I wonder about the competency of her lawyer. The RIAA's biggest gorilla, Sony, actually makes CD duplicators. I would produce one in the box it came in, show the court the receipt, make a CD right in front of them and walk out with my client.

Yes, downloading copyrighted material is stealing - and for every U2 or Madonna, there are a thousand starving artists you're keeping destitute.

But measures taken by record companies are tantamount to lobbying for the existing health-care setup, where people flatly not involved in the process get paid. That business model is just plain nasty. Ask Prince.

Several years ago, one of my nephews offered to let me watch the first Spiderman movie on DVD...the day after it came out in theatres. A friend of his had recorded it in the theatre. I could not convince my nephew that this was stealing. In his mind, even if it was, he wasn't guilty because he wasn't the one who recorded it.

This from a young man who would never even dream of shoplifting a DVD from the shelf at a store.

Just because it is easy to steal something doesn't change the fact that it is stealing.

Yes, it is stealing. But you know, two wrongs do not make a right.

Her penalty should be (legally must be) based on the loss suffered. Taking iTunes as representative, that's about a buck a song. Punitive damages may triple that. That leaves us at one third of one hundredth of one percent of the award this court came up with.

This is not justice, it's a mockery.

I have no qualms with downloading episodes of my favorite TV show at all. I pay for the channel every month but don't have a Tivo or anything to record a show that I miss. So I download the episode and don't feel like it's stealing at all.

Copyright violation isn't stealing, it's a different set of laws, it's very different in nature from stealing.

For one, copyright violation is usually prosecuted civilly, not criminally. For theft, I suspect there's more criminal convictions thanfor conversion. It's not stealing to violate a copyright, just like it's not rape, fraud, or speeding.

A person who owns a copyright has a government granted (and constitutionally sanctioned) limited monopoly on the reproduction of a creative work. This right is limited in time, and in its extent; not all reproducitons of a copyrighted work are violations of the copyright. Making an unauthorized duplicate of a copyrighted work can be distinguished from theft (and normal conversion) in a few ways. If I steal something from you, then you no longer have it. If I duplicate a work on which you hold copyright, not only do you still have every copy you made, but so does anyone else. I'd suggest that being deprived of the good stolen is a key component of theft.

(yes, I'm aware that copyright rightsholders may lose money due to their works being copied, but again, if a car is stolen from enterprise rent-a-car, the damage of the theft ISN'T that this thief isn't going to be renting a car anytime next week, it's that enterprise doesn't have their car!)

There's some very good coverage of this case at recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com.

> The RIAA's biggest gorilla, Sony,
> actually makes CD duplicators.

That's a wonderful absurdity. Ten years ago, Napster made it clear that pop music was about to be more-correctly priced; soon enough Mr. Jobs pulled on one of his mock turtlenecks and stood up to tell what that price was going to be.

Now somebody's going to have to do that for all the other media which can be inexpensively digitized and distributed.

It's going hurt.

Heres a question.

Why is it illegal to download TV shows and music off the inernet but not TV?

Whats to stop someone from recording a show on their TV and transfering that file on to their computers?

My last desktop came with a TV cable port and the software to record TV

She'd have gotten off easier if she had physically stolen every single one of those 24 songs from a record store. If she took the entire album (vs just the single), at $20/each, it would have been a theft under $500.

I do agree that what she did was wrong, it was stealing (despite arguments regarding symantics... if you take something that is meant to be sold without paying for it, you are denying the creator of that product the profit that they are entitled to), and it should be punished. Nearly two million dollars, though? That sounds more like a settlement in a wrongful death suit than in illegal downloading copyright violations.

Yes, it is stealing. But you know, two wrongs do not make a right.

Her penalty should be (legally must be) based on the loss suffered. Taking iTunes as representative, that's about a buck a song.

Given her lawyer's comment about the jury disbelieving her denial of filesharing, I think the math was not "each song x outrageously high $ value per song" so much as "each song x some $ value per song x some outrageously high hypothical number of downloads by others".

A hypothetical question to the people who suggest it's stealing to violate a copyright:

You live in a town that requires electricians do all electrical work. You, on one dark moonless night, go turn off your breaker and replace a few light switches and outlets in your house.

Is that stealing, too?

Why? Why not?

You live in a town that requires electricians do all electrical work. You, on one dark moonless night, go turn off your breaker and replace a few light switches and outlets in your house.

Say your child has an assignment in her high school art class to create a poster for an upcoming movie, and she works 50 hours to create the perfect poster. She turns it in, and is given an A for her effort. Six weeks later, *that* poster is being used to advertise the movie. Her permission was not asked, and she has not been paid for the right to display this poster.

Her work is being used by someone else, for their purposes, without her permission and without paying her for the product of her hands and creativity.

When you object, you're told that she got the A in class, which was the reward for her work, and after all, she doesn't really need the money because you've got a decent-paying job and can support her.

Wouldn't you say her work has been stolen?

Gavin, you beat me to it. Copyright infringement is not stealing, it's copyright infringement. The laws concerning it are different.

And yes, downloading stuff you haven't paid for, that isn't specifically designated as free, is stealing.

My understanding is that she wasn't accused of downloading, she was accused of "making available" music files on her computer, and that the plaintiffs were not able to show that anybody actually downloaded those files from her computer. They claim that offering files via kazaa or whatever is the same as copying them, regardless of how many people actually do copy them.

Furthermore, it's not true that something must be explicitly designated as free in order to avoid copyright infringement. On the internet, the default situation is that downloadable things (e.g. web pages) contain an implicit license to view. If I cache your web site in my web browser and look at it every day without reconnecting to the internet, I am not violating any laws or crossing any moral boundaries.

if you take something that is meant to be sold without paying for it, you are denying the creator of that product the profit that they are entitled to

Copyright infringement doesn't deprive the copyright owner of anything. There is no guarantee or even indication that someone who engages in copyright infringement would have otherwise purchased that material. Nobody is entitled to profit simply by virtue of making something available for sale. Copyright infringement is wrong, so it's important to have an accurate understanding of it.

This sounds like a good time to repeat one of my favorite Heinlein quotes:

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. Life-Line (1939)

I don't know if she's lying or not. It sounds like other people had access to her computer, but the jury believed the plaintiffs more than the defendant.

Ya know, there's a whole buncha file-sharing software that can be downloaded from the internet for free. And lotsa people use it, lotsa times. I've downloaded music onto CDs, but it's mostly music that I already have on vinyl. I already paid for it. But I don't have a turntable in my car! If there was a device that I could use to record music from my albums to CDs, that isn't too damned expensive, I would use it. Is there any such animal out there? I haven't heard of one. o.O

Jen,

That's a very good example about the schoolchild you brought up. But, to answer your question:

Wouldn't you say her work has been stolen?

No, I would not say it was stolen She still has her poster. I'd say she's suffered an injustice; there has probably been copyright violation in the story you described!

My point hasn't been to say copyright violation is a good thing to do; it's wrong, it's important to talk about it, and I think it's also reasonable to talk about what kind of copyright we have too, but I have carefully avoided doing that here because I think it's beside the point.

Amy,

There are all sorts of issues involved.

Is downloading music in one form that you already own in another form stealing? That's what Flynne would like to do, and yet the RIAA (and Apple and many others) say that that IS stealing. They now don't sell you music, the license that music to you.

Is $80,000 per stolen song constitutional?

Is the infringement the making of a copy of music from a CD you own, or is it downloading the one song, or is it in making the song available, or is it distributing that copy of music available to others?

If the crime is in the distribution, has the RIAA shown that any individual actually distributed any songs?

If the crime is making the songs available, how is/was napster any different from windows which also makes it easy to share files on a network? How is the pirate bay different from google which also makes it easy to find shared files on the network?

Is the RIAA abusing the law (courts and politicians) in order to keep up a business model that is otherwise not protected by the constitution?

These are all different "crimes" that require different reactions from us. I don't agree with the downloading of material I haven't already paid for, but I don't see that the penalty for merely downloading should be a whole lot more than the retail cost of the song. I think distribution is far more serious, but the RIAA has rarely been able to demonstrate actual distribution, and usually relies on lawyer bullies to avoid having to do so.

But I also consider the RIAA's bullying of people along with their technological incompetence and the disingenuous arguments they make in courts that often times do win over a technologically incompetent judge to be a gross abusive of the people. And they do this in order and toss their dollars around to protect a business model that is not protected in the constitution.

I may not like Jammie, but the $2M is an outrageous abuse of the people.

RIAA - suing customers for exhorbitant amounts in defense of an obsolete business model. Yeah, that's going to end well. Record labels are increasingly unnecessary for musicians to succeed, and actions like this will almost certainly hasten the rate at which bands seek alternative channels that they control rather than be associated with this crap. Radiohead, NIN and other big acts have already experimented with other channels. These suits are the death throes of the RIAA. Good riddance.

Flynne, there are lots of options for converting vinyl to digital. Try searching the googles for USB turntables.

Did she have to give back all of the music she stole?

Oh, no, she didn't. Because the people allegedly stolen from still had exactly what they had before she "stole" from them. "Stealing" implies that the victim is now WITHOUT the items stolen. This is NOT the case here.

Referring to copyright infringement as "theft" or "stealing" is retarded. If you want to rant against copyright infringement, then do so, but don't cloud the issue by calling it stealing.

Is it really that clear? Am I being a milquetoast for having reservations about the concept of intellectual property?

I can see how physical media can be stolen. It's more difficult for me to see how ideas can be stolen. Under any conception of property rights, Lockean or otherwise, I don't see how ideas can be properly thought of as owned.

Thomas-Rasset violated a licensing contract. But was it a property crime? I dunno.

Well, spanks, Cheezburg, I'll give it a go!

I just had another thought - Where was the RIAA back in the late 70s, early 80s when people were recording albums onto cassette tapes? Why no outrage back then? And don't tell me you never heard of anyone doing that - most ALL of my friends did it, and I'm sure you had some who did it too. I've got scads of mix tapes and straight-off-the-album tapes; coupla guys I knew used to take a new album, and a buncha blank cassettes, and make tapes of the albums and then either give them away or sell them for a buck or 3. And we always taped every damn Dead show we went to, among others!. I've got a seriously good tape of Led Zeppelin at the New Haven Arena from 1971 (yeah, I'm that old).

o.O

"If there was a device that I could use to record music from my albums to CDs, that isn't too damned expensive, I would use it."

Well, this is a case of simply knowing what your machine can do, because Blaster and Delta make hardware for the job. See M-Audio. I hope you have an Apple box, because the most serious and easiest audio tools are there, but you can get PC versions of most software. The paid version of Quicktime might let you edit audio adequately.

I think you'll find the cost is trivial once you find what you can do.

-----

This copyright business is disgusting for a couple of reasons. Got a patent? It expires. Got a copyright? It doesn't - and it's not like it's vital that you get paid to write a song, something lots of people can do. How is that more important than the invention of a vaccine?

And if you have a bunch of money (Disney, choke, puke) you can get the law redone to suit you - protecting your Winnie the Pooh business, for instance.

Remember "payola"? That's where DJs were paid to play particular songs on the radio. The Horror! Now, the label pays the company that owns the radio station - to put on Disney songs from Miley. That's perfectly fine!

The most important thing in the world is that the right people get the money, not that music gets played.

Meanwhile, support the artists taking things into their own hands: Cruxshadows, Collide, Fans of Jimmy Century, The Last Dance, Ego Likeness!

> "Stealing" implies that the victim
> is now WITHOUT the items stolen.
> This is NOT the case here.

Sure it is: They're without the value they'd have had if she'd pay for their music. They didn't distribute it freely... They're trying to sell it. She's got it without paying for it, and no one made a gift of it to her.

"Theft", they call that.

You might not know how big file-sharing is. Here's the biggest and most comprehensive service of all.

So, Crid, you're in the industry and you know how much real work goes into production after the "creative" types are done arguing. I don't debate that.

But what makes a Vanilla Ice song valuable today? What is value?

I contend that some work stands the test of time better than others. Is "value" defined by how much music appeals to the lowest common denominator? Oprah is worth how much selling Kleenex to stay-at-homes?

Is crazy bidness!

I mean, ask some of these bands where their money went after the label got their hands on it.

They're without the value they'd have had if she'd pay for their music. They didn't distribute it freely... They're trying to sell it. She's got it without paying for it, and no one made a gift of it to her. (crid)

Yes. Although maybe we should, that isn't how we usually think of theft. Lots of contracts go unfulfilled or are broken in various ways. Usually we don't consider it theft but more like fraud. Perhaps fraud is a kind of theft-by-proxy. I can see the argument there.

In this case, Thomas-Rasset accessed a site with songs held in contravention of a licensing agreement. She then took possession of the unlicensed materials. The license holder was deprived of the compensation due under the license agreement, but not by Thomas-Rasset who never assented to the licensing agreement.

The person who originally posted the materials for download clearly violated the license agreement, but how can Thomas-Rasset be held to that agreement? It's not as clear as a case of physical theft.

For what it's worth, I've posted some stuff about the DMCA.

"Where was the RIAA back in the late 70s, early 80s when people were recording albums onto cassette tapes?"

Every blank cassette and every blank CD intended for music you buy has a blank media tax that is supposed to be used to pay artists for the home recording of their copyrighted works. This is why I think that Jammie's crime was not downloading the music, but distributing the music. Which is why the proof from the RIAA that she was distributing is critical, and why they like to make that claim into just making the music available.

From the wiki:

Audio home recording in general

17 USC 1008, from the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, says that non-commercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings is not copyright infringement. Non-commercial includes such things as resale not in the course of business, perhaps of normal use working copies which are no longer wanted. It's unlikely to include resale of copies in bulk and Napster tried to use the Section 1008 defense but was rejected because it was a business.

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992: "In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" .

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992: "In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use".

The United States music industry[citation needed] administers the Audio Home Recording Act and foreign hometaping royalties for artists on US sound recordings as well as US record labels. These royalties are administered by The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies for featured artists and copyright owners, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for writers, and Harry Fox Agency for publishers. AFM and AFTRA also contribute to retrieving foreign funds.

[edit] Blank music CDs and recorders

17 USC 1008 bars copyright infringement action and 17 USC 1003 provides for a royalty of 3% of the initial transfer price. The royalty rate in Section 1004 was established by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998. This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs, even though they can be (and often are) used to record or "burn" music from the computer to CD. A similar royalty applies to stand-alone CD recorders, but not to CD burners used with computers.

Thanks to a precedent established in a 1998 lawsuit involving the Rio PMP300 player, MP3 players are deemed "computer peripherals" and are not subject to a royalty of this type in the U.S.

"Referring to copyright infringement as "theft" or "stealing" is retarded. If you want to rant against copyright infringement, then do so, but don't cloud the issue by calling it stealing."

I don't get why that's not stealing. If you take a copy of Amy's book and make more copies yourself, then give them away to anyone who wants them, then you're taking money out of her pocket. Yes, Amy still has her original book, but the consumers who would normally buy copies of the book, no longer have to, so you've essentially rendered her effort in writimg the book worthless.

It was clear this lady was on Kaaza, or whatever, to do the same thing. She was distributing songs free that should be paid for.

The second commenter mentioned 30 seconds of a Spiderman movie - that is what is called "fair use" and should be permissible. Part of the problem with out of control copyright laws, is that fair use has effectively been destroyed in a majority of circumstances. Copyright was created in order to benefit the public commons - only very little if anything ever enters that anymore.

Modern copyright law has already destroyed the purposes of copyright.

Just to correct a misconception... SHE didn't steal anything, she 'owned' those songs. What she did do is put them on an open filer where other people could get them.

Now, the fact that she did so is what the RIAA is calling 'stealing'...

even though they cannot prove that ANYONE actually downloaded from her.

That's the short of it. There are lots of other questions surronding this, and I think it will go to SCOTUS...

blockquote>Modern copyright law has already destroyed the purposes of copyright. (zen)

Yes. And this should worry us. Very powerful political lobbies have used the government to corrupt the original purpose of copyright.

> But what makes a Vanilla Ice song
> valuable today? What is value?

I think you were perfectly correct earlier when you talked about the technology. Assigning the price to music on the basis of the cost of the distribution media was never a good idea. Those plastic disc prices never reflected the value of the ideas to the consumers. (And by "ideas", I mean Vanilla Ice songs or Jackson Five songs or whatever.)

That price is closer to the truth nowadays, as technology makes acquisition of the material almost whimsical.

The correct price is "not much".

Nonetheless, let's say Amy Alkon wrote a symphony tonight called "Barking Dog and Boyfriend Stopping By with Chinese Takeout" and told us that the price for a performance was $70,000. No matter how much or how little the work meant to us, we wouldn't have the right to acquire it without paying her just because her price was too high. She's got a right to approach the market however she wants.

If she's gonna make a living at it, she'll have to adjust her prices, just like Gwen Stefani.

(I personally think the Gwen Stefanis and similar acts should fall to their knees and thank their lucky stars that their careers happened in the years of expensive distribution: They got in just under the wire.)

And of course, there were those hideous cassettes....

More:

> Is "value" defined by how much
> music appeals to the lowest
> common denominator?

Yes. People charge what others will pay and never a penny more. You gotta problem with that, bub?

If I walked into a store today and put a CD in my bag and walked out, took the CD home, listened to it, then brought it back, is that stealing? How many arguments are there going to be about how this was stolen. The bottom line is that anyone downloading music off of a site knows that they are not paying their dollar a song on Itunes but rather are downloading it for free on a site not authorized by the artist or the company producing the music. Stealing is knowing that something is for sale but you take it without paying and it was not a gift from anyone. The penalty was excessive and unreasonable, but I'm sure that it will get knocked down. It was the music industry making an example.

She broke the law. Whether it is a good law or a bad law, she should be found guilty. However, the punishment (fine) is insane. I would think the original price she would have paid per song would send a clear message about the risks of file sharing (conviction + reasonable fine). Instead, they are trying to recoup their lost profits without demonstrating they have even lost profits. Just because a file she shared was downloaded, that does not equate to the person who downloaded it would have bought it instead had she not shared.

This is clearly an attempt again by the music industry to force others who they pursue on file sharing to settle out of court.

That said, in the long run, it really does not matter. Any company that relies upon a business model that requires them to sue significant numbers of their customers will not be viable long term.

Would the AP have an issue with the use of their article under the same principles?

If there was a device that I could use to record music from my albums to CDs, that isn't too damned expensive, I would use it. Is there any such animal out there? I haven't heard of one.

You can get USB Record players.

Then get GoldWave music software to record it and use the pop-click filter to clean it up.

"I don't get why that's not stealing."

The case has been laid out pretty clearly. If you can't get it, I can't help you.

"If you take a copy of Amy's book and make more copies yourself, then give them away to anyone who wants them, then you're taking money out of her pocket."

No, you aren't. You are possibly preventing her from making money. Let us be as precise as possible, because there are lots of important legal distinctions here, and neither side can gloss over them while maintaining intellectual honesty.

" Yes, Amy still has her original book, but the consumers who would normally buy copies of the book, no longer have to, so you've essentially rendered her effort in writimg the book worthless."

You've made a lot of assumptions here, none of which are true.

You don't know that all the consumers who would have bought copies will no longer do it. History has shown that many people will prefer to buy from the original author in support of them, regardless of how many alternatives there are.

"Would the AP have an issue with the use of their article under the same principles?"

Yes. The AP has been particularly aggressive in protecting their intellectual property under the law.

As someone who has had content distributed via AP, I personally don't agree with them, but for now that is their right.

I agree with many of the comments here. I see a larger issue with this behavior.

I'm going to take a specific example. Let's say that I go into the JCPenny's portrait studio and get a senior portrait for one of my nieces. I pay the studio to take the pictures and we go on our merry way with the pictures. Who owns the rights to those pictures? Is it the person who set the appointment and paid for it? Nope. Is it the person who is in the pictures? Wrong again. It is the person who operated the camera. That person right now has the legal right to use that picture however they want...from displaying it in the lobby to putting it up on their Facebook page. Neither I or my niece would be allowed to make copies of the pictures or do anything else with them without the permission of JCPenny's.

How can we honestly say that copyright laws aren't fucked up in this country?

-Julie

> What she did do is put them on an
> open filer where other people could
> get them.

Oh, OK. Still criminal. Mildly criminal, instructively criminal, but it's still foul play.

"Oh, OK. Still criminal. Mildly criminal, instructively criminal, but it's still foul play."

Civilly liable. Not criminal.

Morally speaking, how is file-sharing fundamentally different from operating a traditional Library?

If I go to the local public library and check out a copy of, say, "For Whom the Bell Tolls," haven't the library and I conspired to 'steal' $9.99 (or whatever the book costs at Borders) from Earnest Hemingway's heirs, and shouldn't we therefore have to cough up a $80,000 fine?

Worse yet: while I have the book checked out, I might allow three of my room-mates to read it also and thereby 'steal' an additional $29.97 from poor Hemingway's estate.

Why is music so much more sacred than printed literature?

" Morally speaking, how is file-sharing fundamentally different from operating a traditional Library?"

Libraries have permission.

> Civilly liable. Not criminal.

Morally criminal. Not honest.

"Morally criminal. Not honest."

Morally criminal is at best an attempt at artistic license, at worst an attempt at redefining words however one pleases for the purposes of winning an argument.

But regardless, copyright was never intended to be a moral issue. The laws creating and protecting copyright were designed as an attempt to actively encourage artistic work, not to prevent an immoral act or to protect any rights already acknowledged. It is more akin to a government grant than a protective law.

That said, it doesn't seem to occur to any of the people dissenting against copyright that perhaps going through legal channels would be the best way to get what they want. Right or wrong, the law protects copyright, and you don't get to complain if you are found on the wrong side of it.

"Just because a file she shared was downloaded, that does not equate to the person who downloaded it would have bought it instead had she not shared."

So, I can shoplift a designer dress out of store, then claim I wouldn't have bought it anyway. Hey, it's not even my color, and I don't even like that designer much. I only took it because it was "free".

That's stupid. The people downloading the music obviously wanted the music. Would they have wanted it as badly if they had to pay for it? Maybe or maybe not. But that's not the concern of the owners of the music or the dress. All that matters was that it was taken without being paid for.

And I really doubt you can prove that people are just as likely to pay for something when they can get it for free. That's illogical, and a very poor justification for distributing an artist's intellectual property.

"So, I can shoplift a designer dress out of store, then claim I wouldn't have bought it anyway. Hey, it's not even my color, and I don't even like that designer much. I only took it because it was "free"."

No. Because you've now deprived the owner of the dress itself.

The word "taken" means just that, "taken." You can't redefine the word however you want.

Copying is not taking. Copying is illegal. But it is not taking.

"And I really doubt you can prove that people are just as likely to pay for something when they can get it for free. That's illogical, and a very poor justification for distributing an artist's intellectual property."

There've been numerous examples throughout history. The most popular example is Tolkein, who failed in his attempt legally fight pirated copies in America, but had great success making sure people bought the official, more expensive copy.

The moral (though irrelevant legally) justification for distributing their property is that by almost all traditional definitions of "property," there can be no such thing as intellectual property. It is an artificial construct.

To use your example, I would argue there is nothing wrong with examining the dress at the store, then going out and making an identical one for yourself through other means.

> The laws creating and protecting
> copyright were designed as an
> attempt to actively encourage
> artistic work, not to prevent an
> immoral act or to protect any
> rights already acknowledged.

Good thing I didn't say it was about copyright! I said it was about theft.

Bad things happen when people think they can pay whatever price they want for the full value of something, no matter what.

"Good thing I didn't say it was about copyright! I said it was about theft."

Which has already been refuted. Not even the law agrees with you.

You cannot talk about intellectual property and not be talking about copyright. Without copyright laws, there is no such thing as intellectual property. There was no such thing before copyright.

First of all, I have no sympathy for the recording industry. When CDs came out they promised the price would drop from $15 to $5 per CD by the nineties. Even adjusted for inflation, I'm still waiting.

The filesharing phenomenon was partly driven by people's frustration with an industry that was clearly and shamelessly exploiting its monopoly for exhorbitant profits. It costs $0.50 to make a CD and the artist gets about $1.00 of the price. I doubt the promotion and administration costs ate up the rest of the $11-$16 retail price.

That said, sharing files is denying the artist any royalties and taking money from the entity that owns the song. Even if it's a Vanilla Ice song that no one wants anymore. If you want it, you need to buy it.

The RIAA is the last buggy whip manufacturer in America desperately clinging to its antiquated business model.

Before long, bands will be selling songs on their own Web sites and keeping the majority of the profits. Viral media and word of mouth will generate publicity at little or no cost.

Albums are another concept that's probably going to die with digital media. I can already avoid buying nine songs I don't want to get the one I do via iTunes and other sites. Why produce albums when people are going to pick them apart and purchase only the songs they want?

Whats to stop someone from recording a show on their TV and transfering that file on to their computers?

Nothing to stop them. The advertisers paid for that show to be broadcast once. So it's probably okay for you to record it for personal viewing. If you subsequently sell or widely distribute the copy of that show you have on your computer, then you're probably violating the copyright.

Where was the RIAA back in the late 70s, early 80s when people were recording albums onto cassette tapes? Why no outrage back then?

I remember more than a few warnings about the illegal distribution of songs copied onto tape. I also remember a fierce debate when VHS (and Beta) came out.

What got the RIAA so worked up was the sheer volume of distribution possible with digital files.

If someone made a mix tape and gave it to someone else, that was one song and one person (and it cost the person making it the price of a tape which limited the appeal of doing this on a large scale). If someone puts a file on a file server and shares it, that's a factor of potentially hundreds of thousands of copies - which equals a boatload of lost revenue - and at little or no cost to the distributor.

one small point, Julie, The photographer DOESN'T have the right to use those pictures for sale, or to give away, or display in public. That requires a model release. However, you can also not just duplicate them because it was the intangible skill of the photographer that made them what they are. Their existance as photrgraphs you can own, but their content is owned by the photographer...

This is the existential angst issue of intellectual property... you can own a thing that contains the IDEAS [images, music, techniques, etc.] of someone else, and those ideas can have a commercial value. So that's the sticky part. The part we are getting wrapped around the axle about. Especially with the internet, it is the flow of intangibles that are causing the heatburn in a way that copying The Cure Cassette from your friends didn't. They'd clobber you if you comeercially reproduced from that tape. but it was a nit if you made one copy. Not only wouldn't they have known, but it was limited scope.

File sharing is a whole other thing, because the volume can be very high, and they can tell two friends and so on, and so on.

The point i was making Crid, wasn't that what she did wasn't violation of copyright law...
But that laws have shades. It isn't a class X felony to steal candy from a baby. It's a misdemeanor. Likewise, alowing your network to be open, isn't the same as making 1000 CD's and selling them for $5 each. I think that the damages sought, and the tactics used are a problem. ESPECIALLY since there is no proof that there was a loss. If a store clerk leaves the front door open overnight and tells everyone to go help themselves... but NO ONE DOES... is that store clerk liable to replace items that haven been stolen? Or are they just to be fired and charged with some petty crime?

Awarding $2m for something that MIGHT have happened, just to send a message? If you can't PROVE that a crime occured, but you know that a person conspired to commit one, the punishment is far different... Shouldn't it be?

"So, I can shoplift a designer dress out of store, then claim I wouldn't have bought it anyway. Hey, it's not even my color, and I don't even like that designer much. I only took it because it was "free"."

Please reread what I said. She SHOULD be found guilty. She SHOULD pay a reasonable fine (cost of the dress).

However, RIAA is saying she then shared that "dress" with others and the total fine she should pay is calculated by everyone who then touched that dress whether they (RIAA) can prove that person actually wore it (played entire song) or not. So are you willing to pay for not only the cost you directly denied the intellectual property owner but also the indirect cost they (RIAA) say you owe? Keep in mind RIAA does not have to prove the indirect cost they claim you owe - you have to prove you do not owe it. The burden of proof is on you to prove the others who touched that dress after you did not actually use it. There is a bit of difference in being fined a dollar per song or 15 dollars or so per album and 80k per song. Or paying for a dress you stole once and paying for a dress somebody claims (without proof) you stole the equivilent of 100 times in addition to your own use.

I stand by my statement the punishment levied in this case is insane. And I state again that theft is theft and SHOULD be punished. Just make the punishment reasonable to the crime.

Morally speaking, how is file-sharing fundamentally different from operating a traditional Library?

It's hard to talk about the moral difference without first illustrating the physical difference: electronic data can be copied an (almost) infinite number of times for (almost) free, whereas physical media (such as books in libraries) cannot.

Morally speaking, it is against the law to violate someone's copyright. Checking a book out of a library does not violate anybody's copyright. Copying a file multiple times might (depending on who owns the copyright and the license terms governing the file.)

Copyright is not present in natural law; it is an artificial construct to encourage people to create artistic and literary works. Without copyright, copying a file is analogous to telling someone a joke. As long as you keep the joke to yourself it's yours, but sharing it enriches everyone you tell it to.

That said, it doesn't seem to occur to any of the people dissenting against copyright that perhaps going through legal channels would be the best way to get what they want.

It does to me. That current copyright law is counterproductive and corrupt does not allow someone to violate it. It's still the law.

You cannot talk about intellectual property and not be talking about copyright. Without copyright laws, there is no such thing as intellectual property. There was no such thing before copyright.

To be accurate we should note that there are three kinds of intellectual property: copyrights, trademarks and patents. Some say that trade secrets should be considered intellectual property as well.

one small point, Julie, The photographer DOESN'T have the right to use those pictures for sale, or to give away, or display in public. That requires a model release.

That actually isn't true. It requires the model's release if they are going to make money directly off of the picture (such as advertising) however they can publish and retain that picture to do whatever they want with it. They can sell those pictures to whomever they want, display them in the lobby as 'examples' or post them on the internet.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

http://photocritic.org/photography-rights-vs-respect/

However, you can also not just duplicate them because it was the intangible skill of the photographer that made them what they are. Their existance as photrgraphs you can own, but their content is owned by the photographer...

However, I paid the photographer to create the pictures, paid for the processing, paid for the 'sitting fees' associated with it. I hired them to do a job. If I create a computer program while at work, that is owned by the people who fund my paycheck. If I pay someone to paint a portrait or paint my house, I own the rights to the results of that work. Why is it any different for a photographer? I'm not saying that I own their process, but I own the results of that process if I pay for it.

This segues to my second point (which is closer to the topic). If I pay a performer to experience a concert,and am therefore his/her employer, why is it that I am not allowed to record that concert? Each concert (it has been deemed) has unique intellectual property rights that are separate from those that own the initial recording (album). If I am paying for this performance, why can I not record it and sell it (and pay royalties for use of their music, much like anyone who is covering a song)?

-Julie

To put it more bluntly, if I pay for the concert, don't I own the rights to the performance I experienced even if the performer owns the rights to the song(s)?

-Julie

"However, I paid the photographer to create the pictures, paid for the processing, paid for the 'sitting fees' associated with it. I hired them to do a job. If I create a computer program while at work, that is owned by the people who fund my paycheck. If I pay someone to paint a portrait or paint my house, I own the rights to the results of that work."

Uh, no. You would own only the rights you negotiate when hiring them to do the job. That is the difference between being a contractor and an employee.

Employee - no rights to any intellectual property created during the normal course of performing their job.
Contractor - rights negotiated at the time of hire.

See more here regarding work for hire:

http://www.answers.com/topic/intellectual-property-rights

mmm, the rules may have changed slightly since I stopped shooting in the late 90's, but I would NEVER have sold or done anything with another's image, and I got model releases for everything in my portfolio, UNLESS I hired the model. On the advice of my lawyer. On the other hand it could have been ironclad CYA... but Photographic copyright has been in a state of flux for years, and the law is sometimes contradictory, especially between pros, and amatures.

To your second point, as oddly enough, now I am a programmer. The difference has always been is the work for hire on spce, or is the work a service provided a customer? Your JCPenny photographer doesn't own the copyright either [at least until the end of the 90's] because they contracted as a work for hire to JCP. The contracts can be interesting, an I often balked at selling that right and lost some jobs over it.

But. Your point about having a protrait painted of you, and what can you do with it is a great one. I suppose the problem would come if you took that portrai, mass produced it, and then said that YOU had painted it. Then you might have a problem. We are getting way down into the strange complexity of these laws... AND with the internet and the rise of digital, many things have changed...

As far as the concert, you OWN your experience, but the band owns the performance. You can sell your experience, since it's yours alone, they can sell the performance, just like they sold you a ticket to it...

@Rick Stain:

That said, it doesn't seem to occur to any of the people dissenting against copyright that perhaps going through legal channels would be the best way to get what they want. Right or wrong, the law protects copyright, and you don't get to complain if you are found on the wrong side of it.

I think perhaps that's uncivil, Rick, and I know it to be demonstrably untrue. Lots of good people who respect copyright law make good faith efforts to obey the current law. Many of the commenters here have argued against our current copyright law, and most of those comments do not advocate breaking the law, either.

And I also think everyone who is found to break the law gets to complain all they want. If they think the law unjust, all the more so. Appeals courts, and the supreme court, are in part institutions whose purpose is to hear complaints from people who have been found on the wrong side of the law.

Your point about having a protrait painted of you, and what can you do with it is a great one. I suppose the problem would come if you took that portrai, mass produced it, and then said that YOU had painted it.

But I could have it done, mass produce it and not mention who created it. Or say that it was created by Joe Painter, Copyright Hot Blond Chick Inc. I don't get that option with photos, whether they are of me in my wedding dress, of my dog Rufus, or my infant niece in a staged bath picture at JCP's. That is inconsistency across mediums.

You can sell your experience, since it's yours alone

The only way that I can sell my experience is through taking video/audio from my experience (Interestingly enough, photographs are legal, but video isn't). However, doing so is currently illegal (even ownership without intent to distribute) and selling it will get the FBI on you. The funny thing is that most bootleggers are die hard fans who never make a dime. Nothing like pulling a Lars Ulrich and alienating your fan base.

-Julie

> Not even the law agrees with you.

Attorneys often misappraise the affection others have for law. You argue that people should be able to take the work of others at zero cost and run. Good luck selling that.

"Attorneys often misappraise the affection others have for law. You argue that people should be able to take the work of others at zero cost and run. Good luck selling that."

I don't need luck. This is how it was for centuries, and that is how it will be again in my lifetime.

Ideas cannot be owned.

"But I could have it done, mass produce it and not mention who created it." -Julie
Yes, you could. If the painter found out, they could sue you. I'm not sure if they would win or not, but I have seen it done... That is the sticky part.

and I must have been typint TOO fast... I missed the 't on can't. You can't sell your experience, because it is yours.

Can't tell you the right of all this. I used to have stock photos on the web, some of which got stolen and used in an ad campaign. I would have sold them the pics cheaper that it cost them to have someone photoshop the watermarks out... so I've had plenty of tastes of this. Ultimately most of my friends have stopped selling stock... essentially if you put it on the web, somebody will take it, no matter what you do.

I have many artist friends, and I could "borrow" one of their paintings for a day, have prints made, return the original, and distribute the prints. These artists usually produce limited prints, so as not to diminish the value too much. Each print is not worth as much as the original painting, but they are more valued because they are limited.

Now, if I only gave a few prints to friends and family, maybe that's no big deal. But if I went to a website and expressly advertised that I have hundreds of these prints and distributed them widely, I would be hurting the artist.

The painting is the intellectual property of the artist, and without protection, we will discourage the production of art in all its forms.

And, you know, with the dress, there are girls who go into stores, purchase a dress, wear it to an event, maybe even loan it out to their friends, and return it to the store for a full refund a few days later. I suppose that's not technically "stealing," but it's pretty disgusting.

"The painting is the intellectual property of the artist, and without protection, we will discourage the production of art in all its forms."

You haven't so much argued why this is a positive system as just stated how it works. It's sort of begging the question.

There is no proof that I am aware of that the situation encourages creativity and the production of art. In fact, I would argue it does the opposite. Art is not created in a vacuum, but built upon the foundation of culture. When much of that culture is locked up in intellectual property, the foundation suffers.

"And, you know, with the dress, there are girls who go into stores, purchase a dress, wear it to an event, maybe even loan it out to their friends, and return it to the store for a full refund a few days later. I suppose that's not technically "stealing," but it's pretty disgusting."

I would call that dealing in bad faith with the shop owner and taking advantage of the store's generous refund policy. I'd agree that's wrong, although not stealing.

In fact, I think the internet has proven pretty conclusively that people will most definitely produce creative content without the chance to be paid for it, or with the chance to be paid through alternative means such as advertising or support of fans.

That's very true Rick, but for the same reason that I no longer sell my stock on the 'net, artists don't put their best stuff out either. They put out the things that it won't hurt them to lose.

My friends that do fan art, don't care, they are doing as amusement. Once they start making a living from it? They copyright all work and start watermarking everything. It's the being PAID part that's important.

If you ask someone to build you a house, YOU PAY FOR IT. Or he won't give it to you. That too is a product of culture. If you advertise your art online, you are trying to sell the art, like you sell a house. You are expecting to be paid to acquire it. If somebody else takes your art and then sells it themselves, well, now we are talking something else. It isn't theirs to sell. The original part of the thread, about haivng an open trading server, is about someone who has taken a thing and giving it away to anyone who can copy it, and NOT BUY from the original creator. An original creator who never sold their license to do so, beyond fair use.

Is it worth $80k per song, when nobody used the server? there's the question.

Yes there is a lot of unpaid content on the web, and a lot of it is garbage. Some of it isn't, and eventually the stuff that isn't will just be too risky to put out there.

> Ideas cannot be owned.

How old are you? Seriously. How old?

The subtitle of this movie review comes to mind.

"f you ask someone to build you a house, YOU PAY FOR IT. Or he won't give it to you. That too is a product of culture."

Are you referring to the physical house or the idea of how to build it?

"If you advertise your art online, you are trying to sell the art, like you sell a house. You are expecting to be paid to acquire it. If somebody else takes your art and then sells it themselves, well, now we are talking something else. It isn't theirs to sell. The original part of the thread, about haivng an open trading server, is about someone who has taken a thing and giving it away to anyone who can copy it, and NOT BUY from the original creator. An original creator who never sold their license to do so, beyond fair use."

And I'm arguing that the creator doesn't have the right to decide that. (Morally, not legally. They clearly have the legal right at this point.)

"How old are you? Seriously. How old?

The subtitle of this movie review comes to mind."

I am 27 years old and I am make my living creating what you would call intellectual property.

You may choose to be reminded of the subtitle, but it's not a good comparison. Paying admission to a physical space for a public performance is not the same as being forced to pay for an idea.

> I am make my living creating what
> you would call intellectual property.

Are you sure I'd call it that?

> Paying admission to a physical
> space for a public performance
> is not the same as being forced
> to pay for an idea.

Your wordplay is evasion: A movie is an idea for purposes of our discussion. As Raddy notes above, stealing movies is no less naughty for being popular behavior.

"Ideas cannot be owned" is a pretty juvenile sentiment for a guy looking approaching his fourth decade. (I thought you might be Chang, another youthful visitor to this blog.) You should know by now that if ideas can't be owned, people will stop having them... Or at least, will stop productively sharing them when they do. Have you ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

There is no proof that I am aware of that the situation encourages creativity and the production of art. In fact, I would argue it does the opposite.

This simply isn't the case Rick. I think that your perspective is too focused on creative works produced singularly through the passion of individuals.

I'm intimately familiar w/ the development of film and television properties. These involve long pre-production and production cycles with ongoing creative inputs. And while the writers, directors, editors, production designers, et.al. have a creative commitment to these projects, they don't have the luxury of devoting years of their time to a speculative effort without compensation.

So unless you're happy with the proposition that film and television become an endless replication of Cops, America's Funniest Home Videos, and Narcissists in Confined Quarters, you're going to have to find a way to pay these folks.

You mention ad sponsorship and fan support. Perhaps you'll name the projects that you're thinking of. Because I've tracked these efforts, and there are very few that have recouped at anywhere near their production costs.

Also ad buyers aren't going to commit to a property that can be distributed without their inclusion. Why the hell would they do that? - think about it!

You know, my company is actually trying innovate licensing terms that will accommodate more open licensing schemes (e.g. using one of the CC variants). But we still need to protect our investors and sponsors. If you can accept this fact, then it's possible that the core of your vision can be brought to fruition. But the hard-line that you're promoting simply isn't viable.

> and Narcissists in Confined
> Quarters, you're going to

Well, "Season 3: Tampa" wasn't bad! I loved the part where that queen bitch Tanya got told off by that one guy.

I sympathize with a lot of sides of all this. As a mid-level Hollywood techie I'd feel bad if we were being singled out, but of course it's happening in all the print media as well. These things are being re-priced.

I know a few bright people. When they do bright stuff, they want to be reliably paid for it.

"Are you sure I'd call it that?"

If you didn't, I'm guessing it would be a cheap attempt at an ad hominem and not a real assessment of what I do.

"Your wordplay is evasion: A movie is an idea for purposes of our discussion. As Raddy notes above, stealing movies is no less naughty for being popular behavior."

It's not evasive. Your calling it is evasive, because you intentionally trying to sidestep my primary point. Since you are arguing that intellectual property and physical property are one and the same, and I am disagreeing, making the distinction between the two is incredibly important to the point at hand. In fact, it *is* the point at hand.

The issue of sneaking into a movie is one of trespassing, a form of theft by which you deprive the owner of an actual, physical property of his right to decide how that physical property is used and occupied.

You may not think this distinction is important, but the courts do. A drive-in theater cannot at this time legally prevent people from watching their display of a movie, if that movie can be seen from a vantage point they have a legal right to be on (such as their own property or public property). This has been established repeatedly. A rather famous case recently was Wrigley Field and the Chicago Cubs baseball team. Their ballpark is visible from rooftops across the street, and people began to build bleachers and sell tickets on top of the buildings. The Cubs didn't like this, but they had no legal recourse to stop it. (They finally threatened to build on their own property to block the view, which was of course their right, and got the rooftop owners to settle).

""Ideas cannot be owned" is a pretty juvenile sentiment for a guy looking approaching his fourth decade. (I thought you might be Chang, another youthful visitor to this blog.) You should know by now that if ideas can't be owned, people will stop having them... Or at least, will stop productively sharing them when they do. Have you ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?"

I'd actually call this a pretty juvenile view in response.

First, it is ignorant of the history of ideas. Ideas weren't owned for centuries. The concept of intellectual property didn't get wide berth until roughly the 19th century, maybe a few decades earlier. Are you saying nobody every had ideas in the entirety of recorded history previous to that?

Second, it's a pointless ad hominem. The validity of my ideas stands on its own or not, regardless of my age. And they aren't actually my ideas. I used to be on your side of this argument, but I was persuaded by the moral and legal reasoning of men and women likely much smarter than either of us. I could start listing them, these people much older and wiser than either of us who agree with me, and you could probably come up with a similar list for your side. But that would be silly.

"So unless you're happy with the proposition that film and television become an endless replication of Cops, America's Funniest Home Videos, and Narcissists in Confined Quarters, you're going to have to find a way to pay these folks."

Everything your companies produce is available freely right now, on the internet, and while technically illegal in most places, there is virtually no chance of getting caught and a large percentage of the population has no problem doing it.

So how are the making money right now?

As I said, people will still choose to pay for directly authorized performances and copies in a world without intellectual property. They are choosing it right now in a world where IP is virtually unenforcable.

I am make my living creating what you would call intellectual property.

Are you sure I'd call it that?

He's probably just being polite. Based on your comments in this thread you'd call it physical property, but I know you're a smart guy, so please explain yourself. What do you call nonphysical property?

"Ideas cannot be owned" is a pretty juvenile sentiment for a guy looking approaching his fourth decade.

It's the literal truth. The closest that one can get is the right for a limited time to control copying.

There is no proof that I am aware of that the situation encourages creativity and the production of art. In fact, I would argue it does the opposite.

That reminds me of this: Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone

> a cheap attempt at an ad hominem

Guys on the internet love to whine about ad hominem. This is very strange to me. There are all these fallacies going on out there, but ad hominem is one they want to sniffle about, like they never bothered to read about the others... Not just ad hominem, but cheap ad hominem. And not just cheap ad hominem, but an attempt at cheap ad hominem.

> and not a real assessment of
> what I do.

Well, we have no reason to take your word for it.

> you are arguing that intellectual
> property and physical property
> are one and the same

No, I'm arguing that you're flatly wrong and goofy when you say "ideas cannot be owned", and that this belief ignores the way people around the world bring value to each others' lives. To hear you say "This is how it was for centuries, and that is how it will be again in my lifetime" makes me think you haven't seen much of the world or dealt with a great number of people.

> Ideas weren't owned for centuries.

They didn't have to be. People who had them had other resources by which their interests could be defended: The ear of the village Big Man, the might of the church, etc.

> Are you saying nobody every had
> ideas in the entirety of
> recorded history previous
> to that?

Humor me: Recite the precise passage where that was implied. Map it out for us.

> a pointless ad hominem

Again!

> The validity of my ideas stands
> on its own or not

...not...

> regardless of my age.

Youth explains a lot of foolishness, especially when a bold new dawn of progress and virtue is anticipated for the moment when the young fool expects to achieve some slender station of power.

> What do you call nonphysical
> property?

Who are you talking to? Be clear, fella.

> The closest that one can get
> is the right for a limited
> time to control copying.

First of all, that's often enough to reward bright people. Second, it's often enough to suppress huge cultures. Genies get put back in bottles all the time. We're still waiting for all those Abu Ghraib photos.

You guys are hard to track, but you seem like a bunch of utopian teenagers who don't want to pay full price for your White Stripes mp3s.

So how are the making money right now?

licensing.

How about those examples I'd inquired on?

I'll take a different tack... I think you are missing the point, Rick.

I own the ideas in my head, I own this idea too, but I'm putting it out there for everyone else to read, think on, or not. Freebie.

So. If I want to retain possession of my idea, I have to take steps to protect it, and if I wish, monetize it.

If nobody else wants or cares about my idea, we aren't having this conversation. IFF my idea has VALUE then we need to worry over the transaction of that value. It's up to me to figure out how to protect it. It is up to community to allow me to do so, IFF they find a value in it.

Otherwise I won't make it available at all, and the community is deprived of sharing that value. This is called the chilling effect. Certainly the community doesn't know what it doesn't have, they will base this on reputation. If J.K Rowling has another astounding book rattling around in her head, people will buy JUST because of who she is. That is why she puts a copyright on her story, and protects it. That book is a product of her brain, her ability to tell a story. The community protects her ability to monetize that, because there is a value in storytelling. Before such things were written down you didn't NEED copyright, because the talented storyteller had it in their head. They were often compensated for their talent by having a high standing in the community, just like a blacksmith would, who gets paid for physical things they make.

You asked earlier about the IDEA of building a house. The architect and possibly engineers have those IDEAS, and they OWN them. The builder BUYS the idea, and makes it. If the builder STOLE the idea, He would be sued for that. The parties on both sides can see that it is better for everyone's business if the fees are paid for the ideas, the houses are built and they look good are designed well and are safe. That is why a falling apart Frank Lloyd Wright house can command $15mil. It is his name and idea that make that pile of concrete worth that to someone.

Dunno, you just seem to want to deal in an absolute that doesn't exist. When the assumption that ideas don't have value is accepted, people simply will keep them. There is nothing in it for them to share.

Regardless if it's a photgraph of a sublime sunset, a song that will rip your lungs out, or the design for the latest fusion generator, the value of the idea, is different but not less than the thing made.

Rick, you say you make intellectual property, but is it for you, or on spec for somebody you work for? Are you telling me there is nothing in your own life that you thought up yourself that has intrinsic value to you? That is a very sad thing. You don't even own yourself.

Swissy, you are so patient with these people! I'll never understand it.

No, I'm arguing that you're flatly wrong and goofy when you say "ideas cannot be owned", and that this belief ignores the way people around the world bring value to each others' lives.

You're asserting that, but you have not explained. How can ideas be owned?

People can be given credit for thinking of an idea, but that's not "owning" in the sense of possession.

People can own a copyright, trademark or patent, but that's not owning an idea.

You can own a copy of an idea, for example a piece of paper that an idea is written down on. You can own a thing that instantiates an idea. Neither of those are owning ideas.

The closest that we can get to owning an idea is keeping a secret. Whoever knows the secret "owns" the idea. That doesn't make much sense, because we don't "own" knowledge.

What do you believe ownership of an idea means for the owner? For other people?

The closest that we can get to owning an idea is keeping a secret. Whoever knows the secret "owns" the idea. That doesn't make much sense, because we don't "own" knowledge.

Bull.

Who owns Brian Corbino? Well, if I do, then I own every pattern stored in his brain, right? That's what an idea is. Thought made manifest, right there in neurons and axons.

Being a libertarian (and being Brian Corbino) I happen to believe that I do own Brian Corbino.

And if you use an idea that I created with my own brain, then I ought to be able to be compensated for that.

You using my idea is no different than you using my hammer. Either way, I'm due compensation. And if you take the hammer when I'm not looking, drive in a nail, and put it back before I go to use it, you have still stolen my hammer.

People like to imagine that by having this argument purely in the context of legal definitions of words that somehow downloading a song to which they are unentitled is not theft. After all, I can record it from the radio.

Yes, but you are paying for it there by listening to the advertisements.

> How can ideas be owned?

I just don't love you guys enough to do a full epistemological rundown for the whole of human history. It's easier just to clumsily mock you a few times and wait for you to catch up... And much more fun for everyone involved, including yourselves.

Wanna know something ironic? I stole the audiobook of Hitchen's Portable Atheist from the internet recently (via Raddy's favorite source) and burned it to a CD for the car. I'd feel bad, but I knew full well I'd soon have to buy the book (or have a niece buy it for me as a Christmas gift) anyway. It's not the kind of text that flows readily through a spoken voice, and the guy they hired is only Very Good, not Excellent or Perfect. But listening to that book can completely change the texture of a commute down Sunset Boulevard!

One thing Hitchens makes clear is that nothing, nothing is as much fun for the nonbeliever as prophesy... Because it's always, always bullshit. It's bullshit before the first word of it comes out. Baahooooooowillll---sshhhhaa--hhiiiitttt.

So let's get back to this part:

> and that is how it will be
> again in my lifetime.

Tell us more about your glorious future, Rick! What other delights await us? No ownership of ideas! What else?

I think the artist she downloaded should publicly pay her fine. Great classy gesture, drop in the bucket for them, and then can we stop worrying about song theft?

> can we stop worrying about
> song theft?

Only when everyone agrees that P2P file sharing is the new radio. A couple generations of music listeners (and entertainment lawyers) may have to grow old and die before that happens.

These kids with their Ipods are animals... They have no idea who Larry Lujack is anyway.... They think clear channel is a company.

The argument over owning ideas is a dead end IMO, and it's not actually relevant to the discussion of IP protection. Patents, copyrights, and protected marks and names don't cover ideation, they cover a specification of implementations of designs, expressions, methods, algorithms etc. This is why you can have very similar Intellectual Properties with equal legal standings.

These may appear to be the same 'idea', but if their implementations and specifications are significantly different they may each be eligible for IP protection. With patents this specification must be provided by the petitioner, but copyrights are a bit different. Their specification may arise from the legal formalisms used to identify a work.

But much of the criticism of the current IP regimes in the US, and internationally, is legitimate IMO. Patent rights have become too expansive in many cases, and the principles of novelty and prior art often aren't given their due weight when granting new patents. And for copyrights, the principle of fair use has been diminished, and there have been significant encroachments on the legal establishment of the public domain.

There's been an ongoing debate, over the past few decades, on how to address this situation. The Anti-IP position that's presented here represents a primitive form of the critical perspective on these issues. But it's no longer as prominent as it once was.

One of the key reasons for this fact is that, taken on their own terms, these arguments significantly erode privacy. For instance, they would allow a person's image to be used without their consent. And also their statements, actions, and creative expressions to be manipulated yet still presented as authentic.

So someone could extract the image of a girl from a digital photo of her at the beach and insert this into an image of a pornographic setting in order to create the impression that she is a porn star. Similarly someone could manipulate an article that you'd written for the local newspaper so that it advocated a position diametrically opposed to the one you'd presented. And they could distribute this revision under the guise that it is authentic.

These problems have motivated many advocates of a more liberal IP regime to moderate their positions so that these defend the recognition of authenticity and forms of ownership, which effectively establish the ability for IP originator to restrict the applications and exploitation of their works.

These problems have

oops - scratch the last iteration of These problems have . That's a typo.

How can ideas be owned?

I just don't love you guys enough to do a full epistemological rundown for the whole of human history.

I.e., you can't. Got it.

Who owns Brian Corbino? Well, if I do, then I own every pattern stored in his brain, right? That's what an idea is. Thought made manifest, right there in neurons and axons.

That's a representation of an idea, much like writing an idea down on a piece of paper is a representation of an idea. People own physical things like their brains and pieces of paper, but an idea is not a physical thing. When you tell me your idea it doesn't create a new idea or deprive you of any neurons and axons.

The argument over owning ideas is a dead end IMO, and it's not actually relevant to the discussion of IP protection.

I think it's relevant because if "IP protection" is a natural right, then the laws should resemble what is present in a state of nature. Our IP laws exist for practical reasons, to promote culture, progress, trade, and so on, not for moral reasons.

The Anti-IP position that's presented here represents a primitive form of the critical perspective on these issues.

I'm not anti-IP per se; it is a worthy goal to promote culture, progress, trade etc. I think the discussion should be restricted to "are the current laws practical" rather than "are the current laws morally correct" because morality has nothing to do with it.

In _Rainbow's End_ Vernor Vinge portrays a future where copyright is limited to 5 years instead of life + 90 or whatever the current astronomical time is. Originally in the US copyright was 14 years. Either one of those would make a good starting point for discussion.

W.r.t. patents, I'm in the camp that believes that in practice they are used to inhibit progress more than to encourage it. I'm not willing to throw them out altogether, but eliminating patents on nonphysical things like software and business methods would be a good start.

W.r.t. trademarks, the only abuse I'm familiar with is the practice of companies claiming trademark over every use of a name or part of a name that's in their trademark. I don't know that a change in law is needed to correct that.

> I.e., you can't.

Well, turtledove, at this point •both in this discussion and in civilization viewed broadly- you're the one with the rhetorical burden. I'm the status quo guy. There are a whole lot of people around here who expect that their ideas are their own, and will react with aggression if you take them without paying.

One more thing: I do recognize that trademark law has a moral component, that it's morally wrong to claim that your product is the same as someone else's product.

I'm the status quo guy.

No, you're claiming that ideas can be owned, which has never been true throughout the course of human history. To disprove my statement all you have to do is provide an example.

There are a whole lot of people around here who expect that their ideas are their own, and will react with aggression if you take them without paying.

It's not possible for someone to take one of your ideas because you are never deprived of it. The only way for someone to learn an idea that you uniquely possess is for you to tell them.

> which has never been true
> throughout the course of
> human history.

You guys keep saying that. It's scary-stupid. Did you guys read it in a comic book or something?

It's not possible for someone to take one of your ideas because you are never deprived of it. The only way for someone to learn an idea that you uniquely possess is for you to tell them.

This is the same bullshit dodge I've been fighting from anti-IP types for decades. It's the same fucking bullshit adolescent rationalization that we used when we were 13 and pirating every Apple ][ game in sight: "Well, it's not like they lost anything, I wasn't going to buy it anyhow".

You're still arguing from a physical property perspective. Since someone profiting from my idea without compensating me doesn't deprive me of a physical manifestation of my idea, I haven't been stolen from?

Really?

And then you follow it up with another dodge, as though my telling someone of an idea gives them an unlimited right to profit from it as though it were their own.

So what you're saying is if you develop some groundbreaking new user interface, and Microsoft replicates it and you can't sell yours to anyone, you're cool with it, because after all, they didn't "steal" from you, because you still have your idea.

Poser.

which has never been true throughout the course of human history.

You guys keep saying that. It's scary-stupid. Did you guys read it in a comic book or something?

I'm trying to make it easy for you to come up with a counterexample. Still waiting.

Since someone profiting from my idea without compensating me doesn't deprive me of a physical manifestation of my idea, I haven't been stolen from?

That's correct. If someone violates your copyright, it's copyright infringement. If someone violates your patent, it's patent infringement. If someone violates your trademark, it's trademark infringement. If someone takes credit for something you wrote or said, it's plagiarism. If you say to your neighbor "I wish somebody would make a widget that does X," and they do and sell it for a million dollars, they haven't stolen anything from you. If you'd successfully patented that idea first, then they'd be guilty of patent infringement.

Nothing entitles you to profit; it must be coaxed from a market by providing value to customers.

So what you're saying is if you develop some groundbreaking new user interface, and Microsoft replicates it and you can't sell yours to anyone, you're cool with it, because after all, they didn't "steal" from you, because you still have your idea.

Absence of stealing does not cause happiness. That said, your example illustrates how the world works; when someone makes a successful movie about penguins the market is flooded with movies about penguins. If I want to prevent copying of some groundbreaking invention I need to patent it, in which case I own the patent, not the idea being patented. Whether or not I enjoy being out-competed is irrelevant. Selling general purpose software is a deprecated business model.

> I'm trying to make it easy for you
> to come up with a counterexample.

I wouldn't bother. Like Chang in the God thread, you promise a bold new dawn of kindness and excellence just as soon as you're able to take whatever you want from people, including from within their skulls, no matter what.

Are you worth challenging? You guys are kids.

Pseudo - your entire argument is pseudo-legal bullshit.

You're using legalese to obfuscate the truth of the matter and absolve yourself of having caused any harm.

You're relying upon a strict legal definition of "theft" to say that something is not theft. Which is fine, so far as that goes, but it's still a bullshit rationalization.

And when you file a patent, you most certainly own the idea being patented. Unless you count the implementation of an idea (which is a requirement of a patent, that the implementation be expressed sufficiently that a competent practitioner of the art could replicate it) as something inherently separate from an idea.

Which is preposterous to say the least.

Oh, and copyright attaches the moment an utterance is committed to physical form. The simple act of calling a writing into existence where there was none is all it takes for copyright to be established.

Oh, and finally, if you knew anything about patents you'd know that the party with the deepest pockets prevails. Microsoft is almost never on the losing side of a patent argument because they can afford to tie it up in court until their competition goes under.

And if you look up the Stac Electronics case, you'll see that even when someone wins, they lose.

That said, your example illustrates how the world works; when someone makes a successful movie about penguins the market is flooded with movies about penguins.

This deserved its own response.

"movies about penguins" is not a patentable or copyrightable or even trademarkable thing. It's a mere concept.

However, "March of the Penguins" taken as a whole IS. And the simple act of copying it for your personal use without proper remuneration of those responsible for its production is theft. You have acquired the enjoyment of the product while simultaneously denying the producer of the movie of his just compensation.

In other words, you have materially harmed him. It is, ipso facto, theft. You want to believe that since no physical property has transferred that no harm has been done, but that is simply a lie.

Like I said, a bullshit rationalization coming from people who believe that all content ought to be free.

No comment on if this case is actually stealing, BUT, I do think that her punishment could fall under the cruel and unusual category... maybe... im not a lawyer...