Forums | MacLife

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

It has nothing to do with culture. Stealing is stealing.

U.S. copyright is not based on recognition of any kind of property rights in works.  As Thomas Jefferson pointed out (in a letter about patents that applies equally well to copyrights), property is a social invention designed to prevent perpetual conflict over possession of naturally scarce items (like houses).  If it is possible for everyone to fully possess something (e.g., you and I can both possess a full copy of the Constitution), there is no conflict and no need to invent Government-enforced exclusive "ownership" to solve the non-existent conflict.

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

The problem with that reasoning is that some of those 'free' files aren't supposed to be free. According to the Constitution of this great country the most important reason for copyright law is to advance the useful arts and sciences for the public good. Copyright law was designed to motivate creativity, and offer you a way to protect those creations. If someone wants to rip off your creations that's a big no-no, and that's what this woman was trying to do.

The Constitution allows limited copyright that benefits public ends.  In other words, if dangling a carrot of a certain size will produce a good deal for the public, the Congress is allowed to do that.  There is no Constitutional assertion that copyright is automatically good, and that strong copyrights are automatically better.  There is also no Constitutional authority for granting any copyright that is biased against the public's interest.

You see, copyright is, by definition, an artificial monopoly on free speech.  Thus it is an infringement on freedom of speech, and an infringement on Adam Smith style free markets.  Why does the Constitution allow it at all?

Copyright can help with a market failure that, in modern language, would be known as an "externality" problem.  If you sell "shares" of your naturally scarce development time and resources -- but the resulting work is immediately (in public domain / subject to free market use), people will probably just take the nearly-free copies and not pay you.  Charging artificial monopoly prices for copies can let you recoup development costs, plus a profit.

What the writers of the Constitution expected was that the proper carrots would encourage the creation and publication of more works -- and that those works would then, after a short time (copyright can only be for "limited Times"), fall into the public domain.  Once in the public domain, the public would be able to copy them freely forever and ever.

The first US copyright laws provided for a copyright term of 14 years, renewable once.  They didn't cover music recordings, but if we were using the original terms today, any music recorded before October, 1979 would now be in public domain, providing full benefits to the public.  (Going forward, I doubt if any labels make a go / no-go decision on new albums based on expected revenue in Year 29.)

The problem isn't just (or mainly) that we have people like this woman, taking and perhaps giving copies to total strangers during the copyright period.  It's also that copyright law has gotten tilted in a way that harms the public interest, and that all the attempts at draconian enforcement just keep raising the cost to the law-abiding public without providing any benefits in return.

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

It's not built into culture that the act of double clicking on a song in Kazaa is the digital equivalent of slipping an extra shirt into your shopping bag.

I don't blame it on the culture. I blame it on no home training.

That "no home training" is what's not built into the culture. I agree.

It’s not the thieves that are the problem; it’s the way in which the current media systems are running behind the techno-evolution of today. They would rather go on with the status quo way of operating bull-headedly even though they know it is an obsolete way of conducting business. The music, television and movie industry are on the edge of a techno future void and have no idea whether to jump in or stay out. Just as rufio expressed, it not part of our general culture to consider clicking that button as stealing and I dont think our society will ever change its moral code of behavior to accept this type of action as stealing. It wont go away and GOOD people will continue to do no matter how many people are sued unless these media barrens change the way they operate.

Last edited by MrJ in OZ (2007-10-15 2:07 am)

bratboy wrote:

You stated that those who would question the extent of the judgment in this particular situation are probably engaging in the same behavior themselves.

No I didn't. I said they were the ones using these services, as in dependent upon them. Big difference. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they were against these services.

volk wrote:

When it comes to music, EVERYONE has pirated something at some point or another

That's only an assumption on your part. I know plenty of people who don't need them and have never used them.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is too much propaganda swirling about the actual text of the law

A good example of this is what you said below;

If you've ever made a mix tape, if you've ever loaned a CD to a friend, if you've ripped music to your iPod, etc., you MAY be guilty of copyright violations.

Not true. Please learn copyright law. Here's a good place to start. It's funny how you're whinning about the RIAA, and yet you're perpetuating exactly what they want people to believe. Weird.

The RIAA runs about wildly disseminating false information

Pot, meet kettle...

The RIAA should have to clean up their own house before they are allowed to press charges against individuals.

They and their lobbyist have the law makers in their back pocket. They have no incentive to do what's right for you. The consumer is getting the short end of the stick because of these lobbyist. It's going way further than just copyright law. Trademark law has also been tampered with and the CAN-SPAM Act actually allows spammers to spam. Some people actually call it the YOU-CAN-SPAM Act.  There is only one way to fight this trend and that's for consumers to take the time to learn more about copyright law. The book 'Digital Copyright' by Jessica Litman that I mentioned before is a good place to start because it's not written in legal mumbo-jumbo, plus you can get it for free at the library. Whatever you use to learn more about copyrights - education is going to be your best tool to stop the RIAA/Copyright lobbyist. Once our Senators/Representatives know we're paying attention, they will be forced to fight the pressure from their lobbyist. Until then, expect more of the same

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

No I didn't. I said they were the ones using these services, as in dependent upon them. Big difference. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they were against these services.

Same difference.  They were commenting on the extent of the judgment.  Perhaps you agree with the judgment....what I take issue with is the personal attacks you're leveling at those who disagree with you:  'If you disagree with this judgment, it's probably because you're downloading.'

That's bullsmurf.

MyMac8MyPC wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Same difference.

No, it's not. Just because someone may be downloading a file, doesn't mean that they're a mirror for the site. And I certainly wasn't attacking anyone. If that's what you believe then I apologize.

Do you at all understand what I've been saying?

bratboy wrote:

Do you at all understand what I've been saying?

Could you please be a little more specific? There's a lot of things going on in what you quoted and I think we can both agree that more misunderstanding isn't going to help anyone. Thanks.

Thanks Bratboy. Well first let me say that I wasn't disagreeing with you. Quite the contrary, I think you hit the nail on the head. Having said that people need to be aware that laws are revised all the time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. This law is not cast in bronze. Courts, reverse themselves all the time too. Copyright law has been changed many times. Originally it was set for 14 years of protection. Now because of the record company lobbiest it has been changed to 100 years, undermining the whole purpose of Copyright law. It upsets me to no end that these companies, their money, and their lobbiest are chiseling away at peoples rights, and people do little if anything to protect those rights until it's too late. Case and point, this womans case. If you want to fight the record companies and the RIAA then you need to educate yourself in Copyright law and support organizations like the CCIA. You can learn more by going here. BTW-Apple helps to fund them which is another reason why I'm proud of Apple. If anyone is upset by what has happened to this woman then they'd be wise to support organizations like the CCIA. Only then will copyright law be revised to reflect the best interest of consumers.