Copyright Laws are Illegal?
posted by dennisn on December 15th, 2008 at 2:18PM
posted by dennisn on December 15th, 2008 at 2:18PM
Let's start off with a few indirect reasons that suggest this. Those who argue FOR copyright protection almost always use the term "theft", which is clearly wrong. It is copying. Nothing more, nothing less. The reason why the majority use the incorrect term is due to passive ignorance and brainwashing by propaganda, which right off the bat invalidates the majority of the IP-enforcement movement. (The minority that knowingly uses this term does so deliberately to villanize the activity as crime, which theft actually is.)
Another suggestion of their invalidity is the fact that nobody can agree on an appropriate duration for the coercive enforcement. But, more important than that, they unwittingly engage in hypocrisy in their attempt to peg such durations down, since the fundamental idea of the movement is to respect the creator's rights. Their willingness to impose their own personal and arbitrary rules on creators really undermines their cause.
Nevertheless, there is a simple, direct, and sole reason that anti-copying laws are illegal. Namely, they are unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that gives individuals the right to control the dissemination of their ideas. And there's a good reason for that--it's an absurd idea. Not only is it logistically impossible without a *serious* police-state, but it is extremely questionable whether it is beneficial for "society" (which is a very cloudy and ambiguous concept to invoke!). Many people strongly feel that information and knowledge should be shared as much as possible. But, it is clearly written in the constitution that nobody has a right to control other people's lives--which is precisely what the criminalization of copying does.
People are free to encrypt and keep their ideas secret. But they have no right trampling into the private spheres of other individuals, and dictating to them what they are or are not allowed to see/hear/do.
I'll end with a caricaturized example of the absurdity of the laws: Someone invents the cure for AIDS. It's a truly ingenious procedure that involves just a few steps. The inventor has a huge conference, gives a detailed introduction about all the copyright and patent laws that will guarantee the enforcement of his rights as the creator of the cure, and then in the last minute provides the cure and finally prohibits anyone from using it, unless he is paid 69 trillion dollars first. So, what additional rights are you going to violate to prop up these absurd laws? Are you going to pay whatever you feel like? Or are you going to follow the laws, and let millions of people continue dying?
Another suggestion of their invalidity is the fact that nobody can agree on an appropriate duration for the coercive enforcement. But, more important than that, they unwittingly engage in hypocrisy in their attempt to peg such durations down, since the fundamental idea of the movement is to respect the creator's rights. Their willingness to impose their own personal and arbitrary rules on creators really undermines their cause.
Nevertheless, there is a simple, direct, and sole reason that anti-copying laws are illegal. Namely, they are unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that gives individuals the right to control the dissemination of their ideas. And there's a good reason for that--it's an absurd idea. Not only is it logistically impossible without a *serious* police-state, but it is extremely questionable whether it is beneficial for "society" (which is a very cloudy and ambiguous concept to invoke!). Many people strongly feel that information and knowledge should be shared as much as possible. But, it is clearly written in the constitution that nobody has a right to control other people's lives--which is precisely what the criminalization of copying does.
People are free to encrypt and keep their ideas secret. But they have no right trampling into the private spheres of other individuals, and dictating to them what they are or are not allowed to see/hear/do.
I'll end with a caricaturized example of the absurdity of the laws: Someone invents the cure for AIDS. It's a truly ingenious procedure that involves just a few steps. The inventor has a huge conference, gives a detailed introduction about all the copyright and patent laws that will guarantee the enforcement of his rights as the creator of the cure, and then in the last minute provides the cure and finally prohibits anyone from using it, unless he is paid 69 trillion dollars first. So, what additional rights are you going to violate to prop up these absurd laws? Are you going to pay whatever you feel like? Or are you going to follow the laws, and let millions of people continue dying?
Poll: Copyright Laws are Illegal?
Illegal Is A Strong Word (1/3) 33%
Q (1/3) 33%
Yes (1/3) 33%
(The title of your last reply gets polled.)
|
posted by dennisn on December 19th, 2008 at 11:06PM
There are only two valid positions that you can take. EITHER you "feel" that the author of a work has the exclusive right to control his work, in all it's manifestions, in all it's uses by other "free and independent" individuals, forever, OR you don't recognize this right at all, and beyond real binding contracts, free and independent individuals are free to do whatever they feel like.
If you actually believe in this right to the implicit control over others with respect to your ideas, you necessarily have to allow this control over eternity. If you accept any shorter duration, you are unwittingly commiting hypocricy. You are trapped into a corner. Either you allow the breaking of contracts (in which the author sells his "rights" to another, for eternity, for a very large profit no less), or you imply that others actually have rights to your work (which is synonymous to shortening the "right"'s duration to a subjective and arbitrary length of time... or, in other words, admitting that it isn't a right, but a favor that "society" grants you, at the expense of everyone else). It's hard for me to argue on the basis that it violates our individual freedoms, if you actually believe that others have a right to control us. In some sense, I wish DRM could work; that ideas could be DRM'ed; that ideas were real property. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this were true. If I could use an analogy, we are trying to sell hot air in a tea cup. Not only is the container completely useless (there is no way to contain ideas), but they are an abundant commodity. Nothing would really change for me if all the "copy-protected" stuff were able to be contained and sold properly. There is PLENTY of stuff that is already freely available. I would actually hazzard to believe that my life would be better. One might reasonably ask why I don't stop using copy-protected stuff now. And I would return to the analogy of the hot air in tea cups--the stuff is just so damn prevalent--so darn EASY to get to. This is no real justification, just a reminder of the absurdity in the task of trying to control the copying of ideas and data. But I should also remind you that I would not really care if it somehow were able to be controlled and kept away from me! |
|
Q
posted by dsk on December 18th, 2008 at 2:26PM Why do you think we should have property laws? Not IP laws specifically, but general property laws? Why is it wrong for me to steal a bike from ..say.. someone who I'm reasonably sure will not use it at all (assume that I know that for the sake of the argument)? Or is it wrong?
I'm curious what your reasoning is.
|
|
posted by dennisn on December 18th, 2008 at 12:23PM
The only legitimate case that can be reasonably imagined in favor of anti-copying coercion, is with respect to the original buyer, if he has actually agreed to not share the stuff in some kind of contract. But this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the vast majority of copiers who have no such contractual obligations.
Moreover, the credibility and legality of such original-buyer contracts are extremely weak. In the vast majority of cases, there is no such explicit contract made. Whether the act of simply purchasing a product is enough to a lock the consumer into a legally binding contract is *extremely* dubious. At least with software installation EUAs there is an OK button that is clicked; and even /that/ is an awfully weak contract. But even in this extreme minority of cases where a shred of legality may enter the scene, the validity of such draconian contracts should not be casually overlooked. I'm sure I have agreed to at least a couple of EUAs that grant the other person the right to murder me. Are those EUAs legally binding and valid? Some people might not see the oppression and coercion involved in enforcing copy-prohibition, but I assure you many others such as myself do. How valid is a contract that strips such basic freedoms? Nevertheless, even though I think the terms absurd, for real contracts where the original buyer fully understands and agrees to a contract (PgDn-Click'ed EUAs do not count!---nor do store purchases---nor plastic wrappers on CDs), I am willing to concede technical guilt. (Not real guilt, since it was an evil contract to begin with.) And, unless the contract explicitly stated the penalties beforehand, they should be commensurate to the original cost of the product--not some absurd handwaving of indirect damages that include everything from global economic slowdowns to the creator's own crappy business models. But, this is no longer the socialist conception of copyright protection--whereby the state blindly enforces it's own absurd theories on everyone, willing and otherwise. This is plain old enforcement of contractual obligations. |
|
Illegal is a strong word
posted by Nylorac on December 16th, 2008 at 5:10PM Intellectual property is too broad.
In the given example of a cure for AIDS, IP protection rights can have greater value for society. In the case of a song, or a fiction book, I would like to see these distributed freely without restraint. It wouldn't worsen the landscapes of the relative industries - it may just broaden it. I feel like further study needs to be done to compare the existing categories of IP, and determine if they are being protected properly within that category.
|
|
posted by Nylorac on December 16th, 2008 at 5:09PM
Intellectual property is too broad.
In the given example of a cure for AIDS, IP protection rights can have greater value for society. In the case of a song, or a book, I would like to see these distributed freely without restraint. Broaden everyone's perspectives. It wouldn't change the landscape of the relative industries - it may just broaden it. I feel like further study needs to be done to compare the existing categories of IP, and determine if they are being protected properly within that category. |
|
posted by dsk on December 16th, 2008 at 12:41PM
>Namely, they are unconstitutional.
You use the word 'constitutional' as if you know what it means, when clearly you don't. As for for the existence of IP protection laws, the reason is simple, it stems for the intuitive notion that the creator of a work (whether it be a book, software, or pharmaceutical drug) should be the primary benefactor of any gains from that product. If you ask 1000 people whether or not a writer should be able to make money from his book, 999 will say yes. Because the creation of intellectual property is difficult but (mass) duplication is trivial, the person who exerted the effort to create a work, would never be able to recoup his investment if he isn't granted certain rights to that work. And that's the key. Does an author have any rights over the work he created. Our intuition says 'yes', hence IP laws. >I'll end with a caricaturized example of the absurdity of the laws.. So lets say we live in a world with no IP laws. Say a company decides to develop an AIDS cure. Before they do so, they decide to sit down and come up with an estimate for creating the cure, factoring in such things as the salaries of researchers working on the cure for an indefinite amount of time, cost of animal and then human trials for promising leads, balanced with the risk that they might spend years working on this (and burning money) and in the end come up with nothing. That number would probably be in tens of millions of dollars. So then they look at any potential benefits they might reap if they do manage to release the AIDS cure, and what do they find? Well, when the release the cure, within a day they will be undercut by generic manufacturers who, having not invested millions of dollars in R&D, will simply sell the cure for 0.10$/pill and make money, leaving them holding the bill. Clearly then, the most logical thing for them is to say 'fuck it' and not try to develop a cure of AIDS. In your absurd example (no pharmaceutical company to date has priced their drug at anywhere close to a trillion dollars) the question that you must ask yourself is, what is better, an expensive cure for AIDS, or no cure for AIDS?
|
|
posted by dennisn on December 15th, 2008 at 2:25PM
Hrmm... the example wasn't that great, since some might be tempted to use it to justify other truly illegal stuff--like murdering one person to save millions of people, etc.
The real key to the absurdity is that copying has no victims. (And enforcement has countless victims.)
|
