News Radical New Copyright Law

[cjp]

You didn't make air, you didn't design air, you have no claim to air. Now if you put some special formulation of gaseous molecules into the air bottle to make it special and unique (a unique scent, for example), then yes you might have a claim to the contents. Like with coke, you could patent the formula you came up with. If someone buys one of your bottles, figures out how to copy it, and proceeds to do so and distribute it to other people, then guess what? They violated your intellectual property right and should be forced to pay for that violation. You created the formulation, they had no right to replicate and distribute the end product of all of your work, even if they don't charge a dime for it - you have the right to make a profit off of your intellectual product free from competition by thieves.

The difference is, I think, that you treat intellectual property as a moral principle in itself, while I tend to see it as just a pragmatic legal construction, which, in the end, is only there to support other moral values.

I even tend to see traditional property in this way: as a pragmatic construction, which, if it doesn't turn out to do what it's intended to do, can be replaced by something better (if something better exists). The thing is, with traditional property, I actually think it works quite well, which is basically the thing that separates me from true communism.

I don't know whether I can defend my views against someone who holds intellectual property as a basic value in itself.

I'll only post in this thread again when I think it's really useful, because I think I might have heated up the discussion a bit too much, and more explaining and defending will probably only make it worse.

Edit: there IS something I do want to add to this, and it's an old tale:

There once was a poor man, who was so poor that he even couldn't buy food. While he was, hungry, walking through the market, he noticed a delicious smell coming from one of the salesmen, who was preparing some meat. Of course the poor man couldn't buy any of it, but he approached the shop so that he could at least enjoy the smell.
The shop owner noticed the poor man, and asked him to leave or to pay for the smell. The poor man refused, and they started to argue. That is when the wise man arrived.
The wise man asked what was going on. The shop owner told him the poor man didn't want to pay for the smell he was enjoying. The wise man said: "I'll pay for him".
So the wise man took his wallet with one hand, and one by one he dropped coins on the table of the salesman. The salesman heard the coins fall, and he started smiling, as it was a lot of money. "Is that enough?", asked the wise man. The salesman said it was. Then, the wise man took his money from the table, put it back in his wallet, and started to walk away. The salesman said: "What are you doing? That is my money now!". "No", said the wise man. "It is my money. I paid for the smell of your meat with the sound of my money".

 

[Messierhunter]

The thing is that people who pirate software probably wouldn't buy it in the first place anyways, at least in my opinion.

That is not true of all pirates, and probably not even true for 100% of the things that any given pirate steals. I can personally vouch for that from first-hand experience.


-----Posted Added-----

I even tend to see traditional property in this way: as a pragmatic construction, which, if it doesn't turn out to do what it's intended to do, can be replaced by something better (if something better exists). The thing is, with traditional property, I actually think it works quite well, which is basically the thing that separates me from true communism.

No, apparently nothing separates you from communism. Perhaps you don't think communism works as well at the moment, but you refuse to believe in a moral right to property. You believe in the underlying foundation of communism though; belief that property of any kind is just a convienent construct is the central tenant. Whether or not you wish to apply your philosophy practically in all aspects of your life instead of just selectively to this issue is irrelevant.

I'll only post in this thread again when I think it's really useful, because I think I might have heated up the discussion a bit too much, and more explaining and defending will probably only make it worse.

Did I say something that you find offensive?

Edit: there IS something I do want to add to this, and it's an old tale:

If you refuse to believe in a moral right to property, then it is impossible to justify anything but communism. Everything else is at best "convenient," but you reserve the right to say that any given person's property should be made publicly available to all against that person's will, a position which itself is also convenient. I guess you were attempting to draw some comparison between the smell of meat and someone who creates a scent to sell, but I find the comparison falls flat. It's clear that in your story the "evil capitalist pig (tm)" was using any excuse he could find to get rid of the "downtrodden poor person (tm)" and had no intention of actually selling the scent at the outset. Only because he was an "evil capitalist pig (tm)" did he try to keep the wise man's money. [Please note, my substituted names for figures appearing in the story was to protect the innocent. No insult was meant, this was merely in jest.] Furthermore, this person did not invent the smell of meat and once again has no claim. If someone else starts distributing the same smell by copying him and laying meat all over for the smell of it, the store owner can not claim his intellectual property was infringed on, there was no intellectual property to start with, just as in your air example.

 

[cjp]

Did I say something that you find offensive?

It's not you in particular, and I'm not easily offended. It's just: do you want me to continue the way it has been going in the last three or four posts? Do you think my contributions will be useful to the general discussion?

I think I'm just more afraid I'm offending other people, and hijacking someone else's thread, without adding something useful, than I'm afraid of being offended myself. The "wild revolutionary ideas" I posted in this thread are not sacred to me: they are just the current result of a search for alternatives to the IP system. You can already see in the development of the thread that, after criticism on the "value added tax"-like system, I posted a new idea, about government-funded software development.

Now if you all like it, I can use this thread to post new or adapted ideas after the old ones have received criticism that is valid in my opinion (and I can defend against criticism that is invalid in my opinion). But if some of you are going to stick to the IP-model anyway, it feels to me I'm fighting a war I can't win here. In that case, I'd better leave this thread.

Now the discussion seems to be heading towards the more general topic of the ethics of property. I think I have something to say about that, but I'm afraid nobody is prepared to listen and everybody is prepared to shout.

PS, I did not make the tale myself. You can find plenty of variations on the internet, e.g. by searching for "sound of my money".

 

[Messierhunter]

It's not you in particular, and I'm not easily offended. It's just: do you want me to continue the way it has been going in the last three or four posts? Do you think my contributions will be useful to the general discussion?

Personally I prefer people to be open in their dissent; even if I know I'll never agree with them nor change their minds I'd like to know where they stand so I can understand where they're coming from.

I think I'm just more afraid I'm offending other people, and hijacking someone else's thread, without adding something useful, than I'm afraid of being offended myself.

I see, well then I'll leave you with the judgement call of whether this is getting too far from the subject of the thread then. Personally I think it applies directly to the subject at hand because this debate reveals some of the underlying world views that determine how one forms an opinion of copyright laws. You can't form an opinion on the matter without some understanding or opinion of property in general.

Now the discussion seems to be heading towards the more general topic of the ethics of property. I think I have something to say about that, but I'm afraid nobody is prepared to listen and everybody is prepared to shout.

The ethics of property is what the law really boils down to when you get away from the specific nuances of how this particular law tries to enforce those ethics. It has broader implications than just this law, yes, but it's hard to have a discussion about a particular law regarding property if people come to the debate with very different ideas about whether property should even be an unalienable right. If those differences are irreconcilable to start off, then a detailed discussion of the specific law will be an exercise in futility for either side anyway. What is morally repugnant to me is obviously a matter of practicality to you. Personally, I stand by the 14th Amendment which explicitly guarantees the right of property free from intervention by the state without due process. I agree there's not really much point in arguing this further as our differences are irreconcilable, but I find it important to discuss this topic in general in the course of discussing the specific law because it is vital to understanding each others' opinions.

PS, I did not make the tale myself. You can find plenty of variations on the internet, e.g. by searching for "sound of my money".

In fact I assumed you found it somewhere, but I just don't find it applicable to intellectual property law or morality.

 

[Spaced]

Well I've just wasted the last few years of my life working on "intellectual property". After an accident left me crippled some years back I taught myself 3D design and threw myself into the Flight Sim addon industry. I'd done my fare share of freeware and could only produce the industry quality scenery by dedicating all my working time to it. 2 years ago after releasing Visualflight Farnborough http://www.visualflight.info/products/farnborough I haven't even made a thousand pounds from it (please forgive the plug. I need all the help I can). The number of seeders on the pirate bay have consistantly outnumbered all total retail sales. And that number goes up and down as people start and finish downloading. So every day there are more people pirating it than in total have bought the scenery since it was released.
These last two years have been spent developing Aerosoft/Horizon's VFRLondonX scenery http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/us/iboshop.cgi?showd480!0,5013567910,D10806. Two years of constant development, up to 20 hours a day, and now before I've recieved any payment for it it's on the usual pirate websites. Am I wrong to ask for some kind of reward for all that work, to make some sort of living from it? I'm just an idiot for trying and hoping for the best.
If I recieved a fraction of what's been downloaded I wouldn' be upset. But I am also obligated to provide support and probably to people who haven't paid for it. If my next project goes the same way, I'm jacking it in. I'd love to release all my work for free, and when I win the lottery I will. But until then I need to pay the bills and feed myself like everyone else.
I wont deny I've downloaded stuff before, but I've also got a conscience and bought what I kept, even going so far as buying retail copies of software I helped beta test. To support the developers.

By the way, I'm still all up for freeware and good-will. I'm still producing freeware for FS, and intend to get into Orbiter development when I'm not singing for my supper and have time to get stuck into the SDK.

On the other hand I abhor DRM. It's just a huge shame that a conscience or moral code is so rare when people can claim anonimity. We need some kind of governmental advert drive against it, (don't laugh) look at how disgusting it is to smoke now we have laws against it in Blighty. People are so easily programmed nowadays.

I'm sorry for my personal rant on the subject, I realise you were talking mainly of the film and music industries and to the subtle ways that a law can be interpreted. I've just had very mixed emotions on the subject lately and we're not all mega-corporations "that can afford the loss"

There's no immediate answer...... until someone invents a lock that can't be picked it will carry on as is. You've just got to hope you're working in a field where your potential customers want more from you, and are therefore eager to encourage you with money.
Praise and adulation, for me are a wonderful reward so long as I've got dinner on my plate.

 

[tblaxland]

You didn't make air, you didn't design air, you have no claim to air.

And yet companies can patent genes, and going further back in history, other existing substances, eg, adrenalin. I guess I can understand a patent on a new or modified gene, but on an existing one?

This could be an interesting test case:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/cancer-gene-test-ban-may-spark-legal-bid-20081022-56i4.html

Genetic Technologies are attempting to stop other laboratories testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that they have licensed from a US company that holds the patents to them. The genes are naturally occurring and the test method is not new.

 

[to be]

Just because the IP laws are abused doesn't mean they are bad. Most of the time the courts discount situations like the one mentioned above.

 

[Andy44]

Here's an interesting podcast by Lew Rockwell and his guest on IP. For those who don't know, Rockwell is a radical libertarian who runs his own popular pro-free market website. His guest argues that IP is basically not a natural right like the right to own physical property, but rather a manufactured right which can only exist in the presence of a state-run bureaucracy to document patents and copyrights and so forth.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-09-23_032_ip.mp3

It's very interesting, since I've always been a believer in the basic idea of IP rights, but I also instinctively despise DRM and RIAA and the rediculous lengths to which companies and governments want to snoop on my hard drive.

I haven't decided, yet, when I have time to think I will try to reduce this back to first principles and analyze it. From the standpoint of natural rights, it seems the concept of IP has not been fully mapped yet, and that makes it very interesting.

 

[tblaxland]

Just because the IP laws are abused doesn't mean they are bad. Most of the time the courts discount situations like the one mentioned above.

According to the article "the issue had never been tested", but perhaps that is just in relation to the Australian court system. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against intellectual property laws. I believe there are unfair abuses of them on both sides. It would seem that some work is required to try and stop those abuses.

 

[Messierhunter]

And yet companies can patent genes, and going further back in history, other existing substances, eg, adrenalin. I guess I can understand a patent on a new or modified gene, but on an existing one?

They're patenting the ability to produce a product from the gene sequence for a useful purpose, whether the use be for further research or treatment. The gene sequence, in whole or in part, in and of itself cannot be patented unless it is being used to produce something useful. BRCA has use as a test for risk of breast cancer. The general consensus is that patents should not be allowed for gene products whose functions have not yet been characterized - if the researcher doesn't know what it does yet they don't have a claim to stake in being the first one to learn enough about it to use it. BRCA's funtion is well characterized though.

Just because something can be found in nature does not mean it cannot be patented if the compound has been isolated and has a use after isolation. For instance, you can create human insulin by inserting the gene into E. Coli, and in purified form it is a vital medication for some people. Same with streptomycin, same with many of the antibiotics and drugs we take today. In all of these cases people aren't just finding something in nature and patenting it as their own, they have to extract it and demonstrate a usefulness. You can't just give someone naturally occuring Streptomyces griseus and cure someone of a bacterial infection, you have to purify the streptomycin first.

 

[tblaxland]

They're patenting the ability to produce a product from the gene sequence for a useful purpose, whether the use be for further research or treatment.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess from the perspective of the company that did the research, they see that they have a right to make a profit from their research. I guess this would be less of a problem if we had more government sponsored research, eh?

A hypothetical then: I discover a naturally occurring mineral (I'll call it blaxocite ) and find that I can use it to make widgets. I can patent that use but that does not preclude someone patenting the use of blaxocite for some other purpose? In other words, I can make a profit out of finding a use for blaxocite but not make a profit from discovering it?

@Andy44, reducing IP back to first principles is not an easy thing to do. The only suggestion I can offer is to consider two personal scenarios. The first is a moral one, the second a capitalist one:

1) How would you feel if someone took one of your addons and used it for a purpose that you did not agree with (eg, making money from it or modifying it in some way that you didn't like)? That would make you feel bad in some way, right? Like something had been taken from you, even though nothing physically had been? Should you be afforded some legal protection against that?

2) Now consider that you quit your job so you can work full-time on your addons and sell them. Should you have some form of legal protection so that you can do so?

My thoughts:

1) Yes, protection should be given. To me this is essentially an artistic thing. In art, form and context are very important and an artist should have control over these things. Allowing unauthorised changes to form (eg, modifying an addon) and context (eg, selling it) would only serve to discourage artists (and I include addon makers in that) from producing their work.

2) Given that we live in a capitalist society, yes, protection should be given and for two reasons. Firstly, to encourage creation of products that others want. The protection afforded in (1) is insufficient to do that in a capitalist society. Secondly, to ensure equality. What is the difference between a software coder working 8 hours a day and a farmer working 8 hours a day? Nothing, and each should have an equal right to profit from the fruits of their labours. (BTW, I don't want to turn this into an argument about the merits or otherwise of a capitalist society. If you want to change society, you need to address a broader range of issues than just IP).

 

[ar81]

Just because the IP laws are abused doesn't mean they are bad.

IP intensive industry aside of RIAA and MPAA monopolies are the ones which will suffer if laws are not properly done to allow room to prevent IP vulture lawsuits that could sink a honest company.

 

[Andy44]

@Andy44, reducing IP back to first principles is not an easy thing to do. The only suggestion I can offer is to consider two personal scenarios. The first is a moral one, the second a capitalist one:

1) How would you feel if someone took one of your addons and used it for a purpose that you did not agree with (eg, making money from it or modifying it in some way that you didn't like)? That would make you feel bad in some way, right? Like something had been taken from you, even though nothing physically had been? Should you be afforded some legal protection against that?

2) Now consider that you quit your job so you can work full-time on your addons and sell them. Should you have some form of legal protection so that you can do so?

My thoughts:

1) Yes, protection should be given. To me this is essentially an artistic thing. In art, form and context are very important and an artist should have control over these things. Allowing unauthorised changes to form (eg, modifying an addon) and context (eg, selling it) would only serve to discourage artists (and I include addon makers in that) from producing their work.

2) Given that we live in a capitalist society, yes, protection should be given and for two reasons. Firstly, to encourage creation of products that others want. The protection afforded in (1) is insufficient to do that in a capitalist society. Secondly, to ensure equality. What is the difference between a software coder working 8 hours a day and a farmer working 8 hours a day? Nothing, and each should have an equal right to profit from the fruits of their labours. (BTW, I don't want to turn this into an argument about the merits or otherwise of a capitalist society. If you want to change society, you need to address a broader range of issues than just IP).

Well, if reducing it to first principles were easy we wouldn't be arguing about it, would we?

Like I said, I have been a believer in IP for the reasons you mentioned, but in order for an individualist like myself to believe something is a natural right, I have to play out the scenario. To what lengths may I go to protect my addon? May I covertly install spyware on your hard drive to report back to me any tampering with my addon? Can I pattern your activities to see if you meet the criterion of a software pirate? These are the sorts of things some government officials and indistry execs have teamed up to try to impose on you. These activities clearly violate your privacy rights, and real natural rights do not conflict. I suppose I could supply a root kit with my addon and make you agree to a contract before you download it; that way you couldn't say the spyware is there against your will. But is that practical?

I think the old system of copyrighting printed material worked pretty well. If you buy a book, and copy it at home with a Xerox machine, you may get away with selling a few copies, but if you sell in volume you're probably going to get noticed by me or my publisher, which will prompt legal action. But even with books, where do you draw the line? At what point does paraphrasing, say, cross the line into plagurism?

More thinking and discussion will be needed before a consistent set of IP ethics can be laid out. I'm sure there are lots of people more schooled in this than me.

 

[tblaxland]

May I covertly install spyware on your hard drive to report back to me any tampering with my addon? Can I pattern your activities to see if you meet the criterion of a software pirate?

No you can't. Firstly, I would see these activities as you, a private citizen or corporation, engaging in law enforcement which is not your role. Secondly, if these things were to be done by the government, they should be illegal much like it is illegal for the cops to search my home without a warrant.

More thinking and discussion will be needed before a consistent set of IP ethics can be laid out. I'm sure there are lots of people more schooled in this than me.

Ditto.

 

[ar81]

So you want to tease RIAA and MPAA?
Make a DOC that fits the size of a music or movie file. Share it with a friend of yours and let RIAA/MPAA know about it.
Rename DOC file so it appears to be theft copyrighted material.
When they call you to the court of justice, just ask RIAA/MPAA lawyer to play that file with any available player.
Then ask the lawyer to rename as DOC and open the file.
Then you have a great case to sue RIAA and MPAA and make lots of money with their attempt to sue you.
They own the copyrighted material, but they do not own the rights to make you change a name on a file. Specially if it goes to the machine of a friend of yours.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I've often thought about doing something like that except record my own music and release it on a torrent with a license that specifically prohibits the RIAA/MPAA from downloading the file, and/or requires them to pay millions of dollars should they do so. Or even go so far as to get my own copyright for the stuff!
Then, I could sue them for infringement and crap!

 

[ar81]

I've often thought about doing something like that except record my own music and release it on a torrent with a license that specifically prohibits the RIAA/MPAA from downloading the file, and/or requires them to pay millions of dollars should they do so. Or even go so far as to get my own copyright for the stuff!
Then, I could sue them for infringement and crap!

You just need to be careful about not using brands (for you could be sued for violating brand laws), but a tempting filename that suggests a copyright violation.

In your license, you should forbid RIAA/MPAA from using it for ANY use (including suing you). :lol:
After that you could try a different and unpredictable way to tease them. As they learn that they can be sued by you, it is more likely that they ignore you and would avoid suing you.

After you do so, pass the trick to other people.
How about a massive teasing.

 

[cjp]

More thinking and discussion will be needed before a consistent set of IP ethics can be laid out. I'm sure there are lots of people more schooled in this than me.

Does anybody know some good book on this topic? As can be seen from my continuously changing opinions, I'm somebody who's looking hard for understanding the matter, but who's still walking in the dark.

My current ideas? This:

You can't treat all IP as if it's all the same. For instance, there is an important difference between copyrights and patents:

You can ignore copyright if you wish. And I don't mean piracy (you can do that too), but I mean legally: if you don't like the copyright system, you can boycott it. If you don't want to buy a windows license, you can use Linux instead (which is technically speaking also copyrighted, but it doesn't depend that much on the copyright system). You can refuse to buy licenses for copyrighted music.

The only situation where you can't boycott it, is where you really need it, and free(*) alternatives are not available. But this "not available" would be the whole situation in the first place if the copyright system didn't exist.

Patents are a whole different thing. You can't legally "ignore" a patent in the same way as I described for copyrights. A patent disallows anything using the same technology, even when you also (independently) invented the technology, making it extremely difficult to bypass: you'd need to develop a different technology which solves the same problem. And some problems can really only be solved effectively by one kind of technology.

Having said that, there still are some dangers to copyrights. One of them is that people might create circumstances for each other where they can not avoid using copyrighted material. This is especially the case for software and other copyrighted technology that can "lock-in" customers with closed proprietary standards. Under these circumstances, copyrights are just as evil as patents.

Another danger is that people are tricked into wanting something impossible. Because of the existence of copyright laws, people start trusting them and relying on them. We've seen examples of that in this thread, and we've seen disillusionment, disappointment, and maybe even anger. Reality is that copyright law is broken on a massive scale, and the only way that sounds like it could do something about it would introduce police-state like measures. DRM is evil too(**), but it won't work anyway, and it is a technological illusion, just like copyright is a legal illusion. And people who believe in illusions can easily be tricked into supporting some very dangerous measures.

So, I like free software. I don't think anymore that the entire copyright system should be abandoned, but I believe we need more free software in those areas where it isn't developed spontaneously, so that we will no longer depend on copyrighted materials. I'd be happy to support a government that actively subsidizes free software development(***). We should also stop using proprietary standards.

(*) As the free software foundation says: free as in speech, not as in beer.
(**) Oh, I love the word evil. It says so little, but at the same time it says exactly what you're trying to say!
(***) As long as it's also doing well on all other aspects of society of course. Which is never the case of course.

 

[tblaxland]

Having said that, there still are some dangers to copyrights. One of them is that people might create circumstances for each other where they can not avoid using copyrighted material. This is especially the case for software and other copyrighted technology that can "lock-in" customers with closed proprietary standards. Under these circumstances, copyrights are just as evil as patents.

This is an anit-competitive practice known as "tying" and is generally discouraged by governments by way of competition/antitrust laws (see United States v. Microsoft and Sherman Antitrust Act).

copyright is a legal illusion.

Copyright is a very real and, most importantly, enforceable legal construct. The law may be broken regularly and it may require vigilance by copyright holders to ensure compliance, but that does not make it an illusion. Speed limits are broken all the time, but they are still law. The only illusion would be for a copyright holder to assume that copyright law will automatically stop their copyright being broken.

I'd be happy to support a government that actively subsidizes free software development(***). We should also stop using proprietary standards.

I would too, hence my earlier comment above more government funded research.

 

[Linguofreak]

Here's a proposal:

Base the IP economy on commission, not price per copy.

All IP becomes open source. However, a developer/artist/whatever can take a commission from an individual or group for creating/modifying a piece of IP and releasing it to the public. He can charge however much he wants as long as he can find a buyer at that price. Once he receives his commision, he uploads it to the web for free download to all. Others can then create derivative works and take comissions for the modifications.