Yet this is exactly the choice many people are making in the name of "intellectual property."
I don't know of anyone making choices to share or not share "in the name of intellectual property." Those choices are made in the name of commerce.
I think that once information is released to the world (one might say "published"), the creator doesn't have the ability or the right to say what gets done with it. While he may not want to share lifesaving information with the world, could you blame somebody who worked for him for doing the same?
I think this might contain the seeds that undermines the argument. Keeping in mind it's not just a matter of control, but of control in the name of commerce, if the creator doesn't have an incentive (whether moral, economic or both) to release the creation, he just might not want to share it. If the release of that creation by other means (such as an employee) is likely, it would only encourage the creator to be even more secretive.
There are other benefits for all of us. Instead of relying on obsessive secrecy to protect your idea (which is how Coca Cola protect their recipe) patents allow drug companies to safely disclose more information in public, which helps other people innovate. Protecting ideas also allows a smaller company negotiate outside investment and develop their theories.
Now, the article also points to the downside of patents as well, but that doesn't mean that the upside, encouraging the release of creative material by protecting it, should be ignored.
but mixing the two is how you screw things up policy wise.
Once again, I disagree. When it comes to making policy, the two are intertwined.
Certainly you can have a purely economic discussion about intellectual property and a separate purely moral discussion about intellectual property. But taking the discussion beyond the mere academic and attempting to formulate an equitable policy, you have to consider both parts.
Copyright is in essence a moral policy that uses economic and legal mechanisms to further that policy. The basic moral underpinnings of copyright are the promotion of creative efforts for the benefit of society while recognizing the unique nature of intellectual property and the creators' right to benefit as the market allows from his/her creation. The mechanism is the exclusive right to control the dissemination and/or monetary benefits of that creation.
You've said elsewhere that you haven't seen any evidence that copyright hasn't really done much to further creativity, yet the economic incentive is a powerful driver that has allowed us to become incredibly productive and innovative.
Free sharing of content without copyright may increase the economic benefit to society but places additional economic burdens on the content creator to make a livelihood doing other activities than creating. Under copyright, society may be restricted from completely free sharing and what they can do with the content, but it still has the benefit of the content and the ideas conveyed by it while the content creator has a chance to benefit economically from the creation for a limited time.
You know I agree that copyright term has been extended well beyond reason, but it doesn't mean that copyright extends economic benefits to both society and creators...and it does so for moral reasons. Indeed, just making the economic argument for file sharing (that free sharing increases innovation and creativity for the benefit of everyone, without specific concern for payment) makes a moral assumption that this method of encouraging innovation and creativity is "good."
Frankly, trying to separate the two is what screws up the policy making.
I was slightly in error in my previous post about SOC not "breaking" your equipment.
While it won't technically break anything, you won't be able to watch protected VOD programs with older equipment. This is more than just "bending" but would require new equipment to view those channels and programs.
No, your TV will work just the way it always has. And your cable box will work just the way it always has. If anything, your DVR will be blocked from the other end from recording a couple of specific channels. It will otherwise function just the way it always has.
The change isn't to your DVR, but on the signal-supply side. If new boxes/DVRs are required to implement this, they they will function as designed.
Ah, the "misinterpret" card. No misinterpretation here. Mike is clearly saying the Gershwin heirs should:
a. be grateful for what he thinks is unearned largess
b. not pursue their legal rights because they once said "it's not about money"
As if hypocrites can't go to court. I also note that Mike once excoriated me in comments that "should," being a "moral" issue, is irrelevant to copyright debate.
But even that's not true. Mike apparently didn't thoroughly read the article he linked to in support of his claim that the Gershwin heirs (actually the Gershwin Trust) lobbied for copyright extension claiming it wasn't about money. Here, from the linked article:
Today [1998, during the Sonny Bono extension debate], the Gershwin Family Trust points out that the copyright extension is not only about money but also about control of how a work is presented.
So, indeed, they never claimed there was no monetary element to their lobbying, therefore they are neither hypocrites nor liars.
Well, then, in the interests of discussion, let's look at what you said:
No one owes these people a monopoly and if society is to grant a monopoly it should ONLY be to the extent that it helps out society. We are better off with no intellectual property laws than with the one sided intellectual property laws that we currently have.
There is nowhere there any specific mention of any middle ground. But I will allow that there is a tepid implication that a middle ground might exist, but it's a rather pale example.
Now let's look at what I said:
As seems to be usual around these parts, even the concept of a middle ground is ignored. This is not an "either/or" matter of only the extremes.
And your response:
I am not arguing against a middle ground but, as is normal for intellectual property maximists, they consider anything other than intellectual property maximism to be not middle ground....Now get over your stupid reading comprehension problem already and stop interpreting anything that disagrees with intellectual property maximism as being something that completely argues against intellectual property.
Talk about reading comprehension. Where I specifically say that the issue is not a matter of the extremes, but of the middle ground (and, yes, I know others may disagree on both sides), you read that as a statement in support of a "maximsm" position.
The behavior of copyright "maximists" may or may not be dishonest, stupid, and selfish, but that is irrelevant to the purpose and function of intellectual property policy or law. Purpose is indeed intended consequence: the purpose of intellectual property, as Mike frequently points out, is to "promote progress of science and useful arts." And it has; our society at large has been prolifically progressing in science, technology, and art, all under the umbrella of intellectual property policy and law.
But function is not "actual consequences." Function is the action that achieves the purpose. Intellectual property functions by incentivizing creativity by guaranteeing the exclusive right to the creator to economically exploit their creation for a period of time. In other words, the exclusive right to profit as the market allows from the creation. There are many forms of profit, such as fame, acclaim, honor, but mostly this mean monetary profit. And it can be a powerful incentive.
Proponents of the "no intellectual property" position rarely, if ever (and if I've missed it, I'd love to see it) examine the real potential disincentives to creativity in no copyright "free market" free-for-all. When large corporate entities appropriate others' creations without recompense on a large scale, they may or may not innovate with those creations, and while "society" may derive some benefit, it also creates a rather large disincentive to create.
There may be barriers to creativity under intellectual property law (to what extent is debatable, and has been debated for centuries) but there are also real economic disincentives to having no intellectual property law. Which is why such laws were implemented in the first place.
This debate is not new by any stretch. It's just that technology has changed some of the parameters on the margins.
Sorry, wasn't able to get online most of yesterday, but wanted to reply.
First, I'm not painting myself as a victim; I can deal with honest criticism and will (and have) admitted when I've been wrong or mistaken. And I never said that there weren't moderate voice here (or "copyright maximalist" voices). I said that when commenters post those positions, they are responded to with frequently crude and insulting comments, sometimes anonymously and sometimes not.
I have had reasonable, rational discussions in comments and have read others, but these are quite few and far between. Far more often than not, comments devolve into pointedly insulting shouting matches. If you haven't seen those threads, you have indeed missed something.
I'll be generous and mostly agree that Mike is semi-moderate, but that may need reconsideration. I have never read Mike to advocate legislative repeal of copyright law (wisely, since it verges on the impossible), but he's also said any number of times that he sees no value at all in copyright (and patents, which I don't know much about so don't comment on) and that there never really has been. Mike's a smart guy, but that is not really a moderate or semi-moderate position; it's rather radical.
I've often argued for restoring balance to copyright law between the rights of the public domain and the rights of the creators are brought back to a more reasonable trade-off. Mike is squarely against even considering that, and comes close to calling for the abolition of copyright. In this post Mike says: "The more you focus on balance, the more useless your recommendations are." He also engages in some subtle ridicule of a "moderate" position.
Hmmm....maybe that reconsideration is coming sooner than I thought.
When you allow your personal affront to get in the way of seeing the truth, you kind of should be. Sorry, just opinion I guess...
I was not "affronted" by the anonymous poster's comment: "We are better off with no intellectual property laws than with the one sided intellectual property laws that we currently have." I merely noted that that the statement doesn't even consider the middle ground (we'd be better off with real copyright reform than with either what we have today or no copyright at all). And that seems to be a fairly usual opinion around here.
Simply abolishing copyright would be hugely disruptive in the short term and while there would be undoubtedly some societal benefits in the long term there will also be unforeseen harm (there always is) that goes largely unconsidered here.
I am firmly convinced that there will be rational public discussion of these issues now and more in the near future. I just don't necessarily expect to find it here.
Dark, let's be honest. Nearly anyone who comments here that is in any way supportive of copyright is a "maximalist" and not infrequently called a "liar" or worse. The majority theme around here is that copyright is completely unnecessary and has never done any good for society, and proponents of copyright are actually the one's "stealing" from the public.
I post under a consistent username, and I'm registered here. I'm sure that Mike could likely find out who I am with little effort, since he's have access to that registration.
And I don't disagree with the proposition that copyright and it's major corporate defenders have gotten out of hand. Term of copyright is far too long and should be restricted; the problem of "orphan works" is a real concern (and is an issue that could be most easily dealt with in Congress--and is at least being discussed there to some degree); the doctrine of fair use should be legislatively codified and expanded (though I understand arguments to the contrary that this could have the unintended effect of making fair use considerations too rigid).
I've commented on these issues before and am usually roundly derided as noted above.
There are moderate voices here, but they tend to be drowned out and given scant, if any, consideration by most commenters.
So, yes, I think I am fairly well informed about these subjects, and I read Techdirt regularly (though I only comment sporadically)
One would think these heirs...would be thrilled that the government went back on the promise it made to the public and granted them even more monopoly rents for a few more decades and kept quiet.
Yeah!! How dare these people go to court to decide legal differences between them! What are they, Communists??
They should just shut the frak up and count their filthy, ill-gotten lucre in private. They should be on their knees thanking us that we haven't come over with pitchforks and flaming torches to wrest away from them rights and money that shouldn't have been theirs in the first place!
Of all the unmitigated gall, effrontery, and insolence!!!
it was going to associate the IP addresses with names and hand them over to the copyright holders" goes beyond the quoted TOS
Does it?
and may subject you to discipline or other law enforcement action as set forth in the Student Handbook.
And there is "law enforcement action" other than a court order. Neither the linked story or the email it quotes indicates whether there was a DMCA notice sent to the school, but that could be considered an action in enforcing the copyright law.
Actually, the students are violating the terms of service:
You agree that:
* You will not use the network to commit any act which is a violation of New York State or United States Federal law
...
* You may not attach to or operate on the Network a) servers (including file, web or peer-to-peer file sharing), or b) routers (including wired or wireless transmitters or base stations) without prior approval by BLS.
...
Any violation of these terms will immediately terminate your license to use the computer system, and may subject you to discipline or other law enforcement action as set forth in the Student Handbook. BLS shall have the final right to determine whether a violation of the Terms of Service has occurred.
Law school students are (allegedly) breaking the law; law school (allegedly) takes steps to stop (alleged) illegal activity by its students thereby (allegedly) upholding the law.
You're right. A gross violation of "due process" (which really only applies to court proceedings, which this isn't).
I agree completely about blogging being more about a conversation than just reporting.
But the answer to your headline is "Both." Today's rush to be first often trumps being correct. And while everyone makes mistakes and errors, which should be correctly clearly and plainly when they are recognized, fewer corrections would be necessary if a story or blog post were checked, even cursorily, before hitting the "post" or "print" button.
Even on Techdirt, following links to the stories being reported on, and the links those stories contain, often reveals that the facts may be different than originally assumed or that the answers to questions posed or issues raised are contained in the original documents, not the stories written about those original documents.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as LostSailor)
From Mike's quote of you in his post:
Now, the article also points to the downside of patents as well, but that doesn't mean that the upside, encouraging the release of creative material by protecting it, should be ignored.Yet this is exactly the choice many people are making in the name of "intellectual property."
I don't know of anyone making choices to share or not share "in the name of intellectual property." Those choices are made in the name of commerce.
I think that once information is released to the world (one might say "published"), the creator doesn't have the ability or the right to say what gets done with it. While he may not want to share lifesaving information with the world, could you blame somebody who worked for him for doing the same?
I think this might contain the seeds that undermines the argument. Keeping in mind it's not just a matter of control, but of control in the name of commerce, if the creator doesn't have an incentive (whether moral, economic or both) to release the creation, he just might not want to share it. If the release of that creation by other means (such as an employee) is likely, it would only encourage the creator to be even more secretive.
From the article you link to:
Re: Re: Economics *is* morality (as LostSailor)
but mixing the two is how you screw things up policy wise.
Once again, I disagree. When it comes to making policy, the two are intertwined.
Certainly you can have a purely economic discussion about intellectual property and a separate purely moral discussion about intellectual property. But taking the discussion beyond the mere academic and attempting to formulate an equitable policy, you have to consider both parts.
Copyright is in essence a moral policy that uses economic and legal mechanisms to further that policy. The basic moral underpinnings of copyright are the promotion of creative efforts for the benefit of society while recognizing the unique nature of intellectual property and the creators' right to benefit as the market allows from his/her creation. The mechanism is the exclusive right to control the dissemination and/or monetary benefits of that creation.
You've said elsewhere that you haven't seen any evidence that copyright hasn't really done much to further creativity, yet the economic incentive is a powerful driver that has allowed us to become incredibly productive and innovative.
Free sharing of content without copyright may increase the economic benefit to society but places additional economic burdens on the content creator to make a livelihood doing other activities than creating. Under copyright, society may be restricted from completely free sharing and what they can do with the content, but it still has the benefit of the content and the ideas conveyed by it while the content creator has a chance to benefit economically from the creation for a limited time.
You know I agree that copyright term has been extended well beyond reason, but it doesn't mean that copyright extends economic benefits to both society and creators...and it does so for moral reasons. Indeed, just making the economic argument for file sharing (that free sharing increases innovation and creativity for the benefit of everyone, without specific concern for payment) makes a moral assumption that this method of encouraging innovation and creativity is "good."
Frankly, trying to separate the two is what screws up the policy making.
Correcting Myself (as LostSailor)
I was slightly in error in my previous post about SOC not "breaking" your equipment.
While it won't technically break anything, you won't be able to watch protected VOD programs with older equipment. This is more than just "bending" but would require new equipment to view those channels and programs.
I stand corrected.
Re: Re: Re: Not Actually Broken (as LostSailor)
I stand corrected. It was unclear to me from the brief news bits how the system is supposed to work.
I was wrong. It will "break" your equipment.
Re: Re: Not Actually Broken (as LostSailor)
No, your TV will work just the way it always has. And your cable box will work just the way it always has. If anything, your DVR will be blocked from the other end from recording a couple of specific channels. It will otherwise function just the way it always has.
The change isn't to your DVR, but on the signal-supply side. If new boxes/DVRs are required to implement this, they they will function as designed.
Hence, the DVR isn't broken, it's just bent.
Re: Re: Not Actually Broken (as LostSailor)
Well, if the only thing you could watch were Fox News, your TV and DVR wouldn't be just broken but actually toxic.
Copyfraud? (as LostSailor)
Yet a different example of "copyfraud"?
Not Actually Broken (as LostSailor)
To be honest, Mike, this won't break your DVR or your TV at all, they'll still continue to function normally on non-VOD channels.
This only bends your DVR a little.
Re: Re: STFU (as LostSailor)
Ah, the "misinterpret" card. No misinterpretation here. Mike is clearly saying the Gershwin heirs should:
So, indeed, they never claimed there was no monetary element to their lobbying, therefore they are neither hypocrites nor liars.a. be grateful for what he thinks is unearned largess
b. not pursue their legal rights because they once said "it's not about money"
As if hypocrites can't go to court. I also note that Mike once excoriated me in comments that "should," being a "moral" issue, is irrelevant to copyright debate.
But even that's not true. Mike apparently didn't thoroughly read the article he linked to in support of his claim that the Gershwin heirs (actually the Gershwin Trust) lobbied for copyright extension claiming it wasn't about money. Here, from the linked article:
Of all the gall...
Re: Re: STFU (as LostSailor)
What does that matter? What did a lottery winner do to earn a jackpot. What did an heir do to earn an inheritance? The question is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Property Rights. (as LostSailor)
Well, then, in the interests of discussion, let's look at what you said:
There is nowhere there any specific mention of any middle ground. But I will allow that there is a tepid implication that a middle ground might exist, but it's a rather pale example.
Now let's look at what I said:
And your response:
Talk about reading comprehension. Where I specifically say that the issue is not a matter of the extremes, but of the middle ground (and, yes, I know others may disagree on both sides), you read that as a statement in support of a "maximsm" position.
The behavior of copyright "maximists" may or may not be dishonest, stupid, and selfish, but that is irrelevant to the purpose and function of intellectual property policy or law. Purpose is indeed intended consequence: the purpose of intellectual property, as Mike frequently points out, is to "promote progress of science and useful arts." And it has; our society at large has been prolifically progressing in science, technology, and art, all under the umbrella of intellectual property policy and law.
But function is not "actual consequences." Function is the action that achieves the purpose. Intellectual property functions by incentivizing creativity by guaranteeing the exclusive right to the creator to economically exploit their creation for a period of time. In other words, the exclusive right to profit as the market allows from the creation. There are many forms of profit, such as fame, acclaim, honor, but mostly this mean monetary profit. And it can be a powerful incentive.
Proponents of the "no intellectual property" position rarely, if ever (and if I've missed it, I'd love to see it) examine the real potential disincentives to creativity in no copyright "free market" free-for-all. When large corporate entities appropriate others' creations without recompense on a large scale, they may or may not innovate with those creations, and while "society" may derive some benefit, it also creates a rather large disincentive to create.
There may be barriers to creativity under intellectual property law (to what extent is debatable, and has been debated for centuries) but there are also real economic disincentives to having no intellectual property law. Which is why such laws were implemented in the first place.
This debate is not new by any stretch. It's just that technology has changed some of the parameters on the margins.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Property Rights. (as LostSailor)
There was supposed to be a link in the above to Mike's post The Myth of Copyright 'Balance'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Property Rights. (as LostSailor)
Sorry, wasn't able to get online most of yesterday, but wanted to reply.
First, I'm not painting myself as a victim; I can deal with honest criticism and will (and have) admitted when I've been wrong or mistaken. And I never said that there weren't moderate voice here (or "copyright maximalist" voices). I said that when commenters post those positions, they are responded to with frequently crude and insulting comments, sometimes anonymously and sometimes not.
I have had reasonable, rational discussions in comments and have read others, but these are quite few and far between. Far more often than not, comments devolve into pointedly insulting shouting matches. If you haven't seen those threads, you have indeed missed something.
I'll be generous and mostly agree that Mike is semi-moderate, but that may need reconsideration. I have never read Mike to advocate legislative repeal of copyright law (wisely, since it verges on the impossible), but he's also said any number of times that he sees no value at all in copyright (and patents, which I don't know much about so don't comment on) and that there never really has been. Mike's a smart guy, but that is not really a moderate or semi-moderate position; it's rather radical.
I've often argued for restoring balance to copyright law between the rights of the public domain and the rights of the creators are brought back to a more reasonable trade-off. Mike is squarely against even considering that, and comes close to calling for the abolition of copyright. In this post Mike says: "The more you focus on balance, the more useless your recommendations are." He also engages in some subtle ridicule of a "moderate" position.
Hmmm....maybe that reconsideration is coming sooner than I thought.
When you allow your personal affront to get in the way of seeing the truth, you kind of should be. Sorry, just opinion I guess...
I was not "affronted" by the anonymous poster's comment: "We are better off with no intellectual property laws than with the one sided intellectual property laws that we currently have." I merely noted that that the statement doesn't even consider the middle ground (we'd be better off with real copyright reform than with either what we have today or no copyright at all). And that seems to be a fairly usual opinion around here.
Simply abolishing copyright would be hugely disruptive in the short term and while there would be undoubtedly some societal benefits in the long term there will also be unforeseen harm (there always is) that goes largely unconsidered here.
I am firmly convinced that there will be rational public discussion of these issues now and more in the near future. I just don't necessarily expect to find it here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Property Rights. (as LostSailor)
Dark, let's be honest. Nearly anyone who comments here that is in any way supportive of copyright is a "maximalist" and not infrequently called a "liar" or worse. The majority theme around here is that copyright is completely unnecessary and has never done any good for society, and proponents of copyright are actually the one's "stealing" from the public.
I post under a consistent username, and I'm registered here. I'm sure that Mike could likely find out who I am with little effort, since he's have access to that registration.
And I don't disagree with the proposition that copyright and it's major corporate defenders have gotten out of hand. Term of copyright is far too long and should be restricted; the problem of "orphan works" is a real concern (and is an issue that could be most easily dealt with in Congress--and is at least being discussed there to some degree); the doctrine of fair use should be legislatively codified and expanded (though I understand arguments to the contrary that this could have the unintended effect of making fair use considerations too rigid).
I've commented on these issues before and am usually roundly derided as noted above.
There are moderate voices here, but they tend to be drowned out and given scant, if any, consideration by most commenters.
So, yes, I think I am fairly well informed about these subjects, and I read Techdirt regularly (though I only comment sporadically)
And no, I'm not ashamed of my remark.
Re: Re: Property Rights. (as LostSailor)
We are better off with no intellectual property laws than with the one sided intellectual property laws that we currently have.
As seems to be usual around these parts, even the concept of a middle ground is ignored. This is not an "either/or" matter of only the extremes.
STFU (as LostSailor)
One would think these heirs...would be thrilled that the government went back on the promise it made to the public and granted them even more monopoly rents for a few more decades and kept quiet.
Yeah!! How dare these people go to court to decide legal differences between them! What are they, Communists??
They should just shut the frak up and count their filthy, ill-gotten lucre in private. They should be on their knees thanking us that we haven't come over with pitchforks and flaming torches to wrest away from them rights and money that shouldn't have been theirs in the first place!
Of all the unmitigated gall, effrontery, and insolence!!!
Re: Re: Re: Violating their own terms of service (as LostSailor)
it was going to associate the IP addresses with names and hand them over to the copyright holders" goes beyond the quoted TOS
Does it?
And there is "law enforcement action" other than a court order. Neither the linked story or the email it quotes indicates whether there was a DMCA notice sent to the school, but that could be considered an action in enforcing the copyright law.
Re: Violating their own terms of service (as LostSailor)
Actually, the students are violating the terms of service:
It seems that BLS has every right to do this.
Hmmm... (as LostSailor)
Law school students are (allegedly) breaking the law; law school (allegedly) takes steps to stop (alleged) illegal activity by its students thereby (allegedly) upholding the law.
You're right. A gross violation of "due process" (which really only applies to court proceedings, which this isn't).
Both, of course. (as LostSailor)
I agree completely about blogging being more about a conversation than just reporting.
But the answer to your headline is "Both." Today's rush to be first often trumps being correct. And while everyone makes mistakes and errors, which should be correctly clearly and plainly when they are recognized, fewer corrections would be necessary if a story or blog post were checked, even cursorily, before hitting the "post" or "print" button.
Even on Techdirt, following links to the stories being reported on, and the links those stories contain, often reveals that the facts may be different than originally assumed or that the answers to questions posed or issues raised are contained in the original documents, not the stories written about those original documents.