4 ms·

I sincerely hope that this is mostly a generational thing. Younger people (<30) have a drastically different ethical valuation of copyright related issues. Olde

I sincerely hope that this is mostly a generational thing. Younger people (<30) have a drastically different ethical valuation of copyright related issues. Older people (>45-50) who still make up a large number of the judges who field these cases and executives who feel strongly about being infringed upon, have a different valuation. Unfortunately, they have a disproportionate amount of the power. I think that over time, the idea that posting someone else's picture on your blog is worthy of a lawsuit will become laughable and more cases will be dismissed by more understanding judges and less people will try to bring these suits. This may not be the case, but I think it will prove to be one of those fundamental differences between those of us who grew up in the internet age vs. those who wrapped their old moral/ethical framework around it.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>Younger people (<30) have a drastically different ethical valuation of copyright related issues. Older people (>45-50) who still make up a large number of the judges who field these cases and executives who feel strongly about being infringed upon, have a different valuation. In theory judges cast their judgement based on the statute. Whilst I think you have a point that there is a probably a general generational divide on public perception of copyright issues it is irrelevant to the position of the judge. Unless the law is changed their judgement should not change. Judges are not (usually, in a democratic country) there to judge the zeitgeist and modify the law accordingly, that's partially what your administration is in power for. >the idea that posting someone else's picture on your blog is worthy of a lawsuit will become laughable Maybe. This won't happen until all news becomes free-gratis. For example if that picture is a scoop on alien life, that might have cost a lot to obtain, then it creates a great commercial harm to the source to print the image without a license. Of course you may believe that the right to commercial control of information should not exist. I could live with that, I think, but it would take many decades (probably several generations) to transform the world in to such a place IMO.
- schmittz 15y ago
  Yes, judge's should not judge the zeitgeist. I'm confused as to what you mean by "your administration." I'm assuming you assumed I voted for Obama, which I did not (I also didn't vote for the previous administration as I was not old enough). I would, and believe I could successfully, argue that the interpretation of the law is greatly affected by popular societal conceptions, however. I don't think news needs to become free-gratis for such lawsuits to be thrown out of courts. I'd like to see a system where those without material gain cannot be punished for failing to cite (that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't have to, so much as they shouldn't get in trouble for not doing it, which I understand is effectively saying they don't have to).
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >what you mean by "your administration." My intended meaning was "The administration in whatever country you reside". The problem with making your test for commercial action simply "financial gain" is that, for example, a large company can kill a smaller one by copying their stuff and giving it away until the smaller company goes out of business. Or, a large number of individuals can copy your stuff and give it away until your company goes out of business. At which point the content creator is removed from the system - the copyists win but at the expense of commercial content creation. In short forcing someone else financial loss is a highly commercial action (and is currently judged that way). This sort of scenario (effective PD or copyzero for consumers) to my mind will only work in a communist environment. We have to be prepared to support content creators from a public purse if we want the established levels of higher quality content to be made. Of course arguments against commercial artistic and craft creation may work too ("we don't need journalists", "we don't need paid musicians", etc.).

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

>Younger people (<30) have a drastically different ethical valuation of copyright related issues. Older people (>45-50) who still make up a large number of the judges who field these cases and executives who feel strongly about being infringed upon, have a different valuation. In theory judges cast their judgement based on the statute. Whilst I think you have a point that there is a probably a general generational divide on public perception of copyright issues it is irrelevant to the position of the judge. Unless the law is changed their judgement should not change. Judges are not (usually, in a democratic country) there to judge the zeitgeist and modify the law accordingly, that's partially what your administration is in power for. >the idea that posting someone else's picture on your blog is worthy of a lawsuit will become laughable Maybe. This won't happen until all news becomes free-gratis. For example if that picture is a scoop on alien life, that might have cost a lot to obtain, then it creates a great commercial harm to the source to print the image without a license. Of course you may believe that the right to commercial control of information should not exist. I could live with that, I think, but it would take many decades (probably several generations) to transform the world in to such a place IMO.

schmittz 15y ago
Yes, judge's should not judge the zeitgeist. I'm confused as to what you mean by "your administration." I'm assuming you assumed I voted for Obama, which I did not (I also didn't vote for the previous administration as I was not old enough). I would, and believe I could successfully, argue that the interpretation of the law is greatly affected by popular societal conceptions, however. I don't think news needs to become free-gratis for such lawsuits to be thrown out of courts. I'd like to see a system where those without material gain cannot be punished for failing to cite (that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't have to, so much as they shouldn't get in trouble for not doing it, which I understand is effectively saying they don't have to).
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >what you mean by "your administration." My intended meaning was "The administration in whatever country you reside". The problem with making your test for commercial action simply "financial gain" is that, for example, a large company can kill a smaller one by copying their stuff and giving it away until the smaller company goes out of business. Or, a large number of individuals can copy your stuff and give it away until your company goes out of business. At which point the content creator is removed from the system - the copyists win but at the expense of commercial content creation. In short forcing someone else financial loss is a highly commercial action (and is currently judged that way). This sort of scenario (effective PD or copyzero for consumers) to my mind will only work in a communist environment. We have to be prepared to support content creators from a public purse if we want the established levels of higher quality content to be made. Of course arguments against commercial artistic and craft creation may work too ("we don't need journalists", "we don't need paid musicians", etc.).