Re: OT: Copyrights and copywrongs

Gordon McComb wrote:

mlw wrote:
I disagree, strongly, in fact. One of the base concepts of Copyright,
current RIAA and MPAA efforts aside, is that copying is done "not for
profit" and as precedent and I believe codified as law, that it does not
diminish the value of the work.

When works were difficult to copy, or the copies were inferior, this
made some sense. It didn't pay much to go after casual copying, because
it was a thin minority of the business. Digital copying changes that.
Multiply the incidences of the copies by the ease with which they can be
made, and a work could easily be distributed far wider without pay than
with it. Tell me how this doesn't "diminish the value" the work. In
copyright (not trademark) the value is the total sales.

I think that the copyright business is an accident of technology. I have
been thinking about this for close to a decade. We saw the first rumblings
of this when cassette tapes made copying music easy. Then VCRs, then DAT
tapes, now everything.

It is human nature to take copies of things. It has only been with
technology that "copies" and copying has been a viable business. Now,
technology has taken that away. The value of the work has been diminished
by progress, the very progress, which at an earlier time, created the value
in the first place.

I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just pointing out the facts.
Fortifying business models with laws is also very bad. I read about a case
in Chicago where a publically displayed sculpture could not be photographed
because it violated the artists "intellectual property."

The copyright and IP craze is a bad thing for the US and the arts.

Getting artists and writers paid, is, of course, important, but laws that
feed powerful corporations and harm the rights of individuals is not the
answer.


The analogy is based on news paper. If I fish a newspaper out of the
trash, I have deprived no one of that newspaper. I can read the
newspaper. The copyright owner of the content has not been compensated by
my use. I came across the work under "fair use." I have every right to
use it.

Poor analogy. The cost of the newspaper pays for the printing of that
copy. Newspapers make money on the ads, which you are exposed to the
same as the original purchaser. Magazines and newspapers encourage such
re-reading.

Already agreed.


An even better analogy, for software. If I get a copy of software, who
cares what. It isn't something I would ever buy, but if someone gives me a
copy,

Lame. If you don't value it enough to buy it, why are you using it? If
you're using it and the person who wrote it expected to be paid, then
you're talking something and giving back nothing. That's called
stealing. There is enough good software openly given away that there is
ASBOLUTELY NO reason to make these kinds of excuses.

Time was, we were all able to share our property. I could lend my lawn mower
to fred next door. When I wasn't using it, Fred could. OK, say I have 5
other friends, we set a schedule, Monday through sunday, each gets to use
the mower. Is that wrong?

Now, the software in question, suppose it is backup software, again, I share
it with 6 friends, we each get a night on which we run a backup. Is it now
wrong to share?

Now, think about music, I have a CD, I rip my CD to the hard disk. I have a
computer connected to my stereo in my living room. (Its true) and I rip all
my music with high quality. I have almost 5000 songs on my hard disk. I
don't listen to my music every day. In fact, probably only once a month.
What if I share my music with my friends. There is NO chance any two of use
would be playing the same songs at the same time. Is that wrong?

It is a slippery slope, and a very bad one for society. It is being driven
by powerful corporations and they are harming our rights daily.

I understand and I sympathize with the plight of the authors and artists, as
I have also suffered loss of income, but the big picture is a VERY BIG
picture and we should not lose sight of it.

The problem is not how to ENFORCE copyright with draconian laws, but how to
get the creators compensated, these are two very different things.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Security via hardware?
    ... you have a 'criminal' who is copying a purchased item ... as explicitly guaranteed by their country's laws. ... > DRM will stop the first three of these, only one of which is harmful. ... to dial up a connection and report my activity. ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Main argument pro copyright laws fail its own reason.
    ... The concept of theft from the early days man walked the earth ... I did break the copyright laws. ... even though copying can not remotely be called ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Copyright
    ... value is in the creation of the work, not in copying it. ... risk jailtime or a fine in stealing it, then at that moment the creator has ... Your proposal of abolishing all laws will lead to the Law of the Strongest. ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: the books
    ... Does typing the book into a computer count as copying it? ... had legal access to (including, IIRC, borrowing it from the public ... I know that the laws have since been changed with regards to music at ... The major problem [encountered in time travel] is quite ...
    (rec.arts.books.tolkien)
  • OT: Copyrights and copywrongs
    ... It didn't pay much to go after casual copying, ... I have deprived no one of that newspaper. ... copyright owner of the content has not been compensated by my use. ...
    (comp.robotics.misc)
Loading