the ease of copying and the ease of theft. It did not change what intellectual property is.

Quote:For example, the BSA published this year its study on software piracy for 2011, in Argentina the 69% of software copies are illegal, that means that for software alone 69& of the population should be in jail and paying a lot of money in damages. That is WRONG, no law can be called fair if it criminalizes 69% of the population.

That is your opinion. "Oh, everybody does it." It is theft. You're starting to sound like a Satanist.

Quote:And it's not a matter of more enforcement, because enforcing such law costs a lot of money, you need special police forces, specialised jurisdictions and more prisons, all that costs money. It also has social costs, in order to find and prosecute people you need to have access to a whole lot of information, private information, that affects other rights, you also need to monitor people and that makes people distrust the government and the justice system, which undermines the institutions and the confidence in democracy.

Yes, protecting our rights has costs.

Quote:I know everything sounds exaggerated, but even if you take all that with a grain of salt, still is really bad. And all that could be fixed by just making the law fit our societies needs instead of just the right-holders needs. Because, don't fool yourself, artists usually don't gain that much money, yes there're a handful of millionaires around, but the vast majority of artists can't live on the income their work produce.

Yes, that's a great argument - let the poor artists starve.

Quote:BTW: I'm going to law school and specialising on intellectual property, so don't take my comments like I'm an angry 4chan troll who wants everything for free from the pirate bay. Of course I have a strong opinion on the topic, but it's based on what I study and not (only) on what I wish things to be.

But you sound just like an angry 4chan troll. Please tell me how you are not. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 11:43 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
I know I can't live on the meager royalties I got from my novel, but that doesn't mean I want some big publishing house to say "Hey, we like this novel, let's publish it ourselves and give the author NOTHING for it."

Much better if a big publishing house says "Hey, we like this novel but the author has all the rights to it, let's buy those rights from him and/or pay him royalties for all of our sales".

Surely there are marketers out there who can take anything and turn a profit on it, as long as they think there is value in what they are selling. Just because I don't know anything about marketing and failed (miserably) to promote my book doesn't mean someone else couldn't make millions with it - with the right marketing effort (even if the book sucks, good marketing could sell it anyway). If someone decides it's worth their effort to market it, I'd like a piece of that pie.

What's more, I think I earned it. My effort, my creativity, my imagination, my hundreds of hours typing it, revising it, proofreading it, making it as awesome as I can. That should be worth something. It wasn't, but not because it's a bad book (not enough people bought it to figure out if it's good or bad), but because I couldn't take it from finished book to actually sitting on bookstore shelves.

But if somebody or some company who already knows how to market a book wants to market ANY book, let them write their own. Let it be their own effort, creativity, imagination, and hundreds of hours of work. If they don't want to do that, or can't (maybe creating the story is not their strong point), then they should pay the guy who does that. Me, for example, if they want to market my book. Or some other author if not me. But the author should be paid for his time and effort.

I fully support this idea for all art. I have never pirated software, never downloaded music without paying for it, never read an online novel unless it was public domain (some good H.P. Lovecraft stuff out there now that his copyrights have expired). I am willing to pay for any art I want to own or consume. I pay the companies that produce/distribute the art because I rarely know how to pay the artist directly, but I trust that these companies pay royalties to the artist because we have copyright laws everywhere to ensure that they do.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 11:51 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 09:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 09:42 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I won't forget about laws because otherwise I'd throw years of university away Tongue

But I'll follow you.
I don't think you're right about what you're saying. I'll agree that if you make a book (lets stay with the book example) you have the right to make a profit, but that doesn't necessarily means that you have the right to SELL it or the right to prevent other to profit from your work in some way.
I know it sounds like an inconsequential semantic babble but it's not, to sell something implies a specific type of contract with specific rules and requirements, one of those requirements is for you to have the property of something and that property implies a whole other set of rights (using, benefiting, destroying the thing, or prevent others from doing so, etc.).
I don't think that those specific rules can be applied directly to the book (the book-idea, not the book-object) and that's where I believe things should change, we should make a set of rules specific for this kind of immaterial "things".
Are you saying that you can print the content of my book and sell those copies without payment to me? Or reproduce my photograph and sell it without payment to me?
Of course you have the right to protect your IP (intellectual property) and you deserve compensation.
However it's not always that cut and dried, Chas. If you write a book and I have a blog that reviews books for free. We'll say it's a hobby -- there's no ads -- I receive no compensation whatsoever. I include picture of you and an image of the book (both downloaded from the web). You or your publisher can actually go after my blog (even if I receive no compensation whatsoever nor do I ask people to pay). Just for reproducing your image and displaying the book. Now, to muddy the waters further, let's say I hate your book. Let's say your book is trash (in my opinion) and I write a scathing review of it. And let's further speculate that I have a blog-buddy who wrote a review of your book also, with the same images, except they loved it. They thought it was great!

Now in this mythical blogging world, your publisher or a representative of you (with or without your direct knowledge) can have my entire blog eliminated with one letter to the host site (be it blogger, wordpress, etc.), claiming copyright infringement. They don't have to give a lot of detail either. Yet, my blog-buddy who loved your book is ignored.

This scenario is actually a very big reality in the blog world where people claim copyright infringement in a rather willy-nilly way.

A good friend published a recipe and someone (won't say who) who published a very similar recipe in a cookbook got her panties in a twist. The friend had no clue about the cookbook. The recipe was something she'd been making for years for parties -- the recipe wasn't even exact. But for a common thing that really has been around for a long time. In fact if you google there are literally thousands of hits -- all are about the same recipe. The image was her own, she'd taken in her kitchen....yet she came under heavy fire for this.

She did win the right to have her blog restored but she's since given up blogging -- she considered taking her blog private so that only certain people can read it but decided but would never increase her readership that way. She did enjoy the fact that people were reading her blog and liked her content.

Thats the problem there's just no continuity and I'll say this -- It has some really good (unaffiliated) bloggers rather nervous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 11:53 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2012 11:58 AM by nach_in.)
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I don't confuse them, there are differences of course, but essentially the laws are based on the same principle. The only fundamental difference is temporality, intellectual property (that includes, copyright, patents, trademarks and other related rights) is restricted to a timeframe, other forms of property are perpetual. Other than that the differences are superficial.

Patents are even more time-limited than copyright. Trademarks are virtally forever.
Yes, those are specific differences for each type of intellectual property

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Now for patents and trademarks the laws and the reasons behind them are valid. But not for copyright, because they things that are regulated by copyright laws work different, they're from and for human intellect and therefore they don't have the limitations of material stuff beyond the stuff that contains the idea (paper, DVDs or whatever).

This is a completely daft idea false distinction. Patents and copyrights are both protecting intellectual property.
I have developed software that is patented. I have photographs that are copyrighted. Both are my property. You may use them, but you will pay me because I created them and own them.
It's not a false distinction, patents protect designs or processes for making goods, that makes the profitability of the invention attached to the supply and demand law.
The protection for trademarks is oriented to protect both the business and the consumer, the trademark by itself has almost no value.
Artistic works have a cultural value, not an economic value, that's why protecting it in the same way doesn't have the same results.
(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:That's why I said that the internet and other technologies changed everything, before the laws were reasonable because things were easier to control, it was hard to pirate a book, so things worked very similar to how material things work, but that has changed, and the old laws lead to really bad things.

What the internet changed was the ease of copying and the ease of theft. It did not change what intellectual property is.
Agreed, that makes the difference between intellectual property and basic property more visible.

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:For example, the BSA published this year its study on software piracy for 2011, in Argentina the 69% of software copies are illegal, that means that for software alone 69& of the population should be in jail and paying a lot of money in damages. That is WRONG, no law can be called fair if it criminalizes 69% of the population.

That is your opinion. "Oh, everybody does it." It is theft. You're starting to sound like a Satanist.
My opinion is not "everybody does it then it should be allowed" my opinion is that no law should make 3/5 of the population criminals, and that's not even an opinion, it's the way laws must be made, there's a purpose for laws and that is to achieve peace and the common good, I highly doubt that making everyone punishable fulfils that purpose.

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:And it's not a matter of more enforcement, because enforcing such law costs a lot of money, you need special police forces, specialised jurisdictions and more prisons, all that costs money. It also has social costs, in order to find and prosecute people you need to have access to a whole lot of information, private information, that affects other rights, you also need to monitor people and that makes people distrust the government and the justice system, which undermines the institutions and the confidence in democracy.

Yes, protecting our rights has costs.
But if the costs are higher than the benefits then it shouldn't be acceptable, and every right has limitations. Is the logic behind anti-trust laws, everyone has the right to make a profit from their work, but if making that profit leads to a trust and that trust hurts the whole economy, then nobody has the right to profit that much. The same logic applies to every right.

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:I know everything sounds exaggerated, but even if you take all that with a grain of salt, still is really bad. And all that could be fixed by just making the law fit our societies needs instead of just the right-holders needs. Because, don't fool yourself, artists usually don't gain that much money, yes there're a handful of millionaires around, but the vast majority of artists can't live on the income their work produce.

Yes, that's a great argument - let the poor artists starve.
Again, I'm not saying that artists shouldn't profit from their work, I say, again, that the current system is at odds with the general interests of society, hence, we should find a better solution that satisfies everyone (as much as possible)

(11-12-2012 11:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:BTW: I'm going to law school and specialising on intellectual property, so don't take my comments like I'm an angry 4chan troll who wants everything for free from the pirate bay. Of course I have a strong opinion on the topic, but it's based on what I study and not (only) on what I wish things to be.

But you sound just like an angry 4chan troll. Please tell me how you are not. Consider
Because I'm giving you the reasons in which I base my opinions and I'm honest enough to acknowledge I have an opinion on the subject (with reasons to sustain it, but an opinion nonetheless). If I sound like a troll is probably because I'm tired and english is not my native language so it's hard for me to phrase things better, cut me some slack in the "sounding" area ok? Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2012, 11:54 AM
RE: are they selectively enforcing copy write law
(11-12-2012 10:34 AM)nach_in Wrote:  For example, the BSA published this year its study on software piracy for 2011, in Argentina the 69% of software copies are illegal, that means that for software alone 69& of the population should be in jail and paying a lot of money in damages. That is WRONG, no law can be called fair if it criminalizes 69% of the population.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Would you live in a country where 69% of the population was raping their neighbors? Would you say that "no anti-rape law can be called fair if it criminalizes 69% of the population"? What about murder, would you live in a country where 69% of the population is murdering their neighbors? Sure, that population wouldn't exist very long, but still, would you live there? What if it was just mutilation, cutting off hands or feet, would you live in a country where 69% of the population was mutilating their neighbors?

Just because a lot of people do something illegal, that doesn't mean laws should be changed to make that thing legal.

Sure, physically raping, killing, or mutilating someone are all much more serious issues than stealing their software. I'm not trying to equate these things things as similar offenses. I am trying to demonstrate that your assertion here is meaningless bias on your part - you obviously feel that copyright is bad so you're willing to use this silly idea that you shouldn't criminalize 69% of a population for doing something that YOU think is OK, but I bet you wouldn't feel the same way if 69% of the population was doing something that YOU think is not OK. If that's true, then your whole argument about not criminalizing 69% of the population is merely a bogus straw man to meaninglessly pretend to support your own notion that copyrights are bad. If that is not true, well, then I don't believe you because NO sane person would want to live in a country where 69% of the population is raping, murdering, or mutilating each other.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: