4 ms·

And I agree with his contention. It seems pretty clear cut to me. For the pro-Eleanor folks, I want to break down here what are the elements in my pro-Jason sta

And I agree with his contention. It seems pretty clear cut to me. For the pro-Eleanor folks, I want to break down here what are the elements in my pro-Jason stance, just to be real clear: 1. just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing [this nulls out the whole "b-b-but technology makes this possible now!" argument; for bonus points think of the implications of your stance regarding the availability of nuclear weapons] 2. you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free 3. if they make it available for free and/or say copy all you want -- that's fine, do it 4. ... but if they do not, you should honor their wishes regarding their own creation 5. ... if despite that, you do not, then you are unethical

pyre 16y ago
I tend to think that a lot of the loss of respect that people have to copyright/IP/etc breaks down to: 1. The abuse of these rights by corporations. [e.g. 'patent-mills' that just crank out patents on any idea that pops into the heads of their engineers, even if it's just falls into the formula: "everyday object + {computers,internet} = brand new idea" or "patented idea 1 + {internet,computers} = patented idea 2" ] 2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity that boggle the mind. Do people really believe that NBC would have had no reason to create a radio, and then television network if they were not guaranteed to still have copyrights on all of their content in the year 2010? Do you think that the person that wrote the "Happy Birthday" song, wouldn't have written it if they weren't guaranteed to hold a copyright until the year 2030 (not to mention that they took the melody from an earlier song, probably without licensing it... the horror)? From Wikipedia: > The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting > authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner > Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for U.S. $15 > million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at U.S. $5 > million.[5] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims > that U.S. copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized > public performances of the song are technically illegal unless > royalties are paid to it. This is not an example of creating something of value. They are leeches that are sucking money out of the economy on the back of maybe a weeks worth of work (I hope that you're not going to claim that "Happy Birthday To You" was the result of millions of dollars of investment...) prior to 1935. It's rather an example of someone creating something 'trivial' and expecting to 'hit it big,' never creating something of value again.
- nailer 16y ago
  > 1. The abuse of these rights by corporations. > 2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity I agree, but I've never seen anyone take a stand against that abuse. Eg: TPB steals from everyone, including independent artists, Open Source contributors, and people who support copyright reform.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  pyre, your 2 points are good. i agree that those are bad things. i agree that the patent system is being abused, and I agree that it's shady for corporations to push to keep extending copyright well past the point where the original creator is benefiting from it. very good points. however, I don't think the validity of those points somehow overwhelms or justifies what Eleanor and those other people were doing. i don't think it nullifies the thought process I outlined above. One is not justified in doing some unethical act just because other groups of people elsewhere are engaging in what you consider unethical acts. If someone shoots a gun at you it is probably reasonable to think you are justified in shooting back -- both parties are interacting directly, and you're shooting back at the exact person who wronged you. That's not what's happening in the OA, I think.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
I agree with (1), (3), and (2). I'm not so sure about (4), and (5) depends on (4) anyway. I have a problem with having to respect the wishes of an author regarding to a copy of her work that I hold. Especially when the copy is on my computer. The reasons are simple: computers copy things around. They don't move them. Therefore, I can't really give that song I have on my computer. I can only give a copy of it. And maybe delete my copy afterwards. Now there's the real problem: the author would have me delete my copy, because it simulate the inconveniences of physical supports, which help her sustain her business model. There is a clear conflict between me potentially hurting the revenue stream of the author, and the author wanting me to artificially restrain my behaviour. I don't know how to solve it. But actively deleting my copy of each work I "give" or "lend" can't be the solution. I also believe it shouldn't.
tomjen3 16y ago
That argument might work with older people, but it isn't going to fly with the young ones. Why? Because it is the same song we have been hearing from the record companies for years, and that hasn't changed that many opinions. And I don't even feel sorry for them - do the world really need another love song? Because if not, we should consider killing copyright. And I won't drop one tear if Disney goes bankrupt - after all they took all the stories from the public domain.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  So if you can find some examples of bad behavior in some group it becomes OK to damn the whole lot of them? Congratulations, you would have been a great asset to the L.A. riots.
jamesbritt 16y ago
" you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free" Much, if not all, of this seems cultural, and inconsistent. Suppose I spend some time dreaming up a fabulous hair style. I plan to earn a living giving people this hair style. I go out and about, people see me with my fabulous hair style, and many like it. So they copy it, giving themselves and their friends the same hair style. Do I have a supportable claim to ask, and expect, that no one may copy my hair style without my permission, without paying me? I can't imagine too many people would consider this a plausible idea, nor would many people be sympathetic. For one, most folks would simply say, "Hey, you go out in public and people can see and easily copy your hair style! What did you expect?" "But", you reply, "just because they can doesn't mean they should." Suppose too that I'm wearing a shirt that clearly says "Do Not Copy My Fabulous Hair Style." Does it change anything? Do my wishes regarding what I've created supersede reasonable expectations of what people are going to do, and what people think they are entitled to do? People are constantly coming up with new things of varying originality and difficulty of creation. A turn of phrase. Color combinations in their dress or on their Web site. And no one is allowed, by default, to copy these things without prior permission and/or renumeration? That's crazy. Might as well outlaw culture. Are restrictions on copying to be applied based on some expected financial gain? That's getting pretty circular; the gain is usually based on the expected scarcity. Are restrictions to be based on how hard it was to create something? That's just bizarre. The arguments for not freely copying things seem based on a) the one who thinks of something gets to make the rules, and b) work should be rewarded. But there are so many instances where these don't apply that I don't see any consistent rationale other than that's just how the culture evolved based on the current technology and expectations of scarcity, plus the dictates of government meant to achieve some particular social or economic ends (as opposed to protecting some natural right).

pyre 16y ago

I tend to think that a lot of the loss of respect that people have to copyright/IP/etc breaks down to: 1. The abuse of these rights by corporations. [e.g. 'patent-mills' that just crank out patents on any idea that pops into the heads of their engineers, even if it's just falls into the formula: "everyday object + {computers,internet} = brand new idea" or "patented idea 1 + {internet,computers} = patented idea 2" ] 2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity that boggle the mind. Do people really believe that NBC would have had no reason to create a radio, and then television network if they were not guaranteed to still have copyrights on all of their content in the year 2010? Do you think that the person that wrote the "Happy Birthday" song, wouldn't have written it if they weren't guaranteed to hold a copyright until the year 2030 (not to mention that they took the melody from an earlier song, probably without licensing it... the horror)? From Wikipedia: > The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting > authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner > Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for U.S. $15 > million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at U.S. $5 > million.[5] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims > that U.S. copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized > public performances of the song are technically illegal unless > royalties are paid to it. This is not an example of creating something of value. They are leeches that are sucking money out of the economy on the back of maybe a weeks worth of work (I hope that you're not going to claim that "Happy Birthday To You" was the result of millions of dollars of investment...) prior to 1935. It's rather an example of someone creating something 'trivial' and expecting to 'hit it big,' never creating something of value again.

nailer 16y ago
> 1. The abuse of these rights by corporations. > 2. The egregious way with which Congress/Corporations have extended the duration of IP rights to levels of absurdity I agree, but I've never seen anyone take a stand against that abuse. Eg: TPB steals from everyone, including independent artists, Open Source contributors, and people who support copyright reform.
mkramlich 16y ago
pyre, your 2 points are good. i agree that those are bad things. i agree that the patent system is being abused, and I agree that it's shady for corporations to push to keep extending copyright well past the point where the original creator is benefiting from it. very good points. however, I don't think the validity of those points somehow overwhelms or justifies what Eleanor and those other people were doing. i don't think it nullifies the thought process I outlined above. One is not justified in doing some unethical act just because other groups of people elsewhere are engaging in what you consider unethical acts. If someone shoots a gun at you it is probably reasonable to think you are justified in shooting back -- both parties are interacting directly, and you're shooting back at the exact person who wronged you. That's not what's happening in the OA, I think.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

I agree with (1), (3), and (2). I'm not so sure about (4), and (5) depends on (4) anyway. I have a problem with having to respect the wishes of an author regarding to a copy of her work that I hold. Especially when the copy is on my computer. The reasons are simple: computers copy things around. They don't move them. Therefore, I can't really give that song I have on my computer. I can only give a copy of it. And maybe delete my copy afterwards. Now there's the real problem: the author would have me delete my copy, because it simulate the inconveniences of physical supports, which help her sustain her business model. There is a clear conflict between me potentially hurting the revenue stream of the author, and the author wanting me to artificially restrain my behaviour. I don't know how to solve it. But actively deleting my copy of each work I "give" or "lend" can't be the solution. I also believe it shouldn't.

tomjen3 16y ago

That argument might work with older people, but it isn't going to fly with the young ones. Why? Because it is the same song we have been hearing from the record companies for years, and that hasn't changed that many opinions. And I don't even feel sorry for them - do the world really need another love song? Because if not, we should consider killing copyright. And I won't drop one tear if Disney goes bankrupt - after all they took all the stories from the public domain.

loewenskind 16y ago
So if you can find some examples of bad behavior in some group it becomes OK to damn the whole lot of them? Congratulations, you would have been a great asset to the L.A. riots.

jamesbritt 16y ago

" you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free" Much, if not all, of this seems cultural, and inconsistent. Suppose I spend some time dreaming up a fabulous hair style. I plan to earn a living giving people this hair style. I go out and about, people see me with my fabulous hair style, and many like it. So they copy it, giving themselves and their friends the same hair style. Do I have a supportable claim to ask, and expect, that no one may copy my hair style without my permission, without paying me? I can't imagine too many people would consider this a plausible idea, nor would many people be sympathetic. For one, most folks would simply say, "Hey, you go out in public and people can see and easily copy your hair style! What did you expect?" "But", you reply, "just because they can doesn't mean they should." Suppose too that I'm wearing a shirt that clearly says "Do Not Copy My Fabulous Hair Style." Does it change anything? Do my wishes regarding what I've created supersede reasonable expectations of what people are going to do, and what people think they are entitled to do? People are constantly coming up with new things of varying originality and difficulty of creation. A turn of phrase. Color combinations in their dress or on their Web site. And no one is allowed, by default, to copy these things without prior permission and/or renumeration? That's crazy. Might as well outlaw culture. Are restrictions on copying to be applied based on some expected financial gain? That's getting pretty circular; the gain is usually based on the expected scarcity. Are restrictions to be based on how hard it was to create something? That's just bizarre. The arguments for not freely copying things seem based on a) the one who thinks of something gets to make the rules, and b) work should be rewarded. But there are so many instances where these don't apply that I don't see any consistent rationale other than that's just how the culture evolved based on the current technology and expectations of scarcity, plus the dictates of government meant to achieve some particular social or economic ends (as opposed to protecting some natural right).