12 ms·

Copyright Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism

27 points by vabole 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago
Is RIAA now trying to outlaw the public domain or something?
mukyu 15y ago
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/reply/20110224-Ivan-Hoffman.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/reply/20110224-... This is all I could find from him from the Copyright Office's documents. [1] He does not appear to be talking about things entering the public domain at all. I don't think hearsay of hearsay of one of 84 people talking at a meeting is much to go on. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/ http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/
duke_sam 15y ago
Isn't the whole idea of the government taking action against people for marketing goods against free market capitalism?
- bediger 15y ago
  Well, yes, so we can assume that when this guy said "free-market" he meant more like "polite market, where everyone knows their place, and your place is to GIVE ME MONEY".
fleitz 15y ago
If you think about the internet in terms of democratizing publishing and making more works available to the public. Add in the increased availability of consumers to monetize the content along with self-serve advertising such as AdSense / AdWords. With these advances in place it makes sense that copyright should be shortened because it allows creators to be compensated more quickly. If you contrast works like the Dan Brown's 'Davinci Code' compared to Mary Shelly's 'Frankenstein' it would stand to reason that Dan Brown was able to be remunerated for his efforts much more quickly than Mary Shelly thus the purpose of copyright can be full filled much more quickly and should be shortened in order to make more works available to the public. Which is the stated goal of copyright.
adulau 15y ago
The history showed that many works when going into public domain generated a brand new active market. As an example, the work from Freud has been recently put in the public domain (in Europe, it means only that the patrimonial rights are expected but the effect are somehow similar to put the works in the public domain). The first day you could find in all the book-stores many new publications from his works included annotated version or commented version. All the editors knew it was a good opportunity and a brand new market of works based on previous Freud work. Before the work was closed by the right holders and no real economic activities... So I still don't get the point of that lawyer.
- adulau 15y ago
  Sorry, a small typo: s/expected/expired/
tbrownaw 15y ago
Er, why would this be a problem? Free markets are one of the better ways of distributing scarce resources in the majority of situations. Capitalism is one of the better ways to promote efficient use of scarce resources. If something isn't scarce, there's no need for either of these.
notevillawyer 15y ago
I know it's popular to hate lawyers here but enough is enough=> Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism Copyright is not bad. It has gotten out of hand, but the principle is good. Limited (again, it isn't really anymore, but it should be) protection. Just like if you built a car, created a drug, or manufactured any other widget and someone stole it after you expended the time and effort or production (yes, I know this example has flaws; sweat of the brow etc.) Lawyers also are not universally bad. Though I agree with you there are many I cannot stand. There are dirty cops, crooked politicians, cheating mechanics, lazy doctors and stuck up IT guys and yes, even annoying hackers. You want to bash copyright, fine. You want to bash lawyers, fine. Just don't make blanket statements. A lot of us are on your side. Lawyer for the entertainment industry != copyright lawyer. In my best Han Solo, "sorry about the mess."
- bediger 15y ago
  You may want to re-examine your position that copyright is not bad. There's really not a lot of evidence that any "intellectual property" is good, where "good" is something like pareto efficiency. Any sort of "intellectual property" at all, when enforced by the government, is probably a drag on the economic system. You could start your re-examination with "Against Intellectual Monopoly", http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... especially chapter 6. Personally, it appears to me that a combination of regulatory capture and legislative capture has enabled a few large corporations to define "intellectual property" in such a way that what used to be accepted as inalienable rights of US citizens are widely suppressed. And that's going way, way too far.
- barrkel 15y ago
  There is a conflict between civil liberties and continuation of pre-existing copyright systems when copying becomes easier. Is it better to have a copyright system or a free society? I believe it actually comes down to this at the limit, most particularly for cultural media.
billybob 15y ago
Pure free market capitalism would be if I could buy your book the day it's released, make photocopies, and sell them outside the bookstore for cheaper. Pure free market capitalism would let me make a fake Rolex. It would let me reverse-engineer an iPod and sell it with the label "iPod." There are downsides to this, and that's why we have IP laws. But those laws are not free market capitalism; they are restraints on it.
- gburt 15y ago
  I would call the Rolex/iPod examples fraud, wouldn't you? "Free market capitalism" is only rarely conflated with anarchy. (don't get me wrong, I agree that Intellectual Property is the opposite of "free market")
  - barrkel 15y ago
    Do people who buy fake Rolexes think they are real, or fakes? If you go into a jewellery shop and spend a lot of money on a Rolex but it turns out to be fake, then sure, it's probably fraud. But if you buy one out on the street for 10 bucks, then I hardly think it's fraud. But these things are independent of the physical form of the thing sold; it comes down to the understanding of what is being sold, as in a contract of sale, implicit or explicit.
    - ataggart 15y ago
      If you know it's a fake, then why does it matter what the label says?
      - pessimizer 15y ago
        To impress your peers, which is often the same reason you would buy the real item. That is why manufacturers of luxury and designer products try to conflate knockoffs and counterfeits in legislation.
  - jeffool 15y ago
    More likely it would be trademark violation. After all, who is to decide what "Rolex" means, anyway?
losethos 15y ago
Linux ruined the market for operating systems. The dot-com business model is to get viral and popular, then figure-out how to monitize. LoseThos is public domain. I tried shareware with SimStructure. 6000 downloads and a grand total of $20. On top of that the big boys fucked with me by taking my untrademarked name. Fuck with the man a little too. I've had about 6000 downloads of LoseThos over the many years. I've had well over 70,000 views of my video. I think that's worth $700 from YouTube. Obviously, not gonna make much that way. A more important problem is my model of reality is broken. Download numbers don't obey the statistics I would expect. Fucken live in a contrived reality in many other ways, so it's natural to speculate it's all rigged by angels or something. God says... glorieth forgetteth pile abundance beatific free dissolved Lamentable near bestow presumed heed contained signify length forementioned true ALL incumbrances Revenue unbelieving _ with Again flash physic preceded overcoming Meanwhile stead befell abundantly bowers became son sinks dishonour thing's conscience doctrine inebriate helper forgetteth replied thine carry sawest mount array monster handkerchief indexes annoyance Run diversifiedst smooth expressions Forsake difference carried Academicians Viewing accomplices amidst shortly mist recently hurried attaining inflection relate decrepit augmenting playing stranger learned skin freely seasoned spices exists friends' Victor manifestly joyed conclude ninety knowledge bathe seek diminisheth hadst mourned attention genuinely annoyance Innocency echoes inhabitants places impiety rmunday Honor bargain diversely practised May peace rolled gowned dominion averred Instructor against amiss removal firmly objections enacted grassy enjoy embraced precepts easier badge mind birthright provest awe ensnared READ writings assail distinct theatre tenet wilderness stolidity approbation foolish tasting merged surpassed diseases plague June replenished accompany conquered broad Sacrament kindly glorify satisfying spring
logjam 15y ago
Can't argue with that. 'Course, geniuses like this particular copyright lawyer would note that laws prohibiting strip mining Yosemite "go against free market capitalism" too. More limits on "free market capitalism" will thankfully continue to elevate us a bit above what amounts to the brainless economics and political philosophies of cancer cells.
- sp332 15y ago
  Actually, it's just wrong. Copyright is an artificial, state-enforced restriction on competition. In a free market, people should be able to compete. Copyright is the opposite of the free market.
  - jules 15y ago
    Property law is an artificial, state-enforced restriction on competition. In a free market, people should be able to compete.
    - pyre 15y ago
      Intellectual Property is a concept that tries to put ownership on ideas/abstract concepts. How does one 'own' and idea? In the physical sense, one can 'own' a physical object through possession.
      - jules 15y ago
        In what sense do you own a physical object, and how is it fundamentally different than having the copyrights to a work? What's stopping me from taking the object from you? The same entity that's stopping me from copying and selling a book that you wrote. There are many good arguments against copyright law, but that copyright is somehow fundamentally different than property law is not one of them.
        deskamess 15y ago
        Property rights and copy rights are different beasts. Unlike theft of property, copying does not disenfranchise the originator of his asset. I find Thomas Jeffersons quote instructive: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/ http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-pa... This is why the term intellectual property is not, in my mind, the right term and one can even argue that it has the word 'property' to get us thinking along the lines of 'physical property'. Theft vs. copying.
splat 15y ago
These ideas are reminiscent of the ideas of Andrew Joseph Galambos, who believed that one retained intellectual property rights indefinitely. (Reportedly, he believed that Thomas Paine coined the word "liberty" and put a nickel in a box every time he used the word so that he could pay Paine's descendants for royalties.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos
dexen 15y ago
On a lighter note -- somebody's got serious sense of humour there: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/awards.html http://www.ivanhoffman.com/awards.html (that's part of the website of the lawyer in question, as linked to from Techdirt)

27 points by vabole 15y ago

Is RIAA now trying to outlaw the public domain or something?

mukyu 15y ago

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/reply/20110224-Ivan-Hoffman.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/reply/20110224-... This is all I could find from him from the Copyright Office's documents. [1] He does not appear to be talking about things entering the public domain at all. I don't think hearsay of hearsay of one of 84 people talking at a meeting is much to go on. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/ http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/

duke_sam 15y ago

Isn't the whole idea of the government taking action against people for marketing goods against free market capitalism?

bediger 15y ago
Well, yes, so we can assume that when this guy said "free-market" he meant more like "polite market, where everyone knows their place, and your place is to GIVE ME MONEY".

fleitz 15y ago

If you think about the internet in terms of democratizing publishing and making more works available to the public. Add in the increased availability of consumers to monetize the content along with self-serve advertising such as AdSense / AdWords. With these advances in place it makes sense that copyright should be shortened because it allows creators to be compensated more quickly. If you contrast works like the Dan Brown's 'Davinci Code' compared to Mary Shelly's 'Frankenstein' it would stand to reason that Dan Brown was able to be remunerated for his efforts much more quickly than Mary Shelly thus the purpose of copyright can be full filled much more quickly and should be shortened in order to make more works available to the public. Which is the stated goal of copyright.

adulau 15y ago

The history showed that many works when going into public domain generated a brand new active market. As an example, the work from Freud has been recently put in the public domain (in Europe, it means only that the patrimonial rights are expected but the effect are somehow similar to put the works in the public domain). The first day you could find in all the book-stores many new publications from his works included annotated version or commented version. All the editors knew it was a good opportunity and a brand new market of works based on previous Freud work. Before the work was closed by the right holders and no real economic activities... So I still don't get the point of that lawyer.

adulau 15y ago
Sorry, a small typo: s/expected/expired/

tbrownaw 15y ago

Er, why would this be a problem? Free markets are one of the better ways of distributing scarce resources in the majority of situations. Capitalism is one of the better ways to promote efficient use of scarce resources. If something isn't scarce, there's no need for either of these.

notevillawyer 15y ago

I know it's popular to hate lawyers here but enough is enough=> Entertainment Industry Lawyer: The Public Domain Goes Against Free Market Capitalism Copyright is not bad. It has gotten out of hand, but the principle is good. Limited (again, it isn't really anymore, but it should be) protection. Just like if you built a car, created a drug, or manufactured any other widget and someone stole it after you expended the time and effort or production (yes, I know this example has flaws; sweat of the brow etc.) Lawyers also are not universally bad. Though I agree with you there are many I cannot stand. There are dirty cops, crooked politicians, cheating mechanics, lazy doctors and stuck up IT guys and yes, even annoying hackers. You want to bash copyright, fine. You want to bash lawyers, fine. Just don't make blanket statements. A lot of us are on your side. Lawyer for the entertainment industry != copyright lawyer. In my best Han Solo, "sorry about the mess."

bediger 15y ago
You may want to re-examine your position that copyright is not bad. There's really not a lot of evidence that any "intellectual property" is good, where "good" is something like pareto efficiency. Any sort of "intellectual property" at all, when enforced by the government, is probably a drag on the economic system. You could start your re-examination with "Against Intellectual Monopoly", http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... especially chapter 6. Personally, it appears to me that a combination of regulatory capture and legislative capture has enabled a few large corporations to define "intellectual property" in such a way that what used to be accepted as inalienable rights of US citizens are widely suppressed. And that's going way, way too far.
barrkel 15y ago
There is a conflict between civil liberties and continuation of pre-existing copyright systems when copying becomes easier. Is it better to have a copyright system or a free society? I believe it actually comes down to this at the limit, most particularly for cultural media.

billybob 15y ago

Pure free market capitalism would be if I could buy your book the day it's released, make photocopies, and sell them outside the bookstore for cheaper. Pure free market capitalism would let me make a fake Rolex. It would let me reverse-engineer an iPod and sell it with the label "iPod." There are downsides to this, and that's why we have IP laws. But those laws are not free market capitalism; they are restraints on it.

gburt 15y ago
I would call the Rolex/iPod examples fraud, wouldn't you? "Free market capitalism" is only rarely conflated with anarchy. (don't get me wrong, I agree that Intellectual Property is the opposite of "free market")
- barrkel 15y ago
  Do people who buy fake Rolexes think they are real, or fakes? If you go into a jewellery shop and spend a lot of money on a Rolex but it turns out to be fake, then sure, it's probably fraud. But if you buy one out on the street for 10 bucks, then I hardly think it's fraud. But these things are independent of the physical form of the thing sold; it comes down to the understanding of what is being sold, as in a contract of sale, implicit or explicit.
  - ataggart 15y ago
    If you know it's a fake, then why does it matter what the label says?
    - pessimizer 15y ago
      To impress your peers, which is often the same reason you would buy the real item. That is why manufacturers of luxury and designer products try to conflate knockoffs and counterfeits in legislation.
- jeffool 15y ago
  More likely it would be trademark violation. After all, who is to decide what "Rolex" means, anyway?

losethos 15y ago

Linux ruined the market for operating systems. The dot-com business model is to get viral and popular, then figure-out how to monitize. LoseThos is public domain. I tried shareware with SimStructure. 6000 downloads and a grand total of $20. On top of that the big boys fucked with me by taking my untrademarked name. Fuck with the man a little too. I've had about 6000 downloads of LoseThos over the many years. I've had well over 70,000 views of my video. I think that's worth $700 from YouTube. Obviously, not gonna make much that way. A more important problem is my model of reality is broken. Download numbers don't obey the statistics I would expect. Fucken live in a contrived reality in many other ways, so it's natural to speculate it's all rigged by angels or something. God says... glorieth forgetteth pile abundance beatific free dissolved Lamentable near bestow presumed heed contained signify length forementioned true ALL incumbrances Revenue unbelieving _ with Again flash physic preceded overcoming Meanwhile stead befell abundantly bowers became son sinks dishonour thing's conscience doctrine inebriate helper forgetteth replied thine carry sawest mount array monster handkerchief indexes annoyance Run diversifiedst smooth expressions Forsake difference carried Academicians Viewing accomplices amidst shortly mist recently hurried attaining inflection relate decrepit augmenting playing stranger learned skin freely seasoned spices exists friends' Victor manifestly joyed conclude ninety knowledge bathe seek diminisheth hadst mourned attention genuinely annoyance Innocency echoes inhabitants places impiety rmunday Honor bargain diversely practised May peace rolled gowned dominion averred Instructor against amiss removal firmly objections enacted grassy enjoy embraced precepts easier badge mind birthright provest awe ensnared READ writings assail distinct theatre tenet wilderness stolidity approbation foolish tasting merged surpassed diseases plague June replenished accompany conquered broad Sacrament kindly glorify satisfying spring

logjam 15y ago

Can't argue with that. 'Course, geniuses like this particular copyright lawyer would note that laws prohibiting strip mining Yosemite "go against free market capitalism" too. More limits on "free market capitalism" will thankfully continue to elevate us a bit above what amounts to the brainless economics and political philosophies of cancer cells.

sp332 15y ago
Actually, it's just wrong. Copyright is an artificial, state-enforced restriction on competition. In a free market, people should be able to compete. Copyright is the opposite of the free market.
- jules 15y ago
  Property law is an artificial, state-enforced restriction on competition. In a free market, people should be able to compete.
  - pyre 15y ago
    Intellectual Property is a concept that tries to put ownership on ideas/abstract concepts. How does one 'own' and idea? In the physical sense, one can 'own' a physical object through possession.
    - jules 15y ago
      In what sense do you own a physical object, and how is it fundamentally different than having the copyrights to a work? What's stopping me from taking the object from you? The same entity that's stopping me from copying and selling a book that you wrote. There are many good arguments against copyright law, but that copyright is somehow fundamentally different than property law is not one of them.
      - deskamess 15y ago
        Property rights and copy rights are different beasts. Unlike theft of property, copying does not disenfranchise the originator of his asset. I find Thomas Jeffersons quote instructive: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/ http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-pa... This is why the term intellectual property is not, in my mind, the right term and one can even argue that it has the word 'property' to get us thinking along the lines of 'physical property'. Theft vs. copying.

splat 15y ago

These ideas are reminiscent of the ideas of Andrew Joseph Galambos, who believed that one retained intellectual property rights indefinitely. (Reportedly, he believed that Thomas Paine coined the word "liberty" and put a nickel in a box every time he used the word so that he could pay Paine's descendants for royalties.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Joseph_Galambos

dexen 15y ago

On a lighter note -- somebody's got serious sense of humour there: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/awards.html http://www.ivanhoffman.com/awards.html (that's part of the website of the lawyer in question, as linked to from Techdirt)