Why The Copyright Industry Isn?t a Legitimate Stakeholder in Copyright
 

article explains why copyright industry has no right influence the direction of copyright law

wow amazing stuff.

Its amazing the bullshit one will create to make ones self feel justfied instealing . Lol

Rick Falkvinge is a regular columnist on TorrentFreak, sharing his thoughts every other week. He is the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, a whisky aficionado, and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot.

:2 cents:

That article is a diatribe of false equivalency. What a crock of bullshit. Take the example of the bricklayer.

Before the bricklayer laid a single brick there was a contract drawn up that protected the bricklayer from non-payment. That contract is a legal document that obligates the parties. The bricklayer is protected by laws to ensure he will be paid for his work.

I could go on and pull each section of that bullshit article apart piece by piece (especially the Blackwater part). Any idiot that believes it should be forced to breathe from his/her nose for a change.

Copyright protects intellectual property. Without copyrights someone could copy a book word for word and sell it as their own... soon we wouldn't have anyone writing books. The idea that people that earn their money from ideas or digital goods shouldn't have legal protection for their work is ridiculous.

You really are an idiot if you subscribe to this nonsense.

As per normal his points are pretty much bullshit.

First off, Blackwater doesn't create anything, they provide a service and are hired help. A bricklayer or plumber will have a contract or agreement of some sort in place to be paid for their work before they ever start it. It isn't like the bricklayer does his job then just hopes to get paid.

Copyright holders should have influence over the direction of the law because it their work that said copyrights are protecting. he actually makes that point himself when he uses the case of the people living around a military base not having a say in national defense. He is right, they shouldn't have a say because they are profiting from the base, the base is the copyright owner and therefore should have a say.

so why can't normal contract law protect a copyright holder too

if the contract law is equivalent to copyright protection, why not simply abolish the copyright laws and define the relationship by contract law alone.


he is not arguing for the abolishment of copyright law, just the banning of the copyright holders from the position of authority they currently have

they act to influence the laws.

Under that senerio the example of blackwater being allowed influance government defense decision is a valid comparision.

my god the insane limits you will stretch something to make a false analogy.

the base is a government institution, it the analogy it the act itself.

the people are the copyright holders since they get the benefit of the act.

Nope. Wrong again.

Technically speaking the military/government is the copyright holder because they created the base. The people living around the base are simply profiting from it.

If we put it into media context. The government/military created the movie, the base is the movie that they created. The people living around the base are the movie theaters, video stores, DVD stores and cable companies that are making money selling that money. They didn't create it, they are simply profiting from its existence.

except if that your analogy you just screwed up the arguement

if the base is the movie then remove all copyright protection /closing the base makes no difference since the movie/base already exists.

It not the physically created item that issue but the service that is being run on that

the operation of the base//liciencing of the movie.

that the point, your analogy falls apart because it false

The only one that is valid is base being the act itself, the operation being the rights the act grants

and the people who benefit (from the operation) being equal the3 copyright holders who benefit (from the rights granted).

You're going to have run this through your decoder ring and write it in English for me to understand what you are saying here. I feel like I'm reading some kind of broken English.

It is very simple

The government/military is Sony Pictures. The base is the movie they make. The people living around the base are the movie theaters, blockbuster video, Comcast cable and your local store that sells the DVDs. Sony is then the copyright holder since it is their movie and they created it. If they decide to pull that movie off the market (IE shut the base) that is up to them and the stores/people profiting from selling it or showing it have no say in the matter.

Let me help .... I'm to talentless to produce anything and to broke to purchase it. You're welcome.

.

LOL excellent translation.

It sounds like someone finding a way to rationalize theft. I can't really imagine anyone that creates anything agreeing with this bullshit.

There's no difference between a copy and the original. When a piece of art goes into the fucking rods and cones of your eyeballs and is translated to an electrical signal which creates an image in your brain, thus giving you the pleasure of seeing Patrick Swayze kick someone's ass -- then you've consumed the product. It has nothing to do with the physical media it was delivered on.

You can't just make a copy and watch for free(or sell) because its not the original anymore.

It's called double talk.

You'd have to ask Gideon the question: "Have you ever produced or created anything?"

GG you need lots of people to buy things and the last thing you want is the removal of the copyright laws. That could spell the end of your free Torrents.

Because without copyright then copying would make producing pointless.

What would stop anyone from buying one copy of a piece of material that can be easily copied and setting up shop selling it? Therefore making the original producers work pointless and making future production pointless?

You need copyright laws as much as honest people who do buy?

And what pays for the next movie to be created? The thieves stealing the last one won't. Your own explanation proves you wrong.

ah i see your going bavk to your scumbag i want total control no matter how much it would damage the world arguement again

to bad the law doesn't work like that

the monopoly status of copyright law was only granted based on the agreement to void all rights for the scope of fair use (as defined by the 4 rules of the act).


by your completely bogus analogy, no fair use can exist.

i love how you keep comming back to the same strawman arguement

the article points out that


the fair use of commentary should 100% protect every single upload to tube sites, because the commentary "OMG this is an amazing dance routine"




should be as protected by the first ammendment as the original broadcast.

that statement makes no sence without the right to clip the video and show it. which means that stement is being censored every time such a clip is being taken down by a DMCA takedown request.


yet you guys are arguing that the law be strengthed even more, so that type of "abuse" (how dare people post a portion of my content for commentary purposes) be stopped cold.

that the point, it not an arguement for the abolishment of copyright laws, just an arguement against this type of bullshit "strengthening" of the existing laws.

still waiting for an answer to my question

if contract law is a good enough protection for the bricklayer (equal to copyright) then why don't simply abolish the copyright law(statutory damages, jail time etc) and just have the entire business covered by contract law only.

My god you're annoying.

There is no such thing as a "copyright industry." The article begins with a fallacy, and cannot survive from it.

There is no such thing as a "copyright monopoly." Copyright only protects a very specific expression of an idea, and anyone is free to express the time idea, maybe even better.

A "monopoly" (not a bad thing, even in Greek times when the term was invented) merely confers the right of sellership to the person who creates or owns something. If I build a house, I get to be the one who sells it.

Re contract law: you could easily claim no contract exists between those who trade in stolen goods, i.e. the typical Internet pirate. They never entered into a contract; they cannot be held by contract. Duh.

oh boy, that article put me in my place har.

Because you don't have an answer for the same question.

Who will produce the product if the profit isn't there?

Showing a clip on Youtube is fine. Even though the producer might not like it the damage is little.

So should the copyright law go into the size, resolution, length and what part of the original can be shown as a clip.

Yes copyright law needs to be updated, because it was written in days prior to the piracy we see today. That piracy is diminishing the profit of the original producer. And effecting future productions.

That's a fact not even you can argue against.

If you buy products that can be copied and pirated you're paying for the pirates free ride. Because the cost is passed onto you. If you're pirating, you're a parasite living off others who pay for you.

Step up to the plate and share what you produce for free and maybe you'll have some credibility.

The statement IS protected by the First Amendment. And the Copyright of the clip is protected by another law. So the "should be" statement is stupid.

so what if the Statement makes no sense. Making no sense has never stopped you. A DMCA does not cover the Statement.

If the original poster of that clip wants to put it on Youtube with a comment. He has a way of doing so. Contact the copyright holder, obtain his permission and if obtained, post the comment and the clip.

Your statement can be applied to anything. I can pirate a movie, show it in a cinema and put a comment in the bottom right hand corner saying "great movie". If publishing something protected by copyright is legal so long as it has a comment.

Can I put adverts next to the screen as well?

fine if you want to be technical a collections of industries who collectively lobby as a cartel

so copyright cartel then.


you need to look up the legal definition of a monopoly then because the "exclusive rights" granted under the act clearly match the 4th definition.


that not a monopoly that property rights.

right but you don't get to dictate how a person can use that house AFTER you sold it to them.

That the difference between a copyright monopoly and normal property rights.

so how exactly did the pirate GET the content is NO ONE ever entered into a contract with the seller. Every piece of "pirated" content had to ultimately come from someone who bought from seller.

if contract law was the default protection, that would be the sole person you would go after, and your ability to get damages would be bound by the validity of the contract.

physical goods need to be protected by laws - laws against theft - and those that produce, distribute, and sell physical goods need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

services need to be protected by laws - contract law - and those that deliver those services need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

digital media, ideas, art, need to be protected by laws - copyright and counterfieting law - and those that create those medias need to be stakeholders in the creation and ongoing maintenance/changes of those laws

and the same for any other law - those who PRODUCE or DELIVER need to be involved/consulted

this in no way minimizes the involvement of those who consume - nor do we want them minimized - we just don't want to be dictated to - which is what you want - you want the CONSUMER to dictate how a thing is given to them (free preferably) and totally minimize any say that the PRODUCER may have in the transaction



you really are a moron sometimes

.

if rape laws are good enough to protect rape victims, maybe we should abolish shoplifting laws and just have the entire judicial system follow the rape laws.
:upsidedow

the guys who figuired out how to profit from the new enviroment

profits don't disappear Types of profit disappear.

you want an example old man

profits from commercials disappeared with the vcr, profits from selling content on cassette tapes came into existance.

The new source of profits was greater than all other profits combined.


of course not
the consideration should only be the 4 conditions of fair use when compared to the LOWEST PROFITING LEGAL SUBSTITUTE.

doing anything else would cripple innovation.

of course i can, total production is up in every industry

it just a fastest growing percentage is independent production

more hours of content
more people working on producing content
more total wages for actual producers

what down is profits of the big companies that are actually bleeding the little guy

if you adopted any of the techniques these new type of guerilla producers were using you would see that

you don't so you are blind to it.

so the only way i would have credibility when talking about these guerilla techniques is to not use the guerilla techniques.


idiot

you continually rant on about how digital/media piracy is not theft and we should never equate the two or try and apply the same laws because they are different

yet you continually use the rights granted to a person re their physical property and right to that properties usage - to justify their 'rights' to the digital medias they 'own'

you say they are two different things (physical vs digital) therefore - quit conveniently cherry picking concepts of physical rights to justify your arguments for digital rights.

they are different things - and need to be protected by different laws - and what is ok for one is not ok for the other

you DO NOT have a RIGHT to view my productions - no RIGHT at all
AND - if you want it - pay for it - and don't re distribute it - and if you lose it - you can fucking buy another copy.

posting a full scene I produced - in its entirety - and making a comment of "OMG I luvs this" with your money making advertisements surrounding it does not constitute "commentary"

moron

.

maybe if the story was on a site besides a torrent site promoting piracy it would be worth reading.

are you really trying to claim that only reason why shoplifting laws don't have 25k statutory damages clause is because the retail trade union is filled with morons who simply didn't ask for it.

We don't have statutory damages because property laws take the PUBLIC interest into account . PERIOD.

ditto. PERIOD.

the level of control the copyright "cartel" has is greater than any other industry specifically because the people benefiting from the monopoly influence the constraints of the monopoly.

If the laws were balanced the penalty for violating fair use would be exactly the same as violating any other monopoly attempting to extend their monpoly to another market (loss of the monopoly or 3X damages).

of course it does, the difference between the definition of statutory damages is a clear example of that.

no other industry has those kinds of statutory damages.

No other group of producers have that kind of free pass in the court system (no proving damages).

that free pass hurts the public by eliminating defences that they would be entitled to in other cases.

you just violated the bill of rights

you made the right to comment (free speech) dependent on a congressionally created exclusive right of control.

you reverse the priority of the two laws

which is exactly the point i am making


only if your a moron who doesn't understand how to support fair use and fight piracy at the same time.

you can also ask a rapist to write an article on why victims should have no say in rape. doesnt make it right.

What a bunch of self serving rubbish.

Your "RIGHT" to "Free Speech" protects your words and expression of your ideas - not your posting of MY works

so if you want to be protected for your 'commentary' - use words - not a full reposting of my work with a one line comment (or even a 20 page diatribe) - if you want to comment then do it WITHOUT posting my work - fair use allows for a small portion of the original work to be used - not a full re-posting.

your "RIGHT" to free speech does not cover your redistribution of my digital media

and - you pretending that you don't make money off of my work while your profitable advertisements surround the display of MY work is ludicrous at best


.

so now we are pretending that the poster of the video is the owner of youtube.

the person who you are censoring isn't profiting in anyway shape or form from your content.

the provider of the commentary service is

and they have just as much of a right to do that as sony did from selling the vcr.

stop trying to justify not figuiring out the fair use friendly (commentary) equivalent to putting your shit on the cassettes and selling it to vcr owners (timeshifting).

and making a false analogy equating the laws that govern what constitutes a crime, the necessary level of evidence to get a conviction (rape law) to the actual violation itself (rape) doesn't invalid the arguement.


this guy was never convicted, he is arguing based on the premise that the civil liberties are being erroded. The current drafts of things being proposed by MPAA include automatically liablities based on your ip address ONLY.

that shit does not fly.

you might want to tell that to all the people micheal moore ridiculed in his documentaries over the years

oh wait, the use of those copyright protected speaches within his copyright protected work was successfully protected by my "free speech" arguement.

You need to up the dose of whatever medication you are on.

All I am pointing out is that the guy in that article says the correct things, he just has the players in the wrong positions.

With his argument about a military base and the people living around it he claims the people living around it/off it should not have a say in military policy. I agree. He says they shouldn't have it because those people are the copyright holders I'm simply pointing out that he is wrong. The people living around the base are not the copyright holders. The government/military is. The people living around the base are simply people making money off of the copyrighted material. IE they would be like theater owners, video stories etc.

In his argument about Blackwater it is the same thing. No, you don't want Blackwater making military policy but not because they are the copyright holders. Again, they aren't. The military/government is and the conflict that Blackwater is hired to fight/work within would be the copyrighted item which makes Blackwater simply hired help.