13 Feb
2013
13 Feb
'13
4:25 p.m.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 03:57:33 michael noble wrote:
Well, the only "refining" I have seen happening in my lifetime is making
things worse, not better.
I would rather have no copyright law at all rather than the nasty copyright
law we currently have.
Those who think a reasonable copyright law makes sense might want to fight
hard to have the current laws made more reasonable because the folks who are
getting the changes they want introduced into the law are likely to push
things so far that the public demands that it be done atay with completely.
Copyright notices generally "lie" by omitting fair use and other exceptions.
And say things in ways as to misinform the general population.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Louigi Verona
<louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Your thinking
is in the right direction. Indeed, if you are given a book
> under contract, then you have to abide by the contract. But let's say
> you decided to break the agreement and copied the book on the Internet
> or gave it to your friends. All those people made no contract with the
> author and thus they cannot be and should not be bound by the contract.
> What copyright does is bind third parties, which never agreed to the
> contract.
Yes this was the point I was getting to. But I would disagree that
copyright itself binds third parties. The current implementation via
legislation and execution may do so, but that is a mistake in
implementation and not in principle. Implementations can be refined so long
as the principles are sound. There are other cases. Public broadcasting is
one. You turn on your TV
and see Harry Potter. You were not presented with any contract. Why
should you be bound by any conditions? If the author of Harry Potter
wanted to distribute her book only under contract obligations, she should
not have let it broadcast on TV.
It is widely accepted public knowledge that the material on television is
covered under copyright. I know this when I turn it on, except for when I
am very young perhaps. So there is a contract in the same way that as you
say, "some things are just out there". Also the credits for television
programs and films contain explicit copyright information. TV is not public
domain, it is for the most part a private system of distribution that most
mentally functioning adults know the conditions of use for when we buy a
TV.
Yes, but one deos not get to negotiate the contract. One does not sign the
contract. But one is held to the terms of the contract.
The other case is the one I mentioned - someone
breaking a contract.
There are other options, like accidents. You leave a book on a bench.
Unless the book itself contains a full blown contract in it, there is no
way for Joe who finds the book to know. In fact, even if the contract is
in the book, Joe did not sign it.
I assume this is explicitly why copyright information is placed at the
beginning of books. And again, this is a flaw with the implementation if
Joe were to be punished in such a case, and not with the principle itself.
Further there *is* a way for Joe to know if he pays attention at all
throughout life, as copyright is a well known fact of cultural life.
Pleading ignorance in such a case is not a sufficient defense.
Additionally, some things are just out there. You invent something. The
As I say above, those who consider themselves reasonable coppyright proponents
need to fight hard to see that the laws get made more reasonable.
other person sees it. He has no contract with
you. Why should he restrict
actions with his own body and his own property? What legitimate reason is
there to not act on a new knowledge you have?
My understanding is that this is the reason why the distinction between
ideas and the execution of them is made in copyright and patent law.
Finally, if each time you enter a store and decide to buy a DVD, you were
explicitly told that you will not simply be able
to share copies, but
that you should agree to not use the knowledge you gain from the DVD and
act as if you have no such knowledge, I am not sure most people would
agree. You watch Harry Potter. And, according to the contract a typical
copyright proponent would want you to sign, you hen have no right to act
on the knowledge you have acquired, namely, the plot, ideas, characters.
All of this is knowledge you now have in your brain. Copyright wants you
to pretend you only have this information in read-only format.
Seems like a strawman to me. There are reasonable copyright proponents who
don't think suing people for acting on the knowledge of a plotline is a
reasonable thing to do, unless that action consists of seeking monetary
gain by directly copying the original content. Yes, there are also
unprincipled types who will look for any legal justification to gouge and
increase profit lines, but this has very little to do with copyright
itself.
To be clear, I don't consider myself a copyright proponent as such. But I
do think that if a group of people wants to enter into a collective
agreement to share content in a certain way, that should be their right.
You do not explain how those who do not want to enter into this agreement can
do so.
If
I happen to come onto some of that content without having entered into
their covenant, then that community should take action against the one who
made that content available to me.
If that person was a party to the covenant.
If I take the content in full knowledge
that such a covenant exists, then I am acting inappropriately
Why? You may think the covenant is totally bogus.
What if I invented a cure for X terrible disease. What if I then said that as
the creator of this intellectual property it was my desire that only people
with Y characteristics should make use of this cure. What if I entered into
covenants with people willing to go alone with this.
Do you really think that if someone who did not meet my characteristics and
who was suffereing from X would be wrong in making use of Y should they come
upon the information? Would they be wrong for spreading to info to others
suffering from X?
So yes, I
consider it a bad habit when I download an unpaid-for copy of a copyrighted
artwork in full knowledge that such copyright exists. The reason I might do
it is that I have desire, but desire in itself is not a justification to
deny the value of content. If anything, I think we should recognize that
creative content that produces desire does have real value, and that is the
reason we are so keen to copy it in the first place.
Anyway, this has all gotten way off the Linux Audio track, so I'll leave it
at that.
all the best,
drew