Google's Print Project

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

It's interesting to note that despite insistance that ideas are not property, your voicing of that opinion relies entirely on possessives to communicate it. Whether Locke accepted it or not, I (and most people, from my experience) look at ideas as property. The way we choose to describe them casually shows that. We refer to branded characters and situations as "properties" quite explicitly.

de facto and de juris are different matters. If you're looking to change the fact that the rich have more protection de facto than others, in ANY area, you've got many more worries than adjusting copyright. The fact that they can hire the best lawyers instead of relying on the public defender lottery is the most basic of these inequalities. As long as people are willing to do things for money, that's the case.

However, the *law* does not recognize the difference between rich or poor. Writing the law so that it inherently does so would be, I think, a severe case of prejudice, in either direction. I would venture to say that it violates the foundations of the Constitution.

So, the obvious response to this view I've stated is that the law, by forcing people to have to enforce their own copyright by identifying and then suing those who infringe favors the rich. Well, fair enough. But instead of writing into law words that explicitly discriminate on the basis of net value, how about we just urge the government to employ people to investigate copyright violations and perform the prosecution (if necessary) rather than have it be a civil suit? That removes the expensive lawyer lawsuit advantage, and puts copyright enforcement on equalfooting with any other crime.

I guess my point is that the PRINCIPLES of copyright law do not favor the rich any more than any other law on the books, so I don't think that it's a fair argument to make that a sticking point.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

The government isn't taking anything away from you.  It is the government that is hammering down on others to prevent them from using your words, your thoughts, your world, etc.  That's pro-active action on government's part (ie, capitalistic Socialism).  If government stayed out of it entirely, then you wouldn't have any protection at all.  Keep that in mind.

uhm.. so writing a law is proactive enforcement? No. The government has simply written a law to protect others from moving in on your property. Enforcing this one, currently, is entirely up to the owner. You have to sue to enforce it. There are currently no CSI agents locating instances of copyright infringement or turning out evidence for those violated to use in court.

I think it comes down to a matter of perception over which the government is doing. But I don't really see any fascist intervention by the government when they stop me from taking someone else's property without permission. That, it seems to me, is the same as saying that the government is dictatorial when it says that trespassing private property or burglarizing my neighbors is illegal.

Ideas are like any other commodity. The more you have access to, the more you can do. I don't see why, in an economy that is primarily based on ideas, you find it abhorrent that ideas are treated like property. If anything, it seems to me that this situation calls for stronger protection of ideas, not less.


--note, it seems I misread a couple words in this quote. It seems I'm in more agreement on this with JadeKnight than I thought, at least in terms of the activity of the government.  HOwever, the disagreement over the degree to which this activity has gotten to the degree of "oppressive" remains, so I won't change the main body of my comments.

[The Jade Knight]

We refer to branded characters and situations as "properties" quite explicitly.

IPs, yes.  But they follow quite a different set of rules, and even our concepts of "property" get shattered from time to time (the definition of traditional property was revolutionized this century alone).

. The fact that they can hire the best lawyers instead of relying on the public defender lottery is the most basic of these inequalities.

I agree that it's not a limited problem, but part of this is that the rich expand usage of "copyright protections" to edge out competition, legislate copyright meanings, and terrorize those who oppose its agenda.

However, the *law* does not recognize the difference between rich or poor. Writing the law so that it inherently does so would be, I think, a severe case of prejudice, in either direction.

I agree, and yet the laws are being written to encourage monopolies in the IP-world.

But instead of writing into law words that explicitly discriminate on the basis of net value

I would never suggest this.  I like your suggestion better, but part of the problem is that the big corporations are the ones deciding, to an extent, what laws get written.


Again, I'm not opposed to copyright.  I've stated that at least half a dozen times by now.  Copyright is a good thing.  But, in my mind, at least, the purpose of copyright is to encourage Creativity.  And if creating means you have to constantly be worried about a lawsuit on your hands, or if many types of creating are deemed illegal or are filled with red tape because some corporation has lobbied to make it so, and fair use is being eroded, then we have a problem.

Now, this isn't as big of a problem with printed works as it is in other domains - thank goodness there's no print version of the RIAA (to lobby congress to pass legislation installing locks on word processors, printers, and scanners).  However, there's still the problem of the Public Domain suffering, and Fair Use Rights vanishing.

[Skar]

"Private Property"?  You have a strange concept of private property, and Lockean notions of private property had nothing to do with copyright as it's observed today.

The government isn't taking anything away from you.  It is the government that is hammering down on others to prevent them from using your words, your thoughts, your world, etc.  That's pro-active action on government's part (ie, capitalistic Socialism).  If government stayed out of it entirely, then you wouldn't have any protection at all.  Keep that in mind.

Capitalistic Socialism?  In the most polite manner possible I ask, did you make that up?

I never said the government wanted to take anything away from me.  I said you did, as in, the "camp advocating making private property less under the conrol of its owners/creators so that it can be given for free to the masses".  Currently my government protects my private property (and to clear something up, I'm not referring to Lockean notions of private property.  I'm referring to things that belong to me/private citizens.) for me, at my behest. Whether it's my car or my book, the government enforces laws that make it illegal for others to steal them from me.  Whether you say you are "pro copyright" or not, you're advocating that that protection be lessened.  You are advocating that my property be more easily taken from me.

And as for the government staying entirely out of it, you're the one that was complaining about oppressive/invasive government, not I.  Keep in mind that you should take the time to read and understand other people's posts before responding to them.

Actually, they are.  In practice in America, copyright protects those with money (ie, who can afford Copyright/IP lawyers), and does not protect those without it (the rest of us).

Did you read what you quoted?  This is exactly why I said, "under the law."  Pointing out that we have not acheived the ideal is meaningless.  It doesn't change the ideal we're striving for.  It just points to a whole slew of other problems that allow the rich to work the system, and only in the most general sense does it have anything to do with the discussion at hand.  Focus.

They lobby congress to change and enact laws that the general populace wouldn't want (or benefit from), but we don't have money to throw to politicial candidates to try to counteract that.

At least half the blame you ascribe to the rich here actually belongs to the people who keep electing politicians who bow to special interest groups.  Again, the reality doesn't match the ideal.  No surprise there.

But the core of the matter I was responding to was your claim that strict copyright law smacks of socialism. It is there that you seem to equate the rich folk with government.  If the rich folk were the government, then you'd have a point.  They aren't.  I recognize that rich folk have more clout, for all the wrong reasons, but they do.  Oh well.  Would you draw a line at some point and say, "Once you're this rich you don't get to have a say in government anymore." ?

Keeping the private citizen in control of his own property protects him from the rich as well as everyone else who wants to steal his property.  It's what allows him to join the rich in their richness.  Take it away and he's got no chance at all to improve his situation.

I recognize that your pro-copyright and just think some things should be changed about it.  I can say the same.  I'm objecting to your charactrisation of those who want to keep strong copyright laws in place as socialist.  It's a bit of a reach.

[The Jade Knight]

There are currently no CSI agents locating instances of copyright infringement or turning out evidence for those violated to use in court.

Actually, government raids have begun, and the RIAA and MPAA are pressing the government to increase them significantly.


I agree that ideas need to be protected.

That said, I've seen too many abuses of this, and I think things need to change to reduce the abuses.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Look, I've yet to say you're in favor of completely removing copyrights. I jsut don't agree that it's as bad as you say.

What do you think about my idea of making copyright enforcement a government job, rather than being done by private law suit?

[The Jade Knight]

In the most polite manner possible I ask, did you make that up?

Certainly not.  A quick google search of Capitalist Socialism gives nearly two thousand hits.  I don't consider the two mutually exclusive.  Capitalist Communism, on the other hand. . .

I said you did, as in, the "camp advocating making private property less under the conrol of its owners/creators so that it can be given for free to the masses".

Well, let's look at this one way:
More control: You should have no right to quote me, or to even mention my ideas.  You should not be able to read my writing aloud, or write anything that uses any of the ideas it contains.  You should not be able to resell or modify copies you've boughten.
Less control: You should have the right to quote me, but not copy my writing in its entirety.  You should be able to read it aloud, or share it with others.  You should be able to write things that are based on my own writing (such as using an Academic theory I invented), so long as you attribute to me my contributions.  You should be free to modify (for personal use), or resell what you have.


Out of these two, I think "less control" is vastly superior.  I think the lives of everyone, on the whole, will be much better for it, and I feel that it would harm the "copyright owner" very little.  It's a good with very little bad.  "More control", however, I see as a bad with very little good.  As you can see, it's not a simple matter of "how easily things are taken away from you".

At least half the blame you ascribe to the rich here actually belongs to the people who keep electing politicians who bow to special interest groups.

Partly because these politicians get more advertising/campaign funding.  But we're starting to get onto a different discussion here, and I think we'd both prefer we didn't for now.

I'm objecting to your charactrisation of those who want to keep strong copyright laws in place as socialist.

I view the government intervention they're advocating as Socialist.  For me, Socialism = big government.  I do understand, however, that there's a difference between theoretical Socialism (government for the people) and practical Socialism (big, invasive government, regardless of whether it helps the people or not).

[Ooh.  Earthquake]

[The Jade Knight]

What do you think about my idea of making copyright enforcement a government job, rather than being done by private law suit?

Perhaps what would be best is if lawyers for both sides were government-provided.  Your suggestion would only encourage the sort of Socialism I'm opposed to, and would only be more invasive, and needlessly expensive.

However, having the government provide the lawyers would prevent the problem of the big guys being able to afford high-quality copyright lawyers and the poor guy getting someone who may not know a thing about copyright.

[House of Mustard]

Out of curiousity Jade Knight, what changes would you propose?  How would you balance the protection of personal property with making information available to everyone?

[The Jade Knight]

Out of curiousity Jade Knight, what changes would you propose?  How would you balance the protection of personal property with making information available to everyone?

I would personally advocate repealling the DMCA and the SBCEA, and writing legislation that protects Fair Use rights and specifies activities that are specifically unregulated (if possible/feasible).  It probably wouldn't hurt to have some sort of provision to make it easier for "orphan works" to enter the Public Domain, either, or to include legislation pre-empting further copyright extensions (may not make a difference, but at least it would be a slight deterrent).


It may be worth noting that the ALA (and even some publishers) were opposed to the SBCEA.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Perhaps what would be best is if lawyers for both sides were government-provided.  Your suggestion would only encourage the sort of Socialism I'm opposed to, and would only be more invasive, and needlessly expensive.

I'm not sure I follow you there.
I'm not talking strictly about lawyers, though I am saying there should be prosecutors and public defenders for copyright, just like any other crime. I'm talking about the investigators being law enforcement officers, the cases being tried in criminal courts instead of civil, etc. Treat it like any other law. Instead of saying that it's a law and then not do anything about it (which seems pointless). Sure, this is more expensive. But it seems to be the only fair way to enforce it if your complaint is about the rich always getting their way. Any reform you suggest that doesn't involve fairly adjucated enforcement won't correct any of the de facto problems you speak about. I would imagine they'd just make things worse, in fact, making it easier to pin the guy with no money with a crime more easily while the rich attacking them paint their own crimes in a better light more easily with relaxed laws.

Well, let's look at this one way:
More control: You should have no right to quote me, or to even mention my ideas.  You should not be able to read my writing aloud, or write anything that uses any of the ideas it contains.  You should not be able to resell or modify copies you've boughten.
Less control: You should have the right to quote me, but not copy my writing in its entirely.  You should be able to read it aloud, or share it with others.  You should be able to write things that are based on my own writing (such as using an Academic theory I invented), so long as you attribute to me my contributions.  You should be free to modify (for personal use), or resell what you have.

I think that sets up a false dichotomy. There's a continuum. A happy medium.
And plus, "less control" pretty much describes what we have right now. At least, more so than "more control" does.

[Firemeboy]

I'm at a conference, and will freely admit I haven't read all the posts.  But I saw something that looked like there was a discussion about ideas as properties.  Thomas Jefferson wrote a great piece on the economy of ideas.  If you do a google search you can find it, and if you want a nice discussion on the topic, search for economy of ideas site:wired.com.

I fully agree with the Jeffersonian notion that ideas are not property, rather the artifacts you produce from those ideas are private property.

To think ideas are property is a naive, IMO.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

You'll have to defend that notion much better.

I hardly find it naive to look at how ideas are treated in the world: and they're treated as properties. That's what patents are all about.

[The Jade Knight]

I would imagine they'd just make things worse, in fact, making it easier to pin the guy with no money with a crime more easily while the rich attacking them paint their own crimes in a better light more easily with relaxed laws.

Not if you read my suggestion: a) removing the DMCA removes a lot of the "rich guy's" ammunition.  b) repealling the SBCEA means they have less issues to fight over.  c) Writing legislation to expand/preserve "Fair Use Rights" would give the defender more of a fighting chance, and finally d) if it were possible to specify "unregulated" [by copyright] uses, these would be uses that a law suit can't even come up over.

One of the big problems between the "little man" and the "big corporation" is copyright law - only a copyright lawyer can do well with it, and the poor absolutely cannot afford to hire copyright lawyers.  Having the court provide both with equal lawyers (for free) would level the playing field considerably.  Having the goverment actively hunting down copyright violators and prosecuting them would do the exact opposite of what I want (that is, to encourage Free Culture).

There's a continuum. A happy medium.
And plus, "less control" pretty much describes what we have right now. At least, more so than "more control" does.

I agree that "Less Control" is closer to what we have now than "more control".  My point was, however, to illustrate that "more control" is a bad thing, so long as there is "adequate control".  Definition of "adequate control" will obviously vary.  For me, very little control is adequate.  Just a few basic protections (no direct copying, no quoting/using [specific, new] ideas without attributing, no using specific [named] characters or worlds without owners permission, all for a limited time [even if it's 50 years]).  I think, if we put it in perspective, we can all agree that less control is better so long as control is "adequate".  That's kind of my point.

[Skar]

Yup. Less is more as long as it's adequate.  


What's adequate?