5 ms·

I think the musings of Philip Greenspun at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/16/aaron-swartz-followup-can-we-get-government-out-of-the-copyright-enforc

by thrill 14y ago

I think the musings of Philip Greenspun at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/16/aaron-swartz-followup-can-we-get-government-out-of-the-copyright-enforcement-business/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/16/aaron-swartz-f... that we need to make copyright violation a purely civil matter would be a proper step.

mpyne 14y ago
That would be a great step. It wouldn't have completely helped Aaron (who was also saddled with wire fraud and computer fraud charges), except that it may have reduced the "loss" calculation enough to not trigger the CFAA provisions.
stretchwithme 14y ago
Wouldn't that mean people without assets could do whatever they liked with copyrighted materials?
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  One thing they couldn't do is profit from the materials -- as they'd then have seizable assets. But, yeah, a bunch of broke-ass teenagers sharing music amonst themselves? I'm down with that.
  - jychang 14y ago
    What about profiting at a lower price? Playing devil's advocate here: I agree with "teens sharing music", but what if I sold them for, say, half iTunes price, and made $500. I would deprive an artist while profiting for enough money, and if I spend it, the money is gone. Seems broken.
    - Peaker 14y ago
      Why would someone buy them from you at half price, when they can illegally download them for free?
  - stretchwithme 14y ago
    As long as they spent, gave away or hid their ill gotten gains, it would still be out of reach of law suits.
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      That produces a money trail which, at least in theory, could be tracked and recovered. If it's an economic crime, chase the money. If it's a cultural crime[1], to quote some Liverpudlian, let it be. 1. In the sense of: propagating the popular culture.
      - stretchwithme 14y ago
        what produces a money trail? If its all cash, its elusive as drug money. All kinds of things are sold for cash and never reported. You've probably left tips that weren't unreported.
- gjm11 14y ago
  People without assets: that is, precisely those people for whom "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so the rights-owners have lost anything" is demonstrably correct. Seems OK to me.
  - stretchwithme 14y ago
    People without assets buy things all the time.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "Wouldn't that mean people without assets could do whatever they liked with copyrighted materials?" Would that be a bad thing? I can see it now: poor people would be allowed to sing "Happy Birthday to You" without becoming criminals! Really though, why should we be afraid that poor people will violate copyrights with impunity? Copyright is far too complex and has far too many subtleties for anyone lacking a team of lawyers to work with. Would a judge consider this rendition of "Happy Birthday" to be fair use? If there are 6 people watching the Super Bowl, is that a public performance? Is it OK to let my neighbor listen to music I downloaded onto my computer if they are accessing my wireless network with my permission? Large companies have the resources needed to reason about copyrights. For the rest of us, it is either "just play along like everyone else" or "you're a criminal and you'll need a team of lawyers to prove otherwise!"
  - stretchwithme 14y ago
    People can sing happy birthday to you without being arrested. I've done it many times, even when I was poor. I'd rather see the copyright period shortened so that there is adequate incentive to produce without us having to pay forever. We should pay as much as we need to pay. And not pay more just because the industry has better representation in Washington than the people do. We could, for example, make a song public domain after 5 years, unless it has not yet produced 10 million in revenue. That is more than enough incentive to write a song.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      "Happy Birthday to You" is copyrighted, and public performances of the song likely count as copyright infringement. That is the reason that most major chains have their own version of the birthday song. I am not claiming that Warner is going to send a paramilitary team into your home the moment you sing the song; it is, however, a commonly given example of how out-of-control the copyright system has become.
      - stretchwithme 14y ago
        People singing a song is not necessarily a public performance.

by thrill 14y ago

mpyne 14y ago

That would be a great step. It wouldn't have completely helped Aaron (who was also saddled with wire fraud and computer fraud charges), except that it may have reduced the "loss" calculation enough to not trigger the CFAA provisions.

stretchwithme 14y ago

Wouldn't that mean people without assets could do whatever they liked with copyrighted materials?

dredmorbius 14y ago
One thing they couldn't do is profit from the materials -- as they'd then have seizable assets. But, yeah, a bunch of broke-ass teenagers sharing music amonst themselves? I'm down with that.
- jychang 14y ago
  What about profiting at a lower price? Playing devil's advocate here: I agree with "teens sharing music", but what if I sold them for, say, half iTunes price, and made $500. I would deprive an artist while profiting for enough money, and if I spend it, the money is gone. Seems broken.
  - Peaker 14y ago
    Why would someone buy them from you at half price, when they can illegally download them for free?
- stretchwithme 14y ago
  As long as they spent, gave away or hid their ill gotten gains, it would still be out of reach of law suits.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    That produces a money trail which, at least in theory, could be tracked and recovered. If it's an economic crime, chase the money. If it's a cultural crime[1], to quote some Liverpudlian, let it be. 1. In the sense of: propagating the popular culture.
    - stretchwithme 14y ago
      what produces a money trail? If its all cash, its elusive as drug money. All kinds of things are sold for cash and never reported. You've probably left tips that weren't unreported.
gjm11 14y ago
People without assets: that is, precisely those people for whom "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so the rights-owners have lost anything" is demonstrably correct. Seems OK to me.
- stretchwithme 14y ago
  People without assets buy things all the time.
betterunix 14y ago
"Wouldn't that mean people without assets could do whatever they liked with copyrighted materials?" Would that be a bad thing? I can see it now: poor people would be allowed to sing "Happy Birthday to You" without becoming criminals! Really though, why should we be afraid that poor people will violate copyrights with impunity? Copyright is far too complex and has far too many subtleties for anyone lacking a team of lawyers to work with. Would a judge consider this rendition of "Happy Birthday" to be fair use? If there are 6 people watching the Super Bowl, is that a public performance? Is it OK to let my neighbor listen to music I downloaded onto my computer if they are accessing my wireless network with my permission? Large companies have the resources needed to reason about copyrights. For the rest of us, it is either "just play along like everyone else" or "you're a criminal and you'll need a team of lawyers to prove otherwise!"
- stretchwithme 14y ago
  People can sing happy birthday to you without being arrested. I've done it many times, even when I was poor. I'd rather see the copyright period shortened so that there is adequate incentive to produce without us having to pay forever. We should pay as much as we need to pay. And not pay more just because the industry has better representation in Washington than the people do. We could, for example, make a song public domain after 5 years, unless it has not yet produced 10 million in revenue. That is more than enough incentive to write a song.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "Happy Birthday to You" is copyrighted, and public performances of the song likely count as copyright infringement. That is the reason that most major chains have their own version of the birthday song. I am not claiming that Warner is going to send a paramilitary team into your home the moment you sing the song; it is, however, a commonly given example of how out-of-control the copyright system has become.
    - stretchwithme 14y ago
      People singing a song is not necessarily a public performance.