You seem to have gotten a rather strange impression of what I personally think; or perhaps you're simply writing against common misconceptions in your response to my message, and I'm mistakenly associating that argument with what I said. Anyway, let me say up front that I'm reasonably familiar with the current intellectual property regime (weakest on DMCA provisions), and that I don't think anything like a full-blown "end of copyright" scenario is the right way to go. Bob Maxey <written_by@xxxxxxx> writes: >> We need to separate the law and "what we think the law should be" >> and still a third thing, "what we think is *right*" (I don't think >> the law should try to ban absolutely everything that isn't >> perfectly righteous; sometimes there's too much collateral damage.) > > We do not need to separate the law. It is what it is. Good for some > people and quite often, bad for others. What we NEED to do is seek a > change if we do not like some provision in the law. We cannot tell > the judge we think the law is silly and that is why we violated > it. Ever cracked a law book? I don't even know what you mean by "separate the law"; I said that we *did* need (and I meant *for purposes of this discussion*) to separate what the law is, what we think the law should be, and what activities we think are "right", and not confuse those three things in our discussion. I don't see what I've said that could have lead you to the ridiculous idea that I thought we could ignore existing laws without risk. > I disagree with many laws, but until I am successful in getting a > law changed, I am not free to disregard the law regardless of how I > feel or what I think might be "right." I certainly hope you are > smart enough to understand we cannot have a legal system based upon > what each individual might feel is right because eventually, we end > up in the same place: with a law that is not to some folkâ??s > liking. By now I'm getting a definite feeling of aggressive condescension from your message, which I'm going to do my best to ignore. Apologies if I don't manage to hold my own tone civil! Unless you're saying that our individual feelings about what's right aren't a legitemate point to use in this kind of informal discussion of what *should be* allowed and disallowed, I don't think I've understood your point here. > We have laws that by and large serve to protect the majority. Most > certainly, a particular law might hurt some people. Most certainly, > sometimes there is "collateral damage." > > By the way, who decides what is righteous? And, just so you will > know, the law does not ban everything. Again, do you propose to discuss what the hypothetical future-copyright-like-thingy should be *without reference* to what we think is right and proper? Or am I missing the point of your "who decides" question? I know the law doesn't ban everything; that's an absurd concept. If you mean, doesn't ban everything that isn't righteous (referring to what I said above there), of course it doesn't, and I was saying it shouldn't even try. >> I'm talking solely about the last, what *I* think is "right", in the >> next three paragraphs. Often in terms of relative benefit rather than >> absolute and simple "yes" and "no". >> >> I see two important differences between making a file available >> publicly in a file-sharing network and making a tape (or CD) to hand >> to a friend. > > So if you are my friend, and a dozen other people on my file share > network are my friends, is it still illegal to "make a tape (or CD) > to hand to my "friends?" How many friends does the law say I can > have? How long must I know someone before they are "legally" my > friend? I have mailing list friends. Do they count? Never met them, > after all. You say "still legal"; I never said that either activity is legal. In fact, a couple of paragraphs later I said both activities are clearly *illegal* under current laws. > If my "friends" number in the thousands would you agree or disagree > that it would be wrong to send these new friends copies of yours or > your wifeâ??s digital works? > > You are correct when you draw a distinction between making tapes to > give to a few friends and the general idea behind a file share > network; which as we all know is to make hundreds of thousands of > files available to potentially millions of people. I get it. You are > saying that there might not be a problem giving Joe, Sally, and > Linda a copy of my mix tape, but making the tape available to > absolutely everyone on the web is wrong. I'm saying there is *less* damage. I'm not saying that that difference should, necessarily, be the basis for different legal treatment. I was answering a specific question, roughly "what is the difference between giving a friend a mix tape and putting the music you have up on a public file-sharing network". > Suppose for a moment that the courts said sharing music files is > legal. Can you imagine what would happen? Almost every bit of music > ever produced would be freely available to absolutely everyone. Can > you see the damage that would cause? So isnâ??t it better to > simply have a law that says all file sharing is illegal and all > abusers will be prosecuted, be it one file or one hundred thousand > files? I think it is. The interesting counter-evidence here is that some authors and publishers have been experimenting with making the entire text of their books available for free on the web while a print edition is also for sale, and they seem to be generally finding that doing this *increases* the sales of the print edition. The largest-scale example is Baen Books, a major SF publisher, which has quite a lot of their books available for free download at <http://www.baen.com/library/>. There's also an article there by Eric Flint detailing how he convinced Jim Bain to start doing this. They've been doing this for about 5 years now. They've also included CDs with hardcover copies of some of their books which are full of other books, and which say on them that you can copy and distribute them non-commercially. So my imaganation about what would happen in doesn't completely agree with yours; the data points we have to date (also including the high CD sales the year Napster was an unfettered worldwide file-sharing network) don't seem to support your view. (I do accept the principle that the copyright holder has the right to make decisions about copying of the work. Hence arguing that "doing x benefits the copyright holder" is irrelevant, since copyright doesn't mean "has the right to obtain the maximum possible amount of money fromthe work", but rather "has the right to control copying of the work". I introduce the free-book example as some evidence that your scenario isn't necessarily what would happen, though.) > I do not care if some heartless and cold recording conglomerate uses > their money and influence to get laws passed and to go after > abusers. The alternative is something no right-thinking person would > welcome. Remember when Metallica went after file swappers? Lots of > their fans turned nasty, which tells me their were interested in > getting the music for free and they did not understand this simple > fact: Metallica produces a product and they intend to sell it for > profit. The band went after abusers just like any other business > with assets to protect would. I find the people who really want to do away with copyright completely to be idiots. I'm willing to listen to suggestions for massive structural changes to the system, but anybody who doesn't take into account the need for some money to flow from consumers to producers is short-sightedly stupid. > When we visit a particular web site and we depress the "I agree" > button, we must follow the TOS. Would adding a TOS to my file share > site that includes the words "Unless you are known to me and you are > a friend, you are not allowed to download my mix tapesâ?¦" Would > that make any difference or is an illegal copy and illegal copy > regardless? No, because it's equally illegal even if it *is* a friend under current law. If you're proposing changing the law to make it legal to give mix tapes to "friends", I think that's a bad idea for the reason you raised earlier, defining "friend" for this purpose would be difficult to do in such a way it matched people's normal use of the term. > The courts might indeed draw a distinction between giving a mix tape > to a tiny group of close friends and putting the entire Apple > catalog online. But where should the line be drawn? Can I post my > large collection of music online and make it available to my > "friends?" > > There is no real difference between making files available on the > net and burning CDs to mail to friends and family. Is there? > Granted, making tapes and burning CDs takes more time, but where is > the real difference? I could easily post ten thousand songs on my > friends and family only web site. There is the difference of scale. There is also the question of what my friend will do with the tape. The informal agreement as I understand it in my social circles is that if you get a mix tape with stuff you like, you don't just keep the tape and play it, you buy the album the stuff you like came from. Again, I'm not claiming this is legally relevant, or that it should be. It is, however, the reason why in my social circles I'm willing to give and receive mix tapes (CDs usually now). > I have friends that might like any of a thousand LPs or CDs, so can > I make them available? Or is there a law that says I can only copy X > numbers of albums and give them to X number of friends? Or should > the law be no copies allowed, regardless of the reasons, or numbers? > >> Number one, making a tape to hand to a friend is me pushing >> something on them that they probably weren't actively looking for >> previously, whereas on a file-sharing network the other guy has to >> go out looking for the work. It's not crazy to argue that my >> pushing an artist/work on a friend is much more likely to result in >> future sales for the artist than somebody going out looking for it >> on file-share. Or, to put it another way, if somebody is actively >> looking for the work, it seems somewhat likely that he might be an >> actual possible customer, that an actual sale might be lost when he >> finds the work on a file-share network. > > Lots of people are arrested because some sting operation or perhaps > a decoy offered them something they were not specifically looking > for. You might not start out your evening looking for fine ladies > and other pleasures, but if you are offered a chance to buy and you > do, you are likely to be aressted. > > Friends might not be looking for music by Danny Gatton and they > might welcome my copies "pushed" on them. If they accept, > arenâ??t they just as guilty as I am for making the copies in > the first place? We cannot assume that making files available to > anyone that wants to DL them will result in sales for the record > company. In my case it often does, but in many cases, it likely does > not. An FS system is designed to circumvent the payment/royalty > process and the courts would laugh at you for suggesting that your > file share system is helping the record companies. > >> Number two, my pushing mix tapes on friends is much smaller-scale and >> more manual than making the file available to anybody in the whole >> world who looks for it. Thus my decision to make the mix tape seems >> to have much smaller consequences for the overall financial picture of >> that work. > > I agree, but the law does not say you can make copies as long as you > keep the quantities reasonable. I cannot grow pot for my personal > use or set up a meth kitchen. The law says no drug, period. I feel > certain if I made copies of some albums and "mass produced" fifty > copies for shipping to close friends and family, I would be found > guilty of something if I were challenged. And this is why I said we had to separate the law and what's right in this discussion, and pointed out earlier that I was discussing what I thought about right and wrong, and not mostly in black-and-white absolute terms. >> In current legal terms, they seem to me equally illegal, but I'm not a >> lawyer. And I don't consider the current laws automatically >> definitive on what's "right", of course (does anybody?). > > I also believe that some laws are quite foolish and quite often, > they make no sense. Regardless of how you or I feel about a > particular law, we must obey it or challenge it in a court of law > and seek to get it changed. There is no other way. > >> I think a lot of the recent movement in copyright law, to extend >> terms and restrict more and more what rights people have with a >> copy of something they have purchased, are bad public policy, not >> to the overall benefit of society and not to the benefit of the >> creative people who actually produce works of art (in addition to >> photographers, I know many authors including the one I'm married >> to, and quite a few musicians), but only to the benefits of >> corporations holding old rights. > > I agree to an extent, but if you accept that making copies of music > for friends is OK and file sharing is bad, then you must agree that > my making copies of your photography to give to friends so they do > not need to purchase copies from you is acceptable. Is it? Can I > freely to copy your images or your wifeâ??s writings and make > them available to friends? I mean, why should my friends buy your > wifeâ??s book, when I have copies available? > > Can I put your familyâ??s property on my friends and family > only web site or offer them framed and/or printed for a low price to > cover my costs? Or would you (rightfully) reject my use of your > property, regardless of if I profit from it or not? I hope you say > ABSOLUTELY NOT, BOB! Most certainly, the law says no, I am not > allowed to copy and distribute someone elseâ??s property. I have *not* said, anywhere, that I think making copies of music for friends, in a broad general sense, is "okay". I have said that in a rather narrower and more specific set of situations I'm willing to do it (though it's clearly illegal). Big difference. > You seem to think the law is designed to benefit only large > corporations and you would be wrong. Sure, large corporations > benefit but so do the little people. Large corporations must abide > by the rules just like you and just like me. You have access to the > same courts the Microsoftâ??s of the world have access > to. Granted, Gates and the gang have plenty of money to fight an > endless battle in court, but that is another topic. I think the recent movements in copyright law have been towards protecting the interests of large corporations and away from protecting the interests of individual creators. > I take the side of the musician and record company that wants to > shut down file sharing services. I am very much on the side of > Microsoft and the other "giant, heartless corporations" that want to > go after those that make copies of software and music to give to > friends or the world regardless of the delivery method or media. By > the way, stealing is exactly that. It is wrong. Quite a lot of musicians *don't* want to shut down file-sharing services, though. "Stealing" means depriving somebody else of their property. "Intellectual property" is a more complex construct than physical property, and the impact of "theft" of it is different. I reject the attempt to draw a tight 1-to-1 analogy between them. (As I hope is clear by now, I do NOT reject the whole concept of copyright, or the other kinds of intellectual property including trademarks and patents) > Can I copy the "Vista OS Beta" and freely give pass the copies on to > my friends, or is that somehow inappropriate and wrong? If you wrote > a hot game, can I give copies to friends or is that wrong? Can I > pull twelve images from your web site and give hundreds of copies of > calendars and framed images to my family and friends, or is that > wrong? Where does one draw the line? I haven't, you know, been arguing for free file-sharing. On the images -- you can't get decent calendar-size prints from the versions on my website, so I'm not worried :-). I tend to agree with you that "1" copy is the only place to usefully draw the line legally. At the same time, I think that enforcement efforts should be concentrated on large-scale piracy, not somebody who left a mix CD at his girlfriend's house. >> Note that I have avoided saying what I think the law "should" be; I >> don't think I have any good clean magic solution. As one point, I'd >> like to greatly cut back the term of copyright, at the very least >> back to the previous-world-standard of life+50, but I'd really >> prefer to cut it back further to say life+25. Or I can see lots of >> arguments for a complete revamp of the system along completely >> different principles, but revolutionary change is always extremely >> disruptive and controversial; and I don't have a particular >> revolutionary idea driving me. > > I agree that the system should be changed, but like you, I have no > solutions to offer. Perhaps a lowering of the fees is a good place > to start. My solutions might not be to your liking, or yours, to > mine. I might suggest to you and everyone on the list that if you do > not like something in the law, seek a change. What fees? The payments artists receive for copying aren't determined by the law. > By the way, have you actually bothered to read the entire copyright > law and the DMCA? Or for that matter, have you investigated the > personal property rights laws in your state that in some cases add > additional protective measures to the federal copyright law? I'm not a lawyer, so approaching something as complex as copyright law in the original statutes is as likely to be confusing as informative. I have actually read over both, but there are bits I'm sure I didn't understand. Mostly I've studied secondary sources, where lawyers with experience in the area explain what it means -- better for my actually gaining understanding. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
