|
Grex > Music2 > #279: Napster: Thieves or Coolness? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 206 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 60 of 206:
| 
Sep 9 18:38 UTC 2000 |
Yes - they tend to obey the laws they think *others* should obey - but
probably not very consistently. (I bet almost all drivers that run
red lights get furious when someone else runs a red light and almost
hits them.)
|
md
|
|
response 61 of 206:
|
Sep 9 18:45 UTC 2000 |
Tell us about these "basic human rights" of yours, Rane, the ones that
override the law. Who sez?
|
gull
|
|
response 62 of 206:
|
Sep 9 20:09 UTC 2000 |
I have mixed feelings about intellectual property law. I think people who
create intellectual property are certainly entitled to some sort of
protection. However, that doesn't seem to be how such laws are usually used
today. Instead they're used as weapons by corporations, to hoard ideas and
stifle competition. Take the recent "Disney Amendment" to copyright law.
It does the creator of an idea no good to have his copyright stay in effect
75 years after his death, and I doubt many people are producing more
material because they know the protection will extend that long. It does
help corporations, though.
It particularly galls me that even after a company has made a decision to
take an item out of print, it's still illegal to copy it. This is pure
hoarding. Ideally companies would release such items to the public domain,
but they rarely do. (Some Borland software being an exception.) This is
one case where copying is illegal, but I don't feel it's immoral.
"Look and feel" copyrights are another really hazy area. Where would we be
today if someone had copyrighted the look and feel of the "steering wheel
and pedals" interface to cars? :>
|
krj
|
|
response 63 of 206:
|
Sep 9 21:34 UTC 2000 |
In resp:58 Rane writes:
> I think md gets a little carried away in #56 in making a comparison
> between copyright laws, and laws that intimidate, oppress, or make
> criminal, basic human rights.
You might not feel that way if you'd followed the long-running battle
between the Church of Scientology and its critics on the net.
A debate with a Scientologist runs something like this:
critic: "Scientologists believe we are infested with the spirits of
murdered space aliens."
Scientologist: "This is simply untrue. Scientology is an advanced
philosophy devoted to benefitting humans, blah blah blah."
critic: "Here, I will prove it. Here is a document in which Scientology's
founder lays out the belief in murdered space aliens"
And at this point Scientology responds with legal action for the critic
violating the copyright on the Secret Space Scriptures. Side effects
of these legal actions have included raids by armed federal marshals
on critics' homes and the seizures of their computers and papers
(happened at least three times, courts seem to have decided not to allow
that any more) and the bankruptcy of the critics.
The right to freely exchange information and engage in robust public
debate might trump copyright laws. John Hockenberry had a great essay
on msnbc.com in which he concluded that the defense of the current
copyright system would require "a Stalinist-style licensing system
for the transfer of information."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 64 of 206:
|
Sep 9 23:22 UTC 2000 |
re #54, 57: If you're genuinely puzzled by Rane's response, I think you
can better understand it by considering it a "Serdar Argic"-like reaction
to your mention of the Ten Commandments..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 65 of 206:
|
Sep 10 05:24 UTC 2000 |
Re#61: read the Bill of Rights, md. They are the law, too.
|
krj
|
|
response 66 of 206:
|
Sep 10 09:24 UTC 2000 |
Mike, resp:64 :: Ah. *Lightbulb goes off.* Perhaps Rane is reading
the intro to my essay as stating that tangible property rights have a divine
or supernatural origin, and thus are superior to intellectual
property rights created by mere men, and thus I have triggered his
anti-religion thing.
When I used the example of The Ten Commandments, I meant to express
that "Thou shalt not steal" was embedded in the roots of our culture,
not that it carried divine sanction. The reference to the Lord's
views on scroll copying was, um, humorous.
A simplified and less entertaining way of writing my introduction:
Tangible property rights are rooted in 4000 years of our culture and
they are learned in childhood. They thus become almost instinctual
to normal adults; this is what I mean by saying they carry
"moral force."
Intellectual property rights are only around 300 years old and they
are not taught to children. They are not instinctual to normal adults;
they are almost INCOMPREHENSIBLE to normal adults. This is what I
mean by saying that they do not carry moral force.
The rest of the essay goes on to argue that it is probable that
copyright is not meant to apply to "normal adults," any more than
anti-trust applies to the average citizen.
|
krj
|
|
response 67 of 206:
|
Sep 10 09:47 UTC 2000 |
(I left out the last line: the essay argues that copyright is meant
to apply to businesses.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 68 of 206:
|
Sep 10 10:43 UTC 2000 |
Re 46. Ken, excellent points and historical summary.
Actually, though, even leaving aside land-use regulations, NO property
rights are absolute. If a law is passed which, say, makes something you
own illegal to possess, forcing you to choose between getting rid of it
and breaking the law, you are not owed any compensation by the government.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 206:
|
Sep 10 20:04 UTC 2000 |
(Re #16: if you want to refer to my "anti-religion thing", I will have
to refer to your "pro-superstition thing".)
I agree that the tangible property "laws" go very far back in human history.
That is because life was often dependent upon tangible property (food,
shelter, weapons, and the mean to sustain these), while the idea of
intellectual property did not arise until a society developed in which
it was possible to support oneself with intellectual property. This
was certainly not easily done, and was retricted to those few that could
obtain a patron's support for their artistry, "magic", inventiveness, etc.
However, today, industries large and small have been built upon intellectual
properties. They have become essential for the maintenance and development
of our society. In my opinion, they take an equal standing with tangible
property rights. They have been encoded into law with patents and copyright.
The main difference, however, is that it is much easier to steal
intellecutal property than to steal tangible property. The fact that they
are easier to steal does not change the equivalence of the ownership of
the two. Saying the equivalance is "not instinctual" is a tautology:
of course respect for intellectual property rights is not "instinctual" -
because it is so easy to violate the right.
|
russ
|
|
response 70 of 206:
|
Sep 10 22:59 UTC 2000 |
Taking a physical object deprives someone else of its use, but
there is no such harm from making one's own copy of an object.
Ownership of the object is a natural right (*somebody* has it),
ownership of the idea of the object is not. IP is a construct.
Intellectual property rights are a compromise, authorized by the
Constitution "to promote progress in the useful arts". They are
limited monopolies, and are supposed to compensate inventors and
authors for making their creations public ("patent" is synonymous
with "obvious"); after a time, things go into the public domain
and everyone can make free use of them. 75-year copyright terms
burden the public with the court costs for defending them, and
return nothing to the public. It's time to chop them back. The
copyright term of the original US law was 17 years; that'll do.
|
krj
|
|
response 71 of 206:
|
Sep 11 00:01 UTC 2000 |
Rane, feel free to refer to my "pro-superstition" thing. I'm an atheist.
However, I'm also a student of religion, particularly of Judaism and
Christianity, because I believe it's impossible to get a good grasp
on Western culture and history without studying them.
Rane, please discuss your concept of intellectual property in the
light of the Betamax decision and the Audio Home Recording Act. :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 206:
|
Sep 11 06:17 UTC 2000 |
Re #70: making a copy deprives the author/inventor of the legal right
to compensation.
I'd not holding to any particular patent/copyright law. I agree that
75 year terms are excessive. I'm only maintaining that there should
be patent/coppright protection with reasonable terms and allowances
for special cases *that also further the interests of society* (such
as personal use for educational and scientific purposes).
|
ashke
|
|
response 73 of 206:
|
Sep 11 13:48 UTC 2000 |
Legal right to compensation? That's interesting. You can ask to be
compensated, but you can't force people.
|
gull
|
|
response 74 of 206:
|
Sep 11 14:39 UTC 2000 |
Well, that's the whole problem. The current terms are, on the whole,
neither reasonable nor good for society. And they're steadily getting
worse, not better. I unfortunately don't see this situation improving any
time soon, because the people who have the money are the ones with a vested
interest in having information be restricted as much as possible. And it's
the people with the money who write the laws.
|
ashke
|
|
response 75 of 206:
|
Sep 11 14:56 UTC 2000 |
I wonder about a society that feels entitled to be compensated for everything
rather than sharing anything. People are so worried about being screwed out
of money or recognition, they don't care about people enjoying the friuts of
their labor.
|
jazz
|
|
response 76 of 206:
|
Sep 11 15:42 UTC 2000 |
I can't think of a single society where people produced just because
other people might think their work is cool. I mean, "labour" is the right
term. How would you feel if your employer decided paying you was optional?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 206:
|
Sep 11 16:25 UTC 2000 |
(I just wrote a similar response to Sunny because I leapt before I looked
at #76 - really nice of all these generous people to refuse compensation
from their employers because they want to feel good about sharing....).
The inventors/artists should form their own cartel (that's what it would
be) and seek maximum return to themselves and not to the record companies
- they could even form their own "coop" record companies. Of course, they
would want to strictly enforce copyright laws to prevent theft of their
creations, as that is their due as well as their means of living.
|
jazz
|
|
response 78 of 206:
|
Sep 11 16:43 UTC 2000 |
There are a few artists who've done just that - Ringley from the
Toasters formed the Moon Ska label, and Alain Jorgensen from Ministry formed
the Wax Trax label. Both of which have been accused of perpetuating the
exact same kind of nonsense the major labels have, but they're at least more
broad-minded about who they'll pick up.
|
ashke
|
|
response 79 of 206:
|
Sep 11 16:58 UTC 2000 |
If I could afford to live without income, yes I'd work for free. I LIKE what
I am doing, that is the importnat thing.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 80 of 206:
|
Sep 11 17:08 UTC 2000 |
So do most inventors/artists, I expect - but they don't like having
thier stuff stolen, which seems pretty rational to me. If they want
to give it away, they will. That's their decisions, not the decision
for the thieves to make.
|
jazz
|
|
response 81 of 206:
|
Sep 11 17:37 UTC 2000 |
And, if I'm selling something that's mine, whose business is it to
tell me what I should charge, or whether I should give it away.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 82 of 206:
|
Sep 11 18:11 UTC 2000 |
That's what I said. Did I slip in?
|
jazz
|
|
response 83 of 206:
|
Sep 11 18:17 UTC 2000 |
They're different tacks on the same idea - #80 asserts the creator's
right to their product, #81 disclaims anyone else's.
|
ashke
|
|
response 84 of 206:
|
Sep 11 18:40 UTC 2000 |
Has nothing to do with "thieves" rights. Take for instance, an art gallery
that shows an artists work, but charges no admission. Are they stealing the
work of the artist for not paying to get in, but however are viewing their
work, and can in turn share the experience with others?
|