5 ms·

The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have work

by ajays 16y ago

The current copyright law is a prime example of the impotence of the electorate in the face of the power of Big Money. It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them (I'll refrain from linking to the myriad talks by Lessig and others about how the current copyright system is broken). And yet Hollywood keeps buying the legislators and perpetuates this broken system.

javert 16y ago
There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig). Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. Doesn't matter if that work is entirely "intellectual" or not. The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. People who make arguments about natural rights typically also think that if people's natural rights are not respected, that is going to ultimately be a net loss for society. I agree with that in the case of intellectual property. If people's intellectual property rights are not respected, it will not be profitable to develop intellectual property. Although we shouldn't shun abstractions, it's also important not to shun concretes. In this case: you claim that it's important for the public good to move works into the public domain. Well, how is it good for the public to move Horton Hears a Who or Sports Illustrated into the public domain? Much less Waiting for Godot.
- macrael 16y ago
  But how is that argument extended that your natural right over your work should be extended for 70 years after you die? Why should that period keep getting longer?
  - javert 16y ago
    I don't have any specific opinion on how long it should be, as long as it's at least author's life plus some FIXNUM amount of years, to cover for the case where someone wants to invest in your work, but you might get hit by a bus tomorrow.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- slantyyz 16y ago
  In my naive, idealistic understanding of the spirit of copyright, it's a social contract between the artist and society. Society will grant you a reasonable amount of time to make money off your work with legal protection. After that time's up, your work belongs to society. Seems like a fair economic exchange to me. As far as I know, it's been good for everyone that Shakespeare's works are in the public domain.
  - uvdiv 16y ago
    I don't see that as a "fair exchange". One side (the government) sets the terms unilaterally. There is no voluntary mutual transaction; the author doesn't consent to have his work forced into the public domain, or to the terms under which it is done.
    - trezor 16y ago
      There is no voluntary mutual transaction; the author doesn't consent to have his work forced into the public domain In the absence of copyright the author would have no protection what so ever and would be at mercy of society at large. With copyright they gain protection from the public domain which we, the public, give them in exchange for the cultural creations this protection entices. If they in exchange of this protection returns nothing to society (i.e. infinite retro-active copyright extensions), then we as a society should have no reason to provide this protection for them. Basically Disney was able to build an empire on works found in the public domain, but they refuse to give the same opportunity for others to do the same. That is also very one-sided and society as a whole gains very little cultural capital and is forced to pay (again and again) for what they have generously provided protection for. Make no mistake of it: If copyright law is one-sided, it is to the creators' and media-conglomerates benefit and not society.
      - uvdiv 16y ago
        >If they in exchange of this protection returns nothing to society (i.e. infinite retro-active copyright extensions), then we as a society should have no reason to provide this protection for them. Society isn't owed anything. Government (which is distinct from society) protects IP, not because they benefit from it or society maximizes utility from it, but because that is what justice is about. This isn't a free service; the authors pay taxes for (among others) the legal system that protects their rights and enforces their contracts.
- donaldc 16y ago
  The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. This argument is only considering one side of the equation. The other side: Pretty much all products of a human being's work in a civilized society are built on top of previous products of other people's works, in both a material and especially in an intellectual sense. Giving such an unreasonably long time for copyright protection is breaking the chain. It argues, wrongly, that it is ok to build on the previous products of civilization while effectively locking up anyone from building on yours for 100-200 years.
  - javert 16y ago
    You're correct that we build upon the previous efforts of others, but I don't think that's a counterpoint to what I've said. For one thing, copyright doesn't prevent you from building upon previous intellectual and material gains made by civilization; it just prevents you from, for example, making a movie of Lord of the Flies without permission from the owner of the copyright. Separately: There's a legitimate discourse to be had about how long copyright protection should last. But I disagree totally with people who claim that it should be nonexistant.
    - jorgem 16y ago
      But copyright can prevent you from accessing less-famous works. Some of these works are out-of-print, so you can't get them and the copyright owners are nowhere to be found. These lost copyrighted works are essentially lost.
      - grav1tas 16y ago
        IANAL. If a copyright holder doesn't effectively exist like in this scenario, how can they charge you with copyright infringement? If a work is out of print and not findable, and the copyright holder is gone, how would you know that the work existed, and how would anybody go about printing said work again? I also think that your statement implies that society is somehow entitled to peoples' copy written works at some point. I think it might be the prerogative of the copyright holder to discontinue (and possibly destroy) his or her work before the copyright's lifetime ended. What then?
- wtallis 16y ago
  That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution, which makes it clear that intellectual property rights can only be granted by legislation, with limited term, and only for the purpose of stimulating progress. Without appropriate action by congress, the default under US law is for writings to be public domain, and it is unconstitutional to grant someone power over their writings simply out of the sense that they deserve it.
  - javert 16y ago
    That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution An argument for natural rights is totally independent of the government of any particular country. If the U.S. Constitution has it wrong (which it may), that's what amendments are for.
    - wtallis 16y ago
      No such amendment has been passed, or even to my knowledge come close to a vote in congress. So why is it okay for congress to be acting like they have the unconditional power to hand out intellectual property rights?
- follower 16y ago
  > There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property But Copyright as law is only about 300 years old and wasn't implemented because of "natural rights". > If people's intellectual property rights are not respected, it will not be profitable to develop intellectual property. And, yet, a lack of copyright didn't appear to stop people from creating works before copyright existed. And maybe there's more important things for a culture than profit. Even more so, there are people creating works today who go out of their way to specifically disclaim copyright protection using Creative Commons Zero and similar licenses. So copyright isn't a requirement for creation. > In this case: you claim that it's important for the public good to move works into the public domain. Well, how is it good for the public to move Horton Hears a Who or Sports Illustrated into the public domain? Well, in some cases, because that was the agreement at the time the work was created until the law retroactively changed the terms of the contract. And in other cases, because then the next generation of film-makers gets to make their animated re-interpretation of Horton Hears a Who (or even Horton Hears a Sports Illustrated) without it being illegal or financially prohibitive thus ensuring society more culture works.
  - shadowfox 16y ago
    > And, yet, a lack of copyright didn't appear to stop people from creating works before copyright existed. And maybe there's more important things for a culture than profit Well. In those days "copying" wasnt all that easy either
    - flawawa2 16y ago
      Wrong. People adapted and built upon other people's music, art and technology.
- cma 16y ago
  There is also the view that governmental implementation of natural rights has little to do with the actual principles embodied in the rights: http://books.google.com/books?id=MfgtAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=theory+of+business+enterprise&hl=en&ei=igAhTeSaBcOAlAfhreibDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=MfgtAAAAIAAJ&printsec=f...
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  > The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property For physical goods "you can't take it away from me" always goes with "you can't have it"; I would say that "rightfully his property" here can only mean the first half of that (and so cannot entirely apply to information, where the two parts are distinct). If it meant the second half it would lead to absurdities where third parties can forbid things that have absolutely no effect on them, for example how resaraunts always have to make up their own birthday songs or how playing the radio at works can lead to fines...
- Helianthus16 16y ago
  Previously compelling, no longer convincing. Lessig didn't ignore it, he overruled it.
- forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
  "Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property." It is. But a product of a human being's work could be ALSO my property when I bought it. Of course there is some restrictions of the right that society gives me with this property to make possible for the authors to earn a living, but this restrictions should be limited in time, and this time reasonable, like patents 20-25 years. It is not for the majority of the people of any country, just ask them. In a real democracy people create the laws, not the right holders(who are mainly publishing companies, not authors). "Well, how is it good for the public to move Horton Hears a Who or Sports Illustrated into the public domain? Much less Waiting for Godot." It is good for the public to have films that are masterpieces like Charles Chaplin's, or Orson Welles's, the kind of genius that are atemporal. Isn't important that works of Stefan Zweig, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Auguste Rodin, Richard Strauss, Richard Feynnman, Isaac Asimov and hundreds of others authors from different disciplines are not going to be public domain in our entire life because the American congress continue extending copyright indefinitely as the lobbies order?
- ajays 16y ago
  "There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig)." No, it most certainly does NOT get ignored. What the proponents of change are saying is that IP rights should not be granted in perpetuity. Even patents expire after 20 years; so why not copyrights? Given the money that Disney is making, I would not be surprised if the copyright law gets extended again to "life + 100". This (modifying the law to benefit 1 corporation) is simply WRONG.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    It doesn't just benefit one corporation. It profoundly benefits one corporation, and significantly benefits everyone else making a living off intellectual property. The longer the copyright term is, the greater the value of a copyright is.
    - follower 16y ago
      > significantly benefits everyone else making a living off intellectual property. Doesn't that presuppose that the incremental gain from adding another N years of copyright coverage after an author's death is greater than the potential gain if it was accessible now to people who are making their living or--even--simply living? It's not unreasonable to assume that an extremely large proportion of creators (who are only a small--but potentially growing--portion of society) will gain no real benefit from their works being covered by copyright for 70-100 years after their death but are negatively affected by everyone else's creations being covered in the same way. It's not just a question of profit--it's also a question of culture. What wonderful and ground-breaking reinterpretations of culture from the 20th Century are never created--or illegal--because of current copyright law?
      - tptacek 16y ago
        The date of an author's death has little to do with the value of her creation at the time of its creation. Copyrights are transferable. This business about death is a red herring.
- hxa7241 16y ago
  > There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. No, there really isn't: it makes no sense when you examine it. Normal property manages a limited resource -- material things. By restricting one person's access to something it ensures access for someone else. IP is fundamentally different: it imposes a restriction where there is none, essentially, needed. Everyone can make copies of something without anyone else losing access to it. Why impose a restriction on a useful abundance? Is there some deep virtue in denying ourselves some benefit? > The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. But this is really the crux. It is exactly this difference that makes all the difference. If I could steal your normal, material, property, but leave it all in your possession, what is there to complain about? In fact, you could copy my property, then we would both have two lots of stuff -- this is not bad, this is good! And people are saying there is a 'natural right' here -- a 'natural right' to stop us from benefiting, costlessly, from each other? It is crazy. You could say that, pragmatically, the best way to fund production is by copyright-like restrictions. That is a reasonable proposition at least. But it is no longer anything to do with 'natural rights': it is not based on any fundamental necessity or desire, it is purely contingent and economic, proven by practicality and evidence.
slantyyz 16y ago
I wouldn't say that the electorate is so much impotent as it is apathetic to issues that affects it. If the "nerds" came out in the same numbers and loudness of the Tea Party, I'm sure you'd see more attention paid by politicians to the issues we love to debate here on HN. Many politicians are just as interested in keeping their job as they are in taking lobbyist money.
ShabbyDoo 16y ago
"It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them" Could offer some examples of "building upon" others' works which are not allowed without permission under current copyright law? I would like to understand what we as a society might be missing out on. More generally, I become concerned when I hear "public interest" arguments because they usually apply a relatively static analysis of benefit rather than a dynamic economic model. It might be deemed in the public interest for pizza parlors to be forced by law to provide free pizzas. In the short term, we can imagine all the happiness these pizzas would provide. However, in the slightly longer term, it is obvious that there would be no pizza parlors at all. How does one show that limiting copyright would not have the longer-term effect of fewer works being created?
- jbri 16y ago
  We can get some idea by looking at the vast body of works created when copyright was significantly limited compared to today. While there may be a handful of "artists" who wouldn't end up creating works if they could only profit from them for thirty years instead of a hundred, that is likely insignificant compared to the new works created by building on prior efforts.
- flawawa2 16y ago
  Art is created because people feel the need. Money should not be the incentive. An example could be a fan-made translation of old works. Mashups. Redubbing of movies. Free recordings of music.

by ajays 16y ago

javert 16y ago

There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig). Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. Doesn't matter if that work is entirely "intellectual" or not. The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. People who make arguments about natural rights typically also think that if people's natural rights are not respected, that is going to ultimately be a net loss for society. I agree with that in the case of intellectual property. If people's intellectual property rights are not respected, it will not be profitable to develop intellectual property. Although we shouldn't shun abstractions, it's also important not to shun concretes. In this case: you claim that it's important for the public good to move works into the public domain. Well, how is it good for the public to move Horton Hears a Who or Sports Illustrated into the public domain? Much less Waiting for Godot.

macrael 16y ago
But how is that argument extended that your natural right over your work should be extended for 70 years after you die? Why should that period keep getting longer?
- javert 16y ago
  I don't have any specific opinion on how long it should be, as long as it's at least author's life plus some FIXNUM amount of years, to cover for the case where someone wants to invest in your work, but you might get hit by a bus tomorrow.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
slantyyz 16y ago
In my naive, idealistic understanding of the spirit of copyright, it's a social contract between the artist and society. Society will grant you a reasonable amount of time to make money off your work with legal protection. After that time's up, your work belongs to society. Seems like a fair economic exchange to me. As far as I know, it's been good for everyone that Shakespeare's works are in the public domain.
- uvdiv 16y ago
  I don't see that as a "fair exchange". One side (the government) sets the terms unilaterally. There is no voluntary mutual transaction; the author doesn't consent to have his work forced into the public domain, or to the terms under which it is done.
  - trezor 16y ago
    There is no voluntary mutual transaction; the author doesn't consent to have his work forced into the public domain In the absence of copyright the author would have no protection what so ever and would be at mercy of society at large. With copyright they gain protection from the public domain which we, the public, give them in exchange for the cultural creations this protection entices. If they in exchange of this protection returns nothing to society (i.e. infinite retro-active copyright extensions), then we as a society should have no reason to provide this protection for them. Basically Disney was able to build an empire on works found in the public domain, but they refuse to give the same opportunity for others to do the same. That is also very one-sided and society as a whole gains very little cultural capital and is forced to pay (again and again) for what they have generously provided protection for. Make no mistake of it: If copyright law is one-sided, it is to the creators' and media-conglomerates benefit and not society.
    - uvdiv 16y ago
      >If they in exchange of this protection returns nothing to society (i.e. infinite retro-active copyright extensions), then we as a society should have no reason to provide this protection for them. Society isn't owed anything. Government (which is distinct from society) protects IP, not because they benefit from it or society maximizes utility from it, but because that is what justice is about. This isn't a free service; the authors pay taxes for (among others) the legal system that protects their rights and enforces their contracts.
donaldc 16y ago
The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property; that's part and parcel of living in a civilized society. This argument is only considering one side of the equation. The other side: Pretty much all products of a human being's work in a civilized society are built on top of previous products of other people's works, in both a material and especially in an intellectual sense. Giving such an unreasonably long time for copyright protection is breaking the chain. It argues, wrongly, that it is ok to build on the previous products of civilization while effectively locking up anyone from building on yours for 100-200 years.
- javert 16y ago
  You're correct that we build upon the previous efforts of others, but I don't think that's a counterpoint to what I've said. For one thing, copyright doesn't prevent you from building upon previous intellectual and material gains made by civilization; it just prevents you from, for example, making a movie of Lord of the Flies without permission from the owner of the copyright. Separately: There's a legitimate discourse to be had about how long copyright protection should last. But I disagree totally with people who claim that it should be nonexistant.
  - jorgem 16y ago
    But copyright can prevent you from accessing less-famous works. Some of these works are out-of-print, so you can't get them and the copyright owners are nowhere to be found. These lost copyrighted works are essentially lost.
    - grav1tas 16y ago
      IANAL. If a copyright holder doesn't effectively exist like in this scenario, how can they charge you with copyright infringement? If a work is out of print and not findable, and the copyright holder is gone, how would you know that the work existed, and how would anybody go about printing said work again? I also think that your statement implies that society is somehow entitled to peoples' copy written works at some point. I think it might be the prerogative of the copyright holder to discontinue (and possibly destroy) his or her work before the copyright's lifetime ended. What then?
wtallis 16y ago
That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution, which makes it clear that intellectual property rights can only be granted by legislation, with limited term, and only for the purpose of stimulating progress. Without appropriate action by congress, the default under US law is for writings to be public domain, and it is unconstitutional to grant someone power over their writings simply out of the sense that they deserve it.
- javert 16y ago
  That natural rights justification needs to be subordinate to the actual text of the US constitution An argument for natural rights is totally independent of the government of any particular country. If the U.S. Constitution has it wrong (which it may), that's what amendments are for.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    No such amendment has been passed, or even to my knowledge come close to a vote in congress. So why is it okay for congress to be acting like they have the unconditional power to hand out intellectual property rights?
follower 16y ago
> There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property But Copyright as law is only about 300 years old and wasn't implemented because of "natural rights". > If people's intellectual property rights are not respected, it will not be profitable to develop intellectual property. And, yet, a lack of copyright didn't appear to stop people from creating works before copyright existed. And maybe there's more important things for a culture than profit. Even more so, there are people creating works today who go out of their way to specifically disclaim copyright protection using Creative Commons Zero and similar licenses. So copyright isn't a requirement for creation. > In this case: you claim that it's important for the public good to move works into the public domain. Well, how is it good for the public to move Horton Hears a Who or Sports Illustrated into the public domain? Well, in some cases, because that was the agreement at the time the work was created until the law retroactively changed the terms of the contract. And in other cases, because then the next generation of film-makers gets to make their animated re-interpretation of Horton Hears a Who (or even Horton Hears a Sports Illustrated) without it being illegal or financially prohibitive thus ensuring society more culture works.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  > And, yet, a lack of copyright didn't appear to stop people from creating works before copyright existed. And maybe there's more important things for a culture than profit Well. In those days "copying" wasnt all that easy either
  - flawawa2 16y ago
    Wrong. People adapted and built upon other people's music, art and technology.
cma 16y ago
There is also the view that governmental implementation of natural rights has little to do with the actual principles embodied in the rights: http://books.google.com/books?id=MfgtAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=theory+of+business+enterprise&hl=en&ei=igAhTeSaBcOAlAfhreibDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=MfgtAAAAIAAJ&printsec=f...
tbrownaw 16y ago
> The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property For physical goods "you can't take it away from me" always goes with "you can't have it"; I would say that "rightfully his property" here can only mean the first half of that (and so cannot entirely apply to information, where the two parts are distinct). If it meant the second half it would lead to absurdities where third parties can forbid things that have absolutely no effect on them, for example how resaraunts always have to make up their own birthday songs or how playing the radio at works can lead to fines...
Helianthus16 16y ago
Previously compelling, no longer convincing. Lessig didn't ignore it, he overruled it.
forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
"Basically: The product of a human being's work is rightfully his property." It is. But a product of a human being's work could be ALSO my property when I bought it. Of course there is some restrictions of the right that society gives me with this property to make possible for the authors to earn a living, but this restrictions should be limited in time, and this time reasonable, like patents 20-25 years. It is not for the majority of the people of any country, just ask them. In a real democracy people create the laws, not the right holders(who are mainly publishing companies, not authors). "Well, how is it good for the public to move Horton Hears a Who or Sports Illustrated into the public domain? Much less Waiting for Godot." It is good for the public to have films that are masterpieces like Charles Chaplin's, or Orson Welles's, the kind of genius that are atemporal. Isn't important that works of Stefan Zweig, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Auguste Rodin, Richard Strauss, Richard Feynnman, Isaac Asimov and hundreds of others authors from different disciplines are not going to be public domain in our entire life because the American congress continue extending copyright indefinitely as the lobbies order?
ajays 16y ago
"There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. It typically gets ignored (e.g. by people like Lessig)." No, it most certainly does NOT get ignored. What the proponents of change are saying is that IP rights should not be granted in perpetuity. Even patents expire after 20 years; so why not copyrights? Given the money that Disney is making, I would not be surprised if the copyright law gets extended again to "life + 100". This (modifying the law to benefit 1 corporation) is simply WRONG.
- tptacek 16y ago
  It doesn't just benefit one corporation. It profoundly benefits one corporation, and significantly benefits everyone else making a living off intellectual property. The longer the copyright term is, the greater the value of a copyright is.
  - follower 16y ago
    > significantly benefits everyone else making a living off intellectual property. Doesn't that presuppose that the incremental gain from adding another N years of copyright coverage after an author's death is greater than the potential gain if it was accessible now to people who are making their living or--even--simply living? It's not unreasonable to assume that an extremely large proportion of creators (who are only a small--but potentially growing--portion of society) will gain no real benefit from their works being covered by copyright for 70-100 years after their death but are negatively affected by everyone else's creations being covered in the same way. It's not just a question of profit--it's also a question of culture. What wonderful and ground-breaking reinterpretations of culture from the 20th Century are never created--or illegal--because of current copyright law?
    - tptacek 16y ago
      The date of an author's death has little to do with the value of her creation at the time of its creation. Copyrights are transferable. This business about death is a red herring.
hxa7241 16y ago
> There is a compelling natural rights justification for intellectual property. No, there really isn't: it makes no sense when you examine it. Normal property manages a limited resource -- material things. By restricting one person's access to something it ensures access for someone else. IP is fundamentally different: it imposes a restriction where there is none, essentially, needed. Everyone can make copies of something without anyone else losing access to it. Why impose a restriction on a useful abundance? Is there some deep virtue in denying ourselves some benefit? > The fact that it's physically easy to steal intellectual property does not make it right. But this is really the crux. It is exactly this difference that makes all the difference. If I could steal your normal, material, property, but leave it all in your possession, what is there to complain about? In fact, you could copy my property, then we would both have two lots of stuff -- this is not bad, this is good! And people are saying there is a 'natural right' here -- a 'natural right' to stop us from benefiting, costlessly, from each other? It is crazy. You could say that, pragmatically, the best way to fund production is by copyright-like restrictions. That is a reasonable proposition at least. But it is no longer anything to do with 'natural rights': it is not based on any fundamental necessity or desire, it is purely contingent and economic, proven by practicality and evidence.

slantyyz 16y ago

I wouldn't say that the electorate is so much impotent as it is apathetic to issues that affects it. If the "nerds" came out in the same numbers and loudness of the Tea Party, I'm sure you'd see more attention paid by politicians to the issues we love to debate here on HN. Many politicians are just as interested in keeping their job as they are in taking lobbyist money.

ShabbyDoo 16y ago

"It is in the public interest to have works move into the public domain, so that others can build upon them" Could offer some examples of "building upon" others' works which are not allowed without permission under current copyright law? I would like to understand what we as a society might be missing out on. More generally, I become concerned when I hear "public interest" arguments because they usually apply a relatively static analysis of benefit rather than a dynamic economic model. It might be deemed in the public interest for pizza parlors to be forced by law to provide free pizzas. In the short term, we can imagine all the happiness these pizzas would provide. However, in the slightly longer term, it is obvious that there would be no pizza parlors at all. How does one show that limiting copyright would not have the longer-term effect of fewer works being created?

jbri 16y ago
We can get some idea by looking at the vast body of works created when copyright was significantly limited compared to today. While there may be a handful of "artists" who wouldn't end up creating works if they could only profit from them for thirty years instead of a hundred, that is likely insignificant compared to the new works created by building on prior efforts.
flawawa2 16y ago
Art is created because people feel the need. Money should not be the incentive. An example could be a fan-made translation of old works. Mashups. Redubbing of movies. Free recordings of music.