5 ms·

This is not what copyright is for.

WJW 6y ago
The internet was "for" military communications and academic research sharing, not cat videos or ecommerce. A great many things are used for things other than what they were intended for.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  A meaningless argument. The Internet is for communication, which is still its primary purpose.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    It wasn't for communication in general though, it was for millitary communications - a specific thing. And even if the argument if flawed, the concept underlying it is solid: what something was "originally meant for" is not the same as what something was actually usef for, or found eventually useful for....
    - uryga 6y ago
      im a bit surprised by this thread tbh! the original comment's pragmatics (in the linguistic sense) are pretty clearly "i believe this is an abuse of the copyright mechanism". discussing the system's original purpose or whatever seems besides the point...
      - coldtea 6y ago
        But it's only an abuse of the copyright mechanism based on the "original purpose" (to promote art etc). It's not an abuse based on its actual, de facto, purpose: to sustain profitable back catalogue sales and aid the entertainment industry. So whether the "original purpose" is important is the whole point in determining abuse or not...
        rumanator 6y ago
        It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology. I'm sure that, if you are serious about the discussion, we can easily agree that both are not equivalent or comparable.
        coldtea 6y ago
        >It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology. Not exactly. When the grandparent (metalliqaz) wrote "This is not what copyright is for", I felt like they were the one confusing/conflating the "spirit of the law"(about copyright) with what copyright is actually used for, and intented to be used for, by the parties passing copyright laws and benefiting from them. Copyright might not have been "for this", in some original "spirit of the law" sense, but it very much is for this in the de facto, 70 years plus running, sense. So, I'm saying that there's an expressed spirit of the law and an operating (de facto) spirit of the law. Or, if you will, what the law hypocritically pays lip service to, and what the law is actually drafted and passed to achieve. Those laws might have started back in the day with the intention (spirit) to promote the arts and protect creators etc, but for nearly a century they have been extended with the intention of making the entertainment business more profitable and protecting a multi-trillion US industry. That's the actual spirit those laws are drafted, proposed, passed, and enforced for 70+ years now... Few (if any) in the lawmaking and in the industry cares for the original "spirit of the law", the original wording is just left there as a historical artifact, to justify a different (and even opposing) application of the copyright law.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  "[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, U.S. Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec... (Clearly, US application.) Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted ... Statute of Anne (England, 1701). http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRepresentation?id=representation_uk_1710 http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRepres... The countries of the Union, being equally animated by the desire to protect, in as effective and uniform a manner as possible, the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works,... Berne Convention https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698 https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698 Courts may, and do, invalidate law (or interpretation) inconsistent with Constitutional mandate or legislative intent.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  No. That was the ARPANET. The most recognizable feature of today's internet is the web, which wasn't part of ARPANET. You could say the internet is a descendant of ARPANET, but it's not the same thing.
cortesoft 6y ago
How so? This is increasing the value of created works... isn't that what copyright is for?
gruez 6y ago
It's essentially trading an annuity for a lump sum payment. The issue isn't that it's possible, it's the long copyright terms.
- charlesdm 6y ago
  There is also a tax benefit in the US. A lump sum payment is taxed as capital gains, vs an annuity which will be normal income.
draw_down 6y ago
It is now!
lapinot 6y ago
Indeed, happy to meet someone i'm ripping off while downloading.

WJW 6y ago

The internet was "for" military communications and academic research sharing, not cat videos or ecommerce. A great many things are used for things other than what they were intended for.

metalliqaz 6y ago
A meaningless argument. The Internet is for communication, which is still its primary purpose.
- coldtea 6y ago
  It wasn't for communication in general though, it was for millitary communications - a specific thing. And even if the argument if flawed, the concept underlying it is solid: what something was "originally meant for" is not the same as what something was actually usef for, or found eventually useful for....
  - uryga 6y ago
    im a bit surprised by this thread tbh! the original comment's pragmatics (in the linguistic sense) are pretty clearly "i believe this is an abuse of the copyright mechanism". discussing the system's original purpose or whatever seems besides the point...
    - coldtea 6y ago
      But it's only an abuse of the copyright mechanism based on the "original purpose" (to promote art etc). It's not an abuse based on its actual, de facto, purpose: to sustain profitable back catalogue sales and aid the entertainment industry. So whether the "original purpose" is important is the whole point in determining abuse or not...
      - rumanator 6y ago
        It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology. I'm sure that, if you are serious about the discussion, we can easily agree that both are not equivalent or comparable.
        coldtea 6y ago
        >It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology. Not exactly. When the grandparent (metalliqaz) wrote "This is not what copyright is for", I felt like they were the one confusing/conflating the "spirit of the law"(about copyright) with what copyright is actually used for, and intented to be used for, by the parties passing copyright laws and benefiting from them. Copyright might not have been "for this", in some original "spirit of the law" sense, but it very much is for this in the de facto, 70 years plus running, sense. So, I'm saying that there's an expressed spirit of the law and an operating (de facto) spirit of the law. Or, if you will, what the law hypocritically pays lip service to, and what the law is actually drafted and passed to achieve. Those laws might have started back in the day with the intention (spirit) to promote the arts and protect creators etc, but for nearly a century they have been extended with the intention of making the entertainment business more profitable and protecting a multi-trillion US industry. That's the actual spirit those laws are drafted, proposed, passed, and enforced for 70+ years now... Few (if any) in the lawmaking and in the industry cares for the original "spirit of the law", the original wording is just left there as a historical artifact, to justify a different (and even opposing) application of the copyright law.
dredmorbius 6y ago
"[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, U.S. Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec... (Clearly, US application.) Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted ... Statute of Anne (England, 1701). http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRepresentation?id=representation_uk_1710 http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRepres... The countries of the Union, being equally animated by the desire to protect, in as effective and uniform a manner as possible, the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works,... Berne Convention https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698 https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698 Courts may, and do, invalidate law (or interpretation) inconsistent with Constitutional mandate or legislative intent.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
No. That was the ARPANET. The most recognizable feature of today's internet is the web, which wasn't part of ARPANET. You could say the internet is a descendant of ARPANET, but it's not the same thing.

cortesoft 6y ago

How so? This is increasing the value of created works... isn't that what copyright is for?

gruez 6y ago

It's essentially trading an annuity for a lump sum payment. The issue isn't that it's possible, it's the long copyright terms.

charlesdm 6y ago
There is also a tax benefit in the US. A lump sum payment is taxed as capital gains, vs an annuity which will be normal income.

draw_down 6y ago

It is now!

lapinot 6y ago

Indeed, happy to meet someone i'm ripping off while downloading.