4 ms·

So you tell me — what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000

So you tell me — what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines? Since this is a relatively cheap rhetorical question, let's play devil's advocate: 1) forcing people to make new content is obviously good in the way of promoting learning; 2) you can learn technique without using protected content 3) there are already some exceptions in place for educational and religious use of protected content (right now if you do "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of being born again as a Christian, do it in the Church hall, and don't make any money, you should be okay). The exceptions are probably too few and too narrow. A more useful discussion would explain how they should be broadened.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
It is not a rhetorical trick: copyright is only constitutional BECAUSE it promotes knowledge and learning. The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant. And to be honest, I'm not sure it is physically possible to learn such things without committing any infringement. You might be able to do so without committing any infringement that a powerful copyright holder cares about, but how many stories can you think of right now that don't bear substantial similarity to some story that some author wrote in the last century? Jessica Littman wrote in her book on copyright that you infringe upon copyright whenever you watch a movie and then imagine the same film with a different actor playing the lead. Obviously, that's not a practical problem, but if so much basic intellectual activity qualifies as infringement, even the transient creations needed to learn new skills might be difficult.
- pigbucket 16y ago
  The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant It's relevant to the extent that it would have to be true in order to argue that the $150,000 fine promotes learning. The fact that I make that argument as "devil's advocate" and that I've got to sing "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of finding Jesus means I accept the law might be absurd. I would like greater insight into and specificity concerning the nature of that absurdity (the burden of the argument I quoted was being carried by a rhetorical question), and, for that reason, and for what it's worth, I find your comment more interesting and more substantive than the original post.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    The author is actually a friend of mine; if you want more substance, you check out the slides for a longer form presentation on copyright reform that she did; see http://cmmulligan.com/?page_id=27 http://cmmulligan.com/?page_id=27 Alternatively, Jessica Litman's book Digital Copyright is short and a good exposition of these issues.
pyre 16y ago
"People can eat other types of food," is not in itself a justification for banning a certain type of food. > 1) forcing people to make new content is obviously > good in the way of promoting learning You could also make the assertion that a blanket ban on fast food restaurants would be a good thing because it would force people to eat healthier. You can't defend a system just because there are ways to not bump up against its limitations. That argument should be about whether we gain any benefit that is worth its limitations.

MichaelSalib 16y ago

It is not a rhetorical trick: copyright is only constitutional BECAUSE it promotes knowledge and learning. The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant. And to be honest, I'm not sure it is physically possible to learn such things without committing any infringement. You might be able to do so without committing any infringement that a powerful copyright holder cares about, but how many stories can you think of right now that don't bear substantial similarity to some story that some author wrote in the last century? Jessica Littman wrote in her book on copyright that you infringe upon copyright whenever you watch a movie and then imagine the same film with a different actor playing the lead. Obviously, that's not a practical problem, but if so much basic intellectual activity qualifies as infringement, even the transient creations needed to learn new skills might be difficult.

pigbucket 16y ago
The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant It's relevant to the extent that it would have to be true in order to argue that the $150,000 fine promotes learning. The fact that I make that argument as "devil's advocate" and that I've got to sing "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of finding Jesus means I accept the law might be absurd. I would like greater insight into and specificity concerning the nature of that absurdity (the burden of the argument I quoted was being carried by a rhetorical question), and, for that reason, and for what it's worth, I find your comment more interesting and more substantive than the original post.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  The author is actually a friend of mine; if you want more substance, you check out the slides for a longer form presentation on copyright reform that she did; see http://cmmulligan.com/?page_id=27 http://cmmulligan.com/?page_id=27 Alternatively, Jessica Litman's book Digital Copyright is short and a good exposition of these issues.

pyre 16y ago

"People can eat other types of food," is not in itself a justification for banning a certain type of food. > 1) forcing people to make new content is obviously > good in the way of promoting learning You could also make the assertion that a blanket ban on fast food restaurants would be a good thing because it would force people to eat healthier. You can't defend a system just because there are ways to not bump up against its limitations. That argument should be about whether we gain any benefit that is worth its limitations.