5 ms·

Copyright is a contract between two groups where a copyright holder dictates the terms under which their material may be used or duplicated. If the receiving p

Copyright is a contract between two groups where a copyright holder dictates the terms under which their material may be used or duplicated. If the receiving party to that material violates those terms (say they've received a movie screener for an unreleased film and leaked it), they are in violation of that contract and should pay the fees dictated in their contract. To argue that all parties everywhere should be forced subsidize the enforcement and policing of that contract is outrageous, economically unsound, and violates liberty.

petermcneeley 8y ago
This is not the definition of Copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Your definition is some alternative Libertarian definition of what copyright could be in an alternative society. Update: I cannot comprehend the reason for downvote without reply. You provided a false definition of Copyright and I provided a correct definition along with why your view might not be the reality.
Y_Y 8y ago
I like your idea, but it's hardly the case currently. If you find a book on the ground, or read it in a library, or learn of its contents any number of ways without entering into even an implicit contract with the copyright holder, you are not then entitled to publish the contents without limit.
- DINKDINK 8y ago
  >I like your idea It's the only peaceful way to govern copyright. >but it's hardly the case currently. You should advocate it to be the case or else you will suffer more and more socialized enforcement of a contract in which you are not a party.
apocalypstyx 8y ago
>To argue that all parties everywhere should be forced subsidize the enforcement and policing of that contract is outrageous, economically unsound, and violates liberty. And if the contract is violated and the violator taken to court and the court rules against them and they refuse to pay restitution? Without the potential of government violence brought to bear, there is no point in contracts in the first place (except in the general sense of an agreement that includes 'go against me and I won't associate with you again'). But, however, if there is no government violence to be rendered applicable in any case, that does open the opportunity for the violated to employ violence directly. However, it also puts each individual in charge of insuring themselves against appropriation of their own property by means of said violence. So, at a minimum, such a position wants to establish the collective garnishment of funding for 'police services' to protect such rights, yet this is fundamentally in favor of those who have a greater quantity of property to protect, as the owners of such will (as history shows) that they should be required to reimburse no more than any other member of the collective, and if they do, then they are entitled to greater service, leading, again, to the same asymmetrical form of society, where all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
- DINKDINK 8y ago
  There's no need for violence and no need for taxation in such a system. The two parties willingly choose a court to fall back on if their contract needs arbitration. >if the contract is violated and the violator taken to court and the court rules against them and they refuse to pay restitution? If you're entering into a contract with someone and you're worried they won't pay restitution, mandate terms in the contract that require up-front collateral for a performance penalty. Problem solved. Each person in the stage of production has the appropriate incentives to collect payment and protect their property. The reason why copyright law has been perverted is because there are distribution companies who'd rather not pony up performance capital and want to socialize the cost of enforcement onto the state.
  - apocalypstyx 8y ago
    And if the collateral holder doesn't want to return said collateral? And while this may work(1) for a theatre-model (where the consumptive act can be funneled into a tightly-controlled venue (which is something I already posted about a few day ago, so I won't repeat that but what is necessary)), how is any mechanically reproduced media to be distributed to individuals? That is to say, DVD and Blu-ray and such media, electronic books for sure, and, possibly, physical ones as well, and any and, essentially all, material delivered to the individual for (relatively) private consumption. (1)[And even then what of 'media laundering'? It may be illegal for a third party to interfere in a contract by, say, bribing the contract signer to break said contract and distribute an copy of the media in violation of contract, but, say, if one or the other party simply leaves it in the middle of the street and someone unassociated with any of the involved parties picks it up, they could then distribute their own copies of said media at will, legally.] Under such a system, where does the contract into play? For example, your posts in this conversation, which are conveniently protected by copyright law as it stands now from being appropriated by myself, or any other reader, to use in whatever fashion we please. Should we have begun negotiating these posts before we knew what we were negotiating about? > The two parties willingly choose a court to fall back on if their contract needs arbitration. But, again, what does a decision one or more parties are not 'compelled' to follow matter? There are only two alternatives: either everyone agrees that they can't be held to account because they refuse on some kind of intellectual/moral/ethical grounds, in which case, the only consequence to being a bad actor is the likelihood of reduced future business with the offended entity (and even that is not assured, based on the state of the market, localized monopolies, power relations, etc), or it devolves into a shotgun wedding. > The reason why copyright law has been perverted From Tsarist Russia to the Act of Anne in Britain, copyright began as state censorship, so arguing for some 'golden age' (other than the vaguest wording in the U. S. constitution) is to ignore history.

petermcneeley 8y ago

This is not the definition of Copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Your definition is some alternative Libertarian definition of what copyright could be in an alternative society. Update: I cannot comprehend the reason for downvote without reply. You provided a false definition of Copyright and I provided a correct definition along with why your view might not be the reality.

Y_Y 8y ago

I like your idea, but it's hardly the case currently. If you find a book on the ground, or read it in a library, or learn of its contents any number of ways without entering into even an implicit contract with the copyright holder, you are not then entitled to publish the contents without limit.

DINKDINK 8y ago
>I like your idea It's the only peaceful way to govern copyright. >but it's hardly the case currently. You should advocate it to be the case or else you will suffer more and more socialized enforcement of a contract in which you are not a party.

apocalypstyx 8y ago

>To argue that all parties everywhere should be forced subsidize the enforcement and policing of that contract is outrageous, economically unsound, and violates liberty. And if the contract is violated and the violator taken to court and the court rules against them and they refuse to pay restitution? Without the potential of government violence brought to bear, there is no point in contracts in the first place (except in the general sense of an agreement that includes 'go against me and I won't associate with you again'). But, however, if there is no government violence to be rendered applicable in any case, that does open the opportunity for the violated to employ violence directly. However, it also puts each individual in charge of insuring themselves against appropriation of their own property by means of said violence. So, at a minimum, such a position wants to establish the collective garnishment of funding for 'police services' to protect such rights, yet this is fundamentally in favor of those who have a greater quantity of property to protect, as the owners of such will (as history shows) that they should be required to reimburse no more than any other member of the collective, and if they do, then they are entitled to greater service, leading, again, to the same asymmetrical form of society, where all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

DINKDINK 8y ago
There's no need for violence and no need for taxation in such a system. The two parties willingly choose a court to fall back on if their contract needs arbitration. >if the contract is violated and the violator taken to court and the court rules against them and they refuse to pay restitution? If you're entering into a contract with someone and you're worried they won't pay restitution, mandate terms in the contract that require up-front collateral for a performance penalty. Problem solved. Each person in the stage of production has the appropriate incentives to collect payment and protect their property. The reason why copyright law has been perverted is because there are distribution companies who'd rather not pony up performance capital and want to socialize the cost of enforcement onto the state.
- apocalypstyx 8y ago
  And if the collateral holder doesn't want to return said collateral? And while this may work(1) for a theatre-model (where the consumptive act can be funneled into a tightly-controlled venue (which is something I already posted about a few day ago, so I won't repeat that but what is necessary)), how is any mechanically reproduced media to be distributed to individuals? That is to say, DVD and Blu-ray and such media, electronic books for sure, and, possibly, physical ones as well, and any and, essentially all, material delivered to the individual for (relatively) private consumption. (1)[And even then what of 'media laundering'? It may be illegal for a third party to interfere in a contract by, say, bribing the contract signer to break said contract and distribute an copy of the media in violation of contract, but, say, if one or the other party simply leaves it in the middle of the street and someone unassociated with any of the involved parties picks it up, they could then distribute their own copies of said media at will, legally.] Under such a system, where does the contract into play? For example, your posts in this conversation, which are conveniently protected by copyright law as it stands now from being appropriated by myself, or any other reader, to use in whatever fashion we please. Should we have begun negotiating these posts before we knew what we were negotiating about? > The two parties willingly choose a court to fall back on if their contract needs arbitration. But, again, what does a decision one or more parties are not 'compelled' to follow matter? There are only two alternatives: either everyone agrees that they can't be held to account because they refuse on some kind of intellectual/moral/ethical grounds, in which case, the only consequence to being a bad actor is the likelihood of reduced future business with the offended entity (and even that is not assured, based on the state of the market, localized monopolies, power relations, etc), or it devolves into a shotgun wedding. > The reason why copyright law has been perverted From Tsarist Russia to the Act of Anne in Britain, copyright began as state censorship, so arguing for some 'golden age' (other than the vaguest wording in the U. S. constitution) is to ignore history.