Why online piracy isn't theft

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Ah, Franklin, a wonderful man. Also called one of the original IP pirates by some, as he made unauthorized reprints of European books.

Another one of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, wrote beautifully:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

Thanks for that. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin seem to have been truly civilised men, if only because they appear to have recognised their own frailities in others, as well as in themselves. I wonder where they would have stood on this subject? I rather think that the Jefferson quote gives us a clue.

[igi]

What are they stealing?

A compressed, crappy 128kbps mp3 copy of a pop song?
A 1280px picture which can be printed crappily on a 4x5 paper?

Are these the products owned/being sold by artists?

Unless these questions are reconciled, we can never be sure what is being stolen.

While we're thinking about this, most people are happy with their mediocre sounding mp3's.

[andersju]

Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus

Thanks for that. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin seem to have been truly civilised men, if only because they appear to have recognised their own frailities in others, as well as in themselves. I wonder where they would have stood on this subject? I rather think that the Jefferson quote gives us a clue.

They recognized the importance of copyright [for some, anyway!] as an incentive to create. It was supposed to balance the interests of authors/publishers on the one hand, and the interests of the general public on the other hand. Therefore copyright only lasted for a short amount of time. They did not think of it as private "property" as many do now.

It seems like Jefferson was, at least initially, very suspicious of all kinds of monopolies, copyright being one of them. For example:

"The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."

(Letter to James Madison, July 31, 1788)

Eventually, he accepted copyright, and argued for a term based on average lifespan:

"This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application... Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity for producing it to public consideration... Establish the principle... in the new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19 instead of 14 years."

Letter to Madison, September 6, 1789 (see the whole thing for a lengthier discussion)

In the end, the Copyright Act of 1790 (the first federal copyright act in the US) granted protection for 14 years from publication, with an optional renewal for another 14 years.

In 1831, the term was extended to 28 years + 14-year renewal.

In 1909, the term was extended to 28 years + 28-year renewal.

In 1976, the term was extended to life of author + 50 years, or 75 years after publication for works of corporate authorship.

In 1998, the term was extended to life of author + 70 years, or 95 years after publication / 120 years after creation for corporate works.

I think it's safe to say that Jefferson would be turning in his grave.

[pakeha]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...-US-wi-fi-case

Ah, so maybe all this is the result of the `trickle down effect' after all.

[Jack Conrad]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Even more sad if those who were genuinely good at something were forced to dig roads for a living because they couldn't be paid for what they do well. Doing something professionally, i.e. doing it well and getting paid for it, often requires a LOT more than a little desultory dabbling in the creative pursuit, mixed in with a well-paying job as a dentist or used car dealer -- or even a poorly paid one as a ditch-digger or used car dealer.

Those who sing the praises of amateurism tend to be, yes, amateurs. There are lots of good amateurs. But there are infinitely more bad ones, and the good ones understandably want to 'go pro'. Tim Rudman retired early from medicine, in order to devote more time to (already modestly lucrative) photography. Should he have been forced to remain in general practice until he was 67? Because if he had been forced to do so, the world would have had nothing like as much benefit from a very great teacher and an excellent photographer.

Cheers,

R.

Oh no! You found me out. I'm just a road digger. A hobbyist. An amateur.

I'm not saying the pro(whatever) shouldn't be able to make a living, the problem is, the road digger needs to be able to make a living also,... enough to have some free time for a hobby, a creative outlet, you know... on the off chance that they might also contribute a little back to the broader culture...
since the pro's, the experts, the specialists, the technical elite, appear to be a little lost in their own bs these days.

You know, the experts don't seem to be doing such a terrific job at all, beyond hiring armed guards and legislators to protect themselves from the hordes of amateurs and road diggers.

[huntjump]

Originally Posted by Jack Conrad

Oh no! You found me out. I'm just a road digger. A hobbyist. An amateur.

I'm not saying the pro(whatever) shouldn't be able to make a living, the problem is, the road digger needs to be able to make a living also,... enough to have some free time for a hobby, a creative outlet, you know... on the off chance that they might also contribute a little back to the broader culture...
since the pro's, the experts, the specialists, the technical elite, appear to be a little lost in their own bs these days.

You know, the experts don't seem to be doing such a terrific job at all, beyond hiring armed guards and legislators to protect themselves from the hordes of amateurs and road diggers.

No offense, but it seems you missed Roger's point almost completely...hanging your arguments on your own misunderstandings of what the "road digger" was there to illustrate and possibly your own insecurity over the professional/amateur distinction (i say that without judgment, I am an amateur too). It wasn't to insult you, nor the job of road digging. You also speak in such generalities, there is really no point maybe in even arguing with you.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by huntjump

No offense, but it seems you missed Roger's point almost completely...hanging your arguments on your own misunderstandings of what the "road digger" was there to illustrate and possibly your own insecurity over the professional/amateur distinction (i say that without judgment, I am an amateur too). It wasn't to insult you, nor the job of road digging. You also speak in such generalities, there is really no point maybe in even arguing with you.

Thanks. You probably summarized this faster, and more politely, than I could have.

Cheers,

R.

[Jack Conrad]

Originally Posted by huntjump

No offense, but it seems you missed Roger's point almost completely...hanging your arguments on your own misunderstandings of what the "road digger" was there to illustrate and possibly your own insecurity over the professional/amateur distinction (i say that without judgment, I am an amateur too). It wasn't to insult you, nor the job of road digging. You also speak in such generalities, there is really no point maybe in even arguing with you.

Relax, I really wasn't directing my little rant at Roger. I was riffing off his post. Nothing personal at all.

I'm not particularly good at forum banter and perhaps I did miss the point. My apologies. If you explain, maybe I can umderstand. I noticed you perceived my insecurities. You must be a sensitive guy.
No offense, of course, but perhaps you've misunderstood me due to your own insecurities as well as a lack of ability to see in broader generalities? Not to insult you either, and totally without judgement.


Big picture.
We're all tense about the future these days. That was my point. Yes, it's based on insecurity. That's what this entire thread is really about. Financial security and the desire to protect it from perceived threats.

I'd go deeper here, but this forum really isn't the place to discuss such sociopolitical topics. Thus the generalities.
I'll say this, though. The problem of our overarching societal insecurity has to do with credit and debt. A debt based economy.

I'll leave discussing legal minutia to the experts, thankyou, since parsing and dissecting is the domain of the modern technocratic elite.
I'm pretty certain they would rather draw and quarter me rather than allow an amateur "road digger" to compete with their superior artistry anyway.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jack Conrad

I'll leave discussing legal minutia to the experts, thankyou, since parsing and dissecting is the domain of the modern technocratic elite.
I'm pretty certain they would rather draw and quarter me rather than allow an amateur "road digger" to compete with their superior artistry anyway.

That's a large part of the point, really. Total incompetents are being very highly paid to impose deeply flawed economic models on the rest of us. How do we decide what ANYONE is paid to do? Something that many people ignore is that "...is paid $100,000..." and "...earns $100,000..." are very far from the same statement.

The job of the "road digger" amateur, working for the fun of it, may often be to demonstrate the flaws in the "professional" arguments. But once the "road digger" has established his credentials through sound argument, he should be admitted to the pantheon of experts. To insist that the road digger continues to dig roads, in order to subsidize his intellectual contribution (or indeed artistic contribution), while the "experts" continue to rule the roost and determine who is paid what, is very close to my original argument about why someone who is good at something should be paid. We NEED expertise and clear thought.

Cheers,

R.

[benlees]

Originally Posted by FrankS

It is the choice of the artist to share or sell.

I imagine "share and sell" or "share to sell" work also.

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by benlees

I imagine "share and sell" or "share to sell" work also.

Sure, as long as it's their choice.

[TXForester]

Originally Posted by jippiejee

Your product is not that mp3 that colleagues will share on usb sticks, or torrents, or that jpeg that goes around, but it is that amazing concert that sells you all these cd's and t-shirts, and that real print instead of the jpeg that was shared as appetizer.

I call bovine feces. Most people are not going to go to concerts like you imply. Some people will go to concerts and others don't. Probably the younger crowd will go more often. However, most people don't go to a lot of concerts. Some people almost never go to concerts for various reasons such as not living near a venue for concerts. Concerts are fine, but they are expensive and I'll bet most people will go to a handful a year or less, and rather buy the CD which is far cheaper and you can listen to it till you wear it out.

[benlees]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Sure, as long as it's their choice.

Well sure, the word share presupposes this.

[Sparrow]

as a "professional" designer for some 40 years I only came across one case of "intellectual theft" being pursued successfully.

In reality I was always too busy working to make money on the next new thing rather than buggering about with lawyers chasing the people who had ripped-off last years new thing ... and yes I had lots of stuff stolen by competitors each year

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by TXForester

I call bovine feces. Most people are not going to go to concerts like you imply. Some people will go to concerts and others don't. Probably the younger crowd will go more often.

It's been my experience that the "older crowd" goes more often to concerts, specially when Bach's music is being played.

Anyway, that's the problem with broad definitions: usually they're thought of with a very narrow definition behind it.

Not all online-sharing is theft, not all theft is online-sharing. In order to settle all reasonable discussions, zero-tolerance policies are instated.

Take hot-linking for example: a huge no-no for the "older crowd" --who can't distinguish copying from hot-linking--, a non-issue for the "younger crowd" --who can.

[huntjump]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

Take hot-linking for example: a huge no-no for the "older crowd" --who can't distinguish copying from hot-linking--, a non-issue for the "younger crowd" --who can.

Hot-linking synonymous with inline linking? If so, I thought it was a non-issue at least here in the states(in re: copyright law), because US courts have deemed it not to be a violation of any copyright laws. maybe i;m mistaken about that fact

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by huntjump

Hot-linking synonymous with inline linking? If so, I thought it was a non-issue at least here in the states(in re: copyright law), because US courts have deemed it not to be a violation of any copyright laws. maybe i;m mistaken about that fact

No, you're not. But it's a no-no in some forums (fora?) because of this misunderstood fact, and it will not be tolerated.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

My argument is simply that if someone is good at something, it seems odd to say that they can be paid for it if they are a surgeon, but not if they are a musician, photographer, writer, or anyone else whose work is easily stolen. It's quite hard to steal an appendectomy...

That argument works both ways. I've had this argument a number of times with people and there's a certain kind of complaint that predictably sets in at this point; it usually comes from members of the creative profession who have based their business model on a government-granted distribution monopoly (and who then naturally have trouble imagining survival without this monopoly).

Surgeons are paid for providing one-time services. When a surgeon transplants me a liver, I then don't have to pay him royalties every time I drink a beer. When I take my dog to the vet with a broken leg, I then don't have to pay royalties every time I take out the dog. After the operation I can go to any other doctor or vet for further treatment. And while we're not at the point where we can copy a liver yet, we're getting there, and then I sincerely hope our grandchildren won't have to pay royalties to whoever provided their stem cells.

When I hire a photographer (say, for my wedding) this is in my eyes essentially a one-time service, too. As a photographer, I see really no good reason why he should enjoy the leverage of copyright to grant himself a monopoly on producing prints, to charge me extra for digital files, or to accuse me of stealing if I want additional prints for free. He's done the job he was commissioned for, and at least in my moral understanding at that point that should be it for him. It's really no different from a plumber replacing a pipe, or a lawyer writing an expertise, or a surgeon fixing your appendix, or a designer designing your corporate identity.

[hanzo]

Brilliant

Originally Posted by rxmd

That argument works both ways. I've had this argument a number of times with people and there's a certain kind of complaint that predictably sets in at this point; it usually comes from members of the creative profession who have based their business model on a government-granted distribution monopoly (and who then naturally have trouble imagining survival without this monopoly).

Surgeons are paid for providing one-time services. When a surgeon transplants me a liver, I then don't have to pay him royalties every time I drink a beer. When I take my dog to the vet with a broken leg, I then don't have to pay royalties every time I take out the dog. After the operation I can go to any other doctor or vet for further treatment. And while we're not at the point where we can copy a liver yet, we're getting there, and then I sincerely hope our grandchildren won't have to pay royalties to whoever provided their stem cells.

When I hire a photographer (say, for my wedding) this is in my eyes essentially a one-time service, too. As a photographer, I see really no good reason why he should enjoy the leverage of copyright to grant himself a monopoly on producing prints, to charge me extra for digital files, or to accuse me of stealing if I want additional prints for free. He's done the job he was commissioned for, and at least in my moral understanding at that point that should be it for him. It's really no different from a plumber replacing a pipe, or a lawyer writing an expertise, or a surgeon fixing your appendix, or a designer designing your corporate identity.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by rxmd

That argument works both ways. I've had this argument a number of times with people and there's a certain kind of complaint that predictably sets in at this point; it usually comes from members of the creative profession who have based their business model on a government-granted distribution monopoly (and who then naturally have trouble imagining survival without this monopoly).

Surgeons are paid for providing one-time services. When a surgeon transplants me a liver, I then don't have to pay him royalties every time I drink a beer. When I take my dog to the vet with a broken leg, I then don't have to pay royalties every time I take out the dog. After the operation I can go to any other doctor or vet for further treatment. And while we're not at the point where we can copy a liver yet, we're getting there, and then I sincerely hope our grandchildren won't have to pay royalties to whoever provided their stem cells.

When I hire a photographer (say, for my wedding) this is in my eyes essentially a one-time service, too. As a photographer, I see really no good reason why he should enjoy the leverage of copyright to grant himself a monopoly on producing prints, to charge me extra for digital files, or to accuse me of stealing if I want additional prints for free. He's done the job he was commissioned for, and at least in my moral understanding at that point that should be it for him. It's really no different from a plumber replacing a pipe, or a lawyer writing an expertise, or a surgeon fixing your appendix, or a designer designing your corporate identity.

How would that work with say patterned wallpaper or fabric? buy a few meters, then copy it as you wish?

[sig]

The wallpaper is an interesting case. Somebody have used time and effort in the design of the wallpaper, I take a photo of it and will suddenly all the effort the designer has put into it is mine. Love it.

For a small fee you can quote me too.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

How would that work with say patterned wallpaper or fabric? buy a few meters, then copy it as you wish?

That's a bit of an odd example as both wallpaper and fabric are material objects. You're basically just making a replica. If a photographer takes pictures at a wedding and gives the client prints, and if that client then gets more prints made from the digital file, then the latter are not replicas of the former.

[Jack Conrad]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

How would that work with say patterned wallpaper or fabric? buy a few meters, then copy it as you wish?

How has it been working up til now?

Another obvious analogy is patent law involving genetically modified foods and lifeforms.

[Gabriel M.A.]

If I buy champagne and give some to somebody, I'm depriving the vineyard of a customer (not to mention that it's against some religions). If I get the $100 bill plaque and create my own, it's a crime. If I study the night before and write the answers from memory it's cheating. If I write the word "Apple" on a record, I'm opening the door for a lawsuit. If I write a book report and quote, it's a direct violation of the stipulation that I should not reproduce it in any way.

One or more of the above are technically correct.

Absolute laws work in absolutely correct ways. Not to mention the would-be enforcers.

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

How would that work with say patterned wallpaper or fabric? buy a few meters, then copy it as you wish?

I don't think that's entirely transferable because what I'm talking about is when you commission someone to do something for you, not when you copy something existant.

It's an interesting question though. You can't easily copy wallpaper or fabric for technical reasons, unless you talk about people covering their walls in xeroxed pages. So the question as I see it revolves around the protection of the pattern itself. In the commercial case, where designers would are afraid of getting ripped off by whoever commissione they could switch to contracts of the "$0.X per item sold with this design" type. For private use I wouldn't see much of a problem with taking existent patterns either. If someone decides to take to watercolours and cover the walls of their own living room in Royal Albert Lavender Rose, well then so be it.

One should add that from a legal point of view this is probably not a question of copyright, but one of design patents (in the US) and community design (in the EU), where there are other mechanisms of protection.