4 ms·

Why have copyright at all? More to the point, if you're going to have it, how are you going to enforce it on the Internet? The number of ways in which a high-

by sethrin 14y ago

Why have copyright at all? More to the point, if you're going to have it, how are you going to enforce it on the Internet? The number of ways in which a high-quality digital copy of a potentially copyrighted work is nearly infinite. Some of them are legitimate: reading a properly licensed file into memory in order to consume it. Some are clearly not legitimate, and others fall into a gray area. The practical ease with which copyright may be violated is in itself an argument against its rigid enforcement. Without a pervasive technical infrastructure the question of, "Can I copy these bits?" is essentially unanswerable. The duration of copyright is not nearly as large of a problem as enforcement -- the current system doesn't seem to work too well. To a first approximation, there is no such thing as copyright of a digital work. So why should that change, and how do you plan to do that?

mratzloff 14y ago
The practical ease with which laws against murder may be violated is in itself an argument against its rigid enforcement. If you have a problem with copyright in and of itself, make a case based on that. The logical conclusion of your argument as it stands, however, is "laws may be violated so we should have no laws".
- visakanv 14y ago
  My interpretation of his stance is- "there's not much point having a law if it's technically being violated all the time, and it's exploited by those with power and authority to suit their own ends". He's not promoting lawlessness, he's recognizing it as the current state of affairs, and suggesting that we address it differently.
  - duck 14y ago
    With that logic you could say the same thing about speed limits.
    - habitue 14y ago
      Yes, actually, there are lots of places with much higher speed limits on the highways. Good point.
- sethrin 14y ago
  Let us consider a world where all copyrights were enforced to the letter in every instance. This is a world mostly imprisoned, or ruined by debt. Let us further consider a world where 10% of all copyrights were enforced. The world may be less incarcerated, but I doubt it. The world we inhabit has in all likelihood an enforcement rate of less than one in one billion, and violators include most of the population. You have made a logical error in oversimplifying the argument at hand. Either extreme of enforcement is absurd. It is to no one's benefit to have laws which may be routinely violated, often unknowingly, by the overwhelming majority of the population. That being the case with copyright means not that people are a problem, or the technology is doing something other than what it was built for, but that we are trying to criminalize something that is fundamental to the functions of both. You may well argue for the necessity of law, but please instead argue for the necessity of this law. It is abundantly clear that the law as written is as effective as criminalizing flatulence, or the encroaching tide. One hopes that in those events you will not feel called upon to make the same argument.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    > Let us consider a world where all copyrights were enforced > to the letter in every instance. This is a world mostly imprisoned, > or ruined by debt. You could say this of virtually any law. Under your construction, the current president of the United States would be in prison on drugs charges, the former president for desertion, and the former president's wife for vehicular homicide. Law (and its enforcement) are inherently discretionary. Appropriate use of that discretion is key to a well-functioning society. There is a great deal that's wrong with the present copyright scheme. A rational scheme, with much shorter terms of copyright, very brief corporate assignments (after which terms revert to authors), mandatory registration for copyright extended beyond a de minimus period (3-7 years or so), ample and clear exemptions for various fair use (personal, educational, creative, remix, adaptation), and an escalating fee schedule for additional extensions, would help greatly. While digital capabilities make copyright violation much easier, they also make detection and correction of significant violations much easier (too easy, according to many).
    - sethrin 14y ago
GHFigs 14y ago
What you've got is more of an argument against inefficient or wasteful means of enforcement than the concept as a whole. Compare: "The practical ease with which privacy may be violated is in itself an argument against its rigid enforcement."
- sethrin 14y ago
  Absolutely. In a similar sense,we recognize that privacy is a right which is not enforceable in public, or for celebrities. It's possible that an expectation of privacy on the Internet is also unreasonable. You're not making the point you think you are. Show that copyright may be effectively policed.

by sethrin 14y ago

mratzloff 14y ago

The practical ease with which laws against murder may be violated is in itself an argument against its rigid enforcement. If you have a problem with copyright in and of itself, make a case based on that. The logical conclusion of your argument as it stands, however, is "laws may be violated so we should have no laws".

visakanv 14y ago
My interpretation of his stance is- "there's not much point having a law if it's technically being violated all the time, and it's exploited by those with power and authority to suit their own ends". He's not promoting lawlessness, he's recognizing it as the current state of affairs, and suggesting that we address it differently.
- duck 14y ago
  With that logic you could say the same thing about speed limits.
  - habitue 14y ago
    Yes, actually, there are lots of places with much higher speed limits on the highways. Good point.
sethrin 14y ago
Let us consider a world where all copyrights were enforced to the letter in every instance. This is a world mostly imprisoned, or ruined by debt. Let us further consider a world where 10% of all copyrights were enforced. The world may be less incarcerated, but I doubt it. The world we inhabit has in all likelihood an enforcement rate of less than one in one billion, and violators include most of the population. You have made a logical error in oversimplifying the argument at hand. Either extreme of enforcement is absurd. It is to no one's benefit to have laws which may be routinely violated, often unknowingly, by the overwhelming majority of the population. That being the case with copyright means not that people are a problem, or the technology is doing something other than what it was built for, but that we are trying to criminalize something that is fundamental to the functions of both. You may well argue for the necessity of law, but please instead argue for the necessity of this law. It is abundantly clear that the law as written is as effective as criminalizing flatulence, or the encroaching tide. One hopes that in those events you will not feel called upon to make the same argument.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  > Let us consider a world where all copyrights were enforced > to the letter in every instance. This is a world mostly imprisoned, > or ruined by debt. You could say this of virtually any law. Under your construction, the current president of the United States would be in prison on drugs charges, the former president for desertion, and the former president's wife for vehicular homicide. Law (and its enforcement) are inherently discretionary. Appropriate use of that discretion is key to a well-functioning society. There is a great deal that's wrong with the present copyright scheme. A rational scheme, with much shorter terms of copyright, very brief corporate assignments (after which terms revert to authors), mandatory registration for copyright extended beyond a de minimus period (3-7 years or so), ample and clear exemptions for various fair use (personal, educational, creative, remix, adaptation), and an escalating fee schedule for additional extensions, would help greatly. While digital capabilities make copyright violation much easier, they also make detection and correction of significant violations much easier (too easy, according to many).
  - sethrin 14y ago

GHFigs 14y ago

What you've got is more of an argument against inefficient or wasteful means of enforcement than the concept as a whole. Compare: "The practical ease with which privacy may be violated is in itself an argument against its rigid enforcement."

sethrin 14y ago
Absolutely. In a similar sense,we recognize that privacy is a right which is not enforceable in public, or for celebrities. It's possible that an expectation of privacy on the Internet is also unreasonable. You're not making the point you think you are. Show that copyright may be effectively policed.