Good talk everyone.. just to show a flexibility of argument here and give us all something to hate:

DNA Copyrights?

a quote from that site: "Imagine the biggest Tom Cruise fans around the world, fighting over the chance to procure his drinking glass for the possible DNA samples, or attempting to shake his hand so they can casually scratch a bit of epidermis in a DNA collection sortie."

Gentlemen, i presume i do not have to explain the consequences.

THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN! CALL IN THE DMCA and i mean NOW.

REOIV: But the copy isn't being made on their end it is being made o nteh downloaders end. It is like being sued for leaving your books out in the yard for anyone to copy.

If they copy it, then it is their fault not yours.

The RIAA isn't going after the downloaders because it is just way WAY to hard to stop them. They figure if they get people scared of uploading stuff there will be nothing to download.

This whole thing is still being debated. There are a lot of technicalities when it comes to where the copy is being made and who is responsible. This is why I think a lot more effort should be made at coming to a decent compromise before enacting a law.

untrustworthy: ood luck getting a court to back you up on that, especially when they have already said that book titles, movie titles, etc. are also not copyrightable.

It isn't a book title or movie title, if it was that easy I could say my MP3 collection is just a collection of book titles or movie titles.

It is artwork. (Bad artwork but still artwork just the same)

Much like photography is 'artwork' it is a picture of something. Now If I take a picture of that picture I am breaking the law? WTF? Mine is artwork too.

LookForTheArrow: Gentlemen, i presume i do not have to explain the consequences.

THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN! CALL IN THE DMCA and i mean NOW.


Hell, I don't even think Tom Cruise should have the right to perpetuate Tom Cruise's DNA

REOIV: It isn't a book title or movie title, if it was that easy I could say my MP3 collection is just a collection of book titles or movie titles.

MP3s are original recordings made by an artist. Your typed word isn't unique or original enough to be copyrightable.

It is artwork. (Bad artwork but still artwork just the same)

It may be artwork to you, but it would not be copyrightable.

Much like photography is 'artwork' it is a picture of something. Now If I take a picture of that picture I am breaking the law? WTF? Mine is artwork too.

If you take a picture of a picture, you are once again making a derivative and are violating copyright.

untrustworthy: I prefer to keep copyright for the lifetime of the creator.


I prefer the notion that if you want to keep being paid for your creativity, you have to keep creating.

AntiNorm: I prefer the notion that if you want to keep being paid for your creativity, you have to keep creating.

If my works no longer have value, then why would people be using them?

Therefore, if you want to use my copyrighted works, then you get to pay me for licensing.

(offtopic)

Just saw this from IXI Jim IXI below

I still say the I Am Not A Lawyer acronym sends the wrong message...

wanted to add the obvious ghostbusters wisdom.. "If someone asks you if you are a lawyer, you say YES!"

/heh

IXI Jim IXI - Wait...so if I want a photograph to hang on my wall, and instead of buying it, I just print it out, I'm not harming anyone?

I assume that you didn't take the photograph yourself, and that the image you facy is copyrighted?

Not physically or mentally, as far as I can tell. Or as far as the copyright owner can tell, either: In fact, the person who created the photograph is completely unaffected by your fantastic crime until such time as they are made aware of its commission.

uneffected

Scrotar: I assume that you didn't take the photograph yourself, and that the image you facy is copyrighted?

Well obviously...or we're just talking about some kind of photographic masturbation here.

Not physically or mentally, as far as I can tell. Or as far as the copyright owner can tell, either: In fact, the person who created the photograph is completely unaffected by your fantastic crime until such time as they are made aware of its commission.

So they're not affected by the fact that I didn't have to give them five sheckels for the picture?

LookForTheArrow: wanted to add the obvious ghostbusters wisdom.. "If someone asks you if you are a lawyer, you say YES!"


Well yes, especially considering your alternative is to type "IANAL" on an internet message board...

Scrotar: Or as far as the copyright owner can tell, either: In fact, the person who created the photograph is completely unaffected by your fantastic crime until such time as they are made aware of its commission.

Then let's say you make a copy of the photo and use it as the in an ad promoting a highly controversial concept that is reproduced and distributed nationwide? Still no harm?

untrustworthy

No, no monetary damage i don't think, but i think quite honestly there would be a case for libel (or slander.. well you see what i mean) if they attach your name to their product. They could use my picture to sell IANAL bumper stickers, and i'd be pissed!

/really, i would!

LookForTheArrow: No, no monetary damage i don't think, but i think quite honestly there would be a case for libel (or slander.. well you see what i mean) if they attach your name to their product. They could use my picture to sell IANAL bumper stickers, and i'd be pissed!

What if I was going to sell the usage rights (which don't exist without copyright) to another client, but the high visibility of that image and it's tarnished association ruins the deal? And don't lable this as trivial. It happens all of the time. It's one of the reasons stock photography is so much cheaper than custom.

LookForTheArrow: No, no monetary damage i don't think, but i think quite honestly there would be a case for libel (or slander.. well you see what i mean) if they attach your name to their product. They could use my picture to sell IANAL bumper stickers, and i'd be pissed!


Especially if they're a little liberal with the spaces...

untrustworthy: If my works no longer have value, then why would people be using them?


Because the work still has societal (cultural, etc.) value. Your right to make money must be balanced against this, hence the need for copyright term limits.

AntiNorm: Because the work still has societal (cultural, etc.) value. Your right to make money must be balanced against this, hence the need for copyright term limits.

My work is not a donation to society, and it is most certainly not a donation to people who are going to benefit from it themselves. I already give to good causes. I don't need all of my work going to charity.

untrustworthy: My work is not a donation to society, and it is most certainly not a donation to people who are going to benefit from it themselves. I already give to good causes. I don't need all of my work going to charity.


Of course it's not a donation -- that's why you're being paid for it while the copyright still exists. Even the Founding Fathers recognized the need I mentioned in my previous post to strike a balance between an artist's right to get paid and society's desire to advance the arts:

(Emphasis mine)

Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

untrustworthy

Sorry - here your premise isn't right. For instance, the point of patents is to give a window by which others can't use your idea. In the physical world, they may be able to otherwise keep how they make something secret so that society can not benefit - so patents (supposedly) encourage sharing.

Now, with media, once it's performed it's out and gone, no need to reveal how it was made, so the equation is different. (As a base example, stop me from humming it) It is assumed that there is NO WAY to otherwise prevent the sharing of ideas, so copyright tries to enforce some measure of control.

The point is that it's already recognized that society is going to get it one way or another and copyrights should help to give a 'window' of profitiablity, just like patents give a window of exclusivity. In the end - you have no choice about your creation; society owns it. So, your work IS a donation to society, whether you want to or not. Physical laws are at work here... information theory, etc.

about the monetary damages/libel point below, it's the money viewpoint is an interesting point, but a tertiary one. There are no monetary damages the FIRST time, just libel ones, so copyright philopophy is about libel in the photographic case.

just so you know i'm thinkin' 'bout it.

I see two ways copyright owners can be harmed by the unpaid and free movement of their works.

1) Usage by entities that make a profit from said works but do not pay for them.

2) Proliferation of said works thereby decreasing the scarcity and driving down the perceived value of said work.

I think very few people see #1 as a good thing. However, #2 poses some problems. In a world where we can digitally represent works, scarcity is easily overcome. Copyright owners would love to see there works out there in front of everyone -- but, they don't want to see the perceieved value drop. So in my mind, there's the dilemma. So now we have a copyright system used to force scarcity when it is not necessary or even wanted. The Disney's, Warner Brothers, etc. of the world can't release everything they have as fast as they can because the value will drop, and they will be left with a creative void, followed by their demise (who would use them in the future when the masses can create/distribute/etc. themselves?). So, they keep spoonfeeding the masses entertainment and force the scarcity they long enjoyed while keeping the price at a point they find acceptible.

The masses have had other ideas. They see the value at having pretty much anything at their fingertips, and *all* would be willing i'm sure, to pay something for that ability. Of course, that means any *one* thing is going to be pretty cheap, or almost free.

Capitalism and free trade are being squashed by the media companies methinks.

Thoughts?

AntiNorm: Of course it's not a donation -- that's why you're being paid for it while the copyright still exists. Even the Founding Fathers recognized the need I mentioned in my previous post to strike a balance between an artist's right to get paid and society's desire to advance the arts:

Ok, I guess I misinterpreted your meaning. Yes, copyright has to be limited in time.

Does it mean anything that I don't download music because I've already downloaded everything I like to listen to?

IXI Jim IXI - So they're not affected by the fact that I didn't have to give them five sheckels for the picture?

untrustworthy - Then let's say you make a copy of the photo and use it as the in an ad promoting a highly controversial concept that is reproduced and distributed nationwide? Still no harm?

Glad these posts were made within a minute of each other.

In I see very little harm being done to the owner of the copyright in Jim's scenario. In situation B, described by untrustworthy, I see a great deal more harm.

I find that I'm not so much bothered by such violations of permission until such time as significant gain is involved. I don't see how it could possibly be worth it to prosecute Jim's photo printer, but I can't say the same for the case of untrustworthy's evil ad agency.

permission and gain and fuzzy logic

In any case, barring punitive damages there's just no way that it is worth it to prosecute small time infringers such as Jim's photo printer. As the consequence of failure to pay punitive damages is utter loss of freedom, well, I'd say that the sum total of that photo printer's freedoms is more valuable than a $50 picture and just one of the many rights enjoyed by the photo's creator.

untrustworthy's evil ad agency isn't just ignoring the intentions of the creator, but possibly perverting them for financial and political gain. I'd say that punitive damages are called for in this situation; the degree and profundity of the violation is that much more severe.

LookForTheArrow: Sorry - here your premise isn't right. For instance, the point of patents is to give a window by which others can't use your idea. In the physical world, they may be able to otherwise keep how they make something secret so that society can not benefit - so patents (supposedly) encourage sharing.

Sure, but not until the creator had every opportunity to gain an advantage from his work.

Now, with media, once it's performed it's out and gone, no need to reveal how it was made, so the equation is different. (As a base example, stop me from humming it) It is assumed that there is NO WAY to otherwise prevent the sharing of ideas, so copyright tries to enforce some measure of control.

You're free to hum any tune you want. Your interpretation isn't at stake. But if you copy the original you're violating copyright.

The point is that it's already recognized that society is going to get it one way or another and copyrights should help to give a 'window' of profitiablity, just like patents give a window of exclusivity. In the end - you have no choice about your creation; society owns it. So, your work IS a donation to society, whether you want to or not. Physical laws are at work here... information theory, etc.

My ideas may be available to society, but my copyrights are not, at least not until their government protected time is up.

Agreed, Scrotar. Not every infringement has measurable consequences. But that certainly doesn't mean any infringement is harmless. That's why it is within the copyright holder's rights to force an abuser to cease and desist, but only registered copyrights where damages can be shown are really possible to make a reasonable case for compensation.

My ideas may be available to society, but my copyrights are not, at least not until their government protected time is up.

That's kind of the point of my bringing up the physical world/information theory perspective.. These copyrights aren't exactly getting in the way of things, are they? I mean, they aren't proving all that useful if they are scaled so far past reasonable interpretation. (bold to show, i would have much more sympathy/hope for such a system. as a programmer, i am intimate with the problems of scaling systems, and i can tell you it's not always possible. really, it WILL blow, doesn't matter what copyright holders want)

Thing is, we can debate the law all day, but trying to make a living off of laws that directly buck the way the world works on a scientific level is a game won only by lawyers!

LookForTheArrow: Thing is, we can debate the law all day, but trying to make a living off of laws that directly buck the way the world works on a scientific level is a game won only by lawyers!

The good thing is that the lawyers are on my side for once.

The good thing is that the lawyers are on my side for once.

i'm not religious, really, but.. are you trying to tell me the lions are going to lay down with the lambs? really??

"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."

ARE YOU TRYING TO IMMANENTIZE THE ESCHATON OR SOMETHING??

/heh

LookForTheArrow: ARE YOU TRYING TO IMMANENTIZE THE ESCHATON OR SOMETHING??

I'd copyright it if I could ;p

trappedspirit: What a warped little world inside your head. You are suggesting that because people steal music that musician's should rethink this idea of selling music and instead sell a t-shirt? I'm just going to ponder that one for a moment while more people write posts defending theft.

It's not that warped. Consider Penny Arcade... they give away their creative works for free and make a living selling t-shirts.

untrustworthy: Do you make money off of copyright? No? Then aren't you also biased?

Right, that's how it works. People whose livelyhood depends on copyright laws are just as biased as those whose lives don't. Makes perfect sense.

untrustworthy: They get a huge benefit while I get jack shiat, and guess what? My original image has had it's meaning changed and my ability to market it just went into the toilet.

The question though is what your compensation should be for that. Should it be some arbitrary and enormous number, or should it be a number quantifiable to the unjust enrichment?

That's really the problem with these lawsuits. Record companies are basically getting a windfall.

mrsirjojo: Right, that's how it works. People whose livelyhood depends on copyright laws are just as biased as those whose lives don't. Makes perfect sense.

So your claim is that I'm automatically somehow more biased than you? Hrm...

LocalCynic: The question though is what your compensation should be for that. Should it be some arbitrary and enormous number, or should it be a number quantifiable to the unjust enrichment?

It should be maximum market value.

That's really the problem with these lawsuits. Record companies are basically getting a windfall.

True, but that is often based upon copyright infringement times several thousand. Not that I completely agree with the RIAA, but I still have to stick up for the rights of copyright holders.

untrustworthy

REOIV: as123df221asd1213fsad!f

I've yet to see a word copyrighted.

How about two words in sequence?

MARCH MADNESS

Not only that, but sports teams demand fees for using their names. Why do you think high school sports teams have crappy names?

/too tired for slashies
//I think
///maybe just another

www.mp3sugar.com

untrustworthy: True, but that is often based upon copyright infringement times several thousand. Not that I completely agree with the RIAA, but I still have to stick up for the rights of copyright holders.

Again, what makes copyright holders so different than other property owners that they get to assert hypothetical pull numbers out of your ass damages whereas other property owners have to show actual damages?

Next thing you're going to be telling me that if somebody steals from you, you don't just get to saw his arm off, but you get to rape him and take his leg off as well.

CDs are nowadays cheaper to make than cassettes and LPs ever were. ProfitProfitProfit

Go into a discount store, a older DVD sells for 9.95, the soundtrack still goes for $14.95 for the same farking old movie.

90% of the time, if I really like a particular band, I'll go out and find the CD and encode a really good version for my personal use (LAME encoding, etc) 'cause mp3s online are usually encoded for quantity, not quality.

Once we stop illegal downloading, then we should close all the libraries. Think of all the authors who've lost money due to legalized stealing!!!!!!

/of course i don't believe this.
//of course i think people who dl should also BUY the farkin' stuff that they like

K3rmy: How about two words in sequence?

Nope. It has to be more complex than that.

LocalCynic: Again, what makes copyright holders so different than other property owners that they get to assert hypothetical pull numbers out of your ass damages whereas other property owners have to show actual damages?

Copyright holders who've registered their copyrights have to show damages. They are typically awarded the high end of what market value might bare. Without copyright registry the owner of copyright only has the right to demand the infringment cease and desist.*

*typically, copyright can be filed even after an infringement.

Next thing you're going to be telling me that if somebody steals from you, you don't just get to saw his arm off, but you get to rape him and take his leg off as well.

Well, typically I would have just gouged out their eyes and skull-f*cked them, but instead I'll just bill them for a little more than what I would have negotiated had they approached me up front.

NEWSFLASH

Music downloading is still legal in Canada.

DSLREPORTS.com is all over this stuff.

The RIAA should just chill, we are all going to die anyway. I cant wait for Peak Oil!

Oh yeah!

It's funny how the same entities raising most of the racket about "copyright infringement" (lawyers & bureaucrats)have no qualms buying and selling your private information.

Don't steal; outsource.

www.allofmp3.com

Legal for businesses; legal for us.

According to the US Supreme Court a copyright does not dictate or restrict a person's ability or desire to SHARE information. Go to http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court&q1 =kazaa for more details!

According to the US Supreme Court a copyright does not dictate or restrict a person's ability to SHARE information. Go to http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court&q1 =kazaa for more details!