Sigh ... don't you mean ANOTHER thread about piracy on the Escapist I know where it will go?Corwynt said:A thread about piracy on the escapist? I like where this is going.
Seen it. Don't agree with everything but it's enlightening. And Sony's situation has truly gotten WORSE with their response to the hack, not better. And it's all their fault.2xDouble said:Please, watch this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy]. I think you'll find it enlightening.
Thread over.
How does Paris Hilton achieve her success rather than mooch of her family's wealth? Oh... wait. In a free society you have to accept the decisions of other people even if you don't personally like it.Gindil said:So how exactly is this making my family go out to achieve their own success rather than work to make my success irrelevant?
If they want to do they and ruin their brand it's up to them. And if you want to create something derived from their work then you're not really creating anything new anyways. If you really want to be successful, create your own thing, or ask permission.Gindil said:Better question, how many people remember my stories rather than the estate who wants to lock up and monetize my name? Essentially, Tolkien's estate along with Hemingway's has done just that. You can't write about his books without paying some fee. If you do, and they find out, they sue for damages. That's truly not incentive to create. It's gaming the system created by copyright.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2009/04/18/piracy_causes_nightmares_for_stardock_s_demigodGindil said:Ok... Let's take this a step further. Show me a person that failed because their book was pirated. Show me a movie that failed because someone else distributed it. Show me music that has gained no attraction because of the advent of a digital age.
But yet you said copyright was a nightmare, and right there you say that there are plenty of great things coming out. So are we in a golden age, or a dark age? Pick your side.Gindil said:There are still great TV shows being brought to a new audience... The consumer has more options and ways to spend money. BUT, producers now have more options in their movie delivery options. Foreign movies can ONLY be distributed through Bittorrent or downloads, without being beholden to Hollywood for distribution in Walmart channels. And more books are being made as pdfs as we speak.
Of course you failed to see creators being protected because you haven't gone out and LOOKED for it. You've allowed confirmation bias you selectively perceive articles and factoids that corroborate your point. You don't see the author who is protected in court, because those cases don't get media attention. Copyright doesn't get its praise when it works, only when it doesn't, so your whole world view is skewed by the negative press releases. You say that copyright enforcement destroys the fan base, but that is only correlation not causation. Could it be the creator's imposed limitations on their product that limit the fan base and not copyright itself? That is the solution and not the problem. Strict limitations should be a negative affect on success of a product, but copyright law allows creators to express that right if they want to. Copyright doesn't force creators to do anything, but allows the creators to express their desires.Gindil said:What I've failed to see is creators being protected along with securing livelihoods...
Not in the least, because copying your own tapes is not distribution, and is not infringing on copyright.Gindil said:TheBetamax case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.] disagrees with you.
And if you don't like the actions of the copyright holder, don't spend your money with them. Pirates are wanting to have their cake and eat it too by taking things they want, and to not support the people who make them. They're the ones who are hitting the bees nest. The best way to stop the corporate tyrants is to simply not support them at all, and walk away. If they want to abuse the law, then their greedy reputation will be their downfall. Now if the law itself is unfair, then the constitution protects against abuse, and if there is abuse going on than it's a problem that needs to be addressed. However if I want to limit my fan base and charge 50$ to read a short story, that is my right. If I want to defend my choice in court I can do that. As I said, the incentive is to create open works, but only pirates force that onto other people.Gindil said:The egregious abuses tells me that it's less about protecting rights and is a huge joke, when the abuses are 10x over the limit of the offense.
That is perfectly consistent with my views. Copyright is a choice, pirates on the other hand take that choice away.Gindil said:Further proof that smaller artists barely copyright --> Link [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110207/02222612989/if-artists-dont-value-copyright-their-works-why-do-we-force-it-them.shtml]
And it does, for many reasons. 1: it instills creator confidence. 2: it provides a profit motive. 3: it grants the creator options as how to distribute their work which therefore directly impact their chance of success.Gindil said:Copyright is supposed to be about creating incentives to create.
When you said Shakespeare didn't need copyright so therefore we don't is an argument from tradition and that is a logical fallacy. Your argument is based on a logical fallacy.Gindil said:Yet, you say Shakespeare creating his work is an example of tradition, when he had no incentive to do it other than getting his name out there.
Because of market forces. Beowulf has a novelty of being so old, and there the incentive not to change it.Gindil said:Hell, if copyright was so important to people, why is Beowulf still a celebrated epic poem from the 8-11th century?
You want to talk about tyrannical ownership of a document, look no further than your own example. The Bible was translated to Latin, and it stayed in that language for centuries until the printing press was able to print it in German. For that time, people could not read Latin, hell they couldn't read in their own language. Talk about stifling knowledge, the Catholic church had a monopoly on the Bible. Copyright was not the problem there.Gindil said:For goodness sake, the Bible was created and has been shared for 2000+ years with no copyright claim from the Catholic church!
Of course you ignore the moral issue because that goes completely against your argument. Instead of actually arguing for piracy as a moral issue, and failing miserably, you choose to look at technology only. The moral issue is that Pirates take away the freedom of the creator to do what they want. To argue that the freedom of the creator is less than the good of the collective is an issue no free person can agree with. I'm sorry, but all of the benefits in the world does NOT make piracy right if it takes away the freedom or ownership of the creator. I cannot force someone to take drugs to save their life, and I cannot force an artist to spread their work freely for their own good. Human rights is the foundation of enlightenment ethics, and you cannot simply toss them aside because you want to. Look to bull in the eye and see if you can make a moral argument in favor of piracy.Gindil said:All this time, I have been saying that the moral issues in copyright law are the wrong issue.
Okay you haven't been listening. You're absolutely right that you have the CHOICE to innovate, but it's a CHOICE. The issue I have is with the individual who buys a CD, or a book, or a film, and decides to put it on the net for free. It's still a problem of someone taking something that's already there that doesn't belong to them, but I feel it is that big of a problem. The infringement of rights rests with the person uploading the media in the first place, not nearly as much with the person simply taking something that's already there.Gindil said:The choice you have is to innovate and compete by offering something that pirates don't. That's a far better incentive than the litigation route that our US government is choosing to take at the behest of the failing business models.
Isn't all that enforcement the pirates' own fault in the first place?...Gindil said:Nope, [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/00095113002/ip-czar-report-hits-all-lobbyist-talking-points-warns-more-draconian-copyright-laws-to-come.shtml] if you're dealing all your time in enforcement, that's less time in putting your nose to the grind stone and working to make better products in general.
Well yeah, corporations are going to try to abuse the system. The problem is with the corporations, not the system. As you said, we had Copyright for decades, centuries even, but it wasn't until 1976 that you say it became a real problem. Well why did it become a problem? Laws don't magically appear, they had to be created by someone. So the corporations co-opted with the government to give them an advantage, and you have a problem with everything the copyright laws stand for, not JUST the laws that were created then? I'd say the government and corporate monstrosity created the problem, not the idea of copyright as property protection. To say we then need to give up personal property rights to solve the problem, when you have no evidence to show that a system like that will even work, is totally ridiculous.Gindil said:I've shown more or less how the corporate abuse is destroying the entire system.
I am completely against the special interests. Nowhere have I said that the entertainment industry has been doing things right.Gindil said:And something tells me you aren't looking at what the government is doing in regards to special interests.
I also find that the be an oppressive system, but the principle of private ownership did not create that system. As I said before, many times, I cannot condone the actions of the newer oppressive laws. Right now I feel you're trying to latch onto anything you can use against me, even things I did not say.Gindil said:This is how copyright should be enforced? By simply taking a website without judicial process and a look at prior restraint? I would find that to be a terribly oppressive system that is not flexible, all things considered.
That's what I've been trying to say.Gindil said:Aware of it, but I've found that we're better off with the options given than we are with copyright law. I've just found that there are a number of better ways than copyright to make money. True, if Hollywood doesn't want to take advantage of the options available to them, I can't stop them.
I know you can't stop piracy of their goods. You can only stop yourself from putting the information online. I don't blame you (much) if you take what's already there. If it's free, people are going to take it. If they want to support the artists, they will. And the artists are incentivized to create a better product if they're in the mindset of earning a paying fan base instead of simply selling something. However the problem rests with the person who puts the data on the internet in the first place. I know that if they don't do it, another person will, and that's a problem. The oppressive regime of the media corporations have been handling it wrong, but with a problem as pervasive as this, and yes it is a problem if people's rights are infringed, then are you really surprised they would take such a violent approach? Piracy is, most of the time, good for sales, and it increases recognition, but what are the costs of a system where a person cannot chose how to distribute their work? A system where the masses control the creative property of one person is pretty much mob rule. If the same allowance were around in the renaissance, how long do you think it would be before someone put a mustache on the Mina Lisa and ruined everyone else's fun? At some point you have to let the creator own their property. The creator must choose whether to keep their project pure, or allow the mustache.Gindil said:But neither can I ever stop piracy of their goods. All I've tried to do is point out that all of the evidence points to piracy being as big of a deal as it is.
No it isn't an efficient system, and that's why it's crumbling, and that's why it should crumble. If copyright law is as detrimental as you say, then it will naturally collapse, and the aspects of copyright law that are beneficial will stay. Judging by the track record of the early copyright laws, they survived because a society that had them worked better than a society without. People were better off having ownership and protection of things they created.Gindil said:How I view copyright, it's to make the environment easy. But we're talking 200 years of different copyright law... Every time the wind changed, someone made a complaint that they weren't getting their fair share and tacked on something else to copyright law. Hell man... Have you seen [http://photos.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/rights-loyalties-slide.jpg] all of the issues with copyright law just for music? I tried to make a chart for movies and games one day... Look at that chart and tell me that's an efficient way for an artist and consumer to do business together.
There is a ton of value; I don't dispute that. The part that I dispute is that the entire process should be voluntary. Everything about the economy is based on volunteering in a mutually beneficial relationship. To do what you say means that it is a parasitic relationship, with one party benefiting at the expense of another. You're probably aware of the tragedy of the commons, which means that people take care of their own property better than they take care of someone else's. Give a plot of land private ownership, and the owner will maintain it; give a plot of land to the public, and it will be exploited. To give creative property to the masses, and not the owner, just asks for exploitation.Gindil said:Granted, Creative Commons alleviates some of this by making it clear what type of license you want. But there's more value in sharing with everyone than people care to admit. But I digress on this.
Yes we were better off, but at what expense? Authors in Europe weren't happy, and probably felt disincentivized to create. America was basically a parasite, profiting off the creative potential of the outside world. If American authors didn't come up with new ideas and instead took ideas from Europe, how does that increase the creative potential of society? If someone can rip someone off, they'll do it.Gindil said:You should remember that when the US had weaker copyright laws and didn't allow foreign copyrights into the system, we were much better off with a smorgasboard of books that greatly helped to influence our culture during the 1800s. European authors were mad, but not one thing could be done to stop those infringements on their books. Other thing is, you never know what the book might inspire.
What's almost as bad as communism is democracy (mob rule). Instead of the government making it okay to do whatever egregious deed, all it takes is 51% of the population to agree, and it's done. If you can get 51% of the population to take away the rights of a group of people, it's done. To say the creator has no property, or if you justify someone else taking ownership away without consent is saying that mob rule should decide on how a person distributes their creation. Basically it says throw it to the mob and have them handle it. Instead of the creator going into a mutually beneficial relationship with their buyers, the balance of power shifts in favor of the mob.Gindil said:Nope, I'm not a communist and that's not part of the argument put forth. If you want the government to decide the benefits of society, that won't be a pretty sight.
All very true.Gindil said:And yet... why are people still buying songs on iTunes, Spotify, or anywhere else? I'm more likely to believe that some people pirate. It just happens. Some try before they buy. Not every last download is a lost sale.
And I greatly oppose those efforts to sue people. The punishment should fit the crime, and I would take those guys who fined me to court for violation of the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Not that it would really work, realistically speaking, but I would definitely try. Hundreds of thousands of dollars is not the price of a hundred songs.Gindil said:That's a bone of contention since all of the mass sue em all tactics started...
When you justify piracy, you are justifying the imposing of someone's will onto another. Free distribution and torrent sites are fantastic tools for people to get their stuff our for free. That is a distribution method widely used by many people, and it works well for them. Pirates however are the third party that takes someone's property and puts it on those distribution networks without consent. If the pirates cause someone harm in that manner, it's a bad thing; but even if the pirates cause benefit to someone, it's still a bad thing. The consequences of them doing something good is overridden by their first action of doing something bad: infringing on a person's right to own the result of their work. That is the moral issue here. I cannot force you to take a pill to save your life if you don't want it.Gindil said:In this entire debate we've had, I have merely impressed upon you the various ideas that I see. I don't shove anything at anyone. I do want to make that clear.
Well obviously if they are creating their own unique work then copyright won't be a problem for them. And if they allow people access to that work, they don't have to worry about copyright going against others from their side. I'll agree that some copyright laws can indeed be scaled back, because special interests have usurped the government, but to say pieces are broken, and therefore we should do away with copyright law, is like saying you don't like the speed limit so we have to do away with all traffic laws. Pick what specific aspects of the law you don't like, and begin there, don't take the easy route and just disqualify all copyright laws because a few aspects are negative. Do the ground work. Know what you're against.Gindil said:So the question is... How can so many people create with these copyright problems and make money in the new area and not be bogged by it?
Does a digital copy of a story make it any less yours than a book? I don't think so. the only difference I see between digital and physical items is that digital things can be copied over and over, which creates only one problem that physical copies do not have, and that is the ease of distribution. The song you buy, whether from a CD or direct download, you can modify. Once it is distributed the game changes. Like I explained before, distribution rests with the owner, because they stand to gain or lose from their creation, the stakes are on them, and so should the responsibility.Gindil said:Also, this explains why I feel the term Intellectual Property is actually intellectually dishonest. My words now are the property of a few ideas running in my head. The property you have is in terms of tangible goods in most circumstances. I bought a CD, I buy a book. What's on that is what I am interested in. But digital sources aren't scarce even with industry players trying to make artificial scarcities. Personally, since we're talking about copyrights and piracy, I keep to those words.
I meant "you" as in the plural you, not specifically referring to you, Gindil.Gindil said:Why do you keep insisting that somehow I'm imposing my views on everyone?
1. Let me make it clear that I don't think piracy is doing nearly as much monetary harm as others say it is. It can even be good.Gindil said:I should ask why you feel piracy is causing vast amounts of harm when after Napster, Pirate Bay, and other places, the reason that Hollywood and the music industry aren't richer is because they scare everyone away from doing business with them and won't change their minds.
Do copyright laws themselves cause the problem, or do organizations who abuse copyright cause the problems? If you take copyright law out of the equation vs. taking the organizations out of the equation, you'll get pretty clear answers. If copyright were personal protection for personal property, and you could modify its use to however you want (like a creative commons), there would be far less abuses of the law.Gindil said:Regardless, has greater governmental enforcement actually caused piracy to go down, or increase?
Which people? The creators or the consumers? The creators have freedom, and they should have freedom, because it is the result of their labor. The consumers also have freedom, except when it infringes on the freedom of the creator. The line that gets drawn is drawn by the creator, and if the rules are too strict, consumers will go someplace else. The government and special interests try to move that line just the same way the pirates do. The government limits the freedom of the consumer, and the pirate limits the freedom of the creator. The best answer is to have neither government oppression nor pirate subversion.Gindil said:You say you agree that the system is borked, and yet you make it seem as if these people have no freedom in their choices.
I agree with you wholeheartedly here (except for the 5 year thing, I think creators should decide). Government exacerbating an already charged situation isn't helping, and I think it's overstepping the government's grounds. Ideally the government should provide a court building to allow others to settle disputes and not distribute the law with an iron fist.Gindil said:Finally, a tyrannical position really isn't supported by most small time artists. It's usually those that have the money to lobby and have the government support that tyrannical problem in the first place. I'm sure if you took away copyright (or at least limited greatly to 5 years...) we would actually see a lot more innovation in the entertainment field as people used older ideas infused with newer ones. As it stands, copyright as a monopoly on ideas really has hurt us (*points to public domain link*)
... She's a socialite with her parents able to finance her beginnings. Nowadays, her TV shows provide other forms of revenue. That's all done through contracts but still... I agree she's useless just not that somehow her form of "mooching" is relevant to familial success in copyright causes.Event_Horizon said:How does Paris Hilton achieve her success rather than mooch of her family's wealth? Oh... wait. In a free society you have to accept the decisions of other people even if you don't personally like it.Gindil said:So how exactly is this making my family go out to achieve their own success rather than work to make my success irrelevant?
Permission culture does NOT lead to financial success. There's more evidence of the latter being a detriment in so many ways. Valve wouldn't have as much success with their source engine if people had to ask permission first. Further, as provided by the Crimson Echoes and Silver Knight links, this can truly hurt creativity fostered by the need to tell a unique story. The three members of the Crimson Echoes team weren't trying to be successful. They were fans that wanted to tell a unique story on Chrono Trigger, linking it like Square hasn't done. The Silver Knight story is all about taking care of the loose ends of the King's Quest series. Square has no reps that gave permission, merely lawyers that used the high statutory damages claim to cause a chilling effect. Activision just RECENTLY changed to a better place for mods and older games. Having someone destroy their work on King's Quest is a lot worse because A) King's Quest isn't really viable on the marketplace and B) it does nothing for the love of a fan who is dedicating their time and energy to their own work. Granted, some people respect that wish. It's not right in the slightest. But it happens that others will continue that work for their own reasons. Case in point [http://www.geekosystem.com/fan-made-chrono-trigger-sequel/]...If they want to do they and ruin their brand it's up to them. And if you want to create something derived from their work then you're not really creating anything new anyways. If you really want to be successful, create your own thing, or ask permission.Gindil said:Better question, how many people remember my stories rather than the estate who wants to lock up and monetize my name? Essentially, Tolkien's estate along with Hemingway's has done just that. You can't write about his books without paying some fee. If you do, and they find out, they sue for damages. That's truly not incentive to create. It's gaming the system created by copyright.
Rebuttal - Link to Minecraft [http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596044/how-piracy-works]http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2009/04/18/piracy_causes_nightmares_for_stardock_s_demigodGindil said:Ok... Let's take this a step further. Show me a person that failed because their book was pirated. Show me a movie that failed because someone else distributed it. Show me music that has gained no attraction because of the advent of a digital age.
There's an example of a game's failure as the direct result of piracy. Look, I'm not going to disagree that piracy increases sales. I already said it does. However it is not the pirate's choice. They don't get to choose the benefits of other people. If a person is sick, you cannot force them into a hospital.
Also, let's go back to Demigod for a second:Notch said:Instead of just relying on guilt tripping pirates into buying, or wasting time and money trying to stop them, I can offer online-only services that actually add to the game experience. Online level saving, centralized skins, friends lists and secure name verification for multiplayer. None of these features can be accessed by people with pirated versions of the game, and hopefully they can be features that turn pirates from thieves into potential customers.
So far, it encouraged sales [http://forums.demigodthegame.com/346287]Frogboy said:We aren?t blaming piracy for the fact that the day 0 multiplayer experience absolutely sucked. The issue boiled down to us having put together a multiplayer infrastructure that was designed to handle around 50,000 or so connected users. If the game took off, we would simply add more servers as the load increased.
But what happened was that we ended up with 140,000 connected users, of which about 12% were actually legitimate customers. Now, the roughly 120,000 users that weren?t running legitimate copies of the game weren?t online playing multiplayer or anything. The issue with those users was as benign as a handful of HTTP calls that did things like check for updates and general server keep alive. Pretty trivial on its own until you have 120,000 of them. Then you have what amounts to a DDOS attack on yourself.
No... I've seen more people shy away from the major record labels and I'm watching more people create with smaller resources. You want to say the author is "protected" but that protection by Salinger is a ban on books. Last I checked, McCarthyism didn't work. And the proof of copyright enforcement doing wanton destruction is in the ICE takedowns. It has dire consequences with our ability to tax US domain sites [http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-domain-exodus-continues-as-torrentz-dumps-com-101218/]. It's also in the fact that More [http://torrentfreak.com/makers-of-the-expendables-sue-6500-bittorrent-users-110208/] and more [http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-sues-hotfile-cyberlocker-service-110209/], the enforcement angle is like fighting terrorism... Once you put down one threat, about 500 more pop up because of your actions. We don't need protection for old business models. We need people to realize that those ones and zeroes are potential to sell other things than overinflated DVDs. I have hard drive space, I like games, I like movies, and I like music. Whether I get it from TPB, torrentfreak, or Blizzard shouldn't matter (btw, there ARE private servers for WoW. Though not technically legal, that's another area that shows that piracy could anecdotally increase sales of the original games. Still, some people play for $15 a month for things other than the price.)Of course you failed to see creators being protected because you haven't gone out and LOOKED for it. You've allowed confirmation bias you selectively perceive articles and factoids that corroborate your point. You don't see the author who is protected in court, because those cases don't get media attention. Copyright doesn't get its praise when it works, only when it doesn't, so your whole world view is skewed by the negative press releases. You say that copyright enforcement destroys the fan base, but that is only correlation not causation. Could it be the creator's imposed limitations on their product that limit the fan base and not copyright itself? That is the solution and not the problem. Strict limitations should be a negative affect on success of a product, but copyright law allows creators to express that right if they want to. Copyright doesn't force creators to do anything, but allows the creators to express their desires.Gindil said:What I've failed to see is creators being protected along with securing livelihoods...
The MPAA fought on this one hard and I'll say they lost. Now we have an abundance of goods, not a scarcity. If they want to remain solvent, they can make their own Netflix option and work with smaller creators of content. If they go down the road they're going, they'll look all the more like Luddites and all the more like they're out of touch with today's reality.Not in the least, because copying your own tapes is not distribution, and is not infringing on copyright.Gindil said:TheBetamax case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.] disagrees with you.
*scratches head*And if you don't like the actions of the copyright holder, don't spend your money with them. Pirates are wanting to have their cake and eat it too by taking things they want, and to not support the people who make them. They're the ones who are hitting the bees nest. The best way to stop the corporate tyrants is to simply not support them at all, and walk away. If they want to abuse the law, then their greedy reputation will be their downfall. Now if the law itself is unfair, then the constitution protects against abuse, and if there is abuse going on than it's a problem that needs to be addressed. However if I want to limit my fan base and charge 50$ to read a short story, that is my right. If I want to defend my choice in court I can do that. As I said, the incentive is to create open works, but only pirates force that onto other people.
It looks like you want to lump all pirates into the same category...That is perfectly consistent with my views. Copyright is a choice, pirates on the other hand take that choice away.Gindil said:Further proof that smaller artists barely copyright --> Link [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110207/02222612989/if-artists-dont-value-copyright-their-works-why-do-we-force-it-them.shtml]
1 - If all the "sue em all" lawsuits have proven, creator confidence in something not being pirated is a false incentive.And it does, for many reasons. 1: it instills creator confidence. 2: it provides a profit motive. 3: it grants the creator options as how to distribute their work which therefore directly impact their chance of success.Gindil said:Copyright is supposed to be about creating incentives to create.
When you said Shakespeare didn't need copyright so therefore we don't is an argument from tradition and that is a logical fallacy. Your argument is based on a logical fallacy.[/quote]Gindil said:Yet, you say Shakespeare creating his work is an example of tradition, when he had no incentive to do it other than getting his name out there.
Because of market forces. Beowulf has a novelty of being so old, and there the incentive not to change it.[/quote]Gindil said:Hell, if copyright was so important to people, why is Beowulf still a celebrated epic poem from the 8-11th century?
You want to talk about tyrannical ownership of a document, look no further than your own example. The Bible was translated to Latin, and it stayed in that language for centuries until the printing press was able to print it in German. For that time, people could not read Latin, hell they couldn't read in their own language. Talk about stifling knowledge, the Catholic church had a monopoly on the Bible. Copyright was not the problem there.[/quote]Gindil said:For goodness sake, the Bible was created and has been shared for 2000+ years with no copyright claim from the Catholic church!
... Why does it matter? If one person didn't do it, someone else would. The incentive to be first in hacking circles in breaking the new DRM is one incentive. Making a superior product to the maker (ie, no DRM in music, etc.) is another incentive. People have different reasons for breaking a DRM or putting things out in certain formats. I fail to see how a dissonance in values = less opportunities for an author that takes advantage of it. The Neil Gaiman link shows exactly that problem being fixed. Russia is HUGE on piracy because of a price differentiation between US sellers of goods and Russian sellers. If it's too high, well... This happens [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_201/6059-A-Nation-of-Pirates]. I think where we're not connecting is the cause and effect. This story about Brazil going from legitimate to pirate country may help to show where I stand on copyright law. It doesn't matter if someone thinks it's just or right. Can you avoid it, can you ensure you're making money, and can you compete?Okay you haven't been listening. You're absolutely right that you have the CHOICE to innovate, but it's a CHOICE. The issue I have is with the individual who buys a CD, or a book, or a film, and decides to put it on the net for free. It's still a problem of someone taking something that's already there that doesn't belong to them, but I feel it is that big of a problem. The infringement of rights rests with the person uploading the media in the first place, not nearly as much with the person simply taking something that's already there.
If the business model is failing, then why are pirates increasing sales by pirating? Leave them alone and let them fail.
Nope. Cause and effect don't follow each other here.Isn't all that enforcement the pirates' own fault in the first place?...Gindil said:Nope, [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/00095113002/ip-czar-report-hits-all-lobbyist-talking-points-warns-more-draconian-copyright-laws-to-come.shtml] if you're dealing all your time in enforcement, that's less time in putting your nose to the grind stone and working to make better products in general.
Well yeah, corporations are going to try to abuse the system. The problem is with the corporations, not the system. As you said, we had Copyright for decades, centuries even, but it wasn't until 1976 that you say it became a real problem. Well why did it become a problem? Laws don't magically appear, they had to be created by someone. So the corporations co-opted with the government to give them an advantage, and you have a problem with everything the copyright laws stand for, not JUST the laws that were created then? I'd say the government and corporate monstrosity created the problem, not the idea of copyright as property protection. To say we then need to give up personal property rights to solve the problem, when you have no evidence to show that a system like that will even work, is totally ridiculous.[/quote]Gindil said:I've shown more or less how the corporate abuse is destroying the entire system.
Thomas Jefferson said:If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
No, but it seems you want to support the system, just to a smaller extent. That of personal artists when I'm actually showing that artists don't necessarily need it in the manner currently being used. If you look on Nina Paley's site, she has a great notice for how to have copyright work for artists. CC licensing is great (but I'm still leery about the ND, NS clauses... Too oppressive). The main people that use copyright law in its entirety is the bigger fish of record labels and movie labels, which is where I focus most of the disdain on. Any author or artist that feels those laws work well raise my ire unless they can be educated. I think I told the story about the one artist that lost my respect by calling me ignorant in copyright law and how to make money in new ways? Problem was, piracy had nothing to do with me telling 5 of my closest friends to check out her words and see if they wanted to support her. Bad news travels fast...I also find that the be an oppressive system, but the principle of private ownership did not create that system. As I said before, many times, I cannot condone the actions of the newer oppressive laws. Right now I feel you're trying to latch onto anything you can use against me, even things I did not say.Gindil said:This is how copyright should be enforced? By simply taking a website without judicial process and a look at prior restraint? I would find that to be a terribly oppressive system that is not flexible, all things considered.
We agree that the corps are reacting violently to a paradigm shift. We agree it can't be changed. We accept that it's here to stay and those in power are fighting a losing battle.I know you can't stop piracy of their goods. You can only stop yourself from putting the information online. I don't blame you (much) if you take what's already there. If it's free, people are going to take it. If they want to support the artists, they will. And the artists are incentivized to create a better product if they're in the mindset of earning a paying fan base instead of simply selling something. However the problem rests with the person who puts the data on the internet in the first place. I know that if they don't do it, another person will, and that's a problem. The oppressive regime of the media corporations have been handling it wrong, but with a problem as pervasive as this, and yes it is a problem if people's rights are infringed, then are you really surprised they would take such a violent approach? Piracy is, most of the time, good for sales, and it increases recognition, but what are the costs of a system where a person cannot chose how to distribute their work? A system where the masses control the creative property of one person is pretty much mob rule. If the same allowance were around in the renaissance, how long do you think it would be before someone put a mustache on the Mina Lisa and ruined everyone else's fun? At some point you have to let the creator own their property. The creator must choose whether to keep their project pure, or allow the mustache.Gindil said:But neither can I ever stop piracy of their goods. All I've tried to do is point out that all of the evidence points to piracy being as big of a deal as it is.
No it isn't an efficient system, and that's why it's crumbling, and that's why it should crumble. If copyright law is as detrimental as you say, then it will naturally collapse, and the aspects of copyright law that are beneficial will stay. Judging by the track record of the early copyright laws, they survived because a society that had them worked better than a society without. People were better off having ownership and protection of things they created.[/quote]Gindil said:How I view copyright, it's to make the environment easy. But we're talking 200 years of different copyright law... Every time the wind changed, someone made a complaint that they weren't getting their fair share and tacked on something else to copyright law. Hell man... Have you seen [http://photos.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/rights-loyalties-slide.jpg] all of the issues with copyright law just for music? I tried to make a chart for movies and games one day... Look at that chart and tell me that's an efficient way for an artist and consumer to do business together.
BS, I say [http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/drool-britannia-did-weak-copyright-laws-help-germany-outpace-the-united-kingdom.ars]. Same problem occurs, if the book is too expensive to import, I find another source that's cheaper. Germany took advantage of it, so did the US back in the say. The result is a plethora of books that are quickly divulged unlike London in the 1700s.Yes we were better off, but at what expense? Authors in Europe weren't happy, and probably felt disincentivized to create. America was basically a parasite, profiting off the creative potential of the outside world. If American authors didn't come up with new ideas and instead took ideas from Europe, how does that increase the creative potential of society? If someone can rip someone off, they'll do it.
Sound familiar? Remember when I talked about pdfs costing more than a hardcover book? Same problem, where people WILL find the cheaper solution. If the price is fair to the consumer, then they buy. If not, they go elsewhere. Basic economics says that the net result of piracy is the fact that digital software is not an agreed upon price. Unless you can control the market (*hint* 90s Microsoft) you need to find ways to make people love you (*hint pirated Adobe) Sometimes, the results are more brand loyalty which pay off in the long run.But there are other concerns to be vetted. Even if we expand the discussion beyond Germany, it appears that we're really talking about world copyright policy versus London and its immediate environs. True enough, with the Statute of Anne in cement by the 1770s, "the general practice [among London booksellers] was to publish new books in low volumes and at high prices," historian Starr notes. "The trade was still able to restrain price-cutting."
What's almost as bad as communism is democracy (mob rule). Instead of the government making it okay to do whatever egregious deed, all it takes is 51% of the population to agree, and it's done. If you can get 51% of the population to take away the rights of a group of people, it's done. To say the creator has no property, or if you justify someone else taking ownership away without consent is saying that mob rule should decide on how a person distributes their creation. Basically it says throw it to the mob and have them handle it. Instead of the creator going into a mutually beneficial relationship with their buyers, the balance of power shifts in favor of the mob.[/quote]Gindil said:Nope, I'm not a communist and that's not part of the argument put forth. If you want the government to decide the benefits of society, that won't be a pretty sight.
When you justify piracy, you are justifying the imposing of someone's will onto another. Free distribution and torrent sites are fantastic tools for people to get their stuff our for free. That is a distribution method widely used by many people, and it works well for them. Pirates however are the third party that takes someone's property and puts it on those distribution networks without consent. If the pirates cause someone harm in that manner, it's a bad thing; but even if the pirates cause benefit to someone, it's still a bad thing. The consequences of them doing something good is overridden by their first action of doing something bad: infringing on a person's right to own the result of their work. That is the moral issue here. I cannot force you to take a pill to save your life if you don't want it.[/quote]Gindil said:In this entire debate we've had, I have merely impressed upon you the various ideas that I see. I don't shove anything at anyone. I do want to make that clear.
Notice the ones that complain about piracy. Notice the ones failing. The ones that fail to take advantage of these things are usually the same ones that will point a blind finger at piracy instead of finding solutions. I love my old games, but they're not supported on the most recent systems. Nintendo no longer makes the SNES. NO ONE has brought Dragon Force (Sega Saturn) to the PC... Emulators are legal. Yet Roms are not...You're absolutely right that artists have gone into different avenues of distribution and marketing, and yes they are successful, but that is not relevant to the debate here. Whether or not they succeed or fail has no consequence of a third party taking something that doesn't belong to them. In the end, anyone who desperately holds onto their creation will lose because of others who endorse other methods, but it isn't up to a pirate to manipulate a system they have no stake in. The companies will fail on their own; they don't need anyone's help.
Well obviously if they are creating their own unique work then copyright won't be a problem for them. And if they allow people access to that work, they don't have to worry about copyright going against others from their side. I'll agree that some copyright laws can indeed be scaled back, because special interests have usurped the government, but to say pieces are broken, and therefore we should do away with copyright law, is like saying you don't like the speed limit so we have to do away with all traffic laws. Pick what specific aspects of the law you don't like, and begin there, don't take the easy route and just disqualify all copyright laws because a few aspects are negative. Do the ground work. Know what you're against.[/quote]Gindil said:So the question is... How can so many people create with these copyright problems and make money in the new area and not be bogged by it?
Er... If I have a book of Tale of Two Cities and a friend wants to see it, I'm not going to go and ask Charles Dickens for permission, nor his estate. Same thing if we are both playing Starcraft with one copy. Finally, if I have music, I'm not paying them a quarter because 3 extra people heard it instead of me. The devil is in the details of how the owner wants to limit what I do with media. Whether these rules apply to these small examples or me making a pdf of a book and posting online, it's a decision that people make. All people can do is use it wisely.Does a digital copy of a story make it any less yours than a book? I don't think so. the only difference I see between digital and physical items is that digital things can be copied over and over, which creates only one problem that physical copies do not have, and that is the ease of distribution. The song you buy, whether from a CD or direct download, you can modify. Once it is distributed the game changes. Like I explained before, distribution rests with the owner, because they stand to gain or lose from their creation, the stakes are on them, and so should the responsibility.Gindil said:Also, this explains why I feel the term Intellectual Property is actually intellectually dishonest. My words now are the property of a few ideas running in my head. The property you have is in terms of tangible goods in most circumstances. I bought a CD, I buy a book. What's on that is what I am interested in. But digital sources aren't scarce even with industry players trying to make artificial scarcities. Personally, since we're talking about copyrights and piracy, I keep to those words.
1) true. 2) It keeps getting worse... 3) Mmmm... Look at what I posted about blocking Google TV... 4) And yet... You're not showing #4... If anything, #4 is more a myth if artists are using other means to gain fanhood, readers, and devotees... I've been saying that it's a paradigm shift. What you're watching is the last dying breath of those imposing copyright laws for control. More and more, I believe you'll hear artists listening to their fan base more than the major labels. Link [http://torrentfreak.com/why-most-artists-profit-from-piracy/]1. Let me make it clear that I don't think piracy is doing nearly as much monetary harm as others say it is. It can even be good.Gindil said:I should ask why you feel piracy is causing vast amounts of harm when after Napster, Pirate Bay, and other places, the reason that Hollywood and the music industry aren't richer is because they scare everyone away from doing business with them and won't change their minds.
2. If Hollywood and the music industry are failing because they are forcing fans out, they will fail on their own, not because that copyright itself is bad, but because they are using copyright law badly.
3. If pirates do increase revenue, then pirating Hollywood movies and music is only keeping the juggernaut alive, therefore increasing the problem.
4. What harm pirates do is to the individual creator's rights by taking away ownership control, even if it is for their benefit.
In conclusion we could say that music is more alive than ever before, that piracy is a tool to build a fanbase, and that the times when the music industry could dictate what we were listening to are over.
And that?s a good thing?
If copyright were allowed to expire, there wouldn't be a problem. But by the time you get through that mess, your idea is probably out of date.Do copyright laws themselves cause the problem, or do organizations who abuse copyright cause the problems? If you take copyright law out of the equation vs. taking the organizations out of the equation, you'll get pretty clear answers. If copyright were personal protection for personal property, and you could modify its use to however you want (like a creative commons), there would be far less abuses of the law.Gindil said:Regardless, has greater governmental enforcement actually caused piracy to go down, or increase?
Odd wording... That seems closely thin to a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" considering what people do anyway.Which people? The creators or the consumers? The creators have freedom, and they should have freedom, because it is the result of their labor. The consumers also have freedom, except when it infringes on the freedom of the creator. The line that gets drawn is drawn by the creator, and if the rules are too strict, consumers will go someplace else. The government and special interests try to move that line just the same way the pirates do. The government limits the freedom of the consumer, and the pirate limits the freedom of the creator. The best answer is to have neither government oppression nor pirate subversion.Gindil said:You say you agree that the system is borked, and yet you make it seem as if these people have no freedom in their choices.
Gindil said:Finally, a tyrannical position really isn't supported by most small time artists. It's usually those that have the money to lobby and have the government support that tyrannical problem in the first place. I'm sure if you took away copyright (or at least limited greatly to 5 years...) we would actually see a lot more innovation in the entertainment field as people used older ideas infused with newer ones. As it stands, copyright as a monopoly on ideas really has hurt us (*points to public domain link*)
*ahem*I agree with you wholeheartedly here (except for the 5 year thing, I think creators should decide). Government exacerbating an already charged situation isn't helping, and I think it's overstepping the government's grounds. Ideally the government should provide a court building to allow others to settle disputes and not distribute the law with an iron fist.
But like I said further up the page, there are aspects of the copyright law that do not work, and you haven't identified those. You've just painted copyright with a wide brush. The specifics you've given have dealt with particular abuses of the law, but that is the result of confirmation bias. You haven't identified the things that work, and yes there are plenty of things that work. It's no different than the people who write off capitalism because there are one or two things (they think) don't work, when they don't entirely understand the system.
Any time someone uses a single word to describe our culture, I can only think of how they simplistically generalize everyone and everything. You haven't even defined what a permission culture is, so I have very little motivation to take that claim seriously.Gindil said:Permission culture does NOT lead to financial success
Did they own the Chrono series? No.Gindil said:The three members of the Crimson Echoes team weren't trying to be successful.
Who knows. There are no data to support either side, so your question is at best rhetorical.Gindil said:Did this hurt Square's sales on a game that they have yet to update (in this case Chrono Cross)
Depends if the cease and desist letter didn?t work. If the team continued anyways, then yes litigation was the only outcome.Gindil said:Did their copyright infringement need to be litigated away?
It wasn't really their work, was it? They didn't make the sprites, or program the code much. They didn't make the original game, or come up with the original concept. They had no stake in the success or failure of the Chrono series, but Square did. It seems the only thing the Crimson Echoes team did was take the work of someone else and do whatever they wanted to with it. Granted they had good intentions, but regardless, they basically stole and used someone's property without permission for their own success.Gindil said:It was far easier to just destroy their work, posting it on Youtube to show what could have been.
But pirates can just as easily destroy the lives of the author, writer, musician, and movie crew. You say you don't want power in one person, but the alternative is to have the majority overpower the minority. So what is the solution? The best answer is a society where nobody has power over anyone; that everyone can live freely by their wish, as long as it doesn?t hurt others. If you agree with that statement, then you disagree with your own argument, because pirates prevent creators from living freely. Deciding to keep my work to myself does not hurt anyone at all. I do no harm to them. Opening my work to the world can benefit people, but there is a difference between harming someone, and not benefitting them. The former is negative force, the latter is neutral.Gindil said:Those are far better questions of an author destroying lives by a long legal court battle over economics.
Or, you could create your own concept and add to the pool of knowledge. How are you making a new idea when you take the ideas of others? Your stance appears hypocritical: you say you want to use the ideas of others to enrich society, but you don't actually come up with any new ideas to enrich society.Gindil said:If I had to ask permission to use either orcs, it would truly cause the numbers of books on the subject to decrease considerably.
Notch's personal opinion is not a real good rebuttal?Gindil said:Rebuttal
So you blame the hammer, and not the person driving the hammer.Gindil said:I rail against copyright being used as a hammer with the consumer being the anvil
And how does copyright law actually enforce anything? Copyright law is a concept, and it's not a physical person. The things you really don't like are people using copyright law to their fullest extent, yet you don't address that. You should be blaming the arm for swinging the hammer, as the hammer itself is just a hammer, and cannot swing on its own. How about you blame the government who created the corporations? How about you blame the government for making special copyright laws for them? Well, in a small way I guess you have, but yet within your minute and specific condemnation of those institutions you throw out the principle of copyright law with them. It would be the same as disregarding all traffic laws because there are laws that the government enforces too harshly.Gindil said:the enforcement angle is like fighting terrorism...
That is simply an excuse used as a justification. The energy and time it takes to "catch" a pirate has no bearing on piracy's legitimacy.Gindil said:It takes more time to take down the greedy people than it does to watch others
I don't know how many times I have to say it until it sinks in, but I'll say it again. It doesn?t matter. It makes no difference on a person's personal choice how to be successful with their creation. You keep showing me alternative business models and calling it evidence, when everything you've said about business models has nothing to do whatsoever with the ethics of pirating. You've put so much energy into this non sequitur. You legitimize the power of the pirates to manipulate anything that's created instead of allowing the person that actually creates it to control their own livelihood. Pirates have no stake in the success or failure, so they should get no say in the process. Creators should never be in competition with themselves, and pirates cause that conflict of interest.Gindil said:Give them less of a reason and they'll buy from you.
Not at all. Creator confidence also has to do with fears of theft, not just piracy. Suing someone has no basis on their confidence if the creator thinks the accused broke the law. And let's be honest here, it's not the creators doing the suing, it's the publisher/movie studio/record label. Creators need to know that they will be protected if someone tries to plagiarize or profit off their work without supporting them, and copyright provides that protection. Copyright allows the creator to directly control their success and it therefore establishes the means for them to earn their livelihood.Gindil said:1 - If all the "sue em all" lawsuits have proven, creator confidence in something not being pirated is a false incentive.
And yet you try to connect it with copyright law. The law is simply a tool for people to use. If you don't like how people use the law, then make an argument that the people are wrong, or that the tool is too powerful. As it stands, you reject the tool outright. It's a very simplistic position you hold.Gindil said:2 - ... Have we not discussed the litigation route being incredibly flawed
And if I break you leg, there are plenty of other ways to get around. Like I said, that is a non sequitur. The choices a creator has are independent of the ethics of pirating. The issue here is that pirates take away choice, imposing their will on the creator's fundamental human rights, so therefore piracy is wrong. It also causes a conflict of interest in which the creator must compete with their own creation and not just the creations of others.Gindil said:Once it's distributed, you can find other ways to make money flow.
It's not that Shakespeare isn't relevant, it's that the argument you use with Shakespeare as an example is simply wrong. Had someone changed Shakespeare's writing over the course of time, it would be less valued because of the editions. The same argument can be applied to Beowulf. Looking back at the Epic of Gilgamesh, the reason why it is so prized is because it has remained intact and uncorrupt for so long. Do you think the world's oldest story would be so valuable if it had been changed along the way? To some people it would be a problem. If one wanted to chronicle life in the 1920's in an element of fiction, don?t you think they have the right to prevent people from making spinoffs or sequels decades, even centuries into the future in order to keep their work pure and uncorrupted by cultural revisionism? Perhaps they wanted to have their work untouched by subsequent authors because their characters were members of their own family, or the plot was based on their own life's events. To say they cannot have their right because it benefits society means that you are sacrificing the rights of one for the good of many. The way to innovate past this is to allow other creators to make their own work. As long as others are still allowed to create new ideas, progress will not be stifled.Gindil said:If Shakespeare is supposedly not relevant, yet Beowulf is, there's an issue.
That is simply not correct. The story could have been derived from many works, but the completed manuscript has remained unedited over the years, and that is partially the reason why it is so valued.Gindil said:Beowulf was about adding to the story and putting your own parts to the epic tale of a warrior king.
Yet that doesn?t make your point valid. Also what proportion are these artists compared to the whole? I can link you to "scientists" who think Jesus rode a velociraptor, yet they are a tiny minority. Just because you can link to a handful of artists doesn?t mean the majority take that route. It doesn?t matter what route the artists choose or how many choose it because my point is that it should only be their choice. Only the artist should get to choose to give away their stuff for free. The pirate shouldn't.Gindil said:Yet, with every link, I show artists that see it in different ways.
And that I can agree with you. My argument has only been on the principals of copyright, in that it gives protection and freedom to the creator. Now how much protection that amounts to is certainly up for debate, but you don't seem interested in even entertaining the ideas of copyright's benefits. That is a very simplistic perspective.Gindil said:And, after finding out the reasons to gain from copyright such as the Performance Rights Organizations, the Copyright Boards, the mechanical rights accrued, and all the ways that copyright is used to nickel and dime artists and consumer alike, it's a bloated thing that needs a massive overhaul from the monster it is today.
That is hardly a good justification.Gindil said:If one person didn't do it, someone else would.
It's not that pirates have bad values. When one talks about ethics, they don't talk about the content of the person's character, but the specifics of their actions. A bad person can do something good, and something good can be harmful. As I said before, we live in a free society that protects the rights of individuals. People who create something own it, and they have the freedom to release it as they please. Pirates who take work and submit it to torrent sites or release it to the internet break that freedom by choosing for someone else without their consent. What you call permission culture is actually human rights. Outside of my own choices I cannot force someone to do something they don't want, no matter how harmful, beneficial, or mundane. That is the basic ethical principal of the free world. Pirates who distribute work break that principal, so the ethics of their actions are clear.Gindil said:I fail to see how a dissonance in values = less opportunities for an author that takes advantage of it.
Okay, I concede that. But they are privileges under the law for a creator, and therefore owner of the work to secure their livelihood through any method of distribution they choose. As I said, because the creator of something owns it as property, and because their livelihood depends on their ability to profit from it, such rights of distribution are solely given to them. Anyone who distributes the author's work without their consent is infringing on their ability to secure their own livelihood.Gindil said:Copyright laws are NOT personal property protection.
Consumers get to use the things they buy however they want, except for distribution, because that impacts the creator?s wellbeing. The consumer doesn?t profit from distribution anyways, so there is no financial justification for them doing it. To put the consumer's freedom above the freedom of the creator means you are giving control to the masses, which can cause undesirable effects on the creator.Gindil said:I'm strong on consumer choice in how they obtain their media.
I never said the technology was bad. Torrents are just tools. It only becomes a problem when media is shared without direction of the creator. If the creator decides to release it on a torrent site for free, then there is no problem.Gindil said:I don't want to limit the technology because someone else decries its bad.
If you were the author, you would be protected too. The only time you get to apply the law however you see fit is when you're in the position to where the law protects you. You want to allow freedom, great, you want to own everything about your creation, you can. Others cannot override your decision, and the law grants you protection from that.Gindil said:But decrying that somehow, the author needs to be protected from me and what I want to do is ridiculous.
Their words only talked about ideas; copyright doesn't apply to ideas.Gindil said:[The Founders] had words:
Of course they don't specifically *need* to go down those routes, but anyone can choose them. What we have is a problem of choice here: pirates usurp the choice of creators.Gindil said:I'm actually showing that artists don't necessarily need it in the manner currently being used.
It's important to remember the extent of mercantilism in England at the time. It seems the problem wasn't the ideas that were restrained, but the monopolies and business cartels that kept the prices up. The difference between the past and our current state is that those books were reduced to a cheaper price not given away for free, and it is not known what kind of privileges the creator had in distributing their work. Now we can distribute information without restraint of businesses, where as it was a problem at the time. The current problem is that the decision to distribute is not being kept with the creator, but by a third party. But I ask you this, do you know how many new works were being created in the other countries at the time? The figures I read dealt with the number of books, not the content of said books. How do you know any new ideas were being spread at all? You?re also taking a LOT for granted here.Gindil said:Same problem occurs, if the book is too expensive to import, I find another source that's cheaper.
Copyright doesn't address that, so you don't have a problem there. If you were to copy the pages and send it to him over the internet instead of mailing him the book then it would technically be a problem. Understand what copyright doesn't protect: ideas, resale, personal modification, etc. Copyright protects the right to copy. Huh, now I wonder where they got the name from?Gindil said:Er... If I have a book of Tale of Two Cities and a friend wants to see it, I'm not going to go and ask Charles Dickens for permission, nor his estate.
This goes back to the tragedy of the commons. People are unwilling to take care of someone else's property as well as they take care of their own. Someone will be much more selective of how they distribute their own work as opposed to someone else's work.Gindil said:Whether these rules apply to these small examples or me making a pdf of a book and posting online, it's a decision that people make. All people can do is use it wisely.
And that should be left up to the artist, not a third party.Gindil said:Individual artists should have choice but all of the good points of getting your name out far exceed any moral imperative to "control your work".
It's been what you've been describing for the entire time we've had this argument. You've said that we have to ask for permission from copyright holders and authors when that impedes on any type of innovation or success in derivative works or transformative works. If I have to ask for permission for a satire of a work, then that has to be the dumbest thing I've heard. Especially when Charles Dickens was known for exactly such satire with the debt prisons in the last century. Or if I want to make a remix for a song, somehow I should ask permission of the label in charge of it. Let me make this clear right here, and I'm bolding it for emphasis:Event_Horizon said:Any time someone uses a single word to describe our culture, I can only think of how they simplistically generalize everyone and everything. You haven't even defined what a permission culture is, so I have very little motivation to take that claim seriously.Gindil said:Permission culture does NOT lead to financial success
And now, the more authoritarian side comes out... Especially when a fan project rarely comes out to great fanfare (except for the recent Starcraft II MMO mod... But that's another story)Did they own the Chrono series? No.Gindil said:The three members of the Crimson Echoes team weren't trying to be successful.
Square decided to force them to cancel their project because they were planning on releasing later games, namely Chrono Trigger for the DS. A really bad sequel can ruin a franchise, and if they had made the game horrendously bad, or changed the cannon, the least of Square's problems would have been possible problems with brand recognition, and at worst the re-release would have failed completely. Are those scenarios likely? Probably not, but it wasn't up to the Crimson Echo's team to decide.
Hmmm... People are still expressing discontent about Square about Crimson Echoes, FFXIV tanked, and Square needs money [http://news.bigdownload.com/2011/02/03/square-enix-records-lower-profits-in-latest-financial-report/]. Personal belief is that less people are enjoying the products of Square for various reasons along with their strong enforcement takedowns.Who knows. There are no data to support either side, so your question is at best rhetorical.Gindil said:Did this hurt Square's sales on a game that they have yet to update (in this case Chrono Cross)
You didn't see the link where I showed it came out by a different team. The C&D is officially useless since the finished product is done.Depends if the cease and desist letter didn?t work. If the team continued anyways, then yes litigation was the only outcome.Gindil said:Did their copyright infringement need to be litigated away?
BS. They started with a rom-hack but that isn't where it ended. Obviously, you don't know how to set tiles, insert custom music, or create a script which is their work. Given that the Youtube account has 90 vids, a LOT of work went into the script, which actually added a lot of story and made CC a lot easier to comprehend. The main thing they did do was use the ground work of Chrono Trigger and its story. You also fail to notice the difference between the rom patch and an IPS, which is how it would have been released. All you see is the black and white of the law, ignoring the impact that it would have had on the field, which was basically none. At least on this case, they stole nothing and added value to the work. NOTHING was "stolen", especially when you can't be bothered to read what exactly they did.It wasn't really their work, was it? They didn't make the sprites, or program the code much. They didn't make the original game, or come up with the original concept. They had no stake in the success or failure of the Chrono series, but Square did. It seems the only thing the Crimson Echoes team did was take the work of someone else and do whatever they wanted to with it. Granted they had good intentions, but regardless, they basically stole and used someone's property without permission for their own success.Gindil said:It was far easier to just destroy their work, posting it on Youtube to show what could have been.
You still fail to say anything about how any of these people are having their lives destroyed based on piracy, and still insist that piracy is the mark of the devil. It's a decentralized network. In all of this time, I have not seen you pull anything but a moralistic view, trying to say that somehow the paradigm shift of either freemium or free to sell other things in the digital era is not flawed, it's giving money to the artists to take advantage... Whether a work is shared on Usenet, Bittorrent, or uploaded to a private server, what harm other than your insistent belief that I've somehow cost the artist money I may or may not spend is hurting the artist?But pirates can just as easily destroy the lives of the author, writer, musician, and movie crew. You say you don't want power in one person, but the alternative is to have the majority overpower the minority. So what is the solution? The best answer is a society where nobody has power over anyone; that everyone can live freely by their wish, as long as it doesn?t hurt others. If you agree with that statement, then you disagree with your own argument, because pirates prevent creators from living freely. Deciding to keep my work to myself does not hurt anyone at all. I do no harm to them. Opening my work to the world can benefit people, but there is a difference between harming someone, and not benefitting them. The former is negative force, the latter is neutral.Gindil said:Those are far better questions of an author destroying lives by a long legal court battle over economics.
...Or, you could create your own concept and add to the pool of knowledge. How are you making a new idea when you take the ideas of others? Your stance appears hypocritical: you say you want to use the ideas of others to enrich society, but you don't actually come up with any new ideas to enrich society.Gindil said:If I had to ask permission to use either orcs, it would truly cause the numbers of books on the subject to decrease considerably.
Frogboy is a developer. Notch is only one part of the rebuttal.Notch's personal opinion is not a real good rebuttal?Gindil said:Rebuttal
Someone wants to be a Luddite, that's their choice. Piracy has never been a problem, using law and litigation to solve everything has.So you blame the hammer, and not the person driving the hammer.Gindil said:I rail against copyright being used as a hammer with the consumer being the anvil
First, the full extent of copyright law is usurped. We agree on that. We should also agree that things such as the DMCA try their very best to usurp the fair use rights of people. Since it's one of the most recent major shifts in law, I'll try to keep to just DMCA laws. If the law was lessened on infringement, I might not have a problem. But the thing is, those laws impede on a lot. You can't get mad at a corporation for wanting to make filming 2 minutes of a movie punishable by jail time, a law. The root of the problem comes from why are they incentivized to pass such laws in the first place. Just as copyright law stopped Crimson Echoes, it also stops others from supposedly sharing media, for what purpose? There's a misguided conception that control of a media = maximum profit. It's something that hasn't happened in the years of business, nor will it ever happened. Sony should have learned when they released the MiniDisk. Now they're trying to take over your PS3 remotely because it got hacked. They used the DMCA, and I can see a lot of people getting away from Sony's products since they're doing more harm to themselves.And how does copyright law actually enforce anything? Copyright law is a concept, and it's not a physical person. The things you really don't like are people using copyright law to their fullest extent, yet you don't address that. You should be blaming the arm for swinging the hammer, as the hammer itself is just a hammer, and cannot swing on its own. How about you blame the government who created the corporations? How about you blame the government for making special copyright laws for them? Well, in a small way I guess you have, but yet within your minute and specific condemnation of those institutions you throw out the principle of copyright law with them. It would be the same as disregarding all traffic laws because there are laws that the government enforces too harshly.Gindil said:the enforcement angle is like fighting terrorism...
And yet, it made them money. It also enhanced the career of all involved. Jay-Z didn't need to be more famous, the label didn't need people looking at the newest single of Jay-Z (at the time) and seeing a transformative use. And DJ Danger Mouse is awesome.Grey Tuesday
Grey Tuesday was a day of coordinated electronic civil disobedience on February 24, 2004. Led by Downhill Battle, an activist group seeking to restructure the music industry, participating websites posted copies of Danger Mouse's The Grey Album for free download on its sites for 24 hours in protest of EMI's attempts to prevent any distribution of this unlicensed work. This protest was provoked by the opinion that the sampling is fair use and that a statutory license should be provided in the same manner as if a song had been covered.
Riaa lobbied $90 million for special laws regarding DMCA [http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/01/06/special-report-music-industrys-lavish-lobby-campaign-for-digital-rights/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter], For all of their legal maneuverings, they spent $16mil on litigation for a total of $391,000 [http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/07/ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-riaa-paid-its-lawyers.html]That is simply an excuse used as a justification. The energy and time it takes to "catch" a pirate has no bearing on piracy's legitimacy.Gindil said:It takes more time to take down the greedy people than it does to watch others
We'll agree to disagree. Piracy's here. I'm not here for an ethics debate because in economics, the market doesn't care. The pirates are people who do things in their best interest, and you fail to show artists that have gone down because of piracy. Moral convictions are great. But they don't put food on the table for art.I don't know how many times I have to say it until it sinks in, but I'll say it again. It doesn?t matter. It makes no difference on a person's personal choice how to be successful with their creation. You keep showing me alternative business models and calling it evidence, when everything you've said about business models has nothing to do whatsoever with the ethics of pirating. You've put so much energy into this non sequitur. You legitimize the power of the pirates to manipulate anything that's created instead of allowing the person that actually creates it to control their own livelihood. Pirates have no stake in the success or failure, so they should get no say in the process. Creators should never be in competition with themselves, and pirates cause that conflict of interest.Gindil said:Give them less of a reason and they'll buy from you.
Ya know... This worries me because Congress is also considering a fashion copyright...Not at all. Creator confidence also has to do with fears of theft, not just piracy. Suing someone has no basis on their confidence if the creator thinks the accused broke the law. And let's be honest here, it's not the creators doing the suing, it's the publisher/movie studio/record label. Creators need to know that they will be protected if someone tries to plagiarize or profit off their work without supporting them, and copyright provides that protection. Copyright allows the creator to directly control their success and it therefore establishes the means for them to earn their livelihood.Gindil said:1 - If all the "sue em all" lawsuits have proven, creator confidence in something not being pirated is a false incentive.
If it's a tool that is abused, it either needs to be lessened considerably (hence 5 year copyright) or taken away. No person should absolutely destroy another's well being because they want to make a financial profit through the judicial system. Innovation is harmed because of not only corporate irresponsibly, but individual ignorance of the harms of the smaller system.And yet you try to connect it with copyright law. The law is simply a tool for people to use. If you don't like how people use the law, then make an argument that the people are wrong, or that the tool is too powerful. As it stands, you reject the tool outright. It's a very simplistic position you hold.Gindil said:2 - ... Have we not discussed the litigation route being incredibly flawed
Now look at that and tell me...§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
(c) Statutory Damages. ?
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
*taps finger on desk*And if I break you leg, there are plenty of other ways to get around. Like I said, that is a non sequitur. The choices a creator has are independent of the ethics of pirating. The issue here is that pirates take away choice, imposing their will on the creator's fundamental human rights, so therefore piracy is wrong. It also causes a conflict of interest in which the creator must compete with their own creation and not just the creations of others.Gindil said:Once it's distributed, you can find other ways to make money flow.
It's not that Shakespeare isn't relevant, it's that the argument you use with Shakespeare as an example is simply wrong. Had someone changed Shakespeare's writing over the course of time, it would be less valued because of the editions. The same argument can be applied to Beowulf. Looking back at the Epic of Gilgamesh, the reason why it is so prized is because it has remained intact and uncorrupt for so long. Do you think the world's oldest story would be so valuable if it had been changed along the way? To some people it would be a problem. If one wanted to chronicle life in the 1920's in an element of fiction, don?t you think they have the right to prevent people from making spinoffs or sequels decades, even centuries into the future in order to keep their work pure and uncorrupted by cultural revisionism? Perhaps they wanted to have their work untouched by subsequent authors because their characters were members of their own family, or the plot was based on their own life's events. To say they cannot have their right because it benefits society means that you are sacrificing the rights of one for the good of many. The way to innovate past this is to allow other creators to make their own work. As long as others are still allowed to create new ideas, progress will not be stifled.[/quote]Gindil said:If Shakespeare is supposedly not relevant, yet Beowulf is, there's an issue.
That is simply not correct. The story could have been derived from many works, but the completed manuscript has remained unedited over the years, and that is partially the reason why it is so valued.Gindil said:Beowulf was about adding to the story and putting your own parts to the epic tale of a warrior king.
Moral imperative isn't changing more people to stop sharing media.Yet that doesn?t make your point valid. Also what proportion are these artists compared to the whole? I can link you to "scientists" who think Jesus rode a velociraptor, yet they are a tiny minority. Just because you can link to a handful of artists doesn?t mean the majority take that route. It doesn?t matter what route the artists choose or how many choose it because my point is that it should only be their choice. Only the artist should get to choose to give away their stuff for free. The pirate shouldn't.Gindil said:Yet, with every link, I show artists that see it in different ways.
So is the idea of everyone is a pirate until proven otherwise. The principles of copyright is to "progress the Arts and Sciences" as said in the copyright clause. By all fundamental definition of that clause, copyright and patent law impede on this in the digital era. I'm not particularly interested in suing my fanbase, and they come to me for something other than a nasty letter saying they need to pay $750 for infringing on my copyright. Freedom? James Watt (patent law) didn't have freedom with his patent. He was constantly litigating people for making incremental improvements on the steam engine (even if they did research independently). And with copyright law, we have various corporations litigating that cause a chilling effect rather than be better than what a pirate offers. Smaller artists don't even use copyright (which IMO is a major reason to see where the issues lie) for their works and yet, because the ideals sound good, that makes good protection?And that I can agree with you. My argument has only been on the principals of copyright, in that it gives protection and freedom to the creator. Now how much protection that amounts to is certainly up for debate, but you don't seem interested in even entertaining the ideas of copyright's benefits. That is a very simplistic perspective.Gindil said:And, after finding out the reasons to gain from copyright such as the Performance Rights Organizations, the Copyright Boards, the mechanical rights accrued, and all the ways that copyright is used to nickel and dime artists and consumer alike, it's a bloated thing that needs a massive overhaul from the monster it is today.
Liberty of information sounds pretty good. And if anything copyright impedes on other human rights. So now you've just asked for liberty for one, not liberty for all. Liberty for all means they can distribute regardless. That sure as certain works for Google for the News. I can still get it from the Washington post and New York Times. But if they want to take their news off of Google, they can. It's just going to hurt them in the end, not Google. I'm truly failing to see how one person's needs for an economic profit that isn't secured impede on all other rights. I may never see it the same way you do, especially with all of the research that says otherwise. The moral imperative doesn't do it for me...The moral issue comes down to fundamentals of liberty and human rights. I bring those up because it turns the somewhat moral gray area of piracy into a specific answer: that it is wrong. The freedom to distribute rests with the person who seeks to gain from their work and risks to lose from their work. The pirate is not entitled to that right because they did not create it and have no stake in success, but not only that, the pirate also takes that right away from the original creator by force.
That's called innovation. Or better yet, "don't coast to keep yourself relevant in a fast moving digital society" *thumbs up*That is hardly a good justification.Gindil said:If one person didn't do it, someone else would.
...It's not that pirates have bad values. When one talks about ethics, they don't talk about the content of the person's character, but the specifics of their actions. A bad person can do something good, and something good can be harmful. As I said before, we live in a free society that protects the rights of individuals. People who create something own it, and they have the freedom to release it as they please. Pirates who take work and submit it to torrent sites or release it to the internet break that freedom by choosing for someone else without their consent. What you call permission culture is actually human rights. Outside of my own choices I cannot force someone to do something they don't want, no matter how harmful, beneficial, or mundane. That is the basic ethical principal of the free world. Pirates who distribute work break that principal, so the ethics of their actions are clear.Gindil said:I fail to see how a dissonance in values = less opportunities for an author that takes advantage of it.
So before, you're saying copyright has no claws, and yet here, you're looking to say that it's used to secure their income through economic manipulation.Okay, I concede that. But they are privileges under the law for a creator, and therefore owner of the work to secure their livelihood through any method of distribution they choose. As I said, because the creator of something owns it as property, and because their livelihood depends on their ability to profit from it, such rights of distribution are solely given to them. Anyone who distributes the author's work without their consent is infringing on their ability to secure their own livelihood.Gindil said:Copyright laws are NOT personal property protection.
I say the consumer is king/queen for a reason. Any producer has to find ways to convince a consumer to let go of money to their goods and services. If I go to a hotel, they cater to me for money. If I offer a book, movie, etc., I damn sure better make it a pleasant experience for them.Consumers get to use the things they buy however they want, except for distribution, because that impacts the creator?s wellbeing. The consumer doesn?t profit from distribution anyways, so there is no financial justification for them doing it. To put the consumer's freedom above the freedom of the creator means you are giving control to the masses, which can cause undesirable effects on the creator.Gindil said:I'm strong on consumer choice in how they obtain their media.
You're bemoaning a pirate for putting up a torrent because it's not authorized. Last I checked, in the 80s there were unofficial books on various topics. I'll point to game books that I picked up in EBGames. There was the official guide for $40 with all the trimmings on it. Then the Unofficial guide that was $20. Which do you think I picked up? Consider it an unofficial source, and find a way to make your product better. That's far better than suing the pants off everyone because someone downloaded your movie [http://torrentfreak.com/makers-of-the-expendables-sue-6500-bittorrent-users-110208/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20Torrentfreak%20(Torrentfreak)] and you can't prove economic damagesI never said the technology was bad. Torrents are just tools. It only becomes a problem when media is shared without direction of the creator. If the creator decides to release it on a torrent site for free, then there is no problem.Gindil said:I don't want to limit the technology because someone else decries its bad.
You keep saying I'm protected. What is needing protection from economic damages? People choose what they choose. If you want an income, great, but it's not guaranteed through copyright law, your business model, Santa Claus, or anything else. If someone wants to lock up horseback riding and a certain style, a judge would laugh at them as he throws out the case. If you want to see someone copyrighting everything, there is literally a push to copyright yoga moves...If you were the author, you would be protected too. The only time you get to apply the law however you see fit is when you're in the position to where the law protects you. You want to allow freedom, great, you want to own everything about your creation, you can. Others cannot override your decision, and the law grants you protection from that.Gindil said:But decrying that somehow, the author needs to be protected from me and what I want to do is ridiculous.
Their words extend to monopolies and the idea thing as Jefferson said, is what copyright law is trying to limit nowadays.Their words only talked about ideas; copyright doesn't apply to ideas.Gindil said:[The Founders] had words:
You insist, but just because Pirate Bay exists doesn't mean the artist has lost their ability to make money. We've already talked about distribution, now you're just saying pirates are to blame for everything.Of course they don't specifically *need* to go down those routes, but anyone can choose them. What we have is a problem of choice here: pirates usurp the choice of creators.Gindil said:I'm actually showing that artists don't necessarily need it in the manner currently being used.
It's important to remember the extent of mercantilism in England at the time. It seems the problem wasn't the ideas that were restrained, but the monopolies and business cartels that kept the prices up. The difference between the past and our current state is that those books were reduced to a cheaper price not given away for free, and it is not known what kind of privileges the creator had in distributing their work. Now we can distribute information without restraint of businesses, where as it was a problem at the time. The current problem is that the decision to distribute is not being kept with the creator, but by a third party. But I ask you this, do you know how many new works were being created in the other countries at the time? The figures I read dealt with the number of books, not the content of said books. How do you know any new ideas were being spread at all? You?re also taking a LOT for granted here.[/quote]Gindil said:Same problem occurs, if the book is too expensive to import, I find another source that's cheaper.
I used Dickens as an example. Change that to Salinger and that's the problem of copyright law impeding on what people can do and the law being slow in catching up to what people can do with technology.Copyright doesn't address that, so you don't have a problem there. If you were to copy the pages and send it to him over the internet instead of mailing him the book then it would technically be a problem. Understand what copyright doesn't protect: ideas, resale, personal modification, etc. Copyright protects the right to copy. Huh, now I wonder where they got the name from?Gindil said:Er... If I have a book of Tale of Two Cities and a friend wants to see it, I'm not going to go and ask Charles Dickens for permission, nor his estate.
And society loses how...?This goes back to the tragedy of the commons. People are unwilling to take care of someone else's property as well as they take care of their own. Someone will be much more selective of how they distribute their own work as opposed to someone else's work.Gindil said:Whether these rules apply to these small examples or me making a pdf of a book and posting online, it's a decision that people make. All people can do is use it wisely.
And your entire view hinges on just an author being allowed in a free market, irregardless of the consequences. You rail on the system for being more efficient than what the artist can do themselves. Society benefits and yet you want to complain because people now have more choices and the artist has to compete in new ways to keep their work relevant. You hinge on the moral argument because you can't accept the fact that people use the art for various ways other than what you view as piracy.And that should be left up to the artist, not a third party.Gindil said:Individual artists should have choice but all of the good points of getting your name out far exceed any moral imperative to "control your work".
Aspects of the free market can do the job that pirates do and do it in an ethical manner. Creators who innovate and keep their works open will do better than creators who restrict and keep their works closed. The problem with pirates is that they usurp the principles of the free market and manipulate the system they have no stake in. I have to refine my definition a little further. People who take things that are already online are defined as pirates, but I think they are just a symptom of the market, and I would probably call them "prospectors". If someone goes into a deli, takes a plate of sandwiches, and gives them out in the park, the people who take those sandwiches I see as not (entirely) ethically responsible. If they are told the sandwiches are stolen, they can opt out, or they can take the free meal. The real "pirates" are the ones I see who distribute the works in the first place, and the statement that "if A doesn't do it, B through Z will" is not justification. Regardless of how many would do it, it is still wrong.
...The degree of the creator's defense against the pirates can be discussed, and you?re right that the most violent and oppressive defenses are violating rights on their own. But note that these are defenses, and they would not occur in a voluntary economic system. Competition does not get taken to court if that competition makes a better product. Pirates however cause competition within the same product. If I make A, and my competitor makes B (something similar to A), the two things can compete in the open market. However if I make A, and a pirate takes A, and 'sells' it for free, I am now competing with my own creation. That causes a conflict of interest in the creative process, since a creator is forced against their will to compete against themselves. Not only that, but the pirate fixes the price without the creator's permission. The pirate violates almost every aspect of the voluntary economic system in which agreements are made between two or more willing parties. The pirate makes their decision without acknowledging the will of the creative party, and that is wrong regardless of their means, regardless of their motive, and regardless of the outcome. It is wrong not just on a moral issue because it tramples on human rights, but it is also wrong as an economic issue because an outside party is manipulating a completely voluntary economic system without anyone actually volunteering.
I should say the same for you. You've sent nothing to prove your own ideals other than "trust me because the moral argument is the right one".In regards to my assertion of confirmation bias, I think it holds a kernel of truth. All the links you've sent me (not very objective sources mind you) have spun the issue one way. I have not seen an objective analysis in your responses. It doesn?t matter how many years you?ve looked at cases of copyright abuse; if you cannot pick costs and benefits of the system as individual aspects, and prefer to simply dismiss the system altogether, then it shows me that you are simplistically absolute in your judgment.
And just for fun, Lawrence Lessig wants to get to the actual root of the problem, which is the way Congress is motivated to listen to the RIAA and ignore consumersAccording to experts and literature GAO reviewed, counterfeiting and piracy have produced a wide range of effects on consumers, industry, government, and the economy as a whole, depending on the type of infringements involved and other factors. Consumers are particularly likely to experience negative effects when they purchase counterfeit products they believe are genuine, such as pharmaceuticals. Negative effects on U.S. industry may include lost sales, lost brand value, and reduced incentives to innovate; however, industry effects vary widely among sectors and companies. The U.S. government may lose tax revenue, incur IP enforcement expenses, and face risks of counterfeits entering supply chains with national security or civilian safety implications. The U.S. economy as a whole may grow more slowly because of reduced innovation and loss of trade revenue.
You never properly defined it. You just used the term and expected that its definition was self explanatory. Define your terms as you use them because I cannot assume what they mean.Gindil said:[In regard to permission culture] It's been what you've been describing for the entire time we've had this argument.
Copyright allows for parody and satire. So no, you don't have to ask permission for that.Gindil said:If I have to ask for permission for a satire of a work, then that has to be the dumbest thing I've heard.
Quite the contrary. I am a libertarian, so in my philosophy I allow people to do whatever they please. That means I must allow people to use their creation however they want, including allowance of keeping their work closed. You on the other hand want to force people to make their works open without their say. That is authoritarian.Gindil said:And now, the more authoritarian side comes out...
Market forces are doing their job if Square makes an inferior product. I don't see a problem here.Gindil said:Personal belief is that less people are enjoying the products of Square for various reasons along with their strong enforcement takedowns.
Exactly, they used the story, so it wasn't an independent work with their own story in their own universe. I understand that they wanted to make a fan project, and it's disappointing that Square made them stop, but I have to allow the good with the bad. You don't know the specific reasons for Square cancelling the project, so I am assuming innocence, which applies to both sides.Gindil said:Given that the Youtube account has 90 vids, a LOT of work went into the script, which actually added a lot of story and made CC a lot easier to comprehend. The main thing they did do was use the ground work of Chrono Trigger and its story.
Not at all. The only time where I addressed the law is in stating that it is too strong. I am not taking the side of the law. I'm taking the side of rights and ownership, and the law happens to be on this side too. That is nothing more than a coincidence. Chrono Trigger wasn't something the Crimson Echoes team owned, so did they have the right to change it?Gindil said:All you see is the black and white of the law, ignoring the impact that it would have had on the field, which was basically none.
Please, I have not been so melodramatic. I don't speak in "goods" and "evils" but ethical principals of which the central tenet is human rights.Gindil said:You still fail to say anything about how any of these people are having their lives destroyed based on piracy, and still insist that piracy is the mark of the devil.
What harm? Their work could be stolen and changed, and someone else could profit from it. The author might want to keep the work pure because it is a personal account, or a fictionalized tale of actual events. They might not want fame or fortune. The reasons don't matter because the harm is done by infringing on the creator's rights in the first place.Gindil said:Whether a work is shared on Usenet, Bittorrent, or uploaded to a private server, what harm other than your insistent belief that I've somehow cost the artist money I may or may not spend is hurting the artist?
I'm not ignoring the evidence, it's just that you provide no evidence, and don't understand why you don't. The methods are not the problem, it's the infringement of rights that comes from a specific person using those methods.Gindil said:If you want to ignore all of the evidence of artists trying new things and keeping away from copyright, be my guest.
Half of what you think I'm arguing for I'm actually not. I never said that artists need to be paid. I'm saying that artists should be able to choose if they get paid. There is a difference here. My entire argument comes down to choice, the right to choose how do use your own creative work. You however want that choice to be made by you, because it suits your own personal interests and what you think is good for society. That is the mindset of a dictator.Gindil said:Finally, the entire "artist need to be paid" paradigm, you want to tote. No, they create for other incentives than profit, which you seem not to even respond to.
YOU. COULD. CREATE. SOMETHING. NEW.Gindil said:Run that entire thing by me again, with everything I said please?
Oh but piracy is a problem, because it forces that Luddite to do something they don't want. Again, free society, human rights, I'd expect some of this to at least sink in by now. If someone wants to be or do something that is against their own best interest, you have to just let them do it. To force them to do otherwise is authoritarian.Gindil said:Someone wants to be a Luddite, that's their choice. Piracy has never been a problem, using law and litigation to solve everything has.
Indeed, I absolutely agree here. I am completely against DMCA because it does more harm than good. Much of the specific things you say about the extent to copyright law I agree with you on. However I differentiate between what works and what doesn't. Even if we didn't call it copyright law, and we just called it something like "creator's liberty to achieve livelihood" I would be on the same side of the issue as I stand now. Because that's what all copyright is at a basic level. It gives the creator the right to choose distribution channels because manipulation of those distribution channels is essential for their personal success.Gindil said:First, the full extent of copyright law is usurped. We agree on that. We should also agree that things such as the DMCA try their very best to usurp the fair use rights of people.
Nay, the root of the problem is who co-opted with who to make those laws in the first place. As a libertarian I blame the maker of those laws and the gatekeeper of power: the government. Had they stayed out of the issue, and only allowed basic copyright laws as protection of human rights, none of this would have happened.Gindil said:The root of the problem comes from why are they incentivized to pass such laws in the first place.
The only irrelevance I've identified was your justification of other business models. Yes, they're great, fine, whatever, but they don't touch on the issue. I cannot condone the additions and extra limitations that have been added to copyright law over the decades. As I said I disagree with them. However you take the examples and justify your position that creators should not have the right to choose how they copy their works. Because that is the crux of the issue here.Gindil said:We now have no public domain works being released because copyright is so long. Mickey Mouse should be open to everyone. Along with people being able to use the works of Ernest Hemingway in a compilation. In every last example, I've tried to show the immediate harm that copyright law impedes upon while you've actually tried to dismiss these as irrelevant.
Parody isn't protected by copyright...Gindil said:Infringing? Yep. Fair use? Again, yep. Funny as all hell? Hell yes!
Quite the opposite in fact. The principal of a capitalist system is that people own their property, they own their body, they own their time, and they own the result of their work. You couldn't any more wrong here.Gindil said:I'm not here for an ethics debate because in economics, the market doesn't care.
They should have a say because it's their work, and we have (or should have) a capitalist system where people own what they create. It should be up to the creator to decide how much authoritative control they have. As I said before, consumers have their personal freedoms as well except one: distribution. I've made it clear several times why distribution should be and is recognized to be solely the creator's right: because it affects their livelihood. It's not just a moral principal, but it is the economic principal that our economy is based on.Gindil said:Pirates have their own personal freedoms and you seem to think that artists should have a say in every detail of what they create.
Because it tramples on personal liberties.Gindil said:Why in the world, does my belief that piracy, is something other than people sharing information, impede on "The progress of the Arts and Sciences? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Copyright_Clause]"
The ends justify the means, again. I suppose if I violate your human rights for the greater good you'll be all for it. Sacrificing one for the good of the many, great philosophy to have.Gindil said:If the artists get paid in other ways, piracy doesn't matter because in the end, everyone benefits.
That's a loaded statement, since as I said you paint copyright with a wide brush.Gindil said:I've said that copyright law is very limiting in what it can do.
These aren't beliefs, they are factual principals of the free market and human ethics. Your evidence is irrelevant because you don't focus on those principals, which is the core of the issue. Any benefit you provide is overridden by the fact that you are violating the rights of others.Gindil said:You still haven't shown any evidence to the contrary than your own beliefs and trying to dismiss mine as irrelevant because it doesn't correspond with yours.
Yes, like the liberty one has to decide how their creations are used. Oops, I bet you didn't think of that one. Don't go quoting the Declaration of Independence when it goes against your claims.Gindil said:Last I checked we had "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Ooooor, you could let the creator to decide how much or little copyright protection they need or want.Gindil said:If it's a tool that is abused, it either needs to be lessened considerably (hence 5 year copyright) or taken away.
And yet you say they can risk another's well being because they want to make any kind of success through piracy? That seems a little hypocritical that you would go after the copyright holders for infringing rights instead of the pirates who also infringe on rights.Gindil said:No person should absolutely destroy another's well being because they want to make a financial profit through the judicial system.
How can I ignore it when it was never brought up?Gindil said:And you still ignore the statutory damages...
YepGindil said:So let's get this straight. Even though, by law, I can record small clips of a movie and post them on Youtube, I'm a pirate. Even though I like a song, I can't share it on Grooveshark. Even though I like Pioneer One, I can't share it with the world on Bittorrent because I'm a pirate for distributing materials in various ways.
Well it is. The author has the right to distribute, and if the pirate distributes their work, they're breaking the author's right. That much is clear. It is only simplistic because we as a society have come to the conclusion that violating human rights is wrong. That is an absolute with almost do determent, and it's caused so much relative peace for so long. To say it's simple doesn't do the principal justice, since simple ethical framework seems to work the best. We do not violate the rights of others, and the government *should* be a reactive measure against the violation of rights. That's what the Constitution is about, that's what the founders intended, it's what our ethics and economic system is based on.Gindil said:You seem to be begging the question that because an author loses a right to distribute, somehow piracy is wrong on all levels.
How is that a positive attribute?Gindil said:Did you miss my part of my original Shakespeare argument, discussing how King Lear WAS changed and given a happy ending even though that wasn't Shakespeare's original intent?
There's nothing wrong with that. Copyright should keep a comfortable middle ground between derivative works and creator's original intent. I'm not saying the current system works as it is; I'm saying that the principals do. Even so, it doesn't allow pirates to do what they want, human rights be damned.Gindil said:I really insist you learn about derivative works and transformative use.
Thank you for stating the problem.Gindil said:Moral imperative isn't changing more people to stop sharing media.
Incorrect. The digital era indeed has outpaced a lot of the older ideas in the copyright law, but copyright law does not stop people from expressing ideas freely. It only stops others from forcing creative works to be free.Gindil said:By all fundamental definition of that clause, copyright and patent law impede on this in the digital era.
If people want to abandon copyright law they can. Nobody has to litigate against their fan base, nobody forces them too. There is no problem with abandoning the old system because adherence to that system is entirely voluntary, unlike the effects of piracy.Gindil said:And with copyright law, we have various corporations litigating that cause a chilling effect rather than be better than what a pirate offers. Smaller artists don't even use copyright (which IMO is a major reason to see where the issues lie) for their works and yet, because the ideals sound good, that makes good protection?
Not at all. Liberty is about personal choice. Liberty means that someone who creates a work and owns that work can have the personal choice on how to profit from it. Others copying without permission infringes on the liberty of the creator. You have the argument backwards.Gindil said:Liberty of information sounds pretty good. And if anything copyright impedes on other human rights. So now you've just asked for liberty for one, not liberty for all. Liberty for all means they can distribute regardless.
You've made your opponent into a straw man, so of course you don't see it. Consumers have rights to do almost anything they want with what they buy. The only single thing they cannot do is distribute. That is where their liberty ends. Well why is that? Because the creator of something has the desire, but not always, to profit from their work. For people who wish to profit from their work, they have the right, the liberty, to seek a particular channel of distribution that they think will most benefit them. The consumer on the other hand does not stand to benefit from the distribution, so why should they get the right? This creates a conflict of interest between the rights of the consumer to use their purchase, and the rights of the creator to profit from it. None of these participants can keep their human rights intact at the same time. If the consumer wins, the creator loses, and vice versa. The deciding factor on who's rights should win come down to who stands to benefit from distribution. Without question it is the creator. Therefore the creator should get the right of distribution, the right to copy, hence copyright.Gindil said:I'm truly failing to see how one person's needs for an economic profit that isn't secured impede on all other rights.
I allow those people to climb to that pedestal if it suits them. It is not my right, nor anybody else's to keep them from it.Gindil said:There's so many examples of people aggregating information that you seem to ignore here, all in the name of putting editors, authors, and innovators on an invisible pedestal, ignoring the other parts of society that innovate and use those stepping stones of work in various and unique ways.
It's not economic manipulation, it's ownership, the cornerstone of our economic system.Gindil said:So before, you're saying copyright has no claws, and yet here, you're looking to say that it's used to secure their income through economic manipulation.
Not correct. It is a mutually beneficial system, and the hotel doesn't "owe" you anything. They need money, and you need a place to stay, so you make an exchange and both parties are better off. What you describe is a system that goes one way.Gindil said:Any producer has to find ways to convince a consumer to let go of money to their goods and services. If I go to a hotel, they cater to me for money.
Again another straw man. The only thing you control is how to distribute your work. The person who buys it cannot, and you cannot control how they use it.Gindil said:What you've just described is to have all that taken away because I offer someone something, I magically have control of what they can do.
You're preaching to the choir here man, I'm all for free trade, since it keeps any monopolies in check. The difference between your scenario and piracy is that your scenario is consistent with human rights and is entirely legal.Gindil said:Enter the demand for foreign movies such as Memoirs of a Geisha, The Last Samurai and Oldboy (only an example). We now have demand from other sources, which causes more people to translate and discuss these movies. Consumer choice is increased, and overall, everyone is better off, save the American creators and monopolists.
Incorrect. They should never be forced to compete with themselves. Other people can compete with them with their own product, and the creator can choose to compete with themselves, but nobody else has the right to force the creator to compete against themselves. I know it happens, but it is still wrong.Gindil said:If the copyright artist wants a consumer's money, they HAVE to compete with themselves and a world market.
The focus on economics is another way for the ends to justify the means. It turns ethics into dollars and cents, and it allows for people to trample on human rights. Is it right for me to plan your life for you every step of the way, even if it brings you economic success? Wouldn't it be better if you could choose for yourself? I leave the choice up to other people on how to handle their lives. It is my choice, and only my choice, to handle my own affairs.Gindil said:Hence, a focus on economics, not morality.
Um, no, I'm bemoaning the pirate for putting media on the torrent site because the pirate is using the torrent site to release the media for free, which violates the rights of the creator. I have nothing against torrent sites.Gindil said:You're bemoaning a pirate for putting up a torrent because it's not authorized.
Theft/plagiarism for one. It happens. Or if they want to take your story and sell it for a profit without your permission and without giving you any compensation.Gindil said:What is needing protection from economic damages?
As he should, wait do you even know what's protected vs what isn't? This is like the third time in this post alone that you assume things that copyright protects which it actually doesn't.Gindil said:If someone wants to lock up horseback riding and a certain style, a judge would laugh at them as he throws out the case.
Somehow I doubt you're a constitutional law scholar. The words as they meant at the time regarded ideas, and how they shouldn't be monopolized. And behold ideas aren't protected by copyright. Once you start using the word "monopoly" in the context of ownership it looses all meaning. If you say I have a monopoly on my story, it really doesn't mean much, since by your definition you also have a monopoly on your shoes, or house, or your family. Heck you have a monopoly on your body. If monopolies are wrong, then by your usage of the word, you shouldn't own your body. See, it becomes meaningless.Gindil said:Their words extend to monopolies and the idea thing as Jefferson said, is what copyright law is trying to limit nowadays.
Woah, when did I say pirates were to blame for "everything". I said they do unethical actions by violating rights. And I said that they have a tendency to make the problem worse by provoking the corporate interests into oppressive action. Not "everything" is their fault. Come on.Gindil said:We've already talked about distribution, now you're just saying pirates are to blame for everything.
I agree that Copyright has been slow to change. But once again if you want to resell your book on ebay or amazon, you can. If you want to give it to the library, you can. If you want to give it to a friend, you can. Consumer rights lets you a lot of different things.Gindil said:I used Dickens as an example. Change that to Salinger and that's the problem of copyright law impeding on what people can do and the law being slow in catching up to what people can do with technology.
Because it means no person ever has the ability to control their creative work's distribution. Suddenly people don't have the right to decide how their works are released. Once. Again. You're putting the good of society over the rights of individuals. Need I inform you that no tyrannical force ever gained power by liberty.Gindil said:And society loses how...?
No idea what you're trying to say here.Gindil said:The author has more potential reasons... Because...?
Ethics can, and the ethics are clear: piracy is wrong because it infringes on the creator's rights. Done, in one sentence too.Gindil said:Ethics can't answer this because nothing is lost...?
I think you mean "regardless", in any case, yes the free market will solve the problem since it would be individual authors competing against each other using different distribution methods instead of the current system where an author must compete with himself against different distribution methods. You want to talk about efficiency, there is no efficiency in an author competing against themselves.Gindil said:And your entire view hinges on just an author being allowed in a free market, irregardless of the consequences.
Not what I said I at all. I don't rail against the system; the system is good. I rail against people using the system for bad. Big difference.Gindil said:You rail on the system for being more efficient than what the artist can do themselves.
A system used wrongly in which society benefits at the expense of others is not an ethical system.Gindil said:Society benefits and yet you want to complain because people now have more choices and the artist has to compete in new ways to keep their work relevant.
Again you're not reading what I wrote, or you're not keeping an open mind as to what I'm truly saying. I allow people to create art in any way they desire, but the pirate takes art and uses it however they please. That is wrong.Gindil said:You hinge on the moral argument because you can't accept the fact that people use the art for various ways other than what you view as piracy.
I understand the current state of things isn't the best. We are in a transition period of media distribution. I like remixes and mashups just as much as anyone else, but the cost of removing a creator's ownership is far worse than a system where individual creators can compete against each other.Gindil said:[rant]
That is only because you haven't been listening. Read some of the things I wrote, and it's pretty clear. The objective facts are these: human beings have rights. One of those rights is the right to own property, labor, and the fruits of their work. These rights just happen to be protected by the Constitution. Not only is this reflected in our laws but also in our economic system. One particular right is a creator's right to profit form their work how they see fit. They are able to profit from their work by directly manipulating their work's distribution. They alone have the right to decide channels of distribution because again, they own the work, they stand to gain or lose from it, they have the right to profit from it. Any other person who distributes their work without the creator knowing or permitting it is infringing on their rights. I mean the ethics are clear.Gindil said:Ethics do not matter on this, and you continue to fail to show why it's wrong other than your own moral imperative to say the authors are sancrosanct in their decisions
But who say's they HAVE to? Oh, the pirates. And who are the pirates to decide if the creator should compete with themselves? Again this is a violation of rights. Other creators have the right to create and therefore compete with the original creator. However someone taking the creator's work and forcing the creator to compete with themselves is not only a violation of the rights of the creator, but a violation of the voluntary market. I'm sorry but you are just wrong here in so many ways.Gindil said:The author HAS to outcompete themselves. I can't say it much better...
Ooh, those are some words that can come back and bite you. Attempting to avoid a straw man I must say that your same argument can be used to support eugenics, or sterilization, or forced population control. That's an awesome idea there. Never mind people's rights, you know what's best for them - what's best for society.Gindil said:If society benefits, the ethics does not matter in this regard.
A psychic we have here. How do you know they're not emotionally harmed by it?Gindil said:they're not emotionally harmed
The pirate is not a legitimate competitor in a market. Stop trying to justify their behavior.Gindil said:If too high, I go to a competitor (yes, a pirate is a competitor. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy]
Dammit do you even understand what I'm saying? In ALL of this, all you've done closed your mind to any understanding outside of your own biased opinion and justifications. You ignore the moral view because the moral view is clear: piracy is unethical, and not because it's "stealing". Sharing is not the same thing as piracy, and I don't guilt people into not sharing. I'd encourage people to share, but to share without harming anyone else. And yes, going against someone's fundamental rights is harming them.Gindil said:In ALL of this, all you've done is assert a moral view that does nothing but try to guilt people into not sharing.
Somehow I doubt that, since your understanding of my points is tenuous at best, so let's see how ya did:Gindil said:The moralism has been the Wrong. Question. at the end of the day. This entire paragraph proved exactly my points that I've been making since the beginning.
Wrong there. No industry forces a creator to out compete themselves, only their competitors.Gindil said:1) Artist has to outcompete themselves in all industries
Got that one right, assuming you mean legitimate competitors who aren't doing things unethically.Gindil said:2) Permission has nothing to do with the creative process, it's a courtesy, but who needs it? No true competitor ever asked the permission of those already in the field to try to make money their own way.
Wrong there. The free market has principals, and it is a fair game if the participants play by the same rules. For example a free market doesn't allow force or coercion, the very same actions that pirates undertake. Everything about the free market is voluntary, and piracy is not voluntary because it forces the creator to compete against themselves in a distribution network they did not want.Gindil said:3) A voluntary system does not ensure your success. It doesn't matter how you achieve it. But if you go for that success, it can be in a number of choices you make. Basically, the market doesn't care how you're successful. Just so long as you do it.
Well, then reread what I wrote, because I have concise logic and reasoning for it on factual principals grounded in western ethics. Nowhere did I claim the moral high ground. I only put forward an argument in a moral context.Gindil said:I should say the same for you. You've sent nothing to prove your own ideals other than "trust me because the moral argument is the right one".
I don't like it either, but there are two sides to every story. Dismissing copyright without looking at the law itself, not just how it's used, is simplistic. It's just like the people who dismiss vaccines because they have rat brains in them, not knowing how the rat brains actually work, and how they're beneficial to creating immunity.Gindil said:I just don't like the abuse of the system and how it's gamed to basically destroy people through various means.
If the innovations are coming out independent of copyright, then obviously copyright wasn't holding them back. Logic.Gindil said:The system and its damages need changing. The length needs to be shortened considerably. In order to see more innovative uses of Youtube and other filesharing sources, copyright needs to stop hanging over the heads of consumers. The actual innovations in music, literature, and books aren't coming from copyright litigation.
Copyright isn't about getting the artist paid, it's about giving the artist the right to choose HOW they get paid.Gindil said:Online radio services prove that copyright does NOTHING to get an artist paid.
I love OCRemix too, and the issue is complex, but any conflict can be solved by retooling fair use and public domain. I never said that the law as it stands currently is good, I said that the principals of copyright are good.Gindil said:You can't tell me that what those people do with songs on their free time should be hindered by what the original owner desires. One reason that I love that place so much is the fact that those remixers changed all of those songs out of love for the game music industry. Imagine trying to find the original authors of ALL of the songs on that site then asking permission.
In an ironic twist, a story on Shakespeare came out today... [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/11165113112/would-shakespeare-have-survived-todays-copyright-laws.shtml]Event_Horizon said:-snip-
In order to create something new, it is made from something old. There's a lot of basis for this from movies (Finding Forrester - Take words and make them your own) to literature (Fiction - Tolkien's orcs were later reused by others without permission for Warhammer 40K) to music (cover bands who use older songs before promoting their own). There's folklore and fairy tales as well as mp3 players and Japanese vs American cars where engineers tinker to find new things. Imagine Ford asking Toyota's permission to make a hybrid. They do it because the market is there. To narrow this down, people tend to write about what they love, but you aren't creating in a bubble. I like fantasy stories, and some of my work is modeled after Goodkind (before he got to monologuing) and Tolkien (who could explain a world, but damned if the characters felt a little flat IMO). That doesn't mean I take from them wholesale. But you're acting as if I HAVE to create all new original themes just to have orcs in my creation or use the dance of death from Goodkind's work. That's the permission culture that you seem to be trying to set up. I can't use these trains of thought because they are the separate ideas of these authors.Event_Horizon said:You never properly defined it. You just used the term and expected that its definition was self explanatory. Define your terms as you use them because I cannot assume what they mean.
Secondly, you say asking for permission impedes innovation, which is simply wrong. To innovate means creating something new. What you describe is not innovation in the least, it's modification. If the creator of their work wants it to be modified, it should be their decision. It's their work after all. Nobody should modify anything of yours without permission. Would you appreciate me editing your stories and changing them completely without your consent? I'd assume not.
I always question why people want to set up a balance system... That's truly what's made copyright very difficult to follow in the first place. Case in point... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music,_Ltd._v._Warner_Bros._Records_Inc.]That being said there is a bigger issue here when it comes to remixes, as you said later down on the page. There indeed has to be some middle ground for when the creator keeps their rights, and creativity is allow to follow from that.
From there, licensing has gotten more ridiculous and we are faced with the situation that we have now, where the label (though less and less) or copyright holder has way too much power to say someone is "stealing" from them. The other effect it has had is to force people to give away music such as the remixes I showed earlier. That's just the view of the US, but judging from the plethora of stuff on Youtube, Nico Nico, and 4chan alone, I'm likely to believe the true "balance" is allowing people to derive works without permission, and make your name in some other way.As a result of the court case, the sound of hip hop music, heavily based upon combinations of various samples from various sources, was forced to change.[citation needed] Records such as those produced by The Bomb Squad for Public Enemy, filled with literally dozens of samples, were no longer possible: each and every sample had to be cleared to avoid legal action. Sample clearance fees prohibited the use of more than one or two samples for most recordings, with some original recording artists requesting up to 100% of the publishing for use of a sample.
Actually... [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1384979.html] At least satire isn't covered. Further proof [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/06/henley-v-devore-second-class-citizenship-satire]. That's at least two cases but they haven't been tried by the Supreme Court. Still, they set precedents in their respective districts that can kill derivative works that fall under satire. How these don't get through free speech but parodies do is beyond me...Copyright allows for parody and satire. So no, you don't have to ask permission for that.
Nope, they're free to do as they please and the results benefit everyone. That's not authoritarian. How you seem to believe that creations can be closed to others in a free market, with or without the artist's intent, seems to defy human nature.Quite the contrary. I am a libertarian, so in my philosophy I allow people to do whatever they please. That means I must allow people to use their creation however they want, including allowance of keeping their work closed. You on the other hand want to force people to make their works open without their say. That is authoritarian.
They explained it pretty forcefully in the letter. Link [http://crimsonechoes.com/letter.pdf] (pdf). They would argue in court for "willful" infringement (url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html]Linkage[/url]Exactly, they used the story, so it wasn't an independent work with their own story in their own universe. I understand that they wanted to make a fan project, and it's disappointing that Square made them stop, but I have to allow the good with the bad. You don't know the specific reasons for Square cancelling the project, so I am assuming innocence, which applies to both sides.
The burden of proof fell on Square to prove this in court, the problem is that for three fans to create a game based on a rom hack, for three years, in no way was this just. It was a shakedown and scare attempt that would have been effective except for the release of the new hack that came out last December. That's more of a chilling effect than the economic monopoly copyright law should intend.LAW said:In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.
I would argue that the script wasn't something that Square owned and was a derivative work. For them to censor another group isn't exactly a tenet of free speech nor was it a terribly effective way to enforce an imaginary ownership. Also, consider that the people who actually created CT (Toriyama, Kato, Sakaguchi, to name a few...) have since moved on from the company so that it doesn't have the same people that made the game in the first place.Not at all. The only time where I addressed the law is in stating that it is too strong. I am not taking the side of the law. I'm taking the side of rights and ownership, and the law happens to be on this side too. That is nothing more than a coincidence. Chrono Trigger wasn't something the Crimson Echoes team owned, so did they have the right to change it?Gindil said:All you see is the black and white of the law, ignoring the impact that it would have had on the field, which was basically none.
Just as a note, this was meant to be more hyperbole than based on your argument. I'd been watching Water Boy when I wrote this so... Yeah.Please, I have not been so melodramatic. I don't speak in "goods" and "evils" but ethical principals of which the central tenet is human rights.Gindil said:You still fail to say anything about how any of these people are having their lives destroyed based on piracy, and still insist that piracy is the mark of the devil.
Fanfiction.net [http://www.fanfiction.net/] disagrees with you. So does the work of Joss Whedon (who has since had a term named after him, Jossed [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Jossed]), JK Rowling (Draco had his ending changed because of fan stories trying to paint him in a sympathetic light). Also, Bar Karma [http://current.com/shows/bar-karma/] is all about ideas being exchanged between creators and fans.What harm? Their work could be stolen and changed, and someone else could profit from it. The author might want to keep the work pure because it is a personal account, or a fictionalized tale of actual events. They might not want fame or fortune. The reasons don't matter because the harm is done by infringing on the creator's rights in the first place.Gindil said:Whether a work is shared on Usenet, Bittorrent, or uploaded to a private server, what harm other than your insistent belief that I've somehow cost the artist money I may or may not spend is hurting the artist?
I can't get behind a so called saying that piracy forces people to adjust what they do...I'm not ignoring the evidence, it's just that you provide no evidence, and don't understand why you don't. The methods are not the problem, it's the infringement of rights that comes from a specific person using those methods.Gindil said:If you want to ignore all of the evidence of artists trying new things and keeping away from copyright, be my guest.
I don't deny the paradigm shift, or condemn it. If artists want to participate in that form of distribution then that's great. What you miss is that people are forcing artists to use those methods. Any type of force or coercion is not allowed in a free society. You are against the law for its force, and yet you accept the force your side uses because you deem it justified. Stop justifying the use of force.
That's a false dichotomy on both parts. Your assertion has been to link me to communism, totalitarianism, and every other negative aspect when that has never been something I've said. I accept that people share works at no monetary value. It happens that we share good stories and leave bad actors in these details alone. I accept that piracy is advertising and a choice on the user's part to find their media as they see fit. I also understand quite clearly that the needs of people in different countries changes based on what they look for. Ironically, a lot of middle easterners are interested in western media but can't get to it. Link [http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101208/ts_yblog_thelookout/wikileaks-cable-hollywood-helping-to-stop-the-spread-of-terrorism]Half of what you think I'm arguing for I'm actually not. I never said that artists need to be paid. I'm saying that artists should be able to choose if they get paid. There is a difference here. My entire argument comes down to choice, the right to choose how do use your own creative work. You however want that choice to be made by you, because it suits your own personal interests and what you think is good for society. That is the mindset of a dictator.Gindil said:Finally, the entire "artist need to be paid" paradigm, you want to tote. No, they create for other incentives than profit, which you seem not to even respond to.
Like I said before, artists will do what they want, however they want, for whatever motivations they possess. I allow them to achieve their goals however they please. You want the artists to do things your way.
No, I asked for a specific thing. Derivative works are old ideas made new. Newness is not a bubble. Stop acting as if people aren't inspired by older stories.YOU. COULD. CREATE. SOMETHING. NEW.Gindil said:Run that entire thing by me again, with everything I said please?
I guess we should be stuck in the Industrial Revolution Age since the button pushers wanted to keep their jobs. Or Ford should still be making the model T since it was the first car. I guess progress in those areas shouldn't have happened for another century.Oh but piracy is a problem, because it forces that Luddite to do something they don't want. Again, free society, human rights, I'd expect some of this to at least sink in by now. If someone wants to be or do something that is against their own best interest, you have to just let them do it. To force them to do otherwise is authoritarian.Gindil said:Someone wants to be a Luddite, that's their choice. Piracy has never been a problem, using law and litigation to solve everything has.
And my entire issue is that this is effectively monopolistic gain, which hurts society in the long run. Take TicketMaster, being able to own most of the concert halls in the US. Yes, it's stable, but they price gouge to make themselves richer and everyone else poorer.It gives the creator the right to choose distribution channels because manipulation of those distribution channels is essential for their personal success.
We're arguing the same thing. I'm saying that Congressmen passed the laws because of the lobbying dollars given to them (look at Patrick Leahy's donation records on opensecrets.com). Then again, the Supreme Court hasn't helped much with anticonsumer rulings such as Eldred vs Ashcroft.Nay, the root of the problem is who co-opted with who to make those laws in the first place. As a libertarian I blame the maker of those laws and the gatekeeper of power: the government. Had they stayed out of the issue, and only allowed basic copyright laws as protection of human rights, none of this would have happened.Gindil said:The root of the problem comes from why are they incentivized to pass such laws in the first place.
They shouldn't. There should be as many channels "open" as possible for people to gain access to works. That's what the other business models are for, incentivizing people to create MORE without the need to litigate their advantage. In order to not sustain a bad system, you have to move away from it.The only irrelevance I've identified was your justification of other business models. Yes, they're great, fine, whatever, but they don't touch on the issue. I cannot condone the additions and extra limitations that have been added to copyright law over the decades. As I said I disagree with them. However you take the examples and justify your position that creators should not have the right to choose how they copy their works. Because that is the crux of the issue here.Gindil said:We now have no public domain works being released because copyright is so long. Mickey Mouse should be open to everyone. Along with people being able to use the works of Ernest Hemingway in a compilation. In every last example, I've tried to show the immediate harm that copyright law impedes upon while you've actually tried to dismiss these as irrelevant.
I continue to assert a severe limitation on copyright. That isn't the eradication of it, but it does take out a lot of the "sting" that copyright holders can do to people. It also allows the innovations that have not been prevalent since the 1930s.There is a difference here between identifying the areas where copyright needs an overhaul, and simply dismissing the entire thing. I don't think you understand what it is you want to eradicate here.
Satire isn't, fair use = parody. Still a derivative work.Parody isn't protected by copyright...Gindil said:Infringing? Yep. Fair use? Again, yep. Funny as all hell? Hell yes!
Interesting... Mike Masnick is an economist and understands these issues pretty well. We're talking about copyright and economic decisions, where the market doesn't care. You release a work, it's going to be recorded, bittorrented, videotaped, watched, and read 20 ways from Sunday. How people own that you have yet to define.Quite the opposite in fact. The principal of a capitalist system is that people own their property, they own their body, they own their time, and they own the result of their work. You couldn't any more wrong here.Gindil said:I'm not here for an ethics debate because in economics, the market doesn't care.
It seems the consumers have a say in sharing media regardless of the creator rights... Just a suggestion, "should be" defines a weak argument. What is happening in the world? Those are the better questions than how you can stop it.They should have a say because it's their work, and we have (or should have) a capitalist system where people own what they create. It should be up to the creator to decide how much authoritative control they have. As I said before, consumers have their personal freedoms as well except one: distribution. I've made it clear several times why distribution should be and is recognized to be solely the creator's right: because it affects their livelihood. It's not just a moral principal, but it is the economic principal that our economy is based on.Gindil said:Pirates have their own personal freedoms and you seem to think that artists should have a say in every detail of what they create.
Not for individualsBecause it tramples on personal liberties.Gindil said:Why in the world, does my belief that piracy, is something other than people sharing information, impede on "The progress of the Arts and Sciences? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Copyright_Clause]"
*facepalm.jpg*The ends justify the means, again. I suppose if I violate your human rights for the greater good you'll be all for it. Sacrificing one for the good of the many, great philosophy to have.Gindil said:If the artists get paid in other ways, piracy doesn't matter because in the end, everyone benefits.
And you've still painted it with your own brush. The easel is still empty...That's a loaded statement, since as I said you paint copyright with a wide brush.Gindil said:I've said that copyright law is very limiting in what it can do.
*ahem*These aren't beliefs, they are factual principals of the free market and human ethics. Your evidence is irrelevant because you don't focus on those principals, which is the core of the issue. Any benefit you provide is overridden by the fact that you are violating the rights of others.Gindil said:You still haven't shown any evidence to the contrary than your own beliefs and trying to dismiss mine as irrelevant because it doesn't correspond with yours.
Glad to see you ignore the rest of it. Still doesn't change the fact that the "pursuit of handout" from copyright law seems pretty valid at this junction.Yes, like the liberty one has to decide how their creations are used. Oops, I bet you didn't think of that one. Don't go quoting the Declaration of Independence when it goes against your claims.Gindil said:Last I checked we had "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
They're doing that now. Wonder which ones are successful...? Hmmm...Ooooor, you could let the creator to decide how much or little copyright protection they need or want.Gindil said:If it's a tool that is abused, it either needs to be lessened considerably (hence 5 year copyright) or taken away.
Seeing as how our copyright law is slanted in their favor and they can do a lot more damage, consumers have rights too. And before you get into the "many vs few argument" again, stop doing that please. That's getting annoying when all you do is repeat the same thing ad nauseum and I'll begin to throw out even more of this argument since you've yet to back it up with any digestable evidence other than your opinions.And yet you say they can risk another's well being because they want to make any kind of success through piracy? That seems a little hypocritical that you would go after the copyright holders for infringing rights instead of the pirates who also infringe on rights.Gindil said:No person should absolutely destroy another's well being because they want to make a financial profit through the judicial system.
I brought statutory damages at least twice... I also recall a look into Anne Hathaway that went by but it looks like that went unnoticed as well.How can I ignore it when it was never brought up?Gindil said:And you still ignore the statutory damages...
Statutory damages are outdated in the age of the internet with large amounts of data can be transfered, making the cost of every infringement unjust. And? I've already said the law needs to be reworked.
*Facepalm.jpg [http://pic.phyrefile.com/n/na/narf/2010/06/14/facepalm.jpg]*YepGindil said:So let's get this straight. Even though, by law, I can record small clips of a movie and post them on Youtube, I'm a pirate. Even though I like a song, I can't share it on Grooveshark. Even though I like Pioneer One, I can't share it with the world on Bittorrent because I'm a pirate for distributing materials in various ways.
That's not human rights... Human rights is the taking of land by force. It's the segregation of the population at the point of a gun. It's the destruction of Tiananmen Square, or the Buddhist uprisings in Taiwan. It's physically going out and protesting against the government when they try to silence an author over being a Red. These are human rights when they are impeded upon or fought for.Well it is. The author has the right to distribute, and if the pirate distributes their work, they're breaking the author's right. That much is clear. It is only simplistic because we as a society have come to the conclusion that violating human rights is wrong. That is an absolute with almost do determent, and it's caused so much relative peace for so long. To say it's simple doesn't do the principal justice, since simple ethical framework seems to work the best. We do not violate the rights of others, and the government *should* be a reactive measure against the violation of rights. That's what the Constitution is about, that's what the founders intended, it's what our ethics and economic system is based on.Gindil said:You seem to be begging the question that because an author loses a right to distribute, somehow piracy is wrong on all levels.
This is getting annoying when all you do is use the buzzwords of "greater good" and "benefit of society", "authoritarian" and "communist" because your view is that of saying consumer liberty needs to be impeded upon for the author to produce a profit. Sorry, I don't make choices at the point of a gun. They want a profit from me, they better work to gain my attention from the various other people that may want my money.The path to hell is paved with good intentions, and many generally unkind people throughout history have justified their position for the "greater good" or for the "benefit of society". The only societies that have truly done well have been the recent societies with the concept of liberty.
There's no justification, only statements of the facts, like you're justifying borderline calling me "communist", "socialist", and any other buzzword because of this supposed "ethical" debate. Odd that it's growing more and more into us going around in circles...I do recognize the transformative affect of the media, but nowhere should it override ethical principals. You however see the benefits of the distribution of media, and the scale of information, and are prepared to use that as justification to override the rights of others.
Remember my last post? Shakespeare copied entire plays. Changed my view a lot to also learn he was poor his entire lifetime and pretty much wrote stories or copied them for his theater. Even that was given to him. The guy had some major fame, but he was destitute most of it... Sounds like scientists nowadays. Judging from how King Lear's happier ending was celebrated during the 1800s but Shakespeare's sadder ending is relevant today, I'd say these derivative works show that both can coexist. Something that an author doesn't need is more protection. You've yet to say why they need protection from a market place. Please, no more of this:How is that a positive attribute?Gindil said:Did you miss my part of my original Shakespeare argument, discussing how King Lear WAS changed and given a happy ending even though that wasn't Shakespeare's original intent?
You know the people who go through text books and iron out the negative aspects of history to spin whatever culture or nation towards the good side of the fight? You know how those people are usually met with scorn because they're changing history and deleting entire episodes of information from existence? Well how is changing the work of Shakespeare any different?
I have answered that twice now in this post. If we're looking at their economic situation, then morals have very little to do with this. I'll actually answer this later on, but the fact is that if current copyright law (or as I view it, the current protectionist model) isn't effective, given that it's heavily sided towards creators of content, you need something more than morality to curtail the public view of piracy.Well it is. The author has the right to distribute, and if the pirate distributes their work, they're breaking the author's right. That much is clear. It is only simplistic because we as a society have come to the conclusion that violating human rights is wrong.
First you say it needs to be balanced. Now in the same paragraph, you're saying the principles work of economic gain through copyright enforcement/ copyright in general. If the principles of copyright supposedly work, why aren't more authors looking for that benefit? You've yet to answer that question, nor the question of how this supposed principle works, when there's a lot of evidence to the contrary (Shakespeare) or the very fact that art and works are created without copyright (Deviantart, Youtube, Ustream, Jamendo [Creative Commons, I consider a different way of doing business since it allows people to know if they can share or not]), or the litigation is too overbearing for what's needed. Also, human rights haven't been interrupted. Economic rights, maybe, I'll grant you that one for once, but not human rights.There's nothing wrong with that. Copyright should keep a comfortable middle ground between derivative works and creator's original intent. I'm not saying the current system works as it is; I'm saying that the principals do. Even so, it doesn't allow pirates to do what they want, human rights be damned.Gindil said:I really insist you learn about derivative works and transformative use.
Thank you for ignoring all the solutions.Thank you for stating the problem.Gindil said:Moral imperative isn't changing more people to stop sharing media.
Riiight... Yeah, no evidence of that happening.Incorrect. The digital era indeed has outpaced a lot of the older ideas in the copyright law, but copyright law does not stop people from expressing ideas freely. It only stops others from forcing creative works to be free.Gindil said:By all fundamental definition of that clause, copyright and patent law impede on this in the digital era.
But that undermines your point that piracy is causing this. It also undermines your point that piracy is creating this problem. I would read the jazz article up top because that's what was forced on artists, and it truly affected the jazz music in the US from bad copyright law.If people want to abandon copyright law they can. Nobody has to litigate against their fan base, nobody forces them too. There is no problem with abandoning the old system because adherence to that system is entirely voluntary, unlike the effects of piracy.Gindil said:And with copyright law, we have various corporations litigating that cause a chilling effect rather than be better than what a pirate offers. Smaller artists don't even use copyright (which IMO is a major reason to see where the issues lie) for their works and yet, because the ideals sound good, that makes good protection?
Doubtful since liberty means freedom from restraint. Ironic that you want the author to restrain what a consumer does in the name of economic gain. I'm just glad more and more people seem to be finding the restraints of the copyright system and are shedding it off.Not at all. Liberty is about personal choice. Liberty means that someone who creates a work and owns that work can have the personal choice on how to profit from it. Others copying without permission infringes on the liberty of the creator. You have the argument backwards.Gindil said:Liberty of information sounds pretty good. And if anything copyright impedes on other human rights. So now you've just asked for liberty for one, not liberty for all. Liberty for all means they can distribute regardless.
You've made your opponent into a straw man, so of course you don't see it. Consumers have rights to do almost anything they want with what they buy. The only single thing they cannot do is distribute. That is where their liberty ends. Well why is that? Because the creator of something has the desire, but not always, to profit from their work. For people who wish to profit from their work, they have the right, the liberty, to seek a particular channel of distribution that they think will most benefit them. The consumer on the other hand does not stand to benefit from the distribution, so why should they get the right? This creates a conflict of interest between the rights of the consumer to use their purchase, and the rights of the creator to profit from it. None of these participants can keep their human rights intact at the same time. If the consumer wins, the creator loses, and vice versa. The deciding factor on who's rights should win come down to who stands to benefit from distribution. Without question it is the creator. Therefore the creator should get the right of distribution, the right to copy, hence copyright.Gindil said:I'm truly failing to see how one person's needs for an economic profit that isn't secured impede on all other rights.
If a creator can control what a person does to their own economic benefit, that's selfishness. That is also not liberty. I don't know how you're using this word, but by the definitions found at dictionary.com, liberty is for all and not limiting their choices to only those of the first, second, or third partyLiberty said:1) freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
3) freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
7) unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
I believe I have it more accurately than someone who's dismissed the words of Thomas Jefferson, only used one link in the last 2 pages of argument, and seems to be misguided on the definitions of liberty. Liberty is unrestrained as I've said above, so I can't literally stop what you do, only work to persuade you to buy from me. Such is a free market. The market you describe is a market that isn't healthy. I would be worried about that.To say that the consumer has more of a right to impact the creator than the creator themselves is saying that anyone else has the right to overpower you if they feel is beneficial. That thinking is completely against the concept of liberty. So, unfortunately, you are not on the side of liberty.
They've never been beneath you. Odd first sentence...I allow those people to climb to that pedestal if it suits them. It is not my right, nor anybody else's to keep them from it.Gindil said:There's so many examples of people aggregating information that you seem to ignore here, all in the name of putting editors, authors, and innovators on an invisible pedestal, ignoring the other parts of society that innovate and use those stepping stones of work in various and unique ways.
And this goes back full circle... No, we went down this road about how copyright property isn't the same as personal property laws. You conceded the point. Are you now trying to assert, yet again, that copyright laws are the same as personal property laws?It's not economic manipulation, it's ownership, the cornerstone of our economic system.Gindil said:So before, you're saying copyright has no claws, and yet here, you're looking to say that it's used to secure their income through economic manipulation.
Your descriptions put most of the power in the hands of the few (author/holders of copyrighted content). That's not a mutually beneficial system if they limit the choices I can make with my media.Not correct. It is a mutually beneficial system, and the hotel doesn't "owe" you anything. They need money, and you need a place to stay, so you make an exchange and both parties are better off. What you describe is a system that goes one way.Gindil said:Any producer has to find ways to convince a consumer to let go of money to their goods and services. If I go to a hotel, they cater to me for money.
I never had control of how my work is distributed. If anything [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/02/digg_users_revolt_ov.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)], it gets on the internet, it ain't coming off. Your assertion doesn't match up to reality. The AACS debacle should prove the exact same thing... The more you try to control something, the less control you have with it.Again another straw man. The only thing you control is how to distribute your work. The person who buys it cannot, and you cannot control how they use it.Gindil said:What you've just described is to have all that taken away because I offer someone something, I magically have control of what they can do.
Ok... Let's also say this... Anime started with piracy and continues because of it. Such is human rights and still entirely legal.You're preaching to the choir here man, I'm all for free trade, since it keeps any monopolies in check. The difference between your scenario and piracy is that your scenario is consistent with human rights and is entirely legal.Gindil said:Enter the demand for foreign movies such as Memoirs of a Geisha, The Last Samurai and Oldboy (only an example). We now have demand from other sources, which causes more people to translate and discuss these movies. Consumer choice is increased, and overall, everyone is better off, save the American creators and monopolists.
... You seem to have lost it here by saying it's immoral again...The same thing is going on now as the market changes into new channels of payment and distribution. None of that is unethical or immoral. The only immoral part is forcing those channels onto someone else.
O_OIncorrect. They should never be forced to compete with themselves. Other people can compete with them with their own product, and the creator can choose to compete with themselves, but nobody else has the right to force the creator to compete against themselves. I know it happens, but it is still wrong.Gindil said:If the copyright artist wants a consumer's money, they HAVE to compete with themselves and a world market.
Look, if you want to ride a horse and buggy, be my guest. No one's stopping you. No one's stopping you from fighting windmills with a fork (except maybe the owner of the land the windmill is on). No one's stopping you from upgrading your phone to the latest gadget or gizmo where you have more options on it than the last one. No ones telling you to download a song, check out a new band, read information on new economic deals, or check out an author that other people might like. Economics (like the math involved) merely shows us what people are doing. France and Hadopi = more piracy underground. Napster destroyed = more efficient systems of decentralization (Bittorrent). Recording labels fight for copyright infringement = lost money and revenue instead of innovation and changing of business models. It's just like xkcd here [http://xkcd.com/263/]. The math doesn't lie that people do it for their own economic advantage. If I only make $200 a month, and a cd is $10, I'm not going to buy that CD. I'm also going to think real hard about that $1 download. The two things you describe are to ask an author for permission on everything, which isn't a free society, along with a belief that authors should have all rights.The focus on economics is another way for the ends to justify the means. It turns ethics into dollars and cents, and it allows for people to trample on human rights. Is it right for me to plan your life for you every step of the way, even if it brings you economic success? Wouldn't it be better if you could choose for yourself? I leave the choice up to other people on how to handle their lives. It is my choice, and only my choice, to handle my own affairs.Gindil said:Hence, a focus on economics, not morality.
That is the reason I denounce piracy so much, because it is other people making my choices for me. Saying "hey, well it helped you out" after the fact is irrelevant, because I am still left with my life in the hands of another person who doesn't lose from my failures or gain from my successes. That is the moral issue.
And no one does because we don't control your brain man...Now where copyright comes in is the protection of the law keeping people from manipulating my affairs. Just like in every other aspect of life whether it be the job I want to take, or the kind of car I want to buy, or even what food I want to eat, our ethics of law, while imperfect, are designed by the Constitution to keep others from keeping me from making my choices for me.
Good time to put this up... Bill Gates knew which battles to pick [http://www.globalnerdy.com/2007/03/13/microsoft-if-youre-going-to-pirate-software-it-might-as-well-be-ours/]. Piracy as a morality issue just isn't one of them...Um, no, I'm bemoaning the pirate for putting media on the torrent site because the pirate is using the torrent site to release the media for free, which violates the rights of the creator. I have nothing against torrent sites.Gindil said:You're bemoaning a pirate for putting up a torrent because it's not authorized.
That was an allusion to certain laws to copyright yoga steps. Link [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-says-no-one-can-claim-copyright-on-yoga-asanas/articleshow/7432959.cms]. Suffice to say, people HAVE tried to do that.As he should, wait do you even know what's protected vs what isn't? This is like the third time in this post alone that you assume things that copyright protects which it actually doesn't.Gindil said:If someone wants to lock up horseback riding and a certain style, a judge would laugh at them as he throws out the case.
Never said I was. I just have an interest in the Constitution, as an natural borne American should, IMO. But you've effectively thrown up the strawman. Once again, you go back to property rights equating to copyright rights. I've already told you the two aren't the same. Here, I'll help break it down with an actual copyright lawyer [http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/copyright-and-morals/].Somehow I doubt you're a constitutional law scholar. The words as they meant at the time regarded ideas, and how they shouldn't be monopolized. And behold ideas aren't protected by copyright. Once you start using the word "monopoly" in the context of ownership it looses all meaning. If you say I have a monopoly on my story, it really doesn't mean much, since by your definition you also have a monopoly on your shoes, or house, or your family. Heck you have a monopoly on your body. If monopolies are wrong, then by your usage of the word, you shouldn't own your body. See, it becomes meaningless.Gindil said:Their words extend to monopolies and the idea thing as Jefferson said, is what copyright law is trying to limit nowadays.
The conflation of property rights and copyright undermines your argument. The effect of one legal entity, be it a business or person being able to control the market to their own economic advantage, does not lose validity, whether we call it a monopoly, oligarchy or monopolistic competition. I don't throw around monopoly lightly. I only use it when you effectively want to do exactly what the definition states.These are some ways to determine what effective laws are: I assert life plus 70 is inefficient because it wildly exceeds necessary incentives and has negative impacts on the creation of other works.
In terms of morality and the Valenti quote. To me, copyright is an economic right, not a moral right and does not raise moral issues. The Second Circuit made this point too, agreeing with Judge Lynch:
?Copyright and trademark are not matters of strong moral principle.
Intellectual property regimes are economic legislation based on policy
decisions that assign rights based on assessments of what legal rules will produce the greatest economic good for society as a whole.? Sarl Louis Feraud Int?l v. Viewfinder, Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 274, 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), affirmed on this point, vacated and remanded on other grounds, 489 F.3d 474, 480 n.3 (2d Cir. 2007).
Answered above. And you really need to let go of this control issue...Because it means no person ever has the ability to control their creative work's distribution. Suddenly people don't have the right to decide how their works are released. Once. Again. You're putting the good of society over the rights of individuals. Need I inform you that no tyrannical force ever gained power by liberty.Gindil said:And society loses how...?
1) Every time I ask about protections, you point to tragedy of the commons. The question is "They have more reason to protect their own work... Because...?" And if they protect that, what does it mean for the system vs finding new ways to make money? The tragedy of the commons has yet to occur with digital resources, and I believe you know it. I've alluded before to the scarcity mindset. I believe I should link you to where it's defined. Just one place here [http://tinydancermba.blogspot.com/2008/03/abundance-vs-scarcity-mindset.html]No idea what you're trying to say here.Gindil said:The author has more potential reasons... Because...?
Ethics can, and the ethics are clear: piracy is wrong because it infringes on the creator's rights. Done, in one sentence too.Gindil said:Ethics can't answer this because nothing is lost...?
I think you mean "regardless", in any case, yes the free market will solve the problem since it would be individual authors competing against each other using different distribution methods instead of the current system where an author must compete with himself against different distribution methods. You want to talk about efficiency, there is no efficiency in an author competing against themselves.Gindil said:And your entire view hinges on just an author being allowed in a free market, irregardless of the consequences.
What you seem to reason is that authors should try to protect their work, without finding new ways to do business (which is more a cornerstone to economics than sitting and coasting on past success). That's by creating an artificial scarcity in the market place (their copyright to shut down distribution channels. This also changes the dynamics of what a person expects from an author/creator and limits all they do. That doesn't sound like liberty nor a free market. It sounds like someone I wouldn't want to work with....if you have a scarcity mindset, your view of the world tells you that opportunity is limited and that you need to compete with others in order to achieve success. If you have an abundance mindset, your view tells you that there are plenty of opportunities available to you, so it will not hurt you to help others along the way.
Between the system being "good" and this, it's kind of hard to take it seriously that the way you envision the system, is how it can continue, when you still show no evidence of this. The system has always been a consumer's market. You have a lot to prove in saying that the consumer is wrong in their choices.A system used wrongly in which society benefits at the expense of others is not an ethical system.Gindil said:Society benefits and yet you want to complain because people now have more choices and the artist has to compete in new ways to keep their work relevant.
Your argument does exactly one thing. It looks to piracy as a scapegoat and instant failure. Whether an artist makes art or not, if it doesn't sell, he can effectively say that piracy caused it. What's wrong is that it hinges on looking for a way to explain bad behavior on the part of the copyright holder, giving incentive to believe that their success is somehow guaranteed.Again you're not reading what I wrote, or you're not keeping an open mind as to what I'm truly saying. I allow people to create art in any way they desire, but the pirate takes art and uses it however they please. That is wrong.Gindil said:You hinge on the moral argument because you can't accept the fact that people use the art for various ways other than what you view as piracy.
Capitalism = competitionI understand the current state of things isn't the best. We are in a transition period of media distribution. I like remixes and mashups just as much as anyone else, but the cost of removing a creator's ownership is far worse than a system where individual creators can compete against each other.Gindil said:[rant]
Don't disagree, but the ethics argument I still have an issue with.I know the media corporations have done a lot of wrong, and it is impractical if not impossible to ask permission from everyone along the way. I don't doubt that there is a problem, there's a big problem, but the key issue here is the solution. What solution are we going to take that is ethical, and doesn't hurt anyone's rights? Well the first is to expand fair use, allowing people manipulate excerpts of media. Another solution is to let the media corporation fail, or let their wallets get hit hard enough for them to understand the new epoch of media they're in. Copyright revision is definitely on the table, and emphasis on artists to use creative commons incentivizes creativity. Public domain could be expanded.
We went over the right to own property. We also went over you conceding the issue of copyright being the same as property rights.That is only because you haven't been listening. Read some of the things I wrote, and it's pretty clear. The objective facts are these: human beings have rights. One of those rights is the right to own property, labor, and the fruits of their work. These rights just happen to be protected by the Constitution. Not only is this reflected in our laws but also in our economic system. One particular right is a creator's right to profit form their work how they see fit. They are able to profit from their work by directly manipulating their work's distribution. They alone have the right to decide channels of distribution because again, they own the work, they stand to gain or lose from it, they have the right to profit from it. Any other person who distributes their work without the creator knowing or permitting it is infringing on their rights. I mean the ethics are clear.Gindil said:Ethics do not matter on this, and you continue to fail to show why it's wrong other than your own moral imperative to say the authors are sancrosanct in their decisions
The gloom and doom hasn't worked for ten years. I doubt it'll work now.To then say that those rights need to be infringed for the good of the collective is going down a very dark road.
A capitalist market says that people compete for their own economic self interest. No one is interfering with the author save for their negotiations with the editors and publishers and their direct connection with the fans. Pirates do their own things but you either overestimate the effects of piracy on the negative scale or underestimate that people make their own choices in a voluntary market regardless of the rights of the creator.But who say's they HAVE to? Oh, the pirates. And who are the pirates to decide if the creator should compete with themselves? Again this is a violation of rights. Other creators have the right to create and therefore compete with the original creator. However someone taking the creator's work and forcing the creator to compete with themselves is not only a violation of the rights of the creator, but a violation of the voluntary market. I'm sorry but you are just wrong here in so many ways.Gindil said:The author HAS to outcompete themselves. I can't say it much better...
Let's see... Tissue engineering uses stem cells [http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/10/ff_futureofbreasts/] (NSFW - borderline) especially after we've learned to use adult stem cells.Ooh, those are some words that can come back and bite you. Attempting to avoid a straw man I must say that your same argument can be used to support eugenics, or sterilization, or forced population control. That's an awesome idea there. Never mind people's rights, you know what's best for them - what's best for society.Gindil said:If society benefits, the ethics does not matter in this regard.
I read minds for $50 a pop. yeah, that should read "economic"A psychic we have here. How do you know they're not emotionally harmed by it?Gindil said:they're not emotionally harmed
Stop trying to dismiss them as if they aren't there. They are, you have to compete against them and make a better product. That's what the Piracy video on Extra Credits says as well. Ignoring them won't make them go away.The pirate is not a legitimate competitor in a market. Stop trying to justify their behavior.Gindil said:If too high, I go to a competitor (yes, a pirate is a competitor. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy]
My mind isn't closed. It's because you have nothing but a moral view where you go back to "but piracy is bad". You've brought nothing into the debate save ONE link to a game where they basically DDoSed themselves by not preparing for the server load. The liberty rights you assert, undermine the rights of consumers. Regardless of the distribution right you seem to want to assert for artists, it's still happening. I've actually shown you legal methods for people to get the same media and yet you would call it piracy even if it's legal. You've undermined your argument with all but this view that the best thing for creators is to fight the pirates who upload, who are doing their job for them, and who do it for free. You constantly want to say that all of this is immoral.Dammit do you even understand what I'm saying? In ALL of this, all you've done closed your mind to any understanding outside of your own biased opinion and justifications. You ignore the moral view because the moral view is clear: piracy is unethical, and not because it's "stealing". Sharing is not the same thing as piracy, and I don't guilt people into not sharing. I'd encourage people to share, but to share without harming anyone else. And yes, going against someone's fundamental rights is harming them.Gindil said:In ALL of this, all you've done is assert a moral view that does nothing but try to guilt people into not sharing.
Wrong. A creator makes something new, it's outcompeting themselves as well as their competitors. Records begot 8track begot cassette tapes begot CDs begot mp3s.Wrong there. No industry forces a creator to out compete themselves, only their competitors.Gindil said:1) Artist has to outcompete themselves in all industries
Great assertion, now back it up with data/proof. I'm still waiting from the last three times I've asked.Wrong there. The free market has principals, and it is a fair game if the participants play by the same rules. For example a free market doesn't allow force or coercion, the very same actions that pirates undertake. Everything about the free market is voluntary, and piracy is not voluntary because it forces the creator to compete against themselves in a distribution network they did not want.Gindil said:3) A voluntary system does not ensure your success. It doesn't matter how you achieve it. But if you go for that success, it can be in a number of choices you make. Basically, the market doesn't care how you're successful. Just so long as you do it.
You repeated the same thing about 4 times with no economic data whatsoever... By stating that the author has more rights (which is the basic contention we have), you've effectively made the market weaker. If you're going by the Founding fathers, you should be very aware of Adam Smith's invisible hand theory. In essence it is "cooperation without coercion".Well, then reread what I wrote, because I have concise logic and reasoning for it on factual principals grounded in western ethics. Nowhere did I claim the moral high ground. I only put forward an argument in a moral context.Gindil said:I should say the same for you. You've sent nothing to prove your own ideals other than "trust me because the moral argument is the right one".
Stop right there...But right there, that's a free market---
Coercion [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion said:]
1.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
I could swear, I was showing some of the loopholes such as the ICE takedowns and their faulty reliance on drug seizure rules for copyright infringement...I don't like it either, but there are two sides to every story. Dismissing copyright without looking at the law itself, not just how it's used, is simplistic. It's just like the people who dismiss vaccines because they have rat brains in them, not knowing how the rat brains actually work, and how they're beneficial to creating immunity.Gindil said:I just don't like the abuse of the system and how it's gamed to basically destroy people through various means.
If you really, really, REALLY want me to link examples of innovations that I haven't already linked, I could do so. The innovations are happening where the rules of copyright are weaker. Logic.If the innovations are coming out independent of copyright, then obviously copyright wasn't holding them back. Logic.Gindil said:The system and its damages need changing. The length needs to be shortened considerably. In order to see more innovative uses of Youtube and other filesharing sources, copyright needs to stop hanging over the heads of consumers. The actual innovations in music, literature, and books aren't coming from copyright litigation.
You might want to look at the effects of copyright on just the music industry for starters [http://books.google.com/books?id=y6MZdddVpesC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=top%20200%20grossing%20US%20tours,%20ascap,%20bmi&source=bl&ots=S-4BenHrGr&sig=FQU5JHTqsXprazve4wlmnRRFos4&hl=en&ei=emenSpKIDYX6sQOP9_3CBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false]... ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC disagree with you. And the MPAA, the RIAA... There's more but with ASCAP, only paying the top 200 tours in the US, it's worth looking into what those long contracts in just the music and movie industry actually contained in older times vs now.Copyright isn't about getting the artist paid, it's about giving the artist the right to choose HOW they get paid.Gindil said:Online radio services prove that copyright does NOTHING to get an artist paid.
I agree until the principles, where a smaller monopoly may work for a limited time, as the Founding fathers attended and more exceptions.I love OCRemix too, and the issue is complex, but any conflict can be solved by retooling fair use and public domain. I never said that the law as it stands currently is good, I said that the principals of copyright are good.Gindil said:You can't tell me that what those people do with songs on their free time should be hindered by what the original owner desires. One reason that I love that place so much is the fact that those remixers changed all of those songs out of love for the game music industry. Imagine trying to find the original authors of ALL of the songs on that site then asking permission.
The problem here is how you merge all three into one role which I can't get behind. I'll agree to disagree with you.The reason I assert confirmation bias is from the content of your posts. I have not seen an open mind willing to consider or understand the arguments I make. I agree with you on a lot of things, like distribution channels that work, and how the law has gone too far, but I have not seen reciprocation from you. I have not seen a desire to really understand how human rights, property rights, and ethics factor into all of this, which was the primary purpose of my post here. Throughout the arguments the ethical responses have been "don't do it, it's wrong, it's like stealing", and those arguments are shallow for many reasons. My intent was to give an ethical/moral argument with actual ethical premises behind it. You have not picked up on that. You dismiss it entirely because you see piracy as an "economic issue" and the moral argument isn't an "economic issue". I have rebutted that before. Two wrongs don't make a right, and a wrong made for a greater good is still wrong.
... How does anyone control how their work is used? It's like saying Leonardo da Vinci can control how the Mona Lisa is marketed after he painted it?The Last Parade said:If I write a piece of music, and I put work into it, I want to be able to control how my art is used. I want to be able to make a living off of my art. I dont agree with piracy, the only exception is when what I offer cant be acquired by any other means (no excuse for the western world)
The music industry has increased in choices...I hate piracy, I hate what it does to the music and games industry and I hate the way that brats try and justify that the music or game isn't worth having and then download it regardless
You think piracy is a good thing and your proof is two things that aren't piracy.Gindil said:Ya know, with all of the talk about piracy, I bet people don't even understand what it is. Automatically, we assume it's a bad thing for no reason other than we don't understand what it does. At least, that's my belief.
Recently, I have two great examples of what copyright infringement does:
If you've been following the arguments, piracy = copyright infringement.KalosCast said:You think piracy is a good thing and your proof is two things that aren't piracy.Gindil said:Ya know, with all of the talk about piracy, I bet people don't even understand what it is. Automatically, we assume it's a bad thing for no reason other than we don't understand what it does. At least, that's my belief.
Recently, I have two great examples of what copyright infringement does:
Wat?
Words have definitions and you don't get a free license to change them.Gindil said:If you've been following the arguments, piracy = copyright infringement.
Basically, if you don't get permission from the original copyright holders, you owe X amount of dollars in legal fees. That is, unless you give away the music.
There's also games such as Mother 3 that can only be found online since it will never come to an American audience.
Finally, I would also look into Cave Story as something that shows piracy helping out an author.
I would argue it's more a control issue [http://torrentfreak.com/nothing-new-under-the-copyright-eclipsed-sun-110218/].KalosCast said:Words have definitions and you don't get a free license to change them.Gindil said:If you've been following the arguments, piracy = copyright infringement.
Basically, if you don't get permission from the original copyright holders, you owe X amount of dollars in legal fees. That is, unless you give away the music.
There's also games such as Mother 3 that can only be found online since it will never come to an American audience.
Finally, I would also look into Cave Story as something that shows piracy helping out an author.
Either way, there's definitely evidence that piracy doesn't hurt industries nearly as much as the industries like to claim they do (to the overwhelming surprise of absolutely nobody), I've actually written a number of papers about the issue, but that's still a far cry from all piracy being inherently beneficial to all people involved.
PIRACY (BY U.S. CITIZEN)
Whoever, being a citizen of the U.S., commits any murder or robbery, or any act of hostility against the U.S., or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life. 18 USC
This isn't an odd thing at all that the people who's profits are hurt by piracy are the people railing against it. This is like saying it's odd that people who's houses are on fire are the people who most demand firefighters. Alternatively, this is like saying it's odd that nearly every piracy advocate also benefits from free music, movies, and video games.Gindil said:Odd thing is, the ones that want to control imaginary property the most, gain the most from controlling how others use it.
This argument only supports people who aren't already well-known. These artists have the potential to gain notoriety from file-sharing networks. However, your argument conveniently ignores people who already have dedicated fanbases. Works by these people are unsurprisingly the most sought-after works through illicit means. If you notice, any evidence for this argument has never been for anything other than small independent artists.Gindil said:Piracy has actually done a lot to share works that can't otherwise be shared. The negative view tends to say that piracy harms artists and authors because people benefit from sharing the 1s and 0s.
The beneficial view (one I'll support a lot more) tends to say that piracy spreads information about artists, authors, etc, to the point that they have more opportunities in various areas.
Yes, and this is a great thing for spreading and preserving works of art. However, there are no numbers to suggest that illicit distribution has any impact on ticket sales for live shows, making this little more than a red herring.Gindil said:I tend to think about it like this:
If I'm a musician in the 14th century, I would have to play my instrument to an audience and repeat it every time I wanted to be paid. I had to worry about someone using my song, so I would keep a repertoire of songs on hand and continue competing.
Nowadays, I'm free to make the songs and sell CDs for them so long as people want them. I have a back catalogue and I don't have to remember them all off the top of my head. There's other ways to differentiate myself and bigger venues I can play in. I'd like to think that there's more opportunities for artists than what piracy supposedly takes away.
The Institute for Policy Innovation actually has a report out about the revenue lost to the music industry due to piracy. However, the numbers are inflated by (at least) 400%. So... take that how you will.Nurb said:In all honesty, no one really knows how much piracy affects larger companies because they never show any numbers to prove anything, only saying it's really affecting them