Would it be considered piracy...

[geoschmo]

I will agree that the system as a whole has become horribly skewed. It used to be that the author of a work was viewed as the "producer" and the publisher was just distribution. The publisher "worked for" the author in effect. That has got turned around now and the publisher is producing and the author has become in effect merely a raw material. The publsiher controls the access to the market and so the author becomes dependant on them and thus sells their rights for a bowl of porridge.

The internet offers the possibility of once again allowing the author direct access to the market. This is a good thing. No doubt is scares the crud out of the current publishing power structure.

What needs to happen is for forward thinking artists to deal directly with Napster, or Napster like technology and regain control over what they do. But the technology needs responsible limits as well so that it cannot be used to distribute works of artists that do not wish them to.

And yes, copyrights need to be limited. But violation of those copyrights cannot be tolerated or excused.

I read that link Baron. Pretty good article actually. It made me think, although I can't say he convinced me on everyhting. It always amuses me when people in a disagreement over constitutional issues talk of the intent of the founding fathers. As if the founding fathers were a single entity that was consistant and unanimous in every opinion. For every belief that one can find the support of Jefferson for, I can find an equally elloquent and contrary opinion among another founder, usually Hamilton. (History buffs are chuckling now. I am such a nerd. ) The fact is they were men from all walks of life like us. And they disagreed, sometimes very strongly over issues. Almost every sentance in the constitution and bill of rights was disagreed with by at least one of the founding fathers. But they debated, and compromised, and came up with a document that was at once general and specific, both rigid and flexible, both fixed and changeable. Quite an accomplishment actually.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:
I think it is glaringly obvious that the readers, hearers, viewers, etc own the content. Not the artists. Society owns the content. Because such things define us...we use them to communicate and relate. The only wrench is the money, and god, if that isn't a massive wrench.

That is all well and good for high minded philisophical discussions such as this. We are all in effect "authors" on this fourm with Shrapnel as our "publisher". The free exchange of beliefs and ideas is another of our founding principles. Technology makes this exchange easier, great. But when your livelehood depends on selling this content you produce, it changes your perspective.

It's fine for a professor of literature, who has a job teaching at the university to pay the bills, to publish a sholarly work and say it "belongs" to the reader. Or for someone like Jefferson who didn't have to work to put food on the table because he had labor of human slaves to do it for him to decry the ownership of "intellectual property". But when you can't exercise your talent at writing because you aren't getting paid for it and you have to work at a diner, you don't have the luxury of such lofty principles. For those people their right of ownership to the work they produce is just as obvious.

Geoschmo

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:
IIRC, wasn't Napster sold for something like 50 million. I know it was quite a bit, but I don't know who the money went to.

$50 million is chicken feed. A single 'blockbuster' album can make more than this. So really, Napster was sold for a song.

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:

There is an ultimate limit on printed copyright, even though there exist extensions beyond the 70 years after the author's death. I think beyond that you can extend it another 30 or 40...not sure. Read it once when trying to figure out if a GK Chesterton book was still copyrighted.

I am completely on Baron's side in this, and I think the fundamental philosophy of this issue can be found in many a college lit class--when they discuss interpretations of works. Does it matter what the author thought when he wrote work X, or is the only real interpretation the one we create, not knowing what he was thinking. The fundamental question, beyond that, consists of ownership of ideas and how they are presented. Some authors get profoundly offended when critics or professors interpret a book to mean something he/she never meant it to mean.

I think it is glaringly obvious that the readers, hearers, viewers, etc own the content. Not the artists. Society owns the content. Because such things define us...we use them to communicate and relate. The only wrench is the money, and god, if that isn't a massive wrench.

I say the copyright laws should resemble a car warenty. 10 years or 1 million copies. I mean come on, after 1 million copies, you don't need the money any more, and after 10 years, for music at least, tastes change...you are part of history, not business.

In this case, though, the current 'interpretation' has been dictated by the corporations who want to setup a free ride for themselves. The 'rebels' trying to over-thrown absolute copyright are the ones who are interpreting it as originally written! The constitution clearly states that copyrights and patents are there to provide an incentive for people to contribute to the public domain, NOT to guard 'intellectual property'!

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, Congress is granted the power:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

How that relates to copyright in other countries, I don't know. I suppose if this challenge succeeds they will try to lock us into a treaty that forces their interpretation since that method has been so successful in other areas. Since there is a clause allowing for provisions in the Constitution to be over-ridden by international treaties this is going to be the route that everyone goes to get their way now.

[ June 27, 2002, 19:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I will agree that the system as a whole has become horribly skewed. It used to be that the author of a work was viewed as the "producer" and the publisher was just distribution. The publisher "worked for" the author in effect. That has got turned around now and the publisher is producing and the author has become in effect merely a raw material. The publsiher controls the access to the market and so the author becomes dependant on them and thus sells their rights for a bowl of porridge.

The internet offers the possibility of once again allowing the author direct access to the market. This is a good thing. No doubt is scares the crud out of the current publishing power structure.

What needs to happen is for forward thinking artists to deal directly with Napster, or Napster like technology and regain control over what they do. But the technology needs responsible limits as well so that it cannot be used to distribute works of artists that do not wish them to.

And yes, copyrights need to be limited. But violation of those copyrights cannot be tolerated or excused.

I read that link Baron. Pretty good article actually. It made me think, although I can't say he convinced me on everyhting. It always amuses me when people in a disagreement over constitutional issues talk of the intent of the founding fathers. As if the founding fathers were a single entity that was consistant and unanimous in every opinion. For every belief that one can find the support of Jefferson for, I can find an equally elloquent and contrary opinion among another founder, usually Hamilton. (History buffs are chuckling now. I am such a nerd. ) The fact is they were men from all walks of life like us. And they disagreed, sometimes very strongly over issues. Almost every sentance in the constitution and bill of rights was disagreed with by at least one of the founding fathers. But they debated, and compromised, and came up with a document that was at once general and specific, both rigid and flexible, both fixed and changeable. Quite an accomplishment actually.

Geoschmo

The problem is that the reach of copyright has been extended with every advance in technology. It's now possible to argue that mere possession of information 'damages' someone's ability to make profits. It used to be that you had to try to exploit copyrighted material to violate a copyright, not merely possess it.

The current system has proven the classic proverb of grasping a handful of sand. The harder you grasp it, the more you lose. Yes, artists need to get fair compensation for their work. But corporations should not be able to stand over us and bill is for living our lives in the common culture. Because of this over-reaching, extremist position the respect of the general public for copyright has been badly eroded.

I think the worst of the problem could be addressed through an extension/expansion of 'fair use' rights. If I happen to have a copy of a favorite song from 20+ years ago it's not a threat to anybody's income. If I was going to buy a copy I'd have done so long before. I think this holds true for most people. If we really like something we DO buy it. If we find an MP3 of a song we haven't heard for a decade or more and download it that doesn't mean we would have bought the CD if we ran across it in a store.

Similarly, if I scan a favorite SciFi novel into my PC and keep it for re-reading/reference I am violating copyright. Sure, if some website scans in a novel & Posts it without permission that is violating copyright. They are 'exploiting' someone else's work, at the very least to generate attention and 'hits' for their site even if they don't charge money for it. But I can't change the form of the information I purchased? This is ridiculous.

So, I propose that if we allow mere possession of a work to count as 'fair use' after a reasonable length of time we could possibly allow copyright on exploitation to continue for the author's lifetime with no problems. You wouldn't be able to lift 'Satisfaction' by the Stones and use it in a movie soundtrack, or perform a cover Version with your own band. Just have a copy in your possession. 10 years, 20 years. I dunno. Something like that. Allowing people to experience their own culture without being taxed/fined/persecuted would go a long way towards restoring respect for copyright law.

[ June 27, 2002, 19:47: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
It's fine for a professor of literature, who has a job teaching at the university to pay the bills, to publish a sholarly work and say it "belongs" to the reader. Or for someone like Jefferson who didn't have to work to put food on the table because he had labor of human slaves to do it for him to decry the ownership of "intellectual property". But when you can't exercise your talent at writing because you aren't getting paid for it and you have to work at a diner, you don't have the luxury of such lofty principles. For those people their right of ownership to the work they produce is just as obvious.

Geoschmo

And you have just hit the real issue in this debate: money. Specifically, whether a particular artist makes enough money to support themselves. The days when rich landowners would support artists directly are gone; now, those artists must find a way to receive compensation for their talent. And our society (particularly American society) doesn't place much value on most artists. Yeah, there are lots of performers making large amounts of money by having their performances distributed by a large corporation. But most of those performers are no-talent hacks who only make money because the huge marketing machine at a record company brainwashed the general public into believing it's a worthwhile investment. And that is the other problem with this whole issue: since the record companies are making money off CRAP by investing large amounts of money in it, they certainly can't afford to have someone listen to the CRAP for free.

Anyway, this whole debate would be pointless if we could find a way to provide a decent standard of living to all people without forcing them to work in jobs they either disliked or were ill-suited for. Which comes down to controlling resources and whether or not the planet has enough resources to provide that standard of living to the current population. And, of course, the "natural" tendency of people to want their lives to be a little better than their neighbors' lives (i.e. greed).

I think I'm just rambling now, but I wanted to share some thoughts that should at least fuel some more spirited debate.

[Jmenschenfresser]

Death to the plutocrats!

[geoschmo]

[quote]Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

So, I propose that if we allow mere possession of a work to count as 'fair use' after a reasonable length of time we could possibly allow copyright on exploitation to continue for the author's lifetime with no problems. You wouldn't be able to lift 'Satisfaction' by the Stones and use it in a movie soundtrack, or perform a cover Version with your own band. Just have a copy in your possession. 10 years, 20 years. I dunno. Something like that. Allowing people to experience their own culture without being taxed/fined/persecuted would go a long way towards restoring respect for copyright law.

This sounds great. In fact I would be in favor of a "Fair use" clause, but (there's always a but) how does that apply to the "sharing" of it. I think almost any reasonable person would agree that if you bought a copy and wanted to give that copy to someone you'd have that right. But does that translate into the right to copy it and give the copy, or give the original and keep the copy? That is the whole crux of the dispute as it relates to Napster.

Would giving copies away qualify as fair use in your mind or exploitation? With technology advancing to the point where a copy is for practical purposes indistinguishable from the original that becomes a problem.

Geo