Page 7 of 19

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:34 pm
by GIThruster
bennmann wrote:But if they download music for free, there is no direct victim. It is the penultimate victimless crime. If they could download a car which was an exact replica and leave the original at the push of a button, they would do that too.

How is it "victimless"? If they don't pay for it, the owner of the copyright doesn't get paid for it. That's why its called "stealing".

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:06 pm
by bennmann
Music is inherently opensource. You can't patent use of sound after it has left someone's mouth, unless you're some sort of totaltarian dictator with perfect Big Brother surveillance.

It's victimless in exactly the same way sound is if a perfect singer heard the artist's singing the song at a club and sang the song exactly as it was to one's friend later and kept singing it to thier friend on request.

Also there's legal precedent in cassette tapes... But I'd have to look up the case I was thinking of to be sure.

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:19 am
by Teahive
GIThruster wrote:Just to be clear: in a world were there are no copyright protections, there is no music, no movies, no games, no creation outside the sciences.

A lot of content is created where the creator either does not care or even actively encourages free sharing, and at least my perception is that the amount is growing. The average quality may be weak, but there is some truly impressive stuff as well. Often the one protection they are looking for is correct attribution, but in most cases of piracy that isn't the issue.

I think kcdodd is spot on, once home fabrication reaches critical mass IP problems will start cropping up in every aspect of the economy. Ultimately I believe it will only take a few decades until people will come to accept that there are only two states for information: private and open, corresponding to whether the information is known to untrusted parties or not.

Having free access to everyone else's ideas will make people richer than trying to sell their ideas ever could.

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:20 pm
by Skipjack
Here is another perspective on the matter. Very good analysis. It seems like this has all been setup from long hand as a means for certain people to regain control of the media and the distribution of information.
Together with certain other laws passed in congress recently, the plot thickens. Basically they will now have a hand full of Volksempfänger media outlets and if you dare "listening to a Fremdsender" they will put you away indefinitely without trial. But that is OK, because nobody will know about that, because they will be in control of the information.
And on top of that, they are pressing this in the rest of the world. Fracking scary shit!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:53 pm
by Helius
GIThruster wrote:So you want to go on record that you support making it easy for people to steal what is not theirs, because they're stealing from "rich people"?

Tell us, do you download movies and music that you know you're supposed to pay for, and yet don't, because you know you're only stealing from "rich people"?

And tell us, how is it people keep pointing us to these links about the bills and yet we're not seeing what the bills actually say?

Looks to me like thieves supporting thievery.


You're forgetting that SOPA will easily make it possible for entities with some modicum of legal wherewithal to STEAL from the public domain. Rest assured, a lot of the political force for the passage of SOPA has in mind the ever encroachment of "ownership" against the public domain.

Your definition of "steal" encompasses the ever increasing legal, not moral definition of "ownership". That definition will continue to expand, driven by the the financial benefit of that encroachment, not *anything* moral. Your position supports the thieves, NOT the innocent and victimized public domain.

It's is a short step from SOPA to where powerful political entities shut down sites that compromise their image. It terms of IP, Currently owners of IP can ALREADY have their IP withdrawn, and may or may not choose to do so. What the heck is wrong with that?

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:57 pm
by Helius
If I choose to put My IP on the public Domain, and you choose to shut down the site without notifying me in advance, are you not STEALING my IP and possibly even my first Amendment rights? Why not just have your IP withdrawn instead?

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:03 pm
by Helius
I'm wondering if GIThruster isn't the bass player for Metallica or something. He maybe just wants a free ride on 30 year old "creativity" or something.

The whole Idea of "ownership" of a bitstream is sorta antiquated. I believe that is why, to this day, when I go see a new movie release, chances are overwhelming that I'm going to see an old fashioned Celluloid film rather than a digital projection. So it goes.

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:02 pm
by Diogenes
What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?




[--img] http://www.law.duke.edu/images/cspd/pdd2012combo_04.jpg [--/img]




http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdoma ... 2/pre-1976

It is my opinion that copyright law needs to be WEAKENED, not strengthened. It ought not be better than patents, which are actually Societally USEFUL.

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:28 pm
by Skipjack
Yeah, the change of laws here is another example of the total BS that is going on in the media. Who benefits from copyrights on an author that is long dead?
The publishers and those that somehow aquired the rights to somebody elses works. Some of them are probably even stolen too. We also have to thank Cher, Yoko Ono and co for these laws so they can keep exploiting the works of long dead spouses and relatives. Once again shows how powerful lobbies influence politics and the regular person is just left in the dust and wonders why all this does not make any sense at all...

Great web site.

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:02 am
by Helius
@ Diogenes
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/shrinking
Thanks for the tremendous web site. I'll thoroughly review it when I have some time....

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:18 am
by Helius
Should Amy or Linda have the ability to shut down all of You Tube, or only have the ability to have the video removed if they're so inclined?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHX7wzx2ps

Props to Linda Ronstadt and Amy Winehouse (God bless and RIP) for not bringing the video down. It is a good example how a youngster can use the public domain to build a creative work on talented people who came before.

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:41 pm
by Skipjack
I think that most of the actual artists have adjusted and are making use of the internet already. E.g. youtube is offering them a good share of the add income and many older or less mainstream songs get more exposure (and thus generate more revenue) on youtube that they are getting on the traditional media. The ones really hating it are the record companies, the old school networks and media outlets who see their influence on opinion and their control of the market go bye bye. They are used to making and breaking artists and literally owning them and the right to all artworks, often even the name. The internet and digital distribution are in many ways a liberation for the artists. We are seeing more and more independent productions gaining popularity and unless the SOPA breaks it, this trend will accelerate. For the consumer this means less expensive access to better art. For the artists this means a better and less expensive way to access a wide audience. The only ones that are suffering are the traditional middle men, the ones that were exploiting the artists and fooling the public. I think they deserve to go away.

Re: Great web site.

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:50 pm
by Diogenes
Helius wrote:@ Diogenes
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/shrinking
Thanks for the tremendous web site. I'll thoroughly review it when I have some time....


You are very welcome. It is in the best interest of everyone if we spread the knowledge.

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:51 pm
by Diogenes
Skipjack wrote:I think that most of the actual artists have adjusted and are making use of the internet already. E.g. youtube is offering them a good share of the add income and many older or less mainstream songs get more exposure (and thus generate more revenue) on youtube that they are getting on the traditional media. The ones really hating it are the record companies, the old school networks and media outlets who see their influence on opinion and their control of the market go bye bye. They are used to making and breaking artists and literally owning them and the right to all artworks, often even the name. The internet and digital distribution are in many ways a liberation for the artists. We are seeing more and more independent productions gaining popularity and unless the SOPA breaks it, this trend will accelerate. For the consumer this means less expensive access to better art. For the artists this means a better and less expensive way to access a wide audience. The only ones that are suffering are the traditional middle men, the ones that were exploiting the artists and fooling the public. I think they deserve to go away.


Hey Skipjack! We agree on something! Maybe you should reconsider your position? :)

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:11 pm
by Skipjack
Hey Skipjack! We agree on something! Maybe you should reconsider your position?

I can live with it. Just dont let it get to your head, alright? ;)