3 ms·

It would be good because it will cause far more attention than the reverse verdict, and there will be some people who would otherwise have feared unspecific con

It would be good because it will cause far more attention than the reverse verdict, and there will be some people who would otherwise have feared unspecific consequences for sharing who will thereby be reassured. It's a PR victory for the forces of anti-copyright (and, to a lesser extent, copyleft), and a conviction would be a draw (there's no way that the music companies can actually win, as far as I can see). I'm interested to hear what you believe the endgame for copyright is, given that you think that those currently ignoring copyright are in the wrong, but that Apple, et al, should go non-DRM? I'm against copyright, and I dislike DRM, but I don't have anything in principle against DRM, as I do against copyright.

ErrantX 18y ago
yes maybe it would get more attention - but what kind of attention? Basically it would amount to the Swedish coaurts saying that providing the infrastructure ot share Copyrighted material was ok.. which it is not. In the face of that could we expect media companies to be reasonable and sit at the table to work out new ways to provide access to digital media/software? This is not a 2 sided battle in my eyes. TPB are as much an enemy to the consumer as the IPFI. And why shouldnt the sharers get some fear? Perhaps it will dissuade them from sharing. Bearing in mind I am massivley pro copyright (as a software developer and writer - even though the majority of my work is open source). In terms of copyright - I too am not too worried by DRM. I would like to see DRM dropped but can understand why it is there. In the Apple case they had to impose stupidly strict DRM just to get the store off the ground. The fact they can now release that music more freely is a testamount to how much the music companies are starting to come round to the consumers viewpoint. I am never one to blame the music companies for wanting to protect their material: even though I do disagree with the prices they charge, how they screw over the artists and how they insist (till now) on locking stuff up in super restrictive DRM. I never fully understood the arguments against copyright. Care to explain?
- randallsquared 18y ago
  Let me preface by noting that I, too, am a software developer, and ran/was an ISV catering primarily to small business from 2001 to 2008. Nevertheless, I am anti-copyright. There are several arguments against copyright, but the one I like most is this: property is necessary because two people cannot both (exclusively) use the same property at the same time. The idea of property solves this, and everyone can agree that that is yours while this is mine. The nature of things is that they can't be available for the exclusive use of two or more people. Ideas (copyright and patents, at least; trademarks are less clear) can be used by more than one person without any impact on others using it: everyone can exclusively use an idea at the same time. The reason for this is that "an idea" isn't a thing at all, but a category of things -- a description of a group, each instance of which is owned by virtue of someone owning the physical thing that instantiates it. In summary: I don't believe in ownership of categories of things, only things themselves. If you look at the origins of copyright, even its supporters didn't believe it was real property; it was purely a utilitarian attempt to encourage production of ideas by extending an analogy of property to idea production, for a limited time. There are still reasonable arguments to be made about whether it's an net economic win or lose for a legal system to include copyright and patent, and other people can argue that point better than I.
  - SteveFoerster 18y ago
    I would go further than this. Censorship is when the state forbids speech. Copyright is a state entitlement of monopoly on specific speech wherein the state forbids it to all but that monopoly holder. Therefore, copyright is censorship. As for economics, I'd guess it's a loss. Copyright and patent are state subsidies for speech and technology. But while you generally do get more of something you subsidize, it's always at a greater cost elsewhere in one's economy.
    - Andys 18y ago
      Well said! I wish there was a way to quantify that greater cost.
    - ErrantX 18y ago
      I thought about this and I think I see where your failing to draw a line. Censorship is about stifiling someones rights - whereas copyright is a "casual enforcement" of someones right to keep control of their own works. It isnt really censorship because what right does anyone have to profit from a piece of work except the original creator?
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    I dont really follow that argument. Copyright doesnt cover ideas - purely creations (like music, software, artwork, films). Ideas do require patents etc. If you have an idea you have to take steps to protect it. If you create a working product based on the idea that specific design is protected by a modicum of copyright. I do see where you are coming from with the ideas thing (the free-software side of me wants me to agree fully that ideas/processes should never be protected). (this is in the UK of course: in the US things might be different)
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      I think you either didn't notice the part of my explanation where I addressed categories, or wouldn't agree that categories are ideas. :) If I create a product -- say, a book I write in longhand with pen on paper -- the product is covered by existing law without copyright. That physical book is mine to do with as I please, assuming I owned the raw materials in the first place. At this point, copyright isn't needed: I could contract with those I allow to read or copy this book. Where copyright comes in is in asserting a right to prevent copying over other physical books which are sufficiently similar to the one I just wrote. I'd be asserting a right to control an entire category of physical objects, rather than specific objects. I think the burden of proof is on those who want to extend property rights to categories of things, as an analogy with property rights in things. I used to use an example wherein I pointed to the absurdity of a car manufacturer asserting a right to all photos of their cars, but some car manufacturer actually did that without widespread derision recently. About ideas/processes: if processes can't be protected, then what about a process which, followed strictly, produces a copyrighted work? Aren't copyright and patent isomorphic in this way?

ErrantX 18y ago

yes maybe it would get more attention - but what kind of attention? Basically it would amount to the Swedish coaurts saying that providing the infrastructure ot share Copyrighted material was ok.. which it is not. In the face of that could we expect media companies to be reasonable and sit at the table to work out new ways to provide access to digital media/software? This is not a 2 sided battle in my eyes. TPB are as much an enemy to the consumer as the IPFI. And why shouldnt the sharers get some fear? Perhaps it will dissuade them from sharing. Bearing in mind I am massivley pro copyright (as a software developer and writer - even though the majority of my work is open source). In terms of copyright - I too am not too worried by DRM. I would like to see DRM dropped but can understand why it is there. In the Apple case they had to impose stupidly strict DRM just to get the store off the ground. The fact they can now release that music more freely is a testamount to how much the music companies are starting to come round to the consumers viewpoint. I am never one to blame the music companies for wanting to protect their material: even though I do disagree with the prices they charge, how they screw over the artists and how they insist (till now) on locking stuff up in super restrictive DRM. I never fully understood the arguments against copyright. Care to explain?

randallsquared 18y ago
Let me preface by noting that I, too, am a software developer, and ran/was an ISV catering primarily to small business from 2001 to 2008. Nevertheless, I am anti-copyright. There are several arguments against copyright, but the one I like most is this: property is necessary because two people cannot both (exclusively) use the same property at the same time. The idea of property solves this, and everyone can agree that that is yours while this is mine. The nature of things is that they can't be available for the exclusive use of two or more people. Ideas (copyright and patents, at least; trademarks are less clear) can be used by more than one person without any impact on others using it: everyone can exclusively use an idea at the same time. The reason for this is that "an idea" isn't a thing at all, but a category of things -- a description of a group, each instance of which is owned by virtue of someone owning the physical thing that instantiates it. In summary: I don't believe in ownership of categories of things, only things themselves. If you look at the origins of copyright, even its supporters didn't believe it was real property; it was purely a utilitarian attempt to encourage production of ideas by extending an analogy of property to idea production, for a limited time. There are still reasonable arguments to be made about whether it's an net economic win or lose for a legal system to include copyright and patent, and other people can argue that point better than I.
- SteveFoerster 18y ago
  I would go further than this. Censorship is when the state forbids speech. Copyright is a state entitlement of monopoly on specific speech wherein the state forbids it to all but that monopoly holder. Therefore, copyright is censorship. As for economics, I'd guess it's a loss. Copyright and patent are state subsidies for speech and technology. But while you generally do get more of something you subsidize, it's always at a greater cost elsewhere in one's economy.
  - Andys 18y ago
    Well said! I wish there was a way to quantify that greater cost.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    I thought about this and I think I see where your failing to draw a line. Censorship is about stifiling someones rights - whereas copyright is a "casual enforcement" of someones right to keep control of their own works. It isnt really censorship because what right does anyone have to profit from a piece of work except the original creator?
- ErrantX 18y ago
  I dont really follow that argument. Copyright doesnt cover ideas - purely creations (like music, software, artwork, films). Ideas do require patents etc. If you have an idea you have to take steps to protect it. If you create a working product based on the idea that specific design is protected by a modicum of copyright. I do see where you are coming from with the ideas thing (the free-software side of me wants me to agree fully that ideas/processes should never be protected). (this is in the UK of course: in the US things might be different)
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    I think you either didn't notice the part of my explanation where I addressed categories, or wouldn't agree that categories are ideas. :) If I create a product -- say, a book I write in longhand with pen on paper -- the product is covered by existing law without copyright. That physical book is mine to do with as I please, assuming I owned the raw materials in the first place. At this point, copyright isn't needed: I could contract with those I allow to read or copy this book. Where copyright comes in is in asserting a right to prevent copying over other physical books which are sufficiently similar to the one I just wrote. I'd be asserting a right to control an entire category of physical objects, rather than specific objects. I think the burden of proof is on those who want to extend property rights to categories of things, as an analogy with property rights in things. I used to use an example wherein I pointed to the absurdity of a car manufacturer asserting a right to all photos of their cars, but some car manufacturer actually did that without widespread derision recently. About ideas/processes: if processes can't be protected, then what about a process which, followed strictly, produces a copyrighted work? Aren't copyright and patent isomorphic in this way?