Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6710/125/




This particular topic was discussed in another thread of which I do not remember the title.

However, I stated that the cap should be set and all punitive damages removed from the court systems so we do not end up with $1.4 million punitive damage fines (Capitol vs. Thomas...but was later overturned).

I stated that it should be capped and should mostly be awarded "Compensatory Damages".

If the song was downloaded 10,000 times, the value of the song itself should be determined as a single consumption. Most likely, the cost for file sharing it 10,000 times would be $10,000...or less.


Canada is taking it a step further and limiting it to $5,000.


Go Canada.


What are your thoughts: am I wrong in my sentiments?



Full disclosure: I never file share. But I do think the system needs revision in the UK and the US.

Go Canada, but it should be no fines. It's just bytes of data arranged in a specific matter. Lars can still go **** himself.

back when the whole napster thing first broke, our federal police basically said they had better things to do than try to chase down copyrights.

that being said, I know it was the Canadian recording agency that shut down demonoid a few years back, so it's not like nothin happens in that regard here.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the decision, however, and maybe it is just the lack of famous cases, but I don't think we even had issues of people getting nailed for copyright infringement.

Originally posted by Robtard
Go Canada, but it should be no fines. It's just bytes of data arranged in a specific matter. Lars can still go **** himself.

lol


But...but...sometimes, what I make, I want to be mine. If I spent thousands of hours putting together a software program that was quite useful, I'd expect to be compensated. Maybe enough for me to buy a Tesla Model S or Roadster?

As far as the music industry is concerned, it's pretty much adapted to file sharing, and most artists seem to accept it as necessary losses--they can still make huge amounts of money from selling merchandise, from royalties when their music is played at events/in movies/TV shows, and from live shows.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol


But...but...sometimes, what I make, I want to be mine. If I spent thousands of hours putting together a software program that was quite useful, I'd expect to be compensated. Maybe enough for me to buy a Tesla Model S or Roadster?

Yes, you should be allowed to sell it and make a profit. But if I buy it and want to share if for free with someone else, where is the illegal action?

Tell me, if I bought and paid for a Double Whopper with cheese hold the pickle, is there something illegal with me sharing it with you? Does Burger King have grounds to stop be from giving you a few bites and fine me cos by sharing said Double Whopper with cheese hold the pickle you may or may not buy one later from them?

/boom

How about my copy of a book, I am not allowed to share it with a friend after I finished reading it?

/boom boom

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, you should be allowed to sell it and make a profit. But if I buy it and want to share if for free with someone else, where is the illegal action?

Tell me, if I bought and paid for a Double Whopper with cheese hold the pickle, is there something illegal with me sharing it with you? Does Burger King have grounds to stop be from giving you a few bites and fine me cos by sharing said Double Whopper with cheese hold the pickle you may or may not buy one later from them?

/boom

How about my copy of a book, I am not allowed to share it with a friend after I finished reading it?

/boom boom
I don't think that's a fair comparison. For it to be comparable it would have to be you getting a printing press and printing out new copies of the book after you're done reading it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think that's a fair comparison. For it to be comparable it would have to be you getting a printing press and printing out new copies of the book after you're done reading it.

So it's a matter of how many times I eShared something and not the act of sharing itself? Cos I'm fairly certain you can get fined for sharing even once.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's a matter of how many times I eShared something and not the act of sharing itself? Cos I'm fairly certain you can get fined for sharing even once.
I think you'd have to be dense to think that the seriousness of sharing isn't dependent on the scale.

You could share a book with more people and economically hurt the author/publisher more if you printed out copies and distributed them rather than just passing a single copy around to a few friends.

I don't think any author seriously thinks that when someone buys their book they'll either burn it after reading or keep it in a safe so that no one else can read their copy. It's understood that some sharing will occur. But no author/publisher (well, maybe some extreme non-commercial authors who are in it just for the art) is going to allow you to print out unlicensed copies of the book in your basement.

And as I said, as far as the law is concerned you can be fined for sharing something once*. So why is it okay for me to share a physical copy of a book, dvd, cd etc., but not a digital?

*Unless I'm wrong and you need to hit 'X' amount of shares before you've committed a crime? If so, what's the number between legal and illegal sharing?

The issue (at least with people being somewhat reasonable) is that your sharing more then what you purchased. So say you bought two and gave one that'd be fine, but say you bought 1 and printed out a second copy for someone else, would be the crime.

I think people take punishing file sharing too far, but I do understand the concern.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, you should be allowed to sell it and make a profit. But if I buy it and want to share if for free with someone else, where is the illegal action?

The contract you agreed to when you installed the software said you would not violate the copyright. Since that isn't an unreasonable requirement it should (and does) stand up in court.

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6710/125/




This particular topic was discussed in another thread of which I do not remember the title.

However, I stated that the cap should be set and all punitive damages removed from the court systems so we do not end up with $1.4 million punitive damage fines (Capitol vs. Thomas...but was later overturned).

I stated that it should be capped and should mostly be awarded "Compensatory Damages".

If the song was downloaded 10,000 times, the value of the song itself should be determined as a single consumption. Most likely, the cost for file sharing it 10,000 times would be $10,000...or less.


Canada is taking it a step further and limiting it to $5,000.


Go Canada.


What are your thoughts: am I wrong in my sentiments?



Full disclosure: I never file share. But I do think the system needs revision in the UK and the US.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. $5,000 really isn't much of a deterrent whan you think about it though anything in six figures or more is indeed excessive. It isn't just the music industry but also movie, television, and even the porn industry is effected detrimentally by file sharing.

Originally posted by Robtard
And as I said, as far as the law is concerned you can be fined for sharing something once*. So why is it okay for me to share a physical copy of a book, dvd, cd etc., but not a digital?

*Unless I'm wrong and you need to hit 'X' amount of shares before you've committed a crime? If so, what's the number between legal and illegal sharing?
I'm not concerned about the legalistic perspective--I'm concerned with the whole idea of reasonable fair use of another person's intellectual property. I don't think uploading a song which is then downloaded by a million people is the same as sharing a book with a single friend.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
The issue (at least with people being somewhat reasonable) is that your sharing more then what you purchased. So say you bought two and gave one that'd be fine, but say you bought 1 and printed out a second copy for someone else, would be the crime.

I think people take punishing file sharing too far, but I do understand the concern. i can definitely see the argument for why it's wrong. unfortunately, getting what i want for free is more important to me than being a morally upstanding internet subscriber.

edit - but on the bright side, it does sometimes lead me to purchase things which i most likely wouldn't have otherwise given a chance.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i can definitely see the argument for why it's wrong. unfortunately, getting what i want for free is more important to me than being a morally upstanding internet subscriber.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, you should be allowed to sell it and make a profit. But if I buy it and want to share if for free with someone else, where is the illegal action?

Tell me, if I bought and paid for a Double Whopper with cheese hold the pickle, is there something illegal with me sharing it with you? Does Burger King have grounds to stop be from giving you a few bites and fine me cos by sharing said Double Whopper with cheese hold the pickle you may or may not buy one later from them?

/boom

How about my copy of a book, I am not allowed to share it with a friend after I finished reading it?

/boom boom

Others have pointed out the flaw in your logic. I almost agree with you but the proper comparison really is a printing press.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I have mixed feelings on this issue. $5,000 really isn't much of a deterrent whan you think about it though anything in six figures or more is indeed excessive. It isn't just the music industry but also movie, television, and even the porn industry is effected detrimentally by file sharing.

That is definitely reasonable and I cannot argue with that. What do you think about my suggestion of making it purely compensatory and eliminating all punitive "fines"?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i can definitely see the argument for why it's wrong. unfortunately, getting what i want for free is more important to me than being a morally upstanding internet subscriber.

edit - but on the bright side, it does sometimes lead me to purchase things which i most likely wouldn't have otherwise given a chance.

I read an article on Gizmodo that was a post on a study that said something like:

Those who fileshare are much more likely to have purchased products. Meaning, their "real" dvd and music library is larger than those that do not fileshare. That clearly indicates that the median filesharer approaches this topic with a specific philosophy that IS conducive to the various "digital" markets.

I believe the scientists attributed it to something like "test before you drive".

Punitive damages are there to discourage others from doing it in the future, it makes breaking the law financially worse than obeying it. Obviously $1.5 million for a bunch of songs is absurd but I don't think they should be done away with. IMO it makes more sense to cap punitive damages as a percentage of the compensatory damages.

The real problem is that you need punitive damages in other parts of the legal system to prevent individuals or groups with tremendous amount of money from buying their way through the law.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Punitive damages are there to discourage others from doing it in the future, it makes breaking the law financially worse than obeying it. Obviously $1.5 million for a bunch of songs is absurd but I don't think they should be done away with. IMO it makes more sense to cap punitive damages as a percentage of the compensatory damages.

The real problem is that you need punitive damages in other parts of the legal system to prevent individuals or groups with tremendous amount of money from buying their way through the law.

I think a $10,000 fine for sharing a song 10,000 times is devastating to 80%+ of Americans. My annual income is comfortably above the US Median income and I can assure you, a $10,000 fine would be life-shattering to my family. I don't know how I would cope with that fine. I guess I could collect money from my family members or get another job?

But a bigger business that may have made money off of the distribution? Say, megaupload? Well, they shared thousands of movies and thousands of songs millions of times. Their fine would be in the hundreds of millions if not billions. That covers both ends of the spectrum while still remaining useful as a deterrent. Know what I mean?

In other words, you don't have stupid high damage fines for a single person sharing with P2P networking (1.4 million for a single mom is just stupid: I believe compensatory damages would have amounted to less than $500...which would still have been difficult for her to pay, but not impossible) but you will have those damages for a professional run operation like megaupload.

If it is impossible to come up with an objective dollar amount to ascribe to the copyright infringement associated with filesharing, doesn't that draw the whole concept of "damages" into question?

For instance, in the Canadian legal system, suing for damages in any other case requires actual, objective damage to be presented. As far as I understand it, it is one of the major differences between our and the American civil courts.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For instance, in the Canadian legal system, suing for damages in any other case requires actual, objective damage to be presented. As far as I understand it, it is one of the major differences between our and the American civil courts.

That's why I like my idea of it being pure compensatory in nature rather than punitive. The "compensatoriness" of the reparations from the offender would be the most direct and "objective" way to make that restitution. It does not get any purer than that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's why I like my idea of it being pure compensatory in nature rather than punitive. The "compensatoriness" of the reparations from the offender would be the most direct and "objective" way to make that restitution. It does not get any purer than that.

sure, if you could meaningfully quantify the "compensation"

because, at best, there is a correlation between p2p technology and a loss in sales of a very specific type of industry supported media, and even in this thread people have brought up reasons to suggest the relationship may not be casual, and if it is, it may work in the other direction (poor variety of industry music promotes filesharing). Certainly I think "X # of downloads = X # $" is a fools errand in this issue, even if it might be the most fair.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Certainly I think "X # of downloads = X # $" is a fools errand in this issue, even if it might be the most fair.

There is no other way to be objective about it, a far as a court is concerned. It also functions in the same exact manner for how someone would have purchased the music legally and digitally: that is how much they would have had to pay had they downloaded it from, say, iTunes music store.

We can certainly argue that the price per song on the market may not be fair, but setting a value to the music itself is best left out of the courts: let the market determine that and allow the court to use that as the meter-stick but don't allow the court to determine that meter-stick because you end up with stupid shit like a $1.4 million dollar fine to a lower-middle class single mother.

but still, that equation promotes an causal relationship between loss of sales and p2p sharing, which I think is not proven at all, considering there are numerous artists, weird al being the one that comes to mind first, who have seen an increase in revenue given the internet.

Originally posted by Oliver North
but still, that equation promotes an causal relationship between loss of sales and p2p sharing, which I think is not proven at all,

It isn't. In fact, the opposite is shown to be true.

However, it is the same as busting into an electronics store and stealing a sound system: the person that stole it is extremely likely to not have purchased that sound system, anyway, but the company still lost the sound system that should have been sold.

The difference is the confusion with digital assets, which are less quantifiable than physical assets because digital assets are much easier to "fabricate".

The "good" was still stolen. The value of that good, at the time of the thievery, should be the compensatory damages paid. If the person setup a P2P file that got it shared, without purchase, by thousands of people, that thievery is multiplied by thousands of people. Even if that good would have never been consumed by those thousands of people, it does not matter: they still stole it.

but your analogy fails when you accept the charge people get for p2p isn't theft, but copyright infringement.

I don't think anyone reasonably suggests that shared files are stolen property.

Originally posted by Oliver North
but your analogy fails when you accept the charge people get for p2p isn't theft, but copyright infringement.

A legal definition, only, but morally, it is still theft.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't think anyone reasonably suggests that shared files are stolen property.


I think our disagreement is our approach to the topic. Fundamentally, I think sharing copyrighted material, without the copyright holder's permission (or by paying for it), is wrong. You obviously don't.

We are a stone-age creature operating in an information-age world. We know we are stealing. It is theft. Just because it was duplicated rather than physically taken does not mean it is not theft.

If you ask:

"Is that yours?"

And you legally cannot say yes, you either borrowed it with permission or you stole it. All new, modern, legal definitions are superfluous to this. If the person knows that they do not own the item in question, the dissonance felt leads to things like your response.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A legal definition, only, but morally, it is still theft.

theft is a law defined legally...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think our disagreement is our approach to the topic. Fundamentally, I think sharing copyrighted material, without the copyright holder's permission (or by paying for it), is wrong. You obviously don't.

not really, no... I see a huge value to IP laws

what I don't see is any use in trying to pigeon-hole various laws that were already out of date when VHS was released being relevant in the modern world, and major corporations trying to bribe the government to maintain the status quo.

So, sure, I'm not in favor of current copyright laws being applied to p2p sharing, largely because it is an entirely subjective application specifically designed to benefit rich record companies, that isn't to say I don't think there should be some protection given to creators of IP (which record companies are not, lets be honest).

Originally posted by Oliver North
theft is a law defined legally...

And laws are not Objective truths that cannot be criticized or maligned. That was partly my point. We can define the uses of "theft" outside of law, rather easily. Morally, the person knows it is "theft" because of the way I described it. If you want to insert another word that means exactly the same thing as "theft" but does not carry the legal baggage, by all means, suggest a word and we can use that. But it is not purely copyright infringement from the perception of the individual doing the thieving.



Originally posted by Oliver North
not really, no... I see a huge value to IP laws

what I don't see is any use in trying to pigeon-hole various laws that were already out of date when VHS* was released being relevant in the modern world, and major corporations trying to bribe the government to maintain the status quo.

*betamax because I assume you are referring to Sony of America v. Universal City Studios (1984)



Originally posted by Oliver North
So, sure, I'm not in favor of current copyright laws being applied to p2p sharing, largely because it is an entirely subjective application specifically designed to benefit rich record companies, that isn't to say I don't think there should be some protection given to creators of IP (which record companies are not, lets be honest).


I need to make a clarification:


IP = Intellectual Property not internet protocol or shorthand for internet protocol address.



What type of condom would you afford those creators, though? Be specific enough that I could form a law around your idea but vague enough so I don't have to read a 50 page legal document.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And laws are not Objective truths that cannot be criticized or maligned. That was partly my point. We can define the uses of "theft" outside of law, rather easily. Morally, the person knows it is "theft" because of the way I described it. If you want to insert another word that means exactly the same thing as "theft" but does not carry the legal baggage, by all means, suggest a word and we can use that. But it is not purely copyright infringement from the perception of the individual doing the thieving.

are you actually arguing for legislating morality?

because, otherwise, your or my personal opinions on the matter are sort of moot. There are lots of legal things I think are immoral, yet I wouldn't suggest people be not allowed, because freedom.

like, tbh, I don't know what could be more irrelevant to the conversation than your personal distaste for p2p...

legally, it is only and has only ever been copyright infringement

Originally posted by dadudemon
What type of condom would you afford those creators, though? Be specific enough that I could form a law around your idea but vague enough so I don't have to read a 50 page legal document.

I don't think I need an iron clad idea of how IP should work to claim the current system is both antiquated and set up to benefit massive corporate interests.

However, under current law things like damages, loss, etc, are almost impossible to prove, so imho, we probably should be looking at new ways to deal with it, rather than trying to maintain a status quo that, as you pointed out, was irrelevant 30 years ago (and no, I was more referring to the legal grey area about even showing a movie to your friends in various contexts).

Wired had a great article a few months back about how different companies are trying, with varying degrees of success, to allow TV or movies to be streamed on the net. One company was allowed to provide the service because each time a person requested a movie a "new" digital copy was created for them, whereas another was shut down because it streamed DVDs, and each in theory had multiple uses. The whole thing was a study in how the laws are basically failing at both providing the customer what they want and at effectively protecting IP, with most court cases getting into technobabble about how many copies of what are made and distributed to consumers.

The need isn't to get rid of IP, the need is to make it make sense in a world where information can be transferred to millions at the speed of light, and to accept that Hollywood and the RIAA shouldn't have the last word on the issue, because they are a) motivated only by profits and b) largely dishonest brokers who don't want to lose their monopoly on the distribution of media.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you actually arguing for legislating morality?

Wait...are you arguing that laws are not official morals?

Additionally, are you missing the point on purpose?

Originally posted by Oliver North
because, otherwise, your or my personal opinions on the matter are sort of moot.

Not really. What is the point of discussing it if our opinions are moot? We can run for political office and petition or representatives, all the same, if you want to be literal about it.


Originally posted by Oliver North
like, tbh, I don't know what could be more irrelevant to the conversation than your personal distaste for p2p...

My personal distaste of P2P? I'm lost. Where is that coming from? I think the protocol is awesome and I use it everyday at work to share documents, executables, and spreadsheets. Do you mean something else? If I were to assume, I'd think you meant illegal P2P sharing: a.k.a. copyright infringement.

Originally posted by Oliver North
legally, it is only and has only ever been copyright infringement

I argued against your restrictions (restriction = only allowing and entertaining the strict legal definition of "copyright infringement" in the discussion), already:

"...laws are not Objective truths that cannot be criticized or maligned. That was partly my point. We can define the uses of "theft" outside of law, rather easily."

"Fundamentally, I think sharing copyrighted material, without the copyright holder's permission (or by paying for it), is wrong.

...

We are a stone-age creature operating in an information-age world. We know we are stealing. It is theft. Just because it was duplicated rather than physically taken does not mean it is not theft.

If you ask:

"Is that yours?"

And you legally cannot say yes, you either borrowed it with permission or you stole it. All new, modern, legal definitions are superfluous to this. If the person knows that they do not own the item in question, the dissonance felt leads to things like your response."



Originally posted by Oliver North
I don't think I need an iron clad idea of how IP should work to claim the current system is both antiquated and set up to benefit massive corporate interests.

However, under current law things like damages, loss, etc, are almost impossible to prove, so imho, we probably should be looking at new ways to deal with it, rather than trying to maintain a status quo that, as you pointed out, was irrelevant 30 years ago (and no, I was more referring to the legal grey area about even showing a movie to your friends in various contexts).

Okay, I can agree to that. I agree that at least one study has shown the file-sharers actually spend more money on things like software and albums than their non-sharing unspendy counterparts. So, yes, the laws do not fit properly. That is why I suggested strict compensatory and eliminate all notions of punitive damages when it comes to this topic.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Wired had a great article a few months back about how different companies are trying, with varying degrees of success, to allow TV or movies to be streamed on the net. One company was allowed to provide the service because each time a person requested a movie a "new" digital copy was created for them, whereas another was shut down because it streamed DVDs, and each in theory had multiple uses. The whole thing was a study in how the laws are basically failing at both providing the customer what they want and at effectively protecting IP, with most court cases getting into technobabble about how many copies of what are made and distributed to consumers.

The need isn't to get rid of IP, the need is to make it make sense in a world where information can be transferred to millions at the speed of light, and to accept that Hollywood and the RIAA shouldn't have the last word on the issue, because they are a) motivated only by profits and b) largely dishonest brokers who don't want to lose their monopoly on the distribution of media.

I agree that the subscription service idea is much better than the physical a la carte offering that places like Apple iTunes and brick and mortor stores offer for Intellectual Property consumption. Think Netflix versus paying for every episode or buying the "Blu-ray boxset".

The market clearly wants to subscribe to an unlimited service where we can choose what we want to consume.


Companies do not like that because it gives them less control on profit. For instance, wireless phone companies did the unlimited data thing for a while. Then they realized they could make more money by capping the amount of data that could be consumed per unit time (in am month) and then charging extra for anyone that exceeds that cap. Then they took it further by tiering their capped system so people could buy different levels of data plans. Bam: tons of more profit despite the fact that all studies showed data usage was increasing in the mobile market (they saw dollar signs when they looked at that chart). That is not consumer friendly nor is it "forward progress" thinking as far as technology is concerned. I called my wireless service provider, AT&T and asked them if they had an unlimited plan. The rep said no. I said, "I am a business user so I obviously have more need than just 5GB a month." So they transferred me to the business unit. Business unit rep said: "No, no unlimited data plan." So I asked my question a different way, "So, you're saying that even though I want to give you more money for a specific service, you don't want it?" She laughed and said yes, they do not want more money because they make it off the overage fees when people exceed the caps. That makes sense...but they are not giving me what I want. FFS, I want to give them more money but they won't take it. Translate this over to Netflix: I want to give Netflix more money for more instant watch options but they won't give it to me. I would be willing to pay $40 a month to get access to tons of more big-name shows like current episodes of Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and Breaking Bad. They just won't offer it because there is more money to be made by forcing me to have to pay the cable company for cable service, premium channels, the DVR, the DVR service, and all the nice little fees attached to that bill.

That is how digital media organizations are going these days. I remember the whole mess with Netflix a couple of years back. Their partners were getting greedy once they realized how much media is actually consumed that they licensed out to Netflix. They wanted more...much more money on their contracts. (I do not know if this is true but one of my professors said that Netflix is the second biggest internet traffic causer in America.)

But why? They actually saw an increase in revenue because a service like Netflix existed? That media was not being purchased, before, but now people had instant access, with no noticed increase in spending, to tons of old stuff. Stuff they would not have purchased or watched (who wants to buy seasons 1-26 of the old Dr. Who? Right?) So these media corporations want a bigger cut that they would not have gotten to begin with if streaming services like Netflix never existed.


Additionally, some, like ABC are streaming their own stuff and putting commercials in their streaming service (annoying, browser crashing, commercials, sometimes):

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31200000/Ain-t-Nobody-Got-Time-Fo-Dat-sweet-brown-31241125-480-330.jpg


I am willing to bet that more ABC shows are consumed on Netflix than on ABC, itself, minus the "new episodes" that ABC refuses be allowed to be played anywhere else for a waiting period (I believe ABC's "cooldown period" is 6 months).

So what do people do to get around these greedy restrictions from the media houses? They share them. Some dude records it with his DVR, creates a torrent file, then shares. Seeds are made and everyone downloads it from the peer network newly created.

This is why Game of Thrones is the most torrented show of all time: everyone wants to watch it but people don't want to pay the stupid amount of money for the "pay channel" prices. Additionally, nobody wants to wait the 6-12 months it takes for it to be released on Blu-ray and DVD. Lastly, HBO will not release that show on places like Netflix or Hulu. So we end up with a media house that is not catering to the wants of the market so it gets torrented 2+ million times. Maybe HBO should pull its head out of its ass and realize that their show is being torrented so much because they "protect" it too much from being consumed the way the consumer wants to consume!


So this is why I think punitive damages should be eliminated. I like why Canada capped it. Whoever thought of legislating that in Canada was very forward thinking. If bitches like the MPAA and RIAA are forced to have to adjust to the market instead of suing single, lower-middle class, mother $1.4 million, they may actually improve the customer experience! Yippeee!

ddm - you specifically asked me for something under 50 pages...

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, sure, I'm not in favor of current copyright laws being applied to p2p sharing, largely because it is an entirely subjective application specifically designed to benefit rich record companies, that isn't to say I don't think there should be some protection given to creators of IP (which record companies are not, lets be honest).

The law protects owners not creators. This is the same way it works with physical theft, too. If my car is stolen Ford doesn't get compensated when the thief is caught.

I'd say large companies are of benefit to IP creators. They bring the IP to a wider audience and have the money and resources to enforce IP laws to benefit the creator.

I don't really see the difference between p2p sharing and downloading. A copy is created in both instances.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you actually arguing for legislating morality?

All laws legislate morality, its inescapable.

Originally posted by dadudemon




. What do you think about my suggestion of making it purely compensatory and eliminating all punitive "fines"?





]

I think that's how lawsuits should be in general.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ddm - you specifically asked me for something under 50 pages...

My post isn't even close to 50 pages.

I think as long as the RIAA Cartel's suit for profit schemes are still going on in the US and file sharing and Pandora are killing all independent competition, things will stay just the way they are.

Originally posted by siriuswriter

Not the lastest episodes and previous seasons. They have to wait like...6 months to 2 years before they can put most stuff up on Netflix.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ddm - you specifically asked me for something under 50 pages...

Sorry, I was very tired when I read your post. I was borderline delusional (35+ hours).

My point about the 50 pages was a literal legal document that was 50 pages versus a 1-2 liner that seems clever but does not actually explain your position. Something in between. 5 paragraphs?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The law protects owners not creators. This is the same way it works with physical theft, too. If my car is stolen Ford doesn't get compensated when the thief is caught.

sure, and I'm not saying owners should have no rights, but I do think looking at the total experience for creator, owner, distributor and consumer is the best way to determine what would be a more fair and beneficial system of IP. As it is, because of their financial power, the legal system favors the owners and I think most other groups suffer because of this (consumers more than artists, sure).

however, I really don't think you are trying to say there is some equivalence between filesharing and the physical theft of a person's property?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say large companies are of benefit to IP creators. They bring the IP to a wider audience and have the money and resources to enforce IP laws to benefit the creator.

I'd say there are some fairly salient examples of creators and their IP owners having major issues.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All laws legislate morality, its inescapable.

that seems either like a semantic point or some ridiculous level of reductionism.

I take it you mean something like "the idea that society should even have some order or that people should be protected by laws is a moral sentiment, thus, traffic laws are a matter of moral principle"?

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, and I'm not saying owners should have no rights, but I do think looking at the total experience for creator, owner, distributor and consumer is the best way to determine what would be a more fair and beneficial system of IP. As it is, because of their financial power, the legal system favors the owners and I think most other groups suffer because of this (consumers more than artists, sure).

Unless you make a law that restricts what can be put into a contract so that a creator is unable to give up their rights regarding a creation this doesn't seem practical. I don't think consumer should have "rights" persay, regarding what they buy.

Originally posted by Oliver North
however, I really don't think you are trying to say there is some equivalence between filesharing and the physical theft of a person's property?

Lack of total equivalence doesn't mean total lack of equivalence. We refer to it as theft because theft is the closest word we have. "Piracy" is theoretically more specific but not any more helpful.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I take it you mean something like "the idea that society should even have some order or that people should be protected by laws is a moral sentiment, thus, traffic laws are a matter of moral principle"?

No I mean: "Without making a moral argument explain why murder is illegal."

Obviously not all immoral things are illegal but all things that are illegal are illegal because someone considers them immoral. That's why laws get passed, they're society's way of saying that we will use force to punish or prevent this action. You don't punish or prevent things that you consider to be good or even morally neutral.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless you make a law that restricts what can be put into a contract so that a creator is unable to give up their rights regarding a creation this doesn't seem practical.

no, but maybe something that doesn't criminalize an artist for playing their own song even if a label owns it.

or the whole Todd McFarlane/Image Comics thing.

Again, I'm not saying I have a perfect idea, I don't think the current system fits the real world though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think consumer should have "rights" persay, regarding what they buy.

we just disagree there

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lack of total equivalence doesn't mean total lack of equivalence. We refer to it as theft because theft is the closest word we have. "Piracy" is theoretically more specific but not any more helpful.

"We" don't call it theft. The crime is violating copyright distribution, not theft.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No I mean: "Without making a moral argument explain why murder is illegal."

the pragmatic argument for the monopoly of violence being held by the state doesn't work?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously not all immoral things are illegal but all things that are illegal are illegal because someone considers them immoral.

people consider jaywalking to be immoral? Parking for longer than the meter allows?

If I wanted to be pedantic, I'd argue the causality goes the other way. Societies only function because they make pragmatic choices, that, over time (either cultural or evolutionary, given I'd say our strongest moral principles come from those times) become moral maxims. Things are only immoral because at some point a group interested in encoring their authority found it objectionable or destabilizing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's why laws get passed, they're society's way of saying that we will use force to punish or prevent this action. You don't punish or prevent things that you consider to be good or even morally neutral.

sure, all states use morals to justify their authority. I don't think that can be extended to "all laws are (or must be) based on morality"

Originally posted by Oliver North
no, but maybe something that doesn't criminalize an artist for playing their own song even if a label owns it.

or the whole Todd McFarlane/Image Comics thing.

Again, I'm not saying I have a perfect idea, I don't think the current system fits the real world though.

Its always possible, even probable, that we don't have an ideal system. I think its less that creators need additional rights so much as it is that they need additional leverage. Once an artist totally sells the rights to their song they shouldn't be able to play it without permission, that's unfair to the new owner. The issue is that there shouldn't be something forcing them into the position that they must give up so much control over their creation.

Originally posted by Oliver North
"We" don't call it theft. The crime is violating copyright distribution, not theft.

A lot of people call it theft...

In any event not having a nice concise name for it strikes me as meaningless point.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the pragmatic argument for the monopoly of violence being held by the state doesn't work?

The state doesn't monopolize violence for the hell of it. They monopolize it because they consider it a more moral outcome than allowing murder.

Originally posted by Oliver North
people consider jaywalking to be immoral? Parking for longer than the meter allows?

Someone considers/considered them sufficiently harmful to society that they are actively discouraged by physical force. Jaywalking can endanger people other than the walker. Either way the thinking was "this is bad and we should stop it" when the law was made, I can't imagine a thought process without that.

There are three options that I can think of:
This is good and we should encourage it people to do it, therefore we will stop people from doing it.
This is neutral and laws about it are pointless, therefore we will stop people from doing it.
This is bad and we should discourage it people from doing it, therefore we will stop people from doing it.

Only the third makes sense to me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
If I wanted to be pedantic, I'd argue the causality goes the other way. Societies only function because they make pragmatic choices, that, over time (either cultural or evolutionary, given I'd say our strongest moral principles come from those times) become moral maxims. Things are only immoral because at some point a group interested in encoring their authority found it objectionable or destabilizing.

Yes, morality probably comes in large part from social evolution. That doesn't make it not morality, though.

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, all states use morals to justify their authority. I don't think that can be extended to "all laws are (or must be) based on morality"

Except that you need to show that it is only a justification and not the actual belief of the lawmakers. If they really believe it then the law is based on morality.

is your point that all laws are based on morals or that they can be based on morals?

because, sure, I can't prove what lawmakers are thinking

EDIT: however, there are obviously arguments for laws that aren't based on moral axioms, maybe save "we don't want society not to function", which is the same super-reductionism I was talking about earlier

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In any event not having a nice concise name for it strikes me as meaningless point.

why is there any ambiguity about the name?

it is a violation of IP law, not of personal property law... this couldn't be more concise

Originally posted by Oliver North
is your point that all laws are based on morals or that they can be based on morals?

That they are. I can't imagine a way of deciding to make something illegal that doesn't involve believing it to be a bad thing. The idea that laws are invented for the hell of it is inconceivable to me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: however, there are obviously arguments for laws that aren't based on moral axioms, maybe save "we don't want society not to function", which is the same super-reductionism I was talking about earlier

Okay, but what are these arguments?

Originally posted by Oliver North
why is there any ambiguity about the name?

it is a violation of IP law, not of personal property law... this couldn't be more concise

I think we're talking past each other, probably because I missed something.

The name is irrelevant. The fact that it isn't a violation of physical property doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure we agree about this.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That they are. I can't imagine a way of deciding to make something illegal that doesn't involve believing it to be a bad thing. The idea that laws are invented for the hell of it is inconceivable to me.

but it isn't "for the hell of it"

its so that major cities of 6 million people don't descend into madness and disorganization.

I guess I think it is too reductionist to say that any form of "bad" is a moral distinction. Something like traffic laws or contract law seems far more about things working effectively rather than morals. I mean, sure, moral arguments can be made, but, and this could totally just be personal, I don't really see these as moral issues.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, but what are these arguments?

well, for instance, in the context of "monopoly of force", the argument would be that allowing regular citizens to use force to enforce the law (vigilantism) is destabilizing and should be outlawed. Again, you can turn this into a moral statement, but it is unnecessary imho.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think we're talking past each other, probably because I missed something.

no, its all me, we got this into some discussion of IP where I'm not really even in disagreement. I think, for sure, artists should be more aware of their rights and are often exploited in the contracts they sign with major corporations, but I'm not against different organizations owning different IP. I'd say its entirely slanted against the consumer at this point, but iirc we disagree about the relevance of this from a legal standpoint.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The name is irrelevant. The fact that it isn't a violation of physical property doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure we agree about this.

I disagree. If we are going to talk about file sharing, I will resist every effort to compare it to theft, and I think the semantics of the issue or the fact it is not a physical transfer of property are entirely relevant, as it changes the dynamics of the crime entirely. Violating someones distribution rights on copyrighted material is not, in any way, the same as taking a piece of physical property that belongs to another person.

If all you are saying is that IP laws still should protect distribution rights, and file sharing should be "illegal" in some context, sure.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
and most artists seem to accept it as necessary losses--they can still make huge amounts of money from selling

Which is sort of cute, considering they don't lose anything.