said by SkyBlue :

This needs to be addressed its gone to far.

said by amigo_boy :

IMO, it will never be addressed unless affects more people (generating more grass-roots activism or civil disobedience). I don't think most people care about the origins of copyright or the balance it was intended to strike between facilitating a market (through social, public law) and recompensing society as the ultimate property owner (through Public Domain).

If the vast majority don't see a value from Public Domain, there will be little political influence (as corporations and special interest groups representing artists lobby for the value they see in the other side of the equation).

I think that's the challenge. How to make the vast disinterested aware of the issues in terms they can understand.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

IMO, it will never be addressed unless affects more people (generating more grass-roots activism or civil disobedience). I don't think most people care about the origins of copyright or the balance it was intended to strike between facilitating a market (through social, public law) and recompensing society as the ultimate property owner (through Public Domain).

If the vast majority don't see a value from Public Domain, there will be little political influence (as corporations and special interest groups representing artists lobby for the value they see in the other side of the equation).

I think that's the challenge. How to make the vast disinterested aware of the issues in terms they can understand.

Mark

said by SkyBlue :

Good information.

This needs to be addressed its gone to far.

Riaa is going nuts.

Thanks for the top 10 list of torrents.

said by supergirl :

Actually, the MPAA are like the Klingons, about to be out of existence and to technology resistance is futile.

More Stupid RIAA News (all fake but could happen)

-RIAA sues George W. Bush of Crawford, TX for illegally downloading Celine Dion songs to his computer then to his iPod. After the RIAA found out he was the President of the United States and the U.S. AG cited "Executive Privilege", the RIAA dropped the case.

-RIAA sues dying man of cancer in hospital for $100,000 for ripping CDs to a laptop owned by the hospital. "It's not his laptop nor his CDs. Just because he's dying of cancer, THE LAW IS THE LAW!!!" said Ira Schwartz.

-RIAA sues U.S. Soldiers for recording an event at the USO. The soldiers, most missing a limb from Iraq, were stunned at the lawsuit. Dick Cheney took the two RIAA lawyers hunting and they haven't been heard from since.

-RIAA plants "fake" students at Universities to catch Illegal Downloaders. University of Chicago was none too happy and had all 4 "students" arrested for trespassing, violating the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act for using college computers illegally, and one for impersonating a University Police Officer.

-RIAA sues Chinese Citizens for a collective $100 billion. In turn, the Chinese release their entire catalog of music online for anyone to download worldwide except Britney Spears since, as China's President said, "She's a bad role model for kids and so is her sister."

said by SkyBlue :

True very true.

That scenerio Just goes to show you how far RIAA is going to go to terrorize people even on there death bed.

RIAA is not big brother and should be ignored at all costs. As long as your nose is clean they are full of it.

said by kba4 :

I'm pretty sure that the term 'broadcast' refers to the ability to send the multimedia content to a wide group of 'receivers', not simply to transmit highly compressed versions of content between a private connection (or even over the Internet) between One' hosting and client PC.

said by GOLFnSUN :

libertarian nation

said by amigo_boy :

The problem is that today we've lost sight of society's role in facilitating a market that would not exist in a purely libertarian/anarchic/free-market world.

said by smashed potatoes :

What is it about people and their understanding of libertarianism where libertarianism is, somehow, equated with a loss of property rights?

said by smashed potatoes :

Oh, and equating Libertarianism and anarchy is flat-out wrong as they are two different things.

said by smashed potatoes :

And as far as your charge of libertarianism being "unrealistic," I think you'll find that the world already works largely according to libertarian principles. ... which means that if most transactions weren't conducted on a peaceful basis where both parties perceived a benefit, society would quickly break down.

said by amigo_boy :



If libertarianism is taken to it's logical, "principled" conclusion, it is anarchy. There is no way to adhere to the "no coercion" rule without leading to the ultimate coercion:

said by amigo_boy :

The social contract which we're each born into, and cannot opt out of. From there it's a matter of degrees (from public roads, to food and drug quality laws).

said by libert :

please stop claiming that Libertarians do not believe in coercion in any and all circumstances. If you and I sign a contract, and you break the terms of the contract, then there has to be a way that you are penalized for doing so.

said by libert :

Please stop claiming that the "logical 'principled' conclusion" of libertarianism is anarchy. It isn't.

said by amigo_boy :

This is the point where pragmatic libertarians will jump in and say "copyright is a valid use of government." At that point the purists shut up because they like to talk about how things should work rather than how they will work.

said by amigo_boy :

They'll never have to explain how "copyright is a valid use of government" leads back to copyright's origins: The social contract.

said by amigo_boy :

You can't have copyright without the coercive social contract.

said by amigo_boy :

The purists get off easy because they don't have to explain how you can have a little, without a lot.

said by amigo_boy :

They'll continue to complain that everyone else is coercive, while trumpeting a smug, unrealistic, if not incoherent belief system.

said by amigo_boy :

Any Rand knew her ramblings were unrealistic. That's why she opposed the creation of the Libertarian political party.

said by amigo_boy :

But, she continued publishing her ramblings. I guess there was good money in it.

said by amigo_boy :

Making her an entertainer, more than anything else.

said by Oh boy Amigo :

Do you know what a collection agency is? It's a privately run firm that enforces contracts. And there's no reason why a private entity cannot be set up to enforce copyright laws which are, after all, an extension of property laws.

said by amigo_boy :

Again, you didn't answer the question. If I enter into a contract with you to buy your book, and give the book to HCT who digitizes it and puts it on the web, how would a private arbiter (similar to) a collection agency have any relationship with HCT?

said by amigo_boy :

For the rest of your response, it doesn't seem you're willing to have a reasoned and thoughtful dialog.

said by amigo_boy :

You're just changing topics and "trying to make it work."

said by amigo_boy :

I see this a lot with libertarians. That's why it always seems ironic to me that libertarians call themselves "objectivists" but can't deal with libertarianism objectively. It's more like a religion to them.

said by The statist Quo :

In the scenario you described, the person who digitizes the book and puts it online is violating the property rights of the author because he is, in effect, making the book widely available to the public without any additional compensation being paid to the author of the book.

said by The statist Quo :

How is this any different from, say, having my car stolen and then seeing it on a local used car lot? The used car dealer doesn't have an existing relationship with me, but there's no reason I cannot engage a private firm to help me get my car back, is there?

said by The statist Quo :

And went on to tell you that private firms can act as enforcement mechanisms just as effectively (if not more so)

said by amigo_boy :

What's the basis for "violating the property rights of the author?"

said by amigo_boy :

Will it be product of public (criminal) law describing it as "grand theft?" If so, then we're not talking about private contracts any longer. We're back to "public courts and cops" (which were originally denigrated in this thread).

said by amigo_boy :

And that leads us back to the social contract as the basis for both.

said by amigo_boy :

Thus, libertarianism relies, at some point, on the very coercion it claims can be done away with (but is a little lacking when it comes down to the details).

said by The statist Quo :

How is this any different from, say, having my car stolen and then seeing it on a local used car lot? The used car dealer doesn't have an existing relationship with me, but there's no reason I cannot engage a private firm to help me get my car back, is there?

said by amigo_boy :

Isn't that apples and oranges?

said by amigo_boy :

1) In the case of a car, it's identifiable as just one car, not one of a million books you sell to a million people.

said by amigo_boy :

2) If you use a contract to limit the property transfer (let someone have partial ownership) of the car, and the contracted party breaches the contract, giving the car to someone outside the contract, you can track it back to that person because it's one identifiable car.

said by amigo_boy :

3) You would rely upon DMV (a public institution) and state statues (public law) to retain title/ownership to the car. (Once again, back to the necessity of the social contract to make your argument work.).

said by amigo_boy :

You went on to *aver* to private firms as enforcement mechanisms. But, you haven't discussed how *everyone* would be parties to the jurisdiction of a particular private firm.

said by amigo_boy :

All you've done is *aver* to how, today, using a basis in public law,

said by amigo_boy :

public institutions, and

said by amigo_boy :

"public courts and cops" a private firm can make things right.

said by amigo_boy :

What you haven't done is explain how private firms would have this far-reaching, universal jurisdiction in the *absence of* public law (the social contract).

said by Amigo Boys Amigo :

If I write in an arbitration clause into the EULA for my book, is that part of the "social contract" you keep referring to? I think not, because that agreement is between you, the buyer, and me, the seller.

said by amigo_boy :

You keep saying that a private organization can essentially "codify law" (to get around the difficulty of being dependent upon what libertarians call the coercion of the social contract). But, if the person I give the book to didn't subscribe to the private organization, what would make them subject to the private organization's rules?

said by amigo_boy :

That's the disconnect I don't see you addressing. You're skirting around this "scope of authority," while alluding to how things work today (based entirely upon what libertarians call the undesireability of the social contract).

said by amigo_boy :

Somehow you're saying compulsion (at the social level) wouldn't exist.

said by amigo_boy :

But, you can't explain how the person I gave the book to would be under the jurisdiction of the private company who "codifies the law." When we reach this point you aver to current practices which are dependent upon the unwritten and non-optional (therefore rejected by libertarians) social contract (such as, "if someone steals my car, I can't do something about it?").

said by amigo_boy :

This is typical libertarian behavior. It's a religion. Not objectivity.

said by Oh boy Amigo :

Do you know what a collection agency is? It's a privately run firm that enforces contracts. And there's no reason why a private entity cannot be set up to enforce copyright laws which are, after all, an extension of property laws.

said by Oh boy Amigo :

Because governments, after all, cannot create wealth: they can only confiscate it.

said by Oh boy Amigo :

But what happens when these very same "rapacious corporations" team up with the government to write laws?

Well, you have what we have now. And who, exactly, is going to protect us from the government?

said by DSL Oberst :

The private entities you refer to would be organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA. Those organizations act as collection agencies for existing private firms; what you're suggesting would thus create a no different situation than what we have now.

said by DSL Oberst :

It comes down to something very simple; who do you want to have in charge of the collection teams? The government, in which at least some pretense is given to civil liberties?

said by DSL Oberst :

Or corporations, who are classified as amoral sociopaths on the DSM-IV when you preform a psychological profile on their actions?

said by DSL Oberst :

*shrugs* Me, I'll take the former and not the latter.

said by Oh boy Amigo :

Because governments, after all, cannot create wealth: they can only confiscate it.

said by DSL Oberst :

That is a false statement. A government, being a form of business entity in the business of running a nation, does have the ability to make a profit. Many governments do.

said by DSL Oberst :

Your truism is not universal and assumes no government has ever made a profit anywhere at any time.

said by Oh boy Amigo :

But what happens when these very same "rapacious corporations" team up with the government to write laws?

Well, you have what we have now. And who, exactly, is going to protect us from the government?

said by DSL Oberst :

You are incorrect in this assumption, but only slightly so. I shall correct your misconception.

The 'rapacious corporations' have not 'teamed up' with government; government is their antithesis. Instead, the current robber barons have bought the government, corrupting it from its original function. It's the backlash of the progressives of the 1920s.

What you are experiencing right now is not an evil government, but a corrupt government bought and paid for by rapacious corporations. You are currently experiencing life as the corporations will it, not the government or idealists within/without it. So how do you like it?

said by mrchris :

The lobbyists should be deported and have their US citizenship revoked until 2021.

said by floydb_1982 :

...The RIAA has gone mad with power.

said by bear73 :

Precisely!!!

said by MyDogHsFleas :

[...] I wonder if he's not just in the "radically scale back or eliminate copyrights" crowd and is using this as a stalking horse to poison the well against the copyright owners. Or maybe he's not and I'm just paranoid.

said by MyDogHsFleas :

The second link to the Ars Technica "story" is just an editorial, not actual information. It's pretty useless to someone who actually wants to understand the situation vs. someone who wants to simply sway your point of view.

said by BF69 :

In fact I remember that originally patents and copyrights were only good for 14 years. Now maybe that's too short, but there has to be a REASONABLE middle ground.

said by KrK :

That's true. These media companies and industry organizations have zero morals whatsoever, and precious few ethics. All they worship is the Almighty Dollar.

said by zod5000 :

So someone steals a song and they owe hundreds of thousand of dollars or jail time?

On a grand scale of crimes.. it ranks pretty low, i put it right beside shoplifting. Maybe they should make the punishment fit the crime. You get less for white collar crime etc...

said by BF69 :

Most of these people are stealing HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of songs.

Fact is working one 8 hour shift per week at Burger King for minimum wage after taxes would yield enough cash to pay for 1800 songs. So if you really want music that badly you'd get a 1 day week job at Burger King if your 5 day a week job at KFC isn't enough.

said by SkyBlue :

I think the fact of the matter is not if you can buy a CD rather if you buy a CD, you should be able to put it on your computer or mp3 player ie.. ipod or what ever device you desire.

You bought the CD which means you have SOLE rights to use your music for your personal use. Not the use of others.

You should be able to play it anyway you want.

If we can only listen to it in a cd player,
then the next step the RIAA is going to take is ,
we wont be able to play the music in our car with the windows down because someone else might hear the music.

And that would violate the law so RIAA thinks.

That's what this is all working up to. Have to tighten the rope to keep people hooked on music like a drug and then pay through the nose just like a drug to hear it once your hooked.

Now the question is does it get that far or when does this anti-trust stop.

said by BF69 :

Most of these people are stealing HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of songs. Trust me if I walked out of Wal-Mart with a 1000 CDs I would get charged with grand theft.