by Don Park
at 2004/01/04 22:31:22
In response to Nick Bradbury's post on piracy, Aaron Swartz writes:
Nick has no innate right to have people pay for his software, just as I have no right to ask people to pay for use of my name.
Even if he did, most people who pirate his software probably would never use it anyway, so they aren't costing him any money and they're providing him with free advertising.
And of course it makes sense that lots of people who see some interesting new program available for free from a site they're already at will download it and try it out once, just as more people will read an article I wrote in the New York Times than on my weblog.
And what's this nonsense about warez sites only having shareware stuff and not stuff from Microsoft. In my experience with the biggest, easiest-to-use things, the opposite is true (tons of BigCo software, very little shareware).
And while it's true that EXEs can often do anything (because modern OSes don't have basic security protections like
chroot, which has been in UNIX for decades), this is true of all software not just warez.Yes, piracy probably does take some sales away from Nick, but I doubt it's very many. If Nick wants to sell more software, maybe he should start by not screaming at his potential customers. What's next? Yelling at people who use his software on friends computers? Or at the library?
Aaron then wrote these series of comments in response to Schoolblog's post that agrees with Nick's view:
Chris is arguing what’s known as the sweat-of-the-brow theory of intellectual monopolies: someone who puts work into something deserves to control how it is used.
Taken to its extreme, this probably results in things you disagree with. (Michael Jackson has put a lot of money and work into his face. Can he charge people who distribute pictures of it? A newspaper reporter puts a lot of work into discovering a story. Can he charge people who repeat it.) And certainly, in the specific case of copyright, if Chris’s world was in place we’d have no libraries or video stores, and all the books at bookstores would be shrink-wrapped or behind glass.
By Nick’s reasoning, everyone who rents a movie from a video store or takes a book out of the library is a pirate, because they cost the author one potential sale (in the US, authors don’t get paid anything for library or video store rentals).
Chris, do you feel authors have a right to keep their book out of libraries? They worked hard on their book, shouldn’t they get to make the terms of use? If you don’t, how do you distinguish libraries from downloads? (It’s true that libraries don’t usually involve copies, but this is a practical distinction — quibbles like that don’t see like they’d interfere with a strong right.)
I spend months researching an important story. Finally, after great lengths, I confirm that Nixon’s team funded Watergate break-in, and I provide a chain of evidence to prove it. You run a rival newspaper and you verify all the evidence with your own eyes. Can you publish the story as well? I put a lot of work into that story, I don’t want you to copy it, even if you give me credit.
The fact that video rental stores are legal while peer-to-peer systems aren’t is an accident of law and technology. The law regulated copying while the computer systems required copies to do everything. If we had built our networks with superfast pnuematic tubes instead of wires, we could whisk CDs across them to share with others without violating the law at all. It’s hard to believe one system could be moral and the other not, simply because of this technological accident.
The fact is that there is no such morality behind copyright. Copyright is a recent invention, which originally only touched commercial publishers (of which there aren’t very many). This idea of their being some moral reason for it is even more recent. You won’t find it in any religion, or any old culture. It’s a silly idea, and it goes against our nature to share and build upon each other’s work.
What’s the moral problem with me downloading Nick’s software when there was no chance of me buying it? I get the software, Nick doesn’t lose any money and possibly gets some free advertising. It seems everyone is better off; how could this be immoral?
Yup. That's how smart kids of 21st century thinks. What a shame.
Aside from the lost profit and firmness of the moral ground piracy stands on, piracy undermines the soul of our young. When you do something others consider bad, you start a ball of self-justification rolling so you can sleep at night. So what if I burnt a house down? No one got hurt!
Let this bullshit go on and, before you know it, the only acceptable answer to “Why can't I drive your car when you are not using it?“ will be an Uzi.
Comments
Either Aaron Swartz is trying to moralize his own piracy tendencies, or he's just plain stupid. The former he can get out of but loking like an idiot, and the latter I'll forgive him.
I agree with you that appreciation of hard work as contrary to the exploitation of it is the very thing that teaches us right from wrong. The knowledge of what is truth is probably the very source of morale. Let's not let the lawers on the far right and Swartz's kind on the far left stand as examples of the way forward.
I agree with you that appreciation of hard work as contrary to the exploitation of it is the very thing that teaches us right from wrong. The knowledge of what is truth is probably the very source of morale. Let's not let the lawers on the far right and Swartz's kind on the far left stand as examples of the way forward.
I think the selfishness which piracy breeds is best summed up in Aarons first sentence:
"Nick has no innate right to have people pay for his software"
Yet Aaron believes he has the innate right to use Nick's software without charge.
It's not often the social impact of piracy is discussed, so often only the financial effects are analysed.
Interestingly, in Alex's post, the further left, the more controlled a economy is wished for. Who knows, if we lived in "redder" times, we'd have a state Napster :)
"Nick has no innate right to have people pay for his software"
Yet Aaron believes he has the innate right to use Nick's software without charge.
It's not often the social impact of piracy is discussed, so often only the financial effects are analysed.
Interestingly, in Alex's post, the further left, the more controlled a economy is wished for. Who knows, if we lived in "redder" times, we'd have a state Napster :)
So much focus on the cost and ownership, and so little insight into value.
In my youth I downloaded a commercial program or three. In some cases I even used the programs extensively, but in all cases the programs were used as a sort of currency. Trade one or two to get a program I did want to use. Perhaps the answer to immorality question resides there, in that transaction.
His library, video store, and newspaper examples are far more simplistic than I would expect from him. Libraries and video stores buy works to lend... unless those bookmobiles are part of a nationwide counterfeiting ring, delivering perfect copies of the latest books, videos and dvds to libraries after the purchase of a single copy. The newspaper story argument shows very shallow thinking about the value of a story to a newspaper and a reporter. It also ignores the most basic professional standards and news outlet would uphold.
Lastly, I'd love to hear how Aaron downloading Nick's program provides any sort of 'free advertising'. It is inconsistent with his cost and ownership arguments.
In my youth I downloaded a commercial program or three. In some cases I even used the programs extensively, but in all cases the programs were used as a sort of currency. Trade one or two to get a program I did want to use. Perhaps the answer to immorality question resides there, in that transaction.
His library, video store, and newspaper examples are far more simplistic than I would expect from him. Libraries and video stores buy works to lend... unless those bookmobiles are part of a nationwide counterfeiting ring, delivering perfect copies of the latest books, videos and dvds to libraries after the purchase of a single copy. The newspaper story argument shows very shallow thinking about the value of a story to a newspaper and a reporter. It also ignores the most basic professional standards and news outlet would uphold.
Lastly, I'd love to hear how Aaron downloading Nick's program provides any sort of 'free advertising'. It is inconsistent with his cost and ownership arguments.
Don, I lived in a country at an age where in order to play videogames, you either had to play the original stuff in bars, or you bought them from your local friendly dealer. Those were the alternatives. When I first heard of "Software Licenses" (I was 14 back then) I found that to be a totally "alien" concept. You see, in my restricted vision of things back then you either had the original support to install stuff or you didn't have it.
Then I began getting contact with some software developers, and the reality, and in the meanwhile videogame slowly became more and more an interesting market, so interesting that supermarkets began to carry them, to offer them in "super 3x2 promotions" like common toys, coffee or dishwashing powders.
What happened? Slowly the software-producing community began to have a shape, a form and a sense in front of my eyes. Software is everywhere. To produce software you need to eat. In order to eat you must be sure to sell your software OR your skills.
Now I am 27, and I accepted the existance of licenses. Software Licenses to the society are useful as plasma in the blood for the body.
The only problem is that law HERE is even too harsh against software piracy, and against the breaking of those licenses. If you go and rob a shop, and maybe kill someone, on paper you still get LESS than if you trade mp3 audio on Kazza (yes, I wrote Kazza because this spelling is the one most used on kids forums). Even a person accused of an Enron-like fraud like Calisto Tanzi, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1112868,00.html if really found guilty risks less years of prison than a random 14 years old from a random city.
So we are trying to spread a right meme (the software creator decides who and how it is distributed) by using sheer madness... madness of protection of this idea (otherwhise we will put in jail with Bubba Jhonson), madness of advertising it (in real life pirates killed raped and burned down things) and in some cases madness of allowing only SOME licensing scheme as the legal ones (opensource is communism, gpl is the mark of the DEVIL).
That's why people does not want, in the end, to understand the necessarity of software licenses. Aaron did not write anything new: he is only a messenger of this discontent, and he wrote something that is at least 20 years old and that has been "discovered" in the u.s. and several european nations at random without any connection from the discoverers.
If you want to reach 14 years old kids and sell them your software, try to reach their payement methods but also a reasonable affordable price. If you want kids to use your professional office software let them use a "personal edition". Otherwhise there will always be the Kids pirating stuff and whining like that.
Kids saying that stuff are usually harmless and generally "not a problem". Also because some of them will get a clue sooner or later. You don't know how much difficult is to knowingly steal software and think that a company is not having the success it deserves from its software.
(By the way: some stuff that Aaron said is not totally that unreasonable, the problem is that it is ill-targeted and ill-linked, but this is another story for another day)
Then I began getting contact with some software developers, and the reality, and in the meanwhile videogame slowly became more and more an interesting market, so interesting that supermarkets began to carry them, to offer them in "super 3x2 promotions" like common toys, coffee or dishwashing powders.
What happened? Slowly the software-producing community began to have a shape, a form and a sense in front of my eyes. Software is everywhere. To produce software you need to eat. In order to eat you must be sure to sell your software OR your skills.
Now I am 27, and I accepted the existance of licenses. Software Licenses to the society are useful as plasma in the blood for the body.
The only problem is that law HERE is even too harsh against software piracy, and against the breaking of those licenses. If you go and rob a shop, and maybe kill someone, on paper you still get LESS than if you trade mp3 audio on Kazza (yes, I wrote Kazza because this spelling is the one most used on kids forums). Even a person accused of an Enron-like fraud like Calisto Tanzi, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1112868,00.html if really found guilty risks less years of prison than a random 14 years old from a random city.
So we are trying to spread a right meme (the software creator decides who and how it is distributed) by using sheer madness... madness of protection of this idea (otherwhise we will put in jail with Bubba Jhonson), madness of advertising it (in real life pirates killed raped and burned down things) and in some cases madness of allowing only SOME licensing scheme as the legal ones (opensource is communism, gpl is the mark of the DEVIL).
That's why people does not want, in the end, to understand the necessarity of software licenses. Aaron did not write anything new: he is only a messenger of this discontent, and he wrote something that is at least 20 years old and that has been "discovered" in the u.s. and several european nations at random without any connection from the discoverers.
If you want to reach 14 years old kids and sell them your software, try to reach their payement methods but also a reasonable affordable price. If you want kids to use your professional office software let them use a "personal edition". Otherwhise there will always be the Kids pirating stuff and whining like that.
Kids saying that stuff are usually harmless and generally "not a problem". Also because some of them will get a clue sooner or later. You don't know how much difficult is to knowingly steal software and think that a company is not having the success it deserves from its software.
(By the way: some stuff that Aaron said is not totally that unreasonable, the problem is that it is ill-targeted and ill-linked, but this is another story for another day)
Philip wrote:
Interestingly, in Alex's post, the further left, the more controlled a economy is wished for. Who knows, if we lived in "redder" times, we'd have a state Napster :)
***
I remember a documentary on Soviet Union I saw when I was really really young (it was in the years right after Chernobyl and before the collapse of the commie empire). There people were making long (bureaucratically speaking) queues to get an lp player or a tv set with annexed vhs. When they went to rent music or videos they were allowed a really really small choice of stuff, and their names were taken in some big big logbooks along with the titles they rented.
State Napster my ass.
Interestingly, in Alex's post, the further left, the more controlled a economy is wished for. Who knows, if we lived in "redder" times, we'd have a state Napster :)
***
I remember a documentary on Soviet Union I saw when I was really really young (it was in the years right after Chernobyl and before the collapse of the commie empire). There people were making long (bureaucratically speaking) queues to get an lp player or a tv set with annexed vhs. When they went to rent music or videos they were allowed a really really small choice of stuff, and their names were taken in some big big logbooks along with the titles they rented.
State Napster my ass.
Davide wrote:
State Napster my ass.
***
I think you were taking me literally :) A regime like Stalin's would hardly allow for the openness of the Internet. Authoritarianism and intellectual freedom rarely co-exist.
I was suggesting that being far-left doesn't imply that you are for piracy (as in "Swartz's kind on the far left"), rather for more state control over the economy and its outputs. In fact, in a socialist's eyes, being rewarded for work is fundemental to society and yourself.
State Napster my ass.
***
I think you were taking me literally :) A regime like Stalin's would hardly allow for the openness of the Internet. Authoritarianism and intellectual freedom rarely co-exist.
I was suggesting that being far-left doesn't imply that you are for piracy (as in "Swartz's kind on the far left"), rather for more state control over the economy and its outputs. In fact, in a socialist's eyes, being rewarded for work is fundemental to society and yourself.
I agree wholeheartedly. I participated in a thread over at Signal v. Noise[1] about the "somethin' for nothin'" attitude that pervades the youth (though their parents aren't far behind them in my experience).
You have no right to the fruits of another's labor unless you compensate them for it on their terms. That you need it is irrelevant. If it's worth it to you to use the program or listen to the music, then it's worth transacting for ownership.
The parents aren't putting a stop to this because they're pirating music, movies, and cable. The kids get the message that it's okay and they'll deliver the same message to their kids. It's disgusting.
[1] http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives/000331.php
You have no right to the fruits of another's labor unless you compensate them for it on their terms. That you need it is irrelevant. If it's worth it to you to use the program or listen to the music, then it's worth transacting for ownership.
The parents aren't putting a stop to this because they're pirating music, movies, and cable. The kids get the message that it's okay and they'll deliver the same message to their kids. It's disgusting.
[1] http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives/000331.php
Philip wrote (replying to me):
I think you were taking me literally :) A regime like Stalin's would hardly allow for the openness of the Internet. Authoritarianism and intellectual freedom rarely co-exist.
***
Yes, I was taking you too literally, anyway I'm sorry in the case you took that exclamation as personal :) ... it was "generic".
I think you were taking me literally :) A regime like Stalin's would hardly allow for the openness of the Internet. Authoritarianism and intellectual freedom rarely co-exist.
***
Yes, I was taking you too literally, anyway I'm sorry in the case you took that exclamation as personal :) ... it was "generic".
It's interesting to see how redbaiting and pro-RIAA politics go together here. Copyright is an invention of the state -- it only exists because of state activism, so it's a form of state control over the economy. It is unenforceable on computers without something like CSS or Palladium to reduce private control over physical goods. To protect state property, private property has to be weakened!
Uzis? House burnings? Give me a freaking break.
Whether you agree with him or not, Aaron's got a point that a lot of other smart people, young and old, agree with (myself included). The least you could do is actually *respond* to it.
Whether you agree with him or not, Aaron's got a point that a lot of other smart people, young and old, agree with (myself included). The least you could do is actually *respond* to it.
I've seen economic studies claiming that piracy helps software sales. If this is in fact true, would that change your opinion? Or would you rather stick with your definition of ethical behavior, even at the cost of lower sales?
I know a guy who sets up websites for independent musicians. I asked him what he thinks of filesharing. He said all his clients love it, and encourage their fans to share their music widely. They're making a lot of money on cheap CD sales, merchandise, and live concerts. Some of these musicians used to have major-label contracts...and they're making a lot more money now than they did then.
And this is without even implementing protocols like Schneier's Street Performer (http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html), which has worked out quite well for the artists who have tried it.
Should people respect the wishes of creators who are attempting to use the old model? Sure. Let the two models compete. I think the free one will win in the end. If industry somehow manages to implement perfect copy protection, in my opinion it will only hasten the demise of an outdated business model.
Aaron might be a little too impatient to move things along, but I don't think it's fair to call him the moral equivalent of an arsonist.
I know a guy who sets up websites for independent musicians. I asked him what he thinks of filesharing. He said all his clients love it, and encourage their fans to share their music widely. They're making a lot of money on cheap CD sales, merchandise, and live concerts. Some of these musicians used to have major-label contracts...and they're making a lot more money now than they did then.
And this is without even implementing protocols like Schneier's Street Performer (http://www.schneier.com/paper-street-performer.html), which has worked out quite well for the artists who have tried it.
Should people respect the wishes of creators who are attempting to use the old model? Sure. Let the two models compete. I think the free one will win in the end. If industry somehow manages to implement perfect copy protection, in my opinion it will only hasten the demise of an outdated business model.
Aaron might be a little too impatient to move things along, but I don't think it's fair to call him the moral equivalent of an arsonist.
Copyright is an invention of the state that is an implementation of private property for words. If you create a sculpture, you own a tangible item. If you create a story or essay, what do you own? The paper it's written on? The plot or thesis? The ideas? Copyright is a way of retaining ownership over the content you create. Expiration of copyright is just as weird of an idea as expiration of ownership (you can transfer ownership of the aforementioned sculpture at death to anyone you wish and they can transfer it upon their death). Infringement of copyright is here akin to theft of that sculpture.
The state's responsibility is to protect your individual rights: life, liberty, and property. The laws and power of the state are supposed to be geared towards those ends (though they sometimes fail and fail miserably). Just because a lot of people have no problem with piracy doesn't mean that they're right or that the state should look the other way while whole classes of people (artists, writers, businessmen) have their work stolen wholesale.
The right to property is inalienable and inherent in man's nature, just as much as his right to liberty and life—it's not some sort of legal fiction as you allege. In Ayn Rand's famous formulation from Atlas Shrugged, "Only a ghost can exist without material property;only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort."
Finally, there's a difference between an artist who chooses to release his works into the public domain or makes them freely available and someone who charges for copies but has them wantonly stolen. Don't confuse the two and don't second-guess the property owner: "Oh, I'm doing him a service by not buying his software. He should be grateful to me for all the free advertising I'm doing."
The state's responsibility is to protect your individual rights: life, liberty, and property. The laws and power of the state are supposed to be geared towards those ends (though they sometimes fail and fail miserably). Just because a lot of people have no problem with piracy doesn't mean that they're right or that the state should look the other way while whole classes of people (artists, writers, businessmen) have their work stolen wholesale.
The right to property is inalienable and inherent in man's nature, just as much as his right to liberty and life—it's not some sort of legal fiction as you allege. In Ayn Rand's famous formulation from Atlas Shrugged, "Only a ghost can exist without material property;only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort."
Finally, there's a difference between an artist who chooses to release his works into the public domain or makes them freely available and someone who charges for copies but has them wantonly stolen. Don't confuse the two and don't second-guess the property owner: "Oh, I'm doing him a service by not buying his software. He should be grateful to me for all the free advertising I'm doing."
Swartz is a very young kid. While I agree that Bradbury's pircay rant is a bit of a stretch, Swartz's misunderstanding of copyright and intellectual property is problematic. You could reasonably take the other side of every example he brings up. If book authors did not want their books in libraries then they would not be there. If movie companies did not want their DVDs rented, then they would not be at Blockbuster. Over the centuries, we've arrived at semi-happy compromises between owners and consumers. For example, the right to make a copy of an album for personal use.
Dennis, it doesn't matter if piracy helps or hurts sales. Either way, the content owner should be able to control distribution and usage. If the artist is comfortable with free charing, fine. If not, they should have some control in the matter.
Dennis, it doesn't matter if piracy helps or hurts sales. Either way, the content owner should be able to control distribution and usage. If the artist is comfortable with free charing, fine. If not, they should have some control in the matter.
"Over the centuries, we've arrived at semi-happy compromises between owners and consumers."
Except that compromise has shifted dramatically in favor of copyright owners, with effectively unlimited copyright terms, elimination of fair use via the DMCA, and drastically expanded control over derivative works.
Copyright was not originally intended to be an "inalienable property right," but a means of promoting the public domain. There are words to that effect in the Constitution. That purpose has been lost under the current system, and for that reason, a lot of people are of the opinion that the system has lost legitimacy.
I did say in my previous post that we should respect the wishes of creators, but I think a case can be made that civil disobedience is an appropriate response at this point. Personally, I don't infringe copyrights, but I really don't see a moral issue with, say, sharing works that would be public domain if their copyrights had not been retroactively extended.
Except that compromise has shifted dramatically in favor of copyright owners, with effectively unlimited copyright terms, elimination of fair use via the DMCA, and drastically expanded control over derivative works.
Copyright was not originally intended to be an "inalienable property right," but a means of promoting the public domain. There are words to that effect in the Constitution. That purpose has been lost under the current system, and for that reason, a lot of people are of the opinion that the system has lost legitimacy.
I did say in my previous post that we should respect the wishes of creators, but I think a case can be made that civil disobedience is an appropriate response at this point. Personally, I don't infringe copyrights, but I really don't see a moral issue with, say, sharing works that would be public domain if their copyrights had not been retroactively extended.
Don, are you serious? There is no moral ground for copyright law, let alone a firm one, as dozens of serious commentators have acknowledged. (Everyone from Larry Lessig to Jon Udell to Paul Graham to Oliver Wendell Holmes -- not to mention the people who have spoken up in this thread.) If you can't figure out why taking a car causes harm and singing a song in the shower doesn't, then I think you're the one who needs help.
BrianM, libraries buy copies of CDs but so do people who upload them to Napster! There is a difference in degree, of course, but only in degree -- not morality!
BrianM, libraries buy copies of CDs but so do people who upload them to Napster! There is a difference in degree, of course, but only in degree -- not morality!
Bill Brown, comparing copying to theft is very tenuous, and is certainly not supported by law. (If you copy a program can they charge you with interstate larceny? Of course not!) This is why you reach absurd results like "copyright should never expire". Copyright, unlike property, is a restriction on what anyone can say. I agree that property is rather natural -- it's in numerous religions, for example -- but you won't find the idea of intellectual monopolies anywhere in history; they're a new concept that is not only unnecessary but a bad idea.
pb says "If book authors did not want their books in libraries then they would not be there. If movie companies did not want their DVDs rented, then they would not be at Blockbuster." which is simply nonsense. If copyright holders had their way, there would be no libraries, rental stores, and you wouldn't be able to thumb through books at bookstores. Don't believe me? Look at the music industry -- they were able to get CD rental stores banned, they fought tooth-and-nail to keep people from sampling CDs at stores, and they'd get rid of libraries if they thought they could.
I'd like all of you who spit on my claims with nonsense about "those kids today!" to try and justify this new moral rule that has been so recently invented.
(Don, using an [em] tag causes a weird error.)
pb says "If book authors did not want their books in libraries then they would not be there. If movie companies did not want their DVDs rented, then they would not be at Blockbuster." which is simply nonsense. If copyright holders had their way, there would be no libraries, rental stores, and you wouldn't be able to thumb through books at bookstores. Don't believe me? Look at the music industry -- they were able to get CD rental stores banned, they fought tooth-and-nail to keep people from sampling CDs at stores, and they'd get rid of libraries if they thought they could.
I'd like all of you who spit on my claims with nonsense about "those kids today!" to try and justify this new moral rule that has been so recently invented.
(Don, using an [em] tag causes a weird error.)
Since Don is apparently not joking, I'll answer is silly hypothetical.
"piracy undermines the soul of our young" Yes, those silly young people, daring to think differently! Why can't they shut up like everyone else?
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
"So what if I burnt a house down? No one got hurt!" I'd think this would be obvious, but apparently Don doesn't realize that when you burn a house down, no one can use it anymore.
"Why can't I drive your car when you're not using it?" Again, cars are rivalrous -- your use interferes with mine.
That the entertainment industry has gotten so many to believe the absurd suggestion that copying is analogous to theft is what we should be worried about, not the questioning of the young!
"piracy undermines the soul of our young" Yes, those silly young people, daring to think differently! Why can't they shut up like everyone else?
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
"So what if I burnt a house down? No one got hurt!" I'd think this would be obvious, but apparently Don doesn't realize that when you burn a house down, no one can use it anymore.
"Why can't I drive your car when you're not using it?" Again, cars are rivalrous -- your use interferes with mine.
That the entertainment industry has gotten so many to believe the absurd suggestion that copying is analogous to theft is what we should be worried about, not the questioning of the young!
C'mon aaron, CD rentals stores don't exist because music is a completely different experience from movies. People listen to music over and over and over. People watch a movie 1.2 times. Sampling music at stores is now widespread thanks to technology. And book publishers are fine with libraries. They provide revenue and alternative distribution. High volume books lose hardly any sales from libraries and low volume books get a meaningful percentage of sales from libraries.
So, no, I don't believe you at all.
So, no, I don't believe you at all.
Dennis,
The Constitution is, in the end, just a piece of paper and the Founding Fathers are just people who haggled over the content of that paper. We, the People, with the power to change the Constitution, meaning that, while civil disobedience is appropriate as a form of free speech, there are better ways to change the law. I also think mixing civil disobedience and personal gain ruins what should be exercised more prudently.
I agree that copyright laws are out of balance and RIAA's actions are overly done. We should change the law, not our minds.
The Constitution is, in the end, just a piece of paper and the Founding Fathers are just people who haggled over the content of that paper. We, the People, with the power to change the Constitution, meaning that, while civil disobedience is appropriate as a form of free speech, there are better ways to change the law. I also think mixing civil disobedience and personal gain ruins what should be exercised more prudently.
I agree that copyright laws are out of balance and RIAA's actions are overly done. We should change the law, not our minds.
Aaron, you are not arguing about moral grounds. Instead, you are arguing about logical grounds. In fact, you are assuming that there is one and only one proper moral perspective: logic.
If it doesn't make logical sense [to you] and/or your opponents's arguing abilities are weaker than you, it is wrong. While that perspective might make a fine Vulcan society, I think it does not make a good human society.
If it doesn't make logical sense [to you] and/or your opponents's arguing abilities are weaker than you, it is wrong. While that perspective might make a fine Vulcan society, I think it does not make a good human society.
I am actually in favor of changing certain aspects of the Constitution. There is a well-defined amendment process for doing so. If the Constitution can be simply ignored, or reinterpreted into meaninglessness, we might as well abandon it entirely. I don't think that's such a good idea, myself.
There is massive public support for less onerous copyright restrictions, but for some reason, major media corporations have a weightier voice than 60 million Kazaa users. If Congress were responsive to public opinion on this issue, there wouldn't be any need for civil disobedience.
There is massive public support for less onerous copyright restrictions, but for some reason, major media corporations have a weightier voice than 60 million Kazaa users. If Congress were responsive to public opinion on this issue, there wouldn't be any need for civil disobedience.
There is a strong moral ground for not infringing on copyright: you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned. If I am hungry, I can't go into a grocery store and eat at the veritable buffet. If I am bored, I can't go into Wal-Mart and take a DVD home to watch (or open the package and copy it on to my laptop). If I want these things, then I have to trade for them using the conventional medium of exchange, currency.
What undermines the souls of the young is the opposite notion, that you have a right to things without the consequent need to pay for them. It's this do-whatever-you-want, take-whatever-you-need mentality that tarnishes the soul. It's not endemic to the kids of today or even youth, in general. The same sort of thinking underlies socialism, altruism, and the welfare state.
I am not a copyright holder though I've certainly written enough to comprise a book. I give it away freely at my web site because I choose to do so. But that doesn't mean that I give away my rights. You can read whatever I wrote, but you can't republish it without my permission. I don't think that this is an "absurd result" but a natural outgrowth. If I produce something of commercial value, I want to be compensated for my effort when people use it. If they don't, then they're stealing my time and that's more valuable than whatever they might have paid me.
Where I think it gets galling is that kids today aren't particularly principled in their theft. We used to hear arguments like "Property is theft" but now they don't even feel the need to justify their actions and you get a blank stare when you point out that what they're doing is wrong. I know whereof I speak because my younger relatives constantly ask if they can have a copy of this or that CD, DVD, or program and look stupefied when I tell them that I don't condone piracy.
Singing in the shower is one thing, but claiming that you are the original recording artist of what you sing is another thing entirely. One that will get you sued, rightfully, in court and result in significant damages depending on your success in perpetuating that lie.
What undermines the souls of the young is the opposite notion, that you have a right to things without the consequent need to pay for them. It's this do-whatever-you-want, take-whatever-you-need mentality that tarnishes the soul. It's not endemic to the kids of today or even youth, in general. The same sort of thinking underlies socialism, altruism, and the welfare state.
I am not a copyright holder though I've certainly written enough to comprise a book. I give it away freely at my web site because I choose to do so. But that doesn't mean that I give away my rights. You can read whatever I wrote, but you can't republish it without my permission. I don't think that this is an "absurd result" but a natural outgrowth. If I produce something of commercial value, I want to be compensated for my effort when people use it. If they don't, then they're stealing my time and that's more valuable than whatever they might have paid me.
Where I think it gets galling is that kids today aren't particularly principled in their theft. We used to hear arguments like "Property is theft" but now they don't even feel the need to justify their actions and you get a blank stare when you point out that what they're doing is wrong. I know whereof I speak because my younger relatives constantly ask if they can have a copy of this or that CD, DVD, or program and look stupefied when I tell them that I don't condone piracy.
Singing in the shower is one thing, but claiming that you are the original recording artist of what you sing is another thing entirely. One that will get you sued, rightfully, in court and result in significant damages depending on your success in perpetuating that lie.
Dennis, I am not convinced that there is "massive public support for less onerous copyright restrictions." Most people Just-Don't-Care one way or another. Civil disobedience can sometime triumph against ambivalence and ignorance but not when there are better shows like Iraq and War on Terrorism are playing. While everyone is wasting their time for a worthwhile cause, kids are arming themselves with intellectual excuses to justify their actions for self-gain. Frankly, I think they will do better with a bad haircut.
"Singing in the shower is one thing, but claiming that you are the original recording artist of what you sing is another thing entirely."
I don't know of anyone seriously arguing in favor of plagiarism. The American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) did, however, attempt to collect license fees from girl scouts singing their songs around campfires. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html)
It's precisely this type of abuse that undermines the legitimacy of the entire system.
I don't know of anyone seriously arguing in favor of plagiarism. The American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) did, however, attempt to collect license fees from girl scouts singing their songs around campfires. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html)
It's precisely this type of abuse that undermines the legitimacy of the entire system.
Dennis: I don't see a problem with ASCAP wanting to charge a camp from using their songs. It's not fair use since the camp is a commercial venture. If they don't want to pay, then they can create their own songs or have the kids sing the words instead of using commercial recordings.
Why do you think that rights disappear because we're talking about a camp for little girls?
Why do you think that rights disappear because we're talking about a camp for little girls?
I did desktop support for years in the mid 90's and I've used computers in general since 1981. I've worked with commercial, friends and private peoples systems. I realize this is anecdotal but I'm pointing out that I've touched thousands of peoples machines in my life.
The audience of this weblog are generally smart literate folks that in some fashion or reason care about "computing" in some way. The computers users that don't read this weblog (or tech news on cnet for instance) are happy with Windows 95, Microsoft Works or just use their corporate approved desktop.
I think 85% of the people reading this probably have at LEAST 2-3 pirated programs on their machine. Chances are one of them is probably Photoshop, Word or the OS itself.
My point is not to undermine anyone that has specifically commented on this story, my point is that no-one should point at the "young" as the problem. Instead look around to your friends and co-workers.
The audience of this weblog are generally smart literate folks that in some fashion or reason care about "computing" in some way. The computers users that don't read this weblog (or tech news on cnet for instance) are happy with Windows 95, Microsoft Works or just use their corporate approved desktop.
I think 85% of the people reading this probably have at LEAST 2-3 pirated programs on their machine. Chances are one of them is probably Photoshop, Word or the OS itself.
My point is not to undermine anyone that has specifically commented on this story, my point is that no-one should point at the "young" as the problem. Instead look around to your friends and co-workers.
Bill, you're aware that the Girl Scouts are nonprofit, right? Supported by the United Way, tax-deductible charity, all that?
"or have the kids sing the words"...that is precisely what the kids were doing, and what ASCAP wanted to charge them for. The camps weren't playing recordings, it was just kids singing songs. Read the link.
If you still think ASCAP was right, you're definitely out of the mainstream on this one...ASCAP had to back off after massive public outrage.
"or have the kids sing the words"...that is precisely what the kids were doing, and what ASCAP wanted to charge them for. The camps weren't playing recordings, it was just kids singing songs. Read the link.
If you still think ASCAP was right, you're definitely out of the mainstream on this one...ASCAP had to back off after massive public outrage.
Adam, you are right that piracy is common among adults as well. The difference is that adults keep in the shadow along side porns and skeletons instead of flaunting it in broad daylight like the younger generations are doing and playing word games to justify their actions.
Some of that can be blamed on the far right like RIAA and book publishsers, but not all of it. You cannot restore balance by eating away at the balancing beam like intellectual termites daring to think differently.
Some of that can be blamed on the far right like RIAA and book publishsers, but not all of it. You cannot restore balance by eating away at the balancing beam like intellectual termites daring to think differently.
Dennis, does being a charity have anything at all to do with it? Since when do charities not have to pay? ASCAP was well within their rights but didn't think it through very well.
I brought up their nonprofit status because Bill called them a commercial entity. They are not.
It is true that ASCAP was within their legal rights. But to an awful lot of people, that's a law that doesn't smell right. That's the point.
Happy Birthday is an ASCAP song. If you have a company birthday party and the group sings Happy Birthday, you're supposed to pay royalties. Many of us find this excessive.
It is true that ASCAP was within their legal rights. But to an awful lot of people, that's a law that doesn't smell right. That's the point.
Happy Birthday is an ASCAP song. If you have a company birthday party and the group sings Happy Birthday, you're supposed to pay royalties. Many of us find this excessive.
Thanks Don. I appreciate you admitting that in this conversation.
Young people talk about alot of assumptions and "skeletons" that older people like us don't like to talk about. I like Aaron's weblog and presence online in general, I also think he's flailing around a bit on this argument (not that the others are all that impressive on this issue either). I kind of put his opinions on this as still not neccessarily well thought out "moral" positions but a questioning of authority and status quo.
He gets points from me in the attempt to grapple with this issue that the rest of us punt on.
Not to create too much "scope creep" on this discussion-
This skeleton is one reason I find discussions of the "usability" of Linux and opensource applications to be highly hypocritical on the part of most engaged computer users. There are a lot of derisory comparisions of the Linux desktop and an OSX or Windows desktop. How many people, for example, are comparing The Gimp with a pirated version of Photoshop they have at home/work? How usable can you call a "warezed" version of OSX and applications with it?
I really appreciate the ability to live in an ecosystem that doesn't seem to require/encourage/collaborate(?) its inhabitants to be federal felons (I'm still a sinner sometimes too).
I bring this up because I think its really important for people to grapple with the hypocrisy you acknowledge as they choose how much effort they want to put into their computing life.
Grapple with Linux, actually spend thousands of dollars a year or "warez" the expensive bits.....
Young people talk about alot of assumptions and "skeletons" that older people like us don't like to talk about. I like Aaron's weblog and presence online in general, I also think he's flailing around a bit on this argument (not that the others are all that impressive on this issue either). I kind of put his opinions on this as still not neccessarily well thought out "moral" positions but a questioning of authority and status quo.
He gets points from me in the attempt to grapple with this issue that the rest of us punt on.
Not to create too much "scope creep" on this discussion-
This skeleton is one reason I find discussions of the "usability" of Linux and opensource applications to be highly hypocritical on the part of most engaged computer users. There are a lot of derisory comparisions of the Linux desktop and an OSX or Windows desktop. How many people, for example, are comparing The Gimp with a pirated version of Photoshop they have at home/work? How usable can you call a "warezed" version of OSX and applications with it?
I really appreciate the ability to live in an ecosystem that doesn't seem to require/encourage/collaborate(?) its inhabitants to be federal felons (I'm still a sinner sometimes too).
I bring this up because I think its really important for people to grapple with the hypocrisy you acknowledge as they choose how much effort they want to put into their computing life.
Grapple with Linux, actually spend thousands of dollars a year or "warez" the expensive bits.....
Dennis, I agree that charging for "Happy Birthday" is excessive but scraping the copyright laws to remove excesses like that is also excessive. As for me, I want to continue wearing my pants despite the occasional wedges.
I guess I was operating out of an idiosyncratic definition of "commercial" but it doesn't sway me whether it's non-profit or not.
I read the article in its entirety. When I said, have the kids sing it I meant that the kids could sing whatever song they wanted as long as it wasn't camp-sponsored or suggested. Kids like to sing things and they'll do it whether ASCAP, the summer camp, or anyone else allows them to or not. Now, to the outside observer, it would be impossible to tell whether the camp suggested the song or it was spontaneous so the camp was being rightfully cautious.
ASCAP backed off because a boycott would hurt their interests and it wouldn't be hard to see a boycott spread like wildfire among entities that provide most of the revenue for ASCAP owners. That doesn't put the Girl Scouts or the camp in the right, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if either of those entities helped spread the word about their plight. The media, of course, loves the underdog and will champion any Girl Scout unable to listen to the macarena at camp or any twelve-year old girl who downloaded songs but didn't know it was wrong.
I read the article in its entirety. When I said, have the kids sing it I meant that the kids could sing whatever song they wanted as long as it wasn't camp-sponsored or suggested. Kids like to sing things and they'll do it whether ASCAP, the summer camp, or anyone else allows them to or not. Now, to the outside observer, it would be impossible to tell whether the camp suggested the song or it was spontaneous so the camp was being rightfully cautious.
ASCAP backed off because a boycott would hurt their interests and it wouldn't be hard to see a boycott spread like wildfire among entities that provide most of the revenue for ASCAP owners. That doesn't put the Girl Scouts or the camp in the right, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if either of those entities helped spread the word about their plight. The media, of course, loves the underdog and will champion any Girl Scout unable to listen to the macarena at camp or any twelve-year old girl who downloaded songs but didn't know it was wrong.
Don Park, how do you suggest we decide morality? Is Don Park saying that something is immoral enough to make it so?
Bill Brown, I never said infringement was no big deal, I said it wasn't theft. It's not. If I copy something, I cannot be convicted of larcency -- I didn't steal anything.
Bill proposes the moral ground that "you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned". Will he next go after people who know things like "the speed of light is a universal constant" without having studied the science that underlies them? After all, they don't have a right to things they haven't earned!
Bill Brown, what makes you think fair use disappears when commerce gets involved? The four factors are to be weighed, they're not absolute. In a sane world, the case would be thrown out and ASCAP would have to pay costs for the Girl Scouts lawyers, as recently happened to Mattel when they sued someone who made Barbie art.
Bill Brown, I never said infringement was no big deal, I said it wasn't theft. It's not. If I copy something, I cannot be convicted of larcency -- I didn't steal anything.
Bill proposes the moral ground that "you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned". Will he next go after people who know things like "the speed of light is a universal constant" without having studied the science that underlies them? After all, they don't have a right to things they haven't earned!
Bill Brown, what makes you think fair use disappears when commerce gets involved? The four factors are to be weighed, they're not absolute. In a sane world, the case would be thrown out and ASCAP would have to pay costs for the Girl Scouts lawyers, as recently happened to Mattel when they sued someone who made Barbie art.
Oh, and here's my imitation of Don Park:
"Sure, all of us lust after a member of the same sex once in a while but the important thing is that we're _ashamed_ about it. The problem is these awful kids who go around flaunting their homosexuality in broad daylight! Don't they understand that it's immoral?"
"Sure, all of us lust after a member of the same sex once in a while but the important thing is that we're _ashamed_ about it. The problem is these awful kids who go around flaunting their homosexuality in broad daylight! Don't they understand that it's immoral?"
Aaron, it's great that you have a sense of humor and a habit of replacing words which can give you new perspectives. Unfortunately, you waste all those tools by using them as weapons to defend your views.
I might be going out on a limb here, but a homosexual preference does no harm. The only harm it can do is society judging that the homosexual individual is wrong or immoral to be the way he/she is.
Piracy is obviously a totally different issue. It is an active choice to take the products of someone elses labour without compensation.
There is simply no analogy to be made.
Piracy is obviously a totally different issue. It is an active choice to take the products of someone elses labour without compensation.
There is simply no analogy to be made.
Aaron:
"There is no moral ground for copyright law" sure makes it sound like you don't think infringement is a big deal.
You can be convicted of larceny if you copy something: 17 US 5.506 clearly states that you face criminal prosecution if you infringe copyright for commercial advantage or private financial gain or for infractions greater than $1000 in value.[1] If you're stealing Photoshop, that's clearly for private financial gain (saving yourself $600) and it wouldn't take much software to get over the $1,000 hurdle. Would you face prosecution? Not likely since the real money's in the big time pirates, not individuals like yourself.
"Bill proposes the moral ground that "you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned". Will he next go after people who know things like "the speed of light is a universal constant" without having studied the science that underlies them? After all, they don't have a right to things they haven't earned!"
Do you seriously believe that this is a well thought out analogy? Are you seriously confused about whether "you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned" applies to precepts of science? To answer your question: no, I don't think that people's knowledge should be attacked because they are standing on the shoulders of giants. Where do you get this stuff?
In a similar vein to completely missing my point, you ask me why I believe that "fair use disappears when commerce gets involved" when I never said anything of the kind. Going back to the post you cribbed that from, you'll see that I said that fair use modifies the creator's exclusive right. In fact, I explicitly said that fair use *doesn't* abrograte the copyright holder's rights.
What I find most interesting is how you picked over mine and other people's comments, answering only those that suited your fancy lobbing rhetorical grenades which you abandon with, well, abandon. You said that there's no basis for copyright in the law. I cited 17 US as contradictory evidence. Did you concede my point? You said there's no moral ground for copyright. I cited a rather conventional platitude and you postured like I had attacked knowledge as such.
Your style of argument does not evince maturity. You'll hate that I just said that because I hated it when older people said the exact same thing when I behaved the exact same way when I was younger. As I get older (I'm 29, incidentally, and don't pretend to have completed the aging process), I can look back on my youth and smirk at the hothead I once was. The principles remain, but the zealotry and stridency have thankfully been tempered. I'm not trying to be condescending, though I'm sure you'll take it that way. And I'm not particularly talking to you, more so just reflecting on how I've changed over the years.
[1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.html
"There is no moral ground for copyright law" sure makes it sound like you don't think infringement is a big deal.
You can be convicted of larceny if you copy something: 17 US 5.506 clearly states that you face criminal prosecution if you infringe copyright for commercial advantage or private financial gain or for infractions greater than $1000 in value.[1] If you're stealing Photoshop, that's clearly for private financial gain (saving yourself $600) and it wouldn't take much software to get over the $1,000 hurdle. Would you face prosecution? Not likely since the real money's in the big time pirates, not individuals like yourself.
"Bill proposes the moral ground that "you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned". Will he next go after people who know things like "the speed of light is a universal constant" without having studied the science that underlies them? After all, they don't have a right to things they haven't earned!"
Do you seriously believe that this is a well thought out analogy? Are you seriously confused about whether "you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned" applies to precepts of science? To answer your question: no, I don't think that people's knowledge should be attacked because they are standing on the shoulders of giants. Where do you get this stuff?
In a similar vein to completely missing my point, you ask me why I believe that "fair use disappears when commerce gets involved" when I never said anything of the kind. Going back to the post you cribbed that from, you'll see that I said that fair use modifies the creator's exclusive right. In fact, I explicitly said that fair use *doesn't* abrograte the copyright holder's rights.
What I find most interesting is how you picked over mine and other people's comments, answering only those that suited your fancy lobbing rhetorical grenades which you abandon with, well, abandon. You said that there's no basis for copyright in the law. I cited 17 US as contradictory evidence. Did you concede my point? You said there's no moral ground for copyright. I cited a rather conventional platitude and you postured like I had attacked knowledge as such.
Your style of argument does not evince maturity. You'll hate that I just said that because I hated it when older people said the exact same thing when I behaved the exact same way when I was younger. As I get older (I'm 29, incidentally, and don't pretend to have completed the aging process), I can look back on my youth and smirk at the hothead I once was. The principles remain, but the zealotry and stridency have thankfully been tempered. I'm not trying to be condescending, though I'm sure you'll take it that way. And I'm not particularly talking to you, more so just reflecting on how I've changed over the years.
[1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.html
Don: I don't want to scrap copyright. Just fix it.
Lawrence Lessig's latest book argues that the current copyright regime is bad for society. He made the same arguments before the Supreme Court, and some of the justices agreed with him. Are you going to claim that those Supreme Court justices are morally corrupt?
Arguing in favor of a strong copyright regime is one thing. Claiming that people of opposing views have deficient souls is quite another.
Lawrence Lessig's latest book argues that the current copyright regime is bad for society. He made the same arguments before the Supreme Court, and some of the justices agreed with him. Are you going to claim that those Supreme Court justices are morally corrupt?
Arguing in favor of a strong copyright regime is one thing. Claiming that people of opposing views have deficient souls is quite another.
Bill, what Aaron said precisely was "comparing copying to theft is very tenuous, and is certainly not supported by law." This is true. It is not theft under the law, it's copyright infringement.
If you want to play the age card, I'm 37, and find Aaron's arguments to be more mature and better reasoned out than yours or Don's. In particular, he didn't get personal, as you did in that post and as Don did initially.
If you want to play the age card, I'm 37, and find Aaron's arguments to be more mature and better reasoned out than yours or Don's. In particular, he didn't get personal, as you did in that post and as Don did initially.
Man, you guys are all over the place here. You go from one simple tangible case of software theft to girlscout singing, burning houses and homosexuals. what a flame-fest!
What it comes down to, for me anyway, is that Nick, who I know and respect, has put a lot of effort into creating a tool. He offers that tool for your use with the terms that you can use it if you pay a very reasonable price for it.
As creator of that tool, shouldn't he have the right to set the terms whereby he lets others use it?
Aren't you immoral if you refuse to accept those terms and use it anyway?
If you want to try topstyle, try the evaluation download. If you want to use it, pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, don't steal it, don't use it. Simple.
And, the bit about trusting warez... it's a good point. Think how easy it is to spread viruses or trojans by including them in warez. As Nick and many others have said: Do you really want to trust a download EXE created by someone who readily admits they are criminals?
FWIW, For all the whining about how everything should be free, I imagine that if Aaron or any of the others had put similar effort into a tool, and had offered it up, expecting to receive compensation and had gotten pirated as much, they'd be screaming their little empty heads off even louder.
What it comes down to, for me anyway, is that Nick, who I know and respect, has put a lot of effort into creating a tool. He offers that tool for your use with the terms that you can use it if you pay a very reasonable price for it.
As creator of that tool, shouldn't he have the right to set the terms whereby he lets others use it?
Aren't you immoral if you refuse to accept those terms and use it anyway?
If you want to try topstyle, try the evaluation download. If you want to use it, pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, don't steal it, don't use it. Simple.
And, the bit about trusting warez... it's a good point. Think how easy it is to spread viruses or trojans by including them in warez. As Nick and many others have said: Do you really want to trust a download EXE created by someone who readily admits they are criminals?
FWIW, For all the whining about how everything should be free, I imagine that if Aaron or any of the others had put similar effort into a tool, and had offered it up, expecting to receive compensation and had gotten pirated as much, they'd be screaming their little empty heads off even louder.
Bill,
You accuse Aaron of "immaturity" yet you stand on "it's the law" and "you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned". Not exactly grappling with any complexity or ambiguities there are you?
Aaron may not be absolutely "right" but at least he's engaging with the issue of the problems in current copyright law.
You accuse Aaron of "immaturity" yet you stand on "it's the law" and "you don't have a right to things that you haven't earned". Not exactly grappling with any complexity or ambiguities there are you?
Aaron may not be absolutely "right" but at least he's engaging with the issue of the problems in current copyright law.
When it comes to RIAA and the like, a lot of the blame for what they fear and battle is self inflicted; they themselves have pushed the focus of most commercial entertainment focus down into age groups that are younger, less experienced and easier to fool. Down there there *will* be less knowledge about what is right and wrong, be it by law or by morals. Young people love to share the latest craze (as opposed to older people who love to share their own craze), and does this regardless of wheter a piece of paper and their protectors says 'nay.' Older people learn as they go to respect that piece of paper; we put efforts into making a living, and the state is there to protect those who are trying to make a living. Unfortunately, it also protects the greedy and shuns the needy.
I feel Aaron is saying that "being young and able to think differently" is the reason why copyright is morally wrong. But he's working on egocentric grounds, not "common good" nor "fair use" which copyright *is*. So, instead of the snotty "you're old and wrong" and word-replacing hand-waving, it would be great if you could tell us old farts why a) the law of copyright is *morally* wrong and b) if you think that we old farts never have thought as you do now?
I feel Aaron is saying that "being young and able to think differently" is the reason why copyright is morally wrong. But he's working on egocentric grounds, not "common good" nor "fair use" which copyright *is*. So, instead of the snotty "you're old and wrong" and word-replacing hand-waving, it would be great if you could tell us old farts why a) the law of copyright is *morally* wrong and b) if you think that we old farts never have thought as you do now?
Don, I've had similar discussions (2) with Aaron before. One about 2 years ago and then this one. If you disagree with him based on your age and experience, he'll accuse you of being a smug older person. If you disagree with him based on someone's right to a living, he'll agree, but then argue that copying the software and using it without paying for it isn't stealing.
It's so damn frustrating to talk with someone who was 4 years old at the height of the "politically correct" movement and seems to have absorbed it so completely.
He should move out of his parents house and get a job while he still knows everything :-)
Ralph
It's so damn frustrating to talk with someone who was 4 years old at the height of the "politically correct" movement and seems to have absorbed it so completely.
He should move out of his parents house and get a job while he still knows everything :-)
Ralph
BTW, why should Nick "have no innate right to have people pay for his software?" just because it's software? Are you basing this on the fluke that his tool is easy to copy so you should be able to?
Why is theft of topstyle any different than if Nick made power drills for a living? If you want one, you can't just go steal it... you have to buy it. Oh, it's harder to copy than software? So what!
(and to get things away from the library red herring... libraries loan out a limited number of copies of something. They don't offer unlimited copies of all their books for whoever wants to take one. They offer a few copies of each, for use for a limited time. That's fair use, and is a bypass of the copyright laws for a common public good.)
Why is theft of topstyle any different than if Nick made power drills for a living? If you want one, you can't just go steal it... you have to buy it. Oh, it's harder to copy than software? So what!
(and to get things away from the library red herring... libraries loan out a limited number of copies of something. They don't offer unlimited copies of all their books for whoever wants to take one. They offer a few copies of each, for use for a limited time. That's fair use, and is a bypass of the copyright laws for a common public good.)
Lots of moralizing on this issue....
Does everyone agree that your own mom should go to jail for the copy of MSOffice that your brother replaced her MSWorks with?
Does everyone agree that your own mom should go to jail for the copy of MSOffice that your brother replaced her MSWorks with?
Aw, cmon Jeff, it's fun :)
Alexander: my old-fart perspective is that copyright is not an inherent property right, it's a temporary monopoly granted by government to promote the public domain, which is of value to society. Current copyright law does not effectively promote the public domain, and therefore should be changed. The law is morally wrong, because it was passed at the behest of industries, for the sake of their own profits, at the expense of a public good.
Fair enough?
Alexander: my old-fart perspective is that copyright is not an inherent property right, it's a temporary monopoly granted by government to promote the public domain, which is of value to society. Current copyright law does not effectively promote the public domain, and therefore should be changed. The law is morally wrong, because it was passed at the behest of industries, for the sake of their own profits, at the expense of a public good.
Fair enough?
Don, now you're upset that I use my talent to defend my views? Want me to defend yours? I guess I could, if you find me someone to take the other side.
Philip says homosexuality is OK because it does no harm. But this is exactly my point! Downloading a program when you were never going to buy it does no harm, so why isn't it OK?
Bill continues to support his "haven't earned it" principle, except when it leads to results he doesn't like. Bill, no one is going to take these "morals" seriously. It's like how drugs are bad for everyone except Rush Limbaugh.
And the fair use comment I was referring to was "It's not fair use since the camp is a commercial venture." Being of a commercial nature is only one factor in fair use, it doesn't make it not fair use. (And it doesn't make sense at all here, because the singing wasn't really of a commercial nature.)
When did I ever say there was no basis for copyright in the law? I said there was no basis for claiming copyright was theft, perhaps, but it would be absurd to claim there was no such thing as copyright. When you cited a conventional platitude, I was showing you why the platitude was wrong. I'll be happy to concede a point if you show me I'm wrong.
Alexander, my justification is more than "I'm young". I think that current copyright law is unenforceable and does not advance the common good. Whether you think copying is immoral or not, as a pragmatic matter, it seems unlikely to go away. I suggest that we deal with this by making it easier for people to pay for things they enjoy, instead of keeping them from enjoying things they haven't paid for.
People regularly buy books for $20 when the author only gets a dollar. If the author puts the book on his website and asks for a payment of a couple dollars (to make up for all the people who don't pay) I bet he'll get enough takers to make it worthwhile -- he'll certainly do better than if he spent all his time tracking down pirates and suing them.
Philip says homosexuality is OK because it does no harm. But this is exactly my point! Downloading a program when you were never going to buy it does no harm, so why isn't it OK?
Bill continues to support his "haven't earned it" principle, except when it leads to results he doesn't like. Bill, no one is going to take these "morals" seriously. It's like how drugs are bad for everyone except Rush Limbaugh.
And the fair use comment I was referring to was "It's not fair use since the camp is a commercial venture." Being of a commercial nature is only one factor in fair use, it doesn't make it not fair use. (And it doesn't make sense at all here, because the singing wasn't really of a commercial nature.)
When did I ever say there was no basis for copyright in the law? I said there was no basis for claiming copyright was theft, perhaps, but it would be absurd to claim there was no such thing as copyright. When you cited a conventional platitude, I was showing you why the platitude was wrong. I'll be happy to concede a point if you show me I'm wrong.
Alexander, my justification is more than "I'm young". I think that current copyright law is unenforceable and does not advance the common good. Whether you think copying is immoral or not, as a pragmatic matter, it seems unlikely to go away. I suggest that we deal with this by making it easier for people to pay for things they enjoy, instead of keeping them from enjoying things they haven't paid for.
People regularly buy books for $20 when the author only gets a dollar. If the author puts the book on his website and asks for a payment of a couple dollars (to make up for all the people who don't pay) I bet he'll get enough takers to make it worthwhile -- he'll certainly do better than if he spent all his time tracking down pirates and suing them.
Dennis,
Thats sound about right to me at least...
I'll even go a little more to the middle ground and say that hacking shareware is +1 lame and making any money at all working with hacked software gets you an extra +1 lame. Not sure where Topstyle issue fits into that continuum.
Thats sound about right to me at least...
I'll even go a little more to the middle ground and say that hacking shareware is +1 lame and making any money at all working with hacked software gets you an extra +1 lame. Not sure where Topstyle issue fits into that continuum.
Dennis: I'm not playing the age card. I was just publicly ruminating, I guess. I don't think Aaron's views are limited to the young, as I've already noted. His manner reminds me of myself when I was younger (though about 180° from me politically).
Incidentally, I don't think comparing copying to theft is at all tenuous. Just because it's an idea or thought (or system of thoughts or integration of many thoughts) being stolen does not negate the basic action. Legally, yes you would be charged with copyright infringement (more probably piracy) instead of larceny and the terms that would be used in your case would be associated with copyright and not burglary. But you can definitely be incarcerated for it[1], though I doubt a judge would ever fully exercise his discretion.
[1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.notes.html
Adam: Hmm, I think that I am mainly defending copyright on the grounds of the right to property and only secondarily invoking copyright law to counter various assertions. In my mind, copyright law rests squarely on the right to property and the fruits of one's labor. Fair use is a concession that seems like a reasonable trump of the creator's rights, though I don't think it has any real moral basis. The right to property is largely a black or white issue in my mind because you either have it or you don't. I suppose there are use rights and varying layers of rights, but they all stem from some underlying property rights that have either been delegated or transferred.
Incidentally, I don't think comparing copying to theft is at all tenuous. Just because it's an idea or thought (or system of thoughts or integration of many thoughts) being stolen does not negate the basic action. Legally, yes you would be charged with copyright infringement (more probably piracy) instead of larceny and the terms that would be used in your case would be associated with copyright and not burglary. But you can definitely be incarcerated for it[1], though I doubt a judge would ever fully exercise his discretion.
[1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.notes.html
Adam: Hmm, I think that I am mainly defending copyright on the grounds of the right to property and only secondarily invoking copyright law to counter various assertions. In my mind, copyright law rests squarely on the right to property and the fruits of one's labor. Fair use is a concession that seems like a reasonable trump of the creator's rights, though I don't think it has any real moral basis. The right to property is largely a black or white issue in my mind because you either have it or you don't. I suppose there are use rights and varying layers of rights, but they all stem from some underlying property rights that have either been delegated or transferred.
"Does everyone agree that your own mom should go to jail for the copy of MSOffice that your brother replaced her MSWorks with?"
I don't agree that people should go to jail for theft just like I wouldn't advocate throwing a hungry person in jail for years because he stole a loaf of bread. People should be made to pay for their tools at least and probably legal fees. Would it matter if it were my mom? Nope, though she doesn't use computers.
I don't agree that people should go to jail for theft just like I wouldn't advocate throwing a hungry person in jail for years because he stole a loaf of bread. People should be made to pay for their tools at least and probably legal fees. Would it matter if it were my mom? Nope, though she doesn't use computers.
Ralph, sorry for not remembering our earlier conversation (I can't seem to find a record of it either). However, I don't think I ever called you a smug older person -- I merely said that being older doesn't make you right. And I don't think that there is such a thing as a "right to make a living" that makes others acts immoral. If you sell chocolate for $100/lb. is it immoral for me to sell it for $25/lb. and put you out of business? Am I interfering with your "right to make a living"?
Bill, I think this confusion of copyright as a right of property is where your problem arises. Copyrights are very different from property, especially because only copyrights infringe on freedom of speech. (Fair use, for example, is legally required by the First Amendment.) While I suppose they do have some similarity to property, they're much closer to government-issued monopolies. Do people have a right to their government-issued monopolies?
Bill, I think this confusion of copyright as a right of property is where your problem arises. Copyrights are very different from property, especially because only copyrights infringe on freedom of speech. (Fair use, for example, is legally required by the First Amendment.) While I suppose they do have some similarity to property, they're much closer to government-issued monopolies. Do people have a right to their government-issued monopolies?
Dennis: When you say "current copyright laws", which ones are you talking about? Are we talking about a specific set (US) or general (the concept)?
Aaron: I do understand you're aying more than "I'm young", but when you say "I think that current copyright law is unenforceable and does not advance the common good" *without* any form of explanation, you're just sounding snotty and know-it-all. Tell us *why* it is unforcable, with something to back it up. As I'm disagreeing with you and we have copyright in place, I - like quite a lot of others - need some better convincing. If you can't, then we'll just put you in the "young rebel" box to ignore. But if you give it a serious try, I'm all ears.
Aaron: I do understand you're aying more than "I'm young", but when you say "I think that current copyright law is unenforceable and does not advance the common good" *without* any form of explanation, you're just sounding snotty and know-it-all. Tell us *why* it is unforcable, with something to back it up. As I'm disagreeing with you and we have copyright in place, I - like quite a lot of others - need some better convincing. If you can't, then we'll just put you in the "young rebel" box to ignore. But if you give it a serious try, I'm all ears.
Aaron: "Bill continues to support his "haven't earned it" principle, except when it leads to results he doesn't like. Bill, no one is going to take these "morals" seriously. It's like how drugs are bad for everyone except Rush Limbaugh." I don't think people have a right to a job they haven't earned, a program they haven't bought, or an affection they haven't merited. There's no application of the "unearned principle" that I don't like. Your earlier comment that people can't use a later scientific principle if they haven't done all the work that preceded it is specious. The foundations of knowledge stretch back thousands of years and it would be impossible (as well as being unnecessary) for every single person to experience the totality before they could use its latest application. It's a little different from you can't copy a piece of software unless you've paid for it.
Oh, and you were right about your fair use comment and the legal foundation of copyright. I read the wrong emphasis into your statements and interpreted them incorrectly.
Oh, and you were right about your fair use comment and the legal foundation of copyright. I read the wrong emphasis into your statements and interpreted them incorrectly.
"Bill, I think this confusion of copyright as a right of property is where your problem arises. Copyrights are very different from property, especially because only copyrights infringe on freedom of speech. (Fair use, for example, is legally required by the First Amendment.) While I suppose they do have some similarity to property, they're much closer to government-issued monopolies. Do people have a right to their government-issued monopolies?"
I don't think they're government-issued monopolies. I think I'm going to stick to my conception of copyrights (and patents, but that's another hot topic in itself) as legal implementations of the right to property. Freedom of speech is not, in itself, inviolable either. It stems from the right to liberty. Rights are exclusive: my right to liberty can't infringe on your property rights and your right to property can't infringe on my right to life. To put it another way, my freedom of speech doesn't mean that I can say whatever I want on your property and your factory can't materially harm my life.
The notion of government-issued monopolies is only useful in understanding the post office, cable systems, and the old phone system. Rights are more instructive in general.
I don't think they're government-issued monopolies. I think I'm going to stick to my conception of copyrights (and patents, but that's another hot topic in itself) as legal implementations of the right to property. Freedom of speech is not, in itself, inviolable either. It stems from the right to liberty. Rights are exclusive: my right to liberty can't infringe on your property rights and your right to property can't infringe on my right to life. To put it another way, my freedom of speech doesn't mean that I can say whatever I want on your property and your factory can't materially harm my life.
The notion of government-issued monopolies is only useful in understanding the post office, cable systems, and the old phone system. Rights are more instructive in general.
Aaron, how would you feel if someone slaps you lightly whenever he feels like it just because it does you no physical harm? Whose opinions should have more weight, those who do the harm or those at the receiving end of it? Even if the perceived harm is entirely delusional, their perception should be respected IMHO.
What I don't want to encourage is "Well, *I* don't think it hurts you so I'll keep doing it." line of thinking in those who haven't had the experience of being at the receiving end of it and know better.
What I don't want to encourage is "Well, *I* don't think it hurts you so I'll keep doing it." line of thinking in those who haven't had the experience of being at the receiving end of it and know better.
Aaron, our previous conversation was about education and how sometimes a good teacher can show you roads to enlightenment that you might not otherwise take on your own. You kept insisting that you knew best what was right. I guess you still do.
If I sell chocolate for $100 per lb and you can sell it for $25 (legitimately, not because you have deep pockets and want to put me out of business), shame on me. If you steal my chocolate and give it away for free, shame on you.
I'm a well-known LEGO Mindstorms expert that has written books on the subject, so I am intimately aware of the not so subtle difference between libraries, bookstores, and outright thieves of my work.
Ralph
If I sell chocolate for $100 per lb and you can sell it for $25 (legitimately, not because you have deep pockets and want to put me out of business), shame on me. If you steal my chocolate and give it away for free, shame on you.
I'm a well-known LEGO Mindstorms expert that has written books on the subject, so I am intimately aware of the not so subtle difference between libraries, bookstores, and outright thieves of my work.
Ralph
Aaron, while it's true that intellectual property and copyright are mostly handled as civil matters, there do exist laws making them criminal matters as well (e.g., DMCA).
"Downloading a program when you were never going to buy it"
That's where you get into trouble. You can't prove you were never going to buy it and in a society where people pay for things of value you would be more likely to buy it. Your making a circular argument: the more people priate/steal, the less likely they are to pay for things, the more OK it is to steal/pirate since you're less likely to buy it in the first place. Sorry, dude. You sound like Don...telling us what is harmful and what isn't. That's unfortauntely not for you to decide.
"Downloading a program when you were never going to buy it"
That's where you get into trouble. You can't prove you were never going to buy it and in a society where people pay for things of value you would be more likely to buy it. Your making a circular argument: the more people priate/steal, the less likely they are to pay for things, the more OK it is to steal/pirate since you're less likely to buy it in the first place. Sorry, dude. You sound like Don...telling us what is harmful and what isn't. That's unfortauntely not for you to decide.
Bill,
I don't agree that "intellectual property" is property.
Physical tangible things are stolen. Ideas are copied for good or ill.
Human ideas are fragile things that require very careful encouragement. I have a hard time imagining some of the great inventions and ideas of the past flourishing in today's climate of "intellectual property".
Even if from your perspective the original laws were the right way to "encourage progress in the arts and useful sciences"(constitution from memory) at what point do they cease to encourage that? Is there a noticeable disconnect between the interests of encouraging scientists and artists and sustaining monopolies for publishing empires? At what point does it become your duty to either legislate or disobey the law? Aaron has an answer to some of these things (maybe not right but...).
I don't agree that "intellectual property" is property.
Physical tangible things are stolen. Ideas are copied for good or ill.
Human ideas are fragile things that require very careful encouragement. I have a hard time imagining some of the great inventions and ideas of the past flourishing in today's climate of "intellectual property".
Even if from your perspective the original laws were the right way to "encourage progress in the arts and useful sciences"(constitution from memory) at what point do they cease to encourage that? Is there a noticeable disconnect between the interests of encouraging scientists and artists and sustaining monopolies for publishing empires? At what point does it become your duty to either legislate or disobey the law? Aaron has an answer to some of these things (maybe not right but...).
I think this whole notion of copyright and morality is completely misguided. it's not about morality at all. it's about economics. the printing press put a lot of monks out of business... not to mention laying the foundation for the reformation.
computers and the ordinariness of computer copying (in memory, on networks, on disks) changes the economics of making copies. just like the printing press did. we all make copies of software and content because it's cheap and easy. cheaper and easier than doing it a "legitimate way". And the printing press made for the variety of bibles we see today. Why? because it was cheap and easy (relatively speaking).
do you have backups of your data and programs. how about multiple backups? I do...and I should do it more regularly. How much should I pay Apple, Adobe, Microsoft et. al. for those backup copies? They are identical to the copies I "use". Nothing of course.
So the problem isn't the copies I have, it's copies I use? heh. Libraries of the future should have a good thing going when they have terabytes of music files and video. checking out music for 60 minutes via the network. Or sharing (true sharing) via the network all my music and videos that I'm not using at that moment. or even that second. (i wonder how many users could listen to my music if I did microsecond sharing of my 50 gigs of music?)
Easy sharing, while not copying hits the model of copyright ownership just like copying does....it's merely harder to do. Of course, that's why computers make so many copies. it's easier.... it's a matter of economics.
I have software I wrote and use. It's mine. if I publish it for payment, and a million people make a copy of it and use it and do not pay me, what have I lost?
nothing. I still have my "original". I have lost nothing. the problem is, I haven't gained from my sharing. copying isn't theft, it's a lack of reward.
If I don't give any Christmas presents next year to my kids, it's not the same as if I stole from my kids. I just didn't reward them. There is nothing "immoral" about it.
what has happened with copying is the middle men is in the way. people are happy to reward artists for work. but not corporations. it's easy (relatively speaking) for artists to distribute their own music, or programmers to write software and publish it. Authors too.
what were seeing is a shake up in the economics for publication. so many new entrants as publishers and so many older publishers losing "control" over the distribution of their digital work that it upsets people. But it's just an economic shift.
david bowie is right when he says music will become a commodity. so will software. so will movies. the costs of production and distribution are so small that large profits can and are made (ala microsoft). But it won't last, because it's an inefficiency in the market. inefficiencies are weeded out in a competitive market...eg napster was a much more efficient music distribution system then anything else in it's day.
this will happen in every sector of society. it's just happening here in digital-land first.
our current copyright laws are inefficient; regardless, the market still seeks the lowest price for the greatest value. programmers who are paid for writing software and companies who make millions in profits are inefficient in market terms. Open source is much more efficient (in markte terms) - lower cost for equivalent value.
programmers still need to get paid, and they likely will because that's the source of value. it's the profits that are going to get hit. As an example, notice that almost exclusively piracy is spoken of by executives, never programmers, artists, musicians, actors. Why?
because those people will continue to work and generate revenue. the transistion is in getting those people paid directly versus indirectly (the source of inefficiency)
I would make the bolder claim that individual productivity is going up up up, while corporate productivity is going down or remaining stagnant. What this means is that the costs of corporations to do business remains the same or rises while the costs of individuals or small groups to compete with corporations decline (except for the lawyers).
an individual or a small group of individuals can compete with a corporation with greater success than ever before (and that ability keeps improving). Or said another way, you can compete with a corporation without becoming one.
computers and the ordinariness of computer copying (in memory, on networks, on disks) changes the economics of making copies. just like the printing press did. we all make copies of software and content because it's cheap and easy. cheaper and easier than doing it a "legitimate way". And the printing press made for the variety of bibles we see today. Why? because it was cheap and easy (relatively speaking).
do you have backups of your data and programs. how about multiple backups? I do...and I should do it more regularly. How much should I pay Apple, Adobe, Microsoft et. al. for those backup copies? They are identical to the copies I "use". Nothing of course.
So the problem isn't the copies I have, it's copies I use? heh. Libraries of the future should have a good thing going when they have terabytes of music files and video. checking out music for 60 minutes via the network. Or sharing (true sharing) via the network all my music and videos that I'm not using at that moment. or even that second. (i wonder how many users could listen to my music if I did microsecond sharing of my 50 gigs of music?)
Easy sharing, while not copying hits the model of copyright ownership just like copying does....it's merely harder to do. Of course, that's why computers make so many copies. it's easier.... it's a matter of economics.
I have software I wrote and use. It's mine. if I publish it for payment, and a million people make a copy of it and use it and do not pay me, what have I lost?
nothing. I still have my "original". I have lost nothing. the problem is, I haven't gained from my sharing. copying isn't theft, it's a lack of reward.
If I don't give any Christmas presents next year to my kids, it's not the same as if I stole from my kids. I just didn't reward them. There is nothing "immoral" about it.
what has happened with copying is the middle men is in the way. people are happy to reward artists for work. but not corporations. it's easy (relatively speaking) for artists to distribute their own music, or programmers to write software and publish it. Authors too.
what were seeing is a shake up in the economics for publication. so many new entrants as publishers and so many older publishers losing "control" over the distribution of their digital work that it upsets people. But it's just an economic shift.
david bowie is right when he says music will become a commodity. so will software. so will movies. the costs of production and distribution are so small that large profits can and are made (ala microsoft). But it won't last, because it's an inefficiency in the market. inefficiencies are weeded out in a competitive market...eg napster was a much more efficient music distribution system then anything else in it's day.
this will happen in every sector of society. it's just happening here in digital-land first.
our current copyright laws are inefficient; regardless, the market still seeks the lowest price for the greatest value. programmers who are paid for writing software and companies who make millions in profits are inefficient in market terms. Open source is much more efficient (in markte terms) - lower cost for equivalent value.
programmers still need to get paid, and they likely will because that's the source of value. it's the profits that are going to get hit. As an example, notice that almost exclusively piracy is spoken of by executives, never programmers, artists, musicians, actors. Why?
because those people will continue to work and generate revenue. the transistion is in getting those people paid directly versus indirectly (the source of inefficiency)
I would make the bolder claim that individual productivity is going up up up, while corporate productivity is going down or remaining stagnant. What this means is that the costs of corporations to do business remains the same or rises while the costs of individuals or small groups to compete with corporations decline (except for the lawyers).
an individual or a small group of individuals can compete with a corporation with greater success than ever before (and that ability keeps improving). Or said another way, you can compete with a corporation without becoming one.
Alex: Current copyright law is enforceable, because it prevents me from doing things in the privacy of my own home (for example, making a copy of a program from one computer to another). It is pretty much impossible to stop me from doing these things without draconian bans or violating the constitution (by perhaps putting a policeman in my home to watch me. You can generalize this by saying that making a copy over a network using encryption is effectively equivalent to something done in my own, since there's no way to distinguish it from any other use of the network. I don't see how you can enforce laws against that.
As for the common good, I think the common good is advanced better by being able to create an online Library of Alexandria that allows me to read anu book or listen to any song for a reasonably small fee. Since current laws make this almost impossibly difficult, I think they do not advance the common good.
"There's no application of the "unearned principle" that I don't like." Except apparently my application of it to scientific discovery, which you continue to affirm you don't like. Am I misunderstanding the principle? Here's another example: the maintenance of most roads are paid for by taxes. Should we keep foreigners off the roads because they haven't earned them? I take it you would also get rid of President Bush (because he hasn't earned his job), ban nepotism in hiring (ditto), and fight for 100% estate tax (people who get money because of who their parents are can't be said to have earned it!).
And thank you for acknowledging you were incorrect; I hope I can return the favor.
Don, slaps do cause physical harm, or at least pain, which is pretty equivalent. I do think perceived harm should be respected in some cases (like Katy thinks that taking a photo of her would steal her soul, it's mean to take photos of her just to get her angry) but not when they infringe on the rights of others (if Jerry thinks that Bob's homosexuality destroys his marriage with Katy, that doesn't give him a right to tell Bob who to sleep with).
Ralph, I agree that a teacher can show you roads to enlightenment you might not otherwise take on your own. Also, I may have to go out and buy your book.
pb, I never said it wasn't criminal, I said it wasn't theft.
calvin, your ability to make backup copies is protected by the US copyright act.
As for the common good, I think the common good is advanced better by being able to create an online Library of Alexandria that allows me to read anu book or listen to any song for a reasonably small fee. Since current laws make this almost impossibly difficult, I think they do not advance the common good.
"There's no application of the "unearned principle" that I don't like." Except apparently my application of it to scientific discovery, which you continue to affirm you don't like. Am I misunderstanding the principle? Here's another example: the maintenance of most roads are paid for by taxes. Should we keep foreigners off the roads because they haven't earned them? I take it you would also get rid of President Bush (because he hasn't earned his job), ban nepotism in hiring (ditto), and fight for 100% estate tax (people who get money because of who their parents are can't be said to have earned it!).
And thank you for acknowledging you were incorrect; I hope I can return the favor.
Don, slaps do cause physical harm, or at least pain, which is pretty equivalent. I do think perceived harm should be respected in some cases (like Katy thinks that taking a photo of her would steal her soul, it's mean to take photos of her just to get her angry) but not when they infringe on the rights of others (if Jerry thinks that Bob's homosexuality destroys his marriage with Katy, that doesn't give him a right to tell Bob who to sleep with).
Ralph, I agree that a teacher can show you roads to enlightenment you might not otherwise take on your own. Also, I may have to go out and buy your book.
pb, I never said it wasn't criminal, I said it wasn't theft.
calvin, your ability to make backup copies is protected by the US copyright act.
I think Don has hit the nail on the head. Whatever Aaron or others might perceive as being harmless, this comment-fest has arisen from Nick's post saying how piracy has harmed him.
If you weren't willing to purchase the software, why use it anyway? Move away from the flawed "it's my right to do as I wish", and you're left with "I don't think its worth the money", which is an entirely different issue.
If you weren't willing to purchase the software, why use it anyway? Move away from the flawed "it's my right to do as I wish", and you're left with "I don't think its worth the money", which is an entirely different issue.
As an aside, I just searched google for "modemspy crack", a piece of shareware I wrote in 1996:
http://crackspider.net/search.shtml?page=1&q=modemspy
Pages of cracks for the product still active... I don't know whether to feel pride or sadness.
http://crackspider.net/search.shtml?page=1&q=modemspy
Pages of cracks for the product still active... I don't know whether to feel pride or sadness.
Aaron, read your licenses. Most license allow for one backup copy. To have more is a violation of the license and thus a violation of copyright.
Philip, Nick was actually never harmed. He just isn't get paid what he thinks his stuff is worth... he isn't getting what he wants. I struggle with the same problems. How should I release my software?
Hopefully, in the future some of these problems will work themselves out... or maybe not!
Philip, Nick was actually never harmed. He just isn't get paid what he thinks his stuff is worth... he isn't getting what he wants. I struggle with the same problems. How should I release my software?
Hopefully, in the future some of these problems will work themselves out... or maybe not!
Aaron: "Current copyright law is enforceable, because it prevents me from doing things in the privacy of my own home"
This didn't parse with the next sentance of "It is pretty much impossible to stop me doing this".
If I go back to your earlier meaning (or what I gather is your meaning), then copyright laws as they are are wrong because it is hard to enforce them. Umm, isn't this a call to make a *lot* of things right by law, then? Running a red light, beating someone up, undermine money and driving drunk. All examples of things which are hard to enforce, it happens all the time, the populcae doesn't seem to be stopping doing it, and there isn't enough money in the enforcers budgets to make it truly stop. Since it is hard to enforce, we should say that it is ok? That we should accept it in some way?
Personally, I'm appalled that people can think that we should abandon something in the light of that something might be hard. How else do you think we got to the moon?
And for "common good"; yes, the library open for all with a small fee is a good idea, and when you think about it, not that different from the libraries we've already got. What's you point here? The common good of copyright law is making sure that those who create something that the commons might enjoy can make a living from it so they can produce more. As I stated earlier, it sometimes protects the greedy and shuns the needy and that is wrong - in some meaning of "wrong", anyways - but does not justify that we totally lay the law aside as the alternatives are lacking.
This didn't parse with the next sentance of "It is pretty much impossible to stop me doing this".
If I go back to your earlier meaning (or what I gather is your meaning), then copyright laws as they are are wrong because it is hard to enforce them. Umm, isn't this a call to make a *lot* of things right by law, then? Running a red light, beating someone up, undermine money and driving drunk. All examples of things which are hard to enforce, it happens all the time, the populcae doesn't seem to be stopping doing it, and there isn't enough money in the enforcers budgets to make it truly stop. Since it is hard to enforce, we should say that it is ok? That we should accept it in some way?
Personally, I'm appalled that people can think that we should abandon something in the light of that something might be hard. How else do you think we got to the moon?
And for "common good"; yes, the library open for all with a small fee is a good idea, and when you think about it, not that different from the libraries we've already got. What's you point here? The common good of copyright law is making sure that those who create something that the commons might enjoy can make a living from it so they can produce more. As I stated earlier, it sometimes protects the greedy and shuns the needy and that is wrong - in some meaning of "wrong", anyways - but does not justify that we totally lay the law aside as the alternatives are lacking.
Calvin wrote
Philip, Nick was actually never harmed.
***
Nick is being financially harmed by piracy.
Philip, Nick was actually never harmed.
***
Nick is being financially harmed by piracy.
calvin, federal copyright law preempts the license. See Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
Alexander, my argument isn't that copyright law is wrong _because_ it's unenforceable. They're two separate claims.
I don't think the alternatives are lacking. I've outlined two:
1. Trivially easy, small, voluntary payments.
2. A small mandatory subscription fee in return for access to everyone. (For more on this visit http://notabug.com/acs -- that focuses on music, but the basic idea is more general.)
Alexander, my argument isn't that copyright law is wrong _because_ it's unenforceable. They're two separate claims.
I don't think the alternatives are lacking. I've outlined two:
1. Trivially easy, small, voluntary payments.
2. A small mandatory subscription fee in return for access to everyone. (For more on this visit http://notabug.com/acs -- that focuses on music, but the basic idea is more general.)
Well, Nick has since clarified that he hasn't been harmed by the piracy specifically but by 1) non-payers getting tech support and 2) pirates using stolen credit cards to get untraceable versions of the software.
I still don't see how it's even conceivable that a content creator should have no influence on how his/her work is utilized/distributed. That just makes no sense to me at all.
I still don't see how it's even conceivable that a content creator should have no influence on how his/her work is utilized/distributed. That just makes no sense to me at all.
Aaron: I feel a bit stupid now, but I still don't get. Neither 1 or 2 are anything new, and they are something that copyright is not; specific to internet. Micropayments could possibly work out alright, but it will take time to get in there. And there is the clinch; time.
Another thing with your point 1 is that it relies on the opposite of why piracy is a problem; that there are enough people with high enough morals to run the world. Greed for more than you need is a very selfish and strong human trait. As a moral system, relying on a minimum to cater for the maximum is doomed to fail.
Another thing with your point 1 is that it relies on the opposite of why piracy is a problem; that there are enough people with high enough morals to run the world. Greed for more than you need is a very selfish and strong human trait. As a moral system, relying on a minimum to cater for the maximum is doomed to fail.
pb, I didn't say they should have no influence, just no force of law behind them.
Aaron: Those two ideas are all well and good, but what if the author doesn't want small trivial payments, instead preferring large payments. What's more, what if (gasp!) the people who need/want the software are able to pay that and willing, in enough numbers to keep the author happy?
Who are you to force the author to accept your options?
Who are you to force the author to accept your options?
Just to cut off the whole argument about trying nick's software by using warez... Nick has shareware evaluation versions available. *If you honestly have any intention of buying it if you like it and plan to continue using it, you'd be downloading that, not warez. The only need to download a warez copy is if you already plan to refuse to pay for it.*
If you won't be honest with anyone else, at least be honest with yourself...
And, note that nick's test didn't measure downloads, it measured people trying the software. Sure, downloading or copying itself may not be illegal/immoral/whatever, but USING the tool and getting benefit from it beyond the trial terms of the sale agreement without compensation to Nick is.
If you won't be honest with anyone else, at least be honest with yourself...
And, note that nick's test didn't measure downloads, it measured people trying the software. Sure, downloading or copying itself may not be illegal/immoral/whatever, but USING the tool and getting benefit from it beyond the trial terms of the sale agreement without compensation to Nick is.
Some last thoughts: several times people here and in the other threads have argued that TS costs too much for them, or it's 'not worth that much to them' or that people would pay if there were a simple way to make small donations.
That's bull. People are cheap and the great majority won't pay for something unless they absolutely have to. And if they have to pay, they won't pay what something is worth to them, but the least they can get away with. If it's not worth the set price to you, don't use it!
Look around at sites that have donation pages. Ask how many people of all those using the sites or the software there donate even a buck to help offset the costs of the site or of developing the software. I'm sure you'll find that the response rate is very low, if not often zero, and it's not just because it's hard to do... (FWIW, yes, I registered shareware that I've found to be useful that I want to continue to use and I've donated at some sites that I have gotten significant value from, but I've also heard from site owners about response rates)
As far as the price for topstyle... the creator should have the right to set the price for his/her product. If too few people think that price is reasonable, they won't buy and he may be forced to lower the price until people respond. That's a moral and workable system. Stealing just goes around it entirely.
That's bull. People are cheap and the great majority won't pay for something unless they absolutely have to. And if they have to pay, they won't pay what something is worth to them, but the least they can get away with. If it's not worth the set price to you, don't use it!
Look around at sites that have donation pages. Ask how many people of all those using the sites or the software there donate even a buck to help offset the costs of the site or of developing the software. I'm sure you'll find that the response rate is very low, if not often zero, and it's not just because it's hard to do... (FWIW, yes, I registered shareware that I've found to be useful that I want to continue to use and I've donated at some sites that I have gotten significant value from, but I've also heard from site owners about response rates)
As far as the price for topstyle... the creator should have the right to set the price for his/her product. If too few people think that price is reasonable, they won't buy and he may be forced to lower the price until people respond. That's a moral and workable system. Stealing just goes around it entirely.
Alexander: in my last comment I was referring to current U.S. copyright law. I especially had in mind the retroactive extension of copyright terms, which a) makes copyright terms effectively unlimited, since there is no guarantee that any works now under copyright will *ever* pass into the public domain, and b) was clearly not for the purpose of encouraging creative work, since it applied to works that had already been created.
Dial copyright terms back to 14 years with one 14 year extension, get rid of the DMCA, and treat derivative works the way we treated them 150 years ago, and I'll be perfectly happy.
Bill, I agree with your high regard for property rights. Also agree with Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "...That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Dial copyright terms back to 14 years with one 14 year extension, get rid of the DMCA, and treat derivative works the way we treated them 150 years ago, and I'll be perfectly happy.
Bill, I agree with your high regard for property rights. Also agree with Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "...That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
I take a more pragmatic position on this issue. I think the problem is not with copyright as a principle, but with the narrow interpretation of what constitutes "fair use" in the digital age. Although I don't agree with Aaron's library analogy and the comparison to a Napster or Kazaa type file sharing scenario, certainly some ability to share and distribute information should be allowed. Prior to the digital age, no one (reasonable people anyway) questioned loaning a book or a movie to a friend. We need to give serious thought to how digital information can be shared, and the answer cannot be for consumers to have no ability to distribute or share the information that they purchase. Some reasonable must be considered here.
One of the problems that has created this debate is an economic one. There is a market for information that the big media companies do not want to satisfy because it is going to require them to rethink their businesses. Essentially, they are less relevant in the future, and they do not want to adapt. This is a shame, and if the media companies and owners of copyrights would take reasonable measures to provide their information, there would not be such an outcry. Ultimately, I think that we need to take a look at copyrights and to define a framework that is more reasonable in our current age. Common sense approaches, like Lessig's proposed copyright renewal act that would require copyright holders to affirmatively renew a copyright that has aged substantially, would be a good first step.
One of the problems that has created this debate is an economic one. There is a market for information that the big media companies do not want to satisfy because it is going to require them to rethink their businesses. Essentially, they are less relevant in the future, and they do not want to adapt. This is a shame, and if the media companies and owners of copyrights would take reasonable measures to provide their information, there would not be such an outcry. Ultimately, I think that we need to take a look at copyrights and to define a framework that is more reasonable in our current age. Common sense approaches, like Lessig's proposed copyright renewal act that would require copyright holders to affirmatively renew a copyright that has aged substantially, would be a good first step.
means of production.
we are arguing about the validity of using the means of production to produce. Ben Franklin reprinted lots of stuff without paying for it. It was common practice at the time. Slowly, he started doing more of his own stuff, but he also reprinted lots of stuff he didn't own. How is that different from now?
So many people have the means of publishing and producing so much information when they never could before, and they do. Kids especially. But what new stuff can kids publish? not much, so they publish copies of other stuff. Music, softare, TV. Heck, I have a whole bunch of Invader Zim copied from the net. Why? because it was the only way to get it.
My kids get a small allowance every week. Not enough to really buy much music. so where do they get their music? the internet. and when I was a teenager, a whole bunch of my friends made tapes from radio and passed them around.
as new means of production come online, more people take advantage of it.
We can't turn this around. Look at web pages. the way back machine and google archive my web pages WITHOUT PERMISSION.
I have archived web pages that I thought wouldn't be around in the long haul when I wanted to link to them. I've even occaissionally had to post them on my own server....mirroring the now defunct original. is that wrong?
in copyright terms, yes it is. But i have the means of production to do so, so I do it.
Think about this problem in future terms. in 10 years we'll have drives for $150 that hold about 4 terabytes of data, probably more. THAT'S A LOT OF MOVIES (1000 4 gig movies).
You don't think that you'll just have every media thing you own on your harddrive for easy access? I sure would like all my books on my harddrive and searchable. I own them, why not have digital copies of them?...all my movies, all my music already is.
As long as the means of production continue to improve, this problem will never go away. It's incredibly empowering.
How will creators get paid? I don't know. I think people will still pay for new. I think the problem is HOW they pay for new.
But if history is any guide, more people will be making lots more stuff, and they'll be copying lots more stuff. That's just the way it is. To think that for some lofty reason, the human race would stop making copies of stuff they liked, thought was valuable or useful in 2004 CE when that is how all of human society has progressed since 50,000 BCE is just silly.
we are arguing about the validity of using the means of production to produce. Ben Franklin reprinted lots of stuff without paying for it. It was common practice at the time. Slowly, he started doing more of his own stuff, but he also reprinted lots of stuff he didn't own. How is that different from now?
So many people have the means of publishing and producing so much information when they never could before, and they do. Kids especially. But what new stuff can kids publish? not much, so they publish copies of other stuff. Music, softare, TV. Heck, I have a whole bunch of Invader Zim copied from the net. Why? because it was the only way to get it.
My kids get a small allowance every week. Not enough to really buy much music. so where do they get their music? the internet. and when I was a teenager, a whole bunch of my friends made tapes from radio and passed them around.
as new means of production come online, more people take advantage of it.
We can't turn this around. Look at web pages. the way back machine and google archive my web pages WITHOUT PERMISSION.
I have archived web pages that I thought wouldn't be around in the long haul when I wanted to link to them. I've even occaissionally had to post them on my own server....mirroring the now defunct original. is that wrong?
in copyright terms, yes it is. But i have the means of production to do so, so I do it.
Think about this problem in future terms. in 10 years we'll have drives for $150 that hold about 4 terabytes of data, probably more. THAT'S A LOT OF MOVIES (1000 4 gig movies).
You don't think that you'll just have every media thing you own on your harddrive for easy access? I sure would like all my books on my harddrive and searchable. I own them, why not have digital copies of them?...all my movies, all my music already is.
As long as the means of production continue to improve, this problem will never go away. It's incredibly empowering.
How will creators get paid? I don't know. I think people will still pay for new. I think the problem is HOW they pay for new.
But if history is any guide, more people will be making lots more stuff, and they'll be copying lots more stuff. That's just the way it is. To think that for some lofty reason, the human race would stop making copies of stuff they liked, thought was valuable or useful in 2004 CE when that is how all of human society has progressed since 50,000 BCE is just silly.
Rhetoric... too... thick...
Fallacies... overflowing...
(I license this work).
Fallacies... overflowing...
(I license this work).
I agree that all of the software I have ever bootlegged I never would have paid for had that been the only option. By the way, this must be a record number of comments. Didn't know you had such a following. Nice job.
However, if I wrote a book I'd be pretty irked to find free pirated versions being given away.
Damn, Don, but you throw the best parties.
Now I see where Aaron's morality discussion came from earlier.
Copyright and harm and copyright and homosexuality and singing around the campfire. Okay, I'll bite.
No, I won't. But I did want to make one point here and that's about this constant reference to Aaron's age. I did this last time a big discussion on copyright happened, and that was a mistake. Wether we agree with Aaron or not, his arguments should be accepts as those of a interested adult, not a kid. Young, yes. But if he went out tonight and shot someone dead he's old enough to be tried as an adult.
If Aaron wants to mix it up, question his words -- oh, please, question his words -- but for once can we leave the 'kid' stuff out?
And I'm older than all of you, so you all better listen up, ya'here? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Aaron, I admire your zeal, but a lot of your arguments lack sense. Youre' talking about the 'morality' of copyright, and say if it's morally wrong for you to copy and not pay, then it's morally wrong for you to sell chocolates for less than I do. What? Copyright infringes on free speech -- this didn't play in the Supreme Court, did it?
As for authors and making money, well, I spent two years working on a recent book, and I wouldn't mind making some money from it. I suppose I could have put it online and begged donations, but I've done that before in the past: didn't work. Not all of us are Cory Doctorow and can depend on the kindness of strangers (not to mention an A listing). So if you were to take that book and digitilize it and put it online and people could get it for free, then, yeah, you would be harming me. Enough people download it from online, I wouldn't be able to pay my car, or buy my bread, or pay my health insurance.
So yeah, there is harm. Not all of us who depend on the copyright system are money grubbing hollywood fat cats greedy for riches.
If we completely re-tool our entire economic system, perhaps we could do some of the reforms you suggest, but I'm holding my breath.
Now, I do agree with some reforms. But I find the copyright reformers zeal to be extreme, with a lot of rhetoric about how artists who hold copyright are thieves denying others free speech, which tends to make me want to just leave things the way they are.
Now I see where Aaron's morality discussion came from earlier.
Copyright and harm and copyright and homosexuality and singing around the campfire. Okay, I'll bite.
No, I won't. But I did want to make one point here and that's about this constant reference to Aaron's age. I did this last time a big discussion on copyright happened, and that was a mistake. Wether we agree with Aaron or not, his arguments should be accepts as those of a interested adult, not a kid. Young, yes. But if he went out tonight and shot someone dead he's old enough to be tried as an adult.
If Aaron wants to mix it up, question his words -- oh, please, question his words -- but for once can we leave the 'kid' stuff out?
And I'm older than all of you, so you all better listen up, ya'here? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Aaron, I admire your zeal, but a lot of your arguments lack sense. Youre' talking about the 'morality' of copyright, and say if it's morally wrong for you to copy and not pay, then it's morally wrong for you to sell chocolates for less than I do. What? Copyright infringes on free speech -- this didn't play in the Supreme Court, did it?
As for authors and making money, well, I spent two years working on a recent book, and I wouldn't mind making some money from it. I suppose I could have put it online and begged donations, but I've done that before in the past: didn't work. Not all of us are Cory Doctorow and can depend on the kindness of strangers (not to mention an A listing). So if you were to take that book and digitilize it and put it online and people could get it for free, then, yeah, you would be harming me. Enough people download it from online, I wouldn't be able to pay my car, or buy my bread, or pay my health insurance.
So yeah, there is harm. Not all of us who depend on the copyright system are money grubbing hollywood fat cats greedy for riches.
If we completely re-tool our entire economic system, perhaps we could do some of the reforms you suggest, but I'm holding my breath.
Now, I do agree with some reforms. But I find the copyright reformers zeal to be extreme, with a lot of rhetoric about how artists who hold copyright are thieves denying others free speech, which tends to make me want to just leave things the way they are.
Grrr typos:
"Whether we agree with Aaron or not, his arguments should be accepted as those of a interested adult, not a kid."
and
"If we completely re-tool our entire economic system, perhaps we could do some of the reforms you suggest, but I'm not holding my breath."
"Whether we agree with Aaron or not, his arguments should be accepted as those of a interested adult, not a kid."
and
"If we completely re-tool our entire economic system, perhaps we could do some of the reforms you suggest, but I'm not holding my breath."
Come to think of it, my last book was on RDF -- it's hard enough making money on a book about RDF, much less one that's copied and downloadable. Shoot, be lucky if I earned two bits.
"So what if I burnt a house down? No one got hurt!" I'd think this would be obvious, but apparently Don doesn't realize that when you burn a house down, no one can use it anymore.
"Why can't I drive your car when you
"Why can't I drive your car when you