Are you a thief?

[Charles Anthony]

Here's another reason that theft of intellectual property is a problem according to a CP story today.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070408/...llectual_rights

There is nothing in that article that suggests how this "problem" was resolved. Nor is there anything about how it can only only be solved or only be avoided with government-enforced copyright law.

Try again.

It is also a very naive attitude of how the entertainment industry operates.

Copyright is NOT simply about the entertainment industry. It shows up in many different places.

Granted. To be morally consistent, copyright should be treated the same regardless of where it shows up.

Even a touring musician depends on copyright. Much of the money made on the tour comes from selling merchandise which is protected by copyright.

That touring musician depends on the laws of physics too. Does he have a right to tax-payer's money to secure his pyrotechnics display??? No.

Furthermore, without copyright a musician could not stop copycat groups from taking their songs and doing their own tours. Without copyright, a musician cannot stop companies from exploiting their songs and damaging their reputation as musicians.

The government and the tax-payer does not have a moral obligation to fund the security of that musician's reputation nor his tour.

You have a very niave view of the entertainment industry if you think it could work without copyright.

No.

I am saying the entertainment industry does not have a moral right to work as it does -- secured by tax-payer's funds. That is a big difference.

I have a question for the copyright-apologists: why do you think you should somebody be paid (enforced by the tax-payer, I repeat) more than once for the work they do?

For the same reason taxpayers should pay for police to catch car thieves or stock fraud artists.

In that case, all I have to do is convince enough people to agree with me and vote copyright-apologists out of office. We could simply change the laws and secure the moral high-ground. Correct?? I will keep plugging away.

Real-life examples of the sleazy use of government office to secure commercial gain like this one:

The

Copyright Term Extension Act

of 1998—alternatively known as the

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

or pejoratively as the

Mickey Mouse Protection Act

—extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act (under the Copyright Act of 1976), copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship; the act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and 95 years respectively.

---SNIP---

Both houses of the United States Congress passed the act as Public Law 105-298 with a voice vote,

[1]

[2]

making it impossible to determine who voted for or against. President Bill Clinton signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 on October 27, 1998.

---SNIP---

In addition to Disney (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"), California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor) and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:

"Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. . . . As you know, there is also [Motion Picture Association of America president] Jack Valenti's proposal for the term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

[3]

"

Wikipedia

offers ammunittion to argue against benevolence of copyright law by exposing instances of pure hypocrisy.

The tax-payer has no moral obligation to people who feel they have a government-decreed right to make money out of spreading their creative ideas to the wind.

That works great for a writer too. Release a book that has taken two years of their life, let pirates market it and tour...with what and for what? For people to hear them read it?

The tax-payer has no moral obligation to fund the marketing of a book-writer's hypothetical career.

[jdobbin]

There is nothing in that article that suggests how this "problem" was resolved. Nor is there anything about how it can only only be solved or only be avoided with government-enforced copyright law.

Try again.

The tax-payer has no moral obligation to fund the marketing of a book-writer's hypothetical career.

Nor do you care about their copyright anyways.

I wouldn't expect them to fund their marketing. I expect them to ensure that that copies are not made of their books without compensation ensured by copyright.

[Riverwind]

That touring musician depends on the laws of physics too. Does he have a right to tax-payer's money to secure his pyrotechnics display??? No.

A strawman - all people who created the copyrighted works today did so because they believe the government will help them protect their rights. Changing the rules after the fact amounts to government confiscation of their labour.

The government and the tax-payer does not have a moral obligation to fund the security of that musician's reputation nor his tour.

The government needs to set the rules that allows the musician to protect him/herself. Without copyright the musician has no legal means to prevent his/her creations from being using in ways that they do not approve of. Remember that an artist's reputation can be hurt even if the infringer is not doing anything that would be technically be called libelous.

For example, without copyright large media conglamorates could go around the world looking for small artists with new songs. They could then pay someone else to perform those songs and, with enough promotion, convince the world that the musicians for hire actually wrote the songs. The artist in question would get nothing and may be accused of 'imitating' the band that stole their songs.

Copyright is about setting rules.

[Charles Anthony]

That touring musician depends on the laws of physics too. Does he have a right to tax-payer's money to secure his pyrotechnics display??? No.

A strawman - all people who created the copyrighted works today did so because they believe the government will help them protect their rights. Changing the rules after the fact amounts to government confiscation of their labour.

It is no strawman at all. However, your comment is interesting.

Is "government confiscation of their labor" morally wrong or is it just against the rules?

I wouldn't expect them to fund their marketing. I expect them to ensure that that copies are not made of their books without compensation ensured by copyright.

What moral right do you have to place that obligation on the tax-payer?

[Riverwind]

Is "government confiscation of their labor" morally wrong or is it just against the rules?

Our economic system depends on rules. In many cases these rules are arbitrary with no particular moral basis. The government has an obligation to ensure that these rules are enforced fairly and equally and that changes to the rules do not cause undue hardship to people who made investments and plans based on the old rules. That does not mean that the rules can never change - it just means that any change has to be justified.

IOW - setting a time limit on copyright is a reasonable but arbitrary rule. Changing that time limit after the fact has to be justified. I do not believe the government has adequately justified extending copyright protections.

[jdobbin]

What moral right do you have to place that obligation on the tax-payer?

The same one that the government has for any number of things they do.

[Charles Anthony]

That takes a moral load off my back.

I need only convince more people to agree with me any which way possible. They will use their Almighty Democratic Power to out-number copyright-apologists.

[jdobbin]

That takes a moral load off my back.

I need only convince more people to agree with me any which way possible. They will use their Almighty Democratic Power to out-number copyright-apologists.

Good luck with that.

[jbg]

That works great for a writer too. Release a book that has taken two years of their life, let pirates market it and tour...with what and for what? For people to hear them read it?

Sometimes your talk is ridiculous that I think you make it up as you go along. Thankfully, smarter people going back hundreds of years ago realized how important creators and inventors are.

I am of mixed mind on this. I see Charles Anthony's point. Back in the day, both Bob Dylan and gord Lightfoot got their start by playing for minimal compensation in, respectively, NYC and TO coffeehouses. They made their riches later, and Charles Anthony supports that model, as do I.

Jdobbin is worried about the lack of incentive to create a work with the likelihood that no one will pay for it. I think the case with books is different since few authors make a substantial income off of live performances. A middle ground I have always liked is moving a work into the public domain after, say three to seven years. Thus, the copying of most works would not be considered "pirating" but there would be at least some protection to creative artists.

[Riverwind]

Back in the day, both Bob Dylan and gord Lightfoot got their start by playing for minimal compensation in, respectively, NYC and TO coffeehouses.

I disagree - both Dylan and Lightfoot benefited by copyright because no one could legally record their concerts and later make money selling their own performances as if they wrote the song. Without copyright they would likely be unknown today because their popular songs would have been stolen by performers with more name recognition at the time.

A middle ground I have always liked is moving a work into the public domain after, say three to seven years. Thus, the copying of most works would not be considered "pirating" but there would be at least some protection to creative artists.

Three to seven years is way to short - the lifetime of the artist is much more reasonable.

You also must remember that copyright also protects software. None of the technology you depend on today would exist without the legal protection provided by copyrights.

[jdobbin]

I am of mixed mind on this. I see Charles Anthony's point. Back in the day, both Bob Dylan and gord Lightfoot got their start by playing for minimal compensation in, respectively, NYC and TO coffeehouses. They made their riches later, and Charles Anthony supports that model, as do I.

Jdobbin is worried about the lack of incentive to create a work with the likelihood that no one will pay for it. I think the case with books is different since few authors make a substantial income off of live performances. A middle ground I have always liked is moving a work into the public domain after, say three to seven years. Thus, the copying of most works would not be considered "pirating" but there would be at least some protection to creative artists.

I have problems with the never ending extensions of copyright and well as some of the inflexibility for personal use.

Copyright can't be so short that the creators and inventors have no incentive nor enough compensation for works that ultimately become public domain. Nor can it be so long that it is only of benefit to corporations rather than the individual creators.

[Renegade]

I wasn't responsible for the placement of this post in the morals section.

That's true, you are not the OP, but the placement of the thread in this section and the context of the OP suggest this is a moral or ethical debate.

As for the state, I should clarify: I can't see a justification for someone's personal enrichment off of someone else's intellectual property. I've seen no indication that the government using generic drugs for a health crisis is for personal enrichment. In fact, such a reason for using someone's intellectual property is written into the law.

It would seem your justitication depends upon whether the person "stealing" is personally enriched. So if someone uploads an MP3, but doesn't keep a copy or do it for personal enrichment, but rather just to share the content with others, you can't condemn him, right?

In regards to morality, I'll let others decide how they fall on the subject. I'll stick to the legal definition of stealing.

Then we can't really even have a discussion, because we are talking about different things. I am not at all discussing what is legal or not. I am discussing the ethics.

[Renegade]

I have a question for the copyright-apologists: why do you think you should somebody be paid (enforced by the tax-payer, I repeat) more than once for the work they do?

For the same reason taxpayers should pay for police to catch car thieves or stock fraud artists.

How is it that we don't expect the police to collect unpaid credit-card bills or unpaid utility bills?

[jdobbin]

How is it that we don't expect the police to collect unpaid credit-card bills or unpaid utility bills?

We do have police involvement for stealing electricity and for credit card fraud.

[jdobbin]

It would seem your justitication depends upon whether the person "stealing" is personally enriched. So if someone uploads an MP3, but doesn't keep a copy or do it for personal enrichment, but rather just to share the content with others, you can't condemn him, right?

Then we can't really even have a discussion, because we are talking about different things. I am not at all discussing what is legal or not. I am discussing the ethics.

I think the courts have made it difficult to go after individual uploaders so what the the entertainment companies have been doing instead is going after the companies that host the file to file sharing because they are enriched by their programming. There has been quite a lot success going after these companies.

I'm quite fine not having a discussion on ethics in this matter. I see it as a matter of law and have pointedly said so.

[Renegade]

How is it that we don't expect the police to collect unpaid credit-card bills or unpaid utility bills?

We do have police involvement for stealing electricity and for credit card fraud.

You didn't answer the question I asked.

[jdobbin]

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Probably because the credit card companies and utility companies are pretty successful at collecting their money. You don't pay your hydro, they cut it off. You don't pay your credit, they cut you off.

However, as I said, these two particular organizations do have police assistance for other areas of their business in regards to actual theft or fraud just like intellectual property owners.

[Renegade]

I think the courts have made it difficult to go after individual uploaders so what the the entertainment companies have been doing instead is going after the companies that host the file to file sharing because they are enriched by their programming. There has been quite a lot success going after these companies.

You acknowledge that the courts have made difficult to go after individual uploaders. It would seem that then the courts acknowledge by their action that the onus of enforcing the copyright law should fall to the companies alledging infringement, rather than using public resources to do that work.

P2P technology means that there aren't central compaines hosting files, but rather the entertainment compaines will need to persue individual uploaders and downloaders.

IMV, they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, in the same way that software companies originally focused on copy-protection to enforce their copyright. They will do more to alienate their consumer base than any monetary win they may get. They would do far better with a combination of working to change attitutdes and lowering prices. It would seem that since the price of many CDs have come down to under $10, they have at least acknowledged that this may be an avenue worth persuing.

[Renegade]

Probably because the credit card companies and utility companies are pretty successful at collecting their money. You don't pay your hydro, they cut it off. You don't pay your credit, they cut you off.

I doubt that is the distinction. Even entertainment companies have there own enforcement resources.

However, as I said, these two particular organizations do have police assistance for other areas of their business in regards to actual theft or fraud just like intellectual property owners.

I don't understand how the fraud analogy relates. Is fraud being perpetrated upon the IP "owners"?

I'm not saying all legal transgressions shouldn't be enforced by police. If someone shoplifted a CD I would expect the police to act as well.

[Riverwind]

How is it that we don't expect the police to collect unpaid credit-card bills or unpaid utility bills?

The government does provide the legal tools that allow people to collect unpaid bills. The police will evict you from your property if it a debtor wins a judgment in court. In most cases that is all that the government does for copyright holders. The only time the police get involved is when there is a large scale commercial operation that affects many copyright holders.

There are two aspects of copyright law:

1) The government must have a law that defines the rights of copyright holders. Without such a law it is impossible for copyright holders to enforce their rights even if you accept the principal that the copyright holder must pay for the cost of enforcement. This means the police must be involved if copyright holders get a court order against someone for violating their rights.

2) The public must accept the principal that copyright holders have rights. Laws with criminal penalties make this principal clear even to people who refuse to accept the moral case for copyright.

[jdobbin]

You acknowledge that the courts have made difficult to go after individual uploaders. It would seem that then the courts acknowledge by their action that the onus of enforcing the copyright law should fall to the companies alledging infringement, rather than using public resources to do that work.

P2P technology means that there aren't central compaines hosting files, but rather the entertainment compaines will need to persue individual uploaders and downloaders.

IMV, they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, in the same way that software companies originally focused on copy-protection to enforce their copyright. They will do more to alienate their consumer base than any monetary win they may get. They would do far better with a combination of working to change attitutdes and lowering prices. It would seem that since the price of many CDs have come down to under $10, they have at least acknowledged that this may be an avenue worth persuing.

They have had difficulty going on fishing expeditions at Internet Service providers for uploaders and downloaders due to privacy laws. They have had no trouble going after bit torrent and Kazaa and Napster as well as other P2P companies. They use copyright law to do that. The people who host file sharing sites have become the target.

If you want copyright laws completely abolished, why would lowering the price help? People would simply download for free.

[jdobbin]

I doubt that is the distinction. Even entertainment companies have there own enforcement resources.

I don't understand how the fraud analogy relates. Is fraud being perpetrated upon the IP "owners"?

I'm not saying all legal transgressions shouldn't be enforced by police. If someone shoplifted a CD I would expect the police to act as well.

All companies rely on police when other avenues don't work for them.

You don't think stealing your ID to get credit is fraud? Your ID isn't a tangible asset, is it?

[Renegade]

If you want copyright laws completely abolished, why would lowering the price help? People would simply download for free.

I for one, never said I wanted the laws abolished. I said it is a civil issue not a criminal one.

Price is very much a factor because it is an incentive for people's behaviour. If the price for a song was vey low, people would buy it because it is not worth the hassel of trying to find it for free and possibly not getting exactly what you want. IOW, people will pay for convenience and relability over and above the content.

[Renegade]

All companies rely on police when other avenues don't work for them.

No, they rely on the police to enforce criminal statutes, not because "other avenues don't work for them".

You don't think stealing your ID to get credit is fraud? Your ID isn't a tangible asset, is it?

yes it is fraud. Being a tangible asset is not the determining factor on if it is fraud or not. Using my ID to obtain credit, denies me credit there and elsewhere I might have obtained. Duplicating a file does not do so, despite the fact that both are intangible.

[jdobbin]

I for one, never said I wanted the laws abolished. I said it is a civil issue not a criminal one.

Price is very much a factor because it is an incentive for people's behaviour. If the price for a song was vey low, people would buy it because it is not worth the hassel of trying to find it for free and possibly not getting exactly what you want. IOW, people will pay for convenience and relability over and above the content.

Price can effect things for sure. Most people will go for the free item before they have pay for the very low, low price item.

Most copyright problems are solved without criminal proceedings. I don't know what your beef is then.