6 ms·

If someone creates content it is their choice whether or not it's given away for free or if people must pay for it. If you create a song you can give it away fo

If someone creates content it is their choice whether or not it's given away for free or if people must pay for it. If you create a song you can give it away for free, sell it for $0.99 or sell it for $900, that's your choice. I agree some of the copyright laws that exist are silly, but it should still be the content creators choice what happens with that content (or if they sell the rights then the new rights holder etc etc). Your desire, my desire or anyone else's desire for that content (be it music, video, game, program, image) is not more important than the wants of the person who created it. Anyway my point was just that TPB is not a good voice against this, it would be like having Hitler being against anti-freespeech laws, it would make it much easier to justify those laws because of Hitler.

hack_edu 16y ago
Don't mean to put words in his mouth, but I believe he's saying the laws are draconian. Few argue for the outright abolition of IP, and the content you talk about should be protected to encourage the producer to prosper. Its just the "Life + 70 Years" that is draconian.
- latortuga 16y ago
  You're right about the what but not about the why - IP laws should be protected to encourage the progress of Arts and Sciences. The producer's prosperity is secondary and not the goal, it is merely an effective means to that goal.
  - danenania 16y ago
    What is the 'correct' level of progress in Arts and Sciences? It's completely arbitrary. Apples are good. I think there should be more apples. I hereby decree that every man shall plant four apple trees in his yard. Ruling the world is easy!
lutorm 16y ago
No, it's actually not their choice. Society has long recognized that there is a tradeoff between benefits to the creator and benefits to society. As evidenced by e.g. the US copyright clause which says that Congress can (not must) extend copyrights to further the progress of the sciences and the useful arts (not to reward content creators, that's a means, not an end).
- tzs 16y ago
  > No, it's actually not their choice. That's incorrect. See below. > Society has long recognized that there is a tradeoff between benefits to the creator and benefits to society. As evidenced by e.g. the US copyright clause which says that Congress can (not must) extend copyrights to further the progress of the sciences and the useful arts (not to reward content creators, that's a means, not an end). Yes, and society has decided that the proper balance in that tradeoff is to give creators the choice in deciding when particular copies of their works are made available to the public, which means that it is in fact their choice.
  - prayag 16y ago
    I did not want to get into this debate but oh well. >Yes, and society has decided that the proper balance in >that tradeoff is to give creators the choice in deciding >when particular copies of their works are made available to >the public, which means that it is in fact their choice. Not true. There is a fixed length to which copyright on your work lasts. Its not forever and you don't decide the length. Why do you think the society puts a limit on it? Because in essence copyright is a restrictive right. It tells you what you CANNOT do. Copyright is not a right but a privilege in the sense that it tells others not to make copies of the work that you created first. The real reason of having a copyright is not 'for the advancement of science (and culture)'. It is to incentivize the copyright owners to share their creation so in that sense the copyright law is actually created to promote sharing.
    - tzs 16y ago
      You don't decide the length, but while copyright is still in effect for your work, society has decreed that you get to decide when particular copies are first made available to the public.
danenania 16y ago
If what you're selling is just a long string of bits, securing it against copy (not theft) is your problem, not the state's. IP is just a way for established players to be lazy and avoid finding business models that acknowledge reality. Unfortunately, their laziness and greed also cost us civil liberties since freedom to copy a string of bits is indistinguishable from free speech.
- rick888 16y ago
  Since were going with the "songs and music and anything digital are just bits...". What about identity theft? It's just words on a piece of paper representing you as a person. Should we say the same thing when someone "steals" (just like with digital items, nothing is actually stolen) your identity? What about your bank account? In most banks it's just numbers representing money...but it's just 'bits'..right? Currency is also just ink and paper. Like digital goods, it's only as valuable as what people are willing to pay. Why should I be put in jail for copying ink that is on a piece of paper? "IP is just a way for established players to be lazy and avoid finding business models that acknowledge reality. Unfortunately, their laziness and greed also cost us civil liberties since freedom to copy a string of bits is indistinguishable from free speech." You want to talk about greed? The greedy people are the ones that download music and movies for free and devalue the work of people that put hundreds and thousands of hours to make it.
  - danenania 16y ago
    If something tangible is stolen as a result of copying, that is an issue of fraud, not IP. 'Potential profits' are not tangible. The people who put hundreds and thousands of hours into making content aren't the ones who benefit from IP laws. It's the big cartel-ish companies with a zillion lawyers and friends in government who own rights to the IP and pay artists small royalties that rake in all the cash. IP is not necessary for artists and content-producers to make money. This should be fairly obvious by now after the success of the Grateful Dead, the rise of the indie recording industry, free and open source software, etc. I'm not necessarily arguing that copying content isn't a skeevy thing to do in some circumstances. It's definitely a lot more noble to support an artist. But IP laws inject the state's jurisdiction deep into our private lives, and the result is things like continent-sized firewalls and searching of laptops at borders. In this case the solution to the problem is much, much worse than the problem itself. It doesn't even have to be a problem at all--a smart producer can use copying as an advantage.

hack_edu 16y ago

Don't mean to put words in his mouth, but I believe he's saying the laws are draconian. Few argue for the outright abolition of IP, and the content you talk about should be protected to encourage the producer to prosper. Its just the "Life + 70 Years" that is draconian.

latortuga 16y ago
You're right about the what but not about the why - IP laws should be protected to encourage the progress of Arts and Sciences. The producer's prosperity is secondary and not the goal, it is merely an effective means to that goal.
- danenania 16y ago
  What is the 'correct' level of progress in Arts and Sciences? It's completely arbitrary. Apples are good. I think there should be more apples. I hereby decree that every man shall plant four apple trees in his yard. Ruling the world is easy!

lutorm 16y ago

No, it's actually not their choice. Society has long recognized that there is a tradeoff between benefits to the creator and benefits to society. As evidenced by e.g. the US copyright clause which says that Congress can (not must) extend copyrights to further the progress of the sciences and the useful arts (not to reward content creators, that's a means, not an end).

tzs 16y ago
> No, it's actually not their choice. That's incorrect. See below. > Society has long recognized that there is a tradeoff between benefits to the creator and benefits to society. As evidenced by e.g. the US copyright clause which says that Congress can (not must) extend copyrights to further the progress of the sciences and the useful arts (not to reward content creators, that's a means, not an end). Yes, and society has decided that the proper balance in that tradeoff is to give creators the choice in deciding when particular copies of their works are made available to the public, which means that it is in fact their choice.
- prayag 16y ago
  I did not want to get into this debate but oh well. >Yes, and society has decided that the proper balance in >that tradeoff is to give creators the choice in deciding >when particular copies of their works are made available to >the public, which means that it is in fact their choice. Not true. There is a fixed length to which copyright on your work lasts. Its not forever and you don't decide the length. Why do you think the society puts a limit on it? Because in essence copyright is a restrictive right. It tells you what you CANNOT do. Copyright is not a right but a privilege in the sense that it tells others not to make copies of the work that you created first. The real reason of having a copyright is not 'for the advancement of science (and culture)'. It is to incentivize the copyright owners to share their creation so in that sense the copyright law is actually created to promote sharing.
  - tzs 16y ago
    You don't decide the length, but while copyright is still in effect for your work, society has decreed that you get to decide when particular copies are first made available to the public.

danenania 16y ago

If what you're selling is just a long string of bits, securing it against copy (not theft) is your problem, not the state's. IP is just a way for established players to be lazy and avoid finding business models that acknowledge reality. Unfortunately, their laziness and greed also cost us civil liberties since freedom to copy a string of bits is indistinguishable from free speech.

rick888 16y ago
Since were going with the "songs and music and anything digital are just bits...". What about identity theft? It's just words on a piece of paper representing you as a person. Should we say the same thing when someone "steals" (just like with digital items, nothing is actually stolen) your identity? What about your bank account? In most banks it's just numbers representing money...but it's just 'bits'..right? Currency is also just ink and paper. Like digital goods, it's only as valuable as what people are willing to pay. Why should I be put in jail for copying ink that is on a piece of paper? "IP is just a way for established players to be lazy and avoid finding business models that acknowledge reality. Unfortunately, their laziness and greed also cost us civil liberties since freedom to copy a string of bits is indistinguishable from free speech." You want to talk about greed? The greedy people are the ones that download music and movies for free and devalue the work of people that put hundreds and thousands of hours to make it.
- danenania 16y ago
  If something tangible is stolen as a result of copying, that is an issue of fraud, not IP. 'Potential profits' are not tangible. The people who put hundreds and thousands of hours into making content aren't the ones who benefit from IP laws. It's the big cartel-ish companies with a zillion lawyers and friends in government who own rights to the IP and pay artists small royalties that rake in all the cash. IP is not necessary for artists and content-producers to make money. This should be fairly obvious by now after the success of the Grateful Dead, the rise of the indie recording industry, free and open source software, etc. I'm not necessarily arguing that copying content isn't a skeevy thing to do in some circumstances. It's definitely a lot more noble to support an artist. But IP laws inject the state's jurisdiction deep into our private lives, and the result is things like continent-sized firewalls and searching of laptops at borders. In this case the solution to the problem is much, much worse than the problem itself. It doesn't even have to be a problem at all--a smart producer can use copying as an advantage.